Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/June 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: 10 days, 0 support, 2 oppose. Fail. Juhachi 06:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never done this before, so I have no idea how this will be received, but I like it, so I'm nominating it :-) Serendipodous 07:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Make external links references. Buc 09:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are external links references? Serendipodous 10:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He means, move then into the references section. Also, part of the lead needs to be bolded, and the link to youtube in the "straight to hell for practising witchcraft" needs to be removed. Gran² 10:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Done. Serendipodous 12:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only some have been changed. Buc 17:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Fails criterion 1a. It is quite hard to judge 1b here (it is a dynamic list). You need fair-use-rationale for each copyright image that mention why it is fair-use for this article (they can't be shared). The inline web links are not an acceptable method of sourcing your text. You need a full citation in the References section. You need to enforce your entry-criteria (Parody of Harry Potter). Some of the entries are merely humorous articles touching on Harry Potter / JK Rowling. Some of the Onion entries look to be just news stories. I see the peer review is still open. Generally you should wait for the review period to end before submitting to FL/FA. I'm doubtful you could actually get this to pass 1a since each entry isn't notable enough to warrant an article (1.a.1) and there isn't a finite set of parodies (1.a.3). That's no reason not to improve things per MOS, etc. Colin°^Talk 13:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How long should one wait before one declares a peer review dead? That PR has been active for over two weeks without a single response. There are no straight news stories in the Onion; they are pure parody. Some people have mistaken their articles for genuine news, but they are nothing of the kind. If I can't get this list featured without removing the inline citations, then I'd rather not. If there's a direct link to the parody itself, people have a right to click onto it without having to sort through a hard-to-read citation list. Serendipodous 19:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrt direct links, I think you misunderstand what WP is about: see WP:NOT. We are not here to provide a convenient set of links to online HP parodies. Lists on WP are meant to provide links to other WP articles, first and foremost. Colin°^Talk 17:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK then. Sorry if I was a bit snappy there; I was in the middle of a nasty wikiwar. Still, you have to admit the current layout is fun. Re Youtube links still OK to use as references? Sometimes they're the only refs I can find. Serendipodous 17:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose until proper fair use rationales are provided. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 19:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided citations for all of the images I've uploaded, and added citations for the shared images. Serendipodous 19:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of weak on Image:Harrypottercow.jpg; not sure that one even needs to be included. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 03:59, 14 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: 10 days, 0 support, 5 oppose. Fail. Juhachi 01:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page represents a comprehensive and informative list of the subject, including thumbnails and references and has a consistent layout. Contributions from many editors have been instrumental in developing the work to its current format. --JohnArmagh 16:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • No proper lead
  • Table of content ridiculously overcrowded
  • Tables wildly different-looking from a section to the other
  • Illustrations in table stretch it and further lengthen the page.
    • The usual format for images in "tabled" lists is a selection of images running on the left of the table(s), at least when the image would otherwise take a full column of the table.
  • Whimsical formatting of references.
• Circeus 01:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There are simply too many inconsistencies and too many red links (41 that I counted).
  • There is no lead section.
  • The Churh of England, Church of Scotland, Church of Wales, and Roman Catholic sections look very nice, but that quality needs to be extended across the cathedrals from all the smaller denominations.
  • The width of all the tables and the parallel columns need to be the same.
  • The Northern Ireland cathedrals should be included also, not just the link.
  • The name of the settlement should link to the settlement, while the name in the dedication column should link to the cathedral.
  • I would like to see a column for the etymology of the cathedrals, would link to articles about the Saints.

Timpcrk87 01:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • The lead needs to be expanded. A definition of Cathedral would be a nice start.
  • According to our article, the Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and its Cathedral's should be included. (I realize that for Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man, this may involve splitting up ecclesiastical jurisdictions, but the title of the article is "List of cathedrals in the United Kingdom" all of the cathedrals in the UK should be included and no cathedral not in the UK should be included.
  • The dedication and established columns should be completed for every entry.
  • Some of the notes are so cryptic as to be indecipherable. Dsmdgold 02:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above; no lead, references aren't good enough. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 03:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead has been expanded.
• The Table of Contents is subject to the formatting limits of Wikipedia.
• The variations of format of each table is due to limits of Wikipedia, which ignores any attempt at standardisation.
• The illustrations would stretch the page equally whether in a separate column or not.
• The 'whimsical' References section has been amended.
• The red links merely require articles to be created. This should not preclude the inclusion of the link rather than plain text - this at least indicates whether the article exists or needs to be created. It does not detract from the value of the list.
• As stated in the text, Northern Ireland is ecclesiastically part of Ireland. Inclusion of Northern Ireland cathedrals on the UK page would necessitate duplication - which has as substantial dissenters.
• I had originally gon e through the entire list ensuring there were links to the Saints articles but these have subsequently been removed in editing. There is nothing stopping someone who sees this as an issue re-introducing them. For my part I have done my bit once only to see it undone.

• The opening preamble to the page states "This article lists the cathedrals, former cathedrals and intended cathedrals in the United Kingdom and its dependencies." This is because the ecclesiastical organisation is of greater relevance in this article than the political one. In this ecclesiastical schema The Isle of Man (coming within the Province of York), and Gibraltar are validly included. --JohnArmagh 16:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Still oppose:
  • The intro needs to be greatly expanded.
    • The criteria for inclusion on this list should be fully explained, this would mean explaining the terms "former cathedrals" and "intended cathedrals".
    • "Translation", "pro-cathedral" and other technical terms found in the list should be explained.
    • Since the title seems to promise inclusion of Northern Irish Cathedrals, but not Gibraltar and Isle of Man, the rationale forneeds to be explained.
    • The status of Roman Catholic cathedrals should be explained, after all most of the Anglican Cathedrals were RC cathedrals or churches once upon a time. If I remember correctly, when the Catholics were allowed to build cathedrals they were restricted from building in cities that had Anglican cathdrals.
    • It would be nice to see a brief explanation of each denomination. ***Also, why do the Greek Orthodox have six cathedrals in London?
  • The Dedication and established columns should be filled in for all of the denominations.
  • The wiki layout for table of contents can be circumvented, see several of the Featured Bird lists for examples. Dsmdgold 22:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The intro has now been greatly expanded to include clarification of terms and the rationale behind linking and inclusion.
• Links have been inserted for the dedications
• It could be validly argued that such information as the differences between the denominations and the histories involved etc. are not relevant to an article which is ostensibly a list, and that such information is available in the articles pertaining to that specific information. A line has to be drawn, not least to minimise unnecessary duplication, between what information is usefully placed in this article, and what information is best sought from an article dedicated to the specific facet of the discipline.
• The dedication and established columns have been filled in where such information has been found available.
• The wiki layout has been implemented. --JohnArmagh 10:07, 14 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: 10 days, 1 support, 2 oppose. Fail. --MarcK 00:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the promotion to Featured Article of List of Colorado Avalanche players, I thought of doing this. The article is similar to the other, complete and verifiable. The sort tables help a lot to view the data the way you want, either by overall pick, games played for the Colorado Avalanche, and so on. I think this deserves to be a Featured Article.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 12:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - As it stands, I have a few complaints with this list.

1. Too many redlinks. Most of these players never ended up playing for the Avalanche, or in the NHL period. Therefore, they are not notable enough to have their own links. I'd remove the wikilinks for anyone who hasn't played in the NHL, and create at least stubs for those players who have.

2. Why is this sortable? The data here isn't the type that needs sorting.

3. The table formatting in smaller resolutions is awful. The pictures on the right take up nearly half the page, cutting out a good portion of the information on the table. Is there any way you can fix that so the pictures are in proportion to the rest of the list? I note the same problem with the List of Colorado Avalanche players.

Fix some of these issues and I'll reconsider. Anthony Hit me up... 12:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1.I think professional players are notable enough to have an article, even if they didn't play in the NHL. Playing in the AHL as a professional goes with the Wikipedia notability criteria, I think, but, I see your point and I'll remove the links to players who haven't played in the NHL yet.

In all fairness, the notability criteria for hockey players is set out in the WikiProject: either one game in the NHL, or five seasons in the AHL or otherwise (see here). My point was not to remove every player who hadn't played in the NHL yet; merely that many draft picks don't even make it past juniors, so there were certainly more redlinks than needed, but every single one didn't have to be removed. I apologize if I was unclear about that point. Anthony Hit me up... 18:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Being sortable, doesn't take anything OUT of the table, it only adds to it and you can ignore it if you want. I don't see how that could be something to oppose. Anyway, the sortable lets you see all the players drafted ordered by nationality, year of draft, round drafted, overall pick (to see that Alex Tanguay was the Avalanche highest draft pick with nº 12, or that Jeff Finger was the lowest pick that ended up playing for the Avalanche: 240), Regular Season games and playoff games. I think it's useful, I'm failing to see how does it make the article worse than not having it.

It's not that it takes anything out of the table per se, but it makes it, for lack of a better word, messier than a straightforward table. I swear, I'm trying my best not to exhibit any bias against your idea simply because I'm offering an alternative, but I can honestly say that, even if I had not been working on a table with the design I'm proposing, I would still have the same complaint about the sortability. There's not much to sort with here other than games played and nationality. Plus, as Djsasso said on the WikiProject talk page, it separates the individual draft years. Every other draft history page I've seen (here, here, and here) does not have sortable tables. I'm just of the mindset that we should try to keep as much cohesiveness across Wikipedia as possible, and if we can match other sports and have them look to us for guidance and precedent, we should do it. Again, I cannot stress how much I am not dogging on you for this; I'm merely trying to explain my point of view in as straightforward a manner as possible. Anthony Hit me up... 18:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. I really don't know how to fix this, so I'll take the images out of the article.

Thanks for the feedback. --Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 14:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Instead of having all players listed surename, firstname, you should use a sortname template. --Krm500 17:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Having all the draft years in one table makes it really hard to use effectively. It would make alot more sense to have each year separately. While this team has a relatively short history I suppose it may not make as huge a difference as say a team thats been around since the implementation of the draft but it still does make this page pretty hard to use and like Anthony I like to see things consistent across Wikipedia and this just wouldn't work for teams with larger histories. If I want to know players from a draft (and I often do) I like to be able to see in chunks of years. Yes I know you can sort by year since you used sortable tables, but that still means I have to try and remember which row of the table I am on. --Djsasso 05:24, 4 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: 10 days, 1 support, 0 oppose.Fail. Juhachi 02:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list is extremely detailed, informative and, as far as I can tell, meets all the requirements.K1000 02:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No free images of a box or a dish or something? -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 02:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• They exist, don't see how that would be relavent to a list of channels though.--K1000 07:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support Needs a chart for the colors at the top. Looks fine to me otherwise. Circeus 23:13, 6 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: 10 days, 0 support, 4 oppose. Fail. --MarcK 01:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A useful, comprehensive and well-constructed list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SriMesh (talk • contribs)

• I'm sure a few more references could be added to this. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 02:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's just fine. Compare our various FL list of birds, which often have less references than that.Circeus 04:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aye, but this one supposedly encompasses all mammals, so there should be a few more available, if not for redundancy. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 12:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose
  • Poor choice of header structure: at least one, if not two levels are unnecessary.
  • WAY overdetailed taxonomic treatment: Arctiodactylae alone has 11 species and 27 bullet points. that's simply ridiculous!
  • If List of mammals of Korea is taken as a match, this has no chances at all in it's current state. (I'd like to note that I intend to edit that list to replace headers with table-wide cells à la List of Anuran families)
• Circeus 04:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: header structure needs heavy cleanup. Either streamline it into the lead or put it on top of the lists. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) Sephiroth BCR 04:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The format could be greatly improved, with the Korea list being a better example than the bird lists (which are very undersourced). Note 1 is a complete no-no. You can't use Wikipedia as a source (for names/taxonomy), nor should the article even refer to Wikipedia (see WP:SELF). There's no need either, when your sources contain the details. If the IUCN is your main source, use it for the taxonomy and name. Colin°^Talk 12:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this shouldn't be featured. I created all these lists from a script as starting points for anybody who wanted to do further work (as the lists of mammals by country ran to about 20 before with the normal country bias). A largely machine-generated list being promoted would make a mockery of people's hard work on other lists. A little work has been done, but this is still largely the auto-generated list, so I'd personally prefer if this nom was withdrawn. In reply to some of the comments above:
  • The level of taxonomic detail must surely be down to personal preference (these lists are based on the layout of the lists of mammals). I don't see anything about whether you like bullets or tables in the FL criteria
  • Wikipedia is used as a source for the names to provide continuity between the article titles and the lists, rather than having a different name (or scientific name only when we have a common name in the article) in the list. The IUCN often provides a number of common names, so these were checked against the existing articles and the best matches found. If we have the article title wrong we should change it and update the lists. The footnote is there to explain how the the lists were generated, not to provide an authority. It isn't a self-reference any more than a wikilink is, the references give the references.
  • As to providing redundancy in the references: Backup references? In case one of the references gets stuck in traffic? I'm not sure I understand. Yomangani^talk 14:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • OK, dokey, I withdraw the nom. I thought it fit the Criteria mentioned. This wasn't a self nom...I didn't work on the article, just came across it, and thought it was very well done compared to other lists I have seen on Wikipedia and compared to other articles about fauna of Canada on Wikipedia so far... SriMesh | talk 04:12, 31 May 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, 2 oppose. Fail. --MarcK 01:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list satisfies the criteria of being useful, comprehensive and well-constructed. It has a nice lead section and images (even though mainly cosmetic). Data on the list is well-sourced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Polaron (talk • contribs) 15:51, May 29, 2007 (UTC).

• Oppose The lead contains one-sentence paragraphs and isn't particularly easy to follow (esp. the third paragraph). Explain "coterminous" please. Your main source seems to be the 2005 U.S. Census. It shouldn't be hard to find that online and provide a full citation in your References section. The items you have in your References section should really be in a Notes section. And, yes, the pictures are completely cosmetic and IMO don't belong here. A map would be a more appropriate image, but there's no requirement to have a picture. Colin°^Talk 12:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on a technicality: Those are "towns", not "municipalities," even the lead is quite clear clear as to that, and the "base" list is at List of towns in Connecticut. As an aside, I recommend making the table sortable. Circeus 04:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the two lists be merged. There doesn't seem much point in having both, with so little difference (entry-criteria-wise) between them. Colin°^Talk 07:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that boroughs and cities that are only a section of a town are included in the list as well. There is also the quirk that all places in Connecticut are towns (yes, even Hartford is technically a town). We can definitely merge the list if that will help. --Polaron | Talk 12:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, I have to agree to that. You can just add a "region" column, and keep the boroughs,and with the table sortable... It works fine. Circeus 16:58, 31 May 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, 1 oppose. Fail. Juhachi 05:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom. Format based upon a combination of Arsenal F.C. seasons and the featured Frölunda HC seasons. Comprehensive and referenced. Oldelpaso 15:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments The redlinked top scorers should be unlinked, as should the multiple wikilinks in that column. The abbreviations used in the "Division" column should be explained in the lead, and hence not wikilinked. Also, when they made the FA Cup final, link to relevant article (e.g. FA Cup Final 1969). Finally, state when Ardick got re-named Manchester City. These are minor issues, and I'll support once these have been dealt with. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented all your suggestions, with the exception of delinking the redlinked top scorers as I'm gradually creating articles for those I have sufficient information about; the remainder are few in number. Oldelpaso 14:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments I am going to respectively disagree with Tompw here:
  • No, you must keep the redlinked scorers, and where possible create articles for them. Lists are not categories, the advantage they have is that we can see where Wikipedia is lacking in certain articles and create them.
  • All the names in the top scorers column should be wiklinked, whether they are repeated or not; for starters it means the lines are consistent. Unlike in prose, many people do not read every line from the top but are most likely to be skimming through to particular line they are after. If I was e.g. looking for City's top scorer in 1935-36, I would find out it was Eric Brook, but then I have to then search up the list to find the appropriate wikilink to the article about him, which is not very user-friendly.
  • Full Members Cup should be unabbreviated, it is unusual to see it referred to as the FMC.
• Otherwise this is pretty good. The repeated wikilinks thing needs to be resolved here by consensus first, before I can give my approval. Qwghlm 13:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've unpiped Full Members Cup, and created half a dozen or so more articles for previously redlinked players. The few remaining ones are the hardest to source but I should have enough to do a half-decent stub for two or three more during the course of this FLC. Could do with a couple more opinions over whether or not to link top scorers for all seasons. Oldelpaso 21:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments I think yo should link season articles when they exist (e.g. Premier League 2006-07 and so on.) also, link Football League Cup Final 1976, since that'll becreated eventually. Circeus 13:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Oldelpaso 09:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose In the discussion for promoting Chicago Bears seasons and Cleveland Browns seasons the reviewers decided that the list had to meet to criteria "A useful list must be composed of a large majority of links to existing articles (blue links). The list brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria." There it was required that since it was a list of seasons it should included links to articles about the seasons. This list does not inlcude links to articles about Man City's seasons. It does include links to English football seasons, but this is not a list of English football seasons. Timpcrk87 20:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what to make of this in the case of Soccer/Football. NFL fans started the trend of creating individual team season articles, but it doesn't look like it's been taken up for sports outside the U.S. much. Even the Cricket projects have only created a handful, and none have been at all for Soccer/Football. I would still require that all division seasons are filled, though, since it was the case for Arsenal F.C. (and we should nominate Frölunda for de-featuring too). Circeus 00:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The standard was not my idea (frankly, I don't like it) but it is the standard and has been discussed in great length HERE and especially HERE. After that much debate and effort to make such a standard, it should most definitely be enforced consistently for all candidates. I agree that we should nominate Frölunda HC seasons for delisting on this same criteria. Timpcrk87 00:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks great. If this can become a FL I think many more F.C seasons articles will follow. Buc 21:08, 3 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: 12 days, 0 support, 1 oppose. Fail.

A painting by Pieter Brueghel the Elder which features over 100 hundred figures of speech, all lovingly cut and pasted. Yomangani^talk 02:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, most of those are more accurately described as idioms rather than actual proverbs (although there are a few proverbs). Circeus 04:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I was following the lead of the English title by referring to them as proverbs throughout, but, as somebody else brought up that point too, I've substituted some of the uses. Yomangani^talk 23:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose After considering this, I've come to consider that the page remains an article, even though most of the page is taken by a list.Circeus 13:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, I'm sure it would be rejected at FAC for being mostly a list (perhaps I'll start up "Featured half list/half articles"). Yomangani^talk 20:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would probably be rejected not for being a list, but for providing patchy coverage of the topic. I would be far more inclined to make suggestions if this was at (say) "List of idioms pictured in Netherlandish Proverbs." Right now, the list is not really ideal IMHO, Circeus 00:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Och no. It is definitely a list. I'd like to support but have some questions. It looks like the list is sourced solely "From a list published by the Staatliche Museen af Berlin." Is this the case, or do your references back it up? If not, can you elaborate on that reference. Is this list a hand-out or a poster at the museum? Do you know the date, author? Is the "meaning" explained in this list or did you add that (WP:OR)? Colin 21:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It was (and possibly still is) available on a CD-ROM published by the Museum, but the list (with meanings), is reproduced in full in Hagen's book. I've amended the footnote to reflect this. Yomangani^talk 23:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Why not just cite the Hagen book for the list, then? Would save people the trouble of looking for a rare CD. Circeus 00:16, 28 May 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, 0 oppose. Fail. Juhachi 09:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For many years, this has been an impressive list. In fact, this was the list that was influential in my decision to join Wikipedia way back in March 2005. It meets most, if not all, of the criteria. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference format needs to be improved. [1], [2], [3] isn't good. Rmhermen 06:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second one has been fixed. I'll take care of the first and third tomorrow. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, just fixed all three. This issue has been addressed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  1. Please, use wikitable instead of an "html" table.
  2. The sentence "Notable exceptions to these numbering standards are Interstate 238 in California and Interstate 99 in Pennsylvania." makes me wonder whether there are any more exceptions, why they are notable, and why they became exceptions. Please elaborate.

  Crzycheetah 07:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The wikitable will be constructed shortly. In regards to the exceptions, these should be addressed at Interstate Highway System, not here. I've removed the sentence. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikitable has been put into place. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the wikitable. I have one more concern, under I-22, it states that "Under construction - opening 2006", this information to me is certainly outdated and needs to be updated.--Crzycheetah 04:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, the Interstate 22 article says it will open in 2007... I just removed the date. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It might be useful to add lengths to the list. --Polaron | Talk 15:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would disagree, as that adds too much information to the list. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look at all the other featured lists. They typically have some other useful information in the table. I would even add states passed through. A featured list should be something that people frequently refer to to quickly get information about the items in list. --Polaron | Talk 12:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I concur with Polaron. (→zelzany - review) 20:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]