Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/January 2008

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

The list was not promoted 05:45, 31 January 2008.

I am renominating this article because I have updated the links and I have sourced more of the information and I feel it meets several of FL criteria.--TrUCo⁹31¹ 17:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you mention this before the FLR was closed? Had you mentioned that you were addressing concerns, it would have remained open. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I did not know about the article when it closed. I just started editing football articles yesterday. TrUCo⁹31¹ 17:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments The "Notable undrafted players" section needs sources (and a definition of what makes these players notable), the general citations should be mentioned in the references section instead of used as citations (ie. Hart Memorial Trophy) and the specifics of the trades should be mentioned (like the 2007 NFL draft). I don't see a lot of difference between this version and the version that was delisted, other than the addition of a few citations. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was the reason why it was deleted was because it lacked citations and had dead links(Oh man, you again, you just love to comment on FLC don you..=) remember 2007 WWE Draft.)TrUCo⁹31¹ 17:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was also delisted because it didn't have sources for trades. The 2007 NFL draft does list trades and has citations for them. If trades are not readded (and sourced) then this list couldn't be called comprehensive. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see I will attempt to make those changes.TrUCo⁹31¹ 17:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose In the week simce I left my comments, you haven't made any edits to the article, or given any sign that you are addressing them. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Scorpion, just recently removed from FL and it doesnt seem issues are being addressed.
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was not promoted 00:02, 30 January 2008.

I've been working to improve this list and I think it meets featured list criteria so I'm nominating it. --ImmortalGoddezz 19:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although it looks like it meets criteria comments would be appreciated in regards to the redlinks (keep them or unlink them?), placement of the photos (I'm not sure it could be any better but please leave suggestions), and the very few blank attendance years for some of the alumni (leave them blank, fill in with "unknown", or something else?). Any other comments would be greatly appreciated as well. Thanks. --ImmortalGoddezz 20:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Having all the tables the same width and having the comparable columns in all the tables the same width would make the article look much better. Right now, it has a lumpy appearance. Hmains (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I've figured out how to fix that while still using the Alum template. I will do that tonight after I get back from classes. Thanks for the comment! --ImmortalGoddezz 15:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the columns should be the same size now.  Done --ImmortalGoddezz 15:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - The list looks pretty nice, but I have some concerns:

- The article mentions The Drexel 100 but does not list all it's menbers. Presumably these members are the most notable graduates of Drexel.

- The very recent grads Tom Fulp and John Gruber don't seem to be very notable.

-- Austin Murphy (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the late reply I've had unexpected internet problems at home

• The Drexel 100 includes the most notable graduates as of it's creation (1991) and subsequent initiation dates who are living. The list isn't retroactive so it doesn't include a lot of people. I realize I didn't clarify that in the article, I will do so today. As far as not including all of the Drexel 100: Drexel's ideas of notability are different than wikipedia's notability guidelines, most of the people on the list would be NN and never have their own article. A lot of the Drexel 100 initiates are people who have coincidently donated a considerable amount money to the university. (ex. Robert R. Buckley (Buckley Field), Richard A. Greenawalt (Greenawalt Student Development Center), Antoinette Westphal (Antoinette Westphal College of Media Arts and Design), John A. Daskalakis (Daskalakis Athletic Center), Albert Handschumacher (Handschumacher Dining Center), Samuel J. Korman (Korman Center), etc. ) However I will work on adding the Drexel 100 to this list.

OK. It *would* be interesting to know who the buildings were named after though. Of course the list is a bunch of people who could potentially give a bucket load of money to Drexel or at least some academic street cred. That probably makes them at least a little bit notable. Maybe they don't need links to their names, but just a little description about how they got their name on a building.

• I will take Fulp out, I didn't realize it was a redirect. As far as Gruber he does currently have an article which presumably means he's notable at this point, if his article ever goes to AfD then I won't object to taking him out. My concerns about notability would lay with Ray Sahelian before anybody else.

--ImmortalGoddezz 16:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fiddled with the photos a bit. I think the result is a better flow along the right side. More photos would be better of course, but I'm sure you tried to find them too.

I'm against red-links, but that's just my opinion.

If the class year box is blank, a note somewhere should explain why. For example, "attended 1994-95, did not graduate" or "unknown"

-- Austin Murphy (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's a good list, but I think some of the red-links should be filled out, with stub articles at least. Geraldk (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 05:38, 28 January 2008.

This is a bit short due to the teams brief history but I think it cover everything and has good references. Buc (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose Too short! Not comprehensive enough to be featured. Nominate this in 4-5 years.--Crzycheetah 00:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What part of the criteria does it not follow? Buc (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, WP:IGNORE the criteria here. As Scorpion0422 has said below, this page does not represent "Wikipedia's best work". I'd even suggest to merge this page into Houston Texans. I just don't see how this list improves Wikipedia. --Crzycheetah 20:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Drewcifer (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's a short article and hardly represents "Wikipedia's best work". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per all of the above. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 03:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support mainly to counteract the ones above. Crzycheetah, how many entries does a list need before it is allowed to be featured? We have 7 here, with a large amount of context. --Golbez (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least 10. You can check that I suggested this 3-4 months ago here (read the very last comment).--Crzycheetah 06:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as I don't see any reason why a short list shouldn't be featured, nor do I see anything wrong with this article. I don't think the length of a list has any bearing on whether it represents "Wikipedia's best work". Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but it is basically a stub with a small table. You wouldn't expect an article of that size to make it to FA because it wouldn't be an example of Wikipedia's best and most comprehensive work. An FL is supposed to be what we believe to be one of the best lists in Wikipedia and I believe that a really short list simply isn't one of them. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What we need here is some sort of clear rule on how long a FL needs to be. Buc (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up before, and I'm afraid a hard and fast rule is unlikely. I think we should just be rational about it, and take it on a case by case basis, based on the consensus per case. Although length shouldn't be a factor, common sense tells us it is in some extreme cases. Take for instance, Category:Jimmy Cauty albums, which consists of one album. If you were to make a discog for Jimmy Cauty, that too would be one album. It would be short, but technically "comprehensive" and potentially "well-written." But common sense tells us that that is not FL quality. Where common sense draws the line in a case like this, is a simple matter of consensus. 4 votes to 2 (so far) says that it doesn't make common sense to promote this article. Not the ideal solution, I admit, we do like a rules here at Wikipedia, but I think it's the best we're going to do. Drewcifer (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A list should be at least two lines long. Otherwise it's just a name on it's own. Other than that I don't see an issue. Buc (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Buc that a list is, by definition, a collection of at least two items. Other than that, I don't see why length should be an issue. Length is, IIRC, explicitly not an allowable objection at FAC. And short lists can be very useful to readers, if they provide information the audience is looking for, and presumably those who are interested in football might wish to find such a list, and if it is a useful list that meets Wikipedia policies on referencing and whatnot, I don't see why it can't be considered among Wikipedia's "best work". If this information is most usefully presented in such a short list, then it can indeed be among the best and most comprehensive pages on Wikipedia - not all featured content needs to be equally arduously long to create. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the above concerns about length and the fact that it is totally repetitive to List of Houston Texans draft selections. This list is basically the same list just with less information. It seems precedence was set that for these types of lists, there needs to be 10 years worth of selections (per the Ravens FLC).
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Gonzo. Strikes me it would have been a better idea to expand the List of Houston Texans draft selections article to FL rather than generate this small subset article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree No offense to those that work on these articles, but I think a lot of these first round draft picks lists (even some of the ones that are already FLs) could easily be merged with the main draft pages, especially for the teams that have been around less than 20 years. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does that mean you would Oppose any first-round draft pick list to be nominated here? Buc (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, of course not, all opinions are given on an article-by-article basis! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I'll go ahead and disagree here - I don't believe length alone is grounds to fail this nomination. Our only criteria should be these: is it useful to a reader as an independent list, and is it a well-created list. As to the former, I'd say there are plenty of sports buffs and Houston fans who would be interested in seeing the first round draft picks, since first round picks have a special prominence that separates them from the remainder of pciks in the NFL draft. As to the latter, this is well written, well-referenced, well, formatted, and has a good if not exceptionally well-written lead. And we should note that it has more entries than some existing featured lists, such as List of counties in Rhode Island. If we are going to set a length limit, then we should develop some alternative lesser citation than FL, in the way that an article that doesn't quite live up to the comprehensiveness and/or length of an FA can be a GA. Geraldk (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is still redundant to List of Houston Texans draft selections. Should we start taking lists and making them smaller and smaller so they can be featured? And a list of 7 names over 6 years is not representative of Wikipedia's best work, which is the first key to any featured content on the Wiki.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, unless Rhode Island feels like adding more counties to its state, this list is set and will never grow larger. The Texans 1st-round draft picks will (hypothetically) never stop growing. So size can be a factor. And although I hate comparing articles, what if a new city gets an NFL team and chooses its first, first round draft pick, should we have an article with one item in the list? I mean it could meet all the criteria, but can we really say that would be representative of our best work? I would say no. I think setting a limit for these lists would be fine (say 10 years, which was agreed upon for the Ravens list). But I cannot look at this list and say it is the best work of Wikipedia.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you don't think a short list can be "Wikipedia's best work". Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 05:38, 28 January 2008.

I am nominating this for Featured List status because it is thorough and well-sourced, and it is an important title in professional wrestling. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Looks very good! The Chronic 03:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now, because of a couple of unsourced statements in the lead, which have been marked with fact tags. Also, it's unclear what the column title 'Times' means, and that should probably be clarified for readers. Geraldk (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was not promoted 22:16, 23 January 2008.

Previous FLC

Back in March this was a Featured list candidate but did not suceed because of a lack of images. Back in May I added a full list of images and now it should pass as a featured list.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 22:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Definitely a good start, but as someone without much knowledge of Roman history, the list confuses me to no end. There's so many uncommon words floating around, most of which apply directly to the topic at hand, that they beg for explanation. For instance, what is a Principate, an Imperial name, a Dominate, Becoming Emperor, etc? Some other things that confuse me: why are some columns in a different font? Why does the notes section jump back and forth between these fonts? Why are there only 3 emperors during the Year of the four emperors? Why do all three emperors have "See:Year of the four emperors" in the notes column when it's already at the top of the subsection? Why are various cells in the reign column split up into to to say "From ###"? That info belongs in other columns. Why are Common Name & Birthplace in the same column? I could go on. Alot of this you could chalk up to ignorance on my part, but anyone should be able to read this list and understand what's going on, not just someone already familiar with the topic. One suggestion I have is to add some prose explaining each era briefly, specifically how it applies to the emperors of the time. As it is it's just a list out of context. Drewcifer (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment The reign dates for the first table are properly sized for reading; the reign dates for the other tables are much too small to read. Hmains (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 03:29, 23 January 2008.

I would like to nominate this list for FL status because I feel it follows FL criteria. This is a list of 46 color woodblock prints by the Japanese artist Katsushika Hokusai (1760–1849). It would be great to have this article achieve FL status. Gruznov Mikhail (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The lead needs expand, and would it be possible to add the date (or year) that the print was created? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks great! I do have a few suggestions/questions though:
  • Does the number column relate to an actual numbering system given to the pieces, or are they just to aid the reader? Along the same lines, are these in any specific order? Chronological?
  • I agree with Scorpion above, some dates (even if approximate) would be very helpful. If this is possible, I would recommend putting it in it's own column between No. and Image.
  • It appears that the transcription column is merely romanji of the Japanese text, no? I don't know if this is worthy of it's own column. What I would recommend is putting it in parenthesis after the Kanji (ie: 凱風快晴 (Gaifu kaisei) )
  • Also per Scorpion, the lead should definitely be expanded.
  • I believe artwork titles are usually italicized.
  • I also think the heading of the third column should "Title" not "Name".
  • The lack of sources is also troubling. If a general source of information could be provided, that would be great. See any other FLs for examples of how to format something like that (Nine Inch Nails discography, for example).Drewcifer (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Namely due to the above, and an apparent lack of movement to take suggestions into account. Drewcifer (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The 'name' column needs some help: Capitalization is not always appropriate; 'the xxx province' usually should be just 'xxx province'. Hmains (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's nice to see a list where every row has an image, but no sign that the above concerns are being addressed has been given. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 05:06, 22 January 2008.

Support as nominator. I am resubmitting this for featured list status once again, as the issue from the previous FLC, length, has been rectified. The issue was length which has been 'fixed' by expanding the Live albums section. This article is now as long or longer than featured lists, Billie Piper discography, The Breeders discography, Dave Gahan discography, Neutral Milk Hotel discography and Uncle Tupelo discography and featured article Exploding whale when it passed. I would greatly appreciate all comments related to this list. Thankyou -- Hpfan9374 (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unlike the many other FL discographies, statistics like Chart Performance aren't necessary or possible, since Harry and the Potters are by and large an independent band that has never come close to any album/singles charts. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not going to lie, I'm really not a big fan of adding NN things like live recordings to pages just to pad it up so it can reach a certain status. An FL should be Wikipedia's best work, and I fail to see how such fluff can be considered that. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Scorpion: these do not seem notable enough for the amount of attention they're given. They may be worht mentioning, but certainly not in such an expansive table. Perhaps just a quick bullet pointed list would suffice. As it is, it really does come off as unnecessary padding. Drewcifer (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Scorpion, the section was taking up a large amount of space with repeated information with "Format: Digital download" and "Label: Internet Archive", and therefore I have altered a suggestion by Drewcifer, to put this in a bulleted list, I have however formatted it into a small table (to hold more information than the title), which takes up the same or slightly more space than the list. Lastly Scorpion what does the abbreviation or word NN mean?? Thank you for your comments. Hpfan9374 (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NN=Non-notable. Hhmmm, I guess I'm ok with what you did there. Though it is a little deceiving: now there's no mention that they're just downloads from Internet Archive. I would recommend adding a bit of introductory text to explain things. However, where are you getting the sales facts? I presume it's at the "Downloaded x times" part? Well first off, those aren't "Sales", they're downloads. Second, they're gonna be immediately out of date if you give an exact number. So say 4,000+ or something like that. Also, the citations should give Internet Archive as the publisher, not "Live Archive". Also, repeated cells in the location row should be merged, like the years column.Drewcifer (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Hpfan9374 (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. One last thing: Internet Archive should only be wikilinked the first time it's used in a citation. Drewcifer (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks again. Hpfan9374 (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Just like last time. Drewcifer (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you support and suggestions. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While I'm on the fence as far as the nomination is concerned, your comparison to the exploding whale article is... I can't think of a nicer term than "unnecessary", and that's being generous. You're comparing a list to an article that became featured almost 3 1/2 years ago... what bearing does that have on this nomination? How does that article relate to this list, and how do the "brilliant prose" criteria of years ago coincide with today's FL criteria? -- Mike (Kicking222) 16:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the article, Exploding whale, has not been expanded that much. And the point I am trying t prove (how it relates) is that featured articles must be of 'appropraite' length, while featured lists do not, and yet the list is quite near the length of an FA. Also, the article was went under featured article review just last year. Hpfan9374 (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The list does fit the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Now, does this list exemplify 'our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation'. While the topic is hardly of great importance, the band is notable enough to be on the cover of my local library's newsletter Summer 2007 'Check it Out'. The list is well constructed and referenced. So, yes, 'Harry and the Potters discography' does exemply the best in Wikipedia lists. By the way, I get the comparison to the Exploding Whale. On Wikipedia as in life, there is a tendency constantly to raise the bar so that what was acceptable last year, is considered dross this year. While reaching for the stars is admirable, such perfectionism can be destructive to a project like Wikipedia: exemplary is not a synonym for perfect. Exemplary means 'so good or admirable that others would do well to copy it'. That is true of this list. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. Hpfan9374 (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as before. Barely notable subject which has not had any critical review/press, hence the linked articles are all bare stub tracklistings. The addition of a list of "live albums", if you can call them that, doesn't help FL status because none of them have wikilinks (and please don't create stub articles for them). A features list should be interesting in and of itself, but also serve to navigate to at least some articles that are worth reading. I'm afraid that a music article with little more content than the back of a CD case doesn't hold my attention for long. I still think this doesn't "exemplifies our very best work", though I think you've done the best you can with the material. Colin°^Talk 19:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, as stated on the top of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates under Supporting and objecting, it states that if you object a nomination you must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. And if a specific rationale is not addressed then, the objection may be ignored. Therefore, I will be striking your vote out unless this specific rationale is provided in 48 hours, unless you wish to strikethough it yourself. Regards --Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it may be ignored, but that is up to the closing editor, who must weigh up consensus opinion and make a judgement as to whether my oppose is spurious. But that clause isn't a "get out of jail free card". Lack of third-party interest in a subject causes a lack of sources causes a lack of much to write. The fact that I'm not going "wow" when I read this isn't your fault, but we don't promote the mediocre just because its the best that you can do with the material. As for strike-through: don't ever touch another person's edits. Make your comment but leave my comments alone. Colin°^Talk 23:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to you comment specifically, the subject is notable. It has 23 references, so enough critical review/press. The articles may be stubs but this article is a featured list candidate, not a featured topic candidate. A list does not have to wikilink to various others articles, as sections in Nation of Ulysses discography (Vinyl_EPs) and Lightning Bolt discography (7-inch records. Why does "holding your attention dismiss it from achieving FL. I understand that I have done the best I can with the material, yet if so why doesn't it "exemplify our very best work". I will require a specific rationale and I will be most happy to edit accordingly to achieve your support. Thankyou. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, none of those are critical reviews. The closest you get are the two short popular news stories from MSN and Syracuse.com. There are no independent reviews of the albums or concerts, no serious interviews with the band, no coverage in the established music press. As for the other lists, I didn't support them either and WP:OTHERSTUFF is commonly cited when folk start saying "what about XYZ". Colin°^Talk 23:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I feel that the best way to put an end to this discussion, is if you could write a list of the specific rationale of what edits are required before the article can recieve your support. I will take any suggestions or comments related to editing the article. Ask yourself whats wrong with article and what can be done to rectify that problem. Thankyou. Hpfan9374 (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd made it fairly clear that I think you've done the best you could with the material. I don't subscribe to the view that all topics are featurable (mainly due to the restrictions that WP:V and WP:OR impose on creating something out of nothing.) Colin°^Talk 23:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to have to do this Colin, but as per Wikipedia:Featured list candidates > Supporting and objecting, I am striking through your "Oppose" as you have failed to provide a specific rationale. As you have stated, "I think you've done the best you could with the material", then nothing further can be done editing this article. If there is nothing to expand, reformat or fix then is it not the very best work? Hpfan9374 (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undone strikethrough) Hpfan9374, please don't strike through my comments, it is not the done thing on Wikipedia. Those comments are mine to do with what I like. Your opinion that my oppose is invalid has been noted and will be considered by the closing editor. I haven't changed my opinion. Colin°^Talk 07:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. However what could I do to receive your support? Hpfan9374 (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I believe I have addressed your concerns by using sixteen third-party sources in the list. If not, could you please provide me with a specific rationale of how I can recieve your "Support." Thankyou! Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Colin. This list (according to the Featured List critera) is not "a timeline of important events on a notable topic", nor does it "form a significant topic of study". My opposition is non-negotiable; please do not attempt to assuage the non-notability of this band. NSR77 ^T_C 00:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NSR77, I still require a specific rationale of how I can rectify the issue. Harry and the Potters are notable, the band have been on a tours in four countries, USA, Canada, UK and the Netherlands. There are no levels of notability, so therefore they are just as notable as other bands, for example, Lightning Bolt, so I ask you why is that "a timeline of important events on a notable topic" and a "form a significant topic of study" and this not? I am more than happy to edit this article to the fullest of my potential in order to recieve your support, yet I require a specific rationale from yourself. Thankyou. Hpfan9374 (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NSR77, I believe I have addressed your concerns by using sixteen third-party sources in the list. If not, could you please provide me with a specific rationale of how I can recieve your "Support." Thankyou! Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per 1a3 "contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study" and I'm not entirely convinced that an article about a few albums released by a little known band is a significant topic of study. I'm also not entirely sure why it couldn't be merged with the main Harry and the Potters article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be merged with the main article, as it is already reasonably length, merging the discography would not be suitable for a GA. Three users, have opposed this featured length status, however I ask these users, repeating myself, as per Wikipedia:Featured list candidates>Supporting and objecting, you must provide a specific rationale of how your "Oppose" can be changed to a "Support". I can understand why you are opposing the list for this reason, however how can I rectify this or any other issue with this problem - I require a means of knowing how to edit accordingly, a specific rationale. I ask, Scorpion0422, NSR77 and Colin, how can I achieve your support, it is a basic requirement when opposing a list to provide feedback regarding this. Thanks. Hpfan9374 (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That does not refer to criteria based opposition. It mainly refers to opposes with comments like "Oppose because it is about Harry Potter", but in this case all three oppose votes are based on the FL criteria. By the way, the WP:FLC page says "If you oppose a nomination, write "Oppose" followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to fix the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored." That just says that concerns should be addressable, you are misinterpreting it as saying that all oppose votes MUST be fixable, which is not true. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion, what evidence do you have to support your argument that is does not refer to criteria based opposition? I understand the "Opposes" are based on the FL criteria and yes you must provide a specific rationale, it states that in quote you found at WP:FLC: "If you oppose a nomination, write "Oppose" followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to fix the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored." Each wikipedian, that opposes the list, must provide a specific rationale, not as you say, "it should?" where did you find that out, do you have any evidence to support this? And also, where does it say "all oppose votes 'don't have to be' fixable", I am not misinterpreting it, you must provide specific rationale everytime you "Oppose" any FLC whether this be for reasons regarding to the featured list criteria or not. I await your evidence. Hpfan9374 (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your logic, if a list had no sources whatsoever and there were no sources available, then anyone who opposes the list based on that could be ignored because their comments wouldn't be fixable opposition. The supporting and objecting section is not criteria, it just gives you guidelines for how the process generally works. However, the FL criteria page is criteria and should never be ignored. The three oppose votes here are based on that, so they will not be ignored. Sorry, but that's just the way things work.

As well, you said that I "must provide specific rationale everytime you "Oppose" any FLC" And I am providing a specific rationale, I am opposing based on criteria 1a3. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for continuing to reply to me, however I require a rationale that can be addressed, not simply the reason for your objection. For example, if a list is does not warrant your "Support", then you should provide a specific rationale, such as:

• Reformat studio albums section, look at other discographies and follow their formatting.
• Reference single charts, from Billboard, UK Charts and Australian Charts websites.
• Use Template:Infobox Artist Discography.

Once these errors are rectified, I will support the list.

If you, NSR77 and Colin could please provide me with something like this, I would be very happy to edit the list accordingly. I would thank you all greatly for this. A specific rationale is a requirement. "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." - WP:FLC. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion0422, I believe I have addressed your concerns by using sixteen third-party sources in the list. If not, could you please provide me with a specific rationale of how I can recieve your "Support." Thankyou! Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Very few independent reliable sources. References to self-published sources, Myspace and unreliable sources are abound in this article. I conclude that, if there is a lack of third-party sources, it doesn't qualify as a "significant topic of study" (so I oppose per criteria 1a3 and 1c).
  The way to address this objection to either find or wait for third-party sources to become available; unfortunately, not every objection to a candidacy can be addressed within the timeframe given. CloudNine (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much CloudNine, you have provided me with a rationale as to how I can address your "Oppose" and how I can rectify the others problems also. I will research into their discography more, to find third-party sources and then implement them into this list, it will however 'due to time restrictions' probably have to be when it is nominated again. Thankyou very much. Hpfan9374 (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate any further comments or suggestions regarding to edit this article. Whether this be formatting, lead, references, etc. Thanks. Hpfan9374 (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now edited the references, with sixteen reliable sources. If there are any problems with a reference specifically or in general could you please reply. CloudNine, I believe I have adressed yours and everyone elses concerns, if not, could you please reply with a specific rationale. Thankyou! Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wizrockopedia.com, blogspot.com are both not reliable sources. CommonDreams.org is a press release. The Leaky Cauldron is a fansite. WizardRock.org is a blog. Also, a lot of the information isn't cited; for example, the date of Power of Love's release isn't cited in ref 9. CloudNine (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think I will have to do further research and wait until reliable sources become available. Thanks. Hpfan9374 (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 23:51, 21 January 2008.

Can I withdraw my nomination? It was a mistake. Thank you! doxTxob \ ^talk 20:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list of counties is the result of a merger of List of Tennessee county name etymologies and List of Tennessee county seats into the List of counties in Tennessee, done for the most part by User:Dan9186 with some polishing by other members of the WikiProject Tennessee.

The list is accompanied by a lead section delivering a definition of the topic and explaining the key terms used in the list to the casual reader. Consolidated City-County government is explained to the and important figures are mentioned. An image is present in the lead section to represent the topic very well. Etymology topics point to the appropriate article, if available. If the county was named after a person the date of birth and death are given, when this could be retrieved from an article in Wikipedia. The list is well referenced.

The list provides a comprehensive overview of Tennessee counties with well referenced information.

I hope that this featured list discussion can improve the list even further.

Thank you! doxTxob \ ^talk 03:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - After the nomination a concern was raised on the talk page of the list (Talk:List of counties in Tennessee) that the term Indian lands was used but was not explained. I have addressed that issue by adding a few sentences of definition to the lead section under its own header. As the topic of Indian lands is a complex one, I kept the definition rather general, which I find appropriate regarding the scope of the list. The detailed discussion of the process could be better addressed in the respective county articles. doxTxob \ ^talk 23:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with two comments: 1) Just to be sure, were there any defunct counties of Tennessee? and 2) It would be nice to have a clickable image map like on List of counties in Kentucky but I won't push that issue. --Golbez (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes there were two I could find on the List_of_former_United_States_counties#Tennessee, I have added that paragraph in the lead section with its own sub header. 2) The issue was discussed on Talk:List_of_counties_in_Tennessee#Clickable_Map. The main concern was the image size and the page layout at lower resolutions (a horizontal scroll is produced), partly due to the shape of the state. The question of usefulness was raised also, as every county already has a map showing its location in the state. The outcome of the discussion was rather opposition than support. doxTxob \ ^talk 22:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment 'Named for' column should not be sortable. No purpose. Hmains (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done You are right. doxTxob \ ^talk 00:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why is there width="100%" in the main table? What is the purpose? I am asking because it creates a horizontal scrollbar for me.--Crzycheetah 03:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for the hint. It added a non moving horizontal scrollbar on my screen, too. I have never noticed that. The bar is gone here at 99% instead of 100%. doxTxob \ ^talk 03:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The lead is pretty choppy - the sentences should be combined into relatively cohesive paragraphs. Geraldk (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, something's not quite right. Could you specify what bothers you most when reading the lead section? For me it is the demographics, especially the numbers, in paragraph 2 that disrupt my reading most. Do you have a suggestion how to improve the lead section? doxTxob \ ^talk 03:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, my thoughts: The third paragraph is only one sentence, and should be folded into the rest of the lead, probably into the previous paragraph. The FIPS section could be folded into the lead as well - I don't think there's any reason for it to be a separate section in the body of the article. And also, I think the discussion of the center of population and geographic center of the state is misplaced, and would better belong in an article on the geography of Tennessee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldk (talk • contribs) 15:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 21:44, 20 January 2008.

This is a very broad list, covering almost every ism under the sun. Very well laid out and informative. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.}☆ 20:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments First of all: amazing list! This is going to be a wonderful resource to any philosophy student. However, I do have one complaint: it's just too big! I think the article would benefit greatly from being split up. Take for example, the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people series, which is split up into a main article and a number of alphabetical sub-articles. That would help things alot. Also, shouldn't isms be in quotations? Since it's kind of a colloquialism to say "ism". Drewcifer (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Due to my comments (above), as well as those made by other reviewers (below). I hope to see this article back here soon, in whatever incarnation results, as I think it is an excellent idea with tons of encyclopedic potential. Drewcifer (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As a major contributor to the list, I would like to comment that I personally do not believe that this article is ready yet for FL status. Definitions could be expanded, literally dozens more philosophies could be added, and while I consider it to be a good list now, I do not believe it is ready for FL status and should be worked on for a bit longer. Why? Because while it is good now, it has the potential to be so much more. All it needs is a little bit more love. --Sharkface217 04:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - it doesn't appear that the featured list criteria were consulted before the list was nominated. The glossary fails to meet the criteria because it is incomplete, and because it lacks citations. The Transhumanist 09:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The lead is way too short. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• A lot of the definitions are imprecise or go into needless detail. There are no good criteria for a meaningful split. –Pomte 11:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I see what you all mean. Should I withdraw now to save it being opposed? _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 18:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically speaking, there's no difference between withdrawing and being failed as much as I know.--Crzycheetah 21:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you still want to withdraw it? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 21:44, 20 January 2008.

This discography was previously unsuccessfully nominated; the discussion eventually reached stalemate mostly due to the use of non-free images. For the record, the article looked something like this when it was last here. Since then it was moved to KLF Communications. I've now refactored the list in line with current Featured Lists such as 50 Cent discography and Nine Inch Nails discography and restored it to The KLF discography. (I have to be honest here and say I preferred it before :), but I accept that for now the community doesn't want discographies to be illustrated).

The objections last time were:

• That it used non-free images. These have all been removed.
• That it looked bad without images (this revision shows some of how it looked, albums are missing because I deleted the template). I've refactored and reformatted in line with current best practice (I hope).
• Formatting of references. I'm now using the standard {{cite ...}} templates.
• Too much peripheral info. The KLF Communications section has been moved into The KLF for now, and Additional communicators has been split out to List of The KLF's creative associates. All that remains is a discography.

In short, I believe the article now meets the criteria and would welcome your feedback.

A couple more notes: 1) the talk page is very quiet; a few issues and questions I posted there remain unanswered; if you see something questionable it may already be covered there. 2) The KLF have 2 BPI silver awards for sales of singles and 1 platinum album. They also have 1 gold single and 1 gold album from the RIAA. I haven't slotted this info into the article at all yet because of formatting concerns - see Talk:The_KLF_discography#Certifications. Advice welcome. --kingboyk (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This looks like it was alot of work to whip into shape, so kudos there. I do have a few questions or comments on the list though. My main concern is with the formatting of the tables. Most of the tables are so full of information (which is a good thing) that the tables themselves are really big and unwieldy (which is a bad thing). For people like myself with a relatively small monitor, it's a mess, to be honest. Basically there are too many columns, and some of them get squished into being really narrow and tall. Also, partly because of the circumstances of the discography (such as the same band having multiple names), alot of the formatting stuff contradicts some formats in most other discographies. So, my point is, I think a couple of format changes would fix both problems, while still keeping all that information where it should be. So, here's my suggestions as far as that goes:

• I think in all of the discogs that give catalog nmbers, they're just been put in parenthesis after the label name instead of given their own line (as in the albums table) or column (as in the singles table).
• The Artist columns are a bit of a mess too. Putting this information into its own column seems unneccessary, since its all the same people (except Disco 2000), and most of links provided are redirects anyways. I would recommend putting that into the same column as the album information, perhaps as "by Disco 2000" or something like that.

So, with those two combined, the the album information cells would like something like:

The "What Time Is Love?" Story

by The KLF/Various Artists

• Released: 25 September 1989
• Label: KLF Communications (JAMS LP 4)

And something like:

"All You Need Is Love"

by The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu

• Released: 9 March 1987
• Label: KLF Communications ([The Sound Of Mu(sic)] JAMS 23)

Anyways, I do have more comments, but I'll save those until this stuff gets sorted out/discused. Drewcifer (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decent ideas. Not entirely sure about the artist column being removed, but it looks ok in your example.

I suppose another possibility is putting the chart data into seperate tables.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this? And what were the other issues you have please? Thanks. --kingboyk (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep in mind that my above suggestions (as well as a few to come) are aimed at making the tables less wide, since they display really poorly on smaller monitors. For instance, in the singles table, the album column is only wide enough for one word per line. But I don't think that taking the chart info out is a good idea either. That would be a last resort, since there's plenty of things you can do to just streamline things a bit. One thing I noticed is that the chart columns could be cleaned up considerably. First, it appears like the column widths are bigger than they need to be (all of them have a width factor of 40). If you took out that code for each column it would help a little bit. Also, the text within the top of the columns with the country abbreviations could be formatted better if the accompanying reference were on a separate line (ie with a <br /> in between). Also, alot of the abbreviations should be changed to be consistent with other discographies, as well as to be less text. For example CH has always been abbreviated as SW, and "U.S. Dance Club Play" (which looks really bad on my monitor) should be "US D/CP". Take a look at other FL discogs for more examples of ways to format and abbreviate. Also, "Chart positions" should be changed to "Chart peak positions" to be more precise and consistent with other FL discogs. Also, the dashes used for something that didn't chart should be the em-dash (–), not the long dash (—). Drewcifer (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

All of the formatting was copied (literally) from existing Featured Lists, including the width; I'm not sure why the dash is incorrect then, but that can be fixed as can and will removing the fixed width.

"Chart positions" is the term used in the FL 50 Cent discography. Remember, I don't even like this layout so it's based entirely on the existing Featured Lists! I can change that though. Is "Chart peak positions" right or should it actually be "Peak chart positions"?

The country codes were taken verbatim from the source, but I don't mind changing Switzerland, and thanks for the advice re the US Dance chart. --kingboyk (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the dashes look the same to me in 50 Cent and NIN as KLF; and it seems to me a stylistic choice. I'll change this if there's a MOS guideline about it somewhere, but otherwise not. I'm not jumping through hoops for the sake of it.

According to "Switzerland", CH is the country's ISO code. It's also it's internet domain name. On what basis are you saying it should be SW? --kingboyk (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed cell widths removed. --kingboyk (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake on the dashes thing. I could've sworn they were all em-dashes, but it appears I was mistaken. Forget I ever mentioned it. As for the country abbreviations, there's three reasons I suggest changing it to SW: first, for consistency sake (can you tell I'm a sucker for consistency? =) ), two, even though Switzerland's country code is CH, and Spain's is ES, etc, those are abbreviations are based on languages other than english (Confoederatio Helvetica and España respectively). Since this is an english encyclopedia, we should stick to one language. And three, even though most European people might recognize CH as representing Switzerland just out of general knowledge and cultural proximity, most non-Europeans would not, so we should try and abbreviate logically. However, I did make another mistake: discographies have tended to abbreviate Switzerland as SWI. Three letter abbreviations have mostly been used in the past, to be even more clear, with a few obvious exceptions like New Zealand (NZ), US, and UK. The best examples to look at would be Nine Inch Nails discography and Nirvana discography. As for the charts thing, saying "peak" is just more exact. Saying "chart positions" would imply your going to discuss all of its positions, or that the ones presented aren't neccessarily as high as the release got. However you want to word it is fine, but going by NIN it should be Chart peak positions. And yea, 50 Cent and Nirvana and probably a bunch more just say Chart positions, but I think I'll go around and change that myself right now. But really, all of this is pretty minor stuff: my main problem with the article so far is still with the artists column and catalog numbers, for all the reasons mentioned above. Drewcifer (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, reluctantly. Due to the above-mentioned issues and the lack of movement/edits concerning them within 10 days, as well as a bunch of other suggestions/criticisms I never even got to. Honestly, the article's organization is kind of a mess, and although that's not really the article's/nominator's fault (it seems the KLF did so much random stuff that making an ordered list of it all is a sizable task), I believe alot could be done to make it more comprehensible. Drewcifer (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments This is well-cited and comprehensive. At the very least, it needs two WP:MUSTARD fixes:
  • The number "1" chart position should be unbolded because it goes against WP:NPOV.
  • Remove the piped links to music years. For example, it should be "1987" and not "[[1987 in music|1987]]".
  • And this is a non-WP:MUSTARD issue, but I think the fixed width in the singles should be reinserted. It doesn't change the overall width of the table. Maybe it's just my personal aesthetics and I don't want to be an instruction creep, but I find it looks terribly inconsistent to have varying widths. It's probably not worth opposing because of that though.

Spellcast (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was not promoted 17:54, 16 January 2008.

previous FLC (00:57, 28 December 2007) This was failed by a bot because of one oppose which I'm trying resolve. Buc (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment First off, it wasnt failed by a bot [1]. Secondly, I added two of the three photos in question and will concede the linking (although I still think the page is way over-linked). If this compromise is ok, I will feel secure in supporting. Also, for future reference, don't renominate one day after a list failed after having made no changes to the list.
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Well regardless one O is not enough to deserve a fail. Buc (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Normally I wouldn't. Buc (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse I'll let others figure this one out. (Bole2, Please do not break my comments by adding comments in between my sentences, its annoying)
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't think n-c-systems is a reliable source. It seems like it is run by a guy who researches and provides all the info in his site. I mean he basically does the same thing that we do, but without providing references. I realize that many FLs already use that website as a reference, but there are so many nominations pop up that it's difficult to check the verifiability of the references in such short time. Unless that person is an expert in NFL whose opinion is valuable by NFL analysts, we should not trust him and his website. I believe this website is good to use as a guide, but not as a reference. If/When you remove these citations, your transactions are going to be left uncited; therefore, I oppose featuring this list.
  On top of this, most of your transaction notes don't even have a citation now.--Crzycheetah 07:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't find anouther sourse for the transactions. Should I just remove these transaction notes. Buc (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • By removing transaction notes, this list will no longer be comprehensive.--Crzycheetah 20:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I can't find another ref for them. So if I'm going to keep them in that the ref there going to have to have. Buc (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't understand what you were trying to say. I'll just mention that lack of refs should not be a reason to overlook unsourced info.--Crzycheetah 00:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not being overlooked, I looked everywhere for another sourse to use and I couldn't find anything. So I'm to have to sick with what I've got. Buc (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My oppose can be addressed by researching the archives of well known sports newspapers and agencies. Please take a look at 2001 NFL Draft and 2007 NFL Draft and you could see how each transaction is sourced.--Crzycheetah 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes as I said before I've looked. There is nothing on the Saints offical site about this. There are a few news reports on drafts going back to 2000 ([2]) but nothing eles. The best I can do is this which just says who the pick was aquired from. Buc (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of your notes already do that anyway and still left unsourced; for example, notes ##2,3,5 and so on. On the side note, I would also like to know how the Saints got #26 pick. Since they traded away their 1st round pick and not getting another one in return, how did it happen? --Crzycheetah 07:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will work on incorporating the above links into the text. But that's all I can do. The only other thing I can think is re-pharing the notes to say something like "aquired from x details unknown" Buc (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First thing that has to be done is to format the references for the footnotes, preferably using {{cite web}}. I still notice you have that n-c as a reference, which needs to be replaced.--Crzycheetah 21:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but you're ok with my seggestion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bole2 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the "aquired from x" part is sourced, yes I'm fine with that.--Crzycheetah 22:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

• Support Not as good as I would have liked, but it's a lot better than it was first nominated.--Crzycheetah 22:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would you have liked? I'm always looking to improve thing if I can. Buc (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't like the "It is unknown how this pick was acquired" sentence, I just don't like the fact that the info is not complete. Also, the transaction notes should have been more professionally stated, something like "Saints traded this pick to the Team X for that pick/player on Date", as I have done in the 2003 NBA Draft. I realize that due to insufficient sources, it is very hard to provide complete information about the subject without violating WP:OR. --Crzycheetah 07:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll keep that in mind for future nominations. Buc (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close - nom claims it failed because of one oppose, when in reality it had one oppose, one neutral, and nom's support - not exactly a landslide. This was done one day after what he terms a "bot closing" when in reality, 2 weeks without any supports is a strong indicator that it's not quite featured material yet. My personal vote, by the way, is oppose, but it shouldn't matter, as this should be closed entirely on procedural grounds. If you're "trying to resolve" the oppose, Buc, then actually WAIT until you've resolved it before renominating. --Golbez (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already resolved. Buc (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What was resolved? Treat your voters with more respect. --Golbez (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Not sure what you mean but yes it was. Buc (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • When he says "resolved," he means that the editor in question (me) has recused himself from voting because of a failure of the nom to try and come to a middle ground. Just needed to clarify that.
      Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Well Referenced, concise, informative introduction.

• the only thing I would change, but don't know how, is to have the reggie bush image in the top-center of the big white space instead of toward the right side.

Good work. Jwalte04 (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment about canvassing Not to discredit any past voter or future voter, but there has been canvassing, here, here, and here. Buc please just let the nomination go its route, try to make the list better based on the suggestions, and everything will be fine. And in the future do not canvass individual people. A friendly note on a WikiProject talk page or something like that is ok, but we want objective suggestions to improve each article.
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These nothing stopping poeple also giving feedback when they show support. Even if this paases I will still be looking to impove it. Buc (talk) 07:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You said "You appear to be an active member of the NFL WikiProject. So I'm just letting you know that List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks is currently a FLC that still needs support votes in order to pass. If you feel it is a FL could you please show support. Thanks for any help in advance." In which you clearly stated that it still needed support and you clearly asked the person to support the list. Even if that was not your intention, you phrased in a way that isn't appropriate. Asking for people to review a list is okay, but you clearly were asking for support. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only if they felt it deserved it. Most people have enough sence not to support something just because they're asked to. Buc (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment *sigh* another FLC tainted by canvassing. Buc, you would do well to learn not to argue with everyone who posts a negative comment, and to listen and learn from what people are saying. What if we turned your request upside down: "You appear to be an active member of the anti-NFL WikiProject. So I'm just letting you know that List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks is currently a FLC that still needs oppose votes in order to fail. If you feel it is not an FL could you please show your opposition. Thanks for any help in advance." Does it still sound neutral, or do you think I'm canvassing for some opposition? This is not a vote. You don't seem to understand how FLC works when you don't understand why it failed last time, or why it shouldn't have been immediately re-nominated. You can't keep nominating till you get lucky. The "nc-systems" reference must go and I think sportsecyclopedia.com looks like a one-man-and-his-dog outfit too. "nflhistory.net" doesn't seem to work. If you relied on those refs for anything, it must go too (you can't just claim that the source is the best you can find, WP:V is policy). Colin°^Talk 20:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why on earth would I can't people to oppose my nomination? Buc (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing statement

To avoid confusion, I will add a closing statement. The article has received two supports amongst over 7 commentators, over 18 days. As such, given the concerns over the references, and the lack of support, I am closing this as no consensus. Woody (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 21:09, 14 January 2008.

It is an almost complete list of all nuclear power stations in the world.Mario1987 (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose:
  • No references.
  • One-sentence lead.
  • Surely the table could be formatted/organized better. Maybe different tables/section for each country/region?
  • How is this an "almost complete list". Shouldn't it be completed? Drewcifer (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose per above, an incomplete list with no sources is not FL material. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close, fails virtually every FL criteria. Sorry, Mario, but please read WP:WIAFL before renominating. --Golbez (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 05:32, 13 January 2008.

I would like to nominate this list for FL status because I feel it follows FL criteria and every detail is sourced with reliable sources. This list is a list of superstars, or wrestlers, drafted by the WWE's three brands {as stated in the article}, and I feel the list follows the style of the FL status 2007 NFL Draft article. It would be great to have this article achieve FL status and add an FL list to the WP:PW.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 03:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have concerns over the notability of this subject. The WWE Draft was just one show and I'm not entirely sure why it's notable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well like the NFL Draft, the WWE Draft has been an annual event for WWE since 2002 and like the yearly NFL Drafts, I, along with other WP:PW members, will work on making article for the other years. This is also notable as it changes the production of each of the promotion's show, example. New matches, new storylines, and the way WWE responds to each yearly draft.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 03:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't even begin to compare the NFL and WWE drafts. The NHL draft receives tonnes of mainstream news coverage, there is a lot of scouting done for it and it potentially affects hundreds of players and all 32 teams. The WWE draft, in comparison, is covered by small wrestling websites and it is just a one episode event on a television show. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but List of WWE Champions isnt as notable as the List of Super Bowl champions. But it still reached FL status. So basically the WWE draft is important to WWE, and Professional Wrestling never recieves high media attention like the NFL and NHL. So how can this be an issue if professional wrestling isnt as notable as the NFl or NHL?TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 03:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the WWE Championship has been around for 40 years and is one of the most notable wrestling championships. This page is a list about a one night thing and could easily be merged into WWE Draft. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok just like the List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE), List of WWE United States Champions, List of WWE Tag Team Champions is notable as the SuperBowl championship. But if you strongly disagreed with this article you should have said so in the WT:PW when I posted a notice about creating this page.TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 04:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, all of those titles have existed for years and have been held by multiple notable wrestlers and have been defended many times. This is a one night event event that also included an online version. It is basically cruft. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 08:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so against it being an FL, no actually a DAMN article, then put under here oppose and get on with it.TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 14:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I support it, cause wrestling is a sport and like any other sports there is, there's always Draft lottery's and history is made. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • The above support should be disregarded on two counts. (1) The reviewer makes no reference to the criteria, simply expresses his opinion on notability. (2) The reviewer was clearly invited "because we need a certain number of people to support it to become a FL list". Colin°^Talk 00:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe that this list is notable. Adding it to the WWE Draft Lottery page would make the other article too long, especially with all of the complexities of this specific draft. My only concern at this point is that I don't understand the note about Hardcore Holly. If someone could rephrase it (or give me a condensed version of what they mean so that I can rephrase it), I would be happy to support this nomination. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Is that better??TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 22:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is. I Support the nomination. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well done list. I don't think the draft should be compared to the NFL draft (although I don't get scorpiopn comments about the NHL draft getting tons of coverage since the only two drafts I see getting any kind of coverage are the NFL and NBA drafts. Maybe the NHL one gets coverage in Canada though). TJ Spyke 00:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there a WP:PW consensus a while back to merge all of the WWE Draft pages? FLCs should follow the notability guidelines, and this is a one-night thing that received no coverage from mainstream news sources and is more or less cruft. If a page like this can make FL, then what's to stop a "List of the times Barney Gumble has belched in The Simpsons" from becoming one too? And now it looks like it is only going to pass thanks to WikiProject support. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose due to use of unreliable sources. Please remove the sources that are personal homepages (e.g., angelfire.com and 100megsfree4.com). If any text relies on those sources, then that text must also be removed unless an alternative reliable source can be found. Once this is done, I will strike my oppose. Other comment: In the lead, final paragraph, why are four citations required? A tad excessive? Colin°^Talk 00:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Concerns have been expressed that some of the opinions here have been canvassed, specifically votestacking. Certainly three supports were in response to a personal request to "join this discussion" to editors likely to be generally supportive. One must be very careful about asking for opinions of those you may believe are likely to support. As noted above, I feel one crossed the line in specifically stating that they should join "because we need a certain number of people to support it to become a FL list". One other support resulted in a thank-you note, asking "how many supports do we need" as though it was a vote. Both consensus and a minimum of four votes are required (including the nominator). IMO one support should be disregarded and the other two held as of lesser value. In other words, I'd like to see disinterested FL reviewers support before this list is featured. Colin°^Talk 00:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know and I agree with you on opposing this FL. I made a mistake asking project members to join the discussion, (this is my first time I nominated an FL). When I asked TJ Spyke whether how many supports we need, I was asking him whether he knew how long we would have to wait for this article (if it can) to achive FL status, in this case I was unaware of this whole process and was asking a general question.

Ok now for your other comment, we at the WP:PW, find 100megsfree4 a reliable site as it is one of the only sites out there that is not what we call "dirtsheet" site, which is a site that has rumors and speculation. 100megsfree4 is really called "Wrestling Information Archive", the URL however is different. The Angel Fire reference has been removed but it is really a redirect from this site [3] which is one of the few site WP:PW finds reliable. This is what we follow as to reliable sites. TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 01:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Wrestling Information Archive" explicitly states that it is a "hobby site" and one so lacking in traffic that its owner can't even afford to buy a domain and some paid-for web space. The "History of WWE" site is also a hobby page. Although the guy, Graham Cawthon, has bought a domain, he hasn't bought any web space, which is all on Angel Fire. His MySpace page boasts that he's getting so many refs on Wikipedia that he'll soon have his own page here! Dream on. Wikipedia's Verifiability policy is quite clear about self-published sources: don't use them. You need sources that are the product of someone's day-job; writers and editors whose career depends on their reputation for facts. Your Project guidelines are a good idea but you can't override policy. You might agree that Mr Cawthon is generally reliable but in WP's view, he is no more reliable than any Wikipedian (and indeed could be one). I'm sorry, but those sources have to go, and I suggest you update your project guildlines in keeping with policy. Colin°^Talk 15:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well I will suggest that, and I removed the "Wrestling Information Archive" source. Now it only has 19 references, does it make sense to still nominate it for FL status?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 16:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed my oppose. I'll trust you that the remaining text was supported by the remaining sources; I've spent enough time on wrestling web sites today! Your nomination is still valid, but IMO you'll have to wait to see if some more folk support. Plenty time. Colin°^Talk 16:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for all your help.TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 22:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The list does not explain where the "draft pool" came from. NFL Draft lists link to the NFL Draft article, which explains that the pool consists of players who have completed college eligibility or declared for the draft after 3 years in college. There is no such explanation in 2007 WWE Draft. This list also mixes fact and fiction, and it is difficult to determine what is real and what is kayfabe. It could get the in-universe template. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I dont understand your comment? You want to know how the wrestlers became elligibe for the draft? Also, what do you see that is mixed with fact and fiction?TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 00:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, where did the pool of potential draftees come from? Were all WWE wrestlers eligible for selection? Or were these wrestler-actors new to WWE? Regarding the mix of fact and fiction, the article is written in an "in-universe style," as if WWE was "real." For example, it says that the second-day picks were chosen "randomly." Were they really chosen at random by a computer, or were they actually chosen by WWE management, with the "random" selection as part of the storyline? I can't imagine the WWE would actually assign wrestlers to its various promotions at random. For an example of how a pro-wrestling article should be written, see Montreal Screwjob. That featured article clearly explains what was real and what was part of the storyline. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was one of my struggles when writing the article. So I could say "A computer (kayfabe) randomly selected wrestlers to be drafted" Would that be enough or would I need to state that the wrestlers were really chosen by WWE management?TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 01:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it was easier for the Montreal Screwjob article because there are plenty of sources about the real-life machinations behind that. You might want to use phrases like, "The WWE claimed that the second-day picks were chosen at random," or "According to the storyline, the second-day picks were chosen at random." But I'm afraid that to really make this featured content, you'll have to do research and find sources on the real-life aspect of the "draft." Perhaps there are trade or financial publications that would discuss why WWE would want to assign certain wrestlers to certain promotions. WWE is, after all, a $400 million publicly traded company. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there is an article exposing that the draft is a storyline but I will attempt to do so. And saying who was eligible to be drafted is  Done.TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 02:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I found one site that exposes it as a "storyline" but it is not reliable it is Lords of Pain, heres the articleTrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 23:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Would you mind changing the sentence fragments in the "notes" sections of the tables to complete sentences. I think that will make it read and look better. Also, I believe that some of the columns would benefit by being resized. For instance, the first couple of columns could be smaller to reduce white space, and the "notes" column could be made bigger so it looks less cramped in the cells with a lot of writing. What do you think? Nikki311 23:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done>>> I resized the columns for less white space. I also fixed the fragments in the notes section in the supp. draft. I also reworded some of the sentences in the TV draft.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 01:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks much better. Another thing that would really help the article is a pic in the lead. I think maybe one of the pics from The Great Khali's article, with a caption like "The Great Khali was the first pick of the 2007 televised WWE Draft", or something like that, might be good. Nikki311 20:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done-I added an image of The Great Khali to the article, is that a good image?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 21:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose There is absolutely nothing telling me in the article (nor in this discussion above) if any part of this was actually real, or if it was all kayfabe. Truco, I know you state above that you can't find sources discussing the storyline, but I fear that if you can't, then this can never be featured. There have to be tons of behind-the-scenes machinations about "Would this wrestler be a better heel if he was fighting this set of opponents?" or "Is he more likely to draw a large viewer audience if he was a part of this brand?", and I see nothing of the sort in this article. Also, the best wrestling articles- even those that just deal with a single PPV- have an "aftermath" or "impact" section about how the events changed storylines (and if there was any real-world impact), but I see none of that here. Yes, I know this is a featured list candidate and not a featured article candidate, but I would still like to see far more exposition before supporting this. That's not to say I don't think it's an excellent list; I simply think it's not of featured quality. -- Mike (Kicking222) 20:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, I really dont feel it's a FL either, someone suggested to me that it would be a good idea. But after all this discussion here, I kinda oppose it to now. Thanks for your opinion, plus that there is no article exposing it as a storyline. The only one's that do are "dirt sheet/spoiler" sites, which are highly unreliable. So no point of this conversation going on.TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 21:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I found one site that exposes why WWE uses the draft and they refer to it as "concept", is this reliable enough to put in the article? [4]--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 15:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Looks reliable to me. D.M.N. (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. Can we close this discussion now? A majority of opposition..--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 20:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was not promoted 22:23, 9 January 2008.

Support as nominator, I feel this list meets all the criteria necessary to be a featured list NapHit (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, the article only has a single source which appears to be an external link over an actual source. If its supposed to be a general source, please format as such using the cite web template. The intro is completely unsourced and needs a little more context. Where is the lowest score information coming from? There seems to be some possible original research here, due to lack of more specific sourcing of items. Collectonian (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no idea about the qualifications here so I won't vote, but I presume the information was taken from the main article for The Open Championship (one of the four golf majors, often known as the British Open). Records of this event are kept far and wide. The external link is to the event's home page which has rather detailed history sections, but the same information could be found in numerous places (such as here, for example). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: First, there's only one source. If, as stated by Carl above, the information can be found in numerous places, then source it on the list before bringing it here. Second, the third column - a bunch of years - doesn't seem useful to me. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For basically the same reasons as expressed above. Only one source, and I think the data could be organized much more effectively, perhaps chronologically (fixing the awful list of years), and making that table sortable (preserving basically the same functionality of organizing by venue rather than date). Drewcifer (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 04:20, 5 January 2008.

Support as nominator, I feel after some really hard work, this meets all the criteria necessary to be a featured list. NapHit (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Doesn't seem to be following the list format, as required by Featured List criterion 1(a). It would perhaps be better if each of the club records sections had a summary paragraph or two, as well as a bulleted, numbered or tabulated list, but at the minute, it doesn't even satisfy the very first FL criterion. – PeeJay 19:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - you shud change da pic of carragher with da one in his article. ets better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.3.15 (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The table in the "squad numbers" section should be broken down into two parts. It's too wide and widens the page.--Crzycheetah 20:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 04:20, 5 January 2008.

This list follows other FL Lists dealing with NFL first-round draft picks and I believe can be promoted to FL status. Bombig (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could you remove the Table of Contents, it really doesn't do much here. Also the last sentence in the intro should be rewritten to read more like "No Hall of Famers have ever been selected by the Falcons in the first-round of the draft." This points out that as the list changes, so could this statement (If a HoF'er ever does come out of Atlanta). The original sort of speculates that the Atlanta Falcons most recent picks aren't going to go to the HoF, which we don't know. Also there are two instances (1977 and 1986) where the Falcons had two picks in the first-round, yet there isn't any note explaining how the Falcons received these extra picks. There probably should be a note of a trade that involved those picks. Fix those and I would be glad to support.
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Bombig (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I fixed two typos in the table that created an extra column but other than that it looks great! Good work.
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could you add the eras to the table, like it was done in List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks?--Crzycheetah 03:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Bombig (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but isn't there a better free use image? Vick is facing away from the camara for goodness sake. Buc (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked every page of the first-rounders and Vick's was the only one I found here. Since I'm not going to go out and look for one (as I don't know the free usage rules too well), Vick's is the best I've got. At least it has the Falcons decal on it. Heh. Bombig (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't think n-c-systems is a reliable source. It seems like it is run by a guy who researches and provides all the info in his site. I mean he basically does the same thing that we do, but without providing references. I realize that many FLs already use that website as a reference, but there are so many nominations pop up that it's difficult to check the verifiability of the references in such short time. Unless that person is an expert in NFL whose opinion is valuable by NFL analysts, we should not trust him and his website. I believe this website is good to use as a guide, but not as a reference. If/When you remove these citations, your transactions are going to be left uncited; therefore, I oppose featuring this list. --Crzycheetah 23:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 04:20, 5 January 2008.

I feel the article has enough material required. It not only has all the dates, but also has the important events which took place. I hope you too feel that the article meets the criteria. Thank You. Indianescence (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Honestly, I see alot of problems with the list, but I'll only mention a few to avoid piling it on:

Updated rationale behind my oppose: the subject does not seem to warrant a list, and the shape/content of the article verifies that, I think. I recommend renominating at FAC. Drewcifer (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead is way too short.

•  Done

• The "Stefani's Setlist" is formatted badly all over the place ("setlist" shouldn't be capitalized, two songs have the double asteriks for some reason, things like "(album version/reggae remix)" and "accoustic" aren't backed up by the source, the source should be in the references section, not in this section, the note should be footnoted somehow, etc.)

•  Done

Looking better, though the in-line citations in the section headers isn't good. You can put that source directly under the references section in a "General" subsection. Just use the {{cite web}} template but not the <ref></ref> tags. For an example, see Nine Inch Nails discography. You should also make a note in the reference somewhere that it is the source of the set list/tour dates information.

• Will this do for you? Indianescence (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good.

• The "Special notes" section is odd. I'm not sure what makes these notes so special. Also the writing in it generally poor (why are quotations preceded with a "-"?) Also citations should come directly after punctuation, without a space. This.^[1] Not this. ^[2]

• Partially done. I have been observing the websites for quite some time to see what all things were the highlights of the show and i shortlisted on these events i have mentioned. People might not find these special, but the sources do. I have removed the hyphens.Indianescence (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The gallery comes out of nowhere. Is this one of those tours where she changes outfits after every song? Were the costumes consistent between tour dates? Do these pictures serve any purpose here other than to look pretty? A bit of text would be helpful.

• Will this do for you? Indianescence (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Tour dates" section table is poorly formatted as well. The North America heading is a different color than the others. Consecutive cells with the same info can be merged. (ie. |rowspan="3"|United States for the first of 3 instances of United States.) the notes should be footnoted as well.

• I am not sure of this. Merging all the "United States" etc. would look very odd. Rules are rules, but we should change them according to what suits the best. Indianescence (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule that says like cells should be merged, this is just a stylistic suggestion, based on what most tables look like, and based on common sense (it's redundant to keep saying the same thing over and over again).

Looking much better! Along the same lines, you may want to do the same with repeated city names (Irvine, Santa Barbara, etc), but I could go either way on that.

• The citations are poorly formatted. the URLs shouldn't be visible. I would highly recommend using WP:citation templates, since that does alot of the work for you.

•  Done

• A few more external links would be nice. Any reviews?

• Added many reviews. Will this do for you?Indianescence (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I also have some broader, content-wise issues, but I'll leave those be for the moment. Drewcifer (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking much better! I also made a few edits myself, since they're just easier to do then explain. Feel free to revert it, but I think it's an improvement. As for a few other concerns I have:

• As I said above, it might be a good idea to merge similar City/Venue cells in the Tour dates section. For instance two consecutive Irvine concerts, and two consecutive concerts at Wembley Arena.

•  Done

• I added a ^{[citation needed]} tag in the Stefani's set list section.

thanks for the note on my talk page. Never mind on this one: it seems like a very broad fact that would probably be impossible/difficult to source properly.

• I don't know if I mentioned this above, but I would highly recommend using WP:Citation templates, since the in-line citations are generally a little bit inconsistent stylistically.

• I don't feel that the current style is bad. I mean, many other Featured article use this method of citation. There seems to be no problem with this method. The references state all the important elements (i.e. site name, retrieving date, site title etc.). If all that is there, i don't feel it should be a problem. Indianescence (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant to say wasn't that the style is bad: you are correct, that format of author, link, title, etc is typical in most FAs, but most FAs do so via citation templates. My recommendation was to put the same exact information into a citation template rather than writing it out yourself, namely because it formats things exactly the same each time, as opposed to doing it by hand (which you've done so far), which makes the style a little inconsistent between the citations. That said, the template was purely a suggestion, and are obviously not a barrier to FL.

• The three canceled shows in the Tour dates section should be footnoted (in the same fashion as the footnote I redid in the set list section) and/or color the cell differently and add a foot note about it at the end of the section. I think either or both would be a good solution to having "Note: Concert Cancelled." Also, along the same lines, the later two canceled shows should be given a source, like the first one.

•  Done

The last two cancellations still need to be sourced.

• Also, like I mentioned above, things like "(album version/reggae remix)" and "accoustic" aren't backed up by the source given.

•  Done, Now that you got it is a special case as the song in reality exists as a hybrid of album version and reggae remix. In short, you can say its a part of the song's name. It does not need sourcing. You can check the song's article for it.

what I mean to say is where in the source does it mention which version of the songs were played? I couldn't find anything, so going by the source you've given, for all I know it could be the album version. This might be fairly easy to rectify with another source, however, one that explicitly says which version, or at least that it wasn't the album version, or maybe even a few adjectives describing the song as "accoustic" or "reggae".

The source for "The Real Thing" clearly mentions,"an a capella version of “The Real Thing”, in which she..." As far as "Now That You Got It" is concerned, i have mentioned about it above. All the other songs were album versions, as you said. Indianescence (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still not sure about the image gallery. Not that it shouldn't be there, but there is no justification for it. Or, more specifically, the text should justify the use of a gallery/images in someway. As it is, it seems tacked on for no reason. For instance the section mentions the Kuala Lumpur concert, are there any images from that?

• No, there are currently no free images for the kuala lumpur show.

I found two photos from the show: [5] and [6]. Not so hard. They're not the best photos, but one of them would be nice. They're CC-liscensed though, so if you need some help with that let me know.

• Lastly, and I know this seems like a large thing to ask, but it would be great to have some reviews to go along with the Tour dates table. For instance, if there's a review of the June 18 show in Sacramento (which it appeaers there is from a souce you used), it would be great to have that review linked to in an additional column. Obviously not every show has a review to go along with it, but I bet a high-profile act like Stefani would have tons of reviews floating around. Drewcifer (talk) 07:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would not like that. There are many reviews but the number of shows are much more than that. It would look highly awkward to have them in between. I feel they are better in the critical reception section. Indianescence (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a little bit of research, and toying around, it seems like there's definately enough reviews to make such an addition worthwhile. Take a look at my sandbox: I did only a little bit of digging and found plenty of reviews. That said, most of the reviews are obviously mostly from the first leg of the tour, and mostly from the states, but I'm sure with a little bit more digging around more could be found. Mostly what I did was just go to various fan sites and looked around for some links. Drewcifer (talk) 09:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, the critical reviews section is a little bit too positive. After skimming through a bunch of reviews, I would definately say that the tour was generally well received, but I did notice a few negative things here and there. Not so much completely negative reviews, but a couple reviews mentioned some not-so-perfect stuff. In the interest of neutrality, I think at least one or two negative quotes should be included, to balance things out a bit. Drewcifer (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Added two negative reviews. So now can i say that currently the two concerns are - An image of Malaysian show and adding reviews section to the "Tour Date" table?Indianescence (talk) 08:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better all the time! To sum things up a bit, I believe the only things that are still a concern to me are:

• Adding some reviews. Feel free to copy+paste the stuff from my sandbox, though you should add blank cells to all the rows without a review. I would encourage you to keep looking. I know there's more out there. After your notice on my talk page, I did some more searching and found like 5 or 6 more easily. One thing that's been working for me is googleing "City Name" "Sweet Escape Tour" review. Though I'm not sure how well that would work for concerts in non-english countries. You may want to ask some help from some multi-lingual wikipedians. You might also want to ask some of the moderators of no-doubt/gwen stefani fansites. I've actually had alot of luck with asking those kind of people for information.

 Done I will surely search as many as i can.

• Also, I came across something that seems very important to add: [7]. Namely, I would definately say mention of Akon and the whole Verizon Wireless thing is notable. I would also think it is important to mention any other sponsors of the concert, even if they didn't back out or anything.

 Done Indianescence (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I also came across something else pretty important: [8]. Not only that, but this [9] mentions a bunch more bands. What's going on here!

 Done Gym Class Heroes was already there. Others i have added.

Looking better, but I wonder if this information might be presented better. Namely, I think another column the tour dates section would be good, describing who opened what show. I suggest this for a few reasons: first, weren't there some shows were both Akon and Sovereign opened? Second, weren't there some shows were nobody opened? And lastly, "Cansei de Ser Sexy and Brick & Lace also joined Stefani on various shows." is a bit vague. Exactly which shows? Of course, what I'm suggesting would further complicate your life: at that point an additional column would make the table pretty wide. Which leads me to another suggestion/question: why are the column widths as wide as they are? There's alot of empty space in all the columns. If you slimmed thigns down a bit, that might make some room for another column.

 Done will this do for you?

• A reference for the cancellation of the last two shows. Here's a good source: [10]

 Done Huge thanks for this link.

• Also, I still have reservations about the lead. I'd say you should expand it a bit more. Try mentioning the opening acts.
• Also, some contextualization might be nice. Isn't this her second solo tour? And didn't she keep bringing up the fact that No Doubt is getting back together soon and that this is her last solo tour? I'd say a little section in the beginning discussing all these things would be great. This should also be mentioned in the lead.

This required a new section or i can include this in "Notable events" section? Indianescence (talk) 06:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend a new section, preferably the first section. But I'll leave that decision up to you.

I need a name for this section as soon as possible. Any suggestions? Indianescence (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• An image of the Kuala Lampur concert.
• Switching over to citation templates.

The last two aren't do-or-die though. I just I recommend doing them. Drewcifer (talk) 10:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strictly speaking I wouldn't consider this a list. It's a (rather messy) article about a tour, which contains some list sections. In my humble opinion, this ought to be aiming for Featured Article not Featured List. --kingboyk (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right: the more work that goes into the article, the less of a list it becomes. Furthermore, I don't think that the ideal form for an article of the Tour is a list anyways. I was kind of waiting to bring that up after the last few issues were resolved. Drewcifer (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even i had the confusion whether the article should be FA or FLC. I posted the question here [11] and this is the reply i got:-

Frankly, I think all the examples I cited (as well as the Sweet Escape Tour article Indianescence mentioned) should all be featured lists, and that if FLC doesn't currently accomodate them, it should expand so that it does. Raul654 (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Therefore i nominated it for FLC. Indianescence (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I suppose the way the article looked before all the extensive work on it was much more along the lines of a list, but now I would compare the article to a typical article about for an album: a few lists here (tracklist/setlist, tour dates/charts, etc) surrounded by mostly prose. You may want to ask Raul to take another look at the article. Drewcifer (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything else other than expansion of the lead left? Indianescence (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking great! I would say that Introduction is a fine title for the section, unless anyone else has any better ideas. The Opening Act(s) column looks great, though I do have a few further suggestions. It does seem a little bit short, though: some additional information and some quotes might help round it out. I came across plenty of good quotes from stefani about No Doubt getting back together again, the birth of her child, her child being present at a show or two, the fact that she was only planning on making one dance album but ended up making two, etc. I think the reviews column should still be on the far left (so swap the reviews and opening acts). Also, any blank cells should say "none" instead of nothing. Also, did all those people actually open for Stefani at the October 27th show? If so, a citation might be in order, if not, some clarification would be nice. For the Sonic Festival you may want to make a special note, something n/a or something, since it was a festival, and people don't usually have opening acts at festivals anyways. But, technically speaking, was this part of the Tour in the first place? Also, in the Setlist section, it says "The Sweet Escape", with Akon, but Akon was clearly not at all the shows, right? And yea, the lead still needs some work. Drewcifer (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have swapped them. I don't agree with you on adding the things you mentioned in the opening acts colums as it would change the whole meaning of it. It is supposed to be a simple column stating the opening acts. All these things will make the article very wordy. Whatever that was very notable (like reunion of band etc. are mentioned in Notable Events section). Dance album and stuff should not be on this article. Stuff about that is already elaborated on article like Love.Angel.Music.Baby and The Sweet Escape and that is the right place for it. In the "General" section of the References, source for opening acts is mentioned. I am expanding the lead. Indianescence (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the lead. I cannot write there "none" as there may be opening acts which i do not know of. There were no sources for them. Writing none would be claiming something, which i can't till i am not backed by sources. And yes, I will make that "The Sweet Escape" feat. Akon as that is like the name of the song. Indianescence (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realized I mixed up my sentences above, so it might have been confusing, I'm not sure. My mistake. I meant to say that the column is fine except for possibly putting in "none". I think that the gwenstafni page itself has little news things announcing who opened what shows. So those would be good to reference, and that would also mean you would know for sure which dates had no opening acts, and hence you could put "none" whenever neccessary. And I still have reservations about the Sonic festival (did those people really open for her? does anyone open for anyone at a music festival? maybe those people just happened to play before stefani, which is different.). As for the introduction, and as far as making the article "wordy," I hate to break it to you, but I really don't think this article qualifies as a list anymore: so more words isn't a bad thing. And in my personal experience, it's best to include quotes as often as possible since it takes the writing out of your hands and puts it back into the subject's "hands". Why explain something when Gwen Stefani herself can explain it to the reader? Seems like a more direct flow of knowledge, right? And elaborating information from other articles isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as it gives us some insight into the topic at hand. Drewcifer (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article would remain a list if we don't include more things. The things you mentioned (like Stefani having babies and stuff) is pure gossip in my view. These don't qualify to be on the article. The article's main feature is the "Tour dates" table, and this is why it qualifies as a list. Adding a lot of other things, including her dance album stuff has nothing to do with the article. I feel that the current info on the article is more than enough. A tour article should have an intro, tour date table, reception and success/failure section and this article has all that. Anything else would convert this list into an article. I would surely work on Sonic Fest. And yes, i don't see any reason why we can't put n/a (not available) instead of none. That will be very stable then. No one would be objecting. If we follow gwenstefani.com and leave most of the shows without opening acts, then people will object that there were people opening for the shows. And yes, it is not mandatory to use quotes. I know it will make it better, but nothing is wrong with the current info as well. The article is saturated with wordy info and whatever that was necessary is here. I am taking a leave from wikipedia as i am appearing for my exam. If this article fails to meet the criteria, so be it. Thank you for your interest in the article. Indianescence (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well if you disagree with me that's fine, but I'll have to stand by my Oppose vote. Namely since the topic doesn't seem very list-worthy, and should probably be nominated at FAC, not here. Good luck with your exams, and I hope to see the article renominated at FAC soon. Drewcifer (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  1. Introduction and Stefani's set list sections need to be expanded.
  2. Notable events section has got to go per WP:TRIVIA.
  3. Gallery section has got to go per WP:NOT.
  4. Get rid of the external jumps in the table.

--Crzycheetah 00:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was not promoted 06:10, 5 January 2008.

I am nominating the List of ammonites because I feel that it has now reached the point where it fulfills, or nearly fulfills the featured list criteria.

• Useful- If you're interested in ammonites a directory to articles on almost every known genus would be a godsend.
• Comprehensive- Lists over 2,350 genera. More than Sepkoski's database, way more than Mikko's Phylogeny Archive. This list is almost certainly the best one available online, maybe even in the entire world.
• Factually accurate- All genera are backed with sources, and besides, even invalid genera are included in this list (like in the list of dinosaurs).
• Stable- The list already includes thousands of genera. More will almost certainly be added, but probably not very often.
• Uncontroversial- They're all backed by sources, nothing to really debate over.
• Well constructed- Lots of pretty pictures, divided into columns to minimize page length, many mini-tocs for easy navigation, extra subheadings to make finding specific genera easier.

The only change I can think of that it might need, is that maybe the mini-TOCs would looke better centered on the page. Any ideas? Abyssal leviathin (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral First and foremost, I just have to say amazing work, this list is pretty amazing in its comprehensiveness and it looks great. The reason why I cannot support though is that there are two main problems with the list. First I will start with the small problem:

• The "See also" section is there to point readers to other existing articles related to this topic. In this See also section there are two redlinks, they should just be removed because they serve no purpose.

Now the two main problems:

• WP:WIAFL Criterion #1-(a)-1 says that a WP:FL should "bring together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria" (emphasis added). Looking over this list, it would seem that a solid 75-90% of the genres listed do not have articles. Now usually redlinks in a list are allowed, insomuch that the list has a majority of created articles over redlink ones. Basically you would probably need to fill a solid 1600-1900 of these redlinks with articles to get this list featured and it would be best to complete them all, due to the fact that more than likely one genre isnt more notable than another. (This could be the work for a bot, I have heard of article creation bots used to create pages about different species or genre names.)
• Not a glaring weakness, but something that probably should be worked out is shorting the article. A good format would be like the one used at List of gay, lesbian, or bisexual people where you have a main article and then multiple others that is the list broken down by letter (to be clear, if this was the only problem, I would support, but I thought I would bring it up because it does concern me a little).

Due to the great work here I cannot oppose, but due to the fact that the list fails one of the main criterion, I just cannot support at this time. As a side note, I think the TOC's look fine. Either the way they are or centered would be fine, whatever you like the best.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs}

Also, the "Reliability of this List" section seems to talk to the reader instead of providing info to the reader, most blatantly in the last sentence, which encourages the reader to add to the list. There shouldnt be notes like this is an article.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This list has only recently (25 Dec) been submitted for peer review. That process takes a while and should be really be allowed to complete before nominating for Featured status. The list has multiple problems:
  • The lead and introductory sections require copyediting. Examples: "is an attempt to create"; "A name which describes"; "that never made it to"; "also may not have" (have they or haven't they); the final sentence of "Reliability of this List".
  • Noting the exact size of the list is unwise. It may be worth mentioning "over two thousand" somewhere but don't refer to the list; refer to the subject.
  • The "Naming conventions and terminology" section contains much that doesn't belong here. Use the lead to explain those Latin words and then briefly indicate how those name types are identified within the list body.
  • The "Reliability of this List" section isn't appropriate (see Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid). The "incomplete list" template is allowed (though usually appears at the top) but I'm not sure it is needed here. Although new ammonites may be discovered, the set isn't very dynamic.
  • The linked-to articles are nearly all extreme stubs of the form "is an extinct genus of cephalopod belonging to the Ammonite subclass." I caution against creating more of these (especially via a bot) without taking advice from some wikiprojects.
  • As noted above, the list is overwhelmingly red. A start appears to have been made, but it has a lifetime to go.
  • One major problem you face is that mechanically creating red-links often mean they end up pointing at the wrong thing. Some examples: Hoffmannia, Owenites, Protoceras, Parkinsonia, Rehmannia. More will follow as the red turns blue. Keeping check on those will be a maintenance nightmare.
  • I'm not sure about the external link to "Sepkoski's Online Genus Database". What is the copyright status of this (i.e., is it legal)? It looks very much like a university student's personal project and might not be an appropriate link.
  • "Mikko's Phylogeny Archive" should not be linked. It is a self-published, non-reviewed site. The author himself discourages its use as a scientific resource.

I suggest you explicitly request feedback from any relevant wikiprojects to the peer review. Colin°^Talk 15:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As in List of dinosaurs, it would be useful to include which genera names are Nomen nudum, Nomen oblitum... CG (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.