Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/July 2011

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 18:25, 31 July 2011 [1].

Nominator(s): Fortdj33 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list, because I have put a lot of work into making this list as comprehensive as possible. The list has been submitted for a peer review, which is now archived, and suggestions from that review have been implemented. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments a mammoth effort. Some quick thoughts.

• No images whatsoever?
• Inadequate lead, it should summarise the whole article.
• Don't have "The following is a list..." as your second sentence of the list.
• I honestly think it would be better as a tabulated list. You could have Vehicle, Year of release, Packaged with, Notes, Refs as headings.
• List name should be in italics (at least the G.I Joe: A Real American Hero part of it.
• I am mildly concerned that this is just a transposition of the two book sources you've used. I can't back that position up with anything because I don't have access to the material.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the intro per your suggestions, and I added images for several of the significant vehicles. You are not the first person to suggest a tabulated list, but I would prefer to leave the article in the present format, as long as the TOC remains compact. There are several links that redirect to specific sections of this article, and I think that adding a table would just cause complications with that, and the placement of the images. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Regarding TRM's last point, I checked reference 32, which was available online. I'm really concerned by the closeness of the source to the article.

• Source: "Hasbro was able to sell thousands of toy tanks for former Soviet children through its joint venture in India, Funskool (India) Ltd. ... the Russians were extremely captivated by the toy and they ordered 100,000 units delivered instantly."
• Article: "In later years, Hasbro was able to sell thousands of M.O.B.A.T. toys to former Soviet children through its Indian joint venture, Funskool (India) Ltd.; the Russians ordered 100,000 units delivered instantly."

In addition, I checked a couple pages of the Mark Bellomo book on Google Books and found the following from pages 25 and 27, respectively:

• Source: "The APC became the first troop transporter for the Joe team."
• Article: "It was the first troop transporter for the Joes".
• Source: "was the popular light-attack helicopter designed for quick Cobra raids. ... The F.A.N.G. comes equipped with four heat-seeking air-to-air rockets...".
• Article: "The light-attack helicopter was equipped with four air-to-air heat-seeking rockets, and was designed for quick Cobra raids."

Pretty plagaristic if you ask me. Doesn't leave me trusting of the rest of the article, that's for sure. What else is lurking in this list that can't easily be checked because it comes from books? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 17:56, 26 July 2011 [2].

Nominator(s): Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 10:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because...(<-- we still make users give a reason??) Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 10:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments two things spring to mind:

• Not sure why this can't be easily merged into the (admittedly weak) main Grand Rapids Griffins article. (i.e. a question mark here over WP:WIAFL 3b)

• I'm following the convention used for every NHL team page (including the three that were founded after the Griffins), in which only the five most recent season results are displayed. If we're going to break this convention, how many seasons should the team play before a spinoff article is warranted? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 18:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• All I'm saying is that I can't see a good reason why this info can't be merged into the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Because the list isn't terribly long, right? But surely you can come up with a reason why List of Detroit Red Wings seasons can't be incorporated into Detroit Red Wings. So what's your cutoff? Everybody else's seems to be five seasons. This team has fifteen. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 19:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not saying the list can't exist (like your Red Wings example) but I'm saying it shouldn't be featured (similarly, your Red Wings example isn't a featured list). The cut-off is the 3b criterion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Tampa Bay Lightning seasons – four more entries there than here. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 19:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Great example. The list has an article for every season, and the main article is massive, so the seasons can "stand alone" legitimately. Both unlike the Griffins pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Especially since not one single Griffins season article appears to exist (as linked to from this article).

• I admit that column looks pretty useless at the moment, but finishing up the 1996–97 Grand Rapids Griffins season article is my next project. The layout of the table again follows the convention used for NHL team seasons lists. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 18:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe wait until you have these season articles written before nominating at FLC? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose the articles could be created so as not to show so much red on the page – some of the season links at the FL List of Calgary Flames seasons, for example, take you to pages that are merely tables of stats extracted from media guides. Whatever we decide to do with that does not affect the content on this page, however. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 19:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the articles should be created but should be useful. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I will point out for subsequent reviewers that in the FL List of Tampa Bay Lightning seasons that The Rambling Man hails, most of the linked Lightning season articles are prose-free. I'm perfectly capable of compiling some tables, too, if that's the sticking point here, but again I'll say the color of the links does not affect the reader's ability to learn the statistical breakdown of each Grand Rapids Griffins season. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 19:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I "hailed" it as a good example of a list which is a useful standalone list from a half-decent main article. Not so in this case. Any future "argument" derived from this current perspective is entirely subject to the changes in quality standards between now an some undefined future point. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Criterion 5a. Well over half of the links in the first two columns of the table are red. The FL criteria call for "a minimal proportion" of red links, and I consider this more than minimal. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 20:25, 24 July 2011 [3].

Nominator(s): AJona1992 (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the criteria. However, I wasn't too active with my other nomination because I was dealing with other situations. However, I am here to give my all in this nomination. Thank you, AJona1992 (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Suggest withdraw:
• Hardly warrants its own article, needs merging with Selena albums discography into Selena discography
• MOS:DASH and MOS:LEAD non-compliance
• WP:UNDERLINK
• Why on earth are accolades included here?
• References poorly formatted
• References should be per chart, if possible, rather than per song
• Look at some FL discographies to use as guides

Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note It shouldn't be merged. If merge the article would be well-over 120,000 bytes and be filled with mess, like it once was. The awards are included on here because its awards that the following singles had won. Why wouldn't it be there? I will look into it. Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Adabow. Ajona1992, Adabow has spot on pointed out the main issues in this list. At present its in an apalling state. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose along with my fellow reviewers, aside from the following:

The name for Emilio is Emilio Navaira not Narvaira.

"Tu Solo Tu" peaked at number-one in the Hot Latin Tracks chart, and it is not mentioned.

"Si Una Vez" never charted, that chart position (at number 4) is for "Techno Cumbia", which charted in a remixed form as a single from Dreaming of You.

"Siempre Hace Frio" peaked at number 2 in the aformentioned chart, and it does not show.

I agree with the "selected" award section, this list is not the right place. - Jaespinoza (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Si Una Vez has chart. Billboard remove most of Selena's the peak positions for unknown reasons. Will work on it shortly. AJona1992 (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• There is a lot of overlink with the refs (mainly Billboard)
• The refs are not consistent (some list Bilboard as the publisher, others cite Neilsen Soundscan)
• As another editor said, the accolades for her singles should not be here. This is a discography page, not an accolades one.
• The lead is not comprehensive
• No external links?
• Assuming I'm reading the columns right, where are the Japan peak positions?! The charts do not seem to provide a worldwide view of things

Crystal Clear x3 01:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have completed all request. Also added a certification/sales table, it seems to be relevant to the article. I also added more sources and secondary sources from magazines, books, and newspapers. If there is anything else that should be done, I'm here to fix 'em all :). Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently four opposes here, a clear sign that the list was nominated prematurely. If there's no movement in the next couple of days, this should be archived. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, I fixed all their complains. AJona1992 (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 04:13, 20 July 2011 [4].

Nominator(s): — Kai Ojima 08:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is my first featured list candidate, and I am nominating it because I believe it meets the featured list criteria, and is a highly notable subject. It contains highly detailed information on the medal, its purpose, its establishment and, of course, its recipients. All comments are appreciated! :-) — Kai Ojima 08:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A large portion of the lead consists of quotations. I wish the number could be lowered somewhat so that I'm not merely reading quotes in the lead.

Hello, and thank you for the feedback. I believe that all points except for the second are now fixed. What would you like to see there in place of quotations? Thanks, — Kai Ojima 19:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about giving the main reasons these people won the award in your own writing, based on the information in the quotes? The lead would be more engaging if this were done. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I like these kind of lists, nice to see them here.

• Consider using the {{infobox award}} template. If you do this, you could then include images of recipients down the side of the table.
• Per Giants, take a look at Crafoord Prize when it was considered featured-worthy here. I synopsised the reason for the award in each case.
• You quote NASA's citation for Nehrels, but is that really what you should be using if the award citation is actually by the Draper Fund?
• The second para of the lead is just a repeat of the table pretty much verbatim, I think Giants is right here, we need a re-write.
• Ref 2 needs an en-dash.
• A to Z of scientists in space and astronomy is used more than twice so you should make it a general reference and then just refer to the author and page numbers.
• Ref 35 needs an en-dash.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 11:13, 17 July 2011 [5].

Nominator(s): Hadrianos1990 ^talk 08:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think its well done. I worked a lot since I created it. Thanks in advance. Hadrianos1990 ^talk 08:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Real Madrid have won the European Cup more times than any other club, and in the early days of the competition were completely dominant. There's more of a story here than simple bare tables of results can convey. In short, more prose is needed. 21 seasons of European football including six cup wins are summed up in two sentences covering 1955 to 1981. Things such as the 7–3 win in 1960 that marked Ferenc Puskas' finest hour deserve attention from the reader, before the article launches into a table of results. This extra prose might come in the form of an expanded lead, or fuller section intros, or as a history section like in List of Birmingham City F.C. managers. Whatever the method, it needs adding in one form or another before this can be considered to be among Wikipedia's best work. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is supposed to be a Featured List Candidate, not a Featured Article Candidate. I used FC Barcelona in Europe article, and that is a Featured List. If you check it out, you'll see that they are almost identical as lenght (even that Barcelona won 4 Champions League titles this is not storied in the article). So, sorry but I don't think you should oppose for that.Hadrianos1990 ^talk 06:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, featured list candidates have a list as their focus, but this does not mean that only the list part matters. Introducing the context of the list is just as important. As it happens, had I reviewed the Barcelona list I'd have opposed on similar grounds, but that's by the by. Standards rise over time as editors push the boundaries of article quality. The Liverpool article mentioned below, which has developed in the time since the Barcelona nomination, is a perfect example of how the bar can rise. It provides an excellent illustration of how to present events in their context to aid reader understanding of the topic. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Oldelpaso is right, there needs to be more prose, I got Liverpool F.C. in Europe to Good Article status. I would like to see this article become more like the Liverpool one, providing the reader with an insight into Real Madrid's participation rather than just a list of results which od not reveal anything. NapHit (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suspect we should be revisiting the FC Barca FL with a view to getting it expanded per Oldelpaso and Naphit's comments. That could be an FLRC candidate if someone feels strongly that it no longer meets current standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Agree with the others above that this could easily be an article, not a list. If the Liverpool page is considered a new standard, then similar pages should be built for GAN/FAC, not FLC. Perhaps we should have been paying more attention to this when other similar lists (like the Real Madrid one) were nominated, but this article is being debated here, not those. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 11:13, 17 July 2011 [6].

Nominator(s): Kebeta (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets FL criteria. The article was created by Nedim Ardoğa in 14 December 2009, and hasn't changed much untill 1 March 2011, when I started editing. During that process we had some disagreementes, which I hope are over now. Anyway, I will notify him of this submission. I also received some feedback by listing it at Peer review, but for some reason that Peer review wasn't archived properly. This is my first potential FL, so we will see how it goes...Kebeta (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 20:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the table meant to be sortable (according to the accompanying text)? I see no sorting function.

Can you help me further here if you can?

Sorting function added. Someone else will have to check if there is a mistake in the implementation.

Thanks, and done with you help.

• It may be a bit redundant to use both 10-digit and 13-digit ISBN numbers for the references. The current formatting also breaks the ISBN locator when clicked.

Do you suggest that I delete 13-digit ISBN numbers?

I usually prefer 13-digit numbers over 10-digit because they are more universally compatible. If you have issues converting between 10-digit and 13-digit ISBN, use this converter tool. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 21:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done

• The second sentence of footnote 1 begins awkwardly with "however" and "although" together. I believe "later" should be spelled as "latter".

I think it's better now.--Kebeta (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - really quick run through....

• It's not immediately clear per WP:ACCESS where campaigns were. A non-expert may be unaware that Belgrade is in Europe. We need a symbol as well as a colour for this kind of thing.

• Color in Campaign now present location (Campaigns in Europe, Near East & Mediterranean). Is this OK now?

• No, you need a symbol as well as a colour to denote a particular property. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure how to do this (symbol). Do you have an example of this on some other FL article?--Kebeta (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Try List of Los Angeles Lakers seasons, the main table uses colours and symbols. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Bold shouldn't be used to denote something significant, those who are sight-challenged won't necessarily be able to pick it up.

• Now the important or significant location is bold and in bigger font (not small font as the rest of the Campaign path). Is this OK?

• On my browser, the text is the same size. It shouldn't use just bold, perhaps put an asterisk next to the significant location and add it to the key. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, on my computer the text of the important or significant location is bold and in bigger (normal) font, but I am OK with an asterisk next to the significant location. How do you propose that I do this. For example, Campaign path: Filibe (Plovdiv)–Niš–Belgrade*–Semendire (Smederevo). Something like this?--Kebeta (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't change the font size, but do add the symbol. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Gallery of opponents is unnecessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I already removed one redundant section from the same user which created "Gallery of opponents". I had some problems with him in this article, so I wouldn't remove this section (not to cause an edit war). Any other suggestions regarding this point or regarding something else within the article?--Kebeta (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is a VERY worthy topic for Featured Content. However this article is far from doing the subject justice. It's exactly the sort of thing I love to read about, history, battles in the Orient, can't beat it. And I have even been to Istanbul, and my father lived there for several years working with their military (and also said they were the bravest soldiers in the Korean War). What's more, the article itself for Suleiman is FA. So I...want this thing to win a war. But it is just not there.

1. The table is a very poor way to cover the content. Would be much better covered as individual sections of prose (don't WORRY about if it "looks like a list or an article". Worry about what way to show content helps the reader best...then give it to FA if that works...or take it here (they will allow a lot more article in a list, than Sandy will a list in an article). This would also, then allow showing a time-line for all the campaigns as a single wide-view left to rihght graphic. And allow putting maps and images and opponents within each campaign section. But the main prose stuck in the table, just doesn't belong in table cells.

2. More minor, but the table itself looks kind of confusing with the colors of the geography, with the campaign path in small writing above the prose, and then with having a caption by each image (wich makes the images have to be micro size). Numbering is a wasted field (you already have chronology and it is even sortable).

3. (Minor) Infobox is a waste. You don't have a bunch of fact data like a city article or an element, where people will come and scan for a fact only like population of the city and not want to go read prose. But then having an infobox makes you make your great picture small (bad).

4. First map is displayed too small to be usable (better to center it, above first section and display large). It's also confusing with all the different colors and having a lot of content irrelevant to Suleiman. Instead, just show the empire when he came to power and the additions that he made in a different color.

5. (Minor) Don't like the "List of" title. It is excess verbiage. Why not just call it "Campaigns of". It is not like a discography or something where there is some possibility of confusion with the article.

6. 'The campaigns of Suleiman are a series of campaigns by Suleiman...' This is a redundancy that Malleus always calls out.

7. Also, do we need to Wikilink BOTH Ottoman Turkish and Turkish in the first two sentences (as languages)? Try to keep the lead as smooth and friendly for the newbie as possible. The goal is to engage him and draw him into the article (or at least make him feel that he can grasp the lead even if the article is too tough for him).

8. I'm not sure the solution, but if we can somehow clean up the start, it would help. "The imperial campaigns[1] (Ottoman Turkish: سفر همايون, Sefer-i humāyūn)[Note 1] of Suleiman the Magnificent[Note 2]" is what make people say Wiki is not reader friendly. First half-sentence has a footnote, two notes, foreign glyph writing also spelled out phonetically). Couldn't ALL that etymology and word stranslation and footnote/noting go in one note?

9. The "usage" section for the table is kinda painful also.

10. I didn't pick over the prose much, but there seem to be issues in preciseness or writing. For instance "stretched to the Arabian Peninsula". Well, the big deal, was stretching to the Gulf of Aden or Yemen. But Arabian Peninsula is that whole thing including the Levant and the Turks were there before StM rose to power.

P.s. Please don't take this too hard. It is the only way I know to engage. I love that you love your topic and want you to show it well! And the Turks were by far the bravest POWs in the Korean War.TCO (reviews needed) 05:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 16:29, 13 July 2011 [7].

Nominator(s): Cannot (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-written discography of Alanis Morissette, with actual sales data and charts positions, and also added a lot of information, like music videos directors, collaborations, etc. Cannot (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the lead only at this point...

• " Jagged stayed there for 12 weeks and remained in the Top 10 for over a year" no refs? I've put the reference for 12 weeks, but can't find for the rest, but I've just looked through billboard archives, it spent 67 weeks consecutive in the top ten. I'll be looking for it again.

OK, I've looked it through week-by-week and put references. I guess it's enough since Billboard allows to check any week. --Cannot (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: only a couple problems though. Once these are fixed I'll pass it.

• Problems with the lead:
  • Ref needed showing her as the first Canadian to top the Billboard 200.
  • Where is the link saying the video for "Thank U" was controversial?
• The EP and the video albums section are the same type of table, yet their headers are different. Pick one and be consistent.
• According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style, the charts should be ordered by the artist's home country first. If the article says she's from Canada, shouldn't the Canadian chart be first?

Well, now that she's Canadian-American, I thought there was not much of a difference? Correct me if it's strictly necessary.

I personally do not care, but some users can be very picky.

• Also, according to that style guide, shouldn't the certifications and sales figures have bullets? I see only the singles section has bullets.

I've just read it again and it said nothing about bullets. I can see it in some discographies though, and if it's strictly necessary I will do it. But even in the WP:DISCOGSTYLE#Samples there are no bullets.

Oh, dang. I must of messed up there. I apologize.

• Why does the Compilation albums table have a section for certifications if there are none?
• For the "Other appearances" section, should the artist name featuring Alanas be under the song title? I looked at a few other FL's (Taylor Swift discography and Kesha discography) and this is how it is formatted.

Well, among the songs listed there are very few released as singles. As far as I can make out, both Taylor Swift's and Kesha's discographies list the singles where these singers are "featured artists". These are just appearences, not singles.

I was referring to the formatting. Here's an example song:

Your way looks better to me, but then again, she collaborated with the same artists on several songs. 3 songs w/ Tricky, 3 songs with Ringo Starr, 4 with Jonathan Elias, a few "various artists" appearances. I don't really know if it's very necessary, correct me if I'm wrong.

• The Videos section should be called "Videography"
• Need references for Dennis Beauchamp directing the two music videos.

Oh God, this is nearly impossible. This is written on the booklet of her early Canadian albums when she was not a megastar. I have no idea where to get this information about her early videos, I've been digging the Internet like crazy. It may be in her biography books, which I don't have.

I did a search on google books and found this. I only skimmed through it and saw his name. Check it out and see if it can help. If not, try a library or if amazon.com has the books for cheap/preview.

• Website should not be italicized in the references. For example, I see you have MTV.com. It should be MTV.com instead. I also saw another minor mistakes for the references. Double check them.

I never specifically italicize this, I used the {{cite_web}} template and put MTV.com as "work" and MTV Networks as "publisher". How is that wrong?

if you put two apostrophes before and after, it cancels out the italics.

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 15:48, 27 July 2011 [8].

Nominator(s): 03md 20:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is ready to be considered for Featured List status. It has a great deal of references and a good-size lead. 03md 20:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick drive-by comment: definitely shouldn't start "This is a list of English football transfers for the 2002–03 winter transfer window." - this usage has been deprecated for quite some time now. Check out recently promoted FLs for the sort of start that is now expected..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I realise that Chris. I need some help thinking of a better way to start - we're not dealing with a single club here. I will put it through peer review if necessary. 03md 20:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would get it peer-reviewed. Also, I noted an error, Clemence never moved to Ipswich. Also some issues with unreferenced transfers and I see some maintenance tags have arrived since I first looked.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That was my mistake re Clemence - you should know! I referenced every transfer that I could to BBC Sport but the ones without a reference did not have a page on the site. I will scour google to see if I can find any refs for these. BTW, I couldn't see any maintenance tags on the page. 03md 21:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a "disambiguation needed" tag. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've managed to reference a load more - there are now only 47 out of the several hundred without one. Most of them I cannot find a RS for - can I get some help with these last few, or should I reference these to the transfer lists. 03md 20:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this useful; it certainly qualifies as reliable in my books. Seegoon (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the link.

• Quick question - Are all the transfers available in the general sources and if so what is the purpose of individually sourcing the transfers, as surely they are redundant if the info is in the general sources? NapHit (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The general sources wouldn't be enough for a FL - it would mean using the same source for about 80 entries. The BBC/Sky Sports refs are an extra insurance, and give more information on the transfer for people interested. 03md 10:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 19:05, 7 July 2011 [9].

Nominator(s): That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 05:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm never good at explaining why these things deserve featured status... just take a look for yourself, if you feel it isn't up to scratch please try to give some advice on what I can do to improve it (or jump in yourself). Thanks a lot. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 05:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Too many unreliable and questionable sources present for this to meet FL criteria.

• First of all, IMDB is not something that a featured piece of content should be relying on as a primary source. I've seen New York Times pages used as general references in a couple of similar lists; if the New York Times pages on these films have awards listed, they would be much better to use as general references than IMDB.
• What makes any of the following reliable sources?:
  • http://www.firstshowing.net/ (ref 9)
  • http://www.aintitcool.com/ (ref 10)
  • http://www.reelviews.net/ (ref 12; if reliable, it needs the V capitalized in the publisher field)
  • http://www.iomtoday.co.im/ (ref 13)
  • http://www.altfg.com/ (ref 15; a blog?)
  • http://www.blackflix.com/ (ref 40; do we really need something so questionable to cite Academy Award winners?)
  • http://www.wretchawry.com/ (ref 46)
  • http://moviecitynews.com/ (refs 47, 48, 51, 88)
  • http://www.hollywoodauditions.com/ (ref 49)
  • http://www.montebubbles.net/ (ref 52)
  • http://livedesignonline.com/ (ref 59)
  • http://www.headlinestodays.com/ (ref 68)
  • http://www.lasnoticiasmexico.com/ (ref 69)
  • About.com (ref 76; this definitely isn't reliable)
  • http://www.teenhollywood.com/ (ref 83)
  • http://digitalcontentproducer.com/ (ref 89)
  • http://www.hellomovies.com (ref 100)
  • http://www.denofgeek.com (ref 101)
  • http://www.latinoreview.com (ref 114)

Even if a few of these prove to be reliable, there's likely too many poor sources for replacing them during the course of an FLC to be practical. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Giants above. I can understand that you have worked really hard on this Cheesydude, but its reliability is really in question with these unreliable sources. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note these sources have been noted for a week now without any discernible effort to resolve them. Suggest the nomination is withdrawn if there's no indication of interest in fixing these issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 18:38, 4 July 2011 [10].

Nominator(s): Theking17825 21:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria and the comments from peer review have been addressed. Theking17825 21:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments perhaps quite some work to be done... quick comments on the first few sections.

• Lead too short, one para is inadequate. Remember that it has to adequately summarise the whole article.
• Don't start article with "This list of Minnesota state parks contains...." - we haven't done that for quite some time.
• In Safari, that lead image doesn't work at all with the clickable locations.
• Per MOS you should have spaces on both sides of an ellipsis (...)
• Not keen on the galleries nor the bold italics.
• "Body of Water" why is Water capitalised? See also Park Name, County or Counties...
• "Comprises 5 islands near " per MOS, 5->five.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Didn't make it very far into the article before coming across two major issues that prevent this from meeting FL criteria. The first was mentioned earlier: the short lead. It could easily be twice this size, if not more. The second is the referencing, which I find insufficient. Two of the tables source their remarks to a note that says, "All data come from respective DNR webpage unless otherwise noted." I don't believe this is enough to adequately back up the remarks; cites to the DNR webpages themselves would be much better. The other two tables use reference 4, a book, but there are no page numbers provided for easier verification. There are other problems (why are there almost 100 external links to park websites?), but these two are the most serious to me, and will need to be dealt with for the list to have a chance here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Giants. If all the notes, such as the date, area, etc. is in the link, then those columns can be converted to references (due to the government shutdown in Minnesota the links are all dead for the moment, so I can't check). Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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