Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/June 2009

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 Rambo's Revenge 19:47, 28 June 2009 [1].

Nominator(s): Geraldk (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kumioko beat me to the punch on the Presidents list, but here are the veeps. Geraldk (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and props to you as well I was going to submit that as well. Here are a couple comments regarding this page from me

• There are no DAB pages, the external links chacker says one is a dead link (soft 404) but it works for me on the page when I click on it so I think it might be a false positive.
• I ran it through AWB and all I found was some minor formatting that I fixed. --Kumioko (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Presidents of the United States/archive2 also apply to this list. i would like the two to be consistent because they are very close topics. The two of you nominators can decide which styles to implement for both. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 23:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose

• The references aren't good enough. I only checked a random one but basically the dates aren't covered. Looking at the Sherman ref and found no mention of his term dates apart from the year. The Month DD bit is completely unreferenced and I guess that goes for a lot/all? of the others.
• I think some of this information could be merged by using sortable tables: List of United States Vice Presidents by time in office, List of United States Vice Presidents by time in office
• Per comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Presidents of the United States/archive2, does the whole row need colouring, why not just the party cell?
• I've added some {{fact}} tags.
• Also on prose: the lead says "Their primary function is to succeed to the Presidency if that office becomes open due to the death or resignation of a sitting President.", but the source says "The U.S. Constitution established the office of vice president primarily to provide a successor in the event of the president's death, disability, or resignation." IMO the "disability" part is important as it covers the Section 3 of the XXV Ammendment where by they can become Acting President when the President is unable to do his job, e.g. when in hospital etc.
• Capital letter stuff. Congress is a title as in United States Congress so it should be "confirmation by both houses of Congress"
• Similarly the titles are Twelfth Amendment and Twenty-fifth Amendment (including in that source). Therefore this should be used not "12th ammendment" etc.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some of the references are actually for the wrong vice presidents. The John Adams reference links to Jefferson, and the Jefferson reference links to Adams. I haven't looked through all of them, but it might be wise to check all the references for accuracy. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 05:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw It's gonna take a while to work out these reference issues, and I'm on vacation, so I can't put in much work.Geraldk (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2009 (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 Scorpion0422 04:02, 28 June 2009 [2].

Nominator(s): --WillC 06:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... the same reason as always. There have only been 9 reigns but there should be 10 soon. FIP are doing pretty good lately so I don't believe they will go under. I feel it is safe to say this could be an exception.--WillC 06:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose for now -- I don't see a reason that this should be an exception. The next reign could come tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, next decade...we don't know and shouldn't speculate. Unless the reign happens soon, I can't review this because its not fair for other lists. Sorry, its just IMO.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I expected this. It is cool. Worth a shot to nominate it though. If you can, could you give some comments on anything to fix so it will be ready once another champion is crowned if it fails this time around?--WillC 19:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll give it a review but in a peer review or on its talk page, not on this FLC. I recommend withdrawing this FLC because it is taking up the opportunity of another list that may qualify.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was thinking about that. Plus it is holding me up from nominating one of mine that would be long enough. I'll make a final decision here in a bit.--WillC 02:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I agree with Truco, FIP could close tomorrow then we'd have an FL that does not follow the guidelines and never will. I will give you some feedback for improvements but until it reaches 10 it's a no from me. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 11:15, 27 June 2009 [3].

Nominator(s): Geraldk (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article now meets the criteria. It was nominated once before, by Chris, who has continued to do exceptional work on it and deserves co-credit for the nomination. The previous nomination was withdrawn due to concerns about whether it was a content fork and simply replicated material from the main Olympic Games article. That article has now reached FA, is stable, and while it has some of the same information, the list on this page is much more detailed. This list also includes a couple of supplementary summary tables and now has an expanded lead. Geraldk (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to co-nom with Geraldk. But the concerns of content forking might still be here, so not sure if this will fly.—Chris! _ct 17:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good list, but it's still too redundant to Olympic Games#Host nations and cities, Summer Olympic Games#List of modern Summer Olympic Games, and Winter Olympic Games#List of Winter Olympic Games. However, I don't really see it being merged so I'll give it a review. Reywas92^Talk 02:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I don't know, but I'm on the edge of saying this is content forking. From the examples that Reywas92 pulled out, its very similar and the only additional info I see in this list is the summaries by each nation, etc. I think I will wait for others to address whether this is content forking because IMO it could possibly be. Until then, I won't fully review.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose -- Per 3b, although if Chris' suggestion is taken it can bypass 3b, but like stated, it will take a lot of work.--Truco ₅₀₃ 14:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs to handle Olympiads where multiple cities were awarded the games. It already does this for 1904 (Was LA, changed to St. Louis), but it's happened several other times: 1940 Winter, 1940 Summer, an 1976 Winter are the ones I know of. Either include all of these, or remove the 1904 entry; I find these interesting so IMO they should be included. --Golbez (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have limited computer access until Monday evening, so I'll address this as soon as I have a chance. Geraldk (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

During the previous FLC, User:Andrwsc has suggested restructuring the list to give a summary of the host city and the bid (merging both Bids for Olympic Games and Bids for Olympic Games (ballots) into this). That can possibly bypass the 3b criteria problem, but that would take a lot of work. Not sure if anyone is interested in doing that.—Chris! _ct 00:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I would say that this fails 3b, since similar lists are included in the three main Olympics articles. The continent column is the only one from the primary table not in those articles. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - OK, surprised by both of those oppositions. The two additional tables that do not exist in any of the main articles that are referenced aren't significantly different enough? My concern about Andrwsc's suggestion, and the reason I did not implement it, is that the bids include a huge amount of information. Adding five additional columns would make the list incredibly unwieldy. The alternative, turning the list into an episode-style summary list, would eliminate the sortability. Geraldk (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrwsc's suggestion means to abandon the table and instead give a brief summary of each host city under a section header, kind of like this FL. That is a lot of prose and the resulting article will closely resemble a FA.

• Oppose per my previous comments in the last FLC review. I think this page ought to be more than three sortable tables. The tables are summary information that is best left to the main articles, per summary-style. This page should be the "for further information" link target from those pages, so it should have more information about the cities. Along the same lines, I'm not suggesting a merge of the bid information into here; those bid articles are "for further information" details linked from here. We should take advantage of the opportunity to create city-centric content (instead of a Games-centric list) that is more than a simple reorganization of material already listed in other articles. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm afraid I still don't understand. What kind of information would you expect to have under the list of Olympic host cities? Geraldk (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd like to see more than just data presented in tabular format. I think much can be accomplished with a few sentences of prose text per item within definition list format. The result should be a worthy complement to other articles we have, and not just a re-format of the same information available elsewhere. This is off the top of my head, but hopefully provides some inspiration or further discussion:

===Summer Olympic Games host cities===

Athens (1896, 2004)

Athens, Greece was the host city for the inaugural edition of the modern Olympic Games, held from April 6–15, 1896.(ref) International Olympic Committee founder Baron de Coubertin chose Athens as the location for the re-birth of the Games in homage to the Ancient Olympic Games that originated in Greece.(ref) Athens attempted to host the Centennial Games in 1996, but lost to Atlanta on the final ballot amid concerns that the city would not be able to adequately support the Games.(ref) Athens was subsequently successful in winning the bid for the 2004 Summer Olympics, which it hosted from August 13–29. At those Games, some events were also hosted in several cities and towns outside Athens: ancient Olympia for the shot put event, Marathon for the start of the Marathon race, and Heraklion, Patra, Thessaloniki, and Volos for some football matches.(ref)

Paris (1900, 1924)

Paris, France hosted the second modern Games in 1900. The city was unanimously awarded the Games at the same meeting in 1894 in which it was decided that the 1896 Games should be awarded to Athens.(ref) All events were held in the city except for sailing events held in Meulan and Le Havre.(ref) Paris hosted the Games for a second time (becoming the first city to do so) in 1924. Paris has since made three attempts to host the Games for a third time, losing to Barcelona on the final ballot for the 1992 Summer Olympics,(ref) to Beijing in 2008,(ref) and to London for 2012.(ref)

etc.

===Winter Olympic Games host cities===

Chamonix (1924)

etc.

etc.

I suppose I'm essentially calling for a re-write of the entire article, but I feel this is the best way to create a featured-content worthy alternative to yet another summary table which borders on content-forking. Don't get me wrong—I think your table is good—but I think the summary tables belong in the main articles. This page should elaborate on the details, and by "city-centric" I mean that we ought to include information about bid attempts, venues outside the main host city, and perhaps some information on the effects of the Games on some of these cities. This kind of format also lends itself well to appropriate photos on the right side of the page (venues, etc.), whereas the current table is only illustrated with flag icons. I hope this helps, and I welcome additional discussion. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see now. That's a great idea. You're right that it will take some significant rewriting, but I think it won't hurt to keep some of the tables in after the longer prose descriptions because I think they'll still be useful for some people who end up on the table. Will try to work on this and bring it back to FLC (for a third time). Geraldk (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above comments about 3b. – (iMatthew • talk) at 02:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, again, while everyone is piling on the fly-by opposition, would really appreciate input into what information people expect to see in a modified table that included more 'city information'. What exactly would this new 'city-centric' content look like? Geraldk (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw per above comments suggesting a major rewrite. Geraldk (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn per nominator's request. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:21, 26 June 2009 [4].

Nominator(s): Reywas92^Talk 18:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list was really interesting to make. It's based off the FL List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama with some additions. The article is fully referenced and complete. There's differing information about each of the 37 sites, so tell me if any descriptions are too long or short. I'm sorry that a few images are missing, but I searched Commons, Flickr, Google, and NPS and couldn't find anything free. Reywas92^Talk 18:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - while the border is affecting the visual appeal IMO, I can't deny that this is a great list, hence my support—Chris! _ct 00:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support A great list. I don't find the border on the image to be a problem. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support

• Footnotes should be located right after a punctuation mark. There are spaces between the period and the footnote at several places in the table. After this sentence for example, "The Plaza also includes the American Legion headquarters, Cenotaph square, an obelisk, and fountains. [22]"
• Should there not be a period after this sentence, "It is now the home of the Quilters Hall of Fame"?

Other than that, nice work. TheLeftorium 17:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Both done. Thanks. Reywas92^Talk 20:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got it. Reywas92^Talk 22:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I read the list with a great interest and found no problems. Therefore I am supporting. Ruslik_Zero 15:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you're still missing some photos that you're unable to take youself (Dont you live in Indiana? road trip!), I've found looking at other articles with photos in the same county can identify people who have no problem stopping by someplace for you. In Virginia, I left notes on I think 4 peoples talk pages and got all the photos I wanted. dm (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• " represent a broad sweep of Indiana's history from the Native American era, through Indiana's early settlers and motor racing." "a broad sweep" is not necessary.
  • Done. I'll remove it from the AL list as well.
• "and an array of other topics"-->and several other topics
  • Done
• "which are historic properties "
  • Done
• Why is there no symbol for National Historic Landmarks?
  • Is it really necessary? Readers should be able to tell all are regular NHLs unless it does have a symbol, i.e. the symbol is that is has no symbol. It could just as easily be all white except for the few different ones, only needing color and symbol for them.
• Allen County Courthouse needs a period at the end of its description.
  • Done
• "and it was a military "
  • Done
• "It made uniforms for the Union during the Civil War." The Mill itself did not make uniforms.
  • Changed to Its workers
• "continuously-operating " I think we've covered this before, but the hyphen after -ly adverbs is redundant.
  • Done
• "The 16th President Abraham Lincoln" Don't assume that readers will automatically think "U.S." president.
  • Done with link
• "a manufacturing company producing hair care products"-->a manufacturing company that produced hair care products
  • Done
• "The building was finished in 1927 and also served as a community cultural center. "-->Finished in 1927, the building also served as a community cultural center. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done

Sources

• Web site titles should not be in all caps, even if they were like that in the original.
  • I think that's for when the website uses caps stylistically as a header. These, in contrast to the others, are in caps on purpose; the other uses of the name on the webpage are also in caps.
• Ref 5, the link to National Monument (United States) doesn't work. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 16:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Doncram (talk · contribs) You've done a great job developing this list-article from the version of June 30, 2008, at completion of a WikiProject NRHP drive to create complete NHL lists and to start an article for each separate NHL. My comments and questions:

• Could the NHL blue color be used to color the top bar containing the column headings? This would be consistent with identifying the table as a table of NHL listings. This table is one in a system of more than 50 list-tables of NHLs and more than 3,000 list-tables of NRHPs, in which the coded NHL and NRHP colors signify which type of table it is. This is not an issue for a reader focused on just one article, it is an enhancement for readers who might browse in multiple articles.
  • I happy with adding color, but it was opposed in the FLC for the Alabama list.
    • I suppose I will raise it separately somewhere. It should not delay the promotion of this article. doncram (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In Indiana, the 37 NHL listings are among the most highly recognized historic sites to be designated by the U.S. Federal government. In recent years, these ones were all decreed by judgment of the Secretary of the Interior; there may be a few decreed by Congress early in the NHL program. There are just two comparable others: George Rogers Clark National Historical Park and Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial, which are National Park Service areas that were designated by Congress. These two are listed on page 114 in the National Historic Landmarks document that is the first source given in this list-article. Could these also be mentioned in the article? Also, it would be helpful to readers to include coordinates for them so that the Google/Bing map link will allow readers to see the locations of all the most important historic sites designated by the Federal government, in one place.
  • Those are not National Historic Landmarks. Wasn't the inclusion of those part of the reason the New York list failed its FLC? And the Lincoln Boyhood Memorial is already an NHL anyway. A Historical Park is not the same as a Historic Landmark. Indiana doesn't have one yet, but most states have an article for Protected Areas, which would include this. I wouldn't oppose a see also or a mention in the lead, but these do not belong in an NHL list. Reywas92^Talk 16:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's hard to say why the NYS NHL list failed. These are not protected areas, which is an IUCN international term for natural, rather than historic areas. I'll add mentions of them to the article. They are of likely interest to readers. doncram (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely nice work. doncram (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Nev1 (talk · contribs)

Lead

• I'm not sure the map works or is necessary. At the moment, it's cluttered because of the amount of text that's necessary and the link to google and bing in the key section performs the same task.
  • Works great for me and doen't seem too cluttered. Many of these lists have these now. Surely people would rather have a clickable map right there rather than a link to another page.
    • It's not a deal breaker for me, but be aware that while it may look fine for some screen resolutions or browsers, it might not for all of them. For me, it just looks too cluttered and it's not always clear which text belongs to which dot. Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "One of the NHLs in the state has military significance, fourteen are significant examples of a particular architectural style, nine are associated with significant historical figures, and one is an archaeological site". This only covers 25 of the state's NHLs, what are the others?
  • Why would they all have to be there? The rest don't have much in common with the others so I'd be listing those three main topics plus many with only one or two.
    • I suppose they wouldn't but it does rather feel like they're forgotten. I think a sentence to the effect that the remaining sites are listed for a variety of different reasons would address this. Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "...a particular architectural style..." what is the particular style?
  • All of them! It's a general term. For the Allen County Courthouse it's Beaux Arts, and for the Auburn Factory it's Art Deco. First Baptist Church and First Christian Church are modern, Thomas Gaff House is Italian Rennaisance, the Lanier Mansion is Greek Revival, etc.
    • The way its phrased, it sounds like they're all examples of the same unnamed style. How about "fourteen are significant examples of different architectural styles", or something to that effect? Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Both public and privately owned properties are designated as NHLs". This comes in an explanation of how NHLs are listed, if the situation is theoretical shouldn't "are" be changed to "can be"?
  • Done.
• "All NHLs are also included on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), historic properties that the National Park Service deems to be worthy of preservation". This sentence doesn't seem to flow well, it feels like a word missing.
  • Dabomb above suggested to remove "which are", though I do see what you mean. Any suggestions?
    • How about "All NHLs are also included on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), a list of historic properties that the National Park Service deems to be worthy of preservation" (my text in italics) as it describes the list and (although Dabomb didn't provide a reason) "which are" doesn't quite fit as it seems to be describing the buildings on the list. Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The table

• The first column is a list of numbers and I don't think the explanation in the footnotes is enough. "Numbers represent an ordering by significant words". What significant words? What does this mean to the reader?
  • Added alphbetical. I think that's how all the NHL lists have it though. It doesn't mean anything, just that the Lew Wallace Study is listed under Wallace, Lew.
    • Ok, I see. Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The source used for Angel Mounds makes no mention of the site being a regional centre, and while the site flourished from 1000 to 1600 the phrasing is ambiguous and the settlement could have existed longer. More sources are required.
• The source for Auburn Cord Duesenberg Automobile Facility states "one of the few remaining examples of an independent specialty automobile company that made hand-assembled rather than mass-produced automobiles" (emphasis added), however the article says "It was one of the few automobile companies that made hand-assembled rather than mass-produced automobiles". Either a source needs to be found for the statement, or it needs to be changed.
  • I don't see much of a difference, I just changed it to not be word-for-word. I've added "remaining".
    • I'm afraid the word remaining makes all the difference. Remaining refers to the present, and does not necessarily mean there were few companies that hand-assembled cars in the past (although "rather than" does imply it, it's not strong enough". I appreciate that when you're working from such brief sources it's difficult to rephrase the information without changing the meaning, which is why I think more sources should be used to make both jobs easier. Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• From the Joseph Bailly Homestead entry: "...when the Calumet was opened to white settlement". This statement is not covered by the source and Calumet should be wikilinked.
  • Linked
• Although the Broad Ripple Park Carousel entry states it was built in 1917, the source claims it was brought to Indiana in 1917 rather than built.
  • Changed
• In the Butler Fieldhouse I'm surprised to see that there's no construction date, but also information such as "It hosted the Indiana high school basketball tournament until 1971 and was a military barracks during World War II" cannot be found in the source provided.
• The following sentence leaves me slightly confused: "It was innovative by designing utility and aesthetics". How can one design utility? And although sourced, I take issue with the statement that using steam power was innovative; Boulton and Watt was founded in the late 18th century and Murrays' Mills, once one of the largest cotton-spinning companies in the world, was using steam power since the start of the 19th century. Also from the Cannelton Cotton Mill entry, the statement "Its workers made uniforms for the Union during the Civil War" is not supported by the source provided.
  • Maybe it was innovative for the United States, or was in a different way. I don't wan to challenge the source.
    • Ok, I've struck my comment about steam power being innovative as it probably constitutes WP:SYNTH. I meant it as an off-hand comment anyway rather than a serious suggestion to change the article; wikipedia's policy is verifiability before truth and while this sometimes leads to problems more often than not it works. (Although the source probably meant that steam power was innovation for America and I'd like to see a source if at all possible). Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The source for Levi Coffin House states "From 1827 to 1847, this two story brick house served as the "Union Depot of the Underground Railroad" which is different from "Levi Coffin lived in this house from 1827 to 1847" as stated in the article.
  • What's the problem? It's not hard to see that it was the Union Depot only while Coffin lived there. The source says "during that period".
    • You're right, the source says that Coffin helped slaves escape from 1827 to 1847, however it says nothing about him living there only that he was the owner. He could have lived there from 1798 to 1877, or may not have lived there at all and only used the property to help slaves escape. The source is silent on the point and another reference needs to be found. Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The source for Eugene V. Debs Home states "From 1890 until his death, this two story frame building was the home of Eugene Victor Debs"; the source does not mention the construction date so the statement "[Eugene Debs] lived in this home from its construction in 1890 until his death in 1926" isn't sourced.
• What was the purpose of the Donald B? It may be a towboat, but what did it tow?
  • Bigger boats like barges, like the article says.
• When did Eleutherian College become "the first college in Indiana to admit students regardless of race or gender"?
  • I suppose when it was founded. I have found nothing specifying the year of that.
    • I'd be surprised if it offered equal opportunities since it's foundation. I think a note of when it adopted a policy to admit students regardless of race or sex is relevant, although others may disagree. Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Re the Benjamin Harrison Home, there's no mention in the source of Italiante design and while it says "Harrison accepted the Republican Party's nomination for the Presidency in this home in 1888" it does not say he conducted his campaign there.
• Apart from being the headquarters of the American Legion, the source provided does not include most of the facts in the description column.
• The seating capacity of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway is not referenced.
• The source for Irwin Union Bank and Trust mentions nothing of being "welcoming".
• Lanier Mansion should mention when it was built, and the source says nothing of how strict the adherence to Greek Revivalism was or about the doors.
• The source used for Lincoln Boyhood Home states "Abraham Lincoln's family lived in southern Indiana from 1816 to 1830", which does not necessarily mean he grew up in this particular house, a less ambiguous source needs to be found. Also, the source mentions nothing about the replica cabin.
  • Well, he did. I think this ref is fine.
    • It's not fine as it doesn't support the information stated in the article. If Lincoln did grow up there from 1816 to 1830 it should be easy to find another source stating it. Also, the bit about the replica needs to be sourced. Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General

• IIRC National Monuments can be natural, can NHLs? If not, I think having a column for when each NHL was constructed would be useful to the reader.
  • If it's historic I guess they can. I'd rather just give it in the description to be more consistent
    • The information can be repeated in the description section and a date column and no harm would be done. I think a date column would benefit the reader as the sites could be sorted into chronological order. Nev1 (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have only inspected the entries for 21 out of the 37 sites, but I think it's enough to highlight the problem this list suffers from. The sourcing is a serious concern for me at this point. While the list appears to have been well researched, it's disappointing that the sources which were probably used are not all listed. There's a lot of work to be done here. Nev1 (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last minute comment: No, National Historic Landmarks are just that, there are not two tracks for natural vs. historic. Yes, National Monuments can be historic (in which case they get listed in the National Register of Historic Places), or they may be natural only. The sortable date column in the list-article is for NHL designation date. It would be hard / impossible to identify date of construction for all NHLs. The NRHP database which includes all of these has a "date built" field which is used to give date built, where relevant and known, like for a house. But it is used for date of significance in other cases, like the year of birth of a U.S. president, in a house that was built years earlier. Some NHLs are archeological sites where the significant date is 500 A.D.-700 A.D. or whatever. So, date column for date built would not be helpful. doncram (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last minute comment: About sourcing, I would prefer for this to be understood and presented as a list of summaries of other wikipedia articles, with footnote references provided for only unusual assertions. In the FA nomination of the List of NHLs in NY, that seemed to be accepted by FA reviewers. The description column there had a footnote in the header row, explaining that sources were to be found in the corresponding articles. Specifically, the footnote was this^[1].
Reference

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 Rambo's Revenge 15:12, 26 June 2009 [7].

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it appears to meet the qualifications of a featured list. Additionally, it was previously a featured list that was demoted in October of 2008. Since then it appears that users have dealt with all of the issues that where brought up. Although I am not currently a major contributor to this article but I have or have access too all of the references mentioned in it and will address any changes needed to get this list back up to FL status. --Kumioko (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A couple of comments related to this FLC and I apologize I know this isn't a peer review site but this will also help me in future submissions.
  • I personally do not like all the colors and would like to change it so the color is in the name column only. Is that acceptable?
  • I understand that this article can be contentious at times and is prone to vandalism however I think it is a very important list that should be allowed to achieve featured status. Even if we have to protect the page to experiences users once we get it there.
  • I have already checked the DAB pages and the only one is a disambiguous redirect for other things for the President of the Unites States (such as the musical group).
  • I think that 4 references for each president is too many and I would like to shorten them a bit. All of the presidents have a link to the White house and CSPAN and then to a specific page for their names for each. Is there a way I can simply use a general reference rather than each and every one? --Kumioko (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• • I agree that the color should be in the names columns only
  • The election result link should go to the external links section
  • In the note section, incomplete sentences shouldn't have period
  • The top says "Presidents of the United States" redirect here, but it is a separate article

—Chris! _ct 22:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

These also apply to the VP list.

• Yes, don't use color for the entire row. I'd say to make a narrow colummn for that next to the name, like in all the Governor FLs.
• Yes, using general references is fine. I'd keep just the WH refs next to the name as footnotes, but have the rest as general refs only.
• To this and the VP list: be consistent! These two are very close positions and should have similar lists. I don't care which way it's done as long as it's the same.
  • For the Images column, should there be a header or is it self-descriptive?
  • "Name" or "President"/"Vice President"?
  • Link "Vice President" and "President"?
  • Have the reference next to the name or in a separate column?
  • Include a Home State column? There is List of United States Presidents by place of primary affiliation and Lists of United States Presidents by place of birth already, so I'd leave it off the presidents list. Therefore, I'd remove it from the VP list and create a separate page. Eventually I'd like to merge these two (and a VP list) and bring it to FLC.
  • Also look at the lead, specifically the first sentence. Both are short, but there are main articles for each anyway.

Otherwise, these are very good lists. Reywas92^Talk 23:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I determined I am going to have to rebuild the table in order to fix some of the problems and clean things up. It should only take me a day or 2. Here is a link to the sandbox where I am working on it.--Kumioko (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if we need to use {nowrap}. Most wouldn't wrap anyway and we can set column widths. I would just suggest against the place of birth column. As I said, there's already separate articles for that. Place of birth also isn't as accurate as state of association; George W. Bush is better associated with Texas than Connecticut and Obama with Illinois than Hawaii. Reywas92^Talk 03:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. As someone who for a while now has watchlisted and edited and reverted quite a bit of vandalism on this list I have concerns. Completely overhauling the table is a major change and not something that should be done during an FLC. It should be ready and in place before the FLC, only then can criteria like stability be assessed. I appreciate this is an important list and you want it to be recognised but FLC is not the place to make the list, it's a place for lists that are ready and just being tweaked. I suggest opening a peer review and getting input there, because if you are changing the list to a sortable one there my be other information that can be incorporated instead of having lots of different lists because there is a lot of repetition across them and I'm pretty sure much of this could be merged/condensed with sortable tables. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually going to suggest that it be withdrawn today because its taking me longer to reconstruct the table than I previously thought it would. You beat me too it. --Kumioko (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 15:32, 25 June 2009 [8].

Nominator(s): -- Nomader ^(Talk) 20:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating List of Star Fox titles as I believe it meets all the requirements laid out in WP:WIAFL. The list's format is extensively based off of two previous FLs, List of Kirby media (which I guided through its FLC) and List of Harvest Moon titles. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 20:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I forgot to mention this in the Kirby FLC, but spaced en dashes should be used for list separators rather than em dashes per MOS. E.g., "1993—Super Nintendo Entertainment System"-->1993 – Super Nintendo Entertainment System Dabomb87 (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I've already changed them for the Star Fox list, and I'll go ahead and switch them up for the Kirby one. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 21:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This list is too small; it could easily be merged into Star Fox (series). In fact it already is in a sense: this seperate article is really just a listy-version of the prose in the series' article. The general rule of thumb is that a list should have at least 10 entries to warrant its own page. That's not a hard and fast rule, but I see no reason why this list of 6 needs to be separated from the main page. Though there is alot of info per title, that's not a substitute for such a small amount of listed items. Drewcifer (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I was kind of worried about the length after I finished writing it up. I don't think the series page itself is well-written compared to some other series pages, but it does seem I've unintentionally created a content fork. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 22:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdrawal and a merge as well. I missed this on the first look through. The list fails the recently introduced criterion 3b, as well as the "unwritten" ten-item limit on FLCs. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that too. I wasn't sure if it was a content fork or not when I had first finished, but it seems pretty clear to me now. I'll go ahead and request withdrawl. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 23:37, 24 June 2009 (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 Scorpion0422 21:54, 23 June 2009 [9].

Nominator(s): ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Note, the template did not work, when creating this nom)

I am nominating this for featured list because I am working on about 12 other lists for the SBOP and want to use this one as a model for the formatting. This one follows the basic model of the WSOP events that are now FLs. The lead is going to be standard on all 12 FLs.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the lead. It doesn't even mention the year 1991. Some of that information may be included, but some of it is more appropriate for the main Super Bowl of Poker article. The 1991 Tournament section should be incorporated into the lead. All the results look good. Reywas92^Talk 14:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revised---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:00, 23 June 2009 (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 Scorpion0422 21:54, 23 June 2009 [10].

Nominator(s): Balloonman (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note: the template did not work while creating this nom

I am nominating this for featured list because I hope it meets the criteria for FL?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:26, 22 June 2009 (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 Scorpion0422 20:47, 16 June 2009 [11].

Nominator(s): Gendralman (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list. Gendralman (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• Refs 1, 2 and 5 are missing publishers and last access dates in their citations.
• Reference titles should not be in all caps, even if they were like that in the original.
• What makes the following sources reliable?
  • http://heavymetal.about.com/od/interviews/a/strappinginterv.htm
    • About.com is owned by The New York Times Company and certainly has enough editorial control to publish a reliable interview. —Gendralman (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • See this discussion, especially the comment by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs). It's a case-by-by case thing. Is the person who wrote that article an expert in that area? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Striking, I see it's an interview so it should be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.insideout.de/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=645
    • This is the record label's web site, I don't think you can do much better for a release date. —Gendralman (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Publications such as Billboard should be italicized.
• Refs 3 and 7 are both to the same site, yet they're formatted differently. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed these issues. —Gendralman (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The list itself is in good shape and meets WP:WIAFL. But I'm a bit curious about the situation below regarding listing band projects. --Truco ₅₀₃ 03:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For comparison, List of awards and nominations received by Sam Roberts has 24 entries (and is very likely to expand in the future as he's an active performer) and it's about to be delisted and merged. A Strapping Young Lad discography would have no more than 17 entries with no possibility of expansion. I'm willing to split the article if people here are really for it, I just want to make sure it's not going to be merged again in six months. —Gendralman (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A decent list, but I have some content-issues I'd like to see addressed before I can support. First, when making discographies for individuals who have tended to work within other musical groups, it's usually best to stick just to solo projects, and leave separate band discographies to seperate lists. The Gwen Stefani discography is a good example of this, which clearly avoids listing No Doubt releases. As is Trent Reznor discography, which doesn't list Nine Inch Nails releases. Granted neither of these are Fls, but the concept still applies. So that said, the Strapping Lad stuff should be moved elsewhere. The list would still be fairly large and content-packed, so I think this would only help to focus the list. A link and a mention to a Strapping Lad discog would surely be helpful, but the actual list doesn't belong here.

So, given that change, the list would require a bit of a reorganization, namely splitting the list into sections rather than subsections within each group.

Strapping was essentially a Townsend solo project, he wrote and produced everything. Plus the band only has ten releases and no singles. Compared to Nine Inch Nails discography and No Doubt discography it just feels thin. The FLC criteria say to use stand-alone lists if they "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article"; do you really think Strapping can't be reasonably included in this list? —Gendralman (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, the disclaimer "As archival policy varies, chart information may be incomplete." worries me. FLC requires a list to be complete, so this seems like a misstep right off the bat. One solution may be to specify which lists in particular have odd archival policies (via a footnote or something like that) and exactly what those peculiarities are, rather than a blanket disclaimer that puts all the charts into question. I'm not sure if this would fix the inherent problem of the list being incomplete, but some more transparency would be a step in the right direction.

I agree, I will clarify it. The notice really applies to the UK Indie Chart and UK Rock Chart. They aren't made to the public in any way except through the BBC web site which does not keep archives, and the company refuses to release historical charts, so the information simply doesn't exist as far as I can tell.

As for the "inherent problem", the actual FL criterion is "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items." I interpret "complete set of items" to be "complete list of albums/singles/videos", and the charting information to fall under "annotations". No discography is complete in terms of charting information, as there's so many obscure charts like the UK genre charts that aren't included in any discography. The article is complete and up-to-date with all the charts on WP:GOODCHARTS, which are the only charts included on e.g. Metallica discography, so that should be sufficient. —Gendralman (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few more qualms and quibbles, but I'll hold off on the minor stuff until if and when the above is addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 16:25, 16 June 2009 [12].

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I fancied a change. I haven't been able to set aside a lot of time to contribute more good content for a while, but things have changed, and when I saw the list in its original state, I was determined to improve it. I've never ventured so far out of my comfort zone with the subject matter and would love to hear thoughts on whether this cuts the mustard. All comments will, as ever, be gratefully received and attended to as swiftly as humanly possible. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nice work, but I don't see the need for the gallery. It's a collection of pictures of arbitrarily chosen winners and nominees with no criteria for selection and no real information gain. Eklipse (talk) 09:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. The idea was to just make the page more visually appealing. I have, in the past, run these sort of images down the right hand side of the list. I'll see what others say but I'm happy to remove them. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• First, about the question raised above, I'd run them down the side if at all possible. They add visual appeal but I think the separated gallery leaves them lacking context somewhat.
• I would add the last sentence of the lead into the list, with a note or something explaining that it just hasn't been awarded yet.
• About the controversial nature of the prize, I could go for a little bit (not a lot) more explanation of what exactly the nature of the criticism is. Why do they think it's conceptual BS, that it has contaminated the art world?
• If it's possible, the lead could use some information about how the awarding of it has effected the people it's been awarded to. Have they gone on to have successful careers? Did winning the prize lead to a significant increase in their art sales? In their work being selected by galleries?
• Your lead says that between 2004 and 2007 the award was 40k, but the note on the table for 2004 says 25k.
• Why not mention the name of the artworks the artists won for? Or is it more sort of a career award and rare to be able to point to a single artwork as with State Britain?

That's all for now. Geraldk (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Geraldk. I'll fiddle about and see what I can do to address your comments. I'll be back. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first run at the items you've mentioned - I've moved the images and gone for just the winners. Last sentence of lead has been incorporated into the table with a note and a new reference specifying precisely when the 09 award will take place. I've removed the inconsistent award value. As for mentioning the "artworks the artists won for", as you say it's based on an exhibition of work and thus is not a simple matter of just one winning piece. The other two points you raise, i.e. more re:controversial nature and how it affected artists, I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For additional criticism detail, I've linked to the main section on Criticism on the main Turner Prize page - I think that covers it better and is a better location than here. As far as "what happened next" - there's a reference there already which links to an article about what became of past winners. Nothing spectacular really. I could bring this out as an external link and find a different reference should it be deemed a good idea? Thanks for all your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly there. I do feel that since this is a list of winners of a certain award, it is important to note whether winning the award has had a significant impact on their careers. If it did, that's important, if not, that's also important, especially given the criticism you've linked to in the lead. I know it can't be easy to reference... Any thoughts on how to address it? Geraldk (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struggling a bit to be honest. It's very hard to quantify the effect of this award on already-famous artists. My instinct is to suggest that it may have made them more famous worldwide (as generally the award has been given to Brits) but I'd need some definitive references for this. I'll go look. Thanks again for your interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It won't prevent me from supporting, so if you come up empty-handed, don't worry too much about it. Geraldk (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support now with improvements to lead. Geraldk (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Material moved to talk page per request.[13] Ty 10:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am surprised that there is no mention that the award is also enormously prestigious. The lead mentions that it is "the most controversial art award" and Prince Charles objections are also included - why no underscoring of the international prestige that generally accompanies the winner and the nominees and their subsequent careers? Modernist (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, I'll go looking for some balance with some prestige examples, but as per above, it is difficult to definitively state that winning the Turner Prize actually affected their subsequent careers directly. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Well done...Modernist (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Note that the dead link checker shows a couple dead links that are actually working. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• New York Times-->The New York Times (picky, picky)
• You might consider a two-column reflist, but don't consider that a mandate. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• I think the Nominees column would look neater if you put names in bullet form
• The dash for empty cells should be emdash, not endash

—Chris! _ct 04:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps, but bullet-pointing nominees would also unnaturally elongate the table. I'm not that keen to implement this as the main focus should really be on the winners anyway. But perhaps we'll see what others think. I will fix the em-dashes. Cheers for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with nominees in list form, but better to use <br> to separate into lines than bullet points. This would shorten the width of the nominees column, and allow winners' names to be one one line on a low res screen (with images at the bottom, not the side - see my comment below). As this is a "List of Turner Prize winners and nominees", the nominees are just as significant to the subject as the winners. Ty 11:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "has become one of the United Kingdom's most prestigious etc." Neater to say "is one of etc".
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Originally there was no age restriction, but from 1991 it was restricted to artists under 50." Implies it was always for artists only. Initially it was for open to others such as critics and curators. This needs to be integrated with the passage "Initially the prize was awarded to the individual who etc".
  • Repetition removed, but most likely all will change soon when the lead is reworked. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "The winner is chosen by a jury of four independent judges and the director of the Tate Britain". Might be better "four independent judges chosen/invited by the Tate and chaired by the director of Tate Britain." However, 1984-2006 it was chaired by the director of the Tate, 2007 by the director of Tate Liverpool, 2008 and 2009 by the director of Tate Britain.[14] (Tate Britain didn't exist till 2000.)
• "The award is accompanied by a prize of £25,000." Initially it was £10,000, doubled to £20,000 in 1991 with new sponsor Channel 4.[15] Then later increased again. The rest of the sentence about the prize money is sloppy.
• "A shortlist of finalists is drawn up and usually published about six months before the prize is awarded." This is what happens now, but I would like confirmation that it was published in this way in the early years. The Tate says, "In 1988 it was decided not to announce the shortlist publicly, and instead of an exhibition of work by shortlisted artists, the winner was offered a solo show the following year. In 1989 the jury published a list of seven 'commended' artists. The shortlist was reinstated in 1991, and restricted to three or four artists."[16]
• The prize is now awarded for a previous show held during the twelve month period preceding the choice of nominees, but this was not always the case.
• There is a muddle per some of the above points because the prize has changed its procedures over the years. It should be clear as to whether a statement applies to the prize throughout, or only to its present form.
• "has suffered considerable criticism". Perhaps "has received criticism".
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "including Prince Charles' letter of support to Kim Howells, who had described the Turner Prize as "conceptual bullshit". Prince Charles wrote of the award that "[i]t has contaminated the art establishment for so long"." Neater to avoid repetition (and give date also + Howells's position): "In 2002, after Culture Minister Kim Howells described the Turner Prize as "conceptual bullshit", Prince Charles wrote to him that "It has contaminated the art establishment for so long"."
  • Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "In 2008, the Stuckists art group etc." They have demonstrated annually since 2000 against the prize, not just 2008.[17]
  • Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Several winners of the prize have won etc." Better at the beginning of the following paragraph.
• "While auction prices for previous winners have generally increased, some artists, including Sarah Lucas and Julian Opie, have decided not to participate in the event." Two completely separate statements, not connected as implied by the sentence construction. Needs two sentences.
• Paragraphs need structuring: 1) Intro 2) procedures, prize money etc 3) info relating to winners 4) criticisms (or something like that)
• Pressure on nominees being in a "media circus" should be mentioned (see material now on talk page.
• Reinstate photo of Tracey Emin, as she is singled out in the text and more memorable in the prize than most of the winners.
  • Okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Please view the page on a low res screen, say 800 x 600. It is then obvious why the images should be at the bottom of the page, not down the side: the table is horribly cramped.
  • I am viewing on a really low resolution (1024 x 768) and it's fine. Gallerys are discouraged generally, so we either have the images down the side or none at all. I think 1024 x 768 is really low and 800 x 600 is used by virtually no-one. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Previous discussions on the subject have pointed to the fact that in a world wide audience not everyone can update their computer, also that even lower res screens are in use, including mobile access to the internet. However MOS sets the benchmark: "800x600; all articles should look acceptable at this resolution". There was confusion over "gallery", which had two different meanings: 1) whole page of images 2) gallery template(s) within an article. The former is not acceptable. The latter has now been clarified as acceptable at WP:IG. I haven't seen any lists with galleries underneath, but I do not see anything to forbid this usage either. However, per List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire another solution would be to reduce the image size (to 80px) and incorporate images in the table in the notes column (or else an image column). Ty 01:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, but we have images of only three of the winners. The image column you are referring to would presumably only be for winners or would you have column(s) for nominees as well? Winners only would, once again, remove Emin's image. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As we are not likely to get free images of all the winners, I think inclusion in the notes column at 80px would be best. Worth trying at least. Ty 12:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Several refs don't have the date of publication, e.g. ref. 11, Daily Telegraph which is 13 Nov 2008.
  • All references do have the date of publication using the date field - check again! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My mistake. I'm used to the format per ref 26: What's the point of the Turner Prize?". The Independent. 2 October 2007. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article3019128.ece. Retrieved on 2009-05-31. (NB minor date format inconsistency there.)
      • Gotcha. As long as the dates are same format throughout all refs, it meets MOS. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 1991 "Scultpure" typo.
  • Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 2007 Seems an anomaly to just have one winning exhibit named in the notes column. Maybe some more notable ones also, e.g. Hirst.
• Refs. Surely these should go by the material they are supporting, not in a separate column at the end of the line, as it's not clear which bit of the line they refer to.
  • Conventional for featured lists to use this approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This would seem to be the case, though it's not as helpful as specific ref tied to specific information. Ty 01:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well on lists, there are so many facts in each row, i.e. you'd end up having to add a reference to each nominee's name, for instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I'm revisiting this after checking out more at WP:FL and I see that some lists do not use a dedicated ref column, e.g. List of castles in Greater Manchester and The Libertines discography. Refs at the end of the row (or top of the column) would be OK if they covered all the material they pertain to, but this is not the case with the rows. Where there are two refs, it's not possible to see which one refers to which info. I also found some things that weren't covered at all by the ref(s) at the end of the row. I think this list needs to be along the lines of The Libertines discography, i.e. refs in column headings are appropriate for list of winners and nominees (assuming all came from the same source), but certain other info needs an individual ref. Ty 12:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ty 11:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your extensive and honest comments. I would hate for my prose to be "sloppy" so I'll try to work all your comments into a complete revision of the lead. It will be a couple of days before I can do anything substantial as I'm currently away. I've made a couple of responses to some of your more straightforward issues. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for being blunt there. Ty 01:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ty, do you think moving the notes to a proper footnotes section would address some of your concerns over table squashing? It would remove the notes column, add some [nb 1] etc to the refs col and then send the information to below the table, expanding out the space for winners and nominees names. It may make the images down the right-hand side more palatable for you? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See comments on images above. I think notes need to be in the appropriate row. Otherwise it's very inconvenient for the reader going up and down the page all the time. The notes are invaluable for giving some identity and context to just a list of names. I'd be happy to see more info. Ty 01:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Format column needs some tweaking. 1984 "Painting". 1986 not painting. Tate's The Turner Prize book (TTPB) calls them "photo-pieces". Maybe "Photomontage". 1989 TTPB says "Sculpture". 1995 "Conceptual" redundant, implied by "Installation". 1998 "Painting (mixed media)" is a succint way of defining it. 2001 "Installation" technically. 2002 "Installation, painting". 2004 "Video, installation". 2005 "Installation". 2006 "Painting". 2007 "Installation". 2008 "Sculpture, film, sound, performance".[18] I think that's the basics, which could be refined further. Ty 02:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly, my apologies for not attending to your extensive and comprehensive review 100% as yet. I've been away and now I'm home I'm exhausted - your comments deserve my full attention and I hope you'll be prepared to work with me on the lead to assure your satisfaction. I'm not at all convinced that images in the notes column will work so we need to find a resolution to that. For such a prominent list, we need to get as close to perfection as we can but we also must consider that there's a main article which could (could) contain some of the more generic material discussed here. However, as long as I am able, I will endeavour to improve the list up to featured status. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem whatsoever. Don't feel under any time pressure, as far as I'm concerned - I prefer a slower pace - and let me know if I can be of any help. I tried out images in the notes column. I think it works much better like that. Although there can't be images for every year, I feel that having some will draw the reader into what would otherwise be a stark table, and help them to locate where they are in it. There are some other suggested changes, which will be apparent from the diff. 19995 - nominees to be sorted alphabetically. Format column to be sortable. Some extra notes, particularly about artists previously nominated. Non-breaking spaces in key names, so Winners and Nominees columns display each name on a single line. The mention of Madonna is one thing that could be left to the main article. Ty 01:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per this. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2009 (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 Scorpion0422 20:38, 9 June 2009 [19].

Nominator(s): --Music26/11, 97198 (talk), Nergaal (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all of the criteria, all the issues of its previous FLc have been adressed. 97198 and Nergaal helped a lot with expanding the article. Thank you very much.--Music26/11 14:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The prose isn't bad, but it needs a final copy-edit for polish. Please find someone uninvolved. I would ordinarily help out, but I'm swamped with requests already as well as real-life commitments.

• "Dexter is an American television series which is broadcast on premium cable channel Showtime in the United States."-->Dexter is an American television series that is broadcast on the premium cable channel Showtime in the United States.
• "Dexter was first broadcast on October 1, 2006, and is based on the novel Darkly Dreaming Dexter by Jeff Lindsay"-->First broadcast on October 1, 2006, Dexter [it?] is based on the novel Darkly Dreaming Dexter by Jeff Lindsay
• "... didn't see the opportunity in the second book" Not sure what purpose the ellipses serve here.
• "The series has received positive critical acclaim throughout its run." The last three words are probably unnecessary.
• "The pilot episode attracted over a million viewers, giving Showtime its highest ratings" Link "pilot" and "ratings" to relevant articles, please.
• "Three seasons, each of twelve episodes, have been broadcast in the United States, while the fourth and fifth seasons have also been confirmed."-->Three seasons, each comprising twelve episodes, have been broadcast in the United States. The fourth and fifth seasons have been confirmed [confirmed for what?].
• "The first season of Dexter premiered on October 1, 2006,[5] and ended on December 17, 2006." Why not "The first season of Dexter aired from October 1, 2006 to December 17, 2006."?
• "and Dexter's girlfriend, Rita Bennett (Julie Benz), wants to take their relationship to the next level." Too loose. Suggest "and Dexter's girlfriend, Rita Bennett (Julie Benz), wants to their relationship to be more intimate." (or something similar)
• "Meanwhile" Nine times out of ten, this word is idle; kill it whenever possible.
• Spell out and link abbreviations such as "Lt." and "Sgt." on their first appearance. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the comments except the meanwhile one have been addressed. Isn't meanwhile a good linker, and necessary to add flow to the paragraph? Nergaal (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced the instances of meanwhile to about 1/3. n

Review by Truco (talk · contribs)

General

• Fix the 3 dab links

done. n

Lead

• 'First broadcast on October 1, 2006, the series is based on the novel Darkly Dreaming Dexter by Jeff Lindsay.' -- The way the sentence starts is incorrect, as is the way it transitions to the other topic. It should be something more like The series is based on the novel Darkly Dreaming Dexter by Jeff Lindsay, and was first broadcast on October 1, 2006.

it was initially something very similar, but the previous reviewer requested the present version. n

Yeah, but when you read it, it sounds very awkward. The latter version would read better and retain the same idea.--Truco 15:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded as proposed.--Music26/11 13:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truco's suggestion sounds better. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season 1

• 'Meanwhile Debra discovers the refrigerated truck in which the Ice Truck Killer dismembers his victims, and is promoted by her superior, Lieutenant Maria LaGuerta (Lauren Vélez), to the Homicide Department.' -- Comma after 'Meanwhile'
• Try to use phrases like 'During this time' instead of repeating 'Meanwhile' over and over, it gets real repetitive and boring to read.

reduced the usage. n

Season 2

• 'Meanwhile, Debra struggles to recover after escaping an attempt on her life, and Rita sends Dexter to Narcotics Anonymous meetings when she suspects that he has an addiction.' -- 'after escaping an attempt on her life' doesn't really make sense to me, elaborate please?
• 'He starts attending NA meetings, while still trying to evade Doakes' constant surveillance.' -- You need to have Narcotics Anonymous (NA) <<<formatted like that in its first occurrence in order to use the acronym.
• 'A copycat killer mimics and claims to be inspired by the Bay Harbor Butcher, whom the police must find otherwise the FBI will take over the case completely.' -- 1)mock would sound so much better than 'copycat' 2)Comma before/after 'otherwise'

Season 3

• 'Miguel's brother, Ramon (Jason Manuel Olazabal), criticizes the police for having not found his brother's killer, and when Miguel suggests telling Dexter the truth, Dexter must prove that Ramon cannot be trusted.' 'found' should be finding
• 'Debra and Quinn are assigned to the case of a man who was killed by his fiancée. Angel becomes entangled in a sting operation when he picks up a prostitute who is really a Vice Detective Barbara Gianna (Kristin Dattilo). ' -- Either remove the 'a' before 'Vice Detective' or add a colon after it
• 'Dexter struggles to distance himself from Miguel, who will be his best man at Dexter's wedding, and starts plotting to kill him.' -- 'at Dexter's wedding' should be at his wedding

References

• What makes comingsoon.net reliable?--Truco 23:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all the comments and changed the reference to ign.com. Nergaal (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Reference dates should be consistent per MoS, currently I see am mix of Month DD, YYYY and ISO. Make them all the same (my preference is the former).
• "do not follow the respective novels", but you only mention one respective novel in the following sentence. I think it needs rewording and suggest giving the names of the novels before refering to them as "respective novels", alternatively you could just say "do not follow the other novels in the series".
• "The series has received positive critical acclaim throughout its run." I just don't see this as neutral. Sounds like something a fan would say. Either balance with negative reviews (which you even ref in the list]) or remove.
• "CBS began to broadcast Dexter on February 17, 2008." is it just showing re-runs and Showtime still airs the episodes first? If so surely this is only as notable as airing on CTV Television Network in Canada.
• "giving the channel its highest ratings in nearly two years" is potentially misleading, the ref says "gave Showtime its highest series rating in nearly two years"
• Contistency, for season one you use "Season One" but in season two it is "season two" and in season three it is "Season Three". Be consistent, and I believe the lower case version is correct.
• Summaries need copyediting, I found the following issues in only two episode summaries:
  • "38 days have passed since the previous season's finale." MOSNUM point 4, don't start sentences with numbers
  • "With his first opportunity, though, he finds himself unable to kill gang leader Little Chino (Matthew Willig)." Doakes was the subject of the previous sentence, I may be wrong, but I think your talking about Dexter in this sentence so "he" doesn't suffice.
  • "Both Dexter and the Miami Police Department hunting for Little Chino" are hunting?
  • "Dexter and Debra struggle to overcome their experiences with Brian; Dexter is haunted by his memory and Debra feels unsafe when her memories of Brian resurface" isn't Brain dead, experiences with Brian sounds like it is in the present. Also the "memory/memories" are unclear, what is the memory exactly, guessing it is about killing Brian but should be explicit. In fact something like "Both struggle to overcome memories of the encounter with Brian that lead to his death", not sure if that is right as I've never watched the show but hopefully you get the gist.
  • "LaGuerta's new boss, Lieutenant Esmee Pascal, played by Judith Scott, is grateful when she ignores the fact that Pascal is using department resources to research her fiancé." Um isn't Pascal the subject of the sentence. How can Pascal be ignoring Pascal?

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:49, 8 June 2009 [20].

Nominator(s): Camelbinky (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is complete as far as having every city, town, and village in its subject, all columns are filled out (with the exception of some missing photos, though I hope that is expected and not held against the article) I believe the lead is concise, well-written, and informative. Any and all issues brought up can be addressed quickly I hope! Camelbinky (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Below is a list of incorporated cities, towns, and villages in the Capital District of the US state of New York." We don't start lists with "This is a list of..."; see recently promoted lists for examples of more engaging starts. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I re-wrote the lead, how is it now?Camelbinky (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "US State"-->US state
• "Indian Reservations" Link?
• "There are 11 counties in the Capital District with 13 cities, 143 towns, and 62 villages."-->There are 11 counties in the Capital District, comprising 13 cities, 143 towns, and 62 villages.
• "coterminous " Consider a wiktionary link.
• km² needs to be converted to "km²" for WP:MOSNUM and for accessibility reasons.
• "This list is complete, do not add or remove any municipalities from this list unless that place has legally changed its incorporation." Consider making this a hidden note so that only editors see it.
• Per WP:COLORS, you need symbols to accompany the color-coded cells, such as * ^ #
• A key is needed for the abbreviated forms of the MSAs.
• Check the toolbox to your right, there are several dab links to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed dab linksCamelbinky (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ref 3 is not formatted correctly—Chris! _ct 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to fix the comments above, but a few I dont understand and need clarification:

• Fixed US State->US state;
• not sure about comment "Indian Reservations Link" but simply removed comment from article that the area doesnt have Indian Reservations, hope that solves that problem, please expand comment if I didnt understand the meaning correctly;
  • I was asking if there was a link to an article about Indian Reservations. Sorry for being unclear. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• changed with to combrised of;
• dont know how to do a wiktionary link, but looking into it
  • [[:wikt:word|word]]. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• in process of changing the km²'s

Camelbinky (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead

• 'There are three types of incorporated municipalities in the Capital District of the US state of New York: city, town, and village.' -- Although it is a redirect, I suggest not using the redirect 'US state' and instead use U.S. state.
• 'In the state of New York all the land in a county is in a city, town, or Indian Reservation;[1] while villages are within towns and may cross town or county lines.' -- 1)Comma after 'New York' 2)Remove 'the' from 'the land' is not needed 3)The semi-colon should be a comma.
• 'Ten of the eleven counties of the Capital District make up two Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) and three Micropolitan Statistical Areas (µSA), which those five statistical areas then make up the Albany-Schenectady-Amsterdam Combined Statistical Area.' -- I think it would be better formatted as Ten of the eleven counties of the Capital District make up two Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) and three Micropolitan Statistical Areas (µSA); these five statistical areas then make up the Albany-Schenectady-Amsterdam Combined Statistical Area.
• 'Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, and Schoharie counties make up the Albany-Schenectady-Troy MSA; while Warren and Washington counties are the consituent counties of the Glens Falls MSA.' -- 1)Either remove the 'while' or replace the semi colon with a comma 2)Typo on 'constituent'
• What verifies the last part of paragraph 1?
• What verifies paragraph two?

List

• My comments are about the same as Dabomb's, per WP:COLOR use a symbol and color code.
• I don't know but I don't like how you use a yellow based color for a symbol and you color the backgrounds of the columns a yellow based color as well. For one, I don't see the necessity of coloring the backgrounds but if you need too, please choose a different color.

References

• Ref 3 should be formatted properly either with a cite template or properly as seen with WP:REF.
• What verifies the entire list itself?--Truco 503 15:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response- the yellow color is based on the FEATURED LIST article List of cities and towns in Tennessee. Which it was ok for that article to pass, so I figured it would be a good basis for this article. Also the gold column heading has become the unofficial Capital District (NY) wikiproject color, other NYCD articles with tables use the color as well. I see no reason to change. I'm confused about the comments- "what verifies the entire list?", the columns for population and area have references, what else in the list do you feel needs to be referenced? Only things that are likely to be challenged need a reference, are you TRULY thinking someone is going to call "bullshit" on the year a municipality was established? What parts of paragraph 1 and 2 are dubious and therefore need a reference? I'm not stacking the list and article with unneeded references to satisfy the needs of an editor who feels that every single sentence or fact in an article needs a reference, if that is what you are aiming for me to do, I'd rather fail. Everything else mentioned will be addressed when I have time.Camelbinky (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, for one chill out. We're here to help not create a fight. Second of all, my bad I didn't see the refs in the columns. But actually yes, the years need a ref to verify them, your judgment is not reliable. Third, Ballston Spa, Broadalbin, Cambridge, Chatham, Fort Plain, Greenwich, Nassau, and Valley Falls are villages that cross into two towns. The village of Dolgeville is partly in Fulton County, but is mostly in Herkimer County, which is generally not considered part of the Capital District. (Hm..really? Says who?) Ten of the eleven counties of the Capital District make up two Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) and three Micropolitan Statistical Areas (µSA), which those five statistical areas then make up the Albany-Schenectady-Amsterdam Combined Statistical Area. Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, and Schoharie counties make up the Albany-Schenectady-Troy MSA; while Warren and Washington counties are the consituent counties of the Glens Falls MSA. Fulton County is the sole county in the Gloversville µSA, Montgomery County is the Amsterdam µSA, and Columbia County is the Hudson µSA. Greene County is not in any CSA, MSA, or µSA. (Hm...really? Says who?) I wouldn't point this out if there were a general reference, but since there isn't one, then it needs verification. Fourth, no one is saying you can't have color, what we're saying is that you need to use a symbol as well for the color code. Now for the column headers, okay thats fine.--Truco ₅₀₃ 20:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please calm down, Truco is only trying to help.
2. Featured content has higher standards than for regular articles, including referencing. Generally speaking, every paragraph in the lead and all statistics should be verifiable through inline citations. I for one like to do random spot-checks of information to make sure that they match the sources.
3. The Tennessee article you mention does not meet current standards; it was promoted 15 months ago. Don't think that everything that is done on that list is "correct".
4. Could you clarify what you haven't done WRT my list of concerns? Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love it that when someone disagrees with an assessment or proposed change they are told to "calm down", this is supposed to be a collaboration and suggestive place, not a "do it my way" critique, this fancy title doesnt mean anything to me, I just thought it would help the wikiproject I'm in. I've gone through peer reviews, and a GA promotion before, to respond with "We're here to help and not create a fight" or "chill out" is unnecessary and inflamatory, if you cant take someone critiqueing your critique then you need to "chill out" yourself. I have the right to take issue and disagree with any suggestion without being labelled as someone who is not calm. NOW I am not CALM in this edit, I acknowledge that. If you have an "oops, I didnt see the references in the column headings" then you didnt look at the list enough to even warrent your opinions to be considered in the first place and probably shouldnt have posted them. I could care less and am now retracting the proposal for FL status. Dabomb, I had no issue with your comments and suggestions and was working on them and will continue to even without seeking FL status because I want this article to be the best it can be and your suggestions are productive, I am not to going to do suggestions from editors blindly just to promote an article however. Truco: your ignorant comments have made me just give up on this promotion. I do not like it when one editor uses the word "we" when defending THEIR opinion, that is arrogant, please say "I". As in- "I" say your comments were ignorant because "Hmm...really? Says who?" is a comment that comes from editors who seriously think that every single fact needs referencing, no they dont, look at the FA article New York City and how many sentences and facts are not referenced BECAUSE THEY ARENT CONTROVERSIAL. Editors who go around saying "oh really, who says that?" arent really challenging info, they simply want references for references sake and I would rather an article not get a fancy title of FA or FL than overload it with reference numbers for things NO ONE is SERIOUSLY challenging. An MSA is not a subjective term that differs in definition between people, it is made by the Census Bureau alone. If something is seriously controversial, unlikely, dubious, counter-intuitive, or extremely detailed, then I agree it should be referenced. I however, do not see the date of incorporation of an upstate New York village of 150 people as falling into any of those categories.Camelbinky (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay time for a second chance. I think your last post was out of line "you didn't look at the list enough to even warrent your opinions to be considered in the first place and probably shouldn't have posted them" is never an acceptable comment. We are all volunteers and here to help, and I'm sure you have made a mistake in the past, we're all human. I think there are crossed wires over that colour issue. I think Truco was suggesting that the yellowy orange column headers are changed to provide more contrast with the yellow cells. In the list you mentioned the column headers are blue, but I also think that giving them a colour is unnecessary. The years do need references, from WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" and I am currently not able to verify the years. I also find the second paragraph a little unclear. I can't understand the difference (if there is one) between Poestenkill, New Scotland which are "Alb.-Sch.-Troy" and Albany etc. which are "Alb.-Sch.-Troy MSA". Finally, in your last post you said "[I] am now retracting the proposal for FL status". Some time has now passed so do you still wish to continue this nomination or have you withdrawn? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm withdrawing it. Thanks for quoting only PART of my sentence. The FULL comment had to do with Truco admitting that he didnt notice the references in the columns for the area and population. I stick by my statement that IF you are going to comment on a FL/FA nomination THEN it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to do a THOROUGH and full job LOOKING and reading FULLY the article/list BEFORE making comments. A mistake is one thing, not being thorough is another. I understood his comment about the color to be against using yellow as the color to code for the central cities of the MSA's. If I forgot on the Poestenkill and New Scotland rows to put MSA after Alb.-Sch.-Troy that is my mistake and I wasnt thorough and I take responsibility for that and will rectify it. As for references, NOT everything needs to be referenced, please see read guidelines again and see various comments on the noticeboard Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/noticeboard. A reference is needed when something is LIKELY TO BE CHALLENGED, I'm not continuing this discussion but you should really think to yourself of a reason WHY someone would challenge the year a town on this list was incorporated, I am not going to clutter it with references for things that arent likely to be challenged other than by someone who is saying "I challenge it because I want a reference", wanting a reference isnt the same things as saying "that info is unlikely and questionable, please put a reference to prove it". I've already said 99% of the suggestions are ones I agree with and WILL be done to the article because I want the article to be better, but I'm not going to fulfill "references for references sake" editors wishes. On those noticeboards I mentioned (and to which I am a regular contributor) I've noticed the majority is in my opinion on the fact that references are not needed FOR EVERYTHING written on Wikipedia. Verifiability does not refer to the INFORMATION in an article needing to be verifiable, verifiability refers to a REFERENCE being verifiable, facts not likely to be challenged do not need a reference whether it is a start article or a FA! This has gone on too long as it is with comments that I've "gone over the line" which is NOT the way to handle a disagreement, I have the right to disagree and say "I dont believe your suggestion is constructive, you didnt look at the article well-enough, and that particular change you suggested is not helpful for the article" without it being taken as being rude and someone saying I went over the line. Comments like "you went over the line" are over the line as they are considered inflammatory and make the situation worse, wikipedia etiquette guidelines encourage in a situation like that for someone to not point with comments similiar to "you went over the line" for that very reason as it escalates the disagreement. As far as I'm concerned this is over, I'm not getting into an argument over something that shouldve been over the minute I said "no, I disagree and dont feel your change is needed" and shouldnt have been escalated by others, with good intentions I'm sure, commenting further on my style of writting, which I admit can be abrassive and for that I APOLOGIZE but meant nothing further than "no, I disagree and wont do it". Everyone should have left it at that and if not doing the suggestion caused the FL nomination to fail, so be it, I would have been fine with that with no hurt feelings, as I mentioned when I first said I wouldnt do that particular suggestion. This escalation, yes, has made me angry and my posting more abrassive and that is why I am doing what should have been done by everyone else per wikipedia guidelines- I am walking away. I'm taking this off my watchlist, so respond if you must, but I wont be reading it, and please dont bring these bad vibes to my talk page, my happiness is more important than some Wikipedia nomination, there are more important things in life than reading from more editors getting involved and continuing to post these things of "calm down" and "you went over the line" because I disagree with someone.Camelbinky (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2009 (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 Rambo's Revenge 23:22, 7 June 2009 [21].

Nominator(s): -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I believe the 2007 chart will be promoted on Wednesday, I hope this one won't have any issues, as all problems from the 2007 chart nomination has been resolved on this one. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I am not sure about what similar lists have been promoted before, but this topic does NOT deserve its own article. Canada is not an influential-enough country to deserve a yearly-list on wiki. The singles should all be merged say by decade, then it would be FL-able. RIght now there are only 13 entries! Nergaal (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2007 (Canada) (2nd nomination). Nergaal (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest withdrawal The status of this article is uncertain, leading to instability concerns. Can you wait until after the deletion discussion and collateral are resolved before renominating? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination Man... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:03, 6 June 2009 [22].

Nominator(s): Hello32020 (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this to become a featured list, because I believe it meets the FL criteria. It is fairly short, but I believe it is comprehensive for the topic at hand. Now, one thing that may be asked is why some life spans are omitted: this is due to lack of information regarding their life spans (which I have attempted to look for). The article on the person may even have info on their life span, but these dates appear to be original research. Hello32020 (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Hello32020 (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this list appears to be a content fork of Reserve Bank of Australia and this can reasonably be able to merge with it. I will most likely oppose per Wikipedia:Featured list criteria 3b, but I will hold it until others have commented.—Chris! _ct 19:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - This list is not a content fork, although a few sentences of it are a summary of the article you referred to. Other then that and the table being similar, the list incorporates the significance of the role of the Governor as the head of the Reserve Bank of Australia. This is significant enough to make it a separate list. Hello32020 (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per 3b. There's no second guessing on my part. The content of this page can be a very good section in the main article. There's absolutely no need to have a separate page.--Crzycheetah 20:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose—3b. The table already exists in the main article, and whatever relevant information that is in the lead here could added into the governors section of the main article, in probably two paragraphs. The lifetime of the governors) is irrelevant and should be omitted. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw - Due to the consensus being against my argument, I will withdraw this nomination and merge the new information and table, which I will remove the life spans from, into the article. When I complete that, I will redirect the list to the article in question. Hello32020 (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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