Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/March 2009

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:46, 31 March 2009 [1].

Nominator(s): Bencherlite^Talk

Following the recent FL-achieving spin-off of List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Law and government from the main FL List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford, here's another for your kind consideration. Bencherlite^Talk 11:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review Not very experienced with these but did some digging and it turns out "public domain" is a lot more complicated than I thought. Turns out being old doesn't necessarily make it public domain[2] and something being exhibited does not mean it has been published. Publication can start when the work was first reproduced.

• File:BpThomasCoke.gif – missing author & date, when was it first published.

As I mentioned before, I am not expereinced at this so if you can get someone experienced to tell me I am speaking a load of rubbish that is also fine. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 16:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the joys of images. Will have a think and come back to this one. My first instinct, looking at WP:PD, is that this is a complete nightmare and I will probably just end up removing all the potentially offending images through an inability to fix. Bencherlite^Talk 07:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(update) I have nominated the images for deletion at Commons (one speedily, as I uploaded it; the others for discussion, as they were uploaded by the same individual who seems to have rather a lot of deletion notifications on his talk page). One way or the other, the good people at Commons will take care of this, either by deleting the images or fixing the problems. Bencherlite^Talk 07:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(update to update) At present, 2 out of the 3 discussions are heading towards "keep, proof of date of first publication not required for PD". Which is interesting. Bencherlite^Talk 07:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - out of interest, why didn't you put all the clergy into this list? That would have seemed more sensible to me - rst20xx (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that there was enough here for a list by itself. The other clergy would add another 130/140 names (there are another dozen or so articles that would need to be written before I could say that I had written articles on everyone included in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography or the Dictionary of Welsh Biography), and I had thought of making that a spin-off list of its own in due course. However, particularly in the light of recent developments at WP:FL?, if people think that all the clergy should be here, I'll see what I can do. Bencherlite^Talk 07:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not too bothered but I would think it would be better that way - rst20xx (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments first up, no mention of the Boat Race, okay? Fine. Or else it'll be the Six Nations discussion, okay? Good... now, some comments...

  I have dual nationality and a third by marriage/fatherhood; it's a rare year when I don't win both the Six Nations and the Boat Race! Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Lucky you. I'm just a Light Blue Angle. Nothing but disappointment for me... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rst20xx has a reasonable point here. A more comprehensive list would include all clergy. Although I admit that arch- and -bishops are inherently more notable, where does one draw the line? So, I would consider adding the others. It may mean you need to start the nomination again because of the volume of info you'd add, but.... maybe worthwhile.
    • Yes, I'm tending to agree, though it'd be more like 160/170 names more added, i.e. nearer 200 in total, because a number of clergy on the main list are included in other groups e.g. writers / historians, because that was what they were primarily known as. Let's see what we can do for now, though, shall we, to ease the journey next time? Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't mind adding the rest of the clergy in. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images which are portrait usually ought to take the "upright" parameter as well as the "thumb" parameter. This may make them similarly scaled horizontally (although I can't say definitively because it's so long since I used it...!)
    • Tried that on a preview just now, it doesn't. Can't find anything about the usage of "upright" at MOS:IMAGES. Doesn't seem worth it if it makes no difference, so have not done this. Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suspect the MOS has changed in the past five months. I need to revise. Forgive me, once more. Ignore that one... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason you recapitalised the A for Archbishop in the title? (don't let me get into that again...!)
    • Ignore that, I was looking at a redirect, not the current title, mea culpa... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, you were right, I did recapitalise because Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists) has the specific example "List of foos: Physics and chemistry", indicating that a capital letter is appropriate after a colon in the title of a sublist even when the word is not a proper noun. I think it looks neater, too. Thoughts? Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not convinced, got into a massive debate with Rlevse about Astronauts, or astronauts. Archbishop is not a proper noun, as you exemplify in your lead, nor is the capitalisation of non-proper nouns after colons grammatically correct (as far as I'm concerned)... I'm sure our naming convention is generally in good shape but, perhaps, just maybe it ain't right here... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a dash indicates that the individual graduated from another college" for sure? You're positive they all graduated and didn't "conclude studies" per your earlier note?
    • Reworded to "moved to another college before graduating or concluding studies". Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Did not graduate: left the college without taking a degree" this may be a bit Oxbridge or just a bit picky, or maybe it's to help the non-Academia types, but is it not possible to take a degree and fail it (in common parlance)? "Left the college without attaining a degree"? Just trying to avoid "jargon"...
    • Someone's sharp today! I think that one takes exams and fails, but one can't take a degree and fails, but I've changed it anyway to "without obtaining a degree", which I hope works. Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • " an approximate year is used for table-sorting purposes." - do you have any reasonable and citable basis for each estimate or is it your own idea?
    • If I had a citable date, I'd use it instead! It's based primarily on age and the standard length of degree courses. What I've been doing is e.g. where someone graduates at age 21 in 1971, then I put in a hidden date for matriculation of 1968 so that you don't get all the "?" sorting unhelpfully at the top. Or someone matriculates in 1965 and graduates sometime later, probably 3 years later in 1968, but no reference gives the year. The "OR" in both cases would be to put 1968 in plain text, of course, but is it still OR when it's (a) hidden and (b) said to be an approximate year for table-sorting only? I think it would decrease the utility of this and its companion lists to remove such information, but would welcome views. Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • For sure removing your estimations would detract from the table. Leaving the note about your approximation leaves you open to accusation of OR. It's a hard one, for sure. I realise getting the citable dates may prove impossible.... Oh bother. I guess for the purposes of table sort and the fact you aren't "publishing" approximations, it can slide... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might just be picky again, but "coxed the college boat" is a tiny bit trivial really here. A Blue is one thing, but coxing the college is another. Even I've done that...
    • Yeh, but it wasn't the Jesus College boat, now, was it?! Nevertheless, text "bumped" from the article (sniff...). Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No it wasn't. It was for the oldest light blue college. Two Olympic rowers mind you... only one of them Canadian... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you being consistent with page references? I see some with p. and some without. I would hazard a guess it's the template you're using but....
    • yes, it's the poxy templates. {{cite journal}} doesn't use "p." or "pp." in its output; I'm reluctant to add the missing letters because I'd only have to remove them if and when the functionality is added to that template to make it conform with {{cite book}}, for example. Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understood. No problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Update: I asked at the template talk page why "p." and "pp." weren't added automatically, and apparently it's a deliberate choice because some citation styles don't use "p."/"pp." for journals, only for books. How helpful. So I've gone through and added "p." and "pp." for consistency, as it appears that this problem is here to stay. Bencherlite^Talk 08:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Jesus College, Oxford category is unnecessary as it is a supercat of Alumni of Jesus College, Oxford category.
    • OK. Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, despite the Thames thrashing, a jolly good effort. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your review; let me know the bill, and I'll put it on my tab. Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha-bloody-ha. You're welcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FL Director

I think we're done here for now. Consensus is that I should add the rest of the clergy to the list, rename it (TRM And I Can Then Discuss Some More cAPITAL lETTER issueS) and I can come back in a while. Suggest archiving this as I won't be able to get the clergy added whilst this FLC is in extra time. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 21:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How rude. But I suspect this a good thing. Shout at me immediately when you need a review... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 17:14, 28 March 2009 [3].

Nominator(s): Jason Rees (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I am submitting this for FLC as i think that it meets the critera after a lot of reworking to include all of the Best track information provided by RSMC Nadi. - Please note that this is the first timeline to come to FLC from WPTC, that is outside the NHCs AoR. Jason Rees (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

• My issues have been resolved, but I want to wait for other reviews to see if I missed anything since this is the first type of "cyclone" list I've reviewed (I'm more used to "hurricane" lists), and I want to see if the timeline image and timeline itself is up to standards. I will give my support once this happens, you can notify me if I don't common with days of the next review.--₮RUCӨ 01:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments and weak oppose for now Leaning Support Cyclonebiskit 03:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• You only need to link the time zones once, not each time (pardon the pun) they're used.
• The 2007-08 Southern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone year started on July 1, 2007 and ended on July 1, 2008. Doesn't make sense, it should be ended on June 30, 2008
• If possible, try and get exact formation distances
• When you're not referring to a place or name, everything should be in lowercase.
  • There are still several places where I see this as an issue.
• When stating the category of a storm, the number should be in numeric form, not words
• The units for wind speed should be km/h (mph)
• 2100 UTC, (0900 FST, November 23) - RSMC Nadi issues its last summary on Tropical Depression 02F as it begins to dissipate. summary -> advisory
• 2100 UTC, (0900 FST, November 25) - RSMC Nadi reports that Tropical Disturbance 03F has formed. where did it form?
• 0200 UTC, (1400 FST) - RSMC Nadi upgrades Tropical Depression 04F to a Category One Tropical Cyclone naming it Daman. add a comma after cyclone
• 1200 UTC, (0000 FST - RSMC Nadi reports that Severe Tropical Cyclone Daman has reached its peak winds of 195 km/h (120 mph) which makes it a Category Four Cyclone on the Australian Tropical Cyclone Intensity Scale. Why is the scale fully stated here and not when it's first mentioned?
• 0600 UTC, (1800 FST) - RSMC Nadi reports that Tropical Depression 10F has formed about 485 k/m, (300 miles) to the west of Espiritu Santo, Vanuatu. k/m?
• c0300 UTC, [[1500 FST) - Cyclone Funa makes landfall on Espiritu Santo. random [[ floating around, the little c should also be in italics (if I remember correctly)
• 0300 UTC - The JTWC designates Tropical Cyclone Gene as Tropical Cyclone 15P (Gene). Missing a reference
• The end of the timeline should be in June not July

Overall its a fair start, but it needs quite a bit of work to be a featured list. Most of the issues above are minor, but they're numerous which is why I'm giving it a weak oppose for now. Cyclonebiskit 01:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Cyclonebiskit ive sorted your comments out Jason Rees (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my comments have been addressed but following other comments, this timeline still isn't ready. My oppose stands until all other comments are resolved. Cyclonebiskit 17:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Spell out "FST" on its first use, because the link doesn't explain what it stands for - Done Jason Rees (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• July 1: The 2007–08 Southern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Year officially starts. is this UTC or FST? Unclear right now - Done Jason Rees (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Each entry needs to state the local date as well as time - DoneJason Rees (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see that this has been done: October 17: 2100 UTC, (0900 FST) - RSMC Nadi upgrades..., November 25: 0600 UTC, (1800 FST) - RSMC Nadi upgrades... etc etc Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops i must off misread your comments - i will get right to it after i have tracked down the latest advisorys on Joni.Jason Rees (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DoneJason Rees (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there an article or articles to link to to explain the differences between a Tropical Disturbance, Tropical Depression, Tropical cyclone - I dont think theirs any articles for Tropical Disturbance or Tropical Depressions but there is one for Tropical Cyclone Jason Rees (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• More wikilinking on FST at the end of the timeline needs removing

That's all for now, I think. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Matthew Jason Rees (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) There is nothing blatantly wrong with this article, but it isn't up to the standard set by timelines that have been promoted to FL in previous months.

• "This timeline documents all the storm formations, strengthening, weakening, landfalls, extratropical transitions, as well as dissipation's during the 2007–08 South Pacific cyclone season. " This sentence should be moved to the end of the paragraph. done Jason Rees (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "2007–08 Southern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone year" "year"-->season, why is "Tropical Cyclone" capitalized?

Comment - the season does not start on July 1 the year does also Tropical Cyclone is capitalized per the Tropical Cyclone Operational Plan Jason Rees (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "outside of these - Done Jason Rees (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "information which was not"-->information that was not - Done Jason Rees (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "a total of 16 tropical disturbances, 15 tropical depressions, four tropical cyclones and three severe tropical cyclones formed." "a total of" is redundant. Comparable quantities should be spelled out the same, either all numerals (16, 15, 4 and 3) or all words (sixteen, fifteen, four and three) Done Jason Rees (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Fiji Meteorological Service who are the Regional Specialised Meteorological Center (RSMC) for the South Pacific."-->Fiji Meteorological Service, the Regional Specialised Meteorological Center (RSMC) for the South Pacific. Done Jason Rees (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "P suffix"-->"P" suffix
• "Saffir Simpson Hurricane Scale"-->Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale Done Jason Rees (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "The JTWC storms are referred to numerically, to avoid confusion, as the JTWC sometimes recognises a storm at a different intensity compared to RSMC Nadi and TCWC Wellington." Just very confusing, I don't know what else to say.

Im not sure how to respond to this as i feel it is important for most timelines outside the NHCs area of responsibilty. Jason Rees (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Juliancolton to look at this list, perhaps he can help. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dates should not have leading 0s. For example, "November 01"-->November 1 DoneJason Rees (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The listed events should be separated by en dashes, not hyphens. See this sample edit. Done Jason Rees (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Tropical Depression ex Daman" What do you mean by "ex"? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was the designation applied by RSMC Nadi as most of the warning centers remove the name when they downgrade to a Tropical Depression Jason Reeas (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there needs to be a hyphen after "Daman". Dabomb87 (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• Ref 15 needs format=PDF added to it. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Done Jason Rees (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - A decent start, but it does need quite a bit of work. Examples:
• The 2007–08 Southern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone year started on July 1, 2007 and ended on June 30, 2008. - Why is "tropical cyclone" capitalized? Also, "year" → "season".
• The 2007–08 Southern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone year started on July 1, 2007 and ended on June 30, 2008. The South Pacfic Cyclone season officially ran between November 1, 2007 and April 30, 2008 - First, I honestly don't understand what this is trying to say. Also, notice the typo?

Ive removed the year part Jason Rees (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The timeline also includes information that was not operationally released, meaning that information from post-storm reviews by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC), and the Fiji Meteorological Service, such as information on a storm that was not operationally warned on. - "Also" is misused here.

DoneJason Rees (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The JTWC storms are referred to numerically, to avoid confusion, as the JTWC sometimes recognises a storm at a different intensity compared to RSMC Nadi and TCWC Wellington. - I've read this four times, and I'm still confused. - Ive sorted this out now Jason Rees (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The timemline itself is hard to get through. Nearly every sentence begins with "RSMC Nadi reports..."

As far as i am aware that is the standard outside the NHC AoR as you have more than one agency reporting in this basin Jason Rees (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• MoS breaches; en dashes where hyphens should be used.

Im Confused which should it be a hypen or an en dash when we are listing events Jason Rees (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strange image captions, like "The track path of Tropical Depression 01F" - track path? Jason Rees (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Done[reply]

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Make sure your dates are all formatted properly. I see mostly (year)-(month)-(day), which is good, but I also see an occasional mixture of other forms. Can you check all of your citations please? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DoneJason Rees (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 16:38, 24 March 2009 [4].

Nominator(s): Marcus Bowen (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because, I believe the information is accurate and reflects the style of many other featured lists in Wikipedia.Marcus Bowen (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This is the discography of Skunk Anansie" Featured lists don't start like this anymore. See recently promoted FLs, such as Rufus Wainwright discography, for better opening sentences. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up!, how long will it be until the nomination expires?Marcus Bowen (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least ten days. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose/Review by Truco (talk · contribs)

General comment

• Fix the dabs (as found with the toolbox checker tool at the right)

Lead

• This is the discography of Skunk Anansie, an English rock band whose members include Skin (Deborah Dyer), Cass (Richard Lewis), Ace (Martin Kent) and Mark Richardson. -- No list should begin with "This is a _____" It should begin with a sentence like "The discography of (band) consists of (data as in how many of each part in the discography) The members can be mentioned later, see other discography FLs as a point of reference "done"'
• The group formed in 1994 and disbanded in 2001, before they reformed in 2009.[1]. -- Remove the extra period after the ref "done"'
• They are named after the West African folk tales of Anansie the spider-man[2], with "Skunk" added to "make the name nastier." -- (1)Isn't Spider-man suppose to have the S capitalized since its a proper noun in the title? (2)The comma belongs before the ref "done"'
• The band in 2004, were named as one of the most-successful UK chart acts between 1952-2003 by Guinness Book of British Hit Singles & Albums, with a total of 141 weeks on both the singles and album charts ranking them at #491. -- (1)[opt.] Comma before in and after 2004 (2)Comma before ranking (3)Its not clear whether Guinness ranked them 491 or if that's their rank on the charts "done"'
• Their longest running release is 1996's Stoosh album with 55 weeks and a peak of #9. -- (1)55 weeks of ....(what)? (2)On which chart was this on, please state "done"'
• After their 2001 split, Skin has embarked upon a solo career, still using Skin as her name. -- Remove the link of Skin, its already linked beforehand and goes against WP:OVERLINK "done"'
• After their 2001 split, Skin has embarked upon a solo career, still using Skin as her name. Her debut solo album Fleshwounds, was released in September 2003 and Fake Chemical State was released in March 2006. She has also provided vocals for a number of other acts songs. Ace released a low-key album, Still Hungry under the name Ace Sounds, which featured many collaborations including Shingai Shoniwa from Noisettes and Skye from Morcheeba. He then joined a band called Inner Mantra. In 2002 Cass recorded the album Scars with Gary Moore, and played bass and performed backing vocals. In the same year Mark Richardson has since been playing drums for Feeder after the death of their original drummer Jon Lee. -- this whole paragraph should not be in this article and is not relevant to the "band's" discography, just the members individual discography work. As a result, the lead needs to explain more about their band work not their solo work. Some of this info includes more chart rankings and certifications for the albums. "done"'

Studio albums

• " — " denotes releases that did not chart or were not released in that country. -- this should be integrated into a spanned row in the table, see how it is in this FL. "done"'
• IFPI Norway -- do certifying companies like this not have articles on WP? (Since they aren't linked in the article) "done"'. There's only an article for IFPI, not for any of its individual countries.

Singles

• "—" Denotes releases that did not chart or were not elegible. -- same thing as above "done"'
• The 1999 single needs a ref to verify its existence since it did not rank. Done

B-Sides

• This is why its good to explain these types of things in the lead, like what is a "B-Side" "done"' In the lead I put a Wikilink to the article on B-sides.
• Rename the comments column as "Notes" "done"'
• Remove the full stops from all the 'comments/notes', they are not complete sentences "done"'
• Note I: The full name of the track on the Paranoid and Sunburnt album is "It Takes Blood and Guts To Be This Cool But I'm Still Just A Cliché". -- Source? "done"'

Miscellaneous

• Please reformat this section as a "Other appearances" section, as seen in this FL "done"'

Music videos

• Has any effort gone in to locate a director for the "Selling Jesus" video? "done"'

References

• Please format the refs that use the Wayback Machine correctly by adding it as in the work field"done"'
• What makes feederweb.com reliable? "done"'
• This is a constant problem in all discographies, the foreign charts should not have the publishers as the URL of the website but instead as the actual publisher (which is usually located on the bottom of each page or at the top) "done"'
• Amazon.co.uk is not the publisher Amazon.com is (just link to the appropriate UK section (if it has one), if not, pipe link it "done"'--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Please don't strike other people's comments without their consent. In addition, the lead still needs to be expanded and some of my comments were not addressed, like verifying the single in 1999 and adding more information in the prose to summarize the list Done.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Followup comments

• In 1995, Skunk Anansie released their debut album Paranoid and Sunburnt on the One Little Indian record label, after having released a few singles all of which appeared on the album. -- you mean leak?
• UK singles and albums charts need to be formatted as UK Singles and UK Albums charts, they are proper nouns. They are also needing links on their first occurrence
• The album peaked at #8 on the UK albums chart and was certified platinum with a gold certification in the Netherlands; the band also won the Kerrang! Award for "Best British Band" in that same year. -- it was certified platinum and gold?
• In 1996, Skunk Anansie released Stoosh, which was certified gold in several European countries, and became their second UK album to be certified platinum, peaking at #9 on the charts. -- what chart?
• Stoosh spawned their highest-charting singles in the UK and abroad, including "Hedonism (Just Because You Feel Good)", which reached the top 20 in various European countries, including a peak charting of #2 in Switzerland. -- what does abroad refer to here? Also, remove a peak charting per the context its not needed
• Remove the full stops from the other appearances tables notes, and rename the section from Comments to Notes
• Remove the full stop from -- All remixes are A-sides on CD singles as opposed to being B-sides.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) There were quite a few issues in the lead, so I just copy-edited it myself. I have a few questions though:

• "consists of three studio albums and fourteen singles, which spawned sixty-four B-sides." Did the singles spawn the B-sides or the albums? Not clear from the text. Done
• What do you mean by "running alongside Britpop"? Done
• "with a total of 141 weeks on both the singles and album charts" Which charts is this phrase referring to? Done
• "Paranoid and Sunburnt on One Little Indian" Is One Little Indian a record label? Specify, and link if possible. Done
• "and went platinum"-->, certifying platinum Done
• "which went gold in several European countries"-->which certified gold in several European countries Done
• "Post Orgasmic Chill on Virgin" Specify that Virgin is a record label. Done
• "IFPI" Spell out this abbreviation. Done
• What sources are verifying the music videos and the B-sides? Done Dabomb87 (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• What makes http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/1142876/a/Pavarotti+&+Friends+For+Cambodia+And+Tibet.htm a reliable source? Done, Its mentioned in the tracklisting on the page.
• Can you use more descriptive publisher names? For example, instead of ifpi.se, you might use International Federation of the Phonographic Industry or something similar. Done Dabomb87 (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up

• What makes http://www.skinmusic.net/content/music/video.html reliable?
• I didn't understand your rationale for what makes http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/1142876/a/Pavarotti+&+Friends+For+Cambodia+And+Tibet.htm a reliable source. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, all done. Cannibaloki 16:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Country names in the table headers should be bold and the refs should be on a new line.
• "FL" and "WA" should be renamed, according to what I was told at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Sigur Rós discography (see the bit in the capped comments from Drewcifer
• Albums don't need relinking in the singles table.
• I'm sure it's unnecessary to list every single remix version that appeared on a single: "Brazen (Weep)" (Dreadzone Remix) on "Brazen (Weep)" CD2 for example, and "Weak" (Ackee and Saltfish Mix) on "Weak" CD2. That section should be for Skunk Anansi songs on non-Skunk releases.
• References need a cleanup:
  • Publishers should be wikilinked to where possible
  • Guinness Book of British Hit Singles and Albums has an article, so does HIT Entertainment
  • date format should be in dd mmmm yyyy , which is the format used in the body of the article, instead of ISO.
  • "Musiicline" is a typo.
  • Inconsistent attribution: "Skinmusic.net" vs "Skinny Pam". I also question reliability on this site.

That's all Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Columns which display similar information (eg, peak chart positions, song titles) should be the same width.
• I don't think it's true that "You'll Follow Me Down" was ineligible to chart. The chart rules [5] say that a maxi CD can have a total running time of 25 minutes and up to four songs plus alternative versions of the featured songs.
• Ineligible has been misspelt.

These are on top of the referencing problems already mentioned. --JD554 (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:39, 23 March 2009 [6].

Nominator(s): Sunderland06 (talk)

Short as it may be, I believe it satisfies the Featured List criteria. All comments welcome, and will be addressed ASAP. Cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Previous issues found in review resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 02:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments
  • Second sentence reads very oddly, and the punctuation is misplaced. I suggest "The tournament was established in 1994,[2] although similar competitions had been previously held in France" Done - Changed to that.
  • "was held before the start of the French league season; which was won by" - semi-colon should be a comma Done - Changed to comma.
  • "started in 1994, with entrance to the UEFA Cup" - reads as if entrance to the UEFA Cup was the first part of the tournament. Should be something like "started in 1994, with entrance to the UEFA Cup offered to the winning team" Done - Changed to that.
  • "The first three years of the cup had been held" - wrong on two counts, firstly the tense is incorrect, and secondly only the final was held there, not the whole cup - suggest simply "The first three finals were held" Done - Changed to that.
  • "Overall, there has been" => "Overall, there have been" Done - Changed.
  • "having won the cup three times" => "who have won the cup three times" Done - Changed.
  • "The current holders of the cup are Paris Saint-Germain, when they beat Lens" - very odd wording, why not just "....who beat Lens"? Done - Changed to that.
  • Is footnote A really necessary? I think most people can work out what "attendance" means in the context of a sporting contest Done - Removed, sorry for the delay in replies, something came up. All concerns now dealt with. Cheers.
• Cheers -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All looks good now - support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me, seems good. I could not find any mistake.--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Coupe de la Ligue and this article are both reasonably short. Is there any reason why they couldn't be merged together? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, I'll do this now. Sunderland06 (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  If this is being done, then is there any reason for this FLC to be running? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry? I don't follow. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  He's asking if you want to withdraw the FLC while you work on a merge. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, yeah that'll be fine. I withdraw this nomination until the merge is complete. Cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Rambo's Revenge 19:35, 22 March 2009 [7].

Nominator(s): – Nurmsook! ^talk...

This is the first in a series of NCAA Division I men's ice hockey conference tournament lists that I hope to bring to FL status. I feel that it meets all aspects of WP:WIAFL, but of course am open to any suggestions or criticisms on how to improve it further. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 04:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nomination of the grounds of the proposed changes to WP:WIAFL. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 19:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 01:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes http://www.collegehockeystats.net/0102/boxes/malhwsu1.m16 (and the other collegehockeystats souces) a reliable source?
• Likewise http://www.uscho.com/recaps/20052006/m/03/12/bsu-niag.php? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • USCHO.com is arguably the most widely recognized news site on NCAA college ice hockey. This is a staffed organization that also features work from other published authors. Further, USCHO.com is an official partner of CBS College Sports Network and sponsors a top national poll with them. USCHO.com is unquestionably a reliable source. Likewise, collegehockeystats.net is an up-to-date college ice hockey statistical database maintained by Timothy J. Danehy, a published author (ie: ISBN 0898715873, American Statistical Association Proceedings of the Section on Statistics on Sports, 1993, etc.) and Commissioner of the Liberty League. Both of these websites are run by reputable organizations and individuals and follow WP:RS's "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" notion. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 02:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your detailed explanations. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am questioning whether or not it is really needed. The table is only ten items, and the College Hockey America (which isn't particularily long) also contains a list of championship games. I think it would be more useful to merge it back in there. There is a discussion about a new criterion at WT:WIAFL and if passed, this page might fail it. So, I'm hesitant to promote a page that could just end up at FLRC within a few months. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just have to Support the Merge just because I believe that this article can fit into the main article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 22:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Due to the ongoing discussions I oppose this until they are resolved. I see no reason for this to be split out from here. Seems like a WP:CFORK to me. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 14:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll have to play the devils advocate and argue this as a justified list. Remember, Wikipedia is not paper and this article will grow. The CHA article itself will grow as well as I move to expand it. This is more of a consistency thing I believe. All of the other college hockey conferences will have these lists (I've created a couple thus far). It could easily be argued that List of Nashville Predators head coaches and List of Minnesota Wild head coaches—both lists with only one entry—could be merged back into their parent articles, but there seems to be consensus to keep them as is because of consistency. I fail to see how this is any different. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 18:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nurmsook, I think you had better take a look at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#New criterion discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I've been following the discussion there. I'm all for quality of quantity, so I think I'll just withdraw this FLC, but I won't merge the article into College Hockey America until this criteria discussion is sorted out. It's unfortunate, but I guess what can ya do. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 19:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding. Anything you can contribute to the discussion would be most welcome. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 21:53, 21 March 2009 [8].

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is an interesting, extensive, encyclopedic list. It suffers from inability to find complete lists in the early years before it was broadcast on television or the internet. Also, 2008 seems to be a partial list. Because www.imdb.com is not considered a WP:RS for certain purposes on WP, I have included as many other citations as I was able to find. I think this list is too extensive for merging into Victoria's Secret and I think it is extensive enough to be featured.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_[c]

• Where's the prose and lead? Both of them are way too short. I strongly consider you expand it. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know how much more to add. There was one article that I remember reading from the Newsbank article archive that had someone discussing how he selectst the models. It says something like we start with our six contract girls, then we add about 10 girls who are considered the hottest in the world, then we add 10 iconic images of fashion and that about does it. I have thumbed through about 100 articles and I am having trouble searching for it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Does anyone have any category suggestions for this list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Make a Victoria's Secret category? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Cool idea for a list, but I see alot of problems with the list at the moment.

• IMDB is not considered a reliable source.
  • I tried to do this using newspapers and other publicity surrounding the events. There was no way to get complete lists. They are not published anywhere. Except for 2002, I would not have been able to complete the lists. I would argue that for certain type of information, IMDB is a WP:RS. Whereas, its biographical information can not be counted upon, I think its cast and crew information is reliable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Content on IMDB is often user-generated, and we have no way of knowing what has been added by users and what has been added by staff. Therefore, I see no scenario where IMDB could be considered reliable. Drewcifer (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have contributed to cast and crew because my cousin played 2nd trumpet in the movie Ray. Basically, for cast and crew you submit information and then they review it before posting it online. It takes several weeks for them to confirm cast and crew additions. I think cast and crew is pretty reliable. Bio stuff cannot be confirmed so it is not reliable from them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have my own page on IMDB, so I know how it works. Whether it seems "reliable" or not isn't the point; it must pass WP:RS, a test of how Wikipedia defines reliable. IMDB fails that test, and so it has been deemed unreliable in the past. If you disagree, feel free to bring up the topic at WP:RS's talk page, but I assure you this has come up before. Drewcifer (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Blogs and user generated content have been put on a new level, AFAIK. I believe the current standard is to evaluate the information being sourced in concert with the source. Where as IMDB is not reliable for biographical tidbits, I believe it is considered reliable for cast and crew. We are suppose to look at the information (in this case a cast of a televised fashion show) and ask do we consider this source to be reliable for the information attributed to it. I have never had significant issues with IMDB for cast and crew. For example, on my Tyrone Wheatley FA, which passed right when this standard changed, we had to determine if we considered pro-football reference a reliable source for certain types of statistics. It passed when people at the FAC said they believed for that type of information that source was reliable. A blanket statement that IMDB can not be relied upon is no longer the way I believe this is suppose to be considered. I believe we are suppose to say. O.K. We have 8 or 10 models that we know were in the show based on other sources. Do we believe the additional 15 or so on IMDB were also in the show. I think that is the current standard. Since we are augmenting the IMDB list with several reliable sources, I think we are good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • In my opinion, and I believe this is backed up by WP:RS, any content that has the potential to be user-generated cannot be considered reliable. Actor and crew lists are something that can and often are user-generated. Additionally, we consider a source reliable based on whether it fact-checks and cites its sources. In both cases, it is a clear no. From personal experience, I have updated and added to my own IMDB page and others', and have found it inconsistent at best. Like I said, you're welcome to bring this up at WP:RS for adjustment of the policy if you think it needs to be changed, but that is a discussion beyond the scope of this single FLC. Drewcifer (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • The policy has changed. See Talk:Tyrone_Wheatley#WP:RS_concerns. Tyrone Wheatley passed with several facts from a source that does not have a fact checking or citation system.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't see any evidence here that policy has changed. I took a look at the article's FAC, and it looks like the reliability concerns were addressed by the SI quote. As current policy goes, reliability can be transferable: if one reliable source uses another source for information, that second source is considered reliable, since the first source has a reputation for fact-checking, and therefore would know that the second source is in fact reliable enough for them to depend on. This is what the SI quote did. So based on just this example, policy has not change at all. To my knowledge IMDB does not pass a similar test to the pro-football stats website mentioned in the other FAC. Drewcifer (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Initial feedback from WP:RS is that staff actually makes the first pass at inputing cast and crew and users make amendments. This has been my experience. I have not found incorrect information, just omitted information.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I think WP:RS is the more appropriate space for this discussion, so I'll move it there. For the meantime, however, I'll stick with my oppose based on this point and the others I've made, until we have a resolution at WP:RS or I'm just shown to be completely in the minority. Drewcifer (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes TVacres.com reliable?
  • I have exhausted my resources for that year. The choice is a list of six models for 1999 or the list of 21 that resulted from this edit based on the source in question. The list is believably reliable. The first six I would say are about a 9.5 on a certainty scale to have been models for the event. The additional 15 are about sixes on the reliability scale. I chose to add believable information. I don't think the list would be improved by omitting it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same as above: whether you think it is "believably reliable" or not isn't the point, it must pass WP:RS. I'm not saying it doesn't necessarily pass WP:RS (like I'm saying IMDB doesn't), I'm just asking you to prove that it does. Drewcifer (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps in the table it might be worthwhile to point out which models are the Angels. Like italicize their names or something.
  • This is not an article about the Angels. The Angels do not have an article and there is no good historical account of who the Angels are at any given time. It would add confusion to a list already slightly deficient for incompleteness, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair-enough, just a suggestion. Drewcifer (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have found a resource for Angels historical info, but I don't think it is a very good WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "is a partial listing" why isn't it complete?
  • Prior to it being a nationally televised event records are kind of sketchy. In the television ERA (2001-present) we can correct for the sketchiness of the records by using IMDB. Otherwise in most years you will only find out about the Angels and a few other favorites who are listed in newspaper articles about the event each year. Prior to the internet era, it was not much more than a local fashion event. Unless the company avails an official list, we will never be able to figure out who all the models were.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, having a difficult time finding information isn't an excuse for the list to be incomplete. If that information is completely lost for all of history (which I doubt), then I would argue that this list could never be complete enough to satisfy the FL criteria. But I'm confident this information is somewhere. If prior to the internet era it was a local fashion show, then local newspapers would probably have some info. Maybe old Victoria's Secret catalogs might have something. Saying "I can't find it on the internet" isn't a good excuse, in my opinion. Drewcifer (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may not have noticed, but I am using local newspapers for the pre-internet era. Basically Newsday and New York Post provide the little information that we have. I believe executives at the company do have the information, but it is not available in PD, AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• There shouldn't be a line break in the middle of a date. Add a   for any spaces in the dates. Drewcifer (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is using a template for the dates (for sortability). This is not possible.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see. Well that leads me to something else that bothers me:
• Also, what is the relevance of the specific dates? Since the focus of the list is the models, why do we care that a show was on December 8, 2008? And why do we care that is was actually aired a week or two later? I think the only relevant chronological data is the year, since there's only one show every year and the month and day seem to be pretty arbitrary, or at least inconsistent from year to year. Drewcifer (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • • • There are two types of viewers of the event. There are live viewers and television viewers. We should provide them with dates that the event occurred I think having dates is far better than for example VS Fashion Show #7. Also, in this case, we have an event that has trended from a random date, to Valentine's Day, to the Cannes Film Festival to the Christmas Holidays. The date of the event is important.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have time to review everything, but I did notice some minor issues

• "November 14, 2002(aired)" and all the other one should have a space between the date and the parenthesis
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• All ref name should be converted to lower case even though the website shows the title in capital letters
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If possible, it should have an image
  • How about 5?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Chris! _ct 00:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • 5 is a bit excessive, I think.—Chris! _ct 01:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are six current Angels with pics on their bios. I was going to add a sixth just to be fair. I think all the Angels should be treated equally.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I'm concerned about the article itself, since it states that This is a partial listing, lists, mainly about related subjects as such, need to be complete.--₮RUCӨ 03:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it is complete from 2001-2007. 2001 was the first national televeision broadcast. I have explained this issue above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • • COMPLETED 2008 with http://www.fashionologie.com/2509477.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh okay, I guess its suitable. I just don't like the size of the lead. It needs to be expanded to say a little bit more about the history of the competition and more about the models.--₮RUCӨ 04:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is that enough?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, now it states more about the history of the event and where it has been held versus the models themselves (which is what the list is supposed to be about). I also recommend reformatting the way the models are listed in the table, maybe bulleted from would work better.--₮RUCӨ 15:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have alphabetized the names. I also created Template:2000-2009VSFashion Show and Template:1995-1999VSFashion Show. When you say bulleted form are you talking about the way they appear in these templates?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are there examles of bulleted featured lists?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • When I said bulleted list, I mean that within the tables the contestants were listed in bullets, or maybe separated with the following symbol found in the toolbox, •--₮RUCӨ 22:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • This is simple to do. I could just copy it from the templates above. However, I don't recall seeing featured lists that have used that technique.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Or get someone else's input about it, because its a rare formatting. Also, expand the lead more about the models.--₮RUCӨ 00:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's rarity is why I am sort of hesitant. I'll watch for further feedback on the issue. I think now that they are alphabetized, the list are easier to use than when you first looked at them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll see what comes about on that issues. For now, the lead still needs work.--₮RUCӨ 01:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Help request After double checking the 2008 refs, I noticed that 34 of the 35 models are sourced and Rosie Huntington-Whiteley is not properly sourced. I have found the following unconventional sources. Please advise: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mWMq5ovAso (If you don't want to torture yourself with 5 minutes of devilish beauty you should skip to the 4 minute mark and look for number 9); Also at http://www.newsgab.com/forum/celebrity-pictures/63157-rosie-huntington-whiteley-victorias-secret-fashion-show.html; http://www.gunaxin.com/victorias-secret-fashion-show-models-power-ranking-2008/4850; or http://www.freewebs.com/rosiehuntingtonfans/index.htm. They are unconventional because they would not be traditional WP:RS for text, but for video and photo they are pretty much uncontestable. Can I use any of these and hope for FL?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

1. The page name doesn't conform with WP:Naming Conventions because "Fashion Show" shouldn't have first capital letters.

   According to Wikipedia:Naming_Conventions#Lowercase_second_and_subsequent_words_in_titles, Victoria's Secret Fashion Show is a proper name. I.E., it is the title of an annual event. "Victoria's Secret fashion" shows might be random shows held throughout the country, but the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show is the name of an event. The proper correction is to put it in in italics within the text of the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know it that this was the name of the fashion show. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. The current list is more about List of Victoria's Secret Fashion Shows than about List of Victoria's Secret Fashion Show models. You should have a section for every single model instead of repeating their name in the list. (Awaiting the debate)--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I am not so sure I understand what you want. I think you want a different article named List of Victoria's Secret Fashion Show models (alphabetical) and then the current article could be renamed List of Victoria's Secret Fashion Show models (by year). However the article you are asking for would be redundant with List of Victoria's Secret fashion models.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that the list is more focused toward the occurrence of the show than on the models of the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show. A more appropriate name would be List of Victoria's Secret Fashion Shows, because this is what the list is about. 70% of the prose is about the show itself than the models. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have a problem with that page move. The problem is that it does not really summarize the shows very well. It would need things like musical acts and such to be featured caliber under that title.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list is more toward the fashion shows. So either you keep the current name and reorganize it to focus on models (a lot of work) or move it to the other name and expand it to include the things that you mentioned before.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Diaa somewhat, as I think the focus of the list is a little off right now. It's formatted and presented as if it's about the shows (not the models), but there isn't really enough data on a per-show basis, just date, location, and models. If it was meant to be about the shows themselves, I would expect more data like network it aired on, ratings, maybe the individual lines of lingerie they were advertising that year, maybe a prief prose-based rundown of the whole event, etc. Maybe not all that or even those things specifically, but something a little bit more in depth. As it is, the list is neither about the models or the events, it's really just a wierd hyrbid that accomplishes neither. This somewhat goes along with my comment about about italicizing the names of the angels, though this suggestions woul push things in the opposite direction. Either way would be fine with me, but right now the list is straddling the fence. Drewcifer (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are sort of two approaches one could take to adding model information.

1. One could associate each model with a country like at List of Victoria's Secret fashion models and talk about the number of models from each country in given years.
2. One could emphasize which models debuted in given years with text like "2007 marked the debut of Marisa Miller."

I don't know but the prose still doesn't say much about the models themselves, it just states which year they were featured in. I recommend renaming the list to an events list or expand it with a prose on the models themselves.--₮RUCӨ 00:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the ongoing debate over the nature and scope of this article, I will remain neutral. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• Why is IMDb used?
  • It is the only source of seemingly complete model lists for 2001-2007.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes the following sources reliable:
  • http://www.popcrunch.com/victorias-secret-angels-hollywood-walk-of-fame/#more-8140?
    • The source is verifyable as it is a picture of 8 identifyable people. Unless you are contesting that the image was photoshopped it is reliable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.tvacres.com/admascots_angels.htm? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I admit I have not read all of the above. But I have to oppose this for a few reasons:

• Ref 25: fashionologie.com says "fashionologie is the musings of a twenty-something American girl" - I'm pretty sure it's just a (well-presented?) blog.
  • The source is verifyable as it is a set of pictures of the women in the show. Unless you are contesting that the images were photoshopped it is reliable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Refs 35, 41, 45, 48 ,49: IMDb is not a reliable source. I appreciate this information may be difficult to find elsewhere, but it doesn't make the source any more reliable.
  • Discussion is ongoing about IMDb at WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Shows in the 1990s were held in the days preceding Valentine's Day" - 1995 was in August!
  • Well after the first one. I'll change the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "and almost had Seymour make an appearance at the New York Stock Exchange" - relevent?
  • Everyone was clamoring for news about the models. There is not much news. Most stories are puff pieces.
• Where is the rest of 1998: Ref 6 states "the luscious Victoria's Secret girls", plural so I guess it wasn't just Seymour.
  • Publicity for that year was low, and I am unable to find any listing. Help appreciated. This was the last year before it went to the internet. My guess is someone screwed up the publicity so bad that they turned it over to someone new who put it on the internet.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Prose needs sharpening: e.g. "In 1999 and 2000,[9][10] the show was broadcast live on the internet, but the 2000 show was moved for a year from the usual Febraury event at the Plaza to a May event in concert with the Cannes Film Festival in South France.[11][12]"
  • "but" indicates some sort of affect of the move with the internet so it is probably the wrong word.
  • "2000 show was moved for a year from the usual Febraury event", I guess the show wasn't moved from the event, as I guess the event didn't go on without the show - reword.
  • "moved for a year from the usual Febraury event at the Plaza" - sounds like it was the first year away from the Plaza but 1999 wasn't in the Plaza either.
• Reference 52 is explicitly used after the location, which suggests the other year locations are not cited. Whereas ref 6 for 1998 only cites the date/location (not models) but is in a different place - please be consistent with your style.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "supermodels of the day" - not a very encyclopedic term
• "broadcast on network television", what network?
  • I added the network for the first year.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Was the 2001 show televised live then?
  • No. I have corrected the list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Apparently 1999 was a "record for any Webcast"[9] - worth a mention surely.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 21:53, 21 March 2009 [10].

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16

I am nominating this filmography because I feel it meets the Featured List criteria. The list includes Jackson's appearances in music video, film, TV, and has been copy-edited by User:Realist2. Pyrrhus16 16:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Music videos aren't generally filmography material, they are part of discographies. It shouldn't be mentioned in this article, except for his notable ones (but not listed).--₮RUCӨ 21:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jackson doesn't have a "discography". He has a specialized singles discography and a specialized albums discography, due to size issues. — R² 21:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh. I see a lot of wording for many of the sections, which is generally not how many filmographies are set up (from what I have seen at FLC). I'm a bit uncomfortable reviewing this one, maybe after others review it I will, but right now I'm a bit edgy, I hope you understand.--₮RUCӨ 21:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to review this either today or tomorrow, so don't worry about not receiving feedback. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, we were starting to get a little worried lol. — R² 23:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) No time for a full read, but I can tell from the lead alone that the article is not yet a smooth read. I suggest finding someone uninvolved to copy-edit:

• "at the age of 11"

Done

• "The seventh child of the Jackson family" Trivial info for a filmography.

Done

• "In the early 1980s, Jackson became a dominant figure in popular music and the first African-American entertainer to amass a strong crossover following on MTV." These are strong claims. Do you have a source?

Done

• "The popularity of his music videos airing on MTV,"-->The popularity of his music videos that aired on MTV,

Done

• "a 17 minute film costing $30 million"-->a 17-minute film that costed $30 million

Done

• "was the most expensive video produced per-minute upon it's release."-->was the most expensive video to produce (in dollars per minute) on its release.

Done

• "Some of his short films drew controversy for their violent and sexual elements, others were lauded by critics and awarded Guinness World Records." Semicolon, not comma.

Done

• "Starring in The Jacksons in 1976, a variety show featuring the Jackson family, the singer went on to appear in films such as Men in Black II and Miss Cast Away. " Split this sentence up.

Done

• "Creating his own feature length movie, Moonwalker, at a cost of $23 million, several of Jackson's films are notable for their runtime." Dangling participle. Did "several of Jackson's films" create his own feature length movie?

Done

• "Jackson's Motown 25: Yesterday, Today, Forever performance, received critical acclaim" Comma not needed.

Done. Pyrrhus16 15:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Jackson's interviews have dealt with the controversial topics surrounding him" This phrase could be pruned quite a bit. Here is a solution I thought up (not the best, but an improvement): "Jackson's interviews usually concern his controversial acts"

From these issues in the lead alone, I will not read further until a third party is brought in to fix things up. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've split the sentence for your last concern. Pyrrhus16 13:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be gone for five days, so I will summarize my position here: I will only rescind my oppose if the prose has been significantly combed through by a third-party editor. If it looks like my concerns have been resolved, feel free to promote and disregard my oppose. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article has since had a further copy-edit by User:Iridescent. Pyrrhus16 07:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I have no time to look over the changes. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Why not Michael Jackson videography? This is really a filmography? Cannibaloki 03:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a better title, we can definitely change it after the FLC is closed. :) The last time I tried doing that during an FLC, it caused all kinds of problems. :) Pyrrhus16 13:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want to move the list? I can take care of it if you want. What is the desired new title? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Michael Jackson videography" is the desired title. :) Pyrrhus16 18:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need an admin to do it. I will ask Matthewedwards. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Pyrrhus16 18:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still not happy Moving down, I still see problems:

• "Jackson's video making continued throughout the 1990s, some films drawing controversy" The second clause is not grammatical.

Done

• "It featured scenes construed as having a sexual nature as well as depictions of violence." The parallelism is confusing: Could the scenes be construed as having depictions of violence or were there actually violent scenes?

Reworded

• "it gained 11 MTV Video Music Award Nominations" "received" is a better word.

Done

• "The offending scenes in the final half of the 14-minute version were edited out to prevent the video from being banned, and Jackson apologized."-->Jackson apologized for the offending scenes in the final half of the 14-minute version, which were edited out to prevent the video from being banned

Done

• "and later replaced with a music video"-->and was later replaced with a music video

Done

• "It's not political. It's not fascist. It's pure, simple love". I'm thinking that the quotation should be outside the period in this case.

Done

• "Jackson's short films have also been recognised "

Done

Simply not ready yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 16 should be using Template:Cite video, not Template:Citation. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added a URL and used Template:Cite web. Pyrrhus16 14:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was not promoted by Rockk3r 20:53, 20 March 2009 [11]

Nominator(s):  Rockk3r Spit it Out!

I recently created this list. After some edits got the help from another user, Cannibaloki. I think it looks pretty good, if there's anything that can be imrpoved on the page, please don't hesitate to comment it. In my opinion this list is ready to be a FL.  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 03:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Truco (talk · contribs)

General

• Fix the dab (as found with the checker tool in the toolbox)

Lead

• One of the most commercially successful heavy metal bands of all time, Iron Maiden have sold over 70 million albums worldwide. --> As one of the most..
• For their live performances, Iron Maiden received a nomination for Kerrang! Awards in the category Best Live Act in 2003, and was awarded as Best British Live Act at the BRIT Awards in 2009. -- (1)a nomination for Kerrang! Awards --> a nomination from (the) Kerrang! Award [I'm not sure whether it requires the the] (2)add the before Best British Live Act at the BRIT Awards in 2009.
• Their mascot Eddie, who in the past was used by U.S. critics to argue that Iron Maiden were Satanists,[5] received a Golden Gods nomination in 2006, but lost to singer Cristina Scabbia;[6] and was awarded in 2008. -- (1)Unlink U.S. its a common geographical term per WP:OVERLINK (2)the final and should be a but

Awards

• Each awarding body needs a purpose and a source verifying their purpose and existence.

References

• What makes gigwise, YLE Pop, and Rock on the net reliable?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this list even needed? I mean, Iron Maiden is a major act, but more than half of the awards are magazine awards. This page really says nothing that couldn't easily be stated at Iron Maiden. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'd say the same about Metallica's article, Slipknot's, NIN's, Soundgarden's, and so on. One of the most unneeded articles are the concerts by NIN, which could be splitted into different articles, bout instead is a FA. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 01:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, most of those lists should not be FLs. Your excuse is that other crap exists. Basically, people create these lists because they see how easy it is to reach FL status. I've failed in my duty as director by letting this happen and I want to try to clean the process up. The first thing to do is to try to improve these small small-scope lists. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean and I totally agree with your opinion. I'll withdraw the article from the FL candidates, and try to imrpove it as much as possible. Then, I'll show it to you and have your opinion on wether it should stay as FL or not.  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 20:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:45, 13 March 2009 [12].

Nominator(s): ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{( t • c )}

Another episode list for your consideration. A minor warning: the contents of this list are quite disturbing. To quote one reviewer, "It's dark, the fetish angle has the potential to make folks very uncomfortable, and it's violent." Now that I've given fair warning, good luck! ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{( t • c )} 03:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The "goddess" kisses him, however, and Suitengu orders Saiga's death." - Why not "The "goddess" kisses him and Suitengu orders Saiga's death"? What is the relation of the kiss and the order to kill?
  • Clarified. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The "goddess" kisses him, interrupting the ceremony so Suitengu orders Saiga's death." - This is still not clear enough. -- Goodraise (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Expanded in ep1. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 21:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still don't see the relation between the order to kill and the kiss. -- Goodraise (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not immediately clear in the episode either. However, the viewer later learns that Kagura's kiss confers desired abilities, so Suitengu's initial reaction is to kill someone who has gained the powers without his permission. Not really sure how I could work this into the summary... ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• How can an emtpy lunch box make you ill?
  • Clarified. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After she arrives at school, Kagura falls ill from malnourishment because her mother has been giving her an empty bentō every day." - The problem isn't solved yet. I assume: She falls ill because her mother doesn't give her enough food. Giving her an empty bentou has another reason. Perhaps it is to hide that malnourishment from the teachers and fellow students? -- Goodraise (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarified in ep2. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 21:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still don't see how "giving her an empty bentō every day" can cause malnourishment. How is mentioning the bentō adding anything to that paragraph? -- Goodraise (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The only way the viewer can tell that Shinsen is malnourishment Kagura is through the empty boxes and the lack of lunch. Kagura doesn't ever eat lunch, it seems. The discovery that the bentō is empty is key to the viewer understanding her malnourishment. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is "goddess" sometimes quoted and sometimes not?
  • She's not really a goddess, so whenever I refer to her as such out of context (i.e. not mentioning the club). ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not good. If she isn't really a goddess, then you need to explain what it means to be that club's "goddess". -- Goodraise (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarified in ep4. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 21:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see it clarified there. Even if I did, explaining it somewhere later in the article isn't good enough. If you introduce a term from within the fictional world, you have to explain what it means on first usage. Just putting it in quotation marks doesn't solve the problem. -- Goodraise (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It isn't explained in the first episode. She's called "goddess" throughout the episode, and no explanation is given. Would it be easier to drop the quotations altogether? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Is he already in jail at the beginning of the episode? If no reason for his being there is given, you could point that out to avoid making the reader think you (as the writer of the summary) are withholding information from them.
  • Nope. He's out taking photos of politicians at the start of the episode, so that doesn't fit either. The plot holes are of the episode itself. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "to earn enough money to survive" - Perhaps change this to "for a living"?
  • Changed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "causing a strange reaction in his body" - How can you tell? What is it the viewer actually sees happening?
  • Well, he begins twitching and his body, especially the area around his eye, begins changing color, but it really doesn't seem important enough to mention. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Why are you at first withholding that the goddess is Kagura? Does her transformation change her so much that she is unrecognizable?
  • Kagura isn't introduced until the second episode, and her appearance as a goddess is significantly different from her normal appearance. Personally, I realized that she was the goddess purely by inferring (and by the fact that there really is only one female lead in this), but it isn't explicitly shown or stated until later. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "When Kagura returns home, she discovers her mother having sex with her teacher in her room." - What does it matter in which room they're doing it?
  • Removed the excess info. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Suitengu makes Kagura fall asleep and return to her form as the Club's goddess." - How are these actions accomplished?
  • He whispers something that seems to cause her to fall asleep. Some kind of conditioning, I'd guess? Information added. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "his wounds oddly heal" - What is "odd" about his wounds healing?
  • I would find it odd if someone's wounds spontaneously closed up and healed. Changed "oddly" to "quickly". ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "When he finally is able to pause to rest, he discovers that the camera has not changed: he has." - What makes him realize that?
  • I didn't find that to be important enough to mention, considering he just finds sticky fluids coming out of his hand onto the camera. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "However, Saiga unearths information about Suitengu and the Roppongi Club at the same time." - Is he unearthing information about those two at the same time or is he unearthing information at the same time as "Suitengu and his men discover the identity of Saiga and begin to track him down"? And how is the time he does it relevant in the first place?
  • At the same time as "Suitengu blah blah blah". Clarified. They plan to attack at the exact same time, so it seems coincidental that their timings match. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Under the billboard bearing Saiga's famed photo, Kagura and Saiga reunite." - What billboard bearing what famed photo of his? Perhaps you mean: "Under a billboard bearing a famed photo of Saiga's, Kagura and Saiga reunite."
  • Fixed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as I can't get past a single summary without finding these kinds of prose issues and I haven't even read past ep4. -- Goodraise (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see why most of these points need to be clarified, barring the important ones, like Kagura's "goddess" status. I just restated what happened, but I'm really in no place to explain why, nor do I feel it is necessary in an episode summary. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: per the official TV Asahi site, this show was aired on Thursdays at 26:40, which rolls over to Friday 02:40; the Japanese airdates should be moved up one day. —tan³ tx 01:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]