Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/January 2009

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 08:06, 31 January 2009 [1].

I am nominating this list because I feel that it fulfils all the criteria. The list for the 1990s has been nominated by another editor and I followed a similar format. 03md (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - my main concern is the stability of the article because the 2000s decade is not complete yet, and with the many singles that will rank on the chart will affect the content of the page, i.e. significant singles that can arise, which will affect the prose and tables.--TRUCO 02:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel there is much difference between this and significant events in football lists etc. It should be simple enough to add the name of an important single to the prose or alter the "By Artist" table. 03md (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Issues:
  • Some song titles in the lede are shown in italics and/or without quotation marks, the correct format for song titles is normal non-italic text contained within double quote marks
    • Changed
      • Just noticed the image captions use the incorrect form too.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • What form should they be in? 03md (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • normal non-italic text contained within double quote marks, as noted above..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done
  • Spelling error in Sugababes photo caption
    • Corrected
  • You note that every Christmas number 1 from 2002 until 2008 was by a reality TV winner....apart from 2003 and 2004. Sounds a bit silly. Why not just note that every one from 2005 until 2008 was by an X-Factor winner?
    • Altered the text to read more clearly
  • Million sellers section is completely unsourced
  • This section also uses single quote marks round the song titles, should be double quote marks
    • Done
  • Use "number one" instead of "number 1"
    • Changed all instances of the latter
  • "Lily Allen first gained esposure on the internet and her debut single Smile reach number one in 2006" - gramatically incorrect (and exposure is spelt wrong)
    • Corrected
  • "....9 consecutive weeks" - nine should be written as a word
    • Done
  • "first hit the top of the charts at the end of the 1999" - misplaced "the" before 1999
    • Removed
  • A random chunk of the text before the table is in italics
    • Changed
  • In the table you use "Eminem & Dido" and "Gareth Gates & The Kumars", but other artist descriptions use "and" written as a word
    • Changed to GG & K to and, Eminem & Dido to Eminem featuring Dido, Will Young & Gareth Gates to Will Young and Gareth Gates. Five and Queen credited on cover as Five + Queen
  • In the "By artist" section you use "no. 1" once - should be "number one"
    • Corrected
  • In the same section, in the Eminem note, write "six" as a word
    • Done
  • And in the same section again, write "three" as a word at the start of the Elvis note
    • Done
  • Final (but most important of all) note - the source for the entire table is listed as the 2005 edition of the Book of British Hit Singles, I have this book and it lists number ones up to only March of that same year, so clearly it can't source any after that.....
    • Where would you recommend I label as my source as there isn't yet a copy of the book with Lady Gaga's name in. 03md (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another source will be required for the post-2005 number ones. This page has them all, although I am not 100% sure if it would be considered a reliable source...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-Fail - WP:FLC is not a substitute for WP:PR. The article should have been peer reviewed before coming to FLC. This amount of prose issues could have been avoided with a thorough peer review. This was also present in the 1990s list.--TRUCO 23:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not going to go into detail, since others have already taken the time to do so, but these issues should have been resolved at a peer review or informally. I see that this is your first time to attempt to bring something to featured status. I hope this experience doesn't turn you off, but keep in mind what others have said about this not being a peer review. If this nomination closes as unsuccessful, feel free to contact me and I will try to help out with some issues. Because I don't want to be so vague, here are a couple examples (may have already been mentioned):

• "During the 2000s, a total of 247 singles" (redundant)
  • Removed
• WP:PEACOCK terms and generalizations, such as "massive influence" and "increasing power of the Internet"
  • Altered the sentences
• "Airplay statistics are not used to compile the official chart[2][3]" Missing punctuation.
  • Corrected
• "first revealed each Sunday" "revealed" usually means something not seen before, as such, a chart could not be revealed a second time.
  • Removed the word "first"
• "Million selling singles" First two words should have a hyphen in between, not sure if this is the clearest section title.
  • Added hyphen; I've left the section heading as it is because I cannot think of a more appropriate way of putting in
• Why are dates linked in some source?
  • De-linked all dates in references
• Ref 8 needs more info. If the information is from many locations in the book, make it a general reference.
  • Made it a general reference
• Ref 9 needs a publication date.
  • Done
• NME is a magazine, make that the work instead of "nme.com".
  • Done
• "BBC News" is formatted inconsistently, some instances are italicized, others aren't.
  • Wikilinked all sources - consistent formatting Dabomb87 (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for all your comments. I have made the necessary changes and have nearly made all the alterations from other reviewers comments.

• File:Gaudi arena.jpg – how do we know that the author has released it under the said license. At the top of the given page (here), it says: "All photos are copyright protected and may not be used without written consent. Copyright 2007 Alexey Rodin".
• When the slashes are not part of the song title, they should have spaces per WP:MOS#Slashes—at least, those with internal spaces in one or both items. Example: "The Long and Winding Road"/"Suspicious Minds"/

"Sweetest Feeling"--> "The Long and Winding Road" / "Suspicious Minds" / "Sweetest Feeling"

• "Prior to"-->Before.
• "Reality television shows had a massive influence at the top of the UK charts." How can something have influence on the top of the charts?
• "Physical single sales fell during the middle of the decade but the introduction of downloads meant there was a revival in 2008."-->Physical single sales fell during the middle of the decade; however, the introduction of downloads led to a revival in 2008.

Still not there yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, there are tons of dabs to fix. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed all dablinks - just the redirects to do now!!!

More comments I capped my previous comments as I can't keep up with this FLC. Some comments may be repeated where I can't see that they were addressed.

• Please see WP:NC#Album and song titles and band names: No titles should have a capitalised "T" in "The" or "To", "O" in "On" and "Of", "a" in "And" and the word "A", unless they're the first or final word of the title.
• "Put Your Hands Up 4 Detroit", not "Put Your Hands Up For Detroit"
• Popstars, X Factor and Pop Idol still need italicising
• We're still in the 2000 decade, so "Westlife were the most successful group with eleven number-one singles." is in the wrong tense
• WP:OVERLINK
  • In what respect?
    • There is no need to link artists names or song titles again in the prose for the "By artist" section
• File:Westlifetour33.jpg -- no information. Cannot verify.

• There is a duplicate copy in commons. --Efe (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But the article uses the local version. Fix or remove.
• How do you insert the commons version rather than the wp version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.31.186 (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Gnarls_Barkley.jpg -- source link is broken. Cannot verify. Fix or remove
• File:Gaudi arena.jpg -- source link doesn't show it's cc-by-1.0. Fix or remove
• The majority of the redirects still need fixing
• "The source for this decade is the chart as published in Music Week, compiled under the auspices of The Official UK Charts Company (until November 2001 called Chart Information Network Ltd)." -- huh?
• "Madonna, Timbaland and Justin Timberlake's song 4 Minutes", for example, is counted against all three artists" -- shouldn't it be counted for all 3 artists?
• "("Can We Fix It?").[8]:" --> "("Can We Fix It?"):[8]"
• "The increasing power of the internet" --> "The internet"
• "Girls Aloud, the Popstars: The Rivals winners also had the Christmas Number One in 2002." Commas act like parentheses here.. there should be a "closing comma".
• Use template:cite book for the book in General References, and just reference the author/editor's last name, year, and page number for ref 2
• There are two footnote A's.
• "Footnote A: Reference only covers singles until 2005" -- then nothing after 2005 is referenced. If it is, reference the book and whatever else is being used in the table header or something.

Still some ways to go until it meets WP:FL?. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing comments: It appears that this has been abandoned since 7 days ago. If the nominator cannot be bothered, there's no point keeping it open. Especially with the outstanding oppose votes. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 08:06, 31 January 2009 [2].

This is a first for professional wrestling, considering that this is a Hall of Fame that only existed for three years. It is, in a way but not much, modeled after the List of members of the WWE Hall of Fame FL. I created it 2 days ago, and finished yesterday, and considering it hasn't been heavily updated or expanded since its creation in 2006 (because its an inactive Hall of Fame), stability shouldn't be an issue. Note to the source checker, the general ref from "Steelcagematch.com" may be questionable, however, the publisher is in a way not reliable (or yet to be proven) but the information is gathered from videos from the Hall of Fame ceremonies, which are on that website. Some of the information is also from when WCW was still active, since the videos are copyrighted by that company. If its questionable, it can be removed since I'm using {{cite episode}} as well to cite that information. For the "Professional Wrestling Museum" source, it is a collection of information from the 90s and back, and this source has been credited by CNN, AOL, and other prominent media sources, as stated in their credits. Any other comments will be addressed.--Truco 02:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

• File:Dusty.png needs a source.
  • How can I source it if the copyright holder uploaded it to Wikipedia?
    • Contact the uploader and ask him to verify that the image is his own work. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That uploader hasn't been on Wikipedia for over 6 months, so It'll be best if I remove it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco (talk • contribs)
        • I removed that image.--Truco 17:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Likewise File:Harley race.jpg.
  • Likewise to my comment to the Dust.png pic.--Truco 03:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Contact the uploader and ask him to verify that the image is his own work. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I contacted him, hopefully he replies soon enough and adds the information.--Truco 03:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I removed this one as well because this uploader tends to have personal problems with me, so I doubt he will add it, so I removed it.--Truco 17:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Wcwhof.jpg needs a stronger fair use rationale. The FUR doesn't illustrate how the image's presence "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, [and that] its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" per NFC Criterion 8. Maybe add info about how the poster is used to identify the association or something like that. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.--Truco 03:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Publications should be in italics (ref 19, St. Petersburg Times)
  • Done.--Truco 03:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• For the steelcagematch.com site, there are two questions that must be answered:
  • Does it have the right to post the videos on its website?
    • They are videos released into the public by Youtube users. WWE currently owns WCW assets, which include their footage. At the moment, WWE tends to remove videos that are copyrighted by their company, though, they don't do that for WCW or ECW videos because the footage was created by the former company and not themselves. So basically, the website has the free right to post the videos, if it were wrong, WWE would have contacted the website or would have removed them by now from Youtube.--Truco 03:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, are the youtube videos copyright infringement? That is, are they there with the consent of the creator? Or did the WWE/WCW release the videos, making the videos legal without question? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The creator was WCW, but that company does not exist anymore after it went bankrupt and WWE bought the assets. Seeing the videos, it looks like it is original footage of the event from when it was released on VHS by WCW. If it were from WWE, the WWE would have edited the video and possibly have added the WWE logo to the screen. So I see it as WWE/WCW releasing the videos, and making the videos legal without question.--Truco 03:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What information is sourced to it, and how reliable is the site for those specific facts? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the lead is source to it, like the list of inductees and "which wrestlers were chosen for the HoF", and that's mainly it, in addition to the videos. --Truco 03:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is the information sourced by this website supported by a more reliable source (such as the episode mentioned in your nomination statement)? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well the list of wrestlers can be sourced with the respective episodes, the only thing I might need it for is the statement about which wrestlers are inducted into the HoF. Some of it is verified by the episodes, but the website directly states it, can that suffice?--Truco 03:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Leaving this one unstruck for other reviewers to evaluate. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Would it be better if I remove that ref? In addition, are your non-source comments resolved?--Truco 16:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) If the source can be covered by other things, it would be best. The prose issues are resolved, but the image issues are pending. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like the episodes itself verify the information, which I have sourced with {{cite episode}}. I resolved your image problems.--Truco 17:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that ref, forgot to state that.--TRUCO 00:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing comment Even though the nomination has support, it is from the only reviewer. I therefore cannot confidently say that this has community support, but feel free to immediately renominate, and provide a link in the new nom back to this one. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:20, 27 January 2009 [3].

This is my first nomination for featured list. I'm sure I can work through it, though. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks! Everything should be changed. JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This list looks great and meets all the criteria. Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose too many niggles...
  • "... imported material..." I may be wrong but I thought in this context the correct work was materiel?
  • "... the Germans sent its first shipments ..." not "the Germans", just "Germany" for the rest of the sentence to work.
  • If this is a comprehensive list of tanks in the Spanish Civil War then surely Trubia A4 should have an article since you state "The Nationalists, for example, began the war with three Trubia A4 prototypes..."
  • A few too many generalist statements, e.g. "as early as", "a number of", "for example", "In general". Just think the prose in the lead needs a good copyedit.
  • "...and the Trubia factory had designed and built a single model of the Landesa." I´m not following the logic of this clause.
  • Any reason why Tanks is capitalised in the collapsible navbox?
  • Why are the tank names in the table in bold?
  • Keep the table styles consistent - why the big difference in table styles between those tanks produced by the national and the popular front?
  • Number or Number produced? Be consistent with table headings.
  • Suddenly you mention the Second Spanish Republic in the table. It´s not mentioned before or afterwards. What is the context for this tank type?
  • Ref 4 needs pp. not p. to be consistent. Check other multiple page references.
  • Fourth and sixth general references use pp. when only a single page is used.
  • "... another 10 required return rollers..." this means nothing to a non-expert.
• Hope the comments help push the quality of the list towards featured status. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw I am taking a long break from Wikipedia (in favor of getting through this semester of university). JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, remember to leave the FLC template on the talk page per Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/archiving. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:49, 26 January 2009 [4].

Apparently this list overlaps with African Americans in the United States Congress. However, the list content looks malplaced there as it is becoming unwieldy. Also, that article is unsourced. Maybe the entire list content there should be split off in this format.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is this list really necessary? It's too short and there is currently a merge proposal, so this FLC should be withdrawn until after the discussion has ended. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-fail Too short (the consensus on minimum number of items is 10) and unstable. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick-fail - too short for the minimal 10 item policy, this is one of those lists that are not an exception to that. In addition, it was just created and is unstable.--TRUCO 21:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick fail - the six item list is well referenced but this type of list shouldn't be exempt from the 10-item minimum. Sorry, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - If I were to convert this to an African American Congressmen list would it be approved as a separate list or would it be merged?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it had consensus from the relevant wikiprojects and talk pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you comment on the merge discussion about whether it should be merged or whether the list content should be split.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, we don't start lists out as "This is a list of..." anymore. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I do not believe that a list should be quick failed because it is too short. Either a list should be able to become featured or it should not independently exist. This list should be merged back to African Americans in the United States Congress; I see this completely redundant to the main list. To Truco above, I see see absolutely no reason why the list is unstable. Reywas92^Talk 23:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list's content is not unstable, but its status as an independent article is. There is a merge discussion going on. Also, there are some lists that are too short to be a Featured list but should exist, see List of Dallas Mavericks head coaches. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I disagree with the 10-item requirement; we shouldn't have to wait for Carlisle to retire and have a tenth coach to make that excellent list featured. Reywas92^Talk 00:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, that was an obscure example. Try List of Memphis Grizzlies head coaches. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedily closed Not because it's short, but because there is a merge proposal at the moment. Once that is resolved (and if the article still exists), then it can be re-submitted. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 23:14, 20 January 2009 [5].

This article was previously nominated to be a featured list in September 2007. That proposal failed because the article was deemed to be not stable enough. See discussion here: previous FLC.

The Congress has ended and this article is ready to become a Featured List. This is a well-reviewed and highly-edited article. It's useful, pretty, and part of a long chain of articles about the U.S. Congress. Frankly, I really believe it could be a Featured Article, but when I proposed that for the 109th Congress, I was told it was a List not an Article.—Markles 11:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Too early. Let time pass.ABC101090 (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Is that part of the requirements of a Featured List?—Markles 14:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe not, but at least in my native Finnish Wikipedia it seems to be a standard procedure even if not in the requirements. ABC101090 (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stability is a part of the criteria and I would agree if the 110th congress was still in session. ABC101090, is there any reason why you think the article would suddenly de-stabilize? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no problem with the timing, but there is much much more that can be done to make the article better. One is that the map of Senate membership belongs in the Senate membership section, not the House leadership section. If it pushes down the list then write a longer section lead. I see that the only problem with the entire article is that all section leads need to be much longer, which is necessary for those who don't know much about US Congress. Reywas92^Talk 22:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image placement seems like a petty criticism to me. The map would interfere with the list of senators, and it is bizarre to expect anyone to come up with enough text to compensate for the significant vertical height of the image. It is especially bizarre for such a self-explanatory list: what more needs to be added to "Members / Senate" to convey that it is a list of members of the Senate? -Rrius (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, really, I know about the Congress, but people from other countries probably don't. Rather than jumping right into unexplained sections you could have a few sentences introducing them. What is a select committee? What were some other major events? That section is pretty short. And so what if it's a petty complaint? This is to represent Wikipedia's best works and I will oppose it until it is. One of my biggest annoyances on Wikipedia is misplacement of images; a map of Senate composition does not belong in the House leadership section. I suppose it's optional, but to really make this the best it would be great if the Senators were listed in a table like in 106th United States Congress and the few previous. Reywas92^Talk 02:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "A few short sentences to explain" a section would seem unnecessary for a List. If I inserted that language into this and the 111 other "Nth United States Congress"es, would it be eligible for Featured Article status? That you have a pet peeve with image placement should not be a problem for this nomination, should it?—Markles 14:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, that doesn't seem unnecessary! Say I'm from Canada; what the hell is a select committee? And I know there were way more major events than the war, cloture vote record, and elections! Maybe this should be an article; it't not really a single "List of" anything. Yes, it is a problem; Senate members have nothing to do with House leadership! Per Wikipedia:Accessibility#Section structure, put the image in the section it belongs, and this isn't just me, it's for screen readers. Reywas92^Talk 16:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Appears to me to fit Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. -Rrius (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now I like the layout of the list, but there are a couple issues that stand out. This article would have benefited from a peer review.

• Many of the sections are missing references. If you don't want to add an inline citation to every item, add general references instead. Many recently promoted FLs use this style.
• In addition to referencing, the citations themselves need source information. Web citations need URLs, web page titles, publishers (news articles often have publication dates) and last access dates.
• The article needs fixing up by someone who is knowlegeable with WP:DASH. The party splits in the House of Representatives need en dashes. For example: "(34-19 Democratic)-->(34–19 Democratic). Date ranges should also use en dashes, and when one or both items have internal spaces, the en dash should be spaced. For example: "November 19, 2008–End"-->November 19, 2008 – End
• What determines a "Major event"?
• Not too big of an issue, but it would be nice if you could briefly summarize each piece of legislation listed. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Many of the member sections are completely unreferenced.
• Lots of references need publisher, retrieval dates, titles etc.
• The infobox says it had two sessions "1st: January 4, 2007 – December 19, 2007" & "2nd: January 3, 2008 – January 3, 2009", why? and what happened between those dates.
• WP:PCR, for example describe what vetoed legislation means.
• Per WP:DASH
  • Number ranges should use ndashes not hyphens
  • Timeline events should use ndashes as "em dashes should not be spaced".
• A hidden note in the Enacted section says "Only include historically-significant statutes with blue-linked articles." Does that mean there are there statutes not included because they don't have articles?

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 23:14, 20 January 2009 [6].

List has been said by Goodraise and, a bit ago, Scorpion0422 to be FL worthy. I cleaned up the few remaining issues Goodraise mentioned.じんない 03:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back a while you said at the time it was close to it, but still needed improvements, especially in the episode summaries, which i edited.じんない 21:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said it "looks ready to attempt a FLC". You make it sound like I said it met WP:WIAFL. Please be more careful when refering to others. I would also have liked to get informed of this. -- Goodraise (talk) 07:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Needs a copy-edit, preferably by someone outside WP:ANIME. These are examples from the lead and the first two summaries.

• "as they travel through time inside a mansion talking to" "talking to"-->that talks to.
• ""Popotan Hatake de Tsukamaete" (ぽぽたん畑でつかまえて, "Popotan Hatake de Tsukamaete"?) by Under17 and "S-U-K-I" by Funta respectively," Use em dashes instead of commas here.
• "The anime contains twelve episodes which first aired "-->The anime contains 12 episodes, which first aired
• "There were six Japanese DVDs released, each containing 2 episodes." "2"-->two.
• "A Region 2 box set was released by Bandai Visual the same day as the last individual DVD was published." "as"-->that.
• "While the box set was cheaper" "While"-->Although.
• "Geneon USA licensed the DVDs for North American release. Between December 12, 2004 and March 22, 2005, they" "they"-->it.
• "A final box set was released on August 14, 2007, shortly before their demise" Whose demise?
• "Daichi, a young boy, meets the four girls traveling" "the four girls" makes it sound like we should know who the girls are. Delete "the". "girls traveling"-->girls, who are traveling
• "in order to"
• "After showing them in class, the students initially believe the house is haunted; they later find out the truth."-->After showing them in class the students initially believe the house is haunted, but later they find out the truth.
• "Believing Asuka hates him,"-->Believing that Asuka hates him,
• "At the end of the anime, Daichi wakes up on a dandelion field as the mansion disappears as Asuka comes by to see him. " "as ... as" repetition annoying and makes logical flow unclear.
• "those she meets, makes friends with"-->those she meets and befriends
• "While she attends school, she decides this time to aggressively distance herself " You say "this time". Be more specific about what time in her life or what school she is; it isn't clear that she has been to many school and experienced the same problems.
• "Mai and Konami become friends, despite Mai's knowledge that she can't stay around forever."
• "In the end, Konami convinces Mai that it doesn't matter when or where they are because it's the memories and feelings that are important. " Dabomb87 (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With 2 exceptions, I made those changes. The first, is with the first point. I changes to "inside a mansion and talking to" because the suggestion you made it sound like the mansion is the one that converses, which isn't true and the other was with "While she attends school, she decides this time to aggressively distance herself". Since the anime does not explore the past, but uses context, it is impossible to say which schools; nor does it even mention any names and deliberately keeps things vague, however, it is clear from the episode's context that Mai has done this before because she talks about repeating the same scenerio.じんない 05:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still not there The prose has not improved to FL standards yet. Have you found a third-party copy-editor yet? There seems to be a dearth of those at WP:ANIME, which is a shame. These examples are from the tenth episode.

• "Mai is distraught from the miscommunication with Konami's daughter, Mai and attempts to destroy her stuff." Needs to be a comma after "Mai".
• "she retrieves Konami's drawing of Mai storing it with other keepsakes" I don't follow; so Konami drew Mai storing "it", whatever "it" may be.
• "guarded two bothers on the journey" What is a "bother"?
• "Later, Mea meets up with Keith" Comma after this phrase.
• "he will be bringing the girls to see Shizuku"-->he will be bring the girls to see Shizuku
• "Having had a terrible experience with the two brothers in the past where they burned" Comma after "past", I think "where" should be in which.
• "However, Ai learns about it" Once again, that ambiguous "it".
• "As Keith approaches, Mea tries to stop him from making the jump"-->As Keith approaches, Mea tries to stop him from jumping" Once again, ambiguous language. Jump to where? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can find someone from PRV, but i've not had luck there before for anime articles. I corrected the stuff you mentioned (plus some other stuff), minus the last one since by correcting the one before it, it should clarify what the "jump" refers to.じんない 20:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• The titles of web pages should not be in all caps.
• IMBD is generally not considered a reliable source.
• Ref 16 needs a publisher.
• Publications should be in italics; you can accomplish this by putting the publication (New York Times) under the work= parameter in the citation template.
• Anime News Network is inconsistently formatted; sometimes it is in italics and other times it is not.
• The formatting of ref 6 is messed up. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMBD was used to back up ANN for Akio Watanabe's alias being Poyoyon Rock only. If you still believe it should be removed, I can easily do so. I think i've fixed the rest of the issues.じんない 03:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer for IMBD to be removed. Refs 7 and 14 still need publishers. Ref 12 still has Anime News Network not in italics, while the other instances of it are. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i removed the IMDB ref. I noted the publsher on ref 13 (form 13) and italicized the last ANN cite. Ref 7 i replaced since it was from an unreliable source i missed.じんない 10:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Citation date style is inconsistent:
  • "Popotan (TV)". Anime News Network. Retrieved on 2008-03-25.
  • "Popotan - Vanishing House (DVD 1)". Anime News Network. Retrieved on 2008.11.7. I have never seen this type of date formatting before. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::That is generated by the template, so I don't know what's wrong. NM.じんない 17:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• WP:ANIME says of the Anime News Network that "because the encyclopedia portion is user-edited, that information is not reliable by Wikipedia standards". This means refs 2, 3, 9, and 10 as well as the first general reference are all unreliable sources. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first general reference was fine as long as it can be be checked as appropriate from other sites for English titles, which the DVDs themselves do. I do not have to, according to the guideline, put that in, but just be able to point out that the names can be verified by a second source. 2 and 3 fall under the 1st statement for which the names can also be verified by the DVD and the publication dates can be verified by Bandai visual's website, however because Anime News Network is considered reliable for those and WP:NONENG states English sources are better over non-English ones, then for this ANN is better.

For 9 abd 10, those are reviews which fall under "or news, reviews, and release information, ANN is a reliable source and close to being a newspaper of record for anime and manga." If you are disputing that, this is not the place to start an argument that would affect almost every article under WP:ANIME. Scratch that. I was thinking of the main article at the time.じんない 21:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is the place to raise it. They are considered reliable if the release, news etc. are within the http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/press-release, or http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news areas. However the references you use are in the http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia area and this is not considered reliable as anybody can contribute this information. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information for 2 and 3 and general info (which applies to episode titles) I can change to the DVDs if you insist, but per the description given, it seems to be okay. As air dates, that falls under WP:NONENG and also that the statement is generally considered reliable, but still needs to be backed up. Because NONENG also applies here, just being able to show that the information does exist on bandai and on TBS should be enough since both are non-English sources. It does not say that such a source needs to be backed up in the artilce itself, only that I can demonstrate that it does exist.

[...] However, because the encyclopedia portion is user-edited, that information is not reliable by Wikipedia standards. That said, it is the experience of this WikiProject that the ANN's encyclopedia can be used with care for certain kinds of information:

• Generally reliable but try to confirm these with a second source: production staff, producers/publishers, air/publication dates
• Not very reliable and so use only with confirmation from other sources: biographical data, episode title translations
• [...]

じんない 21:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 08:01, 17 January 2009 [7].

After addressing issues which caused the list to fail last time I feel it now meets the criteria necessary to be a featured list. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, number of teams in the infobox is clearly wrong. Secondly, the introduction text states that German football champions are the winners of the Bundesliga. This is not correct for any championship before the 1963-64 season (when the Bundesliga was established). Team names do not correspond to their respective Wikipedia article. Personally, I feel that the East German champions should be included here as well. Table formatting is partially ugly, especially the first table is unnecessarily wide. There is a surplus |} before the 1963- section. Adding the number of titles in brackets next to each champion would add depth to the information. Overall, I feel the article has deteriorated since his last nomination. Madcynic (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the number of teams, the German champions are winners of Bundesliga, it is stated that the bundesliga came into existence in 1963 which clears up any confusion. Team names don't have to correspond to wikipedia articles, if this was the case in English football there would be F.C. in every line which is a nonsense. The names represented in the tables are the names commonly used in England. The table is markedly better since the last nom, this had been stated at WP:FOOTY. Look at List of FA Cup winners this has a table with full width. Removed the surplus |}. The number of titles in brackets is unnecessary and makes the table look cluttered. The East German champions should have a separate article as this was a different list and would confuse readers as it confused me. NapHit (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• "German football Championship" should be "German Football Championship" since it is a proper noun

Done NapHit (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Kaiserslautern are the only club to hve won the 2. Bundesliga and Bundesliga in successive seasons.": fix the typo on "have"

Done NapHit (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Also this sentence is very confusing to me before I realize "2. Bundesliga" is a different thing. Add a brief explanation on 2. Bundesliga and add "the" in front of Bundesliga in that sentence.

Done NapHit (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Change all "n/a" to emdash

The n/a is fine and the key explains that the match was not played it should remain. NapHit (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why did you include third place winner in the second table? I think score should be included instead.

No. The second table is about the Bundesliga, a league competition. Therefore there is no score to include. OdinFK (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Chris! _ct 23:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments they have all been addressed. NapHit (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• "...the first recognized national championship was staged in Hamburg in 1903...": The first final was played in Altona. Altona became a borough of Hamburg in 1937.
• "Prior to the formation of the Bundesliga in 1963, the championship format was based on a knockout competition involving the winners from each of the country's top-flight regional leagues.": That wasn´t the case from 1934 to 1941 and again from 1951 to 1963 when there were group stages and then a knockout competition. --Hullu poro (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, they have all been addressed. NapHit (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• Table width is still an issue for me. The List of FA Cup winners full-width table uses 6 columns, whereas the one used here only has 4, and not one column is even close to being filled. Refer to the second table in the FA Cup winner article, you will see this is not full-width. NB: This applies only to the first table, the second table is sufficiently densely populated to justify full-width.

If there is a source which states where these matches were played I could include the venue, if there is a reliable source. NapHit (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gruene's Crown Prince to Bundesliga. I have the book and can provide info. Wiggy! (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, cheers. NapHit (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is not a source, how about you reduce the table width? Madcynic (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh I will see what others have to say first though. NapHit (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See rsssf.com? Madcynic (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Club names: If I remember correctly the article names are based on the "common name" principle. I therefore fail to see why you'd choose Hamburg over Hamburger SV or FC Nuremberg over 1. FC Nuremberg. Same thing applies to FC Köln which has the article at 1. FC Köln.
• Inclusion of East Germany. This should be decided, I don't quite see the point of mentioning BFC Dynamo without including a 1948-1991 championship table. I think the table should be in here, because I see the East German championship on par with the West German one, and ignoring it feels like passing judgment to me. Also it should be noted that Bundesliga champions have been regarded as national champions in West Germany, while the national champion in East Germany was the winner of the DDR-Oberliga as is well documented by the various East German participants in the European Cup. (first paragraph) You also don't want to get into the issue of whether East Germany was Soviet-controlled or not, I'd suggest removing that verbiage at this position.

Its not an issue or bit of POV. It is an historical fact and key to understanding why a separate football competition emerged in East Germany and why there were two championships. Wiggy! (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and no. The sentence "while a second national championship was contested in Soviet-controlled East Germany under the auspices of the DFV (Deutscher Fußball-Verband" relates to the entire period of the two championships, and I do not think this is appropriate.Madcynic (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will just create a separate list for the East German info, and will remove reference to BFC Dynamo. NapHit (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The East German championship deserves its own page, but hte material currently on this page puts that championship in the broad context of the country's history as a whole. I don't see a need to delete the short references - principle of least surprise.

• Sourcing of introduction. The intro needs more sources, esp with regard to the 1904 championship. Madcynic (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardy Gruene has a couple of books that'll be useful 100 Years of German Championships and From Crown Prince to Bundesliga. One of these is already identified at the project page. Tor! and CPtB both have info on the missing 1904 and 1922 championships. Wiggy! (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was sourced properly before the lead was reworked, I'll sort it out soon. NapHit (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned in my comment at the project page that it would need to be resourced. Wiggy! (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that a 5-sentence lead can be properly sourced but still not enough. So please do not remove information just because -you- cannot readily find a source. Wait if there are others who can. Madcynic (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you got that part about promotion and relegation wrong. 16th place has to play against 3rd in the 2. Bundesliga for a spot in the BL in the next season. OdinFK (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed NapHit (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're drifting guys. This is about the national championship, not about qualifying for different levels of play. Focus. You can't on one hand complain about the length of the thing and then drop in material that's not relevant. Wiggy! (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's relevant it shows how the league works, and is brief. Anyway with the history section the lead needed beefing up a bit. NapHit (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is "They competed in Germany as the thrir was no national football federation in the Austro-Hungarian Empire." in the introduction supposed to mean? I guess it's just a typo, but then there might be a deeper meaning, I don't get... OdinFK (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ye it's a typo, fixed now NapHit (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I think the number of titles, which used to appear in brackets next to each champion, should be re-included, whether in a bracket as before or in a separate column. It's informative, something a reader might well want to know, and IMO rather more relevant to a list of German football champions than the third-placed team or the number of goals scored by the division's leading scorer.

That information appears in a separate table that follows the group of era-based lists. I agree that the third place and scorer info might be out of place, but will leave it set pending discussion. Wiggy! (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean the total number of titles won by each club. I meant the bracketed number of titles against the winner of each year's championship, as in this old version, which informed the reader that, say, Bayern Munich won their fifth title in 1974. Struway2 (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Table headings are inconsistent: should be either Champions and Runners-up (both plural) or Champion and Runner-up (both singular).

Resolved. Wiggy! (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In the prose, names of football clubs shouldn't be in italics ...

Resolved. Wiggy! (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ... and there are a number of hyphens which should be endashes.
• Not sure what the point is of making the leading scorer column sortable when some years have multiple scorers, so it sorts only on the first-named of joint top scorers.
• In general, as the structure and content of the list are being very actively changed as I type, it's quite hard to make sensible comments as they might be irrelevant by the time I next view the article. Perhaps it might be an idea to withdraw the nomination temporarily until the various editors finish their work, and then possibly put the article up for peer review before re-submitting? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Work in progress. But what you've posted here so far is still quite useful. Wiggy! (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• Club names should be consistent. For example Schalke is used as well as Schalke 04 or Hamburg and Hamburger SV are also both used. Also the table of total tiles won occasionally uses different names as the other tables. I would change that myself, but I'd like to keep out of this naming business as my preferences for which names should be used are quite different.
  • I see the inconsistency and have started to correct it preferring more complete names. I have been using "Hamburger SV" in place of "Hamburg" for example to disambiguate things - there are a lot of Hamburg clubs. In the case of VfB Leipzig vs. Lok, the club won the titles as VfB, Lok was an East German appellation. Etc. Wiggy! (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I wonder if FC Köln, VfR Mannheim and similar club names should be sorted as such. Shouldn't these sort as "Koeln, FC" and "Mannheim, VfR"?
  • Mmm. Hadn't considered that. Any experts out there on managing the sort tool? Wiggy! (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you check the tables before User:NapHit got involved, you will see they had exactly this funcionality. Hope that helps. Madcynic (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the tip. I'll look. Wiggy! (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Still "-" is often used where an ndash should be (in years and results especially). I fix these on occasion, but there are still more.
  • Speed typing. The m dashes will have to be added after. Sorry. Wiggy! (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I like the introductions to the tables, but they are totally devoid of refs.
  • As I mentioned above, I'm focusing on the prose side to start. Almost all of the material is from Vom Kronprinzen bis zur Bundesliga or Tor!. The later Bundesliga material will come from another source. After I read up on ref formatting I'll add the cites. Wiggy! (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Finally I wonder why the actual titles were removed from the Total titles won table. In my opinion that was quite useful to see at a glance when a certain club had successful periods.
  • Overzealous editing? Just a mistake. Oops?
  • Its coming along. I'm a little concerned about the length, but I think the general treatment of the thing is working out and its not a hard fast rule, so I'm not worried about it as the thing is still readable. Some of the longest articles on en:wiki are lists.
  • Will add a "see also" link for the East German championship as part of that section. May do the same for the Saarland and will probably say something in passing about the German amateur championsghip introduced in 1956(?). Other comment? Wiggy! (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OdinFK (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Some more comments

Hey Wiggy!! I think you are doing great. A few more thoughts though:

• As far as I know external links are not supposed to be in the body of the article, when not absolutely necessary. There is one in the second paragraph of the intro, though. That might as well be a ref I think. There is another in 1903-32
• Naming consistency is still an issue with the last to tables (most sucessful clubs and tiltes by region)
• A few paragraphs still go uncited, but I understand that you might still be working on that.

When that's fixed I will give the article a thorough read again and tell you what I think. Regards, OdinFK (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Its shaping up fairly well (I think) and everyone's been a big help. Almost down to the point where we can get to the seriously nitpicky stuff.

With repsect to the external links and citations, I'm just trying to work my way through how to do these things the right way. I only have some limited experienced with them as, for better or worse, I've always been a writer sort of guy and have given the short shrift to that side of it. I am repenting and trying to get a grip. :) More cites to go.

I've not completely standardized all the club names yet. Yeah, the last couple of tables are pending. I still need to go back and sort out the sorting issue(!) identified earlier.

I'm intending to make a reference to the women's championship, along the same lines as how the East German championships are handled: sub-header, paragraph, point to separate article.

Additional remarks, folks? Thx. Wiggy! (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding this sentence in the introduction to Early Championships: "The formation of the DFB helped establish for the first time a clear divide between association football and its close cousin." Who is the close cousin? Non-association football? Is it just me or could that be formulated more clearly?

The sentence immediately before that one refers and wikilinks to rugby. One sentence builds on the next. Could be rebuilt maybe. Wiggy! (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Should the names in the text be consistent with the names in the tables? I guess so.

Usually. Can depend on the context, I suppose. Wiggy! (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• References: The references seem to be of an inconsistent format. Sometimes the dates are missing, etc. Also I don't get what this Bibliography part is about. Can that not be incorporated in the regular References?

Yes, you have a point. Still a work in progress and needs cleaning up big time. Haven't had a chance to get at it over the past few days. Wiggy! (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix these things and I am pro FL. Regards, OdinFK (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The prose needs work; redundancy and some choppiness need to be weeded out or smoothed. These are just examples from the lead and the first section:

• "with VfB Leipzig defeating DFC Prag 7–2." When a gerund (defeating) follows a noun (VfB Leipzig), the result is usually awkward and ungrammatical. Perhaps: ", in which VfB Leipzig defeated DFC Prag 7–2."
• "Prior to"-->before.
• Whenever a year range is preceded by "from", change the en dash to "to". Sample: "from 1915–19 due to World War I and again from 1945–47"-->from 1915 to 19 due to World War I and from 1945 to 47.
• "Following World War II, Germany was occupied by the victorious Allies and two German football competitions emerged." Occupation doesn't make it clear why the two competitions emerged. You might mention that the country was divided in two.
• Inline citations should come after punctuation. Sample: " winning these championships in consecutive seasons (1979–88)[4]."
• "No champion was declared in 1904 due to the DFB not being able to resolve a protest filed by Karlsruher FV over their 1–6 semi-final loss to Britannia Berlin to determine which of these sides would face defending champion Leipzig in the final that year."-->No champion was declared in 1904 due to the DFB's inability to resolve a protest filed by Karlsruher FV over their 1–6 semi-final loss to Britannia Berlin to determine which of these sides would face defending champion Leipzig in that year's final.
• "Some limited play"
• "in the name of "good sportsmanship" — which they grudgingly did" Em dashes are unspaced on wiki, see WP:DASH.
• "other lesser national football competitions"
• "They disappeared in the 1933 reorganization of German football under the Third Reich that consolidated all sporting competition in state-sanctioned leagues."
• "Competition for the national title was maintained through most of World War II and was supported by the regime for reasons of morale."
• "Play became increasingly difficult as the war drew to its conclusion and in the era's final championship match Dresdner SC beat the military club LSV Hamburg 4–0 on 18 June 1944 in Berlin's Olympiastadion." These ideas (the difficulty of play and the final match) are not sufficiently related to warrant being connected by "and". What do you mean by "play became difficult"?
• "The 1944–45 season kicked off ahead of schedule in November," Comma should be a semicolon.
• "now occupied" Should be hyphenated. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, two dab links need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• Ref 2 needs a publisher and a note that it is German.
• What makes either of the two web sources reliable?
• The citation date formats are inconsistent. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 08:01, 17 January 2009 [8].

Hello, all. This is my first FL attempt. I originally split List of Oh My Goddess episodes into three separate lists because they were so long, and I am almost sure that this part was originally what caused List of Oh My Goddess episodes to become a featured list. Therefore, I am nominating this for FLC after having written a lead and peer reviewing it. There are some unaddressed points in the peer review, which I simply cannot answer, and are frankly irrelevant. I must warn, however, that I did not write a single of these episode summaries. I can rewrite some of them if need be, but I think they're fine as is. Thanks! NOCTURNENOIR^talk 02:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As the peer review is only recently closed by yourself, this FLC seems very premature. The issues raised there should be answered as the ones I see that are not answered seem pretty relevant. Then look at FLC.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• To the first peer review comment, I created the lead following a recently created FLC and not List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 1). I was told several times that the format that older lists followed was improper (such as the bolding). Second, to "I would make clearer the connection between the manga and the episodes - are they new material or an adaptation of the books?", the light novels appeared AFTER the anime. I'm pretty sure the lead is clear in saying that the series is based on the manga. For "How did the events in them affect the second season? Why were they made?", they simply had no affect and I couldn't find a single source as to why they were made. Finally, the peer review only garnered one review after it hit the backlog, so I doubt it'll find more reviewers. If you would like to review the list, I would be happy to fix the list per your comments, but I don't see a reason that this should not go through FLC at this time because I doubt many others will be improving it. NOCTURNENOIR^talk 03:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, as Dabomb87 noted, article is in very bad need for copyedit and seems in complete. He made a better list than I could, but one very basic error I see is claiming the series was released to DVD in the US. DVDs are released in North America, not the US alone (Region 1 covers the continent not the country), and its never even actually stated that Media Blasters only that they released it (and yes, it should be stated explicitly). Also, Season One isn't a proper noun. I do not feel some of the peer review comments have been adequately addressed, particularly with the need for the lead to follow recent FLs (rather than FLCs) for anime episode lists, the need to better clarify the relationship with the anime/manga - as the manga is on-going, how much does the anime episodes actually cover? What are the general references supposed to be for? The airdates already have a specific reference, so those seem to have no function. Why is the second season not even mentioned at all in the lead? What about other licensing? It was released in the UK, but the article isn't mentioned. What about other language releases? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FLC... I meant FLs. List of Bleach episodes (season 6), the most recent FL to pass, was what I based my lead off of. Working on the issues now... NOCTURNENOIR^talk 01:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, I think I've fixed all of the issues you brought up, Collectonian. Let me know if anything else is missing! By the way, I'm not entirely sure how relevant non-English releases of this would be on the English Wikipedia... If other FLs are any measure, that information is not included. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 19:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Many FLs do include that information. Looking just at the Bleach season pages isn't fully representative of the anime FLCs as a whole. Part of the issue with this one is its really a blend of a season list and a standalone list because of the way the "season" is split, including between English licensors. I did some tweaks to the lead to reorder and reword some (actually using Bleach Season 6's list as a guide). When the episode summaries have been checked and CEed, pop a note here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I went into WP:ANIME and picked three random FLs: List of Black Lagoon episodes, List of Night Wizard episodes, and List of Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl episodes. None of these had any information on non-English releases. Thanks for your help though, I'm working on answering those questions now. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 01:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there no better source for the DVD releases and airdates than ANN? While it is a reliable source, it should be the last resort for that information if the official sites has the same info. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have replaced every single ref and I have answers the questions. Anything further? NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 05:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) If you don't want to see the article go through a complete peer review, that's fine, but the article needs a third-party copy-edit before FL status can be attained.

• "The season was released to DVD"-->The season was released on DVD...

• Done. NOCTURNENOIR^talk 03:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't quite think that the tone of the first episode summary is encyclopedic. Phrases like "has a long and miserable day" "But even when things are going so poorly" are rather subjective and read like a story rather than a concise synopsis.

• Done. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 18:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "After returning to the dorm just in time to receive the expected phone call"—"the"-->an.

• Done. NOCTURNENOIR^talk 03:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Keiichi tells Belldandy that he wishes for "a goddess like [her] to stay by [his] side forever," almost jokingly"-->Keiichi tells Belldandy jokingly that he wishes for "a goddess like [her] to stay by [his] side forever".

• Done. NOCTURNENOIR^talk 03:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The wish is actually granted and Belldandy reveals that she will be staying with Keiichi."

• Done. NOCTURNENOIR^talk 03:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Finally, Keiichi and Belldandy settle down for the night and spend the time talking as they begin to get to know each other. "-->Finally, Keiichi and Belldandy settle down for the night and get to know each other through conversation.

• Done. NOCTURNENOIR^talk 03:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally, these are the main problems with the writing:
  • Tone, a result of being too close to the topic and the prose.
  • Verbose sentences that try to integrate too many thoughts, which inhibit the natural flow of the writing. Example: "So the two search for a place to stay until morning, a process complicated by the "System Force," which comes into effect whenever they are likely to be separated, effectively making it impossible for them to remain apart even for brief periods of time." I would suggest ending with a full stop (period) after "morning", and then starting, "However, their search is complicated by the "System Force", which..."
  • Excessive use of idle additive terms that, ironically, make the prose choppier. Examples: "So the two search for a place to stay until morning" and "Finally, desperate to defeat Belldandy, she takes Keiichi for a drive, only to fail when Keiichi reveals that he knows that Sayoko is only pretending to care about him. " Dabomb87 (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

doing By the way, it wasn't that I didn't want the article to go through a complete peer review. It was peer reviewed, and seeing as it did not garner any comments until it hit the PR backlog, I did not think it would be further reviewed. Would a large-scale rewrite of the episode summaries be suggested here? As these episode summaries were not written by me, I cannot vouch for their content/style. NOCTURNENOIR^talk 01:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you did not write the episodes, you should have probably consulted the person who did before nominating for FLC. Not all the episodes are "beyond repair" so to speak; however, a couple probably do need a reorganization—episodes 1 and 18 jump out at me on a quick look-over. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did the best I can, so could you take another look over the episode summaries please? Thanks! NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 06:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please fix the dabs. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 18:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any further issues holding this back from FL, or is the copyedit issue still present? I really don't think there are more issues with the prose and I'm not hearing anything from either of you (Dabomb87 and Collectonian) so I don't know what to think... If there is anything I can improve please let me know. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 20:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only see some copyediting with the lead (which didn't really need it) and only four episodes. The rest haven't been CEed yet. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but are you sure those episodes need copyediting? I had some people look at them and they had no objections... NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 20:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't have time for much Wiki-editing today, so my revisit will have to wait till tomorrow (CST), probably about 18 hours from now. I will look at the article again soon today. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, as long as it doesn't fail between now and then, I've got all the time in the world. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Apologies for my very late rejoinder—I have been held up by real life and an Arbcom case. Expect my comments in a few minutes. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments I am not retracting my oppose yet. There has been definite improvement, and I feel that the article is within reach. However, the summaries need a good scrubbing by an uninvolved editor.

• "In spite of this, Keiichi still goes out of his way to help a young girl, Hijiri" Why should having to watch a telephone impede his helping another girl? To be specific, my issue is with the phrase "In spite of this, Keiichi still".
  • The reference is to his bad luck, which I believe was removed in a previous revision. The point being that he helps out others even when he himself is in no position to do so (as he should probably help himself first). I completely reworded this anyways, so the issue should be gone. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 03:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "After returning to the dorm and receiving the expected call," There is no explanation for what the call is for despite two references to it in the summary.
  • The anime literally has him pick up the phone, take a message, and hang up. I don't really think it's all that important and I'm entirely unsure as to what I would write for it if anything. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 03:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "The two search for a place to stay until morning but their efforts are complicated by the "System Force" which makes it impossible for them to remain apart even for brief periods of time" Needs two commas—one goes after "morning"; can you spot where the other one should go?
  • I'm unsure if the comma should go after the quotation or before it... I've placed it before as that's where it usually goes, but correct me if I'm wrong. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 03:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Eventually Keiichi and Belldandy are able to settle down for the night and get to know each other through conversation. " Also, add a comma after "Eventually".
• ". They initially are met with good luck when they meet Hijiri" Too wordy and unclear, besides, the fact that they received a free meal conveys their apparent "luck" to the reader. Also, can you elaborate on how they get the meal? I assume that Hijiri did not conjure it out of thin air for fun.
  • Fixed. It'd be kinda awesome if she did though... NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 03:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "blows Keiichi's single note" What do you mean by "note"? I know that it mentions that it is her fortune later, but can you be more clear? Maybe "banknote"?
  • Fixed. I would have used "bill," but not sure if that would make it any clearer. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )}
• "After witnessing Belldandy saving Keiichi by using her magic and seeing Belldandy's angel, Holy Bell, the priest is inspired go on a pilgrimage and leaves the temple in their hands. " The noun + -ing construction is clumsy and ungrammatical, try: "Belldandy saves Keiichi by using her magic; after witnessing this incident and seeing Belldandy's angel, Holy Bell, the priest is inspired go on a pilgrimage and leaves the temple in their hands. "
  • My fix is slightly different from yours, so you may want to take a look and confirm that I fixed the problem. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 03:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Unfortunately, Professor Osawa is suspicious and decides to investigate."
  • Another slighty different fix. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 03:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "self help book"-->self-help book
  • Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 03:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "to look for advice on how"
  • Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 03:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Keiichi determines to be himself " "determines"-->resolves or decides, take your pick.
  • Fixed. "Decides" it is. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 03:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Unfortunately, Belldandy mistakes his nervousness for illness and rushes Keiichi off to his room and uses magic to "heal" him." "and...and" repetition distracting, try: "Unfortunately, Belldandy mistakes his nervousness for illness and rushes Keiichi off to his room, using magic to "heal" him." Dabomb87 (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Couple questions for you... First, do you happen to know where I can find a good copyeditor? WP:ANIME is decidedly lacking of FL-level copyeditors. In addition, would you happen to have a suggestion for a solution to the episode 12.5 issue mentioned below? Thanks! (Don't worry about time, by the way. I've got all the time in the world and this week has been supremely bad for my Wikipedia activity too). NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 03:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, this is rather unfortunate. Maybe User:Dinoguy1000 or User:Sephiroth BCR can help? WRT the other issue, what you did looks fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Link and spell out first occurance of "OVA" for people who don't know what it means.

• Done. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 20:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Episodes one through 12" - 12 to twelve as WP:MOSNUM says comparable quantities should be consistent.

• Hmm, that's what I had before Julian copyedited... I'll have to tell him about that. Anyways, done. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 20:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The above will affect the rest of the paragraph - spell the episode numbers out.
• Episode #'s - they should not be "01", "02", "03" etc. -> 1, 2, 3, etc.

• Done. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 20:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Episode 12.5: this is completely unreferenced. The airdate ref doesn't cover this episode, and it's name etc. are also completely unreferenced. Also is "Episode 12.5" just a name you made up for the recap episode?

• It's not made-up at all. I've added two refs to prove its existence. I'm not entirely sure if it's an official episode or not, but it certainly exists. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 20:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately TV.com is not a reliable source, and neither is the encyclopedia section of ANN per this from WP:MANGA

• Alright, I literally could not find a reliable source. However, CDJapan has this, which indicates the existance of 27 episodes. Without including episode 12.5, there aren't 27 episodes. I cannot prove it's existence with reliable sources otherwise... It's quite odd, really. Maybe I just don't know how to find sources well? NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 21:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• According to TV.com, it was never aired in the U.S., which means it doesn't have an official U.S. title. However, WP:ANIME stipulates that airdates are "Generally reliable" so I trust them to be correct. Should I remove the U.S. title and put a note about it under the table or something? NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 23:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed the title and replaced it with a note. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 23:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That still doesn't change the fact that it is completely unreliably sourced. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In the context of the situation, Anime News Network is the best available source. This was the only other source I could find. The official site pretends it doesn't exist, but I've seen it myself, so I'm forced to believe it exists... I can't think of a better solution than to remove the episode altogether, but that simply doesn't change the fact that episode is a real episode (albeit without reliable sources). What is the best course of action? NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 13:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Finally sourced. Hopefully, this one is reliable... NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 03:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also I believe the archive link (reference 3) is broken.

• Replaced with an earlier archive version... There seems to be something wrong with the most recent archive as of right now. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 20:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The archive seems to be working again, so I've restored the link. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 23:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 08:01, 17 January 2009 [9].

Did this un a while back, never got around to nominating it. As always, comments welcome. Ironholds (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "by Armenian refugees fleeing" Noun + -ing sentence construction awkward here.
• File:Rupoohye.GIF needs a source. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Suggestion for the sentence construction, then? The image might be a problem; 1) it was uploaded by a banned user, 2) it has been moved around and re-uploaded so many times I cannot see the original and third the source is given as 'Hayastan Page 6'. Now I'm assuming it is a book but given that 'Hayastan' is the Armenian word for, well, Armenia, it doesn't really narrow things down much. I'll Assume Bad Faith as it were and remove the image now. Ironholds (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Suggestion: "The Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia was a state formed in the Middle Ages by Armenian refugees, who were fleeing the Seljuk invasion of Armenia." Dabomb87 (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Thanks for the reviewing, by the way; I've done 6 featured list noms through this way and your comments have always been fantastically useful. Ironholds (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Have you considered making the table sortable? It is a minor point but it may make the table even more useful.
• Anything appropriate you could link to Seljuk invasion as I have no idea what this is and it´d no doubt enhance my enjoyment of the list if I did...!
• Maybe it's the altitude kicking in but I don't follow the sentence which starts " Initially regional princes, close ties with the..." too well...
• Probably being strict, but that last sentence of the lead needs a citation - I'm guessing it's from Mutafian or Boase? Perhaps a specific page ref would be better.
• No status for Leo II is a little confusing.
• I'm also a little confused by the monarch's whose dates overlap e.g. presumably Sempad coruled with Thoros III? Not sure...

Otherwise I enjoyed it. Good work. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, for the following reasons:

• The short prose in the lead is awkward — see FL criteria 1
• Only three references are cited in the text, none of which are in the English language — see WP:VUE. No references are provided for any of the entries
• Hierarchy of references is not MoS compliant; section is inconsistently formatted — see FL criteria 5
• It lacks "annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about entries" — see FL criteria 3 (and below)
• It contains no sections (other than references) and, crucially, no table sort — see FL criteria 4

I'm not really sure why the monarchs of Cyprus (distant cousins of the last ruling monarch) are included; the Dukes of Savoy are not. Indeed there is no mention of why the title (in pretence) passed directly to Charles I in 1485; Cyprus itself had already passed to James II in 1464 and (although the titular claim to Jerusalem did pass to Louis after James III in 1474) was only disputed by the Duke from 1485 until after the reign of Catherine Cornaro in 1489. It is incorrect, therefore, to say that "the title fell out of use" in 1485, as it passed to the House of Savoy (as stated) and remained in official use as late as 1946. The table incidently, is also inconsistent with this statement, ending at 1467.

Featured lists should "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work" and satisfy all the criteria. Overall, I feel this table would be better placed in the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia article. Chrisieboy (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Choess just beat me adding "King" Leo II ;-) However, with whom was Isabella co-ruler until 1226 and Hethum I from 1252? How was Leo III "King, then co-ruler" from 1301 to 1307, while Hethum II was co-ruler from 1299 to 1307? What happened in 1341/2, 1373/4 and from 1393 to 1396? I think we should be told... Chrisieboy (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 08:01, 17 January 2009 [10].

I feel that it is at FL quality --Mr.crabby (Talk) 03:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Killervogel5

Fails criteria 1, 5, and 7, and possibly 2, since I don't believe that the lead is long enough for a list of this type. I would prefer 1 more introductory paragraph of information speaking about the history of coaching in the league.

• "Their are currently 27 head coaches in the National Football League, while seven teams currently have a vacancy at that position."

• "Their"→"there"
• There are 32 teams in the league, so there cannot be 34 head coaches (27+7).
• 27 (which should be 25) and 7 are comparative numbers, so twenty-five should be written out.
• Add (NFL) after National Football League to explicitly define what the abbreviation means.

• Separate winning percentage out from the record column so that the table can be sorted by that statistic (since you refer to it in the lead).
• "Four head coaches: Bill Belichick, Sean Payton, Andy Reid, and Lovie Smith, have won the AP Coach of the Year Award for coaching their current team."→"Four head coaches (Bill Belichick, Sean Payton, Andy Reid, and Lovie Smith) have won the AP Coach of the Year Award for coaching their current team."
• "Other current coaches that have led their team to a Super Bowl victory include: Tom Coughlin of the New York Giants,[7] Tony Dungy of the Indianapolis Colts,[3] and Jon Gruden of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers."→"Other current coaches that have led their team to a Super Bowl victory include Dungy, Tom Coughlin of the New York Giants, and Jon Gruden of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers." (see more comments below about trimming redundant language.
• All records need to have en-dashes between wins and losses, per WP:DASH, though I would prefer to see wins and losses in separate columns.
• "Bobby Petrino resigned after Week 4 of the 2007 NFL season, causing Assistant Coach Emmitt Thomas to be appointed as the interim coach for the remainder of the season."→"assistant coach" and so forth for all footnotes.
• "San Fransisco 49ers"→"San Francisco 49ers"
• "Vacant"→"vacant"
• All references to Pro Football Reference need to provide Sports Reference LLC as the publisher and Pro Football Reference as the work.
• It needs to be specified that all records apply with current teams only (a la Herman Edwards, since he came from the Jets beforehand, etc.).
• Remove redundant language.

• "After Jeff Fisher"→"After Fisher"
• "Titans coach Jeff Fisher also has"→"Fisher has"
• "Bill Belichick has won the Super Bowl"→"Belichick has won"

• Bill Belichick is overlinked in the lead. So are Tony Dungy, Indianapolis Colts and Andy Reid.
• Remove all links from the image captions since they are linked elsewhere in the article.
• "regular season winning percentage of .759" - link winning percentage
• "worst winning percentage amoung all active coaches"→"among"
• "leader amoung all current head coaches."→"among"
• I suggest adding a key that shows, using color and a symbol, coaches with Super Bowl victories, and coaches with significant achievements as outlined in the lead (longest tenure, etc.).
• In addition, this list fails WP:WIAFL#C7 because all of the coaching vacancies are subject to change without any notice right now because of the offseason. We are also still in the middle of the postseason, so the awards are also not static at the moment.

This list should have had a copyedit and a peer review before coming here to fix most of these issues; please consider it next time. Hope this helps. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wonder if this list would be better called "List of National Football League head coaches as of the end of the 2008 season", or something along those lines. After all, the list won't be "current" for very long unless it is very actively maintained. Rlendog (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just "as of 2008", it's probably going to end up getting deleted rather than promoted per WP:RECENT. This is part of my concern under Criterion 7. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be that hard to keep a list like this current. Zagalejo^^^ 07:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be hard, but that doesn't mean it will be kept current. If, on the other hand, the list was titled "List of 2009 National Football League head coaches" I would have more confidence that the current openings will be updated when filled, and then if people continue to want to maintain a list like this they can make a "List of 2010 National Football League head coaches" next year. But if this doesn't continue to be maintained, the a "List of 2009 National Football League head coaches" will still be accurate. Rlendog (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Dabomb87 13:53, 14 January 2009 [11].

I have nominated this list after having gone through copy-edit and a peer review. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments, for "The individual chapters are collected by Shueisha in a series of tankōbon volumes, which also include a poem by the cover character" maybe a slight rewording of "The individual chapters are collected and published by Shueisha in tankōbon volumes, which are also given English names and which have a poem "composed" by the cover character" (since the characters didn't really write the poems :) and to explain the English names in the table. Other than that, "Viz released the first volume on June 1, 2004, and the twenty-fifth on December 2, 200" seems to imply that Viz is only releasing 25. Why not use the standard "Viz Media released the first volume on June 1, 2004, as of December 2008 twenty-five volumes have been released." The two sentences that follow could be combined in into one. Also, its never specifically/explicitly noted that Viz licensed the series, only that it serialized it and published it. "The distributing company Viz Media..." seems a bit of a mis-description to me. Viz doesn't just distribute other people's work. It licenses, with translation, anime and manga, but it also produces original content in the form of its various magazines and it releases live-action films as well. If the sentence is kept in that format, maybe use "North American licensor Viz Media..." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Tintor2 (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know the list had a CE, but it still seems to have at least some incompleteness and some errors. Like the volume 1 summary says Ichigo slayed a Hollow. Hollows are dead, you can't kill something again. Pretty sure he didn't "kill" him, but what is it they called it, cleanse? I don't have my volume on hand at the moment to check the term and explanation on that. It also neglects to note that Ichigo was reluctant to be the substitute, or that he did deal with other Hollows before Orihime's brother. Volume 2's summary says the hollow at the boy/parakeet, but it didn't. Chad, even not being able to see it, was able to protect the parakeet. Ichigo didn't help Kon defeat a hollow, he saved Kon (Kon had no powers like that, he was just getting it away from the kids). "Ichigo learns that Soul Society attempted to kill him and is captured by Kisuke Urahara" is confusing and implies that Ichigo was captured, not the soul. And its missing at least some explanation of why they tried to kill Kon. The summaries all seem perhaps too short for 200 page volumes that often have a lot happening in them. If size is an issue, it might be good to look at splitting the list (particularly since it is an on-going series that already has 36 volumes, with I'd expect another 4 coming at the minimum just from the current list of uncollected chapters. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The things you mentioned were fixed. For some reason Shueisha waits a lot to release a volume from Bleach although there are several chapters uncollected. The problem of some volumes is that they focus a lot in fights (especially vols 28+), making little plot development. A split could be good, but it would be better to wait more volumes since size is not a issue for now.Tintor2 (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably will not support or oppose, as I was the copy-editor, so my ability to make neutral judgements is severely impaired here. Note that my edits addressed language and flow only, I cannot confirm whether they changed the content or not. Perhaps ask User:Sephiroth BCR about it. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has withdrawn the nomination [12]. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 17:47, 13 January 2009 [13].

I am nominating this list because I believe it meets all FL criteria. It appears well-written and provides full coverage of the subject. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Table only has six items; although the lead is quite substantial considering. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentQuick-Fail - like Dabomb said, the table is too short because it is not listing enough information. FLC's must have at least 10 items, excluding vacancies; exceptions to this are lists that present substantial information in the tables. This, I'm afraid, isn't one of them, however, the lead is well written. --Truco 19:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy fail Sorry, the list does not have enough items.—Chris! _ct 20:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Length is not an excuse for featureability. Either it should have a chance to become featured or it should be merged (I'd point it to Nashville Sounds team records). Reywas92^Talk 04:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it does because this list isn't saying much, now if it were about a list on historic landmarks, that would be different because other notes and columns are added, but here only statistics are listed. I'd also point to a merge to Nashville Sounds team records.--Truco 21:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Rambo's Revenge 14:19, 11 January 2009 [14].

User:La Pianista and I have been working on this article in early December last year, but the nomination was delayed because of the holidays. Anyway, I believe it meets the criteria now and is ready for nomination. Chamal ^talk 09:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I happily co-nom (though a bit late). :) —La Pianista ^(T•C) 16:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to withdraw this nom, since neither of us have the necessary time right now to improve the article. I have discussed this with La Pianista, and we agreed that the best thing to do would be to withdraw the nom. Thanks for the suggestions from everyone, we will work on them when we can. Or at least, someone else will. Chamal ^talk 14:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Images: Most of the images are under fair use rational and one nominated for deletion. Also, the ones with fair use rational do not seem to be in good shape. Various columns of fair use rational are not correctly filled up. Textual content seems to be good with thorough research done. --GPPande 12:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Changed Patil image. The fair use of other images is invalid. There are images of even the deceased Presidents available, some even on Flickr. OTRS system can be used. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I'll see if I can find some. Chamal ^talk 14:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well-referenced and informative. Reywas92^Talk 21:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Copyedit

1. he/she --> The president. (gender neutral without slash)
   • {{done}}
2. The post of President is known as Rashtrapati --> That would be in Hindi, not English
   • {{done}}
3. The President is elected by an electoral college of members of the parliament houses, Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Members of the Vidhan Sabha, the state legislative assemblies, are also involved in the election of the President. -- Choppy sentences. Needs to be combined as all three departments vote.
   • {{done}}
4. being representatives of the Indian National Congress. Presidents do not represent their parties
   • {{done}}
5. who died before his term of office was ended. --> Simplify: who died in office
   • {{done}}
6. Suggest you get it copyedited from a third person

Context

1. Prasad was the first President of independent India. --> India was independent in 1947. Somewhere you need to mention that the post of President came about in 1950 after India became a republic
   • {{done}}
2. Mention what act of the constitution sets the term of the president
   • {{done}}
3. Who appoints an acting president. Convert the text to active voice
   • I added this in the article as vice president assuming office. Was it something else you meant?
4. He is a recipient of the Bharat Ratna --> change tense
   • {{done}}
5. A timeline is needed. See List of Chief Ministers of Tamil Nadu
   • {{done}}
6. use a separate background colour for acting presidents
   • {{done}}
7. Any reason why there were two acting presidents in succession?
   • {{done}}

Manual of style

1. President of India in the lead needs to be bold
   • {{done}}
2. In the references, .html and .asp are not needed. It only applies to PDF, DOC and so on
   • {{done}}
3. Golden Army of Angels --> wikify not done It seems that Wikipedia doesn't have any information about this order. Should this be removed from the article?
   • {{done}}
4. Defense --> Use Indian English spellings
   • {{done}}
5. Use past tense for former presidents
   • {{done}}

Copyrights

1. Images have suspect licences. Indian government images are NOT in Public Domain

=Nichalp «Talk»= 08:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I have completed some, working on the others. Will try to find free images, if there aren't any, accurate fair use rationales will be provided. Chamal ^talk 09:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Army of Angels --> red links are perfectly fine. It would encourage someone to create an article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments:
  • Lead section says: "Following Hussain's death, two acting presidents held office until the new president, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, was elected." - Next president was V V Giri himself who completed a five-year term.
    • {{done}}
  • In this context, it should be mentioned with ref that (something like this) if Vice-President is not available, Chief Justice of Supreme Court becomes acting President, as guided in Indian Constitution.
    • {{done}} (I did not find this in the constitution. Article 70 mentions that parliament may decide in exceptional conditions. I have added this Chamal ^talk 01:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • The two presidents who died in office, some info on how they died who would be good (in the last column of the table). - Not needed, they seems to have died natural deaths.--GDibyendu (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • N S Reddy row of the table says he was 9th President in last column, 6th in 1st column.
    • {{done}}
  • R Venkataraman row: he was jailed for participating in India's independence movement.
    • {{done}}
  • K R Narayanan row: he was chancellor of several universities. -> 'Vice-Chancellor' (of JNU). Wikipage on him does not give info on which other universities he was VC of.
    • {{done}} (He was a chancellor of several universities, as the ref shows. Have added VC info as well Chamal ^talk 01:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • The reason I pointing it out is that Vice-President, President and Governors of different states become Chancellor of universities by their position. For example, Chancellor of Delhi University is always Vice-President of India. Anyway, current info is referenced. BTW, 'chancellor in universities' should be 'chancellor of universities'.--GDibyendu (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--GDibyendu (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The President also holds the position of the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of India."-->The President is the Commander-in-chief of the armed forces of India.
  • {{done}}
• "Although the president is vested such powers by the constitution of India, it"—"it"-->the position.
  • {{done}}
• "that literally means "lord of the realm". " "literally" is implied unless suggested otherwise.
  • {{done}}
• "There have been twelve Presidents of India"—"twelve"-->12.
  • {{done}}
• "since the introduction of the post following"—"following"-->after.
  • {{done}}
• "She was also the first woman to serve as President of India." "was"-->is.
  • {{done}}
• What do the colors indicate in the table? A key is needed. {{done}}
  • Could you organize this a little better, a la List of Governors of Alabama? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{done}}
• All items in sortable columns should be linked.
  • {{done}}
• Please resolve the image issues; for fair use images, strive for minimal usage. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe Chamal is currently working on the last one. I've attempted to fix the other ones. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 21:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Items colored light brown to indicate acting president needs a symbol, such as * # ‡ † Dabomb87 (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{done}}

Sources

• I notice that you use Encyclopædia Britannica as a source. Generally, we should not be using other tertiary sources to source Wikipedia, a tertiary source in itself.
  • {{done}}
• Newspaper publications should be in italics, change "publisher" to work, see this sample edit. {{Done}}, if I understand correctly. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 21:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You italicized everything here, I only meant the newspapers and magazines. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, sorry. Hopefully fixed now. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C) 21:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• No leading 0s in dates, see this sample edit.
  • {{done}}

Dabomb87 (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Kensplanet

• What makes REF18 (http://www.whereincity.com/india/great-indians/presidents/neelam-sanjiva-reddy.php) reliable?
  • {{done}} Nothing. There were a few references like that, but I must have missed this one when I replaced the others. I've put a better ref in place now.
• Can you find some better References for A.P.J. Abdul Kalam and Ramaswamy Venkataraman. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/625441/Ramaswamy-Venkataraman and http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/861164/A-P-J-Abdul-Kalam are not good sources. The Presidents of India are well documented. Please consider some better sources. Check Google Books.
  • {{done}} New refs added.
• Unless copyright status of all the Images are cleared, I oppose. Kensplanet^T_C 07:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll work on the images ASAP, probably during the weekend when I get more time, or earlier if I can manage. Chamal ^talk 13:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do ping me on my Talk once Image issues have been resolved. I'll surely reconsider my decision. Kensplanet^T_C 06:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The Lead looks very dry without an Image. Consider adding an Image like the President's residence or something. Kensplanet^T_C 06:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image comments

• President #2 is not a free image (see [15])
• Same with President #3.
• Was this image really taken by that user? It seems rather old for that...
• (you cropped your President #3^1/3and #4 image from that)
• See if you can find President #6's image on Google Images...if you can't, than the description might be right.
• Need a non-free use rationale for President #7.
• Also need a NFRR for Prez #10.
• Hope that this helps you guys get it to FL. :) Cheers! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will work on the images during the weekend. I have very limited time now, and will try to clear up the other issues until then. Chamal ^talk 12:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sarvagnya

• indiafacts.headlinesindia.com does not seem to meet WP:RS standards.
  • {{done}} Replaced with the constitution.
• B D Jatti was not CM of Jamkhandi. Jamkhandi was his constituency. He was CM of 'Mysore' where "Mysore" should be linked to Karnataka.
  • {{done}}
• The colour coding to denote party affiliations is alright, but correct me if I'm wrong.. I feel it should be clarified that the Office of the President is not associated with a given party, regardless of the incumbent's prior affiliations.
  • {{done}} This is already mentioned just above the table. Chamal ^talk 02:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvagnya 22:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review 2

1. Six of these were representatives of the Indian National Congress. The Janata Party has produced one president, Neelam Sanjiva Reddy. I'm not happy with this statement. I would suggest a rewrite on these lines "...were active party members of..."
   • {{done}}
2. It would be a worth note to mention that candidates affiliated to the ruling political party at the centre are likely to become President.

• Prose and redundancies:

1. is largely a ceremonial role
   • {{done}}
2. exercised by the Cabinet Ministers and Prime Minister. --> convert to active voice
3. since the introduction of the post. The post was established in 1950 --> check the flow. Include 1950 in the first sentence.
   • {{done}}
4. when he resigned --> confusing wording. Mention the name of the person in the sentence for clarity
   • {{done}}
5. via -- colloquial
   • {{done}}
6. indicate the following. A colon is needed to indicate an incomplete sentence
   • {{done}}
7. You can also mention that since 1977, all presidents have assumed office on 25 July.
8. was also a chancellor
9. Early on,^[when?] Venkataraman
10. British due to his involvement --> "for his"
    • {{done}}
11. India’s Provisional Parliament --> This is something new for me. Link?
    • Ref is already there at end of sentence.
12. first Sikh to become President of India. --> Trivia not needed. We do not have a similar entry for first the Muslim and Christian to be President
    • {{done}}
13. ...State of Mysore... Link to State of Mysore instead of Karnataka
    • {{done}}
14. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed served as a Minister --> What portfolio?
15. remains the only person --> is the only person
    • {{done}}
16. Bharat Ratna award --> Bharat Ratna
    • {{done}}
17. 'in order to
    • {{done}}
18. Would like to see a cite for "lord of the realm"
19. You need not sort the portrait and notes column. Also check and see if the dates sort correctly. You might need to use a sort key
20. You can also add an "age at assuming office" column
21. You can also add a "% of support" column if the data is available.
    • For the age and support percentage, I'm not sure if there will be information for all presidents. Finding important details about them on reliable sources was surprisingly hard (I'd have thought that Indian presidents would be covered deeply in media), and I don't think there will be many good sources for this info. I'll see if I can find any. Chamal ^talk 12:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

=Nichalp «Talk»= 15:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I references are pretty much available http://presidentofindia.nic.in has the birthdays of the most presidents, and % victory is available here: http://pib.nic.in/archieve/pelection2007.pdf (You might have to scavenge for the 1997, 2002 & 2007 results though). Limit searching to the .gov.in and .nic.in domains on Google. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily closed per nominator withdrawal [16]. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 23:10, 10 January 2009 [17].

I think that this page is worthy enough of being a FL. It's completely sourced, everything runs and flows well together. The page is always being monitored by myself and others. Absolutely everything looks great! EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "This following is detailed discography for the American country music artist Billy Ray Cyrus." We don't start lists like this anymore. Look at recently promoted discographies for ideas. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better? EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Good start, but I have a few problems and suggestions:

• "4× Multi-Platinum" is redundant. 4x is Multi. Should be 4x Platinum.
  • Comment See note by TenPoundHammer. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The small font for the Album details is unneccessary. The irony with using small font with bullet points is that it doesn't actually save any vertical space at all, it just makes it more difficult to read. I'd recommend taking a look at pretty much every other FL discog, as I think none of them use small font for anythibg but the catalog numbers.
  • Done! EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• In "RIAA (US):", I don't think it's neccesary to mentioned RIAA. We don't qualify US in the chart positions with "Billboard (US)", so there's no need here. Just likk US to RIAA, and if the reader wants to know more they can click through. Same thing with CRIA.
  • Done! EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Canadian chart positions are unknown from November 2000 to June 2004" bothers me quite a bit. What that seems to me to say is that you just couldn't find that info. It obviously exists, so it's just a matter of finding it. And without finding it, the list is not complete.
  • Comment Nope, Canadian chart positions cannot be found because RPM (magazine) closed in November 2000, and so they can't be found anywhere. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's right, there is no source to verify the CAN chart positions between November 2000 (when RPM closed) and June 2004 (when the Canadian R&R Country chart was first published). This wasn't a hindrance in Diamond Rio discography.

I see; I did not know that... Well, I won't hold that against the article for now, though it would be nice if there were some reliable source telling us this rather than something we are assuming. Is there any such source you could direct me to? Drewcifer (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best I can tell you is that RPM went under in November 2000 and R&R started its Canadian country chart in June 2004. Ask Eric444 or Caldorwards4, they might know. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A bunch of the music videos are missing directors.
  • 'Comment Haven't been able to find them. And theirs only 9 that don't have one. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also not a hindrance. We don't know who directed the "Working Man's Blues" video that Diamond Rio did as Jed Zeppelin. "Unknown" might be a good filler here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away from FLC for a few months, and I surely would've brought this up with the Diamond Rio FLC if I was around, but I find it hard to believe that we're okay with incomplete lists. By "unkown" what are we saying? That the information isn't available? Of course the information is available, and if you can't find it then you aren't looking in the right places. Someone directed the music video, so saying "We can't find it" just doesn't cut it for me. And the argument that the Diamond Rio discog has one missing is pretty irrelevant as well, per WP:OSE. Drewcifer (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information isn't available online at least. CMT is a good source, but even they are missing some director credits, and there doesn't seem to be any other source for them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Research does not begin and end online. If it can't be found online, look elsewhere. Information being difficult to find doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. Drewcifer (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And where else would they be found? I've checked sources like Country Weekly and other music magazines. Country music is not very well covered in print sources, and video directors are especially hard to find. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The citations need to be formatted using citation templates.

• Agreed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• MVDbase is not considered a reliable source. Needs to be replaced.
  • Done! EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Some external links would be good.
• Some general references would also help.
• The certifications in the video section are formmatted differently than the other certification columns throughout the list.
• The first table featuring certifications should include a link to Music recording sales certification and List of music recording sales certifications. Take a look at Nine Inch Nails discography for an example. 02:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewcifer3000 (talk • contribs)
  • Done! EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]