Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/June 2008

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 21:00, 30 June 2008 [1].

This appears up to the standard of other football player lists that have been featured. SenorKristobbal (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Lots of issues to fix first, I think. "Name" column sorts by first name whereas it should be surname, Alan Greyner is listed twice, with different career dates, quite a few players have playing positions missing, which should be available for a club of Everton's stature, more red links than I would consider acceptable in such a list, some players with less than 100 apps have nothing listed to indicate why they have been included, no image(s), no proper citations........I think a Peer Review would have been advisable before coming straight to FLC...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I expanded this list a couple of months ago to provide a base from which a featured list could be created by someone with a couple of books about Everton, but while the list has had work done since, it is not ready for FLC. As I was using online sources only, it was not possible to determine the positions of some players without further research. These players are still lacking positions; the missing information is almost certainly readily available in print sources. Redlinks are not necessarily an issue for a featured list, but in this case they are far too numerous, including several from the second half of the 20th century, players for whom it is usually straightforward to obtain enough material for a decent-sized stub. All of ChrisTheDude's other points are valid too. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If the nominator is serious about taking this list through to featured status, might I suggest they withdraw the nomination for now, have a proper look at some existing featured player lists, do some work on this list to get it somewhere near that standard, and then take it to peer review. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per all above, with a query as to why the Nationality column is not sortable. I'm fairly sure that the column would sort correctly, despite having no text in it. – PeeJay 16:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm "quick-failing" this list. I suggest the nominator takes it to peer review before re-nominating it here at WP:FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 21:00, 30 June 2008 [2].

My reasons for nominating this list for featured status are as follows. First, this list is a complete archive of all the names of the cases heard by the United States Supreme Court throughout its entire history of over two centuries. Second, this list is an extremely helpful tool in fostering the creation of new articles for significant Supreme Court case articles, allowing the creation of those article with the correct case names. Third, the list is logically and aesthetically structured in a way that reflects the most common citation format used by the Supreme Court, that of the United States Reports. Fourth, the list is highly stable, and has survived all attempts at deletion as can be seen here. Finally, if this nomination is unsuccessful it will at least develop discussion about how to further improve the article. My one concern is that the lede may be to short for some editors, but I consider that to be in line with the list's functionality.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I rarely oppose, but in this case, this is just a list of links to other articles. It is useful, but it is certainly not Featured List quality. If content was added that, perhaps, discussed the cases, then I would reconsider. Gary King (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I believe this page is the exact copy of the {{SCOTUSCases}} template. If you want to improve this page, you should at least add some context such as the years of each volume. This list also should be renamed to reflect the fact that this is a list of volumes of the U.S. reports. Remove the word "complete" from the title because all lists should be complete, so saying that this list is complete is redundant. The lead is not too short, it's non-existent. You only restate the title of the page. As Gary already said, you need to add some context. I suggest withdrawing this nomination.--Crzycheetah 03:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose
  • All lists on Wikipedia are presumed to be complete unless noted, so please rename.
  • Fails Criterion 1, there is no prose, so there is no way for it to be professional.
  • Fails Criterion 2, there is no lead, so there is no way for it to be engaging, nor is there anyway for it to describe the list we are about to view. And no, restating the title is not a lead.
  • Fails Criterion 3, there are no "annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about entries."
  • The list also does not exemplify Wikipedias best work, imagine if you would have made this list by just listing the links in order down the page. That is basically all that is in this list, all that has been changed is that it has been put into a fancy order.
• Sorry, but I would recommend withdrawing or a premature archiving by our directors. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, quite. The way to do this is to choose the scope more strategically. Perhaps not the whole history, but start with just a decade or two or three, giving useful and interesting combinations of information about each, probably in tables. Choosing what that information will be is where the skill lies. Wanna do it? Suggest you withdraw this one. TONY (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm "quick-failing" this list's nomination. There are several serious criteria failings. I suggest the nominator takes the list to peer review before returning to WP:FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:35, 29 June 2008 [3].

All "staty like" but appears to meet all criteria. Well referenced, and images all over the place - well illustrated. Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Periods can be removed in the Key table because they are sentence fragments.
  • Done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • WP:HEAD says "Games Started" - "Games started".
    • Replaced. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A merely neutral observation but why not "leading pitchers" rather than "pitching leaders"?
    • Replaced. Would you suggest moving the page too? « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "PLAYER'" - why the added apostrophe? And why capitalised for real words?
    • Replaced. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider making each table sortable (you'd need to remove colspan for this but that's not a big issue on most if not all the tables).
    • Done. It looks decent on 1280X1024, but looks horrible on anything lower. I'm going to see if I can add the widths. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Torres image caption is complete sentence so add a period.
    • Done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baseball is probably not the most accurate categorisation - isn't there a baseball lists cat or similar?
    • Added Category:Baseball lists. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the page is well cited, and there's lots of pictures, which are nice. But looking at the tables, I think you've got things confused as to what constitutes a "leader" for pitching statistics. Zach Duke didn't lead the league in "hits against", he GAVE UP the most hits. Similarly, Zambrano gave up the most walks, and the same applies for runs and earned runs. These are ignominious leaders at best; no one wants to be known as the pitcher who gave up the most runs in a season, and that doesn't qualify him as a "leader". You need to find the people who gave up the LEAST hits/walks/runs/earned runs. Those are the best pitchers. Now obviously some pitcher who only appeared in one game will do pretty well here, but that's why there's a minimum innings pitched requirement for this stuff; it's like hitters who have minimum at-bat requirements. I don't wanna piss in your cereal but your statistics are backwards with respect to this stuff. I therefore oppose until the page has the proper leaders cited. THEN it will be correct. Unless you want to change this page to "Worst statistical pitchers for the 2006 season". Anthony Hit me up... 22:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working on this - please don't close the FLC until I'm done. Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Looks pretty good. I have two big complaints though:

• First, cumulative stats (so pretty much all of the number-based columns) are typically right-aligned. See the back of any baseball card for a good example.
  • Is this necessary? Per WP:MOS, things shouldn't be right aligned unless (I forgot the rest). And besides, we aren't looking at a baseball card.
    • I brought this issue up earlier on the FLC talk page (here). I didn't get much of a response (the discussion strayed), but what I did get seemed to agree with me. But please feel free to disagree with my proposal there. But, to respond directly: the baseball card analogy was just one example of sports-related statistics. Look at a box score for another example. No, we're not making baseball cards, but we are making something within the same realm, a realm which already has standards. I see no reason why Wikipedia should stray from those standards. Drewcifer (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Second, on lower-resolution monitors (such as mine, 1024x768), the pictures really screw things up. There is not enough horizontal space to fit both the table and the pictures. See this picture
  • Ya, see my replies to Julian's and TRM's comments above. I've asked several people how to fix this (along with TRM) - none seem to know how. It looks fine on my computer, but that's only because I have a higher resolution. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if I have a good solution for you, but as it is the page is formatted very poorly for anyone viewing the page with lower resolutions. I'm not sure what the percentage is, but I remember some FLC regular with a web-design background mentioning that 1024x768 monitors are fairly prevalent. So this isn't something we can ignore. Drewcifer (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drewcifer (talk) 06:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I asked Hersfold, who has been a help to me several times when it comes to formatting. I'm sure he'll be able to help this time as well. Let's wait for a reply. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It has, so far as I can tell, been fixed - each table and their associated images have been placed in invisible tables so as to force them to get along with each other. I've checked it in Firefox 2 and IE 6 at 1024x768 resolution, and it seems to work properly. I am unable to check in other browsers, however in my experience if it works in both of those browsers, it'll work in everything. This has made the formatting a bit ugly-ish, but I will leave details on the list's talk page on how to deal with this if needed. If something does go wrong with it, I'd suggest contacting someone else - I may not be able to respond in a timely manner. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 23:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Definitely looking better, but not perfect IMO. It appears that some of the tables are getting smooshed still, which means that similar columns between tables are of varying widths. Honestly I don't think the pictures add that much to the article, so I'd just scrap them compeltely if I were you. They seem like more of a hassle than they are worth. Also, there's still the issue of the column-alignment. Also the sort buttons don't all work. Also, for tied ranks, a blank cell shouldn't be used. Instead, maybe a "1*" or something like that. Because when you sort by another column, therefore taking the rank column out of whack, then we won't know what the blank cells mean anymore since their not preceeded by the right numbers. Drewcifer (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I can deal with the slightly-awkward tables sizing, but the blank cells and the inappropriate column alignments are still problematic enough for me to oppose for now. Also, I'm inclined to approach this list much like 2000–01 National Basketball Association Eastern Conference playoff leaders (see my comments about too much statistics at it's FLC). Drewcifer (talk) 09:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Can you think of a more engaging opening sentence instead of repeating the article title?
• Split the key table into two columns
• Sortability on Players names and Teams doesn't work. They bring the top of the page back into view.
• Image placement is messed up. Some are alongside the tables, others are above.
• Is baseball-reference.com a reliable source?

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I can't figure out a way to fix the sort ability problem. I'll ask around. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you experience the same thing, or is it something at my end? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, its both of us. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 16:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Firefox 3 by any chance? Maybe TRM knows what to do. He taught me all about sorting. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Every table should be the same width, with each column the same width in each table.
• Key section is taking up a lot of unnecessary space. Can it be split into four columns?
• "This is a list of..." is a dis-engaging way to begin.. articles don't start with "This is an article about..."

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time, per my comments. Especially the sorting issue which seems to be a problem that can't easily be fixed. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:29, 29 June 2008 [4].

Self-nom - This was greatly expanded thankfully to User:DCEdwards1966. I hope everything's ok with it to make it a featured list. conman33 (. . .talk) 03:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Please add new FLCs to the top of the list and not the bottom next time.
• Remove links from "seasons completed by the Kansas City Chiefs American football franchise" per WP:LEAD; put the link somewhere else
• Add a {{clear}} after the image so the table isn't skinny just because of that
• Use en dashes per WP:DASH for scores like "31-7"

Gary King (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposes Lead needs expanding. Buc (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Expand the lead a bit.
• Don't use small text, there's no need and it makes it difficult for people with visualisation issues.
• Don't overcapitalise in the table e.g. Post Season can be just Post season.
• "Italicized numbers mean that the records are subject to change each week due to regular season or postseason games being played. " versus "seasons completed by". There should be no need for italicised text as all seasons here should be completed.
• If the 2008 season isn't completed it shouldn't be here. You can add a link to the current season at the top of the article if you wish.
• Note that WP:COLOR suggests you shouldn't use colour alone to indicate a particular property.
• Add (AFL) after the first use of it.
• Why have a league column if you include the league in the subheadings (e.g. Dallas Texans (AFL))?
• Footnote 1 has a hyphen instead of an endash separating the W-L record.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Can we get a more artistic introduction, rather than "This is a <copy of article title>"
• "87-48" ndash, per WP:DASH
• There's not a single reference for the lead section.
• Too much bold text. It should only appear in the opening sentence. WP:LS#Bold title to avoid
• Make the footnotes full-sized text by using <references/> instead of {{reflist}}

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POKE. Is the nominator doing anything regarding these comments? If not it should be closed as an abandoned nomination

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:29, 29 June 2008 [5].

I began working with this list in January and have personally updated and sourced the status of each player as well as fixing several format issues. Final suggestions from WikiProject Baseball were implemented before this nomination, and some members of said project helped with some grammatical fixes. Further suggestions will be attended as presented here. Thanks for your time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like it and can tell you've put a lot of effort into it, but it has a lot of problems. Comments: Support, all my concerns have been addressed.

The main problem I found when I read the prose is the african american/afro lantino exclusion issue.

• Your lead says "After the league decided to allow African American players". This is untrue, but aside from that, you should say when this racist policy disappeared. - It wasn't really untrue but rather badly expressed, I tweaked the sentence, how does it look now?
• There is an entire article on this issue: baseball color line. In this article I read that this wasn't official policy, but rather an unwritten rule, universally accepted until 1946. - Linked the term, mentioned Jackie Robinson breaking it.
• Could you tell something about puerto rico's ethnic composition? What's the percentage of Afro-Latino's in Puerto Rico? And what can we say about the ethnic background of the puerto rican mlb players? - As of 2000 it was 80.5 % white, 8.0 % African and 6.8 % a mixture of other races. I don't think we have a census within baseball players, however I know that early in the 20th century Puerto Ricans of direct African or Mulatto descent were poor and practiced baseball and other sports since they were careers that didn't require much education (some direct slave decendands were too poor to afford education). People of direct European heritage used to run haciendas and other kind of bussiness, thus white baseball players were somewhat uncommon back then.
• Reference one needs a Spanish language tag. - Added.
• Try 2 reference columns. - Done.
• Find a solution for the baseball and puerto rico portal tags. They are useful but right now they mess up the layout. - Added a <br clear="all"> template, that should do the trick.
• Don't use a full space in the attendance number "14, 222" - That was a typo, fixed.
• Do you claim to have included all mlb players of puerto rican ancestry? If so, you should say "a total number of 214 (randomly picked) players of puerto rican origin have played in the MLB". Otherwise you should add Template:Dynamic list. - Added note; since the list is up to date and rather easily to control due to all the local media surrounding active players and prospects I don't think that the dynamic classification is needed, the list is controlable.
• Please us en dashes instead of hyphens per WP:DASH. - Done.
• I think all the players need to be wikilinked (all mlb players are notable, aren't they?), resulting in a high number of red links. I won't oppose your list for it, but I would definitely prefer wikilinking. - It was kind of a mess with all the red links, and the main problem is that some of these players couldn't possibly maintain a article by themselves, particulary those that played only one season.

I haven't checked the sources, but I am impressed by the quantity. I am sure User:GreenJoe will support you for it. :-) Baldrick90 (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Gary King (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for both of your reviews, I will begin working with them shortly. Please note that my comments will be written in bold text. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of my concerns have been resolved; therefore, I hereby support this list for promotion to featured status. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm on it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• "... led to an improvement on their performance which led to..." 2x led to - reads poorly. - Reworded.
• "...first year players born in Puerto Rico..." - should be "first-year" I guess, and can you explain what it means? - Fixed, its basically talking about rookie players.
• "This measure has led to the local government officially asking exclusion of the draft and help to develop players, in order to reduce the impact of the change in the format of talent development." - this sentence doesn't read well for me, particularly "...officially asking exclusion of..." and the clause after the comma reads awkwardly. - Its explained in more detail in the following section, any suggestion on how to reword this?
• Consider abbreviating Major League Baseball to MLB on its first instance and then you can save some bytes by using the abbreviation thereafter. - Done.
• "During the games there was an average attendance of 14,222." - reads clumsily. I know, it's factual etc but it'd be better to reword and flow it back into the rest of the paragraph. - I did a slight reword, but it seems pretty straightforward.
• A-E ought to be A–E, etc. - Done
• While not mandated by the MOS (yet), I'd keep the table columns the same width from section to section and I'd also make the references centrally aligned. It makes no difference to the factual aspects of the list but it will improve the aesthetics enormously. - Done and done.
• Images should be sized according to WP:IMAGES - so use of the upright modifier is encouraged. - I should know this but... I'm not really sure what you are suggesting, what particular template uses this field?
• As you've split sections, you should link first instances of linkable articles in each section. - Some were, however the links were removed, please see KV5's review above.
• The external link could use the {{cite web}} template - it's got a publisher, an accessdate etc. - Done

That's it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will work with these shortly, cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• No need for the opening sentence to be structured as "This is an alphabetical list of professional baseball players from the archipelago of Puerto Rico..." We know this from the title of the article -
  • It may seem repetitive but it is a common format in Featured Lists, see for example List of UFC champions. In any case what would you suggest as a lead sentence?
    • And it's become less acceptable amongst the most recent ones. See also Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 3#Straight repetitions of the title in the opening sentence. As for a suggestion, I'm not sure. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tony has been known for nitpicking, I'm not sure how a lead sentence would work if we don't mention that Puerto Rico is an archipelago, most people still don't realize that its actually more than a single island.
        • His concerns are usually valid though and shouldn't be ignored because he is strict. It's "This is an alphabetical list of" that is the problem, not that you mention that Puerto Rico is an archipelago. But while we're talking about that, since not many people realize that it's actually more than an island, I'd like to see "archipelago" moved out of the bold title so it can be wikilinked. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, we could begin with something like "Puerto Rico is currently the second location in Latin America with more active players in MLB, behind the Dominican Republic. More than two-hundred players from the archipelago have played in the league since 1946." - How does that sound? this article could serve as a reference.
            • Try this instead of the first sentence there: "Puerto Rico currently has the second-most active players in Major League Baseball, behind only the Dominican Republic." KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
              • • That certainly sounds better, I'm working with it.
                  • I like the wording now, but the formatting doesn't look right. I don't know exactly what to suggest, perhaps "Puerto Rico currently has the second-most active Latin American players in Major League Baseball (MLB), behind only the Dominican Republic." or "Puerto Rico currently has the second-most active players in Major League Baseball (MLB) among Latin-American countries, behind only the Dominican Republic." KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • • I like the wording on the second suggestion and will use it, out of curiosity which particular format problem are you referring to? - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I was referring to the fact that the Latin-American was within the bold text, mostly. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overformatting here—nominator, please don't bold all of this text here!

Oppose—Cr 1: not well-written. Here are random examples of why a new copy-editor should be brought in to sift through the whole page.

• "players that", more than once—are they robots? - This makes no sense, more than once where?
• I presume that the "archipelago" comprises only two islands ("either"). - Archipelagoes are a cluster of islands, Puerto Rico is actually compossed of four large islands in Puerto Rico, Vieques, Mona and Culebra and countless cays.
• "This led to an improvement on their performance and some of them were selected to participate in the Major League Baseball All-Star Game."—on should be in. Comma after "performance"? Some means how many? If it's hard to ascertain the number, can you give us a better idea than "some"? - Worked with the grammar. Some as in "several"? at least a dozen before 1960.
• "Including their names in the Major League Baseball Draft is a requisite for first-year players born in Puerto Rico"—what, the players include their names? - Yes they do. Players must notify the league that they are interested in being included, if this is done trough agents or not depends on the player.
• "This measure has led to the local government officially asking exclusion of the draft ..." Ouch, this is not good. This might help, but there's another issue too. - I reworded the sentence.

The whole text needs serious work; can you recruit a word-nerd collaborator? TONY (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing user, Tony1's oppose seems directly influenced by my comment above. Now, "can you recruit a word-nerd collaborator" you seem awfully mad for me pointing out something that is not offensive. In all honesty I feel a taste of badfaith in that oppose, nevertheless I will awnswer your comments. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Title should probably be List of Major League Baseball players from Puerto Rico. — CharlotteWebb 13:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur as well. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, my server crashed for a while yesterday. It seems like a possitive esthetic change, I executed the proposed move. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 10:15, 27 June 2008 [6].

I'm nominating this because I believe it meets all criteria. Its well sourced, referenced, and (seems) comprehensive. Thanks in advance for the comments. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There's no second level heading when there should be. Gary King (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I realize you worked really hard making this page, but I oppose because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--Crzycheetah 02:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Right; I agree that this applies here. Gary King (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, regretfully. I agree with Crzycheetah: lots of hard work, but this just seems like a stat-dump. Hypothetically, I could see the list being much more agreeable without all the tertiary stats. In other words, in the Field goal percentage table, why do we care about the number of Blocks of anyone? All we care about is the Field goal percentage. So, a big step in the right direction would be to get rid of every column except one per table (or maybe leaving two or three columns depending on the stat), and just keep the one that is actually the focus of the table. Drewcifer (talk) 05:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This FLC has been withdrawn at the request of the nominator. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 22:51, 25 June 2008 [7].

I have worked hard on this list and I feel this list fits all featured criteria. It has every symbol of Arizona listed and nearly every one of them is refereced . Almost every symbol has an image and the list is based onIndiana state symbols,Kentucky state symbols,and Maryland state symbols all featured lists. Bewareofdog 21:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Remove link from bold text or remove bold formatting per WP:LEAD. Done
• The lead really needs to be expanded to give more information about the list. It's just too short and could probably be expanded with more useful information about the list. Done

Gary King (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand you that well, when you say " Remove link from bold text" .Are you referring to the titles like flag,seal,tree? Bewareofdog 22:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What he means is that you should not wikilink any bolface words in the first sentence. Right now "U.S." and "State of Arizona" are wikilinked. You should find another place for those links, since they are necessary. Wikilinking the lead is considered an WP:MoS violation, but not until recently, that's why List of Maryland state symbols (reviewed july 2007) for example violates this rule. Baldrick90 (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments.

• "is the,insect " – something wrong?
• "neckware.[1] 15 of the state symbols" – I think somewhere in the MoS it suggests to not begin sentences with numbers.
• The lead is still too short. Use this opportunity to explain things such as perhaps how state symbols are chosen, what is their significance, etc.?

Gary King (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• PLEASE, in the third sentence, change "where" into "were". Done
• Put a space after "insect" in the fifth sentence. Done
• Remove a space after the lead. Done
• No notes section?? Isn't there anything notable to comment on? Done

(ideas for note section)

-Are there any symbols that are also official symbols of other states/countries?

-Are there any symbols that have been adopted and later withdrawn, or changed?

-Can you tell something about how these symbols have been adopted, by who and why? For example, I just read that the frog was actually voted by students.

• Many words are capitalised, and I don't know why. A few examples are "Ring-tailed Cat" (Why is the "C" capitalised?) and "Arizona Ridge-nosed Rattlesnake" (Why is the "R" in "Ridge" and in "Rattlesnake" a capital letter?)
• Add "Latin" to the motto translation Done
• "Un-Official" --> Unofficial Done
• There is no point in wikilinking both "Saguaro blossom" and "Carnegiea gigantea", since both link to the same article. Unlink the Latin name.Done
• No articles for "Arizona Capitol Museum and the Arizona songs?
• Please add a reference to "1919" (I know it it the same reference as 1982, but it won't hurt anything and I believe it will improve the layout, you'll see)Done
• Could you perhaps stress that the "year" column includes the year of adoption, not the year of creation?
• Since there are two songs, change "Song" into "Songs" (In the type column of the culture section) Done
• You might wanna add "first=Nora|last=Kirkeby|year=2006" to the twentieth reference (classbrain)Done
• You need to find references for "Grand Canyon State" and "Copper State". Also, after a single click, I found another name on the List of U.S. state nicknames, "Apache State". Since any asshole could have written that down, please find a reliable source to back all three names.Done

I hope my comments are useful and it's very likely I will support once they are addressed. Your list looks nice and I would definitely like to see it featured. Lots of luck on your nomination, Baldrick90 (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More

• Ah I have seen you added the student thing to the lead. I do not think this something to include in the lead, but for the notes section. You have already told us most are passed by state legislature. What are there other ways beside state legislature? Are there more than these four symbols elected by students? The details (like which have been elected by students, and how) are something for a notes section.
• You should use "United States" before you are allowed to use "U.S."
• Wiklink "Arizona" after "The newest symbol", the idea was that you remove links from the bold title and add them later on the text.Done
• Put a space after the full stop: "State of Arizona".(add space)"The majority (..)"Done
• Move the comma to the left, it should be right behind "insect", not right before "the"Done
• I do not like the phrasing of the "The newest symbol". The symbol wasn't new, it was newly adopted.Done
• Purely grammar and spelling: "The state amphibian,fish,mammal and reptile, were chose by students in Arizona." --> "The state amphibian, fish, mammal and reptile were chosen by students in Arizona".
• What students? Why? How? These questions should be answered in the notes section.Done
• Tell something about the number of symbols or Arizona, and whether or not this is a high or low number compared to other states (this is relevant for the lead)
• Tell us in the note section which have been enacted by the governor, which are official and have not, and which are unofficial (are there any, and if how many)Done
• When I look at List of Kentucky state symbols I see a pledge of allegiance to the flag of Kentucky. Does Arizona have such a pledge?
• The most common state symbols, the flag and the seal, require more information.Done
• Please be consistent: reference four says "Shg Resources". Ref 16 says "SHG Resources". Choose one and remain consistent.Done
• The "See also" section should come before the "Notes" section, per WP:Layout#Standard appendices and descriptions Done
• Add a link to Portal:Arizona. I would prefer to add it to the see also section (use this: "{{portal|Arizona|Flag of Arizona.svg||150px|break=no|left=no}}"). Done

Another unrelated comment, please don't use , since it slows down the page. Baldrick90 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The list is very interesting and informative. Please correct the following:

• On notes A, B, C, and D, please place a colon before the list of fauna. For example, add a colon after "Three other amphibians were considered(:)" where parentheses indicate this for note A.
• On notes A and B, also remove the extra space before the period in the first sentence.
• How did the Arizona students select the various fauna? Please state this somewhere in the list.
• How are route markers significant as state symbols? Please explain in the "Other" section.--Dem393 (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you began to implement some of my suggestions, but you had a little spacing problem with the oclons. I fixed it for you, though. =) Dem393 (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Lead section needs expanding.
• "Most of the symbols were adopted in the 20th century." is way too vague, at both the beginning and the end"
• I think "Symbol" is the wrong word for the header of the Mottos table. Is a nickname a symbol?
• Reference for "Apache State". Could also do with a description column. Many outside of America won't know that the Apache Indians originate in Arizona.
• Footnotes A through F need citations
• Put the stuff under "Other" In the "See also" section

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • Please recast the opening sentence so that it does not mostly or fully repeat the title of the article. Please note the standard set by Criterion 2 of the featured list criteria, which states that the lead should have "an engaging lead section", and the Bold title and Establish context sections in the styleguide for lead sections. The opening is just where we need to capture readers' attention by contexualising the list, not irritating them with straight repetition of what they've just read.
• Column widths in the first table: can you rob from Columns 1 and 4 to widen 3?
• The lead is quite inadequate (Cr. 2).
• Please delink trivial chronological items such as "20th century".
• Too much white space in second and subsequent lists, especially the humungous one to accommodate the neckware image. Can you explore other ways?
• If there's a map of continental US, I'd use that instead of the one with irrelevant clutter, which is close to Arizona.

TONY (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as currently presented
  • After that first sentence that Tony1 has rightly criticized, the lead section reads like a disconnected collection of factoids (almost a trivia section). Having written a lead section for a similar list article, I can sympathize with the challenge of writing this kind of material, but if this is going to be a featured list, the lead needs to have coherency.
  • Some columns are unnecessarily wide, while other columns are crammed into a small space. If I were making this list, I think I would eliminate the forcing of column widths.
  • In the Insignia table, it bothers me that the "Description" column is centered. Why not left-justify the text there?
  • Also in the Insignia table, is the "Symbol" column needed? (It seems redundant with "Type.")
  • Where does the article explain what "Year" signifies in the table headers? (I believe I know what it refers to, but the article didn't tell me...)
  • The heading for the "Mottos, slogan, and nickname" table is confusing. There's only one motto, but there are multiple nicknames. And where is the slogan?
  • Also in the "Mottos, slogan, and nickname" table, the images seem extraneous. The state seal is too small for me to read the motto on it, and it's not easy to see that the license plate includes one of the nicknames. Those illustrations would be more effective if there were captions or other text pointing out the words they include.
  • The bolo tie image seriously detracts from the "Culture" table. I suggest taking the images out of the table. Instead, display the bolo tie alongside the table, and include symbols for the colors in the description cell next to the words "Blue and old gold".

--Orlady (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 06:15, 22 June 2008 [8].

I have extensively altered this page and I want to see if it is ready for FL status. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 20:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - This list is quite small. See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Nominations_of_lists_with_small_scopes. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Why is there so much space after the Key section and the key section's table?
  • It is to make room for the Gabon politics navbox. The lead is admittingly short, but it's hard to write a long lead for a 4 entry list. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 21:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The images are pretty big in the table and perhaps could be smaller so the table isn't stretched too much.
  • Changed to 100px. Could someone speedy delete Image:Mba.jpg to make room for the file of the same name at commons? I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 21:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Why are there two "Took office" columns?
  • Replaced one with "Left office". I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 21:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is it "heads of state of Gabon" instead of "Presidents of Gabon"? --Golbez (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because Jean-Hilaire Aubame was never president. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 22:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then the table needs some "Presidents" removed. --Golbez (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why? I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 22:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I suppose I was unclear. The table is titled "Presidents". The first column is headed "President". Yet only 3 of the 4 entries were actually Presidents. Therefore, the table needs altering, most likely by changing the word "President" to something else. Also, perhaps we don't need the party information table at all, and you could just link the parties directly in the table. --Golbez (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please use {cite book}, and find some way to explain in the table which ones were presidents and which ones weren't. --Golbez (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No idea how, but the empty space needs to be removed. Also, I miss more information in the list. See List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom for a featured example. More sources would be welcome too. Garion96 (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? It is an esibly finite list, just check the articles on the heads of state for more. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 22:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can check the actual article also for the dates of office, still they are in the list. This list needs more, it already is minute to begin with. Garion96 (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As is, four entries is way to little to warrant it's own page. And two of the entries are the same person! However, Garion's suggestion of looking at the UK list might be a good idea. With some more content per entry, a la the Prime Minister list, the four might not seem so paltry. Though even with such a change, I honestly don't know if that would be enough to make me change my mind. Drewcifer (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where do you suppose the information would go? I will add some info on the notes. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 22:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important update: I have now added more information abothe HOSs with refs. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - {{citeweb}} The only ref provided. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's more than one, but for the African Elections one, DONE. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 00:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not willing to support or oppose to this FLC nomination, but I'll give you some suggestions.

• I read some comments above about the list mentioning "President" a lot. You yourself mentioned that one of the heads of state (I think it was Aubame) was not President. Therefore, you should change the section headline from "Presidents" to "Heads of State." You should do the same for the column heading as well.
  • Changed. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 10:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Which people were de facto heads of state?
  • Aubame, though really the country was in chaos. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 10:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Please redirect Parti Gabonais du Progrès to Gabonese Party of Progress.
  • Done. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 10:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Why do you list PGP, mil, and n-p as parties/political affiliations in your key? They're not relevant to any of the four heads of state.
  • They are part of a template of Gabonese politicians that is transcluded onto the page. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 10:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once more work is done on this list in a few days, I would be happy to review it again. Keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dem393 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have one more comment to add:

• "Leon M'ba's first term was interrupted by the above mentioned coup...." You never mentioned a coup against M'ba above this text in the lead paragraph. Please revise.--Dem393 (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified, must have been lost in my revamping. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 17:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Support--Dem393 (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A few comments
  • I agree that the white space needs to be removed. It looks terrible.
    • Impossible, unless you contact a developer tochange the software. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 00:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Notes for the first two entries are very badly-worded and confusing. What relationship did the "revolutionary committee" have to M'ba?
    • Changed to "...a revolutionary committee was formed to govern Gabon during a coup." I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 00:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aubame usurped his way through the presidency, and was sentenced to 10 years in prison for his role in it. - I don't think "usurped his way through" is a normal construction. The pronoun "it" at the end should refer to "prison", as that's the most recent noun that matches in number and gender, but I'm not sure if "it" is supposed to refer to the usurpation or the presidency itself.
    • Changed to "...his way to the presidency, and was sentenced to 10 years in prison for his role in the coup."
      • Okay, but that's still not a proper use of usurp (at least in American English). It means to "assume, seize, take over, arrogate" or "take the place of". The object should be direct (e.g. either "he usurped the presidency" or "he usurped the guy before him"). But that word's not usually used that way (as an active verb) anyway. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If three entries in the Notes column are to be complete sentences, the last one should be too. And if it isn't a complete sentence, it certainly shouldn't have a period at the end.
    • Changed to "M'ba died in office on his second term."
  • Why refer to him as Albert? Normally, we'd use the last name, but since there are special circumstances here, the first name might be acceptable. It appears that his first name was Albert-Bernard, right?
    • Changed to Albert-Bernard. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 00:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd rather remove the key entirely and link to the parties in the Party column.
    • Done. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 00:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've edited the lead and am now happy with the wording.
• Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Avoid just repeating the list name as the intro line of the lead.
  • Changed to "Three people have served as heads of state in the history of Gabon..."
• "served five consecutive terms " if he's incumbent then I'd say he is still serving then isn't he?
  • Changed to "...Omar Bongo is serving his fifth consecutive term..."
• 4->four, 3->three.
  • Done.
• You need a key for the political parties, particularly as most don't even have an article.
  • There was one earlier, but the concensus was to remove it.
• Worth pointing out in the lead that while you're including Aubame, he only served as de facto head of state for a single day.
  • Done.
• Year ranges should use en-dash, not hyphen.
  • Done.
• "heads of state " or "Heads of State"?
  • "heads of state"
• Insufficient citation, e.g. "M'ba was Prime Minister from 1957-1961." and "From 17 to 18 February a revolutionary committee was formed to govern Gabon during a coup. " both need references.
  • Cited to the book.
• What is ref 2 (Biteghe 19 )?
  • The book.
• Don't think you need Gabon as a See also - it's linked in the article.
  • Removed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 20:34, 19 June 2008 [9].

Self-nom - Well referenced, seems to meet all criteria. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 18:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is hockey-reference.com a reliable source? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I asked another editor on this before I started working on this list. I was considering to use hockeydb.com, but he suggested that it would be best to use hockey-reference, which was reliable. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • And what makes it reliable? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • According to the site, the stats are all from the NHL Official Guide & Record Book. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Gary King (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: According to the list, Nolan coached 82 games in 2006–07, while Arbour coached one game in 2007. Can you please clarify the season. Secondly, Nolan in the 2007 playoffs, in four games, he has an astounding one win and four losses ;-). Is it supposed to be five games? Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 16:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nolan coached 82 in 06–07, and 81 in 07–08. Arbour was an interim coach during one game of the 07–08 season. Also, Nolan coached five games during the 2007 playoffs. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Some Comments (mostly about the Arbour/Nolan part)
  • In the lead, it says Arbour had the best win percentage of any coach, and cites his first season before Al Arbour coached a single game as an interim coach. Nolan was still the head coach during that term, so I think his stats should be combined in the lead.
  • You should mention why Arbour was brought in as an interim coach
  • "Nolan, who had a winning percentage of 0.561.[3] He is followed by Arbour, who has". Nolan is the current coach of the team, so shouldn't he be "has a winning percentage" while Arbour should be changed to had?
  • You should mention that Arbour is the only coach to win a Jack Adams Award while with the team. And that he's the only coach to lead them to a Stanley Cup championship (four, in fact)
  • In the playoff section for Terry Simpson, you say he coached 19 games, winning 9 and losing 11.
  • For Steve Stirling's section, 56 + 51 + 11 does NOT equal 124.
  • In Butch Goring's section, 41 + 89 + 13 does NOT equal 147.
  • In Peter Laviolette's section, 77 + 62 + 19 does NOT equal 164.
  • Perhaps you should double check all of your numbers. I've found several errors just by glancing over it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose — Math errors. Maxim_(talk) 14:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 21:11, 15 June 2008 [10].

This is a list of the draft history of the Minneapolis/Los Angeles Lakers. I believe it qualifies under the criteria for featured lists. I also believe it's ready for this process. I am sure there are going to be arguements, I'll try my best to answer them. $$Annoyomous24$$ (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Lead seems pretty short, with also several stub paragraphs. Perhaps merge and expand?
• Format references using {{cite web}} and include title, url, publisher, and accessdate.
• Unlink years per MOS:UNLINKYEARS.
• Use en dashes for date ranges per WP:DASH. DONE!
• "Draft selections" → "draft selections" DONE!
• "season.[1]Teams" – missing a space DONE!
  • Thank you for addressing these criterias. $$Annoyomous24$$ (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the years redirects to the year of the NBA Draft and I think it shouldn't be unlinked. $$Annoyomous24$$ (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This page should be renamed to List of Los Angeles Lakers first and second-round draft picks because it does not mention every draft pick.--Crzycheetah 21:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC) DONE![reply]
  • I would be happy to do that. $$Annoyomous24$$ (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. This re-naming should be reverted, and the page should be expanded so that it mentions every Lakers' draft pick . — CharlotteWebb 18:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think if the Los Angeles Lakers draft history page, where every draft pick is listed, is nominated, then it's going to have the same destiny as this page.--Crzycheetah 21:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • A complete and comprehensive list would better exemplify "the best that Wikipedia has to offer". — CharlotteWebb 19:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Please include publisher information, date published, titles and accessdates in references. What makes SportsStats and Lakers Universe reliable sources? Could you provide an explanation of the circumstances for draft pick trades? "Traded to Toronto" and "From Dallas" does not offer the reader much to go on. I suggest you say "The Lakers traded XX to the Toronto Raptors in exchange for the xx pick in the xxxx draft." In the "Notes" section of the table, could you also include any awards or honors the draftees had/have received during their career? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try doing the draft trades area but I don't know if I can do the others. $$Annoyomous24$$ (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I believe this nomination is a little premature.
  • Lead needs to be expanded to include more info on first steps of the Lakers in the draft process, how drafts worked during the first years(there were more rounds before 1988), and how successful the drafted players were.
  • This page states that the Lakers first participated in 1957, but I see at 1950 NBA Draft that the Lakers had a first round pick. It means this list isn't as comprehensive as appears to be.
  • Also, you listed Jamaal Tinsley and then added a note saying that he was traded to the Grizzlies. In reality, though, Grizzlies drafted Tinsley and traded to the Pacers. The ref you cited does not talk about this at all.
• As Nishkid has already mentioned,
  • References need more info than just url and title.
  • LakersUniverse is not a reliable source. Have to find better sources.
  • Trade notes should be more detailed, see Memphis Grizzlies draft history for an example.

--Crzycheetah 22:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Jim King is missing here, he was drafted in the second round of the 1963 NBA Draft. I suggest withdrawing this nomination seeing that no second round picks from 1957-1977 are listed here.--Crzycheetah 22:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found a better reference page but the only thing is that I don't have time to edit since I don't have my own computer. I also have homework and exams to study. $$Annoyomous24$$ (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there any reason why this is limited to the Lakers first and second round picks? A complete list of Lakers picks including later rounds would not be unmanageably long and would be more complete. Obviously this is complete for its limited criteria, but I'd much prefer a full list. matt91486 (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you seen the list of the Lakers draftr history on basketballreference.com? If you did, you should notice that the the early NBA days, there used to be at most 17 draft picks and at least 4 draft picks and I seriously don't think it could be done because it's seriously too long. $$Annoyomous24$$ (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Four paras in the lead seems excessive if you follow WP:LEAD.
• Spend a moment explaining what the LA Lakers are for the list to appeal to non-experts.
• Explain NBA before you use it as an abbreviation.
• Link NBA on the first use, not the second.
• {{convert}} "50 mile".
• Why go back to "National Basketball Association" in the third para of lead having gone for NBA before?
• What's BAA draft?
• I don't like the * note in the lead - stick to prose.
• Can you link point guard to help the non-experts?
• When the Pick is blank in the table it looks a little odd. en/em dash or something with a note would be good.
• Gasol (Spain) seems to sort as ESP. Probably nothing you can do about it but seemed odd to see Spanish sorting before French...
• Consider colour for the "Hall of Famer"s etc, as well as the asterisk etc.
• Specific ref's should be formatted correctly, suggest using {{Cite web}} template.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 21:11, 15 June 2008 [11].

previous FLC (04:49, 30 May 2008)

I am resubmitting this discography because I believe it is now up to FL criteria. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 08:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Looks pretty good. I only have a few concerns/suggestions
Oppose, for now. Due to the below issues remaining unresolved. Drewcifer (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the sales figures don't appear to be cited.
• Why do some of the releases have catalog numbers but some don't?

• Most of the releases now have catalogue numbers. Only the live album, EPs, Soundtrack appearances and the 2 early singles from Supergrass haven't got catalogue numbers. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that because they don't actually have them, or because you couldn't find them? Drewcifer (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What cat numbers there are aren't consistent: same say "PCS #1234" some just say "#1234". I'd go with the PCS.
• There's no need for the sub-header in the Compilation albums table.
• Do all the EP's titles really say "- EP"?

• According to iTunes they do. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• iTunes append "- EP" to the title of any release with fewer than a certain amount of tracks. Even some singles, usually the ones with more than one or two tracks them, have "- EP" after them even though they probably shouldn't. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 18:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There is still alot of American-style dates.

• I have changed the dates to Day-Month-Year --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better, but the commas shouldn't be there. Drewcifer (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why does one entry all of a sudden have an EAN number? Why is that even needed?

• It's supposed to be some sort of reference because I couldn't find one for that soundtrack. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it makes the others inconsistent. So I'd say remove it. Howabout this as a reference? Drewcifer (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Stuff like release dates and labels aren't necessary for singles.

• I'm still not sure about that but if it will make this discography a featured list then I shall remove this info. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Information taken from iTunes Store UK ." in the EPs table is not the proper way to cite something. Try and do it via an in-line citation or a general reference.
• Similar columns between tables should be a kept a consistent width whenever possible. Drewcifer (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I made them consistent width earlier but someone changed it back. So I'm not sure what's right... --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at indopug's diff, and he was right in making the edits: alot of the added code was redundant. Rowspan=1 and align=left, for instance is unnecessary. So, I'd recommend adding the width="xx" again to the column headers (and only the column headers), and possibly align="center" to each of the year cells. Drewcifer (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

align="center" to each of the year cells is redundant too, since the width of "Year" and "2000" is the same. So the year column is always a tight fit. If you see year columns too wide its because there is an erroneous width somewhere stretching the table; since the other column widths are defined, the Year column is stretched. indopug (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, 2000 is probably the wides possible date. But what about 1991? Are the ones actually thinner? (I actually don't know). If they are, then numbers such as 1991 wouldn't be in the center. Albeit by a minor amount, but still. Drewcifer (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "500,000 + (UK)" – What's the + for? "More than 500,000?" Just put 500,000 since that would be the maximum that has been verified; this goes for all of them.
• Remove extra spaces before references in "Dead Man On Campus OST [22]" and "Chicago Cab OST [23]"

Gary King (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose My reasons below:

• Remove sales figures, these are uncited.
• Singles table does not need all the details, just the name
• Soundtrack appearances are not necessary unless the song did not feature on a Supergrass album/single/release etc.
• Music videos need cites
• EANs are not suitable. Find a catalog number.
• Your assertion that each Supergrass EPs all have the "- EP" suffix is not supported by Allmusic
• What does "Supergrass presents Diamond Hoo Ha Men" mean?

That's all. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 09:59, 13 June 2008 [12].

I think that the article is able to be elected an featured article. Have references reliables, good quality and style. (SeriesYFilmes (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comments

• Remove links from bold text, or remove the bold, per WP:TITLE
• References go after punctuation, not before, per WP:FOOTNOTE

Gary King (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Get rid of the spaces between the years and the en-dash.
• "six seasons and 134 episodes" - perhaps "six seasons comprising 134 episodes" for clarity?
• "association with/distributed by" yuck - prose please.
• I'd put the season synopsis at the end of the list.
• Season 5 region 2 - no release. Why not?
• Title column is far too wide (could be half the width) and compresses the other columns unnecessarily.
• Don't over-wikilink things - the tables aren't sortable so one link per article per section as a max is enough.
• What makes http://www.whoosh.org a reliable source? Looks like a homemade site with no pedigree (but happy to be corrected).

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Collectonian (talk · contribs) (a primary contributer)

• Most of the "souces" are not reliable at all, with the built being from two self-published fansites, ausxip.com and whoosh.org
• DVD releases for Region 2 and 4 missing refs
• Lead does not meet WP:LEAD nor the established guidelines seen in other featured lists

-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note User:SeriesYFilmes has been blocked indef as another sock of User:Tarja Lawless. As such, I'd like to ask this FLC be closed. It is just not ready yet. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, I've withdrawn this FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:46, 12 June 2008 [13].

Self-nomination A little short, but seems to meet all criteria (except the images one). « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support, it generally looks good, but I'm not entirely sure this list is even needed, and that it couldn't simply be merged into the main article. GreenJoe 23:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Concerns addressed, looks good to me. Reply to GreeJoe: Almost every other major league sports team has a similar list. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose mostly per GreenJoe. This list is short enough to be merged into the main article. Just put this table in this section and the main article is going to improve even more. These type of lists are useful when the table is too big to stay in the main article, but I just don't see this table being too big.--Crzycheetah 20:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• FLC is an attempt to reach a consensus as to whether an article meets WP:WIAFL, not whether an article should exist or not. I feel that we should look at the article itself here, and if you believe it shouldn't exist, AfD would be the more appropriate place. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I just read the first sentence of WP:WIAFL, then looked at this list. I saw that this list does not exemplify our very best work because of the short table; therefore, it fails WP:WIAFL.--Crzycheetah 20:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The length of an article does not affect whether an article should be considered our best work. After all, it's not our fault the Bengals didn't have more coaches. :-) Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If I reviewed the Bengals' main page and saw this table there, I wouldn't say that "hey, this article sucks because they do not have enough coaches...booo." This list is nicely done, so it can stay. On the other hand, featuring and considering this list as an example of our best work is premature.--Crzycheetah 20:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• But still, if that's all the information that exists, and that's as wide as the scope is, how can the list be expanded to become an example of our best work? The only way to do that would be to created a bunch of hoaxes and OR. Also, since the article does list all the coaches, it is completely comprehensive, and thus deserves the honor or FL as much as any other. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This page lists all head coaches too, do you consider it comprehensive, as well?--Crzycheetah 21:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite a lack of references, I do, as it includes all information there is to include. Of course that article could be improved; a better lead, etc, but that's besides the point. Also, I think it would be better to move this discussion to the talk page, as it is becoming quite long. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←)I just don't see this list becoming featured anytime soon. In the meantime, I'd suggest you to go through the following examples: 1, 2, and 3.--Crzycheetah 21:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those FLCs amaze me. The FLC criteria says nowhere that an article has to be of a certain size to become featured. FLC, as I said before, is a discussion which detemines whether an article meets those given criterion, and so, while it may be short, I don't see any reason for an opposed based on length. However, that is just my opinion. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Julian. Why wait until the list gets longer? It meets the FL criteria now, and we can expect that it will meet the FL criteria in the future. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that, as I said above, this list does not meet the FL criteria now.--Crzycheetah 02:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I respectfully disagree with that point. Why should length be factored in determining whether this article exemplifies our very best work. As long it is comprehensive, length shouldn't matter. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the grounds already covered above by Crzycheetah. I had exactly the same discussion on another FLC in December over what I thought to be a too-short list (though this list is even shorter!). Anywho, the argument was huge but basically my objection was that the list cannot do what an FL aims to do - exemplify Wikipedia's very best work - simply because IMO a list so short cannot be called one of Wikipedia's best. Yes, the list does meet the FL criteria, but it is not implied that being a piece of "Wikipedia's very best work" is limited to fulfillment of those criteria. —97198 talk 06:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I've been concerned with the size issues of these head coaches lists. The fact is it isn't Wikipedia's fault if the teams haven't gone through a bunch of coaches. As long as it's well written, can be verified, blah blah, I don't think that shortness is enough to disqualify it. That said, this is the shortest one I've seen so far. And no, the team's main article wouldn't suffer by including this information there. I keep swaying from supporting to opposing. I dunno... <shrugs>
• In the meantime, use mdashes not ndashes for "empty" cells

And that's all I have. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from Gonzo fan2007
  • First off, I am not going to address the size issue, as others have already stated my opinion, nor will I support or oppose based on size alone.
  • This list, no matter what, will not be featured with Image:New Cincinnati Bengals Logo.png in it. That is a copyrighted, fair-use logo that first off does not have a fair-use rationale written for use in this article, and secondly, no matter how good of a rationale is written, that logo should not be in this article. Remove it.
  • Let's just get rid of the colors, they really don't do much for the article, and actually make it harder for color-blind people to read the table.
  • Right now, there are no references. There needs to be a reference section, and a footnotes section. There should be no references in the footnotes section and no footnotes in the reference section. These should be split up. This requires the use of {{ref label}} and {{note label}}.
  • You only have two references. Even for a list like this, you need to have a few more so that we can verify its content.
  • The coach of the year awards need direct references.
  • "The Bengals are a professional American football team based in Cincinnati, Ohio.[1] and are currently members of the North Division of the American Football Conference (AFC) in the National Football League (NFL)." either there is a misplaced period after Ohio, or the second sentence starts out with "and" either way, these sentences need to be fixed.
  • "Brown and Gregg are also the only two coaches in the Bengals to with the UPI coach of the year." Needs an in-line citation.
  • "Gregg is the best coach statistically, with a winning percentage of 0.561." Needs an in-line citation.
  • "Dick LeBeau, who coach coached the Bengals from 2000 to 2002 is statistically the poorest coach with a winning percentage of 0.261." Needs an in-line citation.
  • "Hall of Fame coaches Brown and Gregg..." no need to repeat "Hall of Fame."
  • The whole last paragraph is unsourced and full of stubby, random sentences.
  • The lead is too short, to uninformative, is full of stubby, random sentences that purely state facts, and that have little to no transitions between the sentences.
  • This list is uncategorized!!!!
• You know what, going into this review, I figured that it was a good list that just had issues with size. After reviewing the list I find it atrocious that some editors have supported this list for featured status. I strongly oppose this list and encourage the editors who are debating the size issue to maybe focus on actually getting the list up to a status that meets the criteria before debating whether the list is big enough. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Extra line before "Coaches" section.
• No free image of any of the coaches?

Gary King (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:46, 12 June 2008 [14].

I've been working on this article for a short while in my userspace, where I moved to the mainspace, though you may have thought I hadn't edited the article much looking at the history, I have through my userspace. The Sendai International Music Competition is a violin and piano music competition based in the City of Sendai, Japan. It is exclusive only to young musicians, working as an attempt to take budding young musicians to a higher stage of their career's. I believe it satisfies the featured list criteria, therefore, I am nominating it for featured list status.

I will be here to address any concerns raised through this disscussion, and will get to them as quick as possible, I will have plenty time during the next week, and so will look forward to your comments. Sunderland06 (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, not enough in-line citations for the list itself. GreenJoe 23:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The competition itself is a reference. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks good. Qst (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support: There is no need for "lastly" in "and lastly the finals". I think everyone understands that the finals are last no matter what the competition. Otherwise it's excellent. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've took so long with this, I've been away and just there got back, and I've removed the lastly part. Sunderland06 (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For the same reason as my comments made with the Russian Music Copmetition FLC: the title does not speak to the content of the list. Drewcifer (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS I'd also like to respectfully yet strongly disagree with the idea that "The competition itself is a reference." We can get away with this in some articles because the content being sourced is a physical product or something like that, but an event can't be a reference in and of itself. Drewcifer (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In an article such as this, I feel that "List of Sendai International Music Competition winners" would not be appropriate, the article currently describes the history and format of the competition, aswell as a list of all winners. Under the different name of "List of Sendai International Music Competition winners" the article would be solely a list of winners with the current article Sendai International Music Competition needing to be an explanation of the competition itself. In this format the music competition can be described and a list of winners be combined without the name change.

For the second issue raised, the list is fully referenced under the General reference section, the different references there cover the whole section of the article, instead of single in-line citations being repeated numerously at the end of the table.

I understand what you've said, that the article as it stands should be titled as it is. But there's a few problems with that premise. First, that there is a difference between the lead and the actual body of an article. In this case, the body (everything after the table of contents) is solely a list. The lead, well it's kind of a mess. Per WP:LEAD, the lead of an article or list should summarize the major points body of the body of the article/list. So, in other words, nothing should be discussed in the lead that is not discussed elsewhere in the article. So, in yet other words, all of the stuff that discusses anything but the winners of the competition shouldn't be in the lead, since the body of the list discusses only the winners. In fact, that would be the entire lead, since winners aren't mentioned anywhere in it. So, your options are to either a) scrap the current lead completely and rewrite it as a summary of the list contained in the body (probably not a good option), or b) move all that stuff out of the lead and into the body, and then redo the lead to summarize the body of the article as it would then stand. That seems like the better option. But then, the list becomes only a small part of a larger article and (therefore) ceases to be a list. All of that's assuming you want to keep the list's name as "Sendai International Music Competition". On the other hand, if do want to change the name to "List of winners of...", then pretty much all of the stuff in the lead (which hopefully I've established doesn't belong in the lead) doesn't really belong in the list, since it actually has nothing to do with the list of winners.

I hope all of that made sense. I don't think it's all that difficult situation to rectify, it just requires a slightly different vantage point. Drewcifer (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this makes total sense. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to create a decent lead, and will move the part mentioning the rules to a Format section and see where it ends up. Just pick me up if I'm doing anything wrong. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is definitely looking better, but I think there's alot more content that could still be added. For example, a quick Google search brought up this and this, both of which have alot of additional info not on the main competition website. The first one has some history stuff that isn't in the article at the moment, the second has a list of some behind-the-scenes organizers. Obviously you wouldn't want to mention every last person in the list, but it might be good to mention a few of the more important organizers. So, after a quick Google search, I'm not really sure the article is comprehensive at the moment. And of course, there's the bigger issue at hand: is this a list anymore? With the new stuff, and the stuff that I've suggested to add, I would say it does not qualify as a list, and should therefore be nominated at WP:GAN not here. That's not to say the article isn't good – it's looking much better as a matter of fact – I'm just not sure this is appropriate place for its nomination. So, I still oppose. Drewcifer (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with one comment. It is... isn't a very good way to start off a section. Other than that, I can't see anything wrong. Good work. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers mate, done. Sunderland06 (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose—needs copy-editing. - Done by Shoemakers holdiay.
• Shouldn't have to hunt to find where Sendai is. - Mentioned in lead.
• "awards are given to six contestants each from the violin and piano categories, with first place in each receiving the highest prize"—poor prose. each ... each. Highest prize: you have to look up high to see it? Noun plus -ing problem; see exercises here. - Better?
• "either Europe or Asia"; remove one word. Europe
• "the violin part"—you're referring to the vln part on the music score, are you? - No, I'm refering to the violin category in the competition, changed to category.
• "As yet" will date quickly. As of ?2008. - Done.
• Convert yen to US dollars too. - Done.
• Sentence case for column keys (W) - Sorry I don't understand this part.
  • I'd suggest Tony means "Prize winners" rather than "Prize Winners"? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC) - Done.[reply]
• Oppose needs copy editing. --Kaaveh (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "June 26, 2008" – wiklink so it is formatted - Done.

Gary King (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:46, 12 June 2008 [15].

I have worked on this discography for quite a while now. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, for now. (PS I removed the Supprt/Uppose/Comments subheaders since they're not typically used in most FLC's for various reasons, hope you don't mind). The list is definately a good start, but I do see a number of problems that need to be addressed before I can support it's nomination. This is not an exhaustive list, but it should be a good start.

Please don't edit/move other people's comments, it's considered rude.

• Since there's so many certifications, and so many citations to go along with them, the citations should be next to each certification rather then in the column header.
• "Chart positions" isn't specific enough, it needs to be something like "Peak chart positions".(DONE)

• The C in Chart shouldn't be capitalized. (DONE) Drewcifer (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Similar columns between tables should ideally kept a consistent width (ie the "Title" and "Certification" columns). (DONE)
• Usually catalog numbers aren't given their own line. Instead, try putting them after the label. (DONE) Also, they need a "#" and (if applicable) a acronym of some sort describing the label. (DONE) For instance, most Drag City releases aren't just #54, they're DCR #54. Also, to differentiate it from the label, try putting it in small font.(DONE)

• They still need a #, and (this is optional) consider the small font thing. (DONE)Drewcifer (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And I second Tenacious D Fan's comment that the chart columns need to be reorded a bit. Take a look at at MOS:DISCOG for more of an explanation.(DONE) Drewcifer (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The singles still need to be rearranged. (DONE)

• Something is wrong with citation #15. (DONE)
• Column headers for charts should be abbreviated. Currently "Euro Top 100" takes up alot of space. Howabout just EU, with a link to Eurochart Hot 100 Singles? (DONE)Drewcifer (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Oppose Here are my reasons:

• Sales figures do not come from a reliable source. Your EP sales don't even have a source. These figures are not essential anyway. How is aha-fr.com reliable? (DONE)
• Your charts aren't ordered properly. The charts should be in the order of home chart (if applicable) then the rest of the charts in alphabetical order. (DONE)

• Look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style

• You haven't done this with the singles. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Did any of the EPs chart? If not, please clarify.(DONE)
• Where are the catalog numbers?(DONE)

• What is a catalog numbers. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Catalog numbers are the record companies 'bar code'. Here are cat numbers from a-ha's first album [16] Look at Nirvana discography for Bleach "Label: Sub Pop (SP-34)"

• Perhaps non-album singles should have a note about from which, if any, album they come from like Red Hot Chili Peppers discography.
• Where are music videos?(DONE)

• The information is not cited (this is US band so the self-referential argument isn't valid). Some directors are missing.(DONE) Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Are there any unique a-ha songs that do not feature on a-ha albums/singles?(NO)

• Are you sure? Number 9 Dream [17] Does this appear on any a-ha singles/albums?

• Why does "The Swing Of Things / The Demo Tapes" not have a year?(DONE)

• Is this an album, or a book? (DONE)

• You have removed it completely. That's not what I had in mind. You have it underneath the album title, when perhaps it should be under its own heading for books.(DONE)

• "(approximately sixteen times the entire Norwegian population)" is not necessary.(DONE)
• "After a well-received performance at the Nobel Peace Prize Concert" cite needed.(DONE)

• The cite does not substantiate "well-received".

• The second para needs more. You should expand on individual album performances.
• "83 million albums and singles sold" not cited.(DONE)
• What is this article about? Your intro does not make it clear.(DONE)
• "cassette (CS)" is not necessary. Either "cassette" or "CS" should be used. Not together.(DONE)
• "Train Of Though" - Is this correct? (YES)
• The Video albums link on the infobox does not work.

How do you fix that --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Brasil Sales: 642,000" Remove all sales figures unless they are reliably sourced. (DONE)
• ""The Sun Always Shines On T.V. a-ha Live"" Is that the song name?(DONE)

There are a lot of issues that need dealt with. The para isn't good enough. I think you have done the charts well however. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It strikes me the lead of this list is almost identical to the lead of the band's article. This is a featured list candidate we're talking about, copy-pasting is far from recommended. Also, why are we told three times the band has sold over 80 million copies? You should also add more references to reliable sources to the lead.(DONE) Baldrick90 (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Comment The claim 89 million sold seems a little suspicious, and more reliable source will be needed to verify that figure. I find it hard to believe that they sold more records than Nirvana. (DONE) indopug (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Nirvana sucks and second it sais it on their official homepage. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Their official homepage is not a reliable source, it is a self-published source that can only be used for completely uncontroversial claims. I'll be changing to oppose in light of the rather suspicious claim this article makes. (DONE) indopug (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This ain't a self-published source [18]. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a forum. Anybody could have posted that. Read WP:RS. (DONE)indopug (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is from the BBC so BBC.com. It sais there that they have sold 83 million copies. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, that is an exact reprint of the Wikipedia article. (DONE)indopug (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Indopug. It's wikiality. (DONE) Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"They are the best selling Norwegian band worldwide, and is the best-selling norwegian band and the best-selling band from Scandinavia with ABBA.[1]." -- The lead is horrific. Please rewrite it. "Their debut album achieved its biggest success with their debut album in 1985" -- Help! (switching to strong oppose on account of incoherent prose (DONE)) indopug (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the reference that they are the best-selling Norwegian band or that they are second best behind ABBA? You'll have to remove the 80 mil and the best selling claims from even the band article if you can't prove it. (DONE) indopug (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still too many suspect statements

• If it is not even notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, what makes this a reliable source? I guess its reliability can be sort of accepted if you show they have reputation for fact-checking or if you can show that a number of other reliable sources have cited this website as a source.
• "They are the best-selling band from Scandinavia together with ABBA, a Swedish pop group." Cite? There are a number of claims in this sentence alone, and you'd need to back it up with a very reliable source.(I Can find more sources but a-ha is the only norwegian band which has had commercial succsess outside Norway)
• "continued to be globally successful in the 1990s and 2000s" Huh? They didn't even chart in the US (maybe not outside Europe at all?). They charted in Japan, Brazil, Chile, Argentina and several other countries outside Europe and even if they didn't chart in the US it doesn't mean the band wasn't successful

Cites? Just because they charted in a few countries outside Europe, doesn't make them "globally successful"; its a very POV term, I suggest removing it.

If it's so importent i can fix chart positions outside Europe. I just need to find som of these website and someone who understands japanese and russian. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Since, they have recorded another three studio albums" Please locate an independent copy-editor to rewrite the lead.
• "Analogue also got Platinum in Russia"--No full stop, shouldn't it be Analogue? I suggest withdrawal from FLC, to get the enough time to address the numerous serious concerns raised. (DONE) indopug (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Please add language tags to the references, where applicable.
• Please check your accessdates, you have retrieved a few things on dates that have not yet come to pass :p Reference 1 and 54 were retrieved August 7 2008. Reference 15 was retrieved August 5 2008. (DONE)
• When it comes to the order of the chart positions of countries, you are not consistent. For the Studio albums, Live albums and Compilations you use the same order (Norway in front, rest of the countries in alphabetical order). The singles table however is a mess, there isn't any logic in the order. I realise it will be a lot of work, but IMO it will improve the list if you use the same order there. (DONE) Baldrick90 (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Two problems with lead sentence "This is a comprehensive discography of a-ha, a Norwegian, alternative rock band." First: don't wikilink the bold title per WP:BOLDTITLE. Two: remove the comma between "Norwegian" and "alternative". It slows down the sentence for no particular reason. (DONE)
• The first sentence reads "a-ha, a Norwegian, alternative rock band". This makes the sentence "a-ha is a band from Norway" completely redundant. (DONE)
• "the best selling Norwegian band" --> best selling --> best-selling (DONE)
• The second paragraph really needs some good sources, if you can't produce them, it will have to go.
• "achieved it's biggest" --> it's --> its (possessive) (DONE)
• "their debut album" --> their refers to a-ha, the band (singular) --> use its instead of their (or use "they" instead of "a-ha") (DONE)
• Rephrase this sentence: "a-ha achieved it's biggest success with their debut album in 1985, Hunting High and Low which (..)" --> They/a-ha achieved their/its biggest succes with their/its 1985 debut album Hunting High and Low, which (..) (DONE)
• "their best selling studio" --> best selling --> best-selling (DONE)
• "Memorial Beach" --> Memorial Beach --> Please be consistent in italicising album names (DONE)
• "british" --> British (DONE)

The prose really needs a lot of work. Go get a native speaker and have him or her check it out one more time (I am not native speaker, so I might have missed a few points). Baldrick90 (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been indefinitely blocked due to sockpuppetry. indopug (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:46, 12 June 2008 [19].

Good enough. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Not quite, in my opinion. Some specifics...

• The lead is far too short. (DONE)
• Is an award from the Guinnes Book World of Records really considered a "major music award"? (I'll check that out)
• " for 1 Grammy Award, " 1 -> one. (DONE)
• Image could use a caption. (What's caption)
  • Words describing the image. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Take On Me" appears as a subheading. This needs to be explained to non-experts and, at the very least, linked.(Like you get that Take On Me won the MTV Video Music Awards)
• Why is ref [4] (for example) on a new line? (Didn't get that?)
  • The reference is under the word Award rather than immediately following it. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Where possible, make column widths the same for same style tables.
• "MTV Video Music Award for Best EditingDavid Yardley" space required? (DONE)
• "Favorite Pop/Rock Video" in 1986 for what? (DONE)
• "Hunting High and Low" both album and (presumably) single are mentioned here? Link them at least please.
• I don't think the years should link to the awards, very confusing indeed. (What should link to the award then)
  • Up to you but not the year as it's a confusing link. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes http://www.rockonthenet.com a reliable source? (I've checked and all the awards are right.)
  • I'm afraid that you need more than that to convince me it's an WP:RS - check the policy out and see if it meets the policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref's 1 and 2 are identical - use ref name.

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has another nomination listed which has very significant objections (a-ha discography). indopug (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Bold is by no means mandatory, but with the way the lead is set up, "major music awards received by a-ha" could be bolded to give the reader a quick glimpse of what the article is about.
• Put the references for the "Award" column headings on the same line; there's absolutely no reason to put it on the next line. As much space should be removed between references and any preceding text, per WP:FOOTNOTE.
• Unlink years like "1987" that really just link to a year; the years that link to non-year articles can be kept.

Gary King (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been indefinitely blocked due to sockpuppetry. indopug (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:50, 9 June 2008 [20].

I've based this list off of other featured NBA draft histories and believe it fulfills all of the FL criteria. Hello32020 (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Co-nomination I already contributed a lot to this page, so I can't freely support/oppose. I'll try to help Hello32030 put the finishing touches to this list.--Crzycheetah 02:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Final Comment How important is it that the crowd expected the Raptors to pick Ed O'Bannon? Other than that, it seems fine. Noble Story (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel its fairly notable, it was their first draft, so a pretty detailed account seems like its good to have. Hello32020 (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, looks good. GreenJoe 23:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Wikipedia_talk:FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence
• Refs 9 and 10 appear mid sentence
• Per WP:ACCESS, how will the white text of the table header be rendered if the page was print out or someone has a b/w monitor?
• If the red is used because it's a team colour, perhaps make the header text red so that it will at least print
• In the Key table, explain what "Nat" and "Pos" mean

Thats all I have Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 09:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crzy and I have completed your requests. Hello32020 (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question on how the white text on red background would look like, see here. There are no difficulties with white text. Right now, white background for heading does not look right to the color-sighted people because usually the contents of tables are in white background and not the headings. Seeing that white text is fine for color-blind people, b/w monitors, and b/w printouts, I suggest reverting to red background/white text. --Crzycheetah 23:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. And the red on white looks worse now! Sorry. :-/ Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed you were okay with my suggestion, so I changed the colors back to the previous version. Any more comments are welcome!--Crzycheetah 07:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No that's it. Support! Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, the Raptors should have had the first pick in 1996, but it was changed. Should this be mentioned? Why did the Raptors not have any picks in 2007? Should this be mentioned? As well, per the other draft pick FLs, the first overall picks (Bargnani) should be highlighted. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! First, I'll answer your questions here. The Raptors weren't allowed to pick first because of their expansion agreement. All expansion teams are not allowed to pick first for the first 2 years, so I think that information is trivial. Maybe information about the expansion agreement should be added instead. As for your other concerns, I am guessing you compared this page to the NFL lists because other NBA FLs don't mention why there are no picks and don't highlight first overall picks. The 2007 picks were traded to other teams prior to the draft, so technically they're not the Raptors' picks anymore. We list only the picks that the Raptors actually used. I dislike those "no pick" rows in NFL lists because those are already other teams' picks. As for the highlighting of number one overall picks, why should we do it when a reader can just sort the table by the "picks" column and see who's #1? Most NFL lists don't have sortability functions, so they highlight #1 picks. Regards, Crzycheetah 05:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the later two points, but I think the fact that the Raptors should have had the first pick should be mentioned. It is very relevant to the topic and is more notable than them not picking a player they were projected to pick. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally forgot to add that, thanks for bumping this in my watchlist. I've added that info now.--Crzycheetah 04:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Fix links for disambiguation links: Power forward, Carlos Rogers, Mark Jackson, Michael Stewart

Gary King (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 18:12, 7 June 2008 [21].

Well, here I am with another music competition at FLC. This is a music competition which takes place in California, and has pianists travelling from across the world to compete in it. I have been unable to discover why it is called the Russian Music Competition when its based in the United States, but I'm assuming this is because the founders where Russian, or at least part-Russian. I understand this has only been in the Mainspace for a few minutes, but after extensive work, I believe it meets the featured list criteria.

In order to save everyone's time, I feel I should point a couple of things out here. More than one person can indeed win the first, second or third place, and it appears that the competition may skip the first prize, and move straight on to the second prize. I took the decision to make the tables separately, as I believed they would look messy if all joined up. In conclusion, I think this list is ready, and I'm willing to address any issues and look forward to seeing any comments. Qst (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]