Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/March 2008

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

The list was not promoted 13:13, 24 March 2008.

I'm nominating this list as well-structured, sourced (while the reflist is small, it does cover all the information in the article), and satisfying the criterion outlined in WP:WIAFL. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 16:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Neutral - only five (5!!!) references, nothing about the history. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 19:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of references is worthless. If the entire article can be referenced by one reliable source which covers all the information in the article, that's plenty. Also, the history is in the article; this is strictly a list, not an article. I suggest you read WP:LIST for an idea of what lists are. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I see that you're new; I'm sorry for biting you. I suggest you read WP:LIST to see why the history isn't appropriate for this list, and should be in the parent article, International Mathematical Olympiad. Additionally, five references are quite good enough if they cover the information in the list. See WP:V. Cheers, Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm neutral, I don't like the graphic, it can be better. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 10:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Do those two books in the references cover the earlier events?
  • Yes. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• MOS:DATE gives details of how dates should be written out, wikilinked and such.
  • A start... Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "№" is usually given as "number" or occasionally "#" if space doesn't allow for the full word. Here it does.
  •  Done Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The dates don't sort correctly because of how they're formatted. It's currently sorting them by the day the event started, not by year
• The references should use as many fields of {{cite web}} as possible. Not even an access date is included right now.
  •  Done Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Removed the column for websites, include those as external links, and make a separate column for refs. Then use each different page listed at the website used in reference [4]. (Obviously other sources will be needed for those before 1995.)
  • Almost  Done, will finish in morning. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done
• Ref [1] and [5] are the same webpage, and they look like one of those sites that copy Wikipedia word-for-word and pass it off as their own. I'm not sure it's WP:reliable.
  • Fixed, and I think it's reliable. It doesn't seem ot have any direct text lifts off WP, and I doubt it was copied from it. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it possible to "put this on hiatus" or something similar? I'm going on a wikibreak until April, so I can't really address issues. Or, just fail it if there's no other way. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not ask someone else who's been editing the article to take over the nomination? Alternatively, someone here might take it up. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 23:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, I'm back early, so I guess this never became an issue. I'll start addressing your points now... Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Several fixes are necessary.
  1. The second paragraph of the lead is too short; either merge with the first one or expand.
  •  Done Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In the lead, it is stated "...and the websites of the olympiads", sounds strange since the websites are only used as references.
  2. I have to disagree with Matthew, "number' widens the first column and leaves too much space; "#" sign is a lot better.
  •  Done Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Split the "venue" column into "city" and "country", so that readers could sort by countries, as well.
  •  Done Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The "date" column looks bad. I suggest using {{dts2}} for the first date and link the months and days for the second dates.
  2. The second note "olsen 2004" needs page numbers and doesn't need to be linked. Same thing for note #6, "Lord 2001".
  •  Done, but I think the links are useful, so I kept them. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Crzycheetah 01:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This doesn't organize a group of articles; listing venues seems weak on "useful" (1a) to me. I don't see the point of making it sortable, as the dates are (or should be) parallel to number, and you can't reliably sort on venue since some were in two locations. Unless this is going to be expanded to include something about participants or results, it could all be cited to one book, right? Gimmetrow 07:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I suppose it could, but listing participants or results doesn't seem very connected to me. In fact, there's a separate list for that, linked in the "See also" section. Also, it seems quite useful to me: limited scope doesn't necessarily imply uselessness. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for the moment...
  • Avoid links in the bold sentence in the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
  •  Done Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image captions are fragments so don't need a full stop.
  •  Done Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dates go haywire, they should be formatted to meet WP:DATE.
  • Why is ref [5] not centrally aligned.
  •  Done Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are only some of the IMOs referenced? Are the others covered by a general reference?
  • Yes, see note 6. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hope the comments help. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't close this yet, as the painstaking task of formatting the dates and splitting the "venue" column should be completed soon. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted 17:28, 28 March 2008.

I would like to suspend this FLC to modify its scope. I am going to include all four year accredited schools, not just public. Thanks, PGPirate 14:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up this article and brought it hopefully to FL status. I used List of colleges and universities in New Hampshire and List of colleges and universities in Vermont as a template. The only potiential hangup could be the photos included. Not sure if their fairuse is ok. PGPirate 19:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• The logo in the header needs a fair use rationale for this particular article. Done
• As does Image:Www.uncfsu.jpg, Image:NCCU seal.gif, Image:Uncwlogo.gif, Image:WCU Seal.gif, and Image:Athletic ram color full.jpg. Some of them don't have any rationale and will find themselves deleted eventually. Done
  • Deleted
• The free images should be moved over to the Commons Done
  • Deleted
• With the number of non-free images in use, it fails to meet the third criteria, and the remaining images, while looking nice, are so small that they're not worth including anyway. Done
  • Agreed, deleted
• The title says "public", and each cell in the "control" column says public. As they're all the same, it's better to just remove it. Done
  • I assumed that, but wanted another opinion
• Why is the enrolement column not centered? Done
  • Looked centered on my other computer, woopes.

So there's a little bit to be getting on with, but until the image rationales are fixed, it'll have to be an oppose Done. (And even when they are fixed, there's still too many) -- Matthew

More

•  Done"All 16 universities are accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Colleges" needs citing
  • It is cited in the Reference column, but I will try to find a stand-alone cite as well.
•  Done"state-supported, residential school" I'd remove the comma
•  Done"The UNC System houses two medical schools and one teaching hospital, a veterinary school, two law schools, a school of pharmacy, 15 schools of education, ten nursing programs, three schools of engineering, and a school for performing artists." is waaaaaaay longgg. Can it be broken into two sentences?
•  DoneAre the years the colleges were founded referenced by the refs in the rows?
  • Yes
•  DoneWrite "NC A&T State" as "North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State"
  • Even though that is not a common title?
    • That's the Wikipedia title, and I think the list should deal in official names, rather than common names.
•  DoneWhat do the double hyphens (--) signify in some of the "Carnegie Classification" cells signify? Done
  • Nothing, it was how it was on the Carnegie website.
    • I'd remove them then. They do nothing to enhance the article and the usage in some and not the others is abstract
•  DoneWhat does "Carnegie Classification" mean?
  • Should I write a sentence in the lede about Carnegie Classification?
    • If you can. While the content of the column can probably aid in helping the reader figure out what it means, an explaination would be better. BTW, is it an official term?
      • Is what an official term?
        • "Carnegie Classification" -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 16:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nevermind, after reading the article, I see that it is. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 16:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  DoneIt might be worth including the county as well as city in the location.
  • Before I do it, Should the format go as follows: Greenville - Pitt County?
    • Well I'd do Greenville, Pitt County. There might not be disambiguity in all the county names though. Like there's only one LA County, and [[LA County]] will take you there, but there's more than one Orange County, so [[Orange County, California]] is needed as opposed to [[Orange County]]. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 01:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's it I think, and I've also stricken my "oppose", as the images are now removed. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 00:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -  DoneI was stopped in my tracks in the intro when I observed that different sentences included in the intro have not yet been woven together completely. The passage that stopped me was "The largest university, North Carolina State University ... houses the state's only veterinary school," immediately followed by "The UNC System houses ... a veterinary school...." --Orlady (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Changed sentence information to include PULSTAR, instead of veterinary school.

• Oppose, for several reasons:
  • I find that the list article duplicates the scope of an embedded list in the article University of North Carolina. The other list contains more information than this one (including some items that seem excessive) but is not formatted as effectively. There is no purpose in having two lists with the same scope, and there is definitely no purpose in splitting off a list from the parent article if the split-off list has less detail than was already provided in the parent article. The two lists should be merged, IMO. Considering that their scope is limited to the 16 4-year institutions in the University of North Carolina System, the best place to maintain the list is the article about the UNC system (not this separate "public universities" list). If there is a desire to create a featured-class list of Universities and colleges in North Carolina, the list ought to include all of them (similar to those featured lists for New Hampshire and Vermont).
  • I am bothered by the fact that both lists identify schools solely by their nicknames, rather than official names (for example, "NC Central" in lieu of North Carolina Central University).
  •  DoneInformation about Carnegie Classification is handled far more deftly in the New Hampshire list. That is, the heading in the New Hampshire table is simple, the terminology in the table body is simplified, elements are linked, and the classification system is documented by a footnote (rather than a paragraph in the intro, where its placement seems awkward).
    • So I should be less specific with the information?
  •  DoneThe heading for the "enrollment" column ought to include the date, instead of relegating that key information item to a footnote.
  •  DoneThe second sentence in the introduction, "There are 16 institutions which are administered by the University of North Carolina System" leaves me asking "how many public institutions are there that aren't administered by the UNC System?" The answer, of course, seems to be that this is a list of the state's 16 public four-year universities, all of which are administered by the University of North Carolina System. More direct writing is needed in the lead.
  • The introduction includes several seemingly disconnected factoids about the system and some of the individual schools. As a reader, I find this collection of factoids problematic. Some, but not all, of the factoids are also in the table, and when I read some of the others, I wonder why they are in the intro and not also the table. A quick dissection of the sentences:
    • "The oldest university, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, first admitted students in 1795." (Note that the table uses a different name for this school.) It probably is useful for the intro to identify the oldest and the newest components of the UNC System, but it may be more confusing than helpful to say that UNC-Chapel Hill first admitted students in 1795 when the table says it was founded in 1789.
      • The school was chartered in 1789, but didn't "accept students" until 1795.
    •  Done"The smallest and newest school, North Carolina School of the Arts, with 845 students, is the first state-supported residential school for the arts in the nation, opened its doors in 1963." Interesting, but is it necessary to mention the enrollment when this is also in the table? Is there a citation for the fact about "first state-supported residential school for the arts in the nation"? Also, should the article indicate that some of this school's students are high school students?
    • "The largest university, North Carolina State University, with 31,130 students, houses the PULSTAR nuclear reactor." I doubt that many of those 31,130 students would consider a nuclear reactor to be the most significant fact about their school. If I were choosing a brief description of the salient features of this school, I would probably start by saying that it is the state's land-grant university. If more detail is desired, it would be useful to mention "historical strengths in agriculture, design, engineering, and textiles". (This info comes from the lead section of North Carolina State University.)
      • The PULSTAR is something that makes NCSU unique to the state. Plus, NC A&T is a land-grant school as well.
    •  Done"The UNC System houses two medical schools and one teaching hospital, ten nursing programs and a school of pharmacy. Also, the public universities has a veterinary school, two law schools, 15 schools of education, three schools of engineering, and a school for performing artists." This is information that I would expect to find before the details about individual schools, not after...
  • Before seeing the list in University of North Carolina, I was thinking that this list should provide some additional detail about the individual schools, notably including identification of HBCUs (that's an item included in that other table). Considering including key details such as being an HBCU or a land-grant university...
• To summarize, my bottom-line recommendation is that the embedded list at University of North Carolina should be improved and this list should be expanded to become a list of all of the state's colleges and universities. --Orlady (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (from a purely outside view)

• Why is North Carolina wiklinked twice in three sentences?
• Link "bachelor degrees".
• "...the public universities has a ..." - English?
• "by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Colleges." - not sure I get this, is the phrase after the comma part of the title of the stuff before the comma?
• "Enrollment As of Fall 2006" - why over capitalise...?
• Same with "Carnegie Classification".
• Centrally align references.
• Left align classification and location columns.
• Why are there refs in classification column when you have a specific ref column?

That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur with Orlady. I'd suggest renaming to "List of universities and colleges of North Carolina" and expanding along those lines. Then you'd really have something interesting, and it wouldn't overlap as much with the University of North Carolina article. You're a proficient writer, and I think you could easily expand it without too much additional effort. Good work on what you've got so far, though. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted 13:13, 24 March 2008.

I propose that the article listing "Maillot jaune statistics" becomes a featured list because it meets the criteria:

1a. It is useful because it brings together the cyclists that ever leaded the Tour de France.

1b. It is comprehensive because all cyclists that ever got a yellow jersey is in the list.

1c. It is factually accurate because the sources are given.

1d. It is uncontroversial.

1e. It is stable (no major changes for more than a year, only additions).

1f. It is well-constructed (at least that is my opinion).

2a. The lead section summarizes the article and is short by itself.

2c. A good table of contents.

Criteria 2b and 3 do not apply in my opinion; there is no hierarchy, and images (other than flags) are not appropriate.EdgeNavidad (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think {{Tour de France Yellow Jersey}} belongs on this article, so I added it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments, or still unresolved.

• I would still change the colour of the bright yellow to something more pastelly such as Lemon chiffon (color). WP:OSE isn't a good enough reason for its usage here, especially considering how much of the page is shaded in it.
• The first table; either change the headings from Points, KOM and Young Rider to Green, Polka dot and white. Also, I think this information is better suited to separate Green/polka dot/white shirt statistics page, but if you feel not, some prose in the article as to why its included is needed.
• I found how the translation in the Lead. It should be: (French: Maillot Jaune)
• It looks like all the references are using most of the fields in {{cite web}}, but some corrections still need to be made:
  • [12], [13], and [21]'s dates are messed up. They should be "yyyy-mm-dd".
  • I don't think [20] is necessary
  • What is "ASO" in refs [14] to [19]. The first time its used should be written in full with the abbreviation in brackets.
• Other references are still needed for some of the prose:
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph in the lead,
  • Both sentences of the second,
  • The prose in the "individual records" section,
  • the "Winning Tour de France on first occasion" section,
  • The "Finishing career with Tour de France victory" section,
• Per the MOS, references should be placed directly after punctuation. Currently [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [1] again, [8], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] and [21] do not.

So I'm going to oppose, I think. I suggest taking it to WP:Peer Review and WP:LOC before nominating it again though because there's a lot of prose that just doesn't flow as well as it could, and I'm not sure if the section headings couldn't be improved. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Two in-line citations is a big problem. The list looks fairly good, but that's a deal-breaker. Sources need to specified, with full attribution. Drewcifer (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think I agree with Drewcifer3000. But one thing, what does the years column mean in the Individual records section? Peanut4 (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was explained in the text, but now I added an example for Eddy Merckx. Does this make it clear? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted 16:52, 20 March 2008.

I think this list is WP:FL worthy. Feel free to comment, and edit the article if you think that it needs some tweaking. Gary King (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Comments column is currently being redone. Please write about those in an hour from now. Gary King (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent (and speedy) work! Drewcifer (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PeterSymonds | talk 03:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support The nominator has addressed all of my concerns. PeterSymonds | talk 04:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose If the list is about U.S. recessions, why are there sections on non-U.S. recessions, such as the two Asian/Japanese crises listed at the end??? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done Removed. (We just switched to 'United States' only recessions about 5 minutes ago.) Gary King (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Damn, that was quick. No more issues. Support --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm fast like that. Gary King (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of changes made for the better since first nominated. I was holding out to see if Orlady's two rather major points were addressed, and since they are: Support -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This is an impressive piece of work, and I want to see more FLs about serious topics such as this one, but I must oppose it because of content issues. I looked at the listings, articles, and references for some of the late-20th-century recessions for details on how "recession" was defined and how the beginning and ending dates were determined. I was disappointed not to find what I was looking for. Two specific examples:

• I don't believe that Great Commodities Depression deserves to be labeled a recession (or a depression) at all. It appears to be a 20-year period of depressed commodity prices, not a period of decline in GDP or of negative real economic growth. Note that most of this 20-year period coincided with a 10-year economic expansion that occurred from March 1991 to March 2001.[1]

• Done Good catch. Removed. Gary King (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I was puzzled by the indication that the Late 1980s recession lasted until 1995. (See above reference regarding the economic expansion that began in 1991.) The reference cited in that row of the table didn't explain where those dates came from. The reference is about the stock market crash in October 1987; it doesn't say anything about the state of the economy over the next 8 years, and it most definitely does not say that the economy was in recession for those 8 years. The article Late 1980s recession did not resolve things. Its second paragraph says: "According to the widely-used definition of a recession, two quarters of negative growth, the late eighties recession only covered a brief period in 1987 (although not in the United States, where recession did not hit until 1990), and another in 1990–1991. By measures such as unemployment and public perception, the North American economy was in recession continuously for years after 1987, with only brief periods of revival.^{[citation needed]}" That paragraph hints of original research (it's completely unsourced), and it explicitly states that the United States did not go into recession in 1987.

• Done Removed. I've also tagged the original article. This was originally in the list because the list previously focused on global recessions, but after making the move to focus only on United States-related recessions, this particular one was left behind. Gary King (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This led me to conclude that the article is not nearly ready for featured-list status. I'm no economic historian, but what I see in this article does not appear to be solid economic history.

 Done Additionally, I don't like the way the graphs force the table to be so narrow. Only the Great Depression graph truly illustrates a recession. I would recommend moving that graphic up into the introduction (set the thumbnail width to 300px for readability) and deleting the other images.

Done Gary King (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Orlady (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My concern about the location of the graphics is resolved, but my larger issue about the article content is still open. --Orlady (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very pleased to see the improvements to content since I posted the above comments, but I still have some questions about content. Working backwards in time:

• NBER shows a period of contraction from 1990-1991 -- was this not considered a recession? (It's not in the table.)
• The dates given in the table for Early 1980s recession don't match what I find on NBER or in the article. (That one should be an easy fix.)
• The 1979 energy crisis does not seem to precisely correspond to a "recession" as defined by NBER. Although it was clearly the causative event that led to some economic contractions, NBER did not identify a "peak" until early in 1980, with recovery beginning later in 1980. The article on the energy crisis talks mostly about the price of oil and does not say much about its effect on the overall economic cycle. I wonder if both the article and the list need to be revised; the article to say more about the effects on economic activity around the world and the list to say more about the subtleties of dates for the recession that ensued from the 1979 crisis.

No time right now to finish this process, but I think you can see where I'm going with my comments. This is a nice list, but I want to make sure it's a great list before it gets that "featured" star. --Orlady (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done all of the above except for the last one. Could you link me to the article about that and I can take a look? Gary King (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Regarding the 1979 oil crisis, I think you are asking about sources on the recession that ensued. As I said, I'm no economic historian, so I don't know the best sources, but I've looked at various NBER releases that give insight on what happened to the U.S. economy in 1979 and 1980. In July 1979 the Business Cycle Dating Committee of NBER said that "the evidence is not sufficiently strong at this time to determine whether or not a recession has begun".[2] In October 1979 they said "growth in the economy has apparently faltered in the period since the first quarter of 1979, .... [but] at this time, the various indicators examined by the Committee did not give a clear picture of the current state of the business cycle."[3] In December 1979, they still weren't sure.[4] In June 1980 they finally decided that the economy had peaked in January 1980, beginning a recession.[5] (However, it looks to me like the economy was sick starting in 1979.) In July 1981 they decided that the economy had troughed in July 1980.[6] I found all those links on this page. --Orlady (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed it to 'Late 1970s recession'. That suits the situation better. Gary King (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant to that topic, a Congressional Research Service report on U.S. recessions since World War II says (on page 11): "The contraction of January 1980 to July 1980 lasted only 6 months. However, since the ensuing expansion was only 12 months long, many economists lump this recession and the 1981-1982 recession together." --Orlady (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lumped together. I'd rather be missing a few minor recessions than to have a few that are completely incorrect. Gary King (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next topic (going back in time) is 3 more missing recessions:

NBER shows a recession in the 1969-1970 time frame. According to info in the paper by the Congressional Research Service (2002), the 1969-1970 recession was fairly mild in most measures, but was in a period of relatively high inflation.

Before that, NBER shows a recession in 1960-1961 and an earlier one in 1957-1958. That Congressional Research Service paper reports (on page 11) that the 1957-58 recession had a GDP contraction of 3.7%, which appears to me to have been the largest contraction in U.S. GDP for any post-WWII recession. --Orlady (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to research them all, but http://www.nber.org/cycles/ shows a bunch of additional officially defined recessions that aren't on the current list... If this list is going to call itself "comprehensive," I think it needs to account for all of these events in some manner. This might, of course, sometimes include lumping multiple recessions together (for example, the NBER lists the Great Depression as two separate downturns, but I believe it's fair to lump them together). --Orlady (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended the Recession of 1953 to end in 1958. The primary thing that I want to keep in mind is that every recession that we list should have a comment explaining the reasons as to why the recession took place in the first place. Gary King (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't work for me. The Congressional Research Service makes clear distinctions between those two recessions, only the first of which was related to the Korean War (sorry for the loss of indentation below):

1953-1954. The 1953-1954 recession accompanied the winding down of the Korean War. The stated aim of the government was to offset reductions in military expenditures with reductions in taxes by letting wartime tax increases expire. If this could be done on a 1-to-1 basis, it would have no effect on the budget balance and would constitute a relatively neutral fiscal policy (it would be slightly contractionary since individuals would save some of their tax cuts). In fact, military and non-military spending was reduced more quickly than taxes, and the budget deficit actually shrank from 1.7% of GDP in FY1953 to 0.3% of GDP in FY1954. Thus, fiscal policy can be characterized as contractionary during the 1953-1954 recession since the budget’s automatic stabilizers would have made the deficit rise in the absence of policy changes. Monetary policy was eased right before the recession began, after becoming contractionary in early 1953 to counter what the Fed saw as the emergence of “a bubble on top of a boom.”25 After that point, Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz characterize monetary policy during and after the recession as remaining relatively neutral.26

1957-1958. Two years of tightening monetary policy was followed by an easing of policy at the end of 1957, after the 1957-1958 recession had begun.27 Fiscal policy was eased somewhat through higher government spending, but tax reductions were rejected on the basis that they would lead to unacceptably large budget deficits. The budget balance moved from a budget surplus of 0.8% of GDP in 1957 to a budget deficit of 0.6% of GDP in 1958 and 2.6% of GDP in 1959. But this easing did not exceed the amount provided by automatic stabilizers: the structural surplus was virtually constant from 1956 to 1958.28

--Orlady (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, updated. Gary King (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Nice list, but the four charts are making the table narrower and harder to read. I suggest that you allow it to stretch on the full width of the page and move the graphs. Thank you. Eklipse (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to move the graphs, but I'm not sure how to align them so they make a horizontal row using Wikipedia syntax (I'd know how to do it using only CSS, though.) Gary King (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done You could solve the problem with the graphs by eliminating all but one graph (as I noted above, I would keep the Great Depression graph, as it is the only one that truly illustrates a recession) and move that one graph up into the intro. --Orlady (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done Should look better now. Gary King (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it is better. Great work! Eklipse (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment it would not hurt to have the 'duration' column sortable. Hmains (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Gary King (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't like being a "spoiler," but I continue to have concerns that this attractive list article is sloppy in terms of content. If I felt that I had some expertise in economic history, I'd probably try to expand the article to make it comprehensive, but I don't know enough about this topic to write about it appropriately. Here are some issues I see:
  • With the new title of "financial crises", the list should be re-expanded to include major stock market crashes (such as the 1987 crash) and other "crises" such as the recent subprime mortgage crisis and the earlier Savings and Loan Crisis, whether or not they precipitated recessions in the United States. See List of stock market crashes for crashes that might deserve to be listed.
  • Late 1980s recession is linked in the intro but not in the table. It probably belongs in the description for "Early 1990s recession".
  • The article Recession of 1958 is not linked.
  • Should Panic of 1884 be listed? How about Panic of 1901?
  • Recessions on the NBER list from before the 1950s that don't show up on this list include 1860-61, 1865-67, 1869-70, 1882-85 (may be related to Panic of 1884), 1887-88, 1890-91, 1895-97 (the list dates two other multi-year crises as ending in 1896...), 1899-1900, 1902-04, 1910-12, 1913-14, 1923-24, 1926-27, 1945, and 1948-49.
  • Deflation#Deflation in the United States discusses the "recession of 1836."

I don't know if every one of these needs to be in this article, but when I read a featured list of financial crises, I want to believe that the list is comprehensive and authoritative. This list does not do that yet. --Orlady (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make more sense to move it back to listing recessions only? Someone else, not me, moved it to 'financial crises', and that broadens the scope by quite a bit. Gary King (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh! I didn't realize that was an undiscussed move by an editor who has not been involved with the article. (I figured that the discussion had happened somewhere not on my watchlist...) S/he's correct that "many of the events are not recessions." The new name does expand the scope, but it also means that it's not necessary to split hairs regarding the distinctions between "panics," "recessions" and other types of crises. If the article were still named "recessions," I would continue to be concerned that there are recessions on the NBER list that don't appear in this list article. --Orlady (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so where do we stand? I guess the list should continue to be built up from the new scope and the FL nomination be cancelled? (Since there is no way I will be able to 'complete' the list in the next few days or even weeks.) Also, a new scope would still have to be defined since a lot of events could fall under 'financial crises' I imagine. This list is doomed to failure, methinks... Gary King (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing some slow thinking on this... In many respects, I think it might be better to convert this back into a list of recessions. Inclusion of all kinds of financial crises creates an unfocused list. It appears that the difficulty with focusing on recessions is that the term is less and less well-defined as one goes back in history. "Panics" are much easier to identify. I keep thinking that there must be an economic historian's term that would cover the concept of "recessions and similar major economic setbacks" without inviting the inclusion of lesser events, such as individual bank failures, the subprime mortgage crisis, and the Savings and Loan Crisis, that fit the definition of "crisis". --Orlady (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have to remove any of the items on the list that would generally not be considered recessions before changing the article's title again? Gary King (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer to that. I'm not an authority on this topic. I perceive that this is not an authoritatively comprehensive list of its topic, and I'm hoping that people more knowledgable than I am can help it become a comprehensive list. I do note that the lead explicitly defines the list's scope as broader than "recessions and depressions" ("This is a list of recessions, financial crises, and depressions that have affected the United States") -- and that language was there before the name was changed. --Orlady (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - For the period since 1854 that is covered by the National Bureau of Economic Research's Business Cycle Dating Committee, I think the list of recessions should be consistent with those identified by the NBER [7]. Earlier recessions would need to be added from other reliable sources. The present version of the list omits several of the recessions identified by the NBER. Cournot (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted 19:08, 18 March 2008.

• Useful: It has a clearly defined scope, and is a classification often discussed when talking about Canadian political history.
• Comprehensive: All past and current prime ministers are included.
• Factually accurate: Dates are given by the Library of Parliament and calculations are done by Wikipedia software.
• Uncontroversial and stable: There are no edit wars going on.
• Well-constructed: I think it's pretty well organized.
• Concise lead section: Three short paragraphs.
• Headings and table of contents are not applicable.
• One image that is public domain and captioned.

--Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Needed improvements of --Golbez (talk) 19:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC):[reply]
  • Dates or order. Absolutely no context is given as to when these people held office.
    •  Done I can't really add the order because Canadian politicians don't appear in the order twice when they have a divided term like US politicians do. I'll add the years they served to show when abouts they were around. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use days, not years, since years can have a variable length. It's not a huge issue since none of these figures are identical, but if Borden had stayed in office for only six more days, there would be ambiguity between his and Mulroney's lengths, since one could have two leap years and the other only one. Best to avoid any such possibility.
    • Since none of them are ambiguous, having it in years and days seems a lot more natural to read. Saying that someone was in power for 7,824 days is kind of meaningless until our readers do the math to figure out how long that is. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See List of United States Vice Presidents by time in office for a good model for the above two changes.

Neutral for now at least, until all the other issues raised by other reviewers have been addressed. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Comments of The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC):[reply]

• Year ranges should use the en-dash to separate.
  •  Done Changed. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• References/notes should not have a space before them.
  •  Done Spaces removed. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "While popular prime ministers" - popular is redundant here - unpopular prime ministers can still be re-elected.
  •  Done Rephrased. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Why aren't all headings in the table initially capitalised like Rank?
  •  Done Caps added. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• " As per the Library of Parliament" - this should be explained.
  •  Done Line rewritten. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure the "by time in office" is needed - we've got sortable tables now so you could just axe that and aim for a simple chronological list which could be sorted by duration in office. That makes the list a lot more flexible.
  • That doesn't help in this case, since many of them served nonconsecutive terms. A separate list of total time in office, which this article does, is needed for those matters. --Golbez (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. Fair enough but what is the significance of "...by time in office" as opposed to any other criterion? I'm not sure we need this particular article at all! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have them for many other offices, so there's precedent. I rather like the ones for US Presidents and VPs. --Golbez (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm. WP:ILIKEIT? I believe in the past a large number of lists were created because of a lack of sortability. These lists are now subject to merging with main lists. There must be a better way than to have main lists and then simply reordering them for "by time in office". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is, which is why the earlier linked VP list has value added stuff like the amount of time in office and other notes. Those would be extraneous in a normal list of office holders. --Golbez (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • For heads of government there are usualy many lists sorting them in different ways, by time in office, by religion, etcetera. The main list would be huge if we included them all there; this way keeps each table tidy. The other advantage is that this list has some useful prose at the top about PM term lengths, so that anyone specificly interested in how long each PM served as all the info they need right here, conviniently organized. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • How about if I turned the "mandates" row into prose, like "served served two short terms in minority parliaments" for Pearson? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done; it now has value-added information about each PM's terms. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I have to oppose at the moment, quite a few things that need to be resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment 'prime minister' and 'incumbancy' columns should be sortable to improve the use of this table for the reader. Hmains (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - the "rank" column switches from right-indented (1-9) to left-indented (10-22). Consider splitting the "Mandates" column into two columns, "number of mandates" and "remarks", and making it sortable on "number of mandates".--EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll get to both points about sortable tables when I can get my hands on a different computer tomorrow, as sortable tables don't seem to work well in my browser (Firefox for Mac). How do you think I can make the column with date ranges usefully sortable? The sorting function seems to work with one date, but I doubt it would work with several in the same cell. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted 19:08, 18 March 2008.

previous FLC
previous FLC 2

Third time's a charm, eh? I've updated the list with all players who have played at least 100 games (consistent with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7), which should fill in the gaps that people were concerned with at the last FAC.

• Support as nominator. Teemu08 (talk) 06:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as not including all players who played for the teams as per all the other featured lists of NHL players. Inconsistent with standard set for NHL team player lists. -Djsasso (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose completely un-cited. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 14:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it has several references. Resolute 14:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Incomplete list. Needs to include all players. Resolute 14:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why is hockey held to such a different standard than soccer? The reason why all of the other hockey player FLs are complete is that they're from franchises that are, at most, half as old as the Blackhawks. Teemu08 (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not talking for Resolute but in my opinion simply because the list is missing very important people whom, it is simply just rediculous to leave off if you restrict it to 100 games played. I believe those other pages should have all the other players as well. Perhaps you could join the current drive the hockey project is holding to make all the team player lists into featured lists and work with us on making sure all the teams in the league have the same standards for the lists. By limiting the list in this fashion you are leaving off people who are notable enough to have wikipedia articles, and thus if they are notible enough for an article, they are more than notible enough to be on a list. -Djsasso (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So then, would you agree that all those soccer lists be brought to FLRC? Teemu08 (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yup, if you wanted to bring them to FLRC then I would support them being defeatured there. Personally, I see no reason for not including the other players except being lazy. The players were all there on the page prior to you making your edits. In fact I had started fixing this page after your last FLC nom. I will try and finish it tonight if I have time and can find my copy of the media guide. -Djsasso (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would as well, and will also add that setting a notability threshold of 100 games is arbitrary and POV. Resolute 21:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, then, I'll go ahead and withdraw this and bring forth the onslaught of unhappy soccer fans! :) Teemu08 (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oppose as incomplete, and I would also support delisting any FL if they're not complete, too, not just the soccer ones. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 01:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Indeed, I am currently working on the List of Montreal Canadiens players. According to the Canadiens website, some 700 different players have played for the team. And that just includes the NHL portion, not the 8 years they were in the NHA. It's a tedious task, but it makes for a more complete list. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT This list needs a talk page tag.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mistake, added. Teemu08 (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted 02:53, 5 March 2008.

Why not, its a great list, thoroughly cited and referenced by the most comprehensive Titanic site around, encyclopedia titanica. Lets get this featured --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 00:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have admittedly been quite lazy about updating this, but now that it's being nominated for featured list, I think I'll get the ball rolling and finish up with the second and third class passengers. Morhange (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The lead says it's a "work-in-progress list" and according to my count, there are about 800 names on the list. However, were there not well over 2000 passengers, so is it not an incomplete list? Work on it should be completed, then it can be renominated. A suggestion: there should be an easier way to distinguish who survived and who didn't. So perhaps you should have a survivors table and a perished table in each section. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 06:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Final voyage" or "maiden voyage"?
• the lead needs expanding
• "Numbers 324, 325 and 333 were unused." why? Reference?
• Guarantee Group and band members sentence needs referencing.
• is the body number an officially used number?
• The use of just a lifeboat column makes it sound like they rowed all the way to America, but weren't they picked up by a rescue ship?
• Couldn't the column for Lifeboat be renamed, and used also for the rescue/body recovery ships?
• "and chauffeur, Mr. George Swane", "and cook, Miss Amelia Mary "Mildred" Brown" - Surely "Mr. George Swane, and chauffeur", "Miss Amelia Mary "Mildred" Brown, and cook"
• Why aren't the names and ages of the chauffeurs, cooks and maids given?
• Echoing Scorpion's comments, the list is a work-in-progress and incomplete. Once it is complete, it's going to be enormously long. Can't it be separated into "List of first-class passengers onboard RMS Titanic", "List of second-class passengers onboard RMS Titanic" etc?
• It also could do with being separated by initial letter, so A-D, E-H, I-M, etc

That's it for now to get started, but until the list is actually complete, I can only oppose. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'll try and answer some of these as best I can. The body numbers are officially used numbers by the rescue ships, and I can't find a reason why they skipped those numbers, only that there is no entry for any of them. Possibly there is a gap between numbers because body 323 was picked up by a different ship than body 326, and they left gaps in case additional bodies were found. I added info regarding the band/guarantee group, as well as info about the Carpathia to the opening paragraph. As for George Swane, Mildred Brown, etc, they were the servants. They were traveling along with their employers, and most passenger lists include them with the employers (ie Col Gracie's book, the Women and Children First book, etc) instead of individually, because they traveled on the same ticket.Morhange (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional

• Footnotes and references should be separated.
• References [5], [6], [8]—[14] are irrelelvant to the list.
• Ref [15] needs referencing

-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose, get it finished before nominating. Just a tip, though - sort the "ands" by their last name too. Note that you don't need to have the entry actually look like how it's sorting. There are ways to hide the sort key. But yeah, first finish it. --Golbez (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Definitely a topic worthy of a featured list, but since it's unfinished, it's not quite ready. I hope to see it finished and renominated soon, though. Drewcifer (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted 02:53, 5 March 2008.

Redirected page from Glossary of Texas Aggie terms to List of Texas Aggie terms

Self Nomination: This is the WikiProject Texas A&M's first Featured list candidate. We feel it meets all of the qualifications for a featured list Oldag07 (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I did inform members of WikiProject Texas A&M to help edit concerns that might come up in this review, including BQZip01, BlueAg09, and Karanacs Oldag07 (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The lead is too short and it doesn't pass criteria 1a1 (connects a group of existing articles) which is excuseable by 1a3, but I'm not entirely sure this list is a "significant topic of study" -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment See old deletion page. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Texas Aggie terms Oldag07 (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that it passed an afd still doesn't mean it is a "significant topic of study". It just means it's encyclopedic. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose it is all a matter of perspective, but I would consider a major University in the U.S. a "significant topic.", but I suppose that's all a matter of perspective. Furthermore, there are a few featured articles to which it is linked, so I suppose that also adds to it. Like I said, I suppose it is all a matter of perspective. I suppose the lead could certainly be expanded. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support Lead needs to be expanded, but this one is certainly well-referenced and cohesive. Good read and good information. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Expanded lead Oldag07 (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's much improved already, so I'm changing to neutral. At the moment I'm still concerned about WP:Notability, though. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 17:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support - this article has become a very good resource. It is well-referenced and fits the FL criteria. (Note: I originally created the page, but I have not edited it recently.) Concerns:

My main qualm with the article is that the final sentence in the lead section is a fragment and needs to be fixed: "And a couple of terms on this are used by the university's rivals against Aggies and are on this list for referencing reasons."

RewordedOldag07 (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(optional) I think the lead could be a little more to the point somehow. Maybe a statement (assuming a reference is available) that A&M is unique/unusual in having such a large set of slang-words. I don't have specific wording to suggest at the moment. Johntex\^talk 19:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the lead is better, but I think it can still be improved. This sentence contains a self-reference "While most of the terms on this page..." and I do think it would be better if the very first paragraph can mention that the school is known for its traditions and special vocabulary - something along those lines. Johntex\^talk 15:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. There's much to like about this list, but I can't support it yet. Some issues:

 Done:*In the intro, does "university's rivals against Texas A&M" refer to the university's athletic rivals or some other kind of rival? -- Orlady (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally athletics, but it is not limited to that subject. Ergo, it is proper usage. Would you like it rephrased? — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for sort of explaining. I rephrased the sentence. For some reason, as written, for me it conjured up the possibility of military enemies. --Orlady (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done:*The images on the left side make a mess by forcing some subheadings over toward the right. Boring as it may be, I think all images in this article should go on the right. -- Orlady (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As much as I like variety, I have to agree on this one; altered accordingly. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Much better. --Orlady (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done:*At my default thumbnail width of 250px, some of these images seem unnecessarily large, particularly "Other education" (I'm not convinced that image adds value to the article) and "Senior boots" (good image, but it's big relative to what it's showing). I hesitate to suggest violating WP:MOS, and different image widths might look sloppy, but I wonder if maybe the image of the boots deserves a smaller image width than the others... (This is something to think about and play with. I think that the boot image is possibly the only image that does not risk overlapping a heading if it's on the left, so maybe it would look OK to force a width of 150px or so, and keep it on the left.) -- Orlady (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't mean to sound too harsh, but violating MOS to suit your personal preferences is a bit extreme. I have adjusted some pictures with the "upright" tag to fix some of this (this feature was instituted for just such a use). Does this satisfy your concerns? — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Much better. --Orlady (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done:*The entry for "Maroon" seems incomplete. It says "Maroon has been used in context in many places." (Which contexts? Where? How? Tell me more!). It continues: "One of the University's traditions, Maroon Out, is an official tradition occurring every year at football games." (Tell me more about Maroon Out; "official tradition" tells me nothing...) -- Orlady (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it myself, by expanding that entry. --Orlady (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it necessary to send readers to Aggie Bonfire leadership for more Aggie bonfire terms? Can't the terms from that article be added here? -- Orlady (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• IMHO, yes (to the first question). This article was broken off of the main Aggie Bonfire article (another featured article). I would hesitate to incorporate such specific information here. That's just my opinion. I could throw in all the terms that cadets use for food, drinks, utensils, etc. at chow, but that would unnecessarily add 60-100 items with minimal description. Mentioning that there are different terms and redirecting to the main page is the best balance I think. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, a featured list is supposed to be comprehensive, meaning that it "covers the defined scope by including every member of a set, or, in the case of dynamic lists, by not omitting any major component of the subject." The "see also" reference to omitted terms raised a red flag that this list was not comprehensive. I selected the key term "Pots" from that other article and added it to this article. What other significant unique terms are omitted from this list? --Orlady (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to get a life. . . I think I am done with this page. PeaceOldag07 (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You will be missed. Do come back soon. --Orlady (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed my objections, but I'm still wondering whether the list is truly comprehensive within its defined scope. --Orlady (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - still problems with WP:CITE and punctuation, and still at least two dead links. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you could provide some examples I'd be happy to attempt to fix them, otherwise I'm unsure of what exactly to be looking for. Robhakari (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "The student section in athletics events[2][3][4]" - full stop missing. There are many others. If you can't see them then perhaps an independent copyedit is needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I fixed all bad links, and i think i fixed punctuation. I am going back into exile. see ya. Oldag07 (talk) 03:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I admit I got here by linking on a rival board, but an encyclopedia is not a collection of neologisms. Corpx (talk) 05:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has this discussion been linked on an Aggie-bashing forum associated with a rival school? That might tend to explain the sudden surge of vandalism to the article...

Corpx, it looks like you're a few weeks too late for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Texas Aggie terms. --Orlady (talk) 05:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the your definition of "neologism" might be pertinent to explain, because I can't see how they are as a whole: "A neologism is a word, term, or phrase that has been recently created (or "coined"), often to apply to new concepts, to synthesize pre-existing concepts, or to make older terminology sound more contemporary.". The limited few neologisms that are present are merely the most recent version of an older concept, such as Student Bonfire, but even that is more than 5 years old. Additionally, the neologism cited in the definition ("e-mail"), has its own article. I too find it quite suspect that you came here from a rival board link and question your motivation regarding such a comment, but I applaud your honesty. As long as the person reviewing this for FA status takes that into account, I see no basic problem with your oppose. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted 02:53, 5 March 2008.

Fresh of the heels of the Christopher Walken filmography being promoted, I've nominated two more: Woody Allen filmography and Vittorio Storaro filmography (see above). This format of this list is a little unconventional, since Allen typically does more than just one thing per movie. As always, any comments and suggestions are appreciated. Drewcifer (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help and your support. Drewcifer (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support - The "Award" columns in the "Awards and nominations" section should be removed for the Oscars, Globes, DGAs and BAFTA awards. It doesn't look very good to have an entire column when it's all the same. Perhaps it could be mentioned at the top of the table, ie. "Academy Awards (AKA Oscars)" or something along those lines. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd rather keep the tables as consistent as possible, within the same section but also across all filmographies. I think it would look sloppy if some tables looked different from the others, all in the same section, one after the other. Drewcifer (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because of some more suggestions along the same lines, I've redid the section a bit. Let me know if you like the changes. Drewcifer (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think the one-sentence paragraph in the lead should be merged with the first paragraph. I don't like the repetitive "throughout his career" part, either.--Crzycheetah 23:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merged the sentence to the paragraph before it. Though I'm not sure if I see anything wrong with "Throughout his career." Drewcifer (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't see any changes. Saying "Throughout his career" once is enough, I don't like when more than one sentence begins with the same phrase. --Crzycheetah 20:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, didn't hit save. And I understand what you mean. fixed both. Drewcifer (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's better.--Crzycheetah 22:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose While this is overall an informative list, I have some concerns that can be addressed.
• The lead does not appear to properly summarize the article per WP:LEAD - it repeats some information (3 Academy Awards) and omits other tables (DGA, Saturn, Berlin International Film Festival, American Comedy, as well as highest grossing films). I think if it is important enough for its own separate table, it should at least be mentioned in the lead.

I'm not sure if I see a point in rehashing all the awards he's won in the Lead. I figured it would be good to be mention the most notable (Oscars, BAFTA, Golden Globes), but not to give an exhaustive list. Also I split up the awards into seperate tables simply because making one massive table didn't look right. So I'm not sure if I agree with the idea that every table in the whole article should somehow be mentioned in the lead. Drewcifer (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the explanation of the separate tables. WP:LEAD says The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. If you do not think these other awards are as important, I guess they do not have to be mentioned explicitly in the lead. How about changing the current sentence by adding a generic mention of other awards, i.e. Throughout his career, Allen has won numerous awards, including three Oscars, eight BAFTA awards, and one Golden Globe Award[, and many others].? Similarly, could there be some mention of the fact that this article lists his top ten grossing films be added to the sentence on box office grosses?

I am also concerned about relative emphasis in the Lead. Quoting WP:LEAD again: ...in a well-constructed article, the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text. So his theater work is one table with four rows of information, but gets a long sentence at the start of the the second paragraph (Allen has also written four plays for the stage, including contributing sketches to the Broadway revue From A to Z, and the Broadway productions Don't Drink the Water (1966) and Play It Again, Sam (1969).[1] ). In contrast, the awards not mentioned at all by name are four tables with a total of fourteen rows of information. So the awards sentence could be: Throughout his career, Allen has won three Oscars, eight BAFTA, one Golden Globe, two Directors Guild of America, one American Comedy, and two Berlin International Film Festival awards. with the added words still less than those already there about the theater. Note this does not include the awards not mentioned in the article (see additional concerns, below) i.e. WGA, Cesar, Cannes, and Venice. Television work would also have to be addressed here if included, see below. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional concern 1: Despite the title being "filmography" I can understand including the theater work, but why is his television work excluded? He does the same things there (write, direct, act) as he does in films or theater. Allmovie lists several television entries, including some short films made for TV.

Think I took care of your concerns. The only things I left out are archival appearances. Let me know if the changes are satisfactory. Drewcifer (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is still not addressed. Here is my argument - the list is a Filmography, so I can see either excluding both his theater and television work (not films) or including both (all his work), but not including theater and excluding television. I do not see where you made any additions of television material to this list, but the sources you provide list much (all?) he has done in TV. Either get rid of the theater work (and make the title correct) or include the television work. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but I think I've covered everything (except archival appearances, as I mentioned above). Is there something in specific you think I'm missing? I went through the AMG source and added in anything that wasn't already included. Am I missing something? Drewcifer (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what "archival appearances" are. Looking here in the Allmovie biography it says he worked five years in TV as a writer for Your Show of Shows and Pat Boone and was nominated for an Emmy. It also says In 1969 Allen directed two short films for a CBS television special: Cupid's Shaft, a satire of Charlie Chaplin's City Lights, and an adaptation of Pygmalion in which he appeared as a rabbi.. Here at Hollywood.com (Full Biography) it says he also wrote for The Colgate Comedy Hour at the start of his TV career, and notes Allen returned to TV to adapt, direct and co-star in a small screen remake of "Don't Drink the Water" (ABC, 1994). He and Peter Falk filmed a TV version of Neil Simon's "The Sunshine Boys" for CBS in 1995, that finally aired in December 1997 to generally unfavorable notices. Under Milestones it notes he was in 1964 First guest-host to replace Johnny Carson on "The Tonight Show" (NBC). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional concern 2: Why are some of his awards not listed? He won a Cannes Film Festival Palme des Palmes Special Lifetime Achievement in 2002 [8], Writers Guild of America awards, Venice Film festival, French Cesar. I think these are as notable as some of the awards listed already. Perhaps a miscellaneous list of awards? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Just to clarify here - if you inlcude the Directors Guild nominations and awards, I think you have to include the Writers Guild too. If you inlcude the Berlin Film Festival, you have to include Cannes and Venice. If you include the (US) Academy Awards (and nominations) and (British) BAFTAs, you have to include the French Cesar stuff. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope this helps, overall good work, but needs some improvements for FL status. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Good work so far, but the lede section is a little bare. At a minimum, can you add some citations for his awards and nominations? JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the lead a bit to include domestic gross total/averages, as well as to mention non-fiction appearances. However, I'm not sure what you mean by the article needing more citations. The awards and nominations are covered by the general references listed at the end of the page (namely the AMG source). Drewcifer (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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