Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/July 2007

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 16 days, 4 support, 2 oppose. The objections were not met. Fail. Crzycheetah 04:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-nominating. This list recently missed FLC due to concerns about existing redlinks that were expressed at the last minute, which have since been dealt with. See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Maryland/Archive1 for previous discussion. Geraldk 17:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• support The presence of redlinks is not a good reason to fail. That there is a significant majority of them would be (the topic has been discussed in the heydays of FLs), which was clearly not the case.Circeus 17:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You won't find me disagreeing. Geraldk 18:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Support (...put on hold) Another good list of governors. I think that a legend has to be added, something like what is in the right corner of List of Governors of Alabama. Plus, the Term column needs to be split up to Took Office and Left Office columns to be consistent with other featured lists (i.e. Delaware and the United States).--Crzycheetah 18:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Geraldk 19:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good job!--Crzycheetah 19:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something is missing here! Where are the Lieutenant Governors? I understand there isn't many of them, but they still have to be here.--Crzycheetah 23:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left them out because there are so few. It didn't make sense to me to put them in the table, like in Alabama, because there have been only 8 and I didn't want the long, empty column. And it didn't seem to make sense to me to have them as a separate table, since they are listed in the Lieutenant Governor article and, well, this is a list of Governors. But I can add them if you think it's essential. Geraldk 00:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I understand that, but it still needs to be listed somehow. Hopefuly someone else may find a way to incorporate those eight into this list. I really believe it is essential to know who the right-hand man of the Governor was during his/her reign.--Crzycheetah 00:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, though reign might be a little overstating their power. I could add them as a section to the List of Governor's, and link from the LG article over. Geraldk 01:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this list still doesn't contain the Lieutenant Governors; therefore, I oppose, not comprehensive enough.--Crzycheetah 04:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (Aside: I think I was being overzealous with opposeing over the redlinks last time). Tompw (talk) (review) 19:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Oppose - lack of refs for "higher offices" section. 22:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • NGA reference added. --Golbez 04:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose over new nitpicks
  • The table captions repeat the headers. You can move the references at the level of those "inside-table" headers or put them as general references.
  • The table headers no longer cover the last column
• Circeus 17:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the kind of nitpicking I like. Fixed both. --Golbez 20:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Circeus 20:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Golbez 04:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I take a better look at it, I think I have to oppose. The pictures, at least near the beginning of the list, are way too sparse to be of use. For example, instead of shoving a couple of tiny pictures of Lord Calvert in there, it would be much better to take that out of the table and move it to the side with a caption. The lower portions have a nearly full complement of pictures, but the upper portions just look unprofessional as they are now. --Golbez 23:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're saying pull the pictures in the colonial governor's list out and put them along the side? Geraldk 16:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not all of them, just the major ones like Charles Calvert, 3rd Baron; Edmund Andros; Francis Nicholson; etc. We obviously don't have enough pictures to populate the table, to populate the space next to it. And no, you don't have to move *all* of them, just enough to fill up the space and make it look nice. I might be alone on this, but I think it would make things better than having 2/3 of the table empty of pictures. If we had one or two missing it would probably be okay, but the way it is now makes it look - even if it's not the case - like the table is incomplete. --Golbez 18:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Having taken a stab at it, I don't think I mind which style is used; I just wish the colonial table looked better, but if that's the best we can get it, then I suppose my objection isn't actionable... Back to support. --Golbez 22:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Informative, Extensive and well done--Southern Texas 03:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The {{Party shading/Democratic}}, {{Party shading/Republican}}, and {{Party shading/Democratic-Republican}} templates used produce a nearly indistinguishable gray shading [1] If seen without color the differentiation is lost. I cross-posted this concern to Template talk:Party shading key. --maclean 07:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the shading of the {{Party shading/Democratic}} slightly so you can tell them apart now (slightly). Isn't it helpful when people address their own concerns. --maclean 04:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Your "Notes and references" section is just "Notes" and should be moved down to just above the References. The [a] and [b] superscripts don't work and both the superscript and the footnote should use the same label (number, letter). Typically, inline citations use the <ref> system and notes use the old ref/note system. Colin°^Talk 12:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. I would dearly love to use the ref system for both if it allowed having two separate lists for references and footnotes, but that's not possible at present. --Golbez 04:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I do, however, agree with Golbez regarding the colonial images. Particularly considering some of the images are repeated. I think it would improve the appearance the table and the article as a whole. Lara♥Love 15:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 15 days, 3 support, 2 oppose. Fail. --Crzycheetah 17:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working off the 'template' User:Acdixon and I developed for the Kentucky list (FLC nom below), I've brought this article up to what I think is featured status. --Golbez 13:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A lot of work has gone into this, and it shows - I doubt one could do a better job of it. Rebecca 13:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There's no references section, and there are no images to illustrate the list. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've referenced some specific statements that needed referencing and created a references section. As for pictures, personally, I find images in lists like this bloat the list, (and make it awkward when older pictures don't exist) but I'll see what I can do. --Golbez 18:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I put in the pictures we have, I'm going to email the state about the ones on their website, but there's still going to be a lot of garish gaps in here. I'd prefer not to include pictures if there's going to be any gaps at all. I'm going to remove the version with the pictures, as I think the one without is more up to featured quality, but you can check the old version here. --Golbez 19:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • oooooooor I could work smarter, not harder; I was inspired by List of Governors of Florida and will merely pepper the article with notable governors! --Golbez 19:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't mean to suggest there should be an image for every govenor, merely some images (notable governors is a good plan). The list still needs refs for the "Higher offices held" section. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That information is derived from the individual articles, I'm going to be unhappy if you make me source each one. :P --Golbez 20:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given those articles (hopefully) contain refs to back up the information, provviding refs should just be a copy-and-paste job. Tompw (talk) (review) 11:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Where are the Lieutenant Governors?--Crzycheetah 19:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. I think the Kentucky list spoiled you. --Golbez 19:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. --Golbez 20:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You bet it did. Thanks, it was interesting to see that some of them were from different political parties than the Governors. --Crzycheetah 21:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there a specific reason why you don't use the {{Party shading/Independent}} template?--Crzycheetah 21:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ignorance of its existence. --Golbez 04:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I disagree with tompw. Every governor that can be illustrated should be, per our various existing state leaders lists. Actually, I think I'll nominate a few for removal for that reason... Circeus 17:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes the table ugly, and aesthetics do matter. I prefer to have a few images peppering if a full list isn't possible, like it is with the list of presidents of the US. --Golbez 20:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See List of Quebec premiers or List of French monarchs. They look just fine to me. I fail to see how properly illustrating this list would suddenly make it unable to become featured. Circeus 02:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you should pick ones with more than 2 images missing for comparison; as you can tell, around half of the governors in this list lack images on wikipedia at the moment. But since I've fulfilled your requirement, let me know what you think. Certainly this doesn't "properly illustrate the list". --Golbez 02:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll pull out of the discussion for now. I want to concentrate on some other stuff, and Featured content candidacies are proving more distracting than I thought. Circeus 20:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Every govenor should have at least one citation listed. Sorry if that makes you unhappy. It certainly should be doable. Aleta 11:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • I'm changing my opinion to Neutral. I see the point about most of it having one source, and not needing to repeat that. I don't think the list needs to have a picture for every single governor. That would just be way too unwieldy. Aleta 21:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every governor in the main list itself? We're going to have to defeature a lot of lists if that's now a requirement. Since when is having a blanket reference, plus individual citations where needed, not sufficient? I'm not trying to belligerent, but some of these requirements seem unreasonable. --Golbez 11:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then maybe your references section can become a featured list in itself! Suppose I should also let you know that this page has been wikien-l-dotted [2]. For what it's worth ($0.00) I think it's a great list, Golbez. Good luck. —CharlotteWebb 11:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree with Aleta. Providing the references clearly verify all information within the list, there is no need to "tag" every single name. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Same here. A number of existing FLs use that system. Circeus 20:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't retract my initial statement, but I admit to being unfamiliar with the standards used on other featured lists. So, you can factor that into the weight given to my "vote" opinion. Aleta 22:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a voting process, it's a consensus process. So there is no weight that can be given to your vote. If it's your position that every single entry on the list needs citation, despite precedent, than it will likely sink the nomination. WP:WIAFL says, "(referencing) involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations." I don't think it's necessary or appropriate to have a separate citation on every single entry to what is effectively the same source. Geraldk 22:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used "vote" in quotes because I wasn't sure what else to call it at the time, even though I know that isn't technically correct. I just changed it to say opinion. As for weighing, it, of course you can weigh some opinions as more useful/valuable than others. I gave you the reason mine may not be as informed as some others. I still think what I do, but recognize that may not represent the general concnesus on what should qualify for FL status. Aleta 07:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I've seen on FAC more than once where an editor nominates an article where three sentences in a row have the same source. And each time, they're told to combine the notes so it only has one after the last of the three sentences. This is the same concept - every entry in the table has the same source, so there is a summarizing reference at the end of the table. I support after added referencing and addition of images. Geraldk 13:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Lack of images--Southern Texas 03:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The {{Party shading/Democratic}}, {{Party shading/Republican}}, and {{Party shading/Democratic-Republican}} templates used produce a nearly indistinguishable gray shading [3] If printed in black and white (seen without color) the differentiation is lost. --maclean 06:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the article supplies text for the parties as well as colors (I am fully familiar with accessibility needs), I can't see how this can be used against the article. --Golbez 16:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just an area for improvement, that's why we are here, right? to make the best possible list we can? It seems the easiest way to tackle this is by changing the colors the templates are using. I raised the issue there at Template talk:Party shading key#Color blindness and moved the {{Party shading/Democratic}} over a shade. What do you think? --maclean 04:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I care not what colors it uses, as long as it's blue and whatever. Since it doesn't require an edit to the article, and since you're handling the issue better than I could, perhaps you could reevaluate your vote? --Golbez 02:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • They change should be sufficient. Isn't it helpful when people address their own concerns. --maclean 04:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Fairly extensive for a list of governors. -- User:Docu

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 20 days, 2 support, 0 oppose. Fail. Not enough supports to pass. --Crzycheetah 17:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self nom - This list was an off-shoot of Climate of Minnesota. I wanted to include more climate extremes without cluttering that article up so I created a new article for them. I feel that this list hits on most of the notable weather records to have occurred in Minnesota without providing too much unimportant detail, and that it's properly formatted with relevant images. Gopher backer 04:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • I intensely dislike the unbordered table. I think it is much less legible than the usual class="wikitable" format
    • - I'll work on this. Done, is this better?
  • Disambig precipitation
    • - fixed
  • That tornado image should be in the Tornadoes section
    • - I had inadvertantly removed another tornado image, and I have restored that. Does that look better?
      • Yes. Much
  • Mid-June 1992 Tornado Outbreak should be linked
    • - It was linked, just in a poor manner. I've redone it under "catastrophic damage". Speaking of that, does it matter if these articles are linked in the image captions vs. the main list?
      • I think the link is still not clear. I don't expect a link a link to the event with the text "catastrophic damage". I definitely think the best link location is in the table. Ideally, a mention of the event to link the image would be good too.
        • - I'm not sure if this is what you were looking for, but I added a bunch of "see also's" under the respective tables. All of them hold some kind of Minnesota weather record, whether they're mentioned in the article or not. Is this prudent?
      • On second thought, 2 images of tornadoes seems a bit too much, especially seeing the location of the first. Are there images for flooding that could be used, by any chance?
  • Consider linking Tornadoes of 2001 too
    • - Good idea, thanks. Done.
  • Integrate a link to Climate of Minnesota in the lead instead of the "See also" section.
    • - Done
• Overall, though, it looks very good to me.
• Circeus 04:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Gopher backer 01:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I shoved the links down into "see also", and integrated three others in image captions, adding two new ones in the process. I think I can support this. Good work. Circeus 21:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment River stages are missing despite having a flood stage picture. You also might want to consider having something on straight wind speeds. In other records you should have wind chill temp to go along with heat index.--BirgitteSB 17:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I've added the record flood states for 2 Minnesota cities along each of its three flood-prone rivers. Will this suffice? Gopher backer 04:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wind Speed: I did find a record measured wind speed of 110 mph. However, based on the Fujita scale for measuring the strength of tornadoes, it's a certainty that on numerous occasions there have been winds speeds in Minnesota over 110 mph; any tornado more than F2 strength would acheive that. However, the problem here is that those winds speeds have never been officially measured. With that in mind, I chose to omit the 110 mph measured wind speed from the list since I felt that it may be a little misleading to the reader. However, maybe I was wrong. Thoughts?

Flood: I'll see what I can find. Gopher backer 17:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Tornadoes are circulating winds and straight winds are a separate measurement. They were historically an important nautical measurement and are now important for flight, so with the lake bordering this state and modern airports, there should be continuous records on this. If you think the wind chill is inaccurate to use that is fine, it is just seems to be the natural companion to heat index.--BirgitteSB 18:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would add in both Wind Speed and Wind Chill, and put a note on it describing the concerns about accuracy that you mention. Geraldk 23:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I've added in the estimate wind chill values, along with a pretty solid wind report (actually was more than an older source I found) from the NCDC. Gopher backer 04:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Geraldk 12:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak OpposeNeutral I find it hard to believe this meets WP:WIAFL 1b. Unless every state agrees that these are the complete set of records than this is an arbitrary list in my mind. What makes this comprehensive? For example, why isn't precipitation kept by month like temperature.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I really have an answer to that, other than to say I don't think that any such standards exist. If you started researching this on your own I think what you would find that is that certain states will highlight certain different aspects in their weather. For example with Florida, you'd find a lot of records on hurricanes. Arizona, drought. California - Washington, snow. Oklahoma, tornadoes. India, precipitation. As a resident of Minnesota I think that temperature is the one aspect of climate that most defines us, so that's why I included the level of detail that I did (I mentioned in my nomination for this was that I felt this was a comprehensive list of relevant information w/o too much less important detail). Gopher backer 02:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second Gopher backer's response. "Unless every state agrees" is an unreasonable and impossible criterion. However, this list does not fit the usual pattern of lists at FLC. It may have problems with 1b and (related to this) since each entry does not link to an article, it is currently required to pass 1a3. However, sometimes our rigid criteria get in the way (WP:IAR) and we must use our judgement on whether this is a good and useful list. It may be worth discussing the issues on the FLC talk page. Colin°^Talk 09:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., so you have convinced me that each state may have a different set of records. Can you convince me that an independent party attempting to follow WP:FLC and general WP policies would come up with the exact same list of Minnesota weather records. If you can convince me of that then I would consider it comprehensive? If not can you convince me that a Minnesota meteorologist would consider your list the proper list regardless of whatever other list another Minnesota researcher arrived at? --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. The best I could do is to point out that my two biggest refs I use both are sourced at the Minnesota Climatology Office. One is a website with some of the general records on it [4], and another is a book, and the author of that book (Mark Seeley) works in that office as well [5] Gopher backer 02:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 0 support, 2 oppose. Fail. --Crzycheetah 19:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Along the same lines as the Kentucky and Alabama lists nominated below, I think I've done pretty much all I can with this one, and - bonus - every entry has a picture!--Golbez 23:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was waiting for this nomination yesterday. Anyway, I made some minor changes, getting rid of that white space. I still have minor concerns:

1. The green color for the progressive party remains unexplained.
2. I hate that there is a sentence in the lead that starts with a numerical symbol. (38 people...)
3. What is the purpose of the Notes column if you have notes listed in the lieutenant column?--Crzycheetah 05:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
   • As for the color, I don't know, that's just what the party shading template folks came up with. :P As for the number, I agree, I'll fix that. And as for the notes, those notes are specific to the lieutenant governor. The notes column is specific to the governors. This is a list of governors, not lieutenant governors, so I only wanted to give the barest amount of information to people wondering why a lieutenant governor's term ended or what not. Perhaps I should remove it, and move all that to the list of Lt Govs. --Golbez 05:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     • The lieutenant governors have to stay in here. I think you should scrap the Notes column and move all of those citations to the Governors column. The reason I think so is that the Notes column will always be mostly empty, it's not like you have note for every governor. --Crzycheetah 17:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
       • Just as a thought, but we have three extremely similar Lists of Governors on FLC right now, with three drastically different vote totals. It's getting difficult to keep up when ideals change within the space of days. As for Notes, I wanted them to be easily found, rather than scattered all over a table. It's mostly empty, but it was a lot worse before I moved everything to footnotes. =p I know the Lt Govs have to stay there; I meant move the notes to the List of Lt Govs, not the whole column. --Golbez 22:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
         • Forget about what I said. The lead section is more of a concern for me now. I don't like that one sentence paragraph in the beginning, it just looks stubby and unprofessional. Kentucky and Maryland are fine, but Alabama and California have that problem. Oh and Delaware, an FL, has that, too. Apparently, they are not as identical as you thought they were. --Crzycheetah 08:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
           • Didn't mention Delaware. And I was referring to getting supports and opposes on the same things. For example, Geraldk supported Alabama but opposed California on the higher offices table - which he didn't mention in Alabama. That was what was really frustrating me - how can he have the same vote for both? How can I fix this without fixing the other, which is apparently acceptable there so why not here? However, mentioning something like the intro is different, since I agree that the intro is different and probably lacking. --Golbez 09:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Lack of references... should be a general one for the governors themselves, as well as specific oens for the "higher offices" section. (A brief explantion of what counts as "higher" would be a welcome addition). Tompw (talk) (review) 16:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were two general references listed in the external links section, I moved them to the references section. All of the info in the higher offices section I believe came from the National Governors Association website. If you click on each governors name in that NGA website, it lists the higher office held by that person.--Crzycheetah 17:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All came from our individual articles on the governors, some of those may have come from the NGA though. I do know the NGA mentions this stuff. --Golbez 18:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose - It matters less where the information came form than that a reader be able to tell where the information is. 'Higher offices' needs a note specifically mentioning that the information came from the NGA site listed in the references section. Geraldk 13:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As much as I hate to steal votes from my other nominations, you didn't have the same objection to the Alabama list. (people, the two lists are identical except for the matter of picture placement; it is extremely frustrating that not only do the Alabama, Kentucky, and California lists have such different vote totals, but that they are so drastically different.) Furthermore, I gathered the information from our articles on the subjects, each of which has their own citations, and not directly from the NGA, though the NGA has the same information. --Golbez 17:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've improved the intro. --Golbez 19:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 0 support, 2 oppose. Fail. --Crzycheetah 18:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was nominated earlier, and objections have been addressed. Therefore, I am renominating. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose:
  • First of all, the name. This isn't an exhaustive list of interstate highways, it's a list only of the primary routes. Yes, each one lists the secondary routes, but only the numbers, not the actual routes. That is to say, there's more than one I-495, but only one is mentioned here. Perhaps another list should be made, exhaustively listing every interstate highway.
  • Perhaps the table should be sortable, if only for the mileage?
    • If not, then perhaps a separate mention of the longest and shortest interstates?
  • You know people are going to complain that there's no metric distance mentioned. I won't hinge my support on this, but I think others might.
  • No mileage is given for the A, H, or PR routes, nor are the start/end points given. In general, the 'interstates outside the mainland' section seems a bit spartan.
  • A mention of why some interstates appear twice on the list, with west and east, would be useful. (examples: 76, 86)
  • Doesn't I-238 still count as a primary interstate? (I could be wrong, this is more of a general question)
  • That's all for now. --Golbez 17:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I-238 is officially an auxiliary interstate. (→O - RLY?) 17:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that since this is an American topic, American numbers should be the primary mileage. Metric equivalents are available in the individual articles. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You'd think that, but look at List of U.S. states by area. --Golbez 17:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well there, the area part of it is essential. Here, it really isn't. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The duplicated numbers issue has been explained. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now, though let me say first that it's a pretty good list so far.
  • Not a deciding factor, but there is space for images along the right side of the list.
  • As for the metric discussion, even though this is an American list, there will almost certainly be non-American readers. I think the metric equivalents need to be added.
  • Just a question: there's no estimated mileage for I-22?
  • I think the Interstates outside the mainland should have the same information provided as the rest of the interstates, in other words they need start and end points and mileage.

Geraldk 13:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Re I-22: the other interstates that are incomplete only include the completed length, so it's probably only equal that a wholly incomplete one would have a null length... --Golbez 00:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NeutralI think this could pass as a FL with some minor improvements. I have no problem with the level of detail on the Associated routes. I think the list should be renamed List of Primary Interstate Highways to lessen the expectation of comprehensive coverage of the associated routes. Having grown up in Buffalo, NY and lived in Chicago, IL since 2000, route 90 is near and dear to me. I find its coverage comprehensive. If this list does make clear that its coverage of Associated routes is ancillary I will not be disappointed not to know the beginning and ending points and mileages of I-290, for example. I am unsure whether non-mainland routes should hold up this list. The list would be better if they had the same detail as the mainland routes. However, if the list is retitled List of Primary Interstate Highways in the Contiguous United States the list becomes comprehensive with respect to this challenge. I would prefer some detail about the political history of the interstate system in the lead (Especially as it relates to Dwight Eisenhower).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum By giving the reader a date at which this list was correct you leave the reader wondering how much the list changes over time. Do you have any indication of how many miles or routes have been added to the list recently or how much the list generally changes. It might be interesting to say at several specific time periods in the past how many interstates existed so we have a better idea of this lists relevance today. For example if 95% of this list existed in 1970 and only 5% has been added since it would mean something different than if 40% of the list has been added since 1990.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 15 days, 1 support, 3 oppose. Fail. --Crzycheetah 23:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have put a lot of work into this entry, and I recently tried to parallel the featured list List of United States cities by population as of late. So this list is so similar, it seems logical to me that it also qualifies for FL status ;-) Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 21:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  1. Please change the blue color in the header to some lighter color because the blue links(Hebrew, Arabic) don't look right. Also, use the same color for all table headers for consistency.

     Done - I also changed the class of the other tables to sortable for continuity.--Flymeoutofhere 08:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  2. Where did you get the 2000 estimate numbers from? Reference needed

     Done. Tewfik^Talk 08:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  3. Where is the image of #9 city? If you don't have an image, then just don't number the others.

     OK I removed the numbering --Flymeoutofhere 08:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  4. I really don't understand why there are so many tables. For example, why are there two tables in the List of cities with a large immigrant population section? I am sure you can make one sortable table to have both the population and percentage.

     OK I sorted this one - I cant see how to get rid of any more though --Flymeoutofhere 08:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  5. All of your tables deal with population; therefore, I'd suggest you to rename the article as List of cities by population in Israel. The reason is that I don't see any economical, agricultural, or financial info on cities.

     Done. Tewfik^Talk 08:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  6. Need to format the references and external links. See the {{cite web}} template for an example.

     Done. Tewfik^Talk 08:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many things that are just not there right now.--Crzycheetah 02:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, [and thanks to Flymeoutofhere for their good work],

Regarding the pictures, I'm in the process of filling out the top 14 (population over 100,000), but I'm not sure that I see what the problem would be with the numbering even if it was incomplete. As for the name change, While I understand your point, a scan of most other List of cities in Foo (at least those in the MidEast) have far less information, though those with some level of detail seem strikingly similar to this one, and it seems that that is the primary function of such a list (List of cities in Syria, List of cities in Turkey, List of cities in Eritrea, List of cities in Djibouti, List of cities in Algeria). Please let me know what you think, Tewfik^Talk 09:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do those other lists have a gold star on the upper-right corner? I highly doubt it. They're in the start class. The lists of cities need to have more info other than population. Well, since you tried to parallel the featured list List of United States cities by population, it is understandable why there is a lot of information on population. I have more comments:

1. Could you point out what the initial order of the first table is?

   Done. Tewfik^Talk 08:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Why are you using the 2004 estimates to get the declining numbers and 2005 estimates to get the growing numbers? It feels like you want those numbers (declining and growing) to look better than they actually are.

   Done. Tewfik^Talk 08:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. What's the area of Dimona? If you want this list to be comprehensive, the first step is to add the areas of each city.

   I'm not sure I understand - do you mean we should keep the current title and include both "by population" and "by area" data? Tewfik^Talk 08:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm also not seeing the point. Area does not seem to be a crucial characteristic as much as population. Circeus 16:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, this list is still called List of cities in Israel, or am I missing something here? There has to be some info other than population if you decided to keep that title.--Crzycheetah 23:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   It was moved, and moved back. See Circeus' comments about British Columbia at the bottom. Tewfik^Talk 03:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is still too much work that has to be done, so I oppose for now.--Crzycheetah 17:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:
  • Make the list default sorting by name or population and not by district.
    • Done. Tewfik^Talk 08:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify if possible what are the criteria of the CBS for the city status.
    • Created and linked city council (Israel). Tewfik^Talk 08:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include the number of cities in Israel. I think it's an important piece of information.
    • Done. Tewfik^Talk 08:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. CG 08:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Following is a list of cities, the population of which..." doesn't flow well, and would beenfit from re-writing. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rewrote the lead - let me know if you think it works. Tewfik^Talk 08:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • Images overlap with the main page at 1024 in Firefox. With the lead images, and appropriate images added in the lower sections, these can and should go.
  • Remove unnecessary words from the headers. "List of" every time is tedious
    • Done. Tewfik^Talk 08:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some oddball whitespace at the end of the Lead gone now
  • Remove the "see also" from the lead or work them in properly.
  • Remove the internal wikilinks from the notes. Those are almost useless
• Circeus 17:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm using Firefox at 1024 and don't see that problem, and I'm not sure how to deal with any whitespace that you might see (maybe someone else with our resolution can check?). Could you explain your comments a bit more, as I thought that this is the proper usage of {{seealso}}, that is for links related to the topic but which are not covered by it. I originally incorporated them in part because I was paralleling the Featured List of United States cities by population, so I hope that I didn't copy any errors from it. Unless I'm missing some MoS (and I could be as there are many ;-]), I'm a bit unsure about why we need to delink the refs. As far as use, I can testify that anyone browsing with WP:Popups would find them helpful. Thanks for your feedback, and do let me know what you think. Tewfik^Talk 08:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image layout: See Image:Israel-cities-layout.gif. the problem should be obvious. Considering the table's width, I don't think squeezing image son the right is really necessary anyway.
    • Seealso: {{seealso}} Is used at the beginning of a section. It is completely unnecessary to link in such a fashion at the very beginning of the article. The only links in italic in the lead are usually disambiguation hatnotes, which only adds to the confusion. I will rm them fromthe U.S. list myself. Besides, that is what "See also" sections are for. Double linking an article at the top and bottom is unnecessary.
      • Ynhockey fixed this. Tewfik^Talk 19:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref linking:The primary reason is that the language links are entirely superfluous there :why would I find a link to "English language" relevant? See Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. As for the ICBS, it's linked far more accessibly in the lead ;). At any rates, having the links in all three notes looks ridiculous.
    • Circeus 16:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the language links - I didn't realise that that was what you were referring to. I suppose if you feel that the ICBS linking doesn't belong then I can remove that as well. I saw your screenshot, but I'm not sure of how to fix something like that. Has anyone else experience that problem? Tewfik^Talk 19:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very close to a support but I really think the main table should be sorted by population by default, not name. I'd do it myself but I wanted to clear it first. (also if you do, change my header name change back :) --Golbez 14:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the article retasked towards a simple list of cities, rather than by population, I support. --Golbez 20:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've returned the list to its original location. As it is a) exhaustive and b) sortable, it seems completely unnecessary to specify "by population" because that is NOT the list's primary purpose. On the side, I really don't think it is necessary to make the basic sort by population. See e.g. List of municipalities in British Columbia and our various county lists. Circeus 16:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of municipalities in British Columbia proves my point. At least area and formation date columns are needed in the List of cities in Israel. As long as those columns are missing, this list should have a by population ending in its title. I repeat, all data in this list is pertaining to population. Or, maybe, should we say the list of populations of Israeli cities? (that's a joke, btw)--Crzycheetah 03:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. the place is already taken by information more relevant in this case (alternative names, because it's a language with a non-latin a alphabet). If you can offer a way that all the infomation will actually fit on the page, feel free to do so. Circeus 16:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suggest you remove the 2004 census; it's too recent to offer a large contrast with 2006, and anything notable about it - shrinking or quickly growing cities - is handled below. --Golbez 17:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • While it "hurts" me to remove data (since entering it is so painful ;-]), I'm not sure that that would necessarily solve Crzycheetah's problem. Maybe we could fit in area? Is there any other way of preserving the multiple sets of data (which hopefully will be continually updated)? Tewfik^Talk 19:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why is there a whole column given for "CBS Name "? It doesn't enhance the list, I believe it can be added as a note. We just need that info to check the references; therefore, it should be noted in the references that the following cities have a different spelling in the CBS list. Then, I think that area and formation information can be added without any pain.--Crzycheetah 20:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I added the 'area' column and further narrowed the width. Let me know, Tewfik^Talk 09:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's good, but where is the reference? Where did you get those figures from?--Crzycheetah 18:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• A comment: Since the status of Jerusalem is complicated and contentious, the list should explain (in a note, perhaps?) why and to what extent (by geography and/or population?) Jerusalem is covered by this list. Sandstein 09:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the list also includes cities in Judea and Samaria - the West Bank - I think it includes all of Jerusalem. Perhaps a note should be made about the disputed status of Judea and Samaria. --Golbez 09:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It documents the Israeli administrative system, so it does include the whole Israeli municipality of Jerusalem. I suppose an asterisk could be added to their unit of Judea and Samaria Area (slightly distinct from the West Bank), but it might be best to let readers follow the links to detailed (and hard-wrought consensus) explanations. Tewfik^Talk 19:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose unless and until the disputed status of Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria are adequately addressed. There are many who would argue that some of the cities listed are not in Israel at all but in the occupied West Bank. It's not enough in this instance to simply "let readers follow the links". --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 2 support, 0 oppose. Not enough support to promote. Fail. Juhachi 05:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renominating list because main reason for previous failed nomination was lack of interest in voting rather than any specific objections. For previous discussion on this lits's nomination, see the archive. -- jackturner3 14:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. Concerns:

• I don't think there's any need to list dates for which their is no associated saint's day.
• I think the list is confusing in its current format, with the information for each entry jumbled together. Ideally, each month should be in a sortable wikitable with separate columns for the saint, their title or historical importance, date of death or 'heavenly birthday', whether it is generally celebrated or specific to a certain country, whether it is generally celebrated or specific to a certain sect of Lutheranism, and space for notes.
• This last would not stand on its own as ground for opposition, but I don't like how the space between images on the right margin varies. It would be aesthetically preferable to have the right margin solid with images or some way to space them more regularly.

Geraldk 14:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For me personally, even though I put them in, I dislike the images for both of the reasons you bring up. In my opinion, I don't think this list should have images per se, but again, that's just my opinion and not the way things really work. We also had the discussion about the open dates in the previous nomination as well as in the editing process of the calendar itself. Personally, I like the open dates because it give the eye a break from what would otherwise be a mass of text. However, the idea of a table is intriguing. Perhaps it would be possible (preferable?) to, instead of having a calender, having the events tabulated by festivals, lesser festivals, and commemorations in alphabetical order with the date of the observance in a different column. Perhaps that woudl solve the question of the open dates while possibly making the information more readable. I will be interested to hear other thoughts on that subject. -- jackturner3 14:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment First about the layout: I would definitely like to see the calendar in a table. That would be a better way of presenting the information, since each entry clearly contains information that is best handled column by column. Also consider using colors, for example for the RED and WHITE information. Empty dates make the calendar look partial, as if something is missing (but nothing is missing). Calendar itself is more than 90% complete, with just a few names missing a link to an article. I'd create at least stubs for the missing names. --Drieakko 16:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. As I said last time around, I think you have done a very good job on this article, and it appears to me to meet the criterea for a FL. That said, I would strongly encourage you to go for a table, as that has been a re-occuring concern. I especially like the idea, mentioned above, of a sortable table. Pastordavid 16:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Just to confirm the thinking here, the table below is a rough example. I like the color coding idea too, though I'm not sure what you would code by (sect, vestment, type of event). As to the images - I like images in general. It's one of the big plusses wikipedia has over more traditional references. What I'm thinking with the images is that there should be a more continuous line of them, which I guess requires more images.

• Support - although I would like to express support for a table format as well. If there is some way to place the table in the middle, with (perhaps) alternating images on either side, maybe that would work too. As for color coding, I would code the names by the type of festival, although if the background were a neutral color it might be possible to color code the vestments by color of vestment. Clearly, you'd need something other than white as a background, but a gray background would highlight the colors of the vestments. Anyway, just a thought. John Carter 16:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• neutral
  • For the record, I oppose tables. They seem unnecessary
  • How about a definition list format? Looks like a good case

January 1

Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus

Blurb with mention of garment color

January 3–5

No feasts

January 6

Epiphany of our Lord

Blurb

• If it is kept as a normal list, I say the format goes "—Type (Garment color); ECLA/LCMS"
• Are there any actual moveable feasts? If not, remove the link from the see also.
• Circeus 21:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are moveable feasts. Any Festival connected with Easter (Ash Wednesday, Passion Week, Good Friday, Holy Saturday, the Great Fifty Days of Easter, Ascension, Pentecost, and Holy Trinity) are all mobile. They weren't mentioned in the current list because they were covered in the main text back when the list was an article. If the text were changed to a table, we might be able to work them into the list in a way that isn't possible in the current format. -- jackturner3 13:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I can go with the tables, the only thing I can think of is that it might get a little tricky at some points. For example, on Jan 10, the LCMS not only commemorates St. Basil, it also commemorates Sts. Gregory Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa. While these are seperate indivdiuals, they are commemorated as a unit rather than different options. Therefore, they should be listed together as a unit. The only problem with that is that I percieve the possibility of a table becoming overcrowded very, very quickly. I'm not sure how I want to resolve this...yet. I'm also not sure if we would want one very large table, a table broken down by months, or a table broken down by categories (i.e., one for festivals, one for lesser festivals, and a third for commemorations). It might be worthwhile to consider all three possibilities althought I wonder at what point it ceases to be a calendar and becomes something else. In any event, those are my thoughts. I know that I'll be going with the table beyond a doubt now, it's just a matter of deciding which one is going to work best. -- jackturner3 20:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no experience making such tables. However, couldn't the multiple names be added as

separate

lines

within the text of the table? Doing so would make it a bit clearer that they are, as it were, "parallel" on the day in question. John Carter 22:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've been playing around a little with the table idea here. If people like it, I'd be happy to do it for the remainder of the table. If the consensus is in the opposite direction, I won't stand in the way. Circeus - my issue right now is readability. I think there's a lot of information that each line is trying to impart, and I think it's just easier for readers to access it in table format. Geraldk 15:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I've been working with can be found here. Essentially, I thought about the possibility of splitting the tables down into three seperate data sets based on level of event (whether Festival, lesser festival, or commemoration). Let me know what the consensus is. -- jackturner3 15:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I like yours better, Jack, though there are advantages and disadvantages. I think each individual list is more accessible, but the problem is a read has to scroll through three lists to see if there is any event on any particular date. Geraldk 01:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a compromise, then? Let's leave the Festivals and Lesser festivals as two tables will all the date set on them and then let's break the commemorations down into seperate tables by month under the subheading of the name of the month. Does that sound acceptable? -- jackturner3 13:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have at it :) Geraldk 21:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table looks otherwise good, but the purple and pale blue backgrounds with blue links is rather difficult to read. --Drieakko 07:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've given a bigger idea of what my table suggestion would look like (sans photos) here. I'll keep working on it (it's a long process) but if anyone has any suggestions I will incorporate them into the work. Thanks. -- jackturner3 14:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 0 support, 3 oppose. Fail. Juhachi 05:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is a good list. Compared with others, is one of the best ones. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 17:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Some Comments:

• Separate the two columns like in List of countries by Human Development Index. It is neater.
• Make it clear in the lead that This is a list of cities in Brazil by population.
• Put the flags next to the cities instead of the ranks.
• Explain what the flags represent (flags of the cities or the states).
• You don't need to explain that This does not intend to attend all Brazilian cities.... It's clear that the section represent the 100 Most populous cities. And also you don't need to apologize: which cannot be done in the main list due to its large size, 89 kb. I think that this paragraph is useless. Instead, clarify in the lead that the list is based on the population of the município where the city is located, rather than its urban sprawl, and put a link to List of cities in Brazil in the lead or at the end. Otherwise I don't that these two paragraphs have much to offer.
• What does the "cities by HDI" have to do with "List of largest cities in Brazil"?
• The gallery is also irrelevant in this list. I prefer if it would be removed.
• I would suggest to separate city and state into two columns, but I'm not sure about it.

Anyway, great work. CG 19:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • A single column series is enough, see FL List of United States cities by population,make it sortable
  • Don't bold the cities' names (besides, they will end up in different cells)
  • Consider renaming.
  • Separate state and city.if you put flag (which I recommend you don't), put them with the state
  • titles the section "Top 100 most populous cities," "most" should not be capitalized
  • Human development index is totally irrelevant to this list.
  • Move the gallery so it goes down the side of the reformatted table
• Haven't review the text content for now, since the table has too many issues anyway. Circeus 21:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Much improved! Part 2 of the review:
  • Add some sources about the definition stuff in the lead
  • Link the cities and states mentioned there.
  • Consider adding an image for the lead. Maybe a map of the states colored according to the number of cities in them? People at the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab can probably help.
  • Integrate "IBGE estimates of 2006" in the section text.
  • In the first table, "Santa Catarina," "Serra" and "Paraná" are links to disambiguation pages. There might be more.
  • Try using Template-based content notes (see Verbascum thapsus for an example) under "metropolitan areas", or use the <ref> tags directly
  • Consider keeping only one link per state per table.
  • If possible, add something about how IBGE defines a metropolitan region.
• Circeus 16:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Fixed the disambig issue. --Golbez 21:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Population numbers should commas, not periods (to seperate thousands) (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers / WP:WIAFL #2) Tompw (talk) (review) 17:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. --Golbez 21:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think I've fixed all of the problems above. I don't know if it's featured material, and there's one contradiction (it says 15 RMs are recognized, but lists 28), but at least the problems mentioned above are fixed, except maybe the article title. --Golbez 12:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done all I can, I'm not familiar enough with the subject to know the sources or what not. We'll have to wait for the nominator to come back. =p --Golbez 21:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose
  • There are many unsourced assertions regarding how urban and rural areas are classified. Also some statistical assertions in the introductory text for the metropolitan areas section is unsourced.
  • The metropolitan area figures cannot be found in the linked source. Please link to the proper source for the figures.
  • Why is RIDE (Brasilia city region) not included in the metropolitan area list? While not officially a RM, it should at least be mentioned why.
  • (not critical) Is there an article explaining how Regiao Metropolitana are delineated? If not, a short statement in the list might be useful.

--Polaron | Talk 13:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 2 support, 0 oppose. Not enough support to promote. Fail. Juhachi 05:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom. Based originally on the List of areas in the National Park System of the United States, though with the addition of dates of establishment. Geraldk 18:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Title is clearly misleading. There are no National Parks in Maryland. Circeus 19:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Circeus, one day I'll put together a list that meets your exacting requirements. And on that day, I will retire from wikipedia forever, triumphant at last :). What would you prefer that it be called: 'List of areas in the National Park System of the United States located in Maryland'? Geraldk 20:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed the title and redirected. Better? Geraldk 20:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, better. The lead could still use some enlargement. Also the source does not actually cover establishment dates. And please remember to bullet your "see also"s... Circeus 01:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And FLC is a cakewalk compared to FAC, much less FPC. Although I admit it's getting thougher. Now if only I could get that silly Adygea list de-featured >.> Circeus 01:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been through FAC, and there's a reason I prefer it here. Slight lead expansion. Referenced dates - though I could not find any sources that referenced a specific date for Fort Foote, so I referenced it as circa 1946. I'm sure the source is out there, and I'm sure 1946 is right, but I can't connect the two. Grounds for FLC failure? Geraldk 01:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I've got it. In 1930, the Capper-Cramton Act transferred it in the custody of the Office of Public Buildings and Public Parks of the National Capital, and latter, in 1933, it was transferred to what would become the NPS in that year's reorganization that disbanded various organisms, including the Public Parks of the National Capital. See here. latter on the page, 1940 is given as the transfer date, though... Where did you get your c. 1946 date? Circeus 21:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • My reading of that and the other sources I could find is that the Capper-Cramton Act allowed for the transfer to happen when the Fort was no longer necessary for military purposes. But there's sourcing that says it was still used as a training site in WW2, so I can't imagine the transfer happening before then. I think the web's shot for sources on this one, and we'd really have to go to the National Archives to find the info, or hope there's some obscure reference to it in some book on national parks. I'll try to look. Geraldk 14:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I'll support now. Circeus 16:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Meets all the criteria. Looking at the infobox for protected areas, the one other piece of data that you might want to include in the list is size/area of each place.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BirgitteSB (talk • contribs).

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 13 days, 2 support, 1 oppose. Fail. Juhachi 05:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ensured that the data for the 2003 reflected the format and reference templates of a current FL - 2007 Cricket World Cup statistics. self-norm for efforts in the recent past on the article. --Kalyan 09:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Miwanya 21:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I was bold and went through and tidied up a lot of inconsistencies and tidied up some parts of the lead, but the page certainly meets the criteria. I changed the "legend" section for the most wickets/runs sections as they looked a bit untidy as was, and instead integrated wikilinks/refs in to the table itself; hope you don't mind. Good luck! AllynJ 08:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, as a follow up, I'm unsure of whether the picture is fair use or not. I understand that photos of such an event may be hard to come by, but hard to come by does not in itself mean "no free equivalent"... I'm far from an expert on WP:FAIR USE cases though, could someone else clarify? AllynJ 09:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't appear to be fair use. Kalyan, you need to give the source of your image on the image page. A quick Google found this with an identical image. That photo is copyright REUTERS/Antony Njuguna, 2003-03-23. The photo breaks example #5 of the fair use guideline: "A photo from a press agency (e.g., Reuters, AP), not sufficiently well known to be recognized by a large percentage of casual readers, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo. If photos are themselves particularly newsworthy (the subject of discussion in the news, and not merely depicting an event, person or people widely discussed in the news), low-resolution versions of the photos may be "fair use" in articles mentioning the photo." If this is the case, can you please arrange for it to be deleted. Colin°^Talk 13:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. I missed attaching the source and copyright of the picture. i usually add the same and somehow missed it here. I have added the same now. I think the pic qualifies for fair-use as the event is reproducible and there are no free-images available. I am also adding a copyright tag in the article page to give credit to the agency. I have seen this being done in atleast a couple of occasions though i need some time to find the same. Let me know. --Kalyan 09:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "No free equivalent" test is just one of 10 hurdles—you have to pass them all. I think example #5 (quoted above) is fairly obviously applicable. If you disagree, then the fair use page suggests some ways for you to ask for an opinion/advice. Colin°^Talk 09:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. I have added a {{fairusereview}} tag to the image wikipage. --Kalyan 12:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on fairuse review, i have deleted the image from the page as well as requested deletion of the image. --Kalyan 08:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. Sorry this comment is late. If it helps, and progress is being made, the closing editor might extend this nomination. Some of my comments are relevant to the 2007 list your is based on. I didn't comment on that list, but I believe it also needs fixing.
  • The Lead contains terms more appropriate for an excited cricket commentator than an encyclopaedia ("clinical demolition", "dubious distinction", "Records tumbled", "minnows", "clashed", "consolation"). See WP:PEACOCK.
  • The text contains a mix of hyphens and ndash's, inconsistent use of upper-case and some awkward parenthensis.
  • The date format (dd-mm-yyyy) needs to be revised to wikilink for user perferences.
  • The "Source cricinfo" links aren't a full enough citation (see WP:CITE) and the full citation should be in the references.
  • I suggest you split your notes from your references (see Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal for an example).
  • Note sure why the 2007 stats should be a See also.

Colin°^Talk 13:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No edits have been made since I posted this. That's a shame, since objections are fairly easy for the editor to fix and this list does have potential. Colin°^Talk 11:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 16 days, 3 support, 2 oppose. Fail. --MarcK 23:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list has come a long way. Originally, it was simply episode numbers and English episode titles. Now, the list contains a short introduction, episode titles in English and Japanese, and (where appropriate) the titles of the episodes for their American release. It also contains the original air dates of all the episodes, and the list is also properly referenced. --AutoGyro 15:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as nominator --AutoGyro 15:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Fails on several counts:
  • Lead is not formatted corretly, and is much too short. See List of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya episodes or List of Bleach Agent of the Shinigami arc episodes for examples of good leads
  • There are no original Japanese-text titles for any of the episodes
  • Not only are the references not done corrently as per WP:CITE, but the only refs given are to fansites. Find some official website citations--十八 15:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I went back and edited the intro section and references. I think it's in the proper format, now. As for the Japanese titles, I'm in the process of adding them, but I will have to finish that later today as I have no time at the moment. --AutoGyro 16:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Finished adding Kanji titles. Intro is fixed and citations are correct :) --AutoGyro 21:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • If the series is called Lupin III, why is the list called "List of Shin Lupin III episodes", and what is its relation with List of Lupin III episodes?
  • These lists are normally taken to include OVAs and TV specials (unless tehre are enough that a separate listing is warranted, in which case it should be linked.
  • That {{main}} at the top does not belong. (it works the other way, from Lupin III to this list.
• Circeus 17:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are three different Lupin III TV series, and this list is strictly for the 2nd TV series, which is called Shin Lupin III (New Lupin III). The 1st and 3rd TV series have their own list and I will work on updating those to feature status at a future time :) --AutoGyro 18:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This BADLY needs to be clarified in both the lead of this list and Lupin III... As it is, it looks as if there was only one series and it was titled "Lupin III" (not to mention tha fact it,s quite often cited as "Lupin the 3rd." Circeus 18:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • All of the summaries badly need copyediting. You may want to ask the WP:LoCE for that since the list is so large.
  • References and Notes should be merged into a "Notes and references" section.
  • The magazine in References needs to be in {{cite book}} format
  • Headings should comply with the WP:MOS--十八 09:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, Magazines usually use {{cite news}}. Circeus 17:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - 155 episodes is far too many for a single article, as it simply becomes unreadable and exhausting very quickly. See List of Bleach episodes for the splitting of these episodes amongst official arcs. One of the lists relating to these arcs, List of Bleach Agent of the Shinigami arc episodes is a FL now as well. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 17:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The last sentences of every summary should be removed. They aren't summarizing the episodes; they are attempting to intrigue readers to watch the episode. These sentences are not appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Wikipedical 18:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose
  • The lead still fails to properly clears out the relationships between this series and it's "main" articles Lupin III.
  • Most episode summaries, as pointed out by Juhachi, are improper in tone.
  • Per Sephiroth BCR, 155 episodes is slightly extreme. Maybe you should consider something like List of The Simpsons episodes rather than List of Bleach episodes, though.
• Circeus 04:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: List has been fixed to suggestions. Check it out --AutoGyro 13:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite improvement, but not quite there.
    • Episode title should be "Japanese title translated" ("American title"), not "Japanese title translated (American title)"
    • The header should properly reproduce the structure of the cell, and indicate what are the 4 elements in there (japanese translated title, American DVD title, transliterated title, japanese title). That way, you can remove the note part about explaining it.
    • The other note bit, about which episodes where aired in the U.S. should be in the lead.
    • Make sure there is no space before your ref tags.
    • The fulls dates in the lead need to be linked to trigger date preferences.
  • Circeus 18:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Due to the way the template is formatted, I could not do "Japanese title translated" ("American title"), so I went with "Japanese title translated (American DVD release title)" instead. I hope that's okay! --AutoGyro 19:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had not noticed this was a template. Maybe you could do the same thing we did for List of Digimon Adventure episodes? A <br> was added so that the translated japanese title displays above the transliterated one. Circeus 20:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. I also applied the template to List of Lupin III television specials with a minor adjustment. It looks pretty nice. --AutoGyro 22:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Now that all the issues have been addressed, is there anything else that needs to be taken care of? --AutoGyro 02:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't find much more to quibble about. support Circeus 03:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: The table layout isn't clear. I suggest having seperate columns for each of "Japanese title (translated)", "American DVD release title" and "Japanese title (transliterated) (Kanji title)" Tompw (talk) (review) 20:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now that the above has been dealt with. Tompw (talk) (review) 22:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The table is confusing and the usage of bright flashy red serves no constructive purpose, other than being irritating for the eyes. Kariteh 20:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I modefied the table so that it models the featured list, List of Oh My Goddess episodes. I could not separate the English Translated Title and American DVD Title into different columns because of the way the template is set up, but the heading makes the distinction between the two clear. I hope it's not as confusing now. --AutoGyro 22:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Withdrawn. Circeus 16:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be in line with other featured lists concerning television episode. Comments are welcome. east.718 18:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • Lead could use some improvement.
    •  Done
  • Links in headers. Year links, which is worse
    •  Done—sort of. I left specific dates as links, as per WP:DATE#Dates_containing_a_month_and_a_day.
      • No problem. I specifically referring to the links in headers. I didn't see any other yearlinks. Circeus 02:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few episode "summaries" feel more like teasers (but then I'm not familiar with the series). remember, we don't hide spoilers.
    •  Doing... There's not much that can be done about this as each episode covers a large amount of complex material. I am in the process of beefing up the later seasons' entries though. east.718 01:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I really like the quotes, though.
• Circeus 01:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thought: some intro text for each season would make it nicer, though it's not a requirement. I'll support without too. Circeus 20:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not have the time to improve this article as of now, please withdraw this nomination. east.718 21:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 15 days, 1 support, 1 oppose. Fail. Juhachi 12:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Yes, another Maryland list) Now improved with references! The best list of obscure historical politicians from a minor American state that money can buy. Seriously, though - good list - glad to make any suggested improvements. Geraldk 15:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first picture I checked (the last in the article) has copyright issues. Rmhermen 16:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • Most images used as FU for the last 30 years are probably going to be deleted at some points. Such prominent individuals most likely have PD portraits somewhere.
  • At least one is outright challenged
  • Color coding is not clear enough (the blue and green are too similar on flat screens)
  • It's also ambiguous: the same party is given different colors, and "no party" candidates are given in at least 3 colors
  • An actual color chart at the top of the "Governors under Statehood" section is probably a good idea.
  • The Maryland seal image also need a proper FU statement. U.S. seals are trademarks, and not subject to the time limits of copyright.
• Circeus 17:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there aren't any fair use images created within the last 30 years used in that particular article. The only one was added very recently, and I have just deleted it as RFU. In addition, the only other fair use images are for three governors in the mid 20th Century for which I could not find any free use images, and who are deceased. --Tom (talk - email) 22:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed most of the color issues, including the mislabeling and the blue/green issue. FYI, I believe the same shades of blue and green appear in List of Presidents of Venezuela, which is FL, and which might need to be corrected as well if this is a problem. Added color key. Also, not sure if the seal image has appropriate rationale now, so please check and let me know. Sorry for the delay in responding - was out of town. Geraldk 21:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the color changes. Too similar? These colors are the standard used in Wikipedia for U.S. political parties, so it sounds like there may be a problem with the settings on Circeus's monitor. Also, as an LCD monitor owner myself (which I assume is the "flat screen"), these colors stand out perfectly fine. I'd suggest adjusting your contract, brightness, or other settings if these look alike. --Tom (talk - email) 04:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I added the key back in, since it's useful. Geraldk 04:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't strike my arguments. I can do it myself. Circeus 18:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I tentatively changed the color key. Feel free to revert. Circeus 18:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Key looks great. Geraldk 20:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original was taken from the List of Chicago Landmarks (which I later also converted), but then I remembered about {{legend}}, although I wasn't sure if it included a bordering option. Turnedout there was one, making the color more visible. Circeus 23:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (for now) due to the presence of redlinks (as per WP:WIAFL 1a(1) "group of existing articles"). These are all for per-statehood governors, and I am prepared to belive they aren't notable enough to justify articles. If this is the case, then their names shoudl be de-linked. If they are notable, they then they must have an article (even if it's just a stub) for this to become a FL. Also, the references should be a sperate section to the notes. (You may find it useful to use <ref> tages). That aside, this is a sound list, and I will be happy to support once these issues have been addressed. Tompw (talk) (review) 20:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had dropped the redlinks earlier, and User:Tom put them back in, saying that redlinks are OK because these guys are notable. I assume he meant that they could, and should at some point, have their own articles. That aside, my reading of WP:WIAFL, based on the phrase "for example" is that a collection of existing articles is merely one reason to have a list, and not a definitive requirement, and I would think this list, with the redlinks, would fit in under !a(3). Geraldk 23:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 13 days, 1 support, 2 oppose. Fail. Juhachi 11:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of 207 UK timelines and I'm nominating this one as it is currently the best referenced out of all of them. I've checked several different printed and online sources and this list appears to cover all the major events of 1987 and hopefully it covers all of the section 1 criteria. I suppose the only question is whether a better lead is required. Tim! 09:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There should not be a space between punctuation and citations, and the references are improperly formatted.. ShadowHalo 02:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment
  1. There are no spaces between punctuations and footnotes. See, WP:FOOTNOTE.
  2. The references need to list at least the publisher and access-dates. You could use {{Cite web}} as a reference.
  3. Yes, the lead needs to introduce a couple of major events.

--Crzycheetah 02:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • My comments were met. I support, even though Circeus is right that it's too hard to judge the comprehensiveness of the article.--Crzycheetah 20:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I would be neutral (too hard to judge criterion 1(b), comprehensiveness) if not for that ridiculous "date unknown" for the Keidrych Rhys entry. Just because the date is not listed in the Wikipedia entry is no excuse! Circeus 05:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The references section should probably be renamed notes. Also, a date should really be found for when Keidrych Rhys died. -- Underneath-it-All 17:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I added one to the article. Oxford National Biography was nice enough to have one. Circeus 15:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that Circeus. Tim! 16:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: This list does not have a well-defined entry criteria... I know this is a problem for this sort of list, andwill try hard to think of one. More generally, this list really should have some images illustrating some of the items on the list. Tompw (talk) (review) 23:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 0 support, 1 oppose. Fail. Juhachi 11:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list is as complete as I can make it with the available evidence. A little tweaking could get it yo Featured status. Abbott75 ☺ 01:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: The lead needs significant expansion and the citations do not follow Wikipedia policy. -- Underneath-it-All 01:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, there is no such thing as a "citation policy." What underneath probably means is that they need to be properly formatted (I recommend {{cite web}}) and placed (no space before the <ref> tag). See also Wikipedia:Footnotes for how to combine identical notes.Circeus 02:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the tips, I'll implement them now. Also, remember WP:SOFIXIT :P Abbott75 ☺ 02:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notes merged. Circeus 04:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you :) Abbott75 ☺ 04:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Could somebody help out with the identical notes? I have a terrible headache and can't figure it out for myself. Thanks. Abbott75 ☺ 02:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Abbott75, your WP:SOFIXIT comment isn't realy applicable here. It is your responsibility to polish the article and try to meet the guidelines before offering up the list for FL candidacy. It sounds like you don't think it is ready yet, so Peer review may be the place to go for ideas on getting there. If you want help, wikiprojects are the place to ask. Lots of editors, when preparing an article, scan the FL and FA candidate lists to see what sort of issues come up. It doesn't help them if articles mysteriously just become good enough. In addition, the reviewers here and at peer-review just don't have the time to help fix all the articles. Finally, there's often more than one way to do it (e.g. citation templates vs formatting by hand) and the choice is yours. Colin°^Talk 12:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• All refs have been converted to an appropriate template. Also, I think WP:SOFIXIT is entirely appropriate. This is a wiki, it is everybody's responsibility to fix anything they see wrong. Abbott75 ☺ 01:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 0 support, 1 oppose. Fail. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitted for Featured List. The previous submission was failed on 16th June 2007 after the issues raised in opposition had been addressed.

See previous submission discussion:- Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cathedrals in the United Kingdom/archive1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnArmagh (talk • contribs) 14:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Looking at the list I noticed that some cathedral names were in bold, while others weren't. Is there a specific reason for this? -- Underneath-it-All 18:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the actual cathedral names are in bold. The denominations are in bold. In some sections multiple 'minor' denominations have been combined into a single table in order to minimise the complexity of the Table of Contents (which was one of the previous criticisms of the article). --JohnArmagh 18:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My criticism, to be precise.Circeus 17:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral While the list has seen great improvement, I'm still iffy with the image placement, and my original offer to help with the article still stands. Circeus 17:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The lead section is very bitty, and doesn't flow at all. Also, the references section does make it clear where the various details come from. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 13 days, 1 support, 0 oppose. Fail. --MarcK 04:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the page because I feel that it is up to FL standards.

I am going to address a couple issues I think will come up.

1. Double links: Yes, there are a lot of repeat blue links and it is generally frowned upon, but the table is sortable and it was decided that every name should be linked so that it would be easier to go somewhere.
2. Lack of individual citations: I have had previous FLCs where it was demanded that each row have an individual citations, but in that case there would be 200+ sources and I felt there was no need when there was an easy link page that could be at the bottom. Also, none of the rows have any statements that could be taken as POV.

Any other issues that are brought up will be addressed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Pick a picture for the lead section. This will appear in the truncated version that appears should this be featured. Your Note1 backlink doesn't work. The table needs a column for series number, which should also be indicated in your references. I don't think individual citations are required in this case since it is not a dynamic list. The refs given make it quite easy to check the names. I agree with your comment on repeated links. Your lead could do with being copyedited (e.g. "with 20 having been able to" is awkward and over-complex). You give a lot of different terms for the contestants (castaways, participants, cast, competitors), which might be confusing. The External links aren't relevant to this list. I'm sure the main Survivor, or other series-specific pages will contain those. Ultimately, I don't think it passes the FLC 1a. Criterion 1a1 requires mostly blue-links, which this list certainly fails. Obviously most of these castaways are non-notable, even the winners are pretty forgettable. Criterion 1a3 requires this to be "a significant topic of study". A list of contestants on a TV show is not IMO a significant topic of study for an encyclopaedia). Colin°^Talk 22:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The contestants themselves DO meet notability requirements, but the reason many of them don't have pages is because everything that can be said about them can also be said in their season pages. Also, could you please define "a significant topic of study" for me? What makes this any less significant than a list of players for an ice hockey team or a list of members of a walk of fame? Each page has its significance and just because this one isn't as obvious to you doesn't mean that it doesn't meet requirements. The rest of your suggestions will be implemented. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The make-up of a sport team is important to those who document and study a team's history. Having a "walk of fame" award is a notable attribute that one may wish to study. Appearing on a reality TV show does not guarantee long term notability or even interest. It is hard to see how the cast list of any TV show or film could really be regarded as "a significant topic of study", whether they are actors or drawn from the public. The list is nicely presented, sure, but I'd prefer to draw the line somewhere higher than here. The reason for the "significant" clause is that 1a3 introduced the possibility of producing an otherwise perfect list of complete trivia. The cast list for tonight's episode of EastEnders, or the bus timetable for the No13 service. If you could pass on 1a1, then it might be different (I'm certainly not encouraging you to create articles for these non-notable people). As it is, I'm leaning towards oppose. Colin°^Talk 19:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't watch survivor, so the location of the season does not tell me as much as the year of the season would. Is it possible to add a column to make it sortable by season year? If not a legend would help. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 12:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The default sort is the order that the seasons aired and then by the order that the participants were voted out. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral The list seems to exhibit many of the WP:WIAFL characteristics. However, I am fearful that giving this featured status will give a toehold to non-notable list members in future WP:AFD discussions. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt that would happen, because "Is a part of a larger topic that is part of a featured list" is not among the inclusion crieteria. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just want to comment that indeed, a list where almost all the material is taken from a few sources can be sourced that way instead. It's been done for the NFL drafts and Team seasons, for example. Circeus 05:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 16 days, 3 support, 0 oppose. Fail. --MarcK 04:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been well researched and has been a GA candidate in the past. At the recommendation of the last GA review, it was decided to seperate the main text of the article into a new article (Liturgical calendar (Lutheran) and leave the actual calendar in list format. At the recommendation of User:Drieakko, it is being nominated as a Featured list while the new article is being submitted for GA review. -- jackturner3 17:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• References should be better formatted, inline citations would be helpful. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 18:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but what would a "better format" for references be? And what would an example of something within the article needing an inline citation?

Some of the statements in the lead could use a citation. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 14:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A couple of comments. First, you've done some great work on these articles, Jack. You may want to, if you have not, check out some of the recent promotions of featured lists, I think there are probably some good ideas as far as layout there. My main comment, as far as content, would be to go with either the ELW or the LBW calendar for the ELCA. As it stands currently, I'm not sure which calendar is the primary source for the ELCA calendar on the page (for example, Thomas is observed on Dec 21 in the LBW calendar, but is not noted as such on the list; but Rasmus Jensen is listed on February 20 even though he was removed for the ELW calendar). My own inclination would be to go with the ELW calendar, as it is the most current calendar of commemorations in the ELCA. As a minor note, it is standard to spell out the word Saint before a person's name; and use the abbreviation before places (thus, Saint John, but the Basilica of St. John; Saint Thomas, but the Island of St Thomas). I think this list is pretty close over all. Pastordavid 17:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The choice of the LBW or ELW was a hard one. In the end, I went with the LBW as the primary base for nomenclature because it represents the closest thing we have to consensus among Lutherans in North America. In this way, where the language for festivals and commemorations held in common by the ELCA and the LCMS come into conflict, I have determined that the LBW overrules both LSB and ELW. For dates, ELW and LSB rule the day since, as you say, they are more current. Perhaps this material should be stated directly in the open since it is directly related to methodology and I’m open to doing that if it is deemed necessary.

Since Jensen is no longer on either calendar, I have removed him. I have also gone back and made sure everything is correct on the calendar for both the ELCA and the LCMS and have wikified the use of saint on the calendar. I have looked at some of the other lists recently promoted (as well as some of the other calendars), and I’m open to discussion on the subject of format if there is a big issue with it.

jackturner3 15:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes. Support. As far as formatting, you know that I prefer the table-style without the empty dates (a la January here) but my preference for that style is not enough for me to oppose. Well done. Pastordavid 17:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support
  • Is it necessary to have empty dates ?
  • For references, see {{Cite book}} and similar templates. Circeus 05:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sold on it because I like the layout better than just having everything crammed on top of each other (I think it makes it easier to read). However, if that is a make-or-break issue for promotion, I’m certainly willing to discuss it. As for references, I’m using Chicago Style. As far as I know, that’s acceptable, which is why I had posed the question to Phoenix2 of what a “better format” for references was.

jackturner3 15:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Why is the article disambiguated? It should be at Lutheran Calendar of Saints. (same with Liturgical calendar (Lutheran)). Circeus 17:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Calendar of Saints (X Church)" is the standard that is used for the majority of articles about calendars of saints and commemorations. It seems, as someone who works with WP Saints, to make the most sense to leave that one there (see Category:Liturgical calendars for examples). On the other article (unrelated to this FA nomination), I would support moving to Lutheran litrugical calendar. Pastordavid 18:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't suspected it was part of a larger scheme (which, given some of the odder names, makes sense.) I retract that. Circeus 22:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, of the projects requested from various editors

• Change all instances of St. to Saint.

 Done

• Check all entries to ensure conformity with current commemorations in the ELW and LSB

 Done

• “Better format” for references.

Still not sure what this means. The format I have used is standard Chicago style. If I must use a Wikipedia template, I will do so, but I would appreciate knowing if this is an essential for everyone here or not.

• Citation of “some” of the lead statements.

Again, not certain what this is to mean since the specific lead statement which needs a citation was not pointed out. Again, happy to do it, just need to know which one to do it too. I’ve been working on this for so long, I’m kind of getting blinder’s syndrome.

• Decide if empty date format is necessary.

This is one of those things that I suppose we need to have a discussion about. I’m not certain if this is a deal breaker or not, but many of the other calendars are formatted in this manner (and when the list was originally created, this was how they were all done). In any event, I’m willing to discuss it, but I would need those who are interested in a calendar change to discuss it with me.

Those are the only projects that were opened by nominating this list for featured status. I would like to see the necessary consensus built and the list promoted, so for those who are working on this, I would appreciate hearing from you. -- jackturner3 14:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 19 days, 2 support, 0 oppose. Fail. --MarcK 04:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of episodes for an animated television series. It is complete in content, with concise episodes summaries. All material is properly-sourced. First nomination. Peacent 14:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: The article fails criterion 1a (see WP:FL?). The list should bring together a group of articles, but the only two related articles are listed. Also, the DVD cover should have a fair use rationale written for it. -- Underneath-it-All 00:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair-use rationale added.
• About criteria 1a, I assume you mean there should be articles for episodes in the list. If that's the case, please see some other featured LoEs such as List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes or List of Bleach Agent of the Shinigami arc episodes (which was promoted to FL very recently with no related article listed). Also, as for clarification, there used to be more links to individual episodes articles until an editor turned all those articles into redirects per WP:EPISODES. When an animated series doesn't qualify to have episodes articles, I find it unjustifiable to require a list like this to bring together a group of articles. My two cents Peacent 02:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Criterian 1a states: "Useful" means that the list covers a topic that lends itself to list format which this article does. Then a list of examples are given, but those examples are not meant to be deal-breakers, or else they would get their own sub section in the criterian. An example of a given featured list can bring together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria, but not all feautured lists have to follow this format.--十八 07:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at those articles and see what you mean. I've changed my vote to support. Just one more thing though, when I click on season 5, it doesn't take me down to the section. -- Underneath-it-All 02:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, thanks for telling me about that, there was an error with the dash. It's now been fixed. Peacent 03:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - List articles are not allowed to contain non-free images per our Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The DVD covers have to go. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Image gone, as you wish. Peacent 05:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 1 support, 4 oppose. Fail. --MarcK 12:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is current a Featured article, but is properly a list. It's time it was moved to its proper featured content type, this is mostly a processual nom. If you're not sure this should be at FLs, compare List of United States Navy ratings. Circeus 05:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if we've ever done this, or if this is the place to make such a request. I think it's okay as an article, but maybe WP:FAR is the place to start? I haven't a clue. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 06:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I believe this is a list, as well. You have to take this to WP:FAR in order to remove this from WP:FA. Then nominate it here.--Crzycheetah 07:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This was discussed to death at the FA nomination, consensus was that it was more article than list. —Nightstallion 11:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose then, if a majority believed it to be an article. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 14:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 90% of this article consists of tables listing stuff. That's a huge sign that it is actually a list.--Crzycheetah 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/€2 commemorative coins — Well, many people did think it would be better as a list, but TantalumTelluride and a few others agreed with me; in the end, we agreed it was more article than list. —Nightstallion 10:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read that nomination before commenting here. I still believe that it is a list. What is the difference between this article and the newly promoted list? It is written in the same format: table followed by prose, table then prose, etc. The main information here is contained in tables; therefore it should be considered a list.
      By the way, I think this discussion should be continued at the article's talk page.--Crzycheetah 18:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, simply because there is no need for this nomination. The purpose of featured content, of any kind, is to showcase the best of Wikipedia's work. There is a secondary purpose of recognising the hard work of the contributors. This is already a Featured Article, therefore both those purposes have been served. If someone argues that it doesn't meet the FA standards and it gets de-featured, then fine, bring it back here and I'll happily support it, because the content is excellent. But as it is, while this remains a Featured Article, this nomination is unnecessary. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I would consider this text an annotated list, but I agree with OpenToppedBus that there isn't a great need to move it. I also think that a text should not be both a featured list and a featured article, although the division between the two may be a bit grey. As long as this is a "FA", I oppose it being "FL". Gimmetrow 00:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]