Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/January 2012

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 14:20, 29 January 2012 [1].

Nominator(s): Muhandes (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think the subject is important, and I believe the list meets all the criteria. A previous nomination stretched too long and was closed due to lack of support, though concerns were mostly addressed.

Since the last nomination, the list has gone through one major change. Mostly due technical problems, the list had to be split. Following consensus, this was performed by applying a stricter inclusion criteria, namely including only institutes which are recognized by the UGC as universities. The distinction is explained at length at the lead. This also has the benefit of a clearer inclusion criteria which does not require consensus for each and every additional institute.

For the sake of transparancy I should mention that I invites all the editors who commented on the previous nomination to comment again. As all editors and not just the supporting ones were invited, this should be a problem. Muhandes (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I also commented on the last nomination, I believe it meets the criteria.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but one problem I've noticed is that the tables without pictures are wider than the tables with pictures. I think the tables need to be he same width regardless of whether it has a picture or not. Mattg82 (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• On my browser they are exactly the same width, except when I make the window too small for the entire table width to be displayed, in which case only the tables with images are wrapped around. This seems like the desired hard coded behavior. Was this what you were referring to, or is it some other browser specific issue? --Muhandes (talk) 07:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The tables are using percentages for column widths which add upto 100% (ie the whole width of the screen). If a picture is added to the side of the table, the total width available becomes smaller and hence the table is narrower. However tables without images make use of complete width available. I hope I am making sense here lol.

• TBH this is a minor cosmetic issue, it shouldn't stop the list from being an FL. Mattg82 (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, I applied the suggestion you made and it seems to work. Cheers! --Muhandes (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• With regards to the University Specialization, have you differentiated between "Engineering" and "Technology"? Because I see many variants; for some, its just "Engineering", for some, its just "Technology", and for some, its both. Can you clarify? Thanks, Lynch7 17:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I replaced all with technology which seems like a broader term. --Muhandes (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, Indian Institute of Science also offers Technology courses as well, not just science. (I go to the department every week :P ) Other than that, great work Muhandes, you've perfected a very important and useful article. Lynch7 18:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added. --Muhandes (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Of course. Lynch7 13:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject While GGSIPU is a Professional University, offering practically no general degrees like BA, BCom, BSc; Muhandes has reverted the required edit twice, because according to him, the university does not qualify to be called professional university. I have shown him the Delhi Govt. Act under which it was formed, the University website, the courses offered but he seems not to be satisfied. On the other hand, he showed me the Wikipedia entry of Professional University which is redirected to Vocational university a simple article without much content.

So if someone treats an article as his own turf, writes most of the content himself, without consulting or accepting genuine edits, then it can never become a good article (by whatever name called). Such a person may be well educated, and a master in Wikipedia edits... but that does not means others are minnows without a voice... I found the above mistake, and with the same attitude of the key contributor to the page, may be there are a lot more (one has to look at the past reversals made by the editor to find the true character of the article). I would say that it has a biased POV. DebashisM (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debashis, when there is no clear distinction (in the Indian context) regarding what is called as a professional university, and what is not, we must be careful in assigning names. Unless the Delhi Govt. order/UGC notification spells it explicitly as a professional university, then we shouldn't really classify it as such, since the term Professional University is not well defined from a worldwide (and Indian) view. Lynch7 19:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was ask for discussion, see here. I did not write the content "without consulting or accepting genuine edits". On the contrary, the list was created by members of WP:INEI and follows consensus reached over the months by said members, as the talk page shows. As MikeLynch commented above, the term you proposed is unclear, so discussing it is due. Similarly, MikeLynch raised an issue above where "Technology" and "Engineering" isn't clear, which was addressed. Anyway, if you think asking for discussion is a reason for rejecting the list, I hope whoever closes this takes this into consideration. --Muhandes (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The University was formed under the Indraprastha Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1998 (THE INDRAPRASTHA VISHWAVIDYALAYA ACT, 1998). The relevant portion of the Act reads:

AN ACT to establish and incorporate an affiliating and teaching University at Delhi to facilitate and promote studies, research and extension work in emerging areas of higher education with focus on professional education, for example engineering, technology, management studies, medicine, pharmacy, nursing, education, law, etc., and also to achieve excellence in these and connected fields and other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. BE it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi in the fortyninth year of the Republic of India as follows... [Act]

In fact the university website , www.ipu.ac.in, as well as the Wikipedia entry of GGSIPU categorizes it as a professional university. If you have problems with the entry then change it the University page too. The concept of NPOV (or a misunderstanding of the same) cannot be tolerated, especially if it portrays the entity in a different light (which may also be considered malicious and legal actions may be initiated). Free encyclopedia does not only mean 'free for access' but 'freedom of speech (and writing too)' however it does not give the freedom or right to anything in the name of NPOV. DebashisM (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the categories in the list is not 'blue worded' that links to any Wikipedia article, but is as understood commonly. Any user, at least net savvy users in India, would automatically know that the University offers Professional Courses and no other. How this simple fact is being ignored by someone sitting in Israel is hard to understand. DebashisM (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may or may not be correct, and the place to discuss the issue is the article's talk page. I repeat that you are asking to reject the list because another editor asked for discussion of a change you proposed. --Muhandes (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, please discuss (with a cooler head). Nothing ever came of being hot headed and judgmental. Lynch7 20:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I ask for a 'reject' because I know that the present list has atleast one inaccuracy (which I have pointed out with factual details). Despite my correcting the error, the editor chose to twice revert the correct detail and called for a discussion, which has no participant than the editor and me. So, if the editor has called for discussion then how can the article be rated before the matter is settled in the discussion. Moreover, I have given factual proof of my assertion, but it is Muhandes who has failed to show any basis for categorizing it as it is at present. DebashisM (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True the Act is for the particular University (and at present I am not concerned about others). The UGC does not define technology/ management university either... in fact they could also be brought under the ambit of professional universities. UGC does take into account the role of professional councils before awarding certain degrees, and my definations of Professional University would encompass all such courses. See the following link <http://www.ugc.ac.in/inside/pcouncil.html> for yourself...DebashisM (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a University chooses to offer one amongst them like management, medicine, law, technology you allow such a university to be called by that name, but if a university chooses to offer multiple disciplines then you are not ready to call it by the 'plural' word for the same which is 'professional university' and not 'general university' as is being written (especially when they do not offer any general degree like BA, BCom, BSc pass/hons ). DebashisM (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And since it talks of specialization, the term 'General' is a misinformation. If the use of the word 'professional' is declined, then it should have to be substituted with the words 'fashion,law, management, medicine, nursing, pharmacy,technology etc.' So, what's wrong in using the word professional courses? I don't think the world is so dumb... DebashisM (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And again, all we asked for is that this issue be discussed before changing the page. And you seem to think asking for discussion is reason for rejecting the list. --Muhandes (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debashish's opposition seems a case of WP:POINT because according to him/her, the said list is not a Perfect Article.

List uses specialization "Legal" for one university whereas others are using "Law". Please standardise.

Standardized on Legal, mainly since the article link is handy. --Muhandes (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the universities offering language specializations, some list them as "xyz language" while others are simply "xyz". Again, standardise.

Standardized on "xyz" except for Dravidian languages which I think would require the qualifier since "Dravidian" does not sound well. --Muhandes (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same for health vs health sciences, distance learning vs distance education.

Standardized on Healthcare and Distance education. --Muhandes (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replace & with "and" in specializations.

Done --Muhandes (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, its in good shape for an FL I think.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All resolved, thanks for the comments. --Muhandes (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From now on, I'd refrain from stating my opinion more than once. Even if I have something material to contribute, I try to disseminate the same. However, I'll waste no time and effort to fight a war (even if justified).... DebashisM (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Taken literally, there is no violation of criterion 6. However, the recent split, the content dispute above, and this comment lead me to doubt the wisdom in promoting the article at this time. Goodraise 03:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 14:20, 29 January 2012 [2].

Nominator(s): Guy546^(Talk) 20:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this article meets the criteria, and I modeled this article like FL List of accolades received by 127 Hours. Thanks. Guy546^(Talk) 20:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Be consistent with the name of each award ceremony (83rd Academy Awards, but then just Art Directors Guild Awards?)
• Opening sentence is a bit long, and could easily be split into two (move actors to second sentence)
• No need to wikilink Ireland

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "It has appeared in more than a twenty movie reviewers'..." Remove bolded
• "The King's Speech has received various awards and nominations in different categories, including art direction, score, screenplay, cinematography, costumes, directing, acting, and the film itself" This sentence doesn't quite make sense. Perhaps move last part to a new sentence, such as "In addition, the film itself has been recognized"?

• Done: split sentence with semi-colon, which avoids an overly short sentence. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Last sentence of lead should say how many total awards and noms it received (78 and 217)

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Awards and nominations" -> Accolades (consistency with article title)

• I think this is done, but please let me know if not. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You should switch around the category and recipient boxes (just a personal preference thing)

• Now done - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Use consistent publishers for refs (compare www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog to The Guardian for example) Ruby 2010/2013 21:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think some of the ref titles need to be in all caps, even if they are in the original source. Also, the "Category" and "Recipient" fields do need to be flipped (category first) as Ruby pointed out, as that is common in most other accolades articles and makes it easier to read. Glimmer721 ^talk 03:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also one dablink: [3] and 5 dead links: [4] Glimmer721 ^talk 03:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Dablink sorted, deadlinks still there... - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Deadlinks now sorrted too. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Category" and "Recipient" fields now done - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• References now no longer in caps. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not my article, but a drive-by tidy-up on these points while I wait for mine to come under the microscope. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Instead of having the refs next to the name of the award, I think it would be better if they were placed in a separate column at the end of the table
• Table does not comply with WP:ACESS, you need to add row and colscopes to the table. See MOS:DTT for how to rectify this.
• ref 3 needs to include the authors
  • Done.
• ref 20 the hyphen should be an dash
  • Done.
• ref 27 need author and date of publicaton
  • Done.
• ref 31 needs date of publication
  • Already done?
• ref 49 need an author
  • Done. Guy546^(Talk) 22:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still a few comments that have not been addressed, especially the access one, so I'm going to oppose until those are fixed. NapHit (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ref 60 is dead now. Glimmer721 ^talk 19:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I fixed it. Support. Glimmer721 ^talk 19:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per NapHit. Accessibility is important. Goodraise 22:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 23:27, 23 January 2012 [5].

Nominator(s):--INeverCry 06:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is comprehensive, well-written, and informative.--INeverCry 06:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This article was on my to-do list. It is nowhere near FL-status; just a few examples: Lead is very thin, you could describe the history of Russian exploration (for example access to the Black Sea during the Catherine II-era, access to the Gulf of Finland during the reign of Peter the Great, the first explorations in North Russia, etc.); do not start with "This is a list of", because it is redundant; WP:YOU, WP:ACCESS, WP:BOLDFACE, WP:OVERLINKING etc. violations; references are not ready (WP:BAREURLS, {{ru icon}} is only for ELs, references should be converted to cite templates, dead links, questionable sources); generally heavy WP:MOS violations. These are just examples; this nomination should be withdrawn, because it does not meet WP:GA?, #2, #3, and maybe more. It needs heavy work before nominating.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 08:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to help improving all these issues right now? I suppose this shouldn't take too much time. I agree with all the problems named except perhaps WP:BOLDFACE and WP:OVERLINKING. Boldface is useful to highlight the main achievements in the long texts, while WP:OVERLINKING might not hold for such lists at all, since it is not an article necessarily expected to be read from top to bottom, but from any particular place a reader might like to check in the list.

As for the lead, I could write a longer one very quickly if someone is willing to help with other technical problems. GreyHood ^Talk 12:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will work on references. I disagree with your assertion that boldface hightlights the main achivements. It is not exact what the main achivements are; everyone has a POV whether something is more notable than everything else. For example in the first cell of the "Achivements" column, is "Albanov was one of the only two survivors of the ill-fated 1912–14 Brusilov expedition," really significant? I agree "helped Vladimir Vize to calculate the coordinates of previously unknown Vize Island.[1]" is notable, but not the first. So I am for removing boldface. Also it will reduce the page size, resulting in faster loadings.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 14:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we may reduce the number of things boldfaced, but removing it entirely will only reduce the usability of the list. Not every reader is willing to read all those long descriptions and to find the main points on their own. So either boldface stays, or we change the conception of the list entirely, reducing the descriptions to main points only. The first variant allows more uses of the list. GreyHood ^Talk 14:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make a list of things to be done. Please place  Done beside an issue when it is fixed.

• Expansion of the lead.  Done
• Changing the first line of the lead. Done
• WP:YOU  Done
• WP:ACCESS  Done
• Reduce WP:BOLDFACE  Done
• Reduce WP:OVERLINKING  Done
• WP:BAREURLS  In progress
• Remove {{ru icon}} from everywhere except ELs  Done
• Convert references to cite templates  Done
• Remove dead links  Done
• Change the questionable sources for better ones ???
• WP:WTA  Done
• check WP:COLOR  not a requirement

I'll work on these issues soon and hope for a further help with MOS issues. But where are WP:YOU problems concretely located, what are the suggestions to improve WP:ACCESS, and which sources are questionable? GreyHood ^Talk 14:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, let me do the cite thing, please ;). YOU violation in "For the full plain list of Russian explorers on Wikipedia, see Category:Russian explorers. See also the list of Russian and Soviet cosmonauts; several cosmonauts, who've set important records, are listed here." - also, is it really true? A category has the "full list" and this list has only a few examples? Also, nobody really knows if this is correct. ACCESS violation in tables; should have "!scope = row", etc thingy, see also MOS:DTT; we must make sure that it meets WP:COLOR. And I saw words like "famous"; they should be also removed.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the current table:

Portrait	Person	Achievements	Image
	Valerian Albanov (1881–1919)  Russian Empire Imperial Russian Navy officer, lieutenant, Arctic explorer	Albanov was one of the only two survivors of the ill-fated 1912–14 Brusilov expedition, the other being Alexander Konrad. They left the ice-bound ship St. Anne and by ski, sledge, and kayak crossed the Kara Sea, reached Franz Josef Land and were finally rescued by Georgy Sedov's Saint Phocas. The data about ice drift of St. Anne, provided by Albanov, helped Vladimir Vize to calculate the coordinates of previously unknown Vize Island.[1] A glacier in Severnaya Zemlya is named after Albanov. Either Albanov or Konrad is a prototype for a hero in the novel The Two Captains by Veniamin Kaverin.

This is how it should be per MOS:DTT:

Portrait	Person	Achievements	Image
	Valerian Albanov (1881–1919)  Russian Empire Imperial Russian Navy officer, lieutenant, Arctic explorer	Albanov was one of the only two survivors of the ill-fated 1912–14 Brusilov expedition, the other being Alexander Konrad. They left the ice-bound ship St. Anne and by ski, sledge, and kayak crossed the Kara Sea, reached Franz Josef Land and were finally rescued by Georgy Sedov's Saint Phocas. The data about ice drift of St. Anne, provided by Albanov, helped Vladimir Vize to calculate the coordinates of previously unknown Vize Island.[1] A glacier in Severnaya Zemlya is named after Albanov. Either Albanov or Konrad is a prototype for a hero in the novel The Two Captains by Veniamin Kaverin.

I don't like the grey column, but I belive we must live with it :/. What do you think?♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i don't see significant visual difference other than the grey column. Is it really so much need to implement this change and are there any ways to avoid gray column? GreyHood ^Talk 16:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid so. Ok, now we need to add an accessible sign, see also User:The Rambling Man/FLC things to check. "! # $ % ^ & * ~ § " are accessible signs, as well as {{†}} and {{‡}}♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will do it now--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if we could do without all the flag icons? Any reduction in size would help with the slow load time, and there are probably 1000 or so flag icons.--INeverCry 18:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable proposal. Would you like to remove them all, leaving only the names of states? GreyHood ^Talk 23:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--INeverCry 02:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you did that. You could just remove the flag icons, but not the nationality. Also "(born in Estonia, Baltic German descent)" is original research and should be removed.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since all people were Russian/Soviet nationality, though some born elsewhere, it doesn't make sense to repeat it multiple times, afterall. I'll remove the Estonian bit. GreyHood ^Talk 13:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be useful for our readers. I removed the rest. The lead plus the infobox looks impressive, very nice! The references are now the major problem. I cleaned up the references from Z-R, and I will work step-by-step. I left out dead links, to which I could not find any archived pages. --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 14:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will finish when I am back :). I struck out my oppose to avoid archivation. Regards. ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 10:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – This isn't a full review, just a few basic things I noticed while skimming through the list...

• There's no reason the History of Russian exploration subsection shouldn't be a full section. It's structured like a regular section, and having a section like this isn't any kind of FL disqualifier, especially when the list is this large. Done
• Check to make sure that all images have alt text. There's a lot of them, so this may take a while.
  •  Done GreyHood ^Talk 19:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Colors should have matching symbols per WP:ACCESS. That goes for the key and entries.
  • done ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speaking of the colors, I feel like they're overdone in the list. I like the colors in the Person column, but am finding that the coloring elsewhere is distracting to me. Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but I'd like to see coloring limited to the Person column.
  • Agree with other your proposals, but not with this one. Coloring is related not only and not primarily to explorers, but to what was explored, so the Achievements column should be colored as well. As for the third column, it just contains images, and the coloring couldn't be seriously distractive there, while it is technically easier to color three columns rather than two of them. GreyHood ^Talk 13:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The persistent bolding in the Achievements column also distracts me, and is a violation of MOS:BOLD, which recommends against excessive bolding. It says that italics can be used as a replacement, but I'd recommend that it not be used as a replacement here. I fear that italics would be nearly as distracting. Done
• Sources will need careful attention, particularly regarding whether they are reliable. I'm not an expert on the topic and can't read Russian, so this is tough for me to judge properly.
• See also should be moved before the references. Done Giants2008 (Talk) 01:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your recommendations! GreyHood ^Talk 13:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Criterion 2. Nowhere do I read the criteria for inclusion on (or exclusion from) the list. There is a long list of names on the list's talk page; the discussion implies the reason for excluding them is at least in part editorial convenience, not some objective criteria. (See WP:LSC.)
• Content. The History of Russian exploration section, while a commendable topic, should be in a separate article. At a minimum its first two paragraphs (summarizing early Russian history) are unnecessary here.
• Structure. For this list to be useful, it should be sortable by meaningful dates (e.g. the date of each entry's most prominent discovery), and by geography explored. Dividing into alphabetic tables makes this impossible. (Right now for example, there is no way for me to group together the major explorers of Russian America.)
• Prose. I know people have been working on the article; it needs copyediting (e.g. "oversees" in the lead?)
• Media issues. All of the images I spot-checked (File:Admiral-Wrangel.jpg and File:Przewalski.jpg, to name just two) have inadequate provenance. While many of the images are probably public domain, they need defensible assertions of sufficient age (and ought to have English descriptions if they currently don't). (I recommend all images used have properly-filled-out {{Information}} templates.)

-- Magic♪piano 03:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 23:27, 23 January 2012 [6].

Nominator(s): Felipe Menegaz 05:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this medal table for featured list because it follows the standards of the 2007 Pan American Games medal table (FL) and is more comprehensive than the other tables from the Pan American Games. There is a lack of references, however, this is an old edition of the Games. Therefore, the only reliable sources found were placed. Regards; Felipe Menegaz 05:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • This is not a reason to oppose, since it's used all over the place, but it would be nice to get away from the Mercator projection for the map. Canada is taking up a full 1/3 of the image, and I'm pretty sure Greenland isn't larger than South America.
    • Well, I think that the map's projection does not affect the quality of the list and I appreciate if you save me some time from having to create a new map... Hahaha. Particularly I like Mercator projection maps. I decided to use this one because it already had the Caribbean islands highlighted. --F.M.
  • The three footnotes say the exact same thing three different ways ("achieved, in fact,", "got", "earned"; "despite", "instead of", "despite"). In prose it makes sense to break up monotony in this fashion, but my feeling is that footnotes should be uniform.
    • What would be the ideal form? --F.M.
      • Simple, uniform writing. So probably just say "earned" and "instead of". 'Despite' seems like a poor choice of words; they didn't win these medals "despite" news coverage. --Golbez (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done Some sources appoint that NOC earned X medals, instead of Y. This would result in a total of Z medals. Felipe Menegaz 19:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, looks good. --Golbez (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the review! Felipe Menegaz 00:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there adequate alt text to help people with the map who can't see it very well?
  • Maybe "Map of the Americas colored with gold, silver, bronze and purple." I don't know... Felipe Menegaz 20:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not even sure that it really adds much at all to the article, and I still have concerns over it's compliance with WP:ACCESS. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed alt text to "Map of the Americas pointing countries colored in gold, silver and bronze according to their top achievements during the 1963 Games. Countries that have not won medals are colored in purple. The yellow square indicates the location of the host city." Felipe Menegaz 23:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't believe ACCESS applies here - since the data in the map is also in the table, using colors alone in the map is not preventing anyone from receiving a full understanding of the data. --Golbez (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • What should be done then? Regards; Felipe Menegaz 03:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't see the sorting arrows in the gold/silver/bronze column headings.
  • I think that is a problem on {{RankedMedalTable}}. Felipe Menegaz 20:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well it should be sorted because right now you have a key that says those columns with the arrows can be sorted, which is not the whole picture because those without arrow heads can also be sorted. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed key to "To sort this table by nation, total medal count, or any other column, click on the column title or the icon next to them." Felipe Menegaz 23:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Meets FL standards. Oh, and please don't strike a reviewer's comments for them; let them check that the comments have been satisfactorily addressed. The fixes were fine in this case, but I've seen comments not resolved that were struck by the nominators. It's an inconvenience all around. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I apologize for that. Thanks for the advice. Regards; Felipe Menegaz 21:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: just regarding the phrasing of the opening sentence, I've been told numerous times that anything not plural should have either "is" or "was" after it eg. "The 1963 Pan American Games...was" versus "The 1963 Pan American Games...were". Not a big issue for me, but I've been picked up on it before, so it might be wise to change. Otherwise, looks good, even down to the correct number of stars on the Netherlands Antilles' flag. I♦A 15:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just changed. Thank you! Felipe Menegaz 14:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Great, looks good! I♦A 01:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still fail to understand why this and most all other medal table pages must be a separate list. 1963 Pan American Games is awfully darn short. Reywas92^Talk 21:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also awaiting resolution of this question. — KV5 • Talk • 23:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this can only be solved at WP:OLYMPICS and WP:MUSE. Felipe Menegaz 15:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly true, as this could be considered a content fork, which is not necessarily under a WikiProject guideline but rather a sitewide guideline. This is where concern arises. Discussion can be undertaken by the WikiProjects but users here can easily determine whether this is a fork or not and whether it meets the criteria for a stand-alone list given the current state of the main article. — KV5 • Talk • 18:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the main article can be easily expanded, and in my opinion it does not make the list a content fork. Alongside all medal table lists, I believe it meets the criteria for a stand-alone list. Felipe Menegaz 19:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion is not meant to determine what could be (that the main article could be expanded); it is meant to determine things in their current state. As of right now, I'm tending to agree with Goodraise. At this time, the main article is not substantial enough to justify this short of a list standing alone. I am leaning toward a 3b oppose at this point but am willing to listen to more input from outside reviewers. — KV5 • Talk • 02:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Only problem I could see was that the sort key was not showing in the table but i've rectified this now, great work. NapHit (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with only one comment - I don't think the "See also" section header is necessary for the footer table. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Violates criterion 3b. In my current opinion, this is a content fork of 1963 Pan American Games. Goodraise 23:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 19:27, 15 January 2012 [7].

Nominator(s): User:Spacepotato, User: Joe Kress, User:Arthur Rubin, Serendi^podous 12:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has undergone massive improvement since failing its previous FLC. Serendi^podous 12:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so what happens now? The last time this happened the FLC was closed summarily. What can I do to keep it open? Serendi^podous 10:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, it was closed after being open for 32 days and having insufficient community consensus for promotion (actually zero support). That is not being "closed summarily". Read the instructions. Suggest you request relevant Wikiproject input to review and comment here. We are currently running very low of reviewers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A comment. The list has strange currency symbols after the references that may be equivalent to daggers†‡¶ but do not explain what they mean at the foot of the list. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a key at the end of the lead, is that what you were looking for? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the key! any way I was looking for it at the bottom.
• Next issue Where it says: 10 ^{10 26} "Low estimate for the time until all matter collapses" prior to this all the blackholes have evaporated due to Hawking radiation, so is this inconsistent? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are alternate timelines included in this list, assuming different outcomes based on as yet-unresolved issues; in that case, proton decay. Serendi^podous 09:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The navbox does not include this list, so do we need a different navbox for far future articles?
  • The navbox at the bottom? 11th millennium and beyond was merged into this article. Serendi^podous 09:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• A graphical time line could be useful for some of the dates. Perhaps it needs to be logarithmic to cover most events. I am concerned over lack of images, but perhaps lists do not need them. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even a logorithmic timeline would be impractical for this time range. Serendi^podous 09:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A logarithmic timeline would cover most of the dates, so the page would be better with such a diagram. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are three graphical timelines linked at the bottom of the page. Serendi^podous 17:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reference 1 is missing authors and dates which are available from the page.
• Reference 2 does not make sense: "Second Law of Thermodynamics". Georgia State University.
• Reference 3 could have a date: 06-03-2011 (I guess this is June but its ambiguous). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reference 5 fails to state journal name Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, or number:. 1, or page: 1
• Reference 19 has lost a ")".
• Reference 11, 19, 21, 28, 30, 31, 35, 36, 42, 54 not in title case for the article title.
  • title case is having capital letters on the more important words, eg "Particle emission rates from a black hole" is not in title case but "Particle Emission Rates from a Black Hole" is in title case. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reference 64 may be original research
• So I am finding a lot of deficiencies in references so that there is no way it could pass the featured standard if they are all like this. I suggest going through each reference to attach missing bibliographic information that is readily available. Bibcodes and DOI's are not an excuse to leave this information off. Another question is whether these are the best references. For example the NASA reference confirms the statement, but we cannot tell where NASA got that information from, so that means it is not of the highest standard.
• The hatnotes are still excessive. (brough up in nomination 1 as well) Some of these could be turned into prose with links instead in the lead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hatnote regarding the length of the list could be moved down to just before the start of the first table, as is suggested in that template's documentation. RJH (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't just apply to that table, but to all of them. I've reduced the hatnotes from 3 to 2. Serendi^podous 22:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does not apply to the lead. "Place this template tag in an article, immediately before the applicable list." If there are n lists, then it needs n copies. Or you could remove it altogether as "noise", which would be my preference. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to include the note in the first place, but it was requested at the last FLC. Serendi^podous 22:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hat noting quantity looks good to me now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The color scheme is horrible. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • A possibility would be to color code the table rows in a manner similar to how the Wikipedia warning templates are formatted. I.e. with a narrow color bar along the left edge, rather than colorizing the entire row. RJH (talk)
• I am going through and filling in missing parts of references including volumes, issues and dates. The layout of references is inconsistent, some in tables, some packed tight in a line and some spaced out. I am guessing this too is enough to fail F.L. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at fixing some of the issues. I don't really understand why you assume that NASA is not a reliable source. Serendi^podous 22:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue is not that NASA is unreliable, it is that for Feature List or article we need to have the best references. Rather than just stating the fact that is used, the best reference should also include how the fact was established, and how the date was calculated. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you want. Surely you're not expecting me to track down the original papers for every scientific discovery on this list? Serendi^podous 03:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have to do anything here as I assume you can exercise the right to not edit as a volunteer. The discovery paper would count as a primary source and a secondary source would be better. So it would be good to check out a few more references if the existing ones do not look the best. I assume that featured list should be top quality. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've swapped some of the references. Serendi^podous 19:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Timeline: "A timeline is a way of displaying a list of events in chronological order". This list includes also values measured in time units (for example: "The smallest possible value for proton half-life consistent with experiment.[52]€") Bulwersator (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed one of them, but some of them are marks for certain events, such as the beginning of the Dark Era. Serendi^podous 19:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 19:27, 15 January 2012 [8].

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 16:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meet the criteria. This is my first foray into FL territory, but I feel the list is complete, verifiable, visually pleasing and easy to navigate. The table layout has been modelled on the currently FL-class list List of accolades received by The Young Victoria; while any files used have been taken from Commons as I feel non-free files would not be justified due to such a list containing no critical commentary. If anything requires overhauling or fixing, I will be free to respond to any queries from tomorrow onwards. Thanks! GRAPPLE X 16:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ruby2010

• Looks good. Happy to support this one. Ruby 2010/2013 01:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• Bold links like the one in the intro are discouraged by the MoS.
  • Removed the bolding. GRAPPLE X 15:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "winning the award Best Film at the latter". Try switching the order of "award" and "Best Film". Seems like that is the more logical order for that sentence.
  • You're completely right, not sure how I missed that. GRAPPLE X 15:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "The film's cinematography, by English cinematography Freddie Francis". Shouldn't the second one be "cinematographer"?
  • Fixed. GRAPPLE X
• I see Eric Bergren and Eric Bergen in the table. Which is it?
  • Bergren. Typo on my part. GRAPPLE X 15:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Refs 4, 6, 9, 10, and 11 have faulty hyphens in the titles that should be converted into en dashes. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those hyphens are already present in the source, they're not dashes in the titles being quoted. I had a look through the MOS for dashes and linking, and since there's nothing to specifically say they should be converted, I'd rather stick with the exact source text than to hypercorrect. GRAPPLE X 15:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• What makes it an "American" film? (not intended to be inflammatory but an British cast and British director, set in Britain, but just so happens to be produced by an American film company, is that it?)
• Five paras in the lead is way over the top (see WP:LEAD) so look at merging down to a max of three.
• Now, having said that, is there a reason why this needs to be a standalone list? Right now, the film's main article is very short, so this info could easily be merged into it.

I'll leave it here because I'm concerned over the 3b issue. Especially since only the last two paras of the lead talk about awards, the rest of it being common to the main article. If the community can resolve that, I'll pop back later to finish reviewing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Now that you mention it, I could easily remove the plot summary as it's not needed and trim some of the rest back down a good bit. However, the film is American as the production company and director are American - Lynch is from Montana. Yes, the cast is primarily English (with a Welshman), but it's an American production that they're starring in (though don't get me wrong, I'm an Irishman who's not too keen on the Hollywood-centric view of cinema). I've had a look over the relevant MOS for standalone lists, and although this type of list isn't mentioned, there's nothing to say that an expanded version of something which is expected to be covered in less detail in the film's own article shouldn't be allowed to stand on its own. GRAPPLE X 22:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Good work, but the table could just be added to the rather-short film article itself.—indopug (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the film article had a well-developed "Reception" section which listed the awards in lesser detail rather than in great focus, would this then be avoided? It's just that I'll probably ditch this project if this isn't a fixable issue, but I'll overhaul each relevant film's article with its sister list if that avoids this problem. GRAPPLE X 17:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Length seems fine to me. One question - is it usual to reference each category within a single ceremony, or would one over-arching reference be enough? Lugnuts (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's a stylistic thing. I felt that since the Golden Globes section used different refs for some awards, then I'd keep those specific to each award, and the rest fell in line with that. If it would be preferable to use the citations once each after the award ceremony instead of the categories, then I can do that. GRAPPLE X 15:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I also have to chime in that it just seems too short to warrant its own list. I could easily see all of the information in this list consolidated down to a nice, tight paragraph for the core Elephant Man article. It is policy, as per WP:PROSE, to avoid tables when the same information can be conveyed in prose. But if the community thinks it's long enough to stand-alone, then I suppose I don't object.--Remurmur (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 19:06, 8 January 2012 [9].

Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There are still links that need dismbiguating, clink on disamb links in the toolbox on the right to fix these. Corrected
• I'm going to wait until Struway's comments are dealt with until I vote, as I am also concerned about the sourcing. NapHit (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think you may have mis-typed the codes for the colours applied to some of the cells. Currently lots of them are black, rendering the text in the cell completely unreadable.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that #DDD used for runners-up? If so, I have corrected it. Thanks. — Lemonade51 (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of minor things: the club's previous names shouldn't be italicised (MOS:ITALIC),  and normal BritEng usage would be to omit the F.C. from Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Corrected.  — Amended. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Lot of minor stuff, but serious concerns over the sourcing.

• Will leave reviewing the quality of the lead to others.

• I still can't see a convincing source for the contents of the table. You appear to be saying that a book published in 2000 is the source for the entire contents of a table that goes up to 2011. You're not really claiming that, surely.....
  • Amended to the recent edition, available as of 3 October 2011.
    • I realise the content of the list was there before you started editing it, and you can't be expected to guess where the original authors got the data from. But presumably you checked the content yourself before submitting the list here, so you do know where the facts can be verified. The statistical section at the back of the 2011 illustrated history only starts listing individual appearances and goals by season after the First World War. Whereabouts does it give the pre-WWI top goalscorers?
      • Here, which I have cited now.
        • Congratulations on finally coming up with a set of sources which actually do verify the contents of the table. Unfortunately, the obvious follow-up question is what makes Andy Kelly's site a reliable source? Personally, I'd lean towards its reliability by virtue of Mr Kelly being an expert in the field of Arsenal history, but not sure I could satisfactorily demonstrate it.
          • He does have a comprehensive knowledge of the club; he is a memeber of the 'Arsenal History Society' and his official website is reguarly updated.
            • In addition, the "125 years of Arsenal history" sections on Arsenal's website include and appear to accept large elements of Kelly's and colleague Tony Attwood's research which to some extent contradict the "established" version of the club's history: see e.g. 1886–1891 and 1891–1896. Struway2 (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough for now. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your thorough feedback! —Lemonade51 (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Please accept my apologies for taking so long in returning to this review. I'd got out of the habit of reviewing here and forgot all about it.... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to the nominator: please do not strike through the comments of reviewers by yourself. Let them make the decision as to whether or not comments have been fully resolved. If there's an area that needs more work, the strikes will obscure that, making things inconvenient for everyone. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 19:06, 8 January 2012 [10].

Nominator(s): ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The photo caption could use a citation. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I try to find a reference. I can easily find one which says that he was the first non-Russian. But it is hard to find a source that says he was the first handicapped person to win this award. I know that other winners weren't disabled.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly there just two more things that need addressing, ref 3 needs an author adding and ref 7 needs a accessdate. NapHit (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 09:19, 5 January 2012 [11].

Nominator(s): Buggie111 (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Texans have made it to the playoffs, and I could have possibly written my first FL. History's already decided the first one, so let's see the latter one pan out. Help would be appreciated. Buggie111 (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The list is well presented with a good introduction and comprehensively referenced.

• However, I wonder if the decision to use 9 separate lists by year is the best choice? Wouldn't a single sortable list where the the year was the first field allow more functionality? See if any other commentators feel the same before any major revisions, as it may just be me who thinks that way.
• All of the column headings would benefit from scope="col" per WP:DTAB. If you do decide to go with a single list, then the year would be a reasonable choice for a row header (scope="row"), unless you preferred player name (but I see that e.g. Andre Johnson features several times, making that less useful as a row header).
• Have you got any more pictures? Not essential, but they do brighten up articles, so I'd encourage you to look for a few more if possible. All images must have alt text.

I'll have another look in a day or two, or ping me if you want specific advice. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review!

• I'll wait for others to decide if a single list is better. Or I could just list players, with the years they went, but then the stats would disappear.
• Can't seem to understand it. Mind doing '02 as an example?
• Will do on the images.Buggie111 (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done on number three. Buggie111 (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose – I'm sorry to do this, but I must disagree with the reviewer above, whom I respect very much. I don't find the lead to be that great, and the referencing leaves something to be desired there. If only that was the extent of it...

• Bold links are discouraged by the MoS. This covers the Pro Bowl and Houston Texans links.
• "The NFL's all-star game has a tattered image." I have a pair of major concerns with this sentence. First, "tattered image" is directly from the source as indicated by the quote "the tattered image of the NFL's all-star contest." This verges on a close paraphrasing issue. Second, this is a POVish statement that cries out for proper attribution.
• More close paraphrasing: "It is the only major all-star game that draws lower ratings than its regular-season games" versus "it's the only major all-star game that draws lower ratings than regular-season matchups." With examples like these, why should I trust that the rest of the text doesn't have similar problems?
• "However, the biggest concern of players is to avoid injuries to the star players." Redundant and doesn't make any sense. Players want to avoid injuries to players? Also, the phrase "biggest concern" appears in the source; while not the end of the world, it adds to my other concerns above.
• Nothing is sourcing the third and fourth paragraphs. There are several items that could really use cites, none more so than "Being a Pro Bowler is considered to be a mark of honor, and players who are accepted into the Pro Bowl are considered to be elite." Says who?
• The start of the fifth paragraph looks like it was taken directly from the team's article, with no adjustments made to reflect the prior lead text. AFC and NFL links are repeated, as are the abbreviations following them.
• A cite for the 2011 division title wouldn't hurt, since I don't see where that's backed up.
• In the last sentence, all of the references should be after punctuation, not before.
• Check images to make sure that they have alt text. I notice the lead image doesn't.
• List: The title of this section isn't descriptive at all. How about Pro Bowl selections or similar?
• Don't think "Starter", "Reserve", or "Alternate" need capitalization in the intro.
• Intro could use a period at the end.
• Some more over-capitalization in the tables. Some positions are listed with too much capitalization, and the last two words of the "Regular Season Stats" heading shouldn't be capitalized. None of these things are proper nouns or titles, which should be capitalized.
• If it was up to me, I'd make this a one-table list, keeping in mind that the size would be more manageable that way over the long term. However, the issues above are more important for now.
• Can you please check all the publishers listed as Pro-Footbal-Reference.com? This simply shouldn't be present at FLC
• On a second look, the third and fourth paragraphs are directly taken from our Pro Bowl article. This blatant copying of another article is simply unacceptable for a featured piece of content. I can understand borrowing style/structural elements from other similar lists in certain cases, but ripping off writing from the main article is a terrible way of doing things. That and the close paraphrasing issues should be enough for this list to be quick-failed. Giants2008 (Talk) 04:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on the copying. I looked at other FL's like 1908 Summer Olympics medal table and thought this was the modus operandi. Instead, I think i should use List of Indianapolis Colts first-round draft picks as an example of rewriting leads. I'll get to work on the other points solely to lessen the amount of work when I re-nom. Buggie111 (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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