Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/June 2011

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 21:22, 30 June 2011 [1].

Nominator(s): Mdw0 (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... this list is - well written with an engaging introduction, comprehensive and contains little argument (a miracle for a list of national inventions). It covers the entire history of the subject, has a chronological structure which clearly shows the development and increasing sophistictaion of the topic, and uses photos without overusing them. There are very few technological lists with FL status, but I believe this one has a good chance of getting it. [User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

• Oppose I advise that you withdraw this FLC and work on it some more. MOS:LEAD and MOS:BOLD issues, WP:CITATION format problems. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Adabow. This is not even close to meet the FL criteria. Please go through WP:PR, check recent FLs on the same subject, and then re-nominate. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 21:22, 30 June 2011 [2].

Nominator(s): JuneGloom Talk 23:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles and I thought we'd take you back in time to the 2001 awards season with The Hours. I started working on this list many months ago and could never have got it finished and nominated without the help and advice of my FLC buddy. We look forward to your comments. Thank you. - JuneGloom Talk 23:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Oppose
  • A sentence should be added to the first paragraph telling the readers what the film is about.
    • Done. - JuneGloom Talk 20:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meryl Streep should be linked in the lead.
    • Done - JuneGloom Talk 20:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The should be a note or something that implies more clearly that when readers click on a date, it will take them to that year's ceremony. Maybe we can have something like this: "March 23, 2003 (75th)".
  • What criteria is used to decide what awards to include? Is this a full list or an incomplete one?
    • I usually try to include every award that I can get my hands on. However, this film came out quite a few years ago and there were some awards ceremonies that I couldn't find any sources for, so I guess it is incomplete. - JuneGloom Talk 20:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's time to put the {{Dynamic list}} template on all of these awards lists. Those awards, that you couldn't find sources for, can be listed in the talk page, so that other editors would look for sources as well and update the list accordingly.--Cheetah (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, that question could typically be asked of every single "accolades" or "awards" list we have on Wikipedia. I'm interested in the answer! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How reliable is evalu8.org?
    • I'd put it as borderline, looking at their self-description. That said, I'm striking out entirely on replacing the source. Unless someone comes up with something, I guess the Vancouver awards will have to come out. Courcelles 00:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Cheetah (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Yeah, echoing the comment from Cheetah above, what's the criteria used to decide exactly which awards are presented here? I would guess it's those with Wikipedia articles but how does a reader (or a keen reviewer) know you've comprehensively covered this? Note: this is something that's been on my mind a bit, it's not specific to this list, in fact I'll start a thread on WT:FLC about it shortly, so please don't feel it's a personal issue.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as that source's reliability has not been addressed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 21:22, 30 June 2011 [3].

Nominator(s): Truco ⁵⁰³ 02:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back with an annual Draft list, modeled after the previous year's list with a few changes. Other than probably grammar or some type of prose problems that come up every year, I feel that this list satisfies the FL criteria. Truco ⁵⁰³ 02:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Numerous prose problems, but mainly... where's the notability? I don't see a single source connected unconnected with WWE, or anything to indicate this is important in any way at all, and not just a non-notable episode of a TV show. Courcelles 23:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "numerous prose problems" doesn't help any list out, especially it being WP:WEASEL talk. Notability is established on the basis of previous lists. See all the other draft FLs. --Truco ⁵⁰³ 01:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "two of the draft picks consisted of the same wrestler, John Cena—being selected to SmackDown with the first pick and back to Raw with the last." Yet the list indicates that Sheamus was the last selection. One example out of at least a dozen before I stopped reading. And I was trying to give you the courtesy of time to find independent refs before I sent this straight to AFD. As it stands, if there's not actual coverage from independent sources, not only should this not be featured, it shouldn't even be an article. Courcelles 01:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment okay, there is an issue with notability that must be resolved. All references are WWE or Tweets from WWE employees (which presumably are as fictional as the WWE in any case). Does anyone outside the WWE believe this event to be notable in any way? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've removed sources from WWE and have replaced them with sources from other reliable third-party websites. --Truco ⁵⁰³ 23:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Last, but not least, are we comfortable using Twitter as a source? The social networking sites as a group aren't the greatest in the world for encyclopedia purposes, and they don't seem to be adding much to the section they're in anyway. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The only reason its here is to verify the comments made by the Superstars, just as WWE advertised on television that twitter had their comments.--Truco ⁵⁰³ 03:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll leave this one up in case in any other reviewers want to offer their thoughts. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, leaning towards agreeing with Courcelles. This should be archived, and a copyedit over at GOCE should be done. Once that's done this shouldn't do too bad on the 2nd try. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 18:01, 27 June 2011 [4].

Nominator(s): Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it seems to be of the same quality of other featured lists of similar topics Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Transcluded Dabomb87 (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• "however the Confederation building is located outside of the downtown." Since "building" is capitalized in the previous sentence, and the name is capitalized in the building's name, shouldn't it be capitalized here as well?
• Another capitalization issue: the first photo capitalizes Harbour and the third doesn't.
• In the headings above the tables, remove the commas in the dates (for example, the one in February, 2011).
• The hyphens in the Height and Floors columns should be changed to dashes of some type.
• The photos don't sort, so the sorting function may as well be removed from that column.
• In the second table, make the hyphen in Job Street - Hamilton Avenue an en dash, and add a hyphen to "3 storey" in the note.
• Remove all caps in the title of reference 6.
• References 4 and 6 need publishers.
• Typos in a few reference titles: "SkyscrapeerPage.com". One e too many.
• Also, the p in Page isn't capitalized in one of the citations, and is in all of the others. They should be consistent.
• The publisher for references 20, 21, and 23 (The Telegram) should be italicized since it's a printed publication. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Doesn't seem like my comments have been addressed, and some of the ones below don't appear to have been taken into account either. It's not like they were posted yesterday; there's been enough time to at least acknowledge the comments here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Great images, but too many for the amount of prose. Also, at least one of them seems doubled. Remove at least half of those outside the table. Alternatively you could increase the amount of text. I'd leave one overview/panorama and the Water Street image.
• It would be interesting to discuss (or at least mention) the reasons for the height regulations in the intro.
• In 2010 the city amended height regulation for a small area of Water Street to allow for higher density buildings. How is the "height" connected with the "density". Possibly needs some explanation.
• I think that empty table cells should be filled with a centered long dash instead of a hyphen. You can use {{center|—}} to achieve this.
• Make the image column unsortable.
• Why are there different accuracies for the building heights (45.7 versus 45 meters)?
• I'd consider making an extra table column "Type" for "Office, Hotel, Religious,...".
• Why is this list incomplete? "List of tallest buildings in..." type lists should be complete in my opinion since they have a clear selection criterion (buildings taller than X meters).
• The projects could do with a short intro.
• What is the meaning of "50~ m", "55~ m", etc?
• Construction of 351 Water Street (set for completion next year) has not started yet?
• The "Notes" column should be made unsortable.
• Add more categories (at least one that is specific to St. John's).
• Not essential, but the image captions could be a bit more descriptive, e.g. mentioning from where the image is taken or if there is anything particular in it.

bamse (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing:

• I personally don't care much for imperial units, but since you have feet in the intro and since this list is about a northamerican topic, I think you should also have feet in the tables. You can use {{convert}} to convert automatically. bamse (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 18:19, 23 June 2011 [5].

Nominator(s): TGilmour (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I'm sure it meets the criteria. It is fraught with reliable sources, etc. TGilmour (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comments
  • needs consistency in capitalisation, e.g. "Heavy Metal" or "heavy metal" or "Heavy metal"?

Fixed. TGilmour (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Clumsy sentences like "online certification-publishing covers certifications issued since 1997, however there is evidence of earlier certifications" – should be avoided.
  • What does "Country of origin" means? Boney M. for example are Jamaicans/Aruban, but their records were recorded in Germany by German producers.

It means the place where the band was formed. TGilmour (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • In the references, I see a lot of overlinking (IFPI for example) and written in italicface, which is false (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry — Switzerland for example); also since when has Hung Medien anything to do with IFPI? I see no language, format parameters (62 for example); how reliable is about.com; spaced m-dashes are false, see also WP:MDASH and WP:NDASH, choose between spaced n-dash or unspaced m-dash; some genres should be wikilinked, e.g. "Mariachi"--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 10:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Mainly because none of this is your work. My friend Harout is the editor who basically watched over and crafted this page, so I don't understand why an editor who is basically unaffiliated with the page is nominating his work? Also, this page is not stable, as it is still going through extensive changes. Since you nominated, 20,000 bits of information was added (in only 2 days), leading me to believe its not a stable article, possibly due to te fact that the main contributor is not aware of this nomination.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TGilmour, your eight edits to this list barely register you in the top 250 contributors. Have you notified at least the top six contributors (of whom Harout has made well over one thousand edits to this list) of this nomination? I'll be withdrawing it unless I see some assurance that the major contributors are in agreement with this nom. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RM. I actually had a conversation with Harout regarding this. In short, this nomination was started without consent or prior knowledge from any of the article's top contributors. This editor seems to either not understand the blatant disrespect of trying to pass someone elses own work as your own, or doesn't care. I second the withdrawal.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 20:36, 21 June 2011 [6].

Nominator(s): Moray An Par (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am renominating this for featured list because I feel that it can garner discussion now regarding its improvement and promotion. Moray An Par (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: Lede is rather short and could do with some work. Right now it struggles to meet the second criterion in that it doesn't define inclusion criteria. In the honorary degrees section, if you're listing only the year, the second entry should not have "April". I'm also not sure this doesn't fail criterion 3b. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead has been expanded. As for the coverage, this is pretty much everyone. I've already searched Wikipedia and Google for alumni et al. Moray An Par (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: you already have List of De La Salle University people nominated at FLC, currently without support. Please see the instructions which state you should not run more than one nomination at a time unless all comments on the first are resolved and you have significant support. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I wasn't aware of that. So what now? Moray An Par (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Select one which you'd be prepared to see through to promotion or otherwise and request the other be withdrawn. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that we can put this one on hold similar to GANs? Moray An Par (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have such a mechanism at FLC I'm afraid, so one will have to be withdrawn. You'll need to tell us which one. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaaah. Since the DLSU list has more responses, this one will have to be withdrawn. Moray An Par (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 20:19, 19 June 2011 [7].

Nominator(s): Vibhijain 12:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it contains most of the national symbols of India with notes and pictures. Vibhijain 12:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Transcluded Dabomb87 (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-fail - generous transclusion.

• Bold links in the lead.
• Inadequate lead.
• Broken tables.
• Red linked image.
• Bare URLs in the references.
• Links to Wikipedia and answers.com are not reliable.

A long way to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - much of the content is unreferenced, and of the 17 refs that are present (at the time of my writing this) 13 are not reliable sources -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 20:19, 19 June 2011 [8].

Nominator(s): Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because a lot of care has been put into it's production and maintenance. It is the centerpiece for a number of lists and article focusing on mixed martial arts and mixed martial arts fighters. It has been organized clearly and categorically, with a consistent format carried throughout the list. It is well cited, and those citations all meet standards of expected Wikipedia citations. A lead in as well as explanatory paragraphs have been crafted to neither be repetitive nor circuitous. It has generally been modeled off of other Wikipedia featured lists and generally meets or exceeds a similar level of quality. As a quick note I noticed that one of the criteria was sortable tables, which I understand but feel might be a bit useless for this page, and thus I haven't done it. It could be very easily remedied if necessary.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'm not entirely sure of how this process works, but I clicked on a link to leave comments about this and it brought me here, so this is where I think I'm supposed to leave comments. I'd like to expand on the feeling Thaddeus Venture has for this list. It is a very concise and thorough list which contains a pretty defined "lineage" of title changes throughout multiple (more than 7 or 8) MMA organizations. I feel the list contains neutrality and sticks solely to the facts. It is updated and maintained on atleast a weekly basis (from what I can tell... I have this page watched) and there are always good discussions by participants on the talk page regarding how this list should progress, and what to add/remove from it. In my opinion, it exemplifies what a "featured list" should be. I apologize if my support for this being a featured list is in the wrong area to discuss, and thanks for reading this. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 19:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Transcluded at 04:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

• Why are three subsections the level below the others?
• Don't use flags without country names per WP:MOSFLAG.
• Not keen on the table in the lead.
• Don't use acronyms before the expanded use (MFC for instance).
• No images?
• Where are "number of title defenses" referenced?
• Bellator is a dab.
• Check WP:REF for how to place refs (e.g. without spaces between them and text).
• References need to comply with WP:DASH, need to have no over-capitalisation, no unreliable sources (what makes poster-boy.co.uk, bloodyelbow, etc etc reliable?)

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could offer a brief response here to these questions. As to the subsection, that is clearly explained in the intro, which would lead me to assume you did not read the intro. The flags, acronyms, and dashes are all reasonable problems, but seem fairly minor and correctable. As for reference to title defenses and pictures I would argue that I have seen other, similar featured lists with no pictures and fewer citations, specifically TV episode oriented lists. Also, what is "dab". Finally as for sources I am unsure what makes these not good sources (I admit the poster boy one may need to be removed, but it is only one in a 100).Thaddeus Venture (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"that is clearly explained in the intro, which would lead me to assume you did not read the intro" - please assume good faith - I would imagine that, as one of the FL directors, TRM is pretty clued-up on how to review a FLC...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that instead of brief responses, you could act on the comments and perhaps show a little empathy to the FLC community who have transcluded your incomplete nomination on your behalf and reviewed it. As for the subsectioning, where is this delineation referenced? "Those titles have been and will be recognized as subdivisions under their common weight class." is all very well but it's uncited. A "dab" is a link to a disambiguation page which means it's not direct enough. Arguing you've "seen other, similar featured lists..." for various issues is fine but pretty much the same as OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Times have moved on, standards have improved, we'd prefer (although we don't mandate) a lead image as a minimum, and citations are needed wherever reasonably requested. Reliable sources are explained at WP:RS. The onus is on the nominator to prove reliability of sources when questioned. Anything you deem to be "minor and correctable" should be easily fixed, so I look forward to seeing that. More comments will follow in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my previous comments came across as dismissive or rude, I meant them as a request for clarity, not a call to arms. A statement like "Why are three subsections the level below the others?" is much different than "Where is this delineation referenced? "Those titles have been and will be recognized as subdivisions under their common weight class." is all very well but it's uncited." I am fine with the explanation that standards have changed; in part, I guessed as much which is why I did not complete the nomination myself. I would however point out that as standards change, it may be important to tag featured articles that no longer meet standards. I'm not going to rail against this page not being up to snuff, but if I feel that any criticism is incomplete or does not reflect the standards of Wikipedia's featured lists, I think it is not too much for me to question the validity of such criticism as standing in the way of my nomination. Essentially statements like "Not keen on the table lead." lead to a general air of dismissiveness. If you would like to point out that it looks under developed and is potentially unnecessary, and could reference a better organized table that could do the same job more simply I would be much more likely to take such criticisms with the merit they deserve.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also quick minor point, how do I prove the reliability of the source? Do they need to send Wikipedia an email, or is it enough for me to say that it as an article by a group of paid journalists working as an unbiased news publication about mixed martial arts? Thaddeus Venture (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We regularly "tag" pages that no longer meet the requirements of current standards, hence an active WP:FLRC section. The "not keen on the table lead" was actually "not keen on the table in the lead", and I apologise if you're not clear with my meaning. I don't recall seeing tables in the lead really, and it's inappropriate really, recently (i.e. within the last year or so) promoted FLs would use a summary table like this at the end of the article, not in the lead. We're looking for a decent set of prose in the lead (imagine it as a FAC lead), not a table. As for all the other issues you note as being minor and correctable, as I've said, I look forward to seeing them resolved. There's a noticeboard for dubious sources, here, which may help you when asked to prove the reliability of sources used in the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good good, it's fine by me for you to say it needs to be removed "I'm not keen" sounds like your thinking of personal preferences and not strict guidelines. I am happy to say however, with the possible exception of the posterboy link, all my other sources are in good reliable standing as coming from notable, or reasonably notable MMA sources published as journalistic articles. I'm sorry if I seem defensive or if I'm making you drag out this process unnecessarily, and if you don't feel it worth your time to respond to any of my questions or statements I take no offense in you doing so. I am just looking for as much clarity and straightforwardness as possible before I think of proceeding with any number of format changes. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, we probably don't have a criterion which says "avoid using tables in the lead", I guess we leave that to common sense. As for other questions and statements, could you clarify which I haven't adequately responded to. I take pride in doing a complete job here so I'd hate to leave any stone unturned. As for RS's, I'll do a ref-by-ref analysis and let you, in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refs - just a couple of early questions in case I wander down a pointless path...

• Ref 1 - (http://sfuk.tripod.com/articles_04/criticisms_mma.html directs to a tripod.com website), clearly a DIY website or blog, so please clarify the reliability of it.
• Ref 5 - fighters.com claims to be a "social networking site" with "100% original content", how is that reliable?
• Is ref 18 bloodyelbow.com or sportsblogs.inc? We generally avoid blogs as they're not considered reliable.
• Ref 23 - is there any evidence that kingofthecage.com is reliable?

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I have corrected the first two links to more reputable sources, as I would agree those were lacking. As for bloodyelbow.com, I am unsure it that it would qualify as an unreliable source. It is not a blog, it is a journalistic enterprise comprised of a number of writers conducting interviews, attending shows, and generally writing about Mixed Martial Arts, it is however published by Sportsblogs Incorporated, for it's domain name, so if that disqualifies it, there is very little information contained therin that would be inaccessable otherwise. It could be removed as a source if necessary. As for kingofthecage.com, they have been sourced as a provider of information on their own events. It may be possible, although somewhat difficult to find this information elsewhere. I would assume that they provide their event information reliably, but I can see how this may not be enough to make them a reliable source.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking to anything you may need to point out more clearly, having reviewed the link, and dealt with similar issues in the past, I am thoroughly confused by the idea of the WP:DASH if you could just give a very quick example of: change bob's-your-uncle to ___________. I would appreciate it. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  This should show you what we're looking for, spaced en-dashes rather than spaced hyphens. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is super helpful, is that just a special character?

Yes, you can get it by clicking on the first dash in the toolbox underneath the edit box next to the "insert" drop-down box. It's an en-dash. The slightly longer one next to it is an em-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – The quality of the sourcing isn't what I expect to see in an FL. I can see something like Sherdog being reliable, but there are a few too many bloodyelbow.coms, MMAjunkie.coms, and Pro MMA Nows, to name just a few. How do we know that the information these sites provide can be trusted? I doubt that most of the MMA sites can be considered reliable sources. Part of the problem is that many of the organizations included are not well covered by the media, but that's no excuse for Georges St. Pierre being cited to MMAjunkie, for example (he's gotten some media coverage, last time I checked). The mainstream media actually does cover some of these championships, and its articles should be used here instead of MMA sites of questionable reliability. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a good point, but I am unsure as to why sites like MMAjunkie.com and bloodyelbow.com wouldn't be considered solid sources, they both generally conduct themselves as reasonably reputable journalistic entities (at least as far as sports are concerened) part of the problem with the citations I need to find is that they must explicitly state when a competitor won a title, and how many times he has defended it (for the title defenses). Many main stream outlets aren't going to have that kind of info. I could probably find a better source for GSP, but that won't make much difference to the overall source material as it would be one citation out of 100. I might be able to make all citations sherdog/espn/yahoo, but I would be interested to hear your specific guidelines for citations as I think mine meet wikipedia's.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can make the sources stronger by using the best possible references (like the three you mention at the end of your comment), by all means do it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 19:52, 19 June 2011 [9].

Nominator(s): That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 21:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lost (season 5) is a fully referenced, high-quality article and is one of the best television lists I can find. It meets all criteria for featured lists and therefore deserves inclusion. Thank you for reading and deliberating. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 21:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - nom is not a significant editor of the article. Having said that, though, most of the significant editors seem to have retired..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, yes most editors have retired and while I am not a significant editor of the article, I am a frequent contributor to the Lost project. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 20:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Hello, I am one of the semi-retired significant contributors mentioned above. The reception section needs work, as it misrepresents how many Emmys the season was nominated for, saying three instead of six. The section also needs to be edited for manual of style, as it mentions an episode title without quotation marks. The production section jumps between past and present tense, probably because the article has been inconsistently edited from when the season was airing versus after. The references are largely very well done, but there are a few inconsistencies and dead links. The cast section is especially outdated, as it uses media reports about whether certain cast members of prior seasons will be reprising their roles, containing sentences such as "Kristin Dos Santos of E! online has reported that Sterling Beaumon reprises his role of young Ben for four episodes in the second half of the season" and "Recurring guest stars Alan Dale and John Terry who play billionaire Charles Widmore and deceased Christian Shephard, respectively, may be promoted to the main cast for the sixth season, according to Entertainment Weekly's Michael Ausiello." The section also gives undue weight to random casting tidbits that leaked prior to the season airing that have come to be insignificant in the long run. Sorry, but the article clearly has not been copyedited or even looked over that much by the nominator. Best, –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello there, I'm the nominator, and I was wondering if there was any way I could bring this to a close, seeming as it seems unlikely for it to be featured and I have a secondary article that I'd like to be featured? That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 16:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 21:05, 12 June 2011 [10].

Nominator(s): ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria, after a copy-edit of the lead by a friendly wikipedian. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Are page numbers avaliable for reference 11 (the Finnish book)? If so, provide them. Also, if the content of the book is in Finnish, there should be a note indicating that in the cite, like in several other references.

asked

• What makes refs 43 to 46 reliable sources?

ref 43 is ultimatelly reliable; it has screenshots of the vinyl records, how is it not reliable? Ref 44 is also reliable, as the information about the releases has been collected by several magazines, books and newspapers; see below. Don't know what happened with ref 45, so I removed it. I am not sure about ref 46; it seems like it is a thrustworthy textfile (with several appearances in other sites), which includes the e mail of the author and a copyright statement.

Will leave this unstruck so that other reviewers can offer comments if they want to. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Pretty sure we shouldn't be linking to MySpace even as an external link. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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