Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/February 2011

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:31, 25 February 2011 [1].

Nominator(s): Twilightchill t 20:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list has been deeply revamped recently and became complete. Contains the necessary philatelic info. Twilightchill t 20:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but could we have a few external links? Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)#[reply]

Unfortunately I could not find any. Azermarka seems to be the only site about post stamps in Azerbaijan.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments/questions (oppose for now if you want):

• Why are national football teams excluded from the list?
  • I don't understand your argument. Why would it be relevant whether a stamp features the same person twice? bamse (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you include football teams now? At least there is one entry in the 1997 table. bamse (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not familiar with the history of Azerbaijan and would therefore like to see some dates/years for the founding and collapse of the ADR to make the text more readable.
  • Better, but I still think that it should be stated more explicitly what this list includes and also be made more clear what the "Azerbaijan" in "List of people on stamps of Azerbaijan" stands for (ADR or Azerbaijan during the time of the Soviet Union or post Soviet Union Azerbaijan). bamse (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about adding something like "[postage stamps of Azerbaijan] ... after independence in ..." to the first sentence? Also I am not sure about the meaning of: The first national postage stamps were issued in the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR), depicting ordinary individuals Does it mean that the first stamps of the ADR depicted people. Or that the first postage stamps worldwide were issued in the ADR, or...? bamse (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The lead section needs references.
• Possibly some statistics (total number of items in the list, who appears most often,...) could be added to the lead section.
  • Did you add anything? bamse (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• How is sorting of the "Dimension" column implemented?
• Sorting is broken for the "Value" columns in 1994, 1996,... please check all. Also "Circulation" sorting is broken (at least for 1998, please check other years).

• Templates added, everything now sorts normally. Twilightchill t 10:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Value seems to sort fine. However "Circulation" is still partially broken at least in 2008 and 1994. bamse (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we have some more non-Azermarka sources?

bamse (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Regarding the interest for encyclopedia, we have a quite large Category:Lists of people on stamps. "25,000, 25,000" in the 1993 entry mean amount of stamps in circulation, as per "Circulation" column. I decided to exclude the football teams because they should be checked for featuring the same person twice or thrice. One of the recent versions had an additional "Year" column, I removed it because of Adabow's section suggestion. Still, I don't know how to fix sorting in the columns "Dimensions" and "Value", maybe someone else could help. Twilightchill t 02:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stroke those issues that are fixed and left some comments at those that still need to be addressed (see above). bamse (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but I didn't find valuable non-Azermarka English-language sources, which would give some extra info (except the one already provided). As for sections, I think it's ok. Honestly, apparently because of low res, I can't figure out the exact number of people here, so football teams are still excluded. Twilightchill t 14:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replied above. I still think that not all things are done. One additional request: Could you please explain in the lead or wikilink or explain in footnotes the following terms: coupling stamps, sheet, sheetlet, souvenir sheet? bamse (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more suggestion. Apparently around 2005/2006 the stamp value suddenly drops. This is worth a note (including reason if available) in the lead in my opinion. bamse (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, except coupling and sheets which are common words. The article Azerbaijani manat, linked in the lead, has the relevant info on denomination. Twilightchill t 16:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still some open questions (see above). I understand the words coupling, sheets, etc. However I suspect that they have a special meaning for philatelists which not everybody might be aware of. That's why I suggest to have a short definition of these in the article (in cases for which no wikipedia article exists). As for the manat, indeed the information is in the Azerbaijani manat article, but so far you are only hinting (corresponds to the issue year.) at the fact that there are different values of manat in this list. Why not help the reader and spell it out: On 1 January 2006, a new manat was introduced at a value of 5,000 old manat. The currency value (in Azerbaijani manats or qapiks) corresponds to the issue year." or something like this? bamse (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why is everything in blue? It's unnecessary and rather distracting. Reywas92^Talk 16:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The all-white background seems harsh and dull to me, but you may change it. Twilightchill t 19:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Also between two measurments, the dimensions of the stamps should be "× instead the letter "x".-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swapped. Twilightchill t 19:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator, User:Twilight Chill, has been topic banned from editing Armenia and Azerbaijan related articles and will therefore not be able to address further concerns of this FLC. bamse (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would change the use of the word "Value" to "Denomination" which is more accurate. Value tends to imply what it is worth and some readers may think this means a catalogue value. For clarity Denomination means the value inscribed on the stamp. ww2censor (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Since he has been topic-blocked, I will do it myself (and because I am bored).-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why aren't postage stamps from the Soviet era Azerbaijan included? Each Republic released their own national postage stamps... What I'm saying is that this list is missing some in its collection. --TIAYN (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is about Azerbaijan and not about the republic AzSSR, which was not a country. But the title can be renamed, so post stamps from this republic could be included. If they are too much, then it should be separated to avoid a content-forking list. I am not the nominator, but I will manage this sollution in the next days and will see what to do.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's true that it wasn't a country, but it was Azerbajian. The title of the article is List of people on stamps of Azerbaijan, it doesn't say, List of people on stamps of Azerbaijani country... Thirdly, your missing stamps from the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic-era... --TIAYN (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"List of people on stamps of Azerbaijani country" would be very odd, and "Azermarka" only lists post stamps since 1992. And post stamps in the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic-era and the Soviet-era I could not find.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 23:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could someone give me a template which sorts the dimensions properly?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 23:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:31, 25 February 2011 [2].

Nominator(s): — Iune(talk) 19:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel this article passes the FLC criteria. This article is written in the same format as the Timeline of the 1990–91 South Pacific cyclone season and Timeline of the 2003–04 South Pacific cyclone season; both of which are featured. Note: This article has been submitted for Wikicup 2011. — Iune(talk) 19:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting (previous comments) for more comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• How is this not a CFORK of the 2004–05 Australian region cyclone season article? Nergaal (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the season article contains information about the storms, it does not include all of the intensity changes that a storm under goes which the Timeline covers. — Iune(talk) 01:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What percentage would you say is not a content fork? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now
• Please change the external link in footnote #1 to an actual reference.
• "Bureau of Meteorology (BoM), who run" - I don't have anything against the BritEng singular style, but in the rest of the list you use plural, eg. "TCWC Perth reports"
• "This timeline includes information from post-storm reviews by the Bureau of Meteorology, TCWC Port Moresby, and the JTWC." - Why are TCWC and JTWC abbreviated, while the BOM is spelled out?
• "It documents tropical cyclone formations, strengthening, weakening, landfalls, extratropical transitions, and dissipations during the season." - Awkward mix between plural and singular.
• "category one tropical cyclone" - Please use "Category 1" format, which is standard in TC articles.
• "TCWC Perth reports that a tropical low has formed." - We don't need to know this, unless you plan on including every recognized disturbance. Just say "x agency reports a tropical low has intensified into TD y". Same thing applies for all similar instances.
  • Unless i am very much mistaken, we do need to know when a tropical low has formed as it is what they call a tropical depression.Jason Rees (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "TCWC Perth reports that the tropical low (05S) has dissipated." - I'm not sure you should call it 05S for a Perth listing.
  • There is no other option but to call it 05S IMO as according to Iune's email to the BoM, they did not use their U numbers at this time.Jason Rees (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are just some of the major issues I've noticed. Sorry, I just don't think this meets standards set by other timeline FLs (which I strongly support the inclusion of, BTW). Juliancolton (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 19:38, 22 February 2011 [3].

Nominator(s): Snek01 (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the list is stable and complete since April 2010. It has well defined structure. It has reasonable additional detailed information when needed to be practical. It has diverse supporting images. Snek01 (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As one of the members of Project Gastropods, I am trying to help get this list accepted as FL. However I am clearly much more prepared to compromise than User:Snek01. He did not agree with some of the changes I made in the list over the last couple of days, and has reverted them, even though they were suggested by reviewers. I will continue to try to help this nomination be successful, but if changes of mine are reverted by the nominator I assume there is really nothing I can do about that. Invertzoo (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Of the WP:FL? it clearly fails 2 done, also is confusing as to why the Summary table of number of species is in the lead. done The table is also quite frankly looks unprofessional and messy which fails 4 of the Criteria. done I'm sure other editors will give a more in-depth analysis but this list is not ready. Afro (Talk) 10:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, the lead could be longer done, table is odd: I suggest you to move the pic column to the second column and add a references and notes column, not together. done The Summary table of number of species section should have a header. done The table's first column hasn't any column header, the second column' header is "Dominica", which is useless, because the list is about molluscs in Dominica. done The section "Freshwater gastropods" deserves a table. done -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • I am currently attempting to make some improvements, as suggested. Invertzoo (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I expanded the intro. I agree that it would look better to put the freshwater species into a table, as per the land species. Even though we don't have images for most of them, we could at any rate add an image for Pomacea glauca. Invertzoo (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC) I am not used to working with tables, otherwise I would do it myself. Invertzoo (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made the change-over to a table OK and added one image. Invertzoo (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe User:Snek01 put both notes and references in one column because several of the notes need a reference after each fact that is stated there. Invertzoo (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed both tables so that the images come after the species names and before the notes. Invertzoo (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Since this article has excellent content and is marred only by some formatting problems and other things that are easy to fix, I would support this nomination as long as all the objections that are raised are rapidly fixed or suitably explained. Invertzoo (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Please do let me know what else needs changing. Invertzoo (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from SmartSE (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it would be better if each name had a reference after it and the "references and notes" was changed to just notes. ...Done, but then reverted...
• It would be good if all the images were centered in the boxes.

I am happy to do this and I just now tried using the "center" command on the first image, but it doesn't appear to work. Anyone know the correct way to do this? Invertzoo (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Removed thumb and images center automatically. Invertzoo (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Can the summary table be changed so that it doesn't take up the whole width of the page? done

Thank to everybody for comment. Most comments are very subjective suggesting what should be the first, what then and so on. Every comment is valuable, but t does not mean, that it will be immediately (unreasonably) implemented. --Snek01 (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had virtually completely finished changing the tables as suggested by User:Smartse, (quite a lot of work) but my changes were then reverted by User:Snek01, who disagrees with the ideas. What can I say? Invertzoo (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please separate references with notes. Add captions and provide a good table. Otherwise I will oppose.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The style of everything in the actually nominated list is compatible with other featured lists (for example Celine Dion albums discography, Bodley's Librarian). If anybody wants some minor changes, he/she have to say not only that he/she wants something, but also why it is demanded by Wikipedia:Featured list criteria or by any other guideline. Provide as detailed comment as possible. There will be made no changes based on wishes, beseech, feelings or any other unreasonable objections. On the other hand, suggestions based on guidelines will be carefully considered and when reasonable, they may be implemented, as it was done according to some (not all) suggestions above. --Snek01 (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the table, in the "notes" column, there are sometimes refs and sometimes a text. The column is about 40% and for that 40% and a small ref it looks very funny, it's like someone send packages with a width and height of 1 meter and put there in some a baseball and in some a baseball bat inside; the same here. Why not just separating from each other? The reader wants to view the text, not a reference to link every time to another page. It is intelligible that all pictures need captions and alt text; why do they have a |thumb parameter if most of the pics haven't got captions? Why do you listed this lists? They have a good "notes" column with text, but not like here, some with text and some with ref.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I have added texts to lonely references. --Snek01 (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It is not intelligible that all images need captions. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (captions): "Not every Wikipedia image needs a caption". For example all images in Featured List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of Iwo Jima does not have captions. It is clear, what each image depicts, respectively what species is on each image. All images have alt texts. --Snek01 (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Rearranged with different way. See bellow. --Snek01 (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment much better, one outstanding issue, one which is similar, and then I'll consider re-reviewing. Good work so far.

• Don't think the summary table belongs in the lead. done but User:Snek01 will likely disagree with this. To me however, this change is fine. Invertzoo (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think the summary table does not belong in the lead. If you think so, provide an evidence. Compare for example with similar lists: List of non-marine molluscs of Turkey, List of non-marine molluscs of the Czech Republic, List of non-marine molluscs of Great Britain, List of non-marine molluscs of Brazil. If an an accessible overview can be done most easily and most accessible with an table; then the table is nor forbidden in the lead section. It is a standard in lists of molluscs. --Snek01 (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, just because it's there in other articles, it doesn't make it right. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note the summary table is still in the lead. This could be moved into a Summary section where you could actually use prose to explain those odd mathematical references. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

• "(42[3] + 1[2])" is still odd in the table. Please fix/explain this. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is necessary to provide directly supporting evidence for number of species per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence and also per spirit of Wikipedia:No original research. No reference provide the exact number of land gastropods and freshwater gastropods. Burden of evidence lies with me as an editor. One reference says that there are 7 species and other reference says that there are another 4 species. No reference says that there are 11 species. You may be right that in practice not everything need actually be attributed. But in practice of gastropods, that are among the less known animals, these numbers are material likely to be challenged. Precise referencing is necessary here for practical purposes as well demanded by not only Wikipedia guidelines, but directly by Wikipedia policies. --Snek01 (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"(42[3] + 1[2])" could easily be written "(42 + 1)[2][3]". Our readers can then reference the statistics. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is already easily and precise as it is. It clearly says how many species are mentioned in certain reference. This can be considered as the most valuable and crucial information of this list. It is not possible to simplify it more. Proposed change can not improve referencing anyhow and it would worsen it. --Snek01 (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's no big deal to move the references outside the parentheses, this would meet style guidelines. Alternatively you could provide a footnote which says that ref [3] references 42 while ref 2 references another one... Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to recommend to editors to avoid immediately applying suggestions suggested by reviewers without an evidence, that it "must" be as they do wish or because they only think, that something is "odd". --Snek01 (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I would like to recommend to nominators that they take the time to appreciate the effort that reviewers go to in order to ensure that lists who go on to be featured really are part of Wikipedia's finest works. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I myself certainly appreciate all the work and time that the reviewers put into considering this list (and other articles) for FL or FA. Although I did not know in advance that this list was going to be submitted for possible FL, I have done my best to try to work with the reviewers to refine the list in ways that they have suggested. However the nominator himself seems to find it too much of a challenge to work in collaboration with anyone at all that is reviewing his work, so perhaps it is a waste of my time to try to assist with this process. Sorry this currently isn't working out any better than it is. Best wishes to all, Invertzoo (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest to the original nominator to not be as critical of suggestions on improving the Structure and Layout of the article, you can always request in a civil manner regarding the policy the suggestions apply to if you have issues with the suggestion. Afro (Talk) 05:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I wonder how much Invertzoo contribute to this nomination; why he wasn't chosen as co-nominator, if I can ask you, Snek01?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may butt in, User:Snek01 did all of the work to put together this list and he did it entirely by himself. He also nominated it entirely by himself. (I may possibly have tweaked a few very small things before he nominated it, just routinely.) Because I am another active member of Project Gastropods, once I saw that this list had been nominated, I jumped in and tried to help out because it would be great for us in the Project to get our first Featured List. English is my first language, so it is easier for me to do things like expand the intro than it is for him to do it as English is his second language. I did not ask User:Snek01 if it was OK with him that I tried to help. Perhaps I should have asked first. Invertzoo (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Snek01 (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The list looks pretty good, but it would be nice to have some estimates on the populations and the distribution area. Nergaal (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it would be great if that information were known to science, but research of that detailed nature has simply not been carried out. Field malacology is incredibly understaffed world-wide and underfunded too. It is extraordinary that even this much is known about the malacofauna of this rather small and very mountainous island. There are no available estimates on numbers of snails present in the different species, nor are there any distribution maps for the various species on the island; the available information (which is rather general in nature) is mentioned in the "Land gastropods overview" section. Invertzoo (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment still can't quite see why "(11[1][2] species of freshwater gastropods including 2 neritids that live in brackish water, 43 (42[3] + 1[2]) " would be deemed to be the best we can offer. I don't think we need all this ultra-specific referencing, if a reader has to get to the end of the sentence before seeing the ref, so what? I'd prefer to see "(11 species of freshwater gastropods including 2 neritids that live in brackish water, 43 species of land gastropods)[1][2][3]...". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. --Snek01 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC) OK, simlified, but an inline citation kept close to the material it supports per Wikipedia:Citing sources. --Snek01 (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've done this in the lead, I see no reason not to do it in the table. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can be simplified in the sentence only because there is it referenced precisely immediately bellow. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources "adding the citation to the end of the sentence or paragraph is usually sufficient, so long as it is clear which source supports which part of the text." But adding all (or both) references in this case to the end is not sufficient here, because it is not clear which part of the text is referenced. Reference must be clearly placed is a matter of the text-source integrity, that is an editorial judgment. This is my editorial judgment and it is fully compatible with "no original research" policy and sourcing policy including guidelines. I respect all opinions and I have evaluated all comments (yes, all), implemented majority of them and unfortunately not implemented last 3 comments. Respect the article as it is in this point and evaluate the featured article status with such ascertainment, please. --Snek01 (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I respect your opinion, and if you refuse to action my points, then I will respectfully oppose promotion. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't all 'discoverers' (or whatever you call them) be in brackets? Now i.e. Pease, 1871 and Gray, 1824 is not, Guppy, 1868 is in some places but not all. --Stefan ^talk 08:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is OK, correct, explained above and resolved above. --Snek01 (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry did not read above in that detail. --Stefan ^talk 00:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It was not temporarily there in that color box. --Snek01 (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 19:38, 22 February 2011 [4].

Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil ^{(Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page)} 06:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is very worthy of an FL status, given its stability and excellent referenced information. Sp33dyphil ^{(Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page)} 06:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• done Please unbold the words "Boeing 777" from the first sentence. From WP:BOLDTITLE, becaus it is not a verbatim quote of the article's name it should be in plain text. Also because it is wikilinked, which bold titles shouldn't (per the same MOS guideline)
• Information presented in the Lede that is not covered in more detail in the main body of the article requires referencing. There are a few sentences that need attention:
  • done "is commonly referred to as 'Tripple Seven'."
  • done "Able to accommodate between 301 and 365 passengers in a 3-class layout, the 777 has a range of 5,235 to 9,380 nautical miles (9,695 to 17,370 km), depending on model." (Unless reference [1] covers both of these.. it is a little unclear and reusing the ref would help if that's the case)
  • done "Developed in consultation with eight major airlines, the 777 was designed to replace older wide-body airliners and bridge the capacity difference between the 767 and 747. As Boeing's first fly-by-wire airliner, it has computer mediated controls; it is also the first entirely computer-designed commercial aircraft." This entire part of the end of the paragraph is unsourced
  • Most of the entire second paragraph appears unsourced, unless refs [2] and [3] are supposed to cover it all. If that's the case, they should be put in more specific places

• I actually did place a ref, just behind Other primary operators are Singapore Airlines (with 66 aircraft),[10] Air France (58)[11] and United Airlines (52),[12] the launch customer.

• • The entire third paragraph is unsourced.
• done "depending on model" -- does this need a "the" before "model"?
• It says that Emirates plan to phase out the -200s, -200ERs and -300s by next month. If that's true, the article will undergo a lot of changes in the next few weeks as editors remove the aeroplanes from its entry. I'm not sure if this can be considered stable

• The table lists orders and deliveries, so even if an airline phases out the aircraft, the figures would remain the same.

• done "Following closely behind are Singapore Airlines (66),[7] Air France (58)[8] and United Airlines (52)," does this mean they will soon be removing them from their fleets, or that they are 2nd, 3rd and 4th in the numbers of aircraft?
• done Per WP:COLOR, you mustn't use only colours to present information to the reader. They may be colourblind, reading a black-and-white version, or whatever. There must be other visual identifies that all people can see in place of or as well as the colours. Something like daggers (†) would be fine. Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second run (I pressed "save page" by accident)

• Why do you need visualisers to show that an airline has aircraft on order? the "Ordered" columns do that
• The entire table appears unsourced. Where did you get your figures?

• From the reference after following table lists of orders and deliveries of the aircraft as of December 2010.

• Are the figures given set to a specific date (in which case it should be mentioned somewhere), or does it include all 777s that the airlines have ever operated, including those that have been sold or loaned to other airlines, sent to an airplane graveyard or lost/crashed/destroyed?

• These are orders and deliveries figures. No website/book mentions the information that you listed above, and if they do, they would be out dated.

• done Are the planes that are owned by one company (such as GECAS or BOC) but leased by another company counted twice?

• No

• I'm not entirely sure that the totals and backlog rows at the bottom of the table are necessary. This is "List of Boeing 777 operators", not "List of Boeing 777s in existence or on order"
• doing The Lede doesn't sufficiently introduce the article. There are 3 paragraphs about the specifics of the aircraft, such as number of passengers, range and wheels(!), engines, etc. The first mention of an operator is the third paragraph, but only to tell us who ordered one of the planes first. Some information may be necessary, but most seems like it belongs at Boeing 777. Focus instead on some of the operators. Why did they chose this aircraft over the A330? Do they have long-standing purchase orders with Boeing over Airbus? What routes do the operators use them on? Who do GECAS loan them to? Etc Etc.
• Because the table isn't referenced, not only do we know whether the figures for the listed operators is correct, but we don't know if any are missing, such as Fed Ex or whatever.

• It is referenced.

At this time I don't think it's ready to be Featured, so it's an oppose from me for now. If you can make get everything referenced and refocus the Lede to match the subject, I'll be happy to consider supporting. Best, Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I saw at WT:FAC#Is this up to scratch? you were told to fix the colours and referencing (and go to WP:Peer review before you nominated it here. Why at least did you not follow Courcelle's advice? Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Those suggestions were made after I last checked the page, so I had no ideat that somebody had actually commented on the issue.

• What you need to realise is, this has been extracted from Boeing 777, which is an FA article.

Comment if the maintenance tag is still on this article in the next 12 hours, I'll withdraw this nomination. Don't nominate an article and then overhaul it while you're expecting us to review it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done As at this version, the table appears to have some errors / inconsistencies:

• Air France, B777-300ER: 36 ordered, 234 delivered
• Business Jet / VIP Customer(s): 1×B777-200LR ordered and delivered plus 1×B777-300ER ordered and delivered, yet the totals show only one delivery to these customers
• Unidentified Customer(s): show 10 orders but only 9 deliveries in the main part of the table, but that doesn't match the totals which show all 10 have been delivered

If these inconsistencies are not errors but correct information then perhaps the explanations should be included. EdChem (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• Is there anything citing the ends of the second and third paragraphs? If not, why not?

• For the second paragraphy, the info is covered in refernce 1.

• done Customers: The last sentence doesn't need the italics; also, "included" should be "include".
• What makes Airlinergallery.nl (reference 1) a reliable source?

• It's there to indicate that the Boeing 777 is also known as the "Triple Seven".

• What makes CH-Aviation (several references) reliable?

• It is widely used on other airline articles, and updates its info regularly.

• done In reference 17, the publisher (Business Standard) should be italicized since it's a newspaper.
• done The bibliography should be in alphabetical order, by author. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Direct market competitors " are these referenced?
• If this is USEng, and you have "refueling", shouldn't "totalling" be "totaling"? I'm not sure...

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• Why isn't the table sortable? It strikes me that this information would be far more usefully presented if I could rearrange the table to show me which operator has the most of each type of this plane, and overall.

• Because there are coloured rows, so making it sortable is not possible. Maybe I should rid of the colours, leaving the dagges and asterisks behind.

• Why is having them coloured an issue? List of Somerset CCC players with 100 or more first-class or List A appearances and List of first-class cricket centuries by W. G. Grace both used coloured rows, and are perfectly sortable. I really think for a list of this type you need to have sortability. Harrias ^talk 23:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Making it sortable will stuff up the whole table because the last two rows Total and Backlog. I tried, see it for yourself.

• Have a look at the coding in 1896 Summer Olympics medal table and List of Philadelphia Flyers players to work out how to get it to work. I'd suggest working on it in a sandbox to make sure that if you mess it up, it doesn't affect the article. If you need any help, point me in the direction of your sandbox and I'll see what I can do.Harrias ^talk 12:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• done Per WP:ACCESS I believe we should be using image insertion templates in place of symbols now, so {{dagger}} should render: †

• I've already done that, per user The Rambling Man comment.

• Sorry, I didn't notice that. Harrias ^talk 23:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• done Is 'unrefueled' really a word?

• Yes, it's used quite a lot in the industry.

• done "Able to accommodate between 301 and 365 passengers in a 3-class layout, .." – What is a 3-class layout? And per MOS:NUM, it should probably be "three-class layout".

• Economy/Business/First classes, see Travel class

• done Referencing: please be consistent in use of dates: as the article is in US English, you should probably use Month DD, YYYY throughout, but at the moment a fair few of them use DD Month YYYY.

• References 1, 17, 18 and 19 still use DD Month YYYY, while 2, 3, 7, 21, 22, 23, 24 are Month DD YYYY, omitting the comma after DD. Harrias ^talk 23:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• done Ref 1 needs further information (for example author)

• None is provided.

• Really? Because on my browser it says: "Emirates talks to Boeing about 777 successor and hints at more big orders

By Max Kingsley-Jones" Harrias ^talk 23:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done

• Refs 4 and 8 need specific page references.

• I don't own a copy of the GWR. It might interest you that the text you're reading is FA-status, copied from Boeing 777, and slightly modified.

• It doesn't interest me in the slightest: I'm reviewing this list, not that article. The GWR should be pretty easily accessible at a library to find this information out. Harrias ^talk 23:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Replaced source with SMH news article.

• Ref 20: is this a periodical? If so, it needs specific volume and issue information and publisher details.

• I'm not sure since I haven't got a copy. It's published annually, that's what I know

• Without more details, you're on pretty thin ice using the information: try and find out more details about the source. Harrias ^talk 23:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes CH-Aviation a reliable source?

• Missed that Giants2008 had already made this point: though I don't think you answered the question sufficiently, the fact it is used in other articles doesn't make it reliable, it might just make those articles less reliable. Harrias ^talk 17:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the site updates its info regularly. Take Singapore Airlines, for example. CH-Aviation says it's got 109 planes, while SIA itself says it's got 110 [5] (I suspect the SIA figures are dated). Other websites, such as Airfleets.net, says SIA operates 121 planes, a big discrepancy. By the way, SIA and CH Aviation both say that the airline has 66 B777s in service.

• done Check the columns add up in the table: as far as I can tell, at least six of them do not.

• Can you tell me which one? I don't seem to find it.

• Six of the twelve definitely don't add up: I want you to check them all. The third column definitely doesn't though. Harrias ^talk 23:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these pretty picky points, the list looks in pretty good shape to me. Harrias ^talk 17:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at the moment, as I'm not convinced a suitable argument has been made to show that CH-Aviation is a reliable source, and the table lacks sortability, which in a table of this sort should be considered a necessity. Harrias ^talk 12:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I think a comment regarding the suitability of ch-aviation (with evidence of reliability) is required. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 18:27, 17 February 2011 [6].

Nominator(s): NoD'ohnuts (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it is ready to be among the other televsion seasons like 30 Rock (season 1) or The Office (U.S. season 2) NoD'ohnuts (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts[reply]

• Support. No problems from me; any concerns I had were addressed in an earlier review. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments - Ref 5-7 have no publisher. You use different date formats for Ref 1, 4, 13, 21, 28, 30, 31, 34, 37, 39-62. Ref 19-22, 39-62 have no retrieval dates. Appears to be an error in Ref 24. Modern-family-tv.com is a fansite with no clear Verifiability. Also I'm bringing into question whether yourentertainmentnow.com can constitute as a Reliable. Afro (Talk) 04:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Matthewedwards :  Chat  :

• The first sentence has three wikilinked terms next to each other, appearing to be a link to a single article (WP:MOSLINK)
• You could unlink "comedy" and "television series" without losing understanding. Who in the English speaking world doesn't know what either are?
• Should "9 pm" be "9:00 pm"? Either way, "pm" should be completely dotted or completely undotted ("pm" or "p.m.", not "p.m") (MOS:TIME)
• The production sections are upside down. Without a concept there would be no writing, cast or crew.
• Per latest practice, the episode list table should be the first section of the article
• DVD section should follow WP:MOSTV#Media information and WP:MOSTV#DVD releases more closely. Instead of a box listing gag reels, Making ofs, alternate scenes and the like, which almost all TV season boxsets include, focus, in prose, on marketing, special featurettes that discuss something unique about the season etc, and read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (television)#DVD information. Are the DVD special features content notable? If they've been given coverage in secondary sources, well okay, otherwise it just seems like we're saying "this is why you should by the DVD", and that should be left to Amazon.
• For the sentence "The lowest rated episode was "Fizbo", which was viewed by an estimated 7.12 million households with a 2.4 rating/7% share in the 18–49 demographic although this is because it aired Thanksgiving Eve according to Nielsen Media Research." -- Ref 17 doesn't really say that it's because of Thanksgiving, it implies that the readers might come to that conclusion, and certainly Nielsen didn't say that's why it got the lowest ratings.
• The one-sentence paragraph about being renewed for a second season doesn't belong in Conception and writing because it has nothing to do with either.
• The section title tells us there's going to be something about the writing, but there is nothing about the writing, just a short paragraph that two of the actors did some improv.
• "30 Rock" not "30 Rocks"

I haven't really given the article a good going over because I think it's an unnecessary WP:CFORK of Modern Family and List of Modern Family episodes and goes against MOS:TV.

• Of the Production section, the conception bit of it such as why they didn't pitch to Fox or why NBC turned them down is new, but really that is sspecific to the series, not the season, and should be in the main page.
• Other bits like the main cast paragraph offers nothing new over the main article, and in fact is just a condensed version of Modern Family#Cast and characters (That one lists the guest stars). WP:SS says it should actually be the other way around.
• The critical reception subsection mostly repeats exactly what the Critical reception section of Modern Family does. The first paragraph and first half of the second is the same, and the third paragraph is the same, even going as far as talking about a second season episode.
• The Recognitions is a complete repeat of Modern Family.

In the correct hierarchy of TV show articles, Modern Family is let's say a "level one" summary style article, and List of Modern Family episodes is a "level 2" summary style article. This page should contain all the major points of the season in detail but instead, apart from the episode descriptions, it doesn't. This page is largely a summary of the main series article, and that shouldn't happen. A reader doesn't want to, or shouldn't have to, go from a detailed article to a sub-article with less detail, to a third sub-article with even less, or worse, repeated detail. He should go from an article that summarises the main points to sub-articles that offer more detail and more information. That doesn't happen here.

Not trying to sound like an AFD argument, but even with a confirmed third season on the way there doesn't seem to be any legitimate reason for keeping season pages by arguing that Modern Family and List of Modern Family episodes will be too large unless separate season pages stay. Modern Family has more information about the first season than this page does, with a few minor exceptions such as ratings and a list of writers which really could be added to that article since the series is only halfway into its second season. Additionally, MOS:TV#Multiple pages also agrees on this and says that for very lengthy series with over 80 episodes (usually after 3 seasons), a list of episodes page should be broken down into season pages with the main list being a summary of those. This series has just over 35 episodes to date, so the summaries should be at the main list of episodes page.

I would work on putting the few bits of prose that is exclusive to this page in Modern Family (and season 2 pages, of which there is little new info) and take that to GA or FA. Put the summaries in the table at List of Modern Family episodes and bring that back here. Currently I have to oppose this page. Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I just like to note that all the fixes have been made and that multiple shows have season pages such as Community and Glee and both are only two season longNoD'ohnuts (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm reviewing this page, not any other. While Glee may be suitable for season pages already (the show has been covered in all sorts of mediums, including specially produced magazines, books, reviews, trade magazine profiles, etc in an amount that hasn't really been seen before), Community and Modern Family do not. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main thing that would separate Glee from this discussion is the fact the clear amount of detail and coverage which has been covered in the first and second season articles which is a good example of WP:SIZE. I do agree with Matthew to a degree that this might just fall short of WP:SIZE. Afro (Talk) 04:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments One more comment is that, my nominee has more information on reception, conception, awards and rating than the main articleNoD'ohnuts (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts[reply]

As it should be. However, I believe the article could still easily be merged into Modern Family. Of course some stuff here and there may have to go, but with some careful consideration it shouldn't be too difficult to find it without losing coherence. Anything that is removed could always be put into the relevant episode article, too. I still don't think this article needs to exist, and I can't support it being something we brag about as an example of one of the best lists Wikipedia has to offer its readers. I'm sorry about that; it has nothing to do with the actual prose or content, just the location of it (what I mean is were it actually at Modern Family, I would more than likely be prepared to promote it at GA and would likely support at FAC following a complete review. And were the table at List of Modern Family episodes I would probably be happy to support that at this forum). Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well then you can just remove this nomination, and I'll nominated List of Modern Family episodes. NoD'ohnuts (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:55, 17 February 2011 [7].

Nominator(s): RCSprinter123 (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good lis. RCSprinter123 (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - There are only two references in the list and none of them are in any of the tables. GamerPro64 (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw per GamerPro64. Nev1 (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose withdrawal Sorry, but that doesn't mean it should be "withdrawn", please. It could be easily done in a few days. Also the external links has all of these bus routes. Now you need to create a new column like "Ref(s)" and put the refs for each. For bus routes 1-16 for example, you should put this ref and so on.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible the list could be overhauled, but I'd be more inclined to believe it would be done if I felt Rcsprinter123 was aware of FL standards. There's a similar situation with his recent GA nominations and this step up doesn't seem to demonstrate an understanding of what is required. Nev1 (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Sometimes list articles don't lend themselves to being referenced in the tables. We have plenty of Featured lists with tables without refs and instead use a "General reference". Some additional references to the page wouldn't go amiss though
• Please don't start a page with "This is a list of...".That practice ended a while ago; the article dog doesn't begin "This is an article about dogs". Please see WP:LEDE
• While lede's don't usually need referencing, it will here because the information it presents isn't repeated in more depth in the main part of the article
• Second paragraph is a jimble-jamble of singular and plural. "There are also several operator...", "This includes..., "which aren't officially part of Derbyshire but is included in the Derbyshire bus map"
• References should be placed after punctuation
• I don't think it's a good idea to use graphics for the key. Will blind people and screenreaders be able to use this information? What about low-bandwith users with graphics turned off? It's preferable to use text based identifiers such as {{dagger}}
• Not sure what the colours mean at 49, 180, 182, 183, 184, 199, etc as they're not mentioned in the Key. Also, per WP:COLOR, please don't use only colour for identifiers
• Some of the notes don't help the reader. What is Rainbow? UniBus? Circular? Sixes? Sevens?
• Consider making the table sortable

Oppose for now. Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - First as mentioned per WP:COLOR color shouldn't be the only thing to define information, also on this note I'm unsure what the colors are defining. Lack of references, nothing sources the tables for starters, in a more intricate look shows me nothing sourcing the Operators of the routes nor Notes. I have no clue what you mean by Via which means the average reader doesn't either, I'd suggest running through the Operators and doing some research on them a quick Google search for me came up D&G Bus instead of just D&G. The lead as mentioned needs a lot of work. Also I'm not quite sure on the relevance of the images also I'm sure saying "Service serves" in the key isn't proper English at all. Also the tables don't appear to be updated "Replaced by Swift service from 30 January 2011" "From 7 February 2011". To finish it off saying "From 27 March 2011" I don't think helps the reader at all I'd suggest if applicable to elaborate on the note. Afro (Talk) 00:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'd like to point out I don't think saying "Withdraw" is very helpful nor is "per GamerPro64", Opposing the Candidate is one thing but suggesting a Withdrawl off the bat is another thing, and Objecting without giving any specific reason will get this Candidate nowhere. Afro (Talk) 00:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd suggest it's worthwhile the nominator taking a look at this list against the advice given in my checklist. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:50, 13 February 2011 [8].

Nominator(s): The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because...it's another one of the ongoing series of United States state bird lists, several of which have passed FL. This one follows the same format as the others, but with additional citations. Stepping aside from the other stuff, it's a goodly-formatted list that is comprehensive, well-illustrated, and sourced to the official lists, therefore it's accurate and complete. (If I do say so myself.) So hopefully another US bird list will hit FL! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - There are no distinctions between Notes and in-line citations. Also if I'm reading the in-lines correctly there are only 3 which brings me to my next point why are there 3 in-line citations? Afro (Talk) 12:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I usually edit over at WP:MILHIST, where generically 'Notes' refers to the in-line citations. But I've changed it to 'Citations' to clarify that, hope it helps. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you have 7 in-line citations its a relief, but let me demonstrate my concern with the way you're citing as you're essentially unspecific. If I google 2, 3, 7 for example Georgia Official State List Georgia Reportable Species List GOSRC hypothetical species list no specific results pop up verifying this information. Afro (Talk) 23:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see. They were referring to the entries in the Biography with the links, but I've re-factored the references so that the links are directly in the in-line citations now, which should clear that up? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I honestly don't see why it's necessary to cite the number of Georgian birds in each family. The source provided does not explicitly provide those numbers, and it could easily be regarded as common knowledge – all you have to do is count the birds. Focus (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure about that, based on citation requirements vs common-knowledge and the other bird lists. I'll remove them (allowing them to be re-added if it's desired) if it's desired, but I think the DYK people might get twitchy if there isn't one citation per paragraph... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've verified the hook myself at DYK, and I don't think you'll have any problems there. Birds of PA was recently a DYK and is now a FLC and doesn't have those types of refs. I have a few more comments which I'll get up later, after that I'll be happy to support. Focus (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Images should be in standard thumb size instead of forced size (per Wikipedia:Images). --Snek01 (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I forced the size since they appeared oversize otherwise, but I can fix that, if it's really necessary? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually Wikipedia:Images doesn't say you absolutely must use thumbs. It says, "As a rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default. If an exception to the general rule is warranted..." so if you set the images to less than 220px, there should be no problem at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, MOS:IMAGES#Images says explicitly "The thumbnail option may be used ("thumb"), or another size may be fixed.", so this issue is void. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose

• All of the images need alt text (see WP:ALT).
  •  Done - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Per WP:BOLDTITLE, the title should not be bolded unless the title appears exactly as it is in the first sentence.
• The first sentence comes off awkwardly: "The List of Georgia birds lists"... is there a better way of saying that?
• I think a good example to go off for this list is List of birds of Maryland for the lead. Either way, I'll try and add more comments in the coming days-- nice work. Nomader ^(Talk) 23:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll get to working on these. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved to oppose; although you've addressed the alt images problem, the lead still most definitely needs work. Some further comments:

• Look over WP:LSC. It explains that the lead for a list should summarize any background information (which this list does not do right now-- it simply says that this is a list which lists every species in Georgia). The Georgia list should include what kind of birds are commonly found, which birds are the most prevalent, etc.
• The article still violates WP:BOLDTITLE and references itself in the lead. You can put the criteria in a key at the top of the list or something of the sort, but the lead should be written like the lead of any other article.
• Again, look at List of birds of Maryland for what I consider to be a better lead of a bird article. It's not as self-referential.

Sorry to this, but I want to make sure that if this passes FLC, the lead gets trimmed up first. Nomader ^(Talk) 18:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • No worries. :) It's been taking awhile for me to get around to this; my editing brain tends to skip around and takes awhile to get back to an 'editing mood' for an article once my brain has 'moved on to the next one'. It might be awhile, so I think it might be best to withdraw from FLC for now, address the issues over time, then re-submit when they're all done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for the same reasons I opposed the Pennsylvania one (lack of refs and lack of details besides the name entries) Nergaal (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Lack of refs" - the entire list is referenced, to the Georgia Ornithological Society. The section-by-section refs were removed per an earlier comment, but I'll reinstate them. What details are you looking for? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nergaal, I'm interested in whether you think the current solution is in anyway appealing, i.e. the repetitious use of ref 2 which results in it having around 60 re-uses, which looks appalling in the references. I have, in the past, recommended a caveat statement at the start of the list, i.e. "Unless otherwise noted, content is referenced by ..." and link to the ref once. On a more general note, I'm not sure what "General references" (in a number of lists) would represent in your opinion if they cite most of the list? Perhaps worth a discussion, a little bit like the one we had about general refs on the Olympic list (which I can't see right now, to link back to...) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem with this list is that it contains a ton of sections, and IMO every section should be referenced. The fact that one a single reference is used it only emphasizes that this list relies too much on a single second-party source. If this list would be instead expanded along the lines of List of non-marine molluscs of Dominica, both the lack of sourcing (or sourcing from a single web entry), and the lack of details would be solved. Nergaal (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The trouble is, every other possible source would simply be using the official GOS list as its source, making it a circluar argument. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it looks ridiculous to have that many citations to the same ref. If the whole list are using a single source, we don't need more than the General list at the bottom, and maybe a note in the beginning. I don't like when are own "rules" (like every paragraph should have a citation) are more important than getting an article as good as possible, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules! If the list uses only one source, there are no benefits at all to repeat that ref 60 times. And an official list is probably the best source to use. If there are other independent lists, they could be used too if they are reliable. (PS. I too think that every section normally should have at least one ref, but not if there are a good reason not to. Like the fact that all sections are using the same source.) 85.11.25.101 (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• No, it would ne a third party source. Nergaal (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I beg your pardon? When it comes to bird lists, there are no "third party sources". Bird lists aren't like state lists of mammals, mollusks, or even trees. Every U.S. state (with, as I recall, the exception of Idaho) has a state Ornithological Society. Each Ornithological Society has a Records Committee, whose task is to review submitted records of rare birds (defined by the Review List) and determine whether or not the bird in question is verifiable as the species it is claimed to be. If so, the record is Accepted, and, in the case of first state records, added to the Official State List. If it can't be determined for sure that the bird is what it's claimed to be (or, even if it is, that the bird isn't an escapee...), then the bird does not go on the Official State List. And if the bird isn't submitted for Records Committee review, it also does not go on the Official State List. When it comes to what birds occur on a List of Birds of (State Name Here), the (State Name Here) Ornithological Society doesn't just have the final say, it has the only say. NO other sources of "birds of (State)" are reliable sources - they either follow the state Records Commitee's decisions and state Ornithological Society's list, or their information is not verifiable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Section "New World quail (BTW why not in plural form?): why no linking to New World and Old World?
  • Section "Storm Petrels": why you linked "petrels" the second time. It was already linked in the section above.
  • Section "Ospreys": [[Monotypic]] -> [[Monotypic taxon]]
  • Section "Limpkins (Pumpkins :))": Why do you link "birds"?
  • Section "Oystercatchers": again the link to "bird"

Other wise good list.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I'll see what I can do about those, I'm in the middle of adding alt-text to all the pics first before getting to everything else. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sorry for the delays on this, I'll try to get all the concerns addressed this week. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I'm sorry but I just don't think this list is ready for FL status yet. Many of my comments here are the same as the Pennsylvania birds list though. First I don't like the non-table list format. I think its allowed and that won't keep me from voting a support if the other issues are satisfied but IMO for a featured list I think we should be using tables. Take a look at List of Medal of Honor recipients for an example of a table list if you need one. On the issue of reliable references you mentioned earlier. I agree for many the only reference would be the ones you mentioned but I would argue that a well published and widely respected periodical like National Geographic, Nature, the Smithsonian (magazine) or any number of others would be a reliable source and although they undoubtedly use the references you mentioned would IMO also do some of their own research as well. Why wouldn't these be acceptable references for at least some of the birds or information.
• There are almost no inline citations throughout the list but there are a lot of facts. IMO even the individual birds should have some kind of reference.
• I think a bit more information should be given about each group. I know its a pretty big list but I think in most cases we could give more than one general sentance. Maybe some details about a couple of the birds in the group? How to tell the difference between Male and female or does the feathers look different when they are young than when they mature? What do the eggs look like. Do they live in the mud, trees, cliffs, etc? What do they eat?
• I think placing the groups in some logical order would be good as well. I would recommend common name but Order or family would be ok too.
• Some of the named links redirect to a completely different name such as Black-bellied Plover which links to Grey Plover. I recommend clarifying which name it should be and making them match.
• Commons has recorded files of the vocal sounds of several of these birds and I recommend adding some of those as well.
• Which ones are extinct? You mention in the lede that 2 were extinct but I couldn't find them in the list.
• You mention that "a recent member of the avifauna family" is extinct but this family isn't listed on the list at all. Was that the only bird in the family that lived in Georgia or are there others as well?
• I thought we dropped the "this list is about X" verbiage? I recommend the lede be rephrased to lose this.
• There is 1 Disambiguous link for White Ibis. I assume it should be American White Ibis but Im not sure. --Kumioko (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll respond to the rest of your concerns later, but I do want to comment now on "I think placing the groups in some logical order would be good as well. I would recommend common name but Order or family would be ok too." The birds are, currently, listed in taxonomic order by order, then by family, per the American Ornithologists' Union. I'll probably use additional refs from the Annotated Checklist as well. As for the format, I simply used the same format that's been used for the other "lists of birds of (state)" that have become FLs.... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw for now

• Considering the issues raised above, I think it might be best to withdraw this article from FLC from the time being. I assumed that since this was a direct derivative of the other "List of birds of (U.S. State)" pages that were already at FLC, it would be a cinch, but it seems there's more work needed than I thought and I want to be able to take the time to do it right rather than having the FLC/WikiCup clock ticking while my brain tries to get in gear. So, I'd like to withdraw the article from FLC for now; I'll work on it at a relaxed pace to hopefully clear up all the concerns, and once that's done I'll resubmit it. Thanks all for the comments and suggestions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 23:36, 11 February 2011 [9].

Nominator(s): Focus (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria and is comparable in quality to other bird lists. I created and worked on this in my user space and it was a DYK earlier today. I used the template {{Bird list header}}, which is not widely used but is used in other lists (eg list of birds of California), and I believe it works well. Thanks, Focus (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – accessibility issues have been resolved. --RexxS (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments - Why is the only in-line citation a note? Afro (Talk) 12:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've changed the header to 'footnotes', is that better? Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Focus (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Now there's two which is good, however my point is that whole sections are unreferenced due to the lack of in-line citations though I don't doubt that the two Works consulted covers most of the article and they are fine as they are, it would make it easier for the reader for readers to associate material with more specific sources as well. Afro (Talk) 23:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the same issue that User:The Rambling Man has brought up below. The family accounts are pretty standard from list to list, and most, if not all, of the information could be considered common knowledge within the field. Thus, none of the bird lists, including many FLs, have inline citations for these sections. I hope I'm making sense here. Focus (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, what you're saying is comprehensible, but you need to consider whether it meets what is required by WP:V: "This policy requires that ... any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." Although the information is common knowledge in the field, I'm not sure that is sufficient for a general encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I see your point; however, if this is the consensus, every other bird list will need to be reassessed. I could try to incorporate references into the template, but due to the nature of the template I'd have to use Harvard referencing. Would it be okay to use harvard refs and regular refs in the same article? Otherwise I'd have to remove the template altogether and use regular inline refs. Focus (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You are free to bring any other bird lists to FLRC if they don't meet standards but can we just focus on this list. My suggestion would be to add the changes regarding references and we can always critique the changes to improve how we verify the information. Afro (Talk) 05:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but if this preventing it from achieving FL status, I will be forced to withdraw this nomination (or let it fail) and work on references at a later date. I am extremely busy with school and more urgent, real life projects to afford spending a lot of time on something like this. Hope you understand. Focus (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you suggesting all the prose, from section to section, are referenced "generally"? E.g., "... feathers that are excellent at shedding water due to special oils. There are 131 species world wide, 61 North American species, and 42 Pennsylvania species..."

• I'm pretty sure this was brought up before in a FLC, and it was determined that the family accounts are 'common knowledge'. They're pretty much the same for all the lists, especially since this one uses that template. Focus (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not convinced. I'm not knowledgeable in birds at all so your "common knowledge" is my "completely unknown". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The text is standard among pretty much all of the bird lists, including 20 or so FL, and none of which have inline references in the family accounts. I can't see how this list should be an exception. Focus (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "They are the only birds that can fly backwards." citation?

• See above; this qualifies as common knowledge.

• Not convinced. Would prefer a citation. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As TRM has raised the hyphenation issues, I should note there are multiple other problems with inconsistent or incorrect use of hyphens that I spotted:

• "Cormorants are medium-to-large aquatic birds" (inconsistent with the next excerpt; use one or the other)
• "Herons and Egrets are medium to large sized wadng birds" (+ should be 'wading')
• "Rallidae is a large family of small-to medium-sized birds" (space required before "to"; i.e. "small- to medium-sized")
• "The family Charadriidae includes the plovers, dotterels, and lapwings. They are small-to medium-sized birds" (ditto)
• "The Scolopacidae are a large diverse family of small-to medium-sized" (ditto)
• "Kingfishers are medium sized birds" (hyphen)
• "Woodpeckers are small to medium sized birds" (hyphen: should be "small- to medium-sized")
• "The vireos are a group of small to medium sized passerine birds" (ditto)
• "The Thrushes are a group of passerine birds that occur mainly but not exclusively in the Old World. They are plump, soft plumaged, small to medium sized insectivores" (ditto)
• "Starlings are small-to medium-sized Old World passerine birds" (space required before "to"; i.e. "small- to medium-sized")
• "The tanagers are a large group of small-to medium-sized passerine birds" (ditto)

Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed, to my knowledge. Focus (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but check out Barn owls – I missed that one originally. --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose this is nowhere near what I would expect a featured list to look like:
  • it severely lacks citations: for example there is no quick way to verify the accuracy of a simple section like the ducks one.
  • it is extremely unappealing/not engaging: just a list of bullets with almost nothing else than a few random pictures
  • there is no context provided: yes, at 400 entries long it is pretty big already, but how about estimated populations, or weather they nest in the state all year round, or weather they nest in specific areas (i.e. urban, nigh altitude, etc.)

Nergaal (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The source is the Pennsylvania Society for Ornithology, but that organization does not have an article. It seems to me that is a serious omission in granting FL status for this list. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Searching for "Pennsylvania Society for Ornithology" produces plenty of Google hits from third-parties, and 23 hits on Scholar (mostly citations of their publications). I expect that it's a perfectly reliable source for birds in Pennsylvania, and probably notable enough for an article in its own right – if someone is interested enough to write it. --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sure it is a reliable source, but I would want an article about it if this list is to become a Featured List. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that's necessarily required. If independent evidence can prove the organisation publishes reliable information there's no problem from the featured list criteria perspective. If Dthomsen8 wishes to write the article, so much the better! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I came here from a discussion at WT:MOS#Section headers and links. I was told that one of my comments (on the question of whether it was acceptable to include links in section headers as the list currently does) would be helpful here, so I'm reproducing it:

  I too oppose links in section headers on aesthetic grounds. Part of the justification for the MoS is to give Wikipedia a consistent style, so if consensus here is that links in section headers are unaesthetic, then that is a valid reason for forbidding them (even though it is not currently the given reason). So far I have never encountered a case where it was difficult to move a link in a section header to the body of the text, and that is true in your case as well. For example, under "Pelicans", the text begins, "Pelicans are...". Under "Bitterns, Herons, and Egrets", the text begins, "The family Ardeidae contains the herons, egrets, and bitterns." There are a few exceptions cases where the name of the linked birds does not appear in the paragraph, such as "Old World warblers and Gnatcatchers". (BTW, one of these exceptions, "Ibises and Spoonbills", has inconsistent formatting, since the order and family are not on a line of their own. Plus the description is oddly short.) By far the names of the birds do appear, usually in the first sentence and often in the first few words. I think it would be easy to adapt the article to the MoS's stated requirements, and I think that's what ought to be done.

• Besides the issues I mentioned above, I like the list. Ozob (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately, the template which I used in this list generates the headers (and the links), as well as the family accounts automatically. The only way to have the links in the prose would be to either edit the template itself, or to remove the template altogether and just use plain text for the headers and prose. I don't have enough time on my hands to do something like this manually, so unless I find a faster way I'm afraid the article will have to stay as it is. If this is causing you to oppose (or at least not support) this FL candidate, I will have to let it fail and address the concerns at a later date. Thank you for your comments and time however, and your input is greatly appreciated. Focus (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I've fixed the template. Ozob (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Great, thanks a lot!

• Oppose - I'm sorry but I just don't think this list is ready for FL status yet. First I don't like the non-table list format. I think its allowed but IMO for a featured list I think we should be using tables. Take a look at List of Medal of Honor recipients for an example of a table list.
• There are almost no inline citations throughout the list but there are a lot of facts. IMO even the individual birds should have some kind of reference.
• I think a bit more information should be given about each group. I know its a pretty big list but I think in most cases we could give more than one general sentance. Maybe some details about a couple of the birds in the group? How to tell the difference between Male and female or does the feathers look different when they are young than when they mature? What do the eggs look like. Do they live in the mud, trees, cliffs, etc? What do they eat?
• There are some broken brackets (just look for [[[.
• I think placing the groups in some logical order would be good as well. I would recommend common name but Order or family would be ok too.
• Some of the named links redirect to a completely different name such as Bereal owl which links to Tengmalm's Owl. I recommend clarifying which one it should be and making them match.
• Commons has recorded files of the vocal sounds of several of these birds and I recommend adding some of those as well.
• Which ones are extinct? You mention in the lede that 2 were extinct but I couldn't find them in the list. --Kumioko (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to withdraw this FL candidate. It appears that the expectations for a FL bird list have considerably changed, and I lack the time (and to be honest, the motivation) to deal with these issues at the moment. Focus (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 18:55, 8 February 2011 [10].

Nominator(s): ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 22:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third and hopefully last FLC for this list. Let's hope there will be confidable reviewer. Let's try it from the second archive: ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 22:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this discography for the second time, after I took an intensive clean-up. It will be the first discography that could be a FL by a mexian artist and the first in the portal. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exasperated but non-binding oppose: Well, "hopefully last FLC" is something I can agree with. What is "confidable reviewer"? Why do you mention the second archive? Why do you follow your mention of the second archive with your sig? When you say you are "nominating this discography for the second time", don't you really mean "third"? Is "Mexian" just a typo?

Why do you keep using "5× Multi-Platinum" when the redundancy of that expression has already been explained to you? How many times was The Very Best of Santana released? It appears that The Live Adventures of Mike Bloomfield and Al Kooper listed in Collaboration albums included only Carlos, not the band Santana, so shouldn't it be removed? Same with "Samba Pa Ti" in the Singles table. How about all the other albums and singles (which I did not check)? How did "Put Your Lights On" peak at 118 on the Hot 100? If "Soul Sacrifice", "Samba Pa Ti", "Song of the Wind", etc., aren't singles, why are they listed in the Singles table? Of what use is the note "This song/album received awards"? Why are you using the German version of the Swiss charts source (and not marking it as German), instead of the English version? Why do you keep making up titles for references in articles you nominate at FLC? You should review the order of the certs listings, and take a look at WP:DISCOGSTYLE at least once. The lead still needs corrections to dashes, hyphens, caps and italics in addition to some regular editing.

Conclusion: Maybe it would be a more efficient use of your time if you would focus more on articles you can get to GA status rather than trying to get something featured. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hello John, nice to see you again! Ok let's start:

• I didn't know the word in english, so I pick up a random word from this dictionary. I continue the FLC, because I am of the opinion that the 2nd was too sluggish. Anyway: I removed the "Multi" before the "Platinum". I deleted the wrong row mention The Very Best of Santana the second time. I moved albums released by Carlos not by the band. Samba Pa Ti is actually released by the band. You can trust me about the charts; I made it myself not like in the other discogs. The chart is actually Billboard 200, not Hot 100, forgot to replace the link there. All songs that are charted should be provided, not only singles. I added into the section heading "and other charted songs". The sentence "This song/album received awards" provide a link to the awards by the group to gain entry what the band has received. Changed into English version. What is "keep making up"? Certs are in alphabetically order and please don't link WP:DISCOGSTYLE here; I know it from the beginning to the end. The lead was CE, but I will look at it more deeply. Yes, in the near future I will nominate articles into GA.

Thank you for you comments!

Oppose and, again, suggest withdrawal. Apart from JohnFromPinckney's spot-on comments, there is the issue of the awful lead. Your continued insistence to pipe the RIAA as "national American certification" puzzles me, as does the relevance of Rolling Stone ranking the band's guitarist as the 15th greatest ever. Please review eachof the albums on this list, and double-check whether it instead belongs to Carlos Santana the guitarist's discography. I opened one link at random, and it certainly seemed so. Mirroring what John said, I suggest that you take on less ambitious projects (artists with 4–5 studio albums) to start with, and build your skills up from there.—indopug (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well the "awful" lead was deceived a CE. "national American certification" is completely right; the user wants to know what RIAA is in the list or article and not an abbreviation. I still don't know what's your problem here. I deleted the sentence from Rolling Stones. I moved some to Carlos Santana discography and reviewed all albums and songs.

Thank you for your comments!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that there's a Santana videography that contains only 24 items. That should be merged with this article.—indopug (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many more than 24 items (the article is currently a stub of some videos). I moved them from this discography to "Santana videography" some months ago, and I think it was a good idea. Also I live in Germany and I can't watch music videos from MTV or VH1; in the official website there are videos but without director and I don't know other sites that includes director. If you know some without territorial copyright please post them here.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I also added language parameters and checked everything. Hopefully now it has FL status.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the "US" column in the singles table links to the Billboard 200, but that is an albums chart. Billboard's chart for singles is the Hot 100. As that name suggests, it only has 100 places, so how can songs have charted at numbers 114, 117 and 118 on a chart with 100 places......? Also, "Ya Yo Me Curé" has note [A] against it, which apparently means that it was not a single but did chart........except that there are no chart positions listed for it. So did it chart or not........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked the wikipedian who has put this songs [11].-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are single, see talk page section above.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Conversation-with-oneself-commentThe lead was once again copy-edited and I hope this list won't fail like the last time (I want win the WikiCup and I have no points D:!) I even make a monolog with myself, because the FLC is very toting and boring.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - all the sources used in the tables cover only chart positions - what is sourcing all the albums and singles that didn't chart.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what do you mean. All albums and singles were charted, but since only 10 chart columns are allowed, I added the most relevant charts. What sources you exactly want to view?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There need to be sources to confirm that all the non-charting albums/singles actually existed. If they are listed on the "complete discography" webpage currently shown as ref 1, simply change that to a General reference, that should cover it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed. Ref 1 only view the albums.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 18:26, 7 February 2011 [12].

Nominator(s): Rodrigo15 (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because i've just solved all the problems cited during the last nomination. So, i think it's ready now. Rodrigo15 (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've done a little copy editing, and I see no problems otherwise. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose per GreatOrangePumpkin. Sorry for the mistakes; this is the first time I've voted in an FLC. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually you have to look at this disco more deeply; if you have "done a little copy editing" that doesn't mean that this disco meets all of the FL criteria.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig/External Link check - There are no Dab links but there is a dead link. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)done[reply]

• Comment Please avoid multiple, useless linking, as you did in the certs column.done-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • WW links to "World"done
  • Why no peak chart for Once in the UK?done The informations says that Once charted as 102 in UK, but i couldn't find any reference about it, so i didn't listed it.
  • What does — means, i.e. add a note at the bottom (for example | colspan="23" style="font-size:8pt;"| "—" denotes releases that did not chart.done
  • x -> ×done
  • Why are the number of certs behind the "Platinum" or "Gold"?done
  • Nightwish's first release ever why not just ...first release.?done
  • Other Appearances: I would add an extra column for the refs.done
  • "Wish I Had an Angel forgot one '"' at the end.
  • avoid beginnings This is the done
  • a symphonic metal band from Finland why not just a finnish symphonic metal band?done
  • Although Nightwish has been prominent in their home country since the release of their first single delink singles.done If i understood correctly
    • No you must delink it, singles -> singles
  • one million copies,[2] no need to add refs, because you did it down under.done
  • which has sold almost two million copies.[6] again.done
  • A new E.P./live album, Made in Hong Kong (And in Various Other Places) a live album and EP together?done Yes, it's an Ep (as you should know, too big to be an single and too small to be an album), but with all the tracks record live during the Dark Passion Play World Tour, from 2007 to 2009.
  • Explain how you know that a few singles are promo singles?done I can't, erased information
    • well, then "erase" promo, or find a reliable sourcedone
  • Demo albums section: avoid multiple linking: Members: Tarja Turunen, Tuomas Holopainen and Emppu Vuorinen.done
  • HOL means "Holland" and is a region in the Netherlands. So write "NLD" or "NED".done
  • Why did you add a track length column in the Music videos section? done Only an extra information, necessary in my opinion
  • Sami Käyhkö citation needed.done
  • Chart columns: You didn't add the "work", the publisher are wrong (AUT: Hung Medien, FIN: Hung Medien, FRA: Hung Medien, GER: Phononet, GRE: Hung Medien, SWE: Hung Medien, NOR: Hung Medien, UK: everyhit.com and I suggest you to replace HUN with another chart, for example SWI), and I don't understand why you added an external link in the publisher parameter? done
  • The titles are false in the references. done

I will add more comments, if I find any. Please have a look at discogs like Miles Davis discography or Santana discography. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Studio albums and Extended Plays section: you can use the {{Ref label}} template instead of normal bulleted list.
• Mege the year column in the row Bestwishes and Highest Hopes: The Best of Nightwish, the same in the Soundtrack section, between "Nemo" and "I Wish I Hhad an Angel"done
• "Kuolema tekee taiteilijan" should be capitalicizeddone.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't write {{done}} if you haven't do that. And you must write, let's say 4×Platinum, an not 4 times Platinum.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Avoid adding certs that aren't in the chart column, for example Poland, there are no Poland chart.

Yes, cause only Dark Passion Play charted in Poland, and we only can add ten charts.

That's right, so delete this certs, that are not charts, for example Poland or Switzerland.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments tomorrow. Goodbye.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 22:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now: For some reason I was contacted on my talk page about this article, but looking through it now, it really doesn't blow me away.
• The way you refer to the official website in references is inconsistent. I don't mind, apart from the fact it does not need to be capitalised (other than "Nightwish"), and nor does it need to be in italics.
• Are we certain all of these sources are reliable? Few of them are the usual kinds of sources (newspapers, industry magazines).
  • TheTableWorld.com?
  • Spinefarm.fi?
  • SoundTrack.net?
  • Hung Medien?
  • PhonoNet?
  • Mahasz?
  • Everyhit.com?
  • Ifpi.fi?
  • Ifpi.se?
    • Hung Medien, PhonoNet, Mahasz and all IFPIs are reliable, per WP:GOODCHARTS.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I could go on... http://www.metalfromfinland.com/news/2007-08-10_15:37/nightwish_end_of_an_era_dvd_certified_gold_in_switzerland is probably the most suspicious one, but it is in turn sourced to Blabbermouth. Could we just cut out the middle man?
• Roadrunner is referred to inconsistently in the references, and a wikilink would be good. Also, the stuff on Blabbermouth.net should be, y'know, attributed to BM.
• First line- "finnish".
• Title of "Erämaan Viimeinen" does not match the article

Needs tidying up in places, but, until I'm shown otherwise, too many of those sources look questionable... J Milburn (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the article currently claims that "Nemo" got to number 15 on the UK Singles Chart, this is completely untrue. If you check the source, you will see that it says it got to number 15 on the British Top 40 Rock Singles chart, a completely different (and incredibly minor) chart. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rodrigo15, I think it would be wise to withdraw the nomination and deal with these comments outside the FLC process. I'm sure the editors who have contributed comments would be happy to help you en route to a renomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from J Milburn-

• The way the official website is referred to is inconsistent, should not be italicised and should not feature random capitals.
• Allmusic should not be italicised (and wikilinks wouldn't hurt). Allmusic is referred to inconsistently in the refs.
• Random caps in the ext link section.
• Don't like the ""*" director is unknown or can't be found." thing. There is no director, as you note in your footnote.
• "Made in Hong Kong is also listed here because it's an EP with live tracks; so it's an EP and a live album" ?! I'd go with listing it as a "live album", but if you're going to include it in both places, that note is hardly the best way to explain it.
• Studio album table there are no sales thresholds listed, and the worldwide sales are not a certification.
• "American tour.[1][1]"

This is still feeling a way off featured quality, but at least the sourcing is looking a little better. The overreliance on the official site is less than ideal... J Milburn (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest closure - article has not been edited for over a week, many outstanding points which clearly aren't being addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 18:11, 7 February 2011 [13].

Nominator(s): Happyman22 (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The List of Chicago Bears in the Pro Football Hall of Fame is being nominated for feature list. The article is a detailed list of all the individuals that were members of the Chicago Bears that became enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. I believe the article meets the FL criteria, is well cited, and prose is good. Let me know what everyone thinks. Happyman22 (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please have support or fail votes please. I fear this list might fail as others have on this forum because of the lacking of yea/nay votes among the members. Thanks Happyman22 (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can you format the picture under inducties so that the table is not so far down the page? KnowIG (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain better? I just edited it where the table is now closer to the top of the inductees header. Is that what you were asking about? Happyman22 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to primarily be a problem with the users screen, as I do not have this problem. Afro (Talk) 19:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or how about the user has fixed the issue by the time you've looked at it. Thanks Happyman! KnowIG (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - the number column sorts incorrectly. Ref 6 is dead. Footnote c needs a citation. Afro (Talk) 19:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment Ref 6 has been fixed. Note c has a reference and the number column sorted correctly for me..is it possible there might be a glitch because I just did it and all the numbers sorted correctly. Happyman22 (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't get the Walter Payton followed by Bronko Nagurski or, Bill Hewitt followed by George McAfee and, Stan Jones followed by George Halas. Afro (Talk) 18:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It did just do that. However, once I reset the list again by hitting the sorter it sorted them out again. I don't know if that is a glitch of some kind because it did not do that the first time, but it did yesterday when I tried it again. Happyman22 (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I figured out the problem looking at the coding the column lacks any kind of sorting code. Afro (Talk) 22:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can you describe what you mean by minor. You have written 'while the other three contributed only a minor portion of their career to the Bears.' What does minor mean 1 season? 2 seasons? Or perhaps remove the sentence and list the three people and say that they are in the hall of fame for exploits at other clubs, having come to Chicago when already legends (as in Page's case) or were at the club before they were notable (as in the case with the other two). KnowIG (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment: I defined minor as 3 seasons or less...but I don't know if that is good enough of a definition. Happyman22 (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that, but I'm no expert of whether that's good enough on here (I'm still learning). If other users do have issue with it then just remove minor from the article and it would still be OK. KnowIG (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Criterion 3b. The contents of the list are substantially similar to what can be found in List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees, with only the players' numbers added. I fail to see why a separate list is needed for this team. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it's a nice list, but these days we're trying not to create unnecessary forks, and I think Giants2008 hits this on the head. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response - List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees lists all of the members of the Hall of Fame, which has hundred of inductees, while this list devotes a separate space for the franchise with the most members, the Chicago Bears. This list details only Chicago Bears members and allows people to access their favorite team if they wanted to see who is in the HOF instead of having to look through a huge list of all members. Also, the franchise with the second most members is a FA list so if this list is an "unnecessary fork" would that not apply for the other list as well? Happyman22 (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That list was passed in 2008, when reviewers weren't paying close attention to forky lists. It probably wouldn't pass today, which is what matters. Also, the main Hall of Fame inductees list isn't overly long to me, and it does allow the option of sorting by team. It's not perfect because many players were on multiple teams, but that information is present in the main list. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually kind of surprised that TRM promoted the Green Bay list judging by the Nomination page it only had 2 supports one of which was weak, Not to mention 3 of the reviewers didn't comment regarding their disposition one of which was TRM, it might be down to a change in standards but by today's it might not be promoted due to lack of interest. Afro (Talk)

My ears burning...? Yes, things have changed since July 2008, and if I was closing the nomination today, well, it wouldn't be being closed, it would need more reviews and more support. Ho hum, live and learn. I don't often comment per my disposition, I usually review and leave it to others, but in the current climate, whereby we're lacking reviewers, I feel more inclined to offer more of an opinion than just "comments". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and suggest FLRC on the Packers list. Given that the general inductees page gets along fine (like the MLB HoF list) it doesn't really need subdivisions. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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