Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/March 2013

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 Hahc21 10:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because based on the recent review of List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A), I think this list is at the same quality level. Thanks in advance for any constructive feedback. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I contributed to the successful ACRs of two of the most recent of these lists (G) and (L), and to the successful FLN of (A) and all of my comments from those reviews are reflected in this article.

• no duplinks, no dablinks, checklinks ok, alt text good, reflinks ok, earwig ok. No action needed.
• suggest you convert all ten digit ISBNs to 13 digit per WP:ISBN.

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent article, to your usual high standard. Well done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment only thing I noticed was the lead says "are ordered..." when that should be "are initially ordered" since it's a sortable list. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

done, thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first article I have nominated for good or featured status. Barnet is rich in nature reserves, and I think a summary of them is very useful for local people. I plan to write an article about the list in the local residents association newsletter, and it would be helpful be assured of its quality first. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 14:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments Currently, the first sentence describes the table, not the topic. Also, moving the page to List of nature reserves in Barnet would be a good idea The lead puts the topic aside and instead describes the features of websites "in 2009–10" - suggest writing that out, eg "from 2009 to 2010", and moving that at the end of that sentence I suggest putting that table into a separate section The table is not accessible, row header, column headers and captions need to be added. Adding alt text to the images would be a plus Some links lead to something different, eg Arkley leads to a village, not a district Whetstone is a dablink [3] One dead link--Tomcat (7) 11:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• As mentioned above, the article should be named "List of nature reserves in Barnet". I may be just as good to wait until the FLC is over to rename to avoid technical issues. Agreed
• The scope of the lead is wrong. It should talk about the topic, not the article itself. Information about what websites have been available when is better mentioned in footnotes. Done
• The lead needs to include a definition of nature reserve, as in some countries a nature reserve by definition doesn't contain any roads or the like. Definitions of preserved area types tends to vary between countries. Reply The different types of nature reserve are now explained.
• Nowhere is there any mention that this topic is about the UK or England. Reply I do not think this is necessary. London related articles do not normally say that London is in England.
• The codes in access and type should be in a table. Done
• The table and key should be in its own section. Done
• List similar to this normally require a brief description to be approved for FL. See for instance Grade I listed churches in Cheshire and List of national parks of the United States Done
• Refs should go in their own column. As it reads now I would presume only the name is referenced and the rest is not. Reply Refs are now for descriptions.
• Cells without an image should be marked with a center-align emdash (—). No longer applicable
• References which are online need proper formatting, with publisher, accessdate and titles, and if possible author and date information. {{cite web}} can make this easy and consistent (although you are not required to use such templates). Done
• Do not start a list with a boldface repetition of the title unless it would be a natural way of starting the sentence (it usually isn't) Done
• As noted above, the article needs to comply with WP:DTT. Specifically, this includes use of the use of scope parameters for rows and columns, and inclusion of a caption. Done Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks very much for the feedback. I will work on these points. A couple of queries:

• It appears to me that adding a description column would make too many columns, so I think it would be best to delete the road column and merge district and coordinates into a location column. The columns would then be: 1. Site (without references). 2. Image. 3. Location. 4. Access. 5. Type. 6. Description (with references). Does this look OK?
  • That would be fine with me. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not clear how to make a table for the codes in access and type. Is there an article which does something similar which I could look at for guidance? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have a look at List of Rosenborg BK seasons, List of Birmingham City F.C. players (25–99 appearances) and List of Oslo Metro stations for three different ways of organizing the key. Any of these will work, although some will be more appropriate in given situations. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Bald Zebra (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I also agree that the list should be renamed, and as already mentioned, the last two paragraphs don't belong in the lead - it'd be better to incorporate these into a key at the top of the Nature reserves section (before the main table). Reply Agreed. As Arsenikk suggested, I will change the name when (hopefully) the FL has gone through to avoid technical issues. It might be worth wikilinking a number of the species mentioned in the descriptions, especially those that aren't so familiar to everyone (such as meadow pipit, slow worm, Yorkshire-fog, and the butterfly species at Bells' Hill). Reply Agreed. "Arrandene Open Space is one of the best sites in London" - this needs amending (or removing altogether) to make this note more neutral. Reply That the site is one of the best sites for traditionally managed hay meadows seems to me a factual sourced statement. It is the view of the London Ecology Unit. "In summer it is a blaze of wild flowers" → "Wild flowers are abundant in the summer" Reply Agreed. "The local RSPB has recorded an impressive range of birds." → "The local RSPB has recorded a large range of birds." Reply Again the view of the LEU, although it could be expressed as a large range of birds for a small suburban park. "Big Wood has a surprising variety of trees and shrubs" - why is this surprising? It'd be better to use a purely descriptive term such as "Big Wood has a wide variety of trees and shrubs" Reply I took this to have a similar meaning as above, but I agree that 'surprising' is a curious word and 'wide' would be better. Are there no photos available for Bruno's Field, Mill Hill Golf Course and Totteridge Croft Field? Reply I now have photos for these sites which I will upload. Bruno's Field is a private site hidden behind houses, but I have a picture of the trees in the field from a neighbouring road. Totteridge Croft Field is the most difficult of all the reserves, a field distant from any public space, but I have photographed the border hedge from a footpath. "This steeply loping field" → "This steeply sloping field" "The canopy has fine old oaks" - what makes these old oaks fine? It'd be better to just describe them as old, perhaps mentioning how old they are if possible. Reply This seems to me a fair sourced description. "Coppeet's Wood has an unusual population of juneberry" - should be spelled "Coppett's Wood". Also, why is the collection of juneberry unusual? Better to just say "Coppett's Wood has a population of juneberry". Reply I took this to mean unusual for the area, but probably better left out as the meaning is not clear. "The site also has a good range of birds and the scarce glow-worm." → "The site is a habitat for a range of bird species and glow-worms." (unless the 'scarce glow-worm' is actually a separate species, in which case this need wikilinking). Reply The fact that the site has glow-worms, which are a rare species, adds to its importance as a nature reserve and is worth stating, but it could be expressed more clearly. "The fields have a surpisingly rural quality even though they lie alongside the A1 road." - "Surprisingly" is spelled wrong, although I think it'd better to remove this sentence altogether as it's promotional rather than descriptive. Reply Strictly you are right, but it is sourced and it is interesting and correct. I would prefer to keep it. Cheers, ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 12:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Reply Thanks very much for the comments. In partial excuse for all the typos, I am in the middle of entering the descriptions and have not yet got around to spell checking them. The descriptive words are sourced from the London Ecology Unit's Nature Conservation in Barnet, or the summary of the descriptions in London environmental record office website. Some 'colour' words seem to me desirable when properly sourced to avoid making the descriptions excessively dry, but see detailed replies above. Further comments would be appreciated. I have changed the dating of government statistics from 2009-10 to 2009 to 2010 as suggested by Tomcat 7, but I am not happy with the change. 2009-10 in relation to British government statistics has the generally understood meaning of the year from April 2009 to March 2010, whereas 2009 to 2010 is vague and could mean the whole of both years. The coordinates are based on the estimates of various editors, but I now have Nature Conservation in Barnet which has grid refs for each site. I am therefore inclined to change to the sourced grid refs. Is there any policy on which to use? I said above that I would delete the 'road' column, but on second thoughts I think it would be helpful to use it for the area in hectares. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] I appreciate where you're coming from regarding the descriptive words, but in these cases we need to attribute this statement to the LEU in the text rather than just repeating their opinion as fact - even though these statements are sourced, they could still be seen as peacock statements as they stand right now. For example, I would suggest changing the Arrandene description to "Arrandene Open Space is rated by the London Ecology Unit as one of the best sites in London...". ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 10:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the advice. I will amend accordingly. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] I have now made the amendments suggested. Are there further issues? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Apart from renaming the page, all my comments have been resolved, the list is looking pretty good, and I'm happy to support it. Nice job. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 16:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Five paras in the lead seems large, particularly if you see WP:LEAD. Done. "Green Belt" can be capitalised when talking about a specific "Green Belt" but when used in general (i.e. "... is green belt") then it shouldn't be. Done. Consider converting "hectares" to "acres" using the {{convert}} template for more universal appeal. Done. Same with "square miles". Done. " hectares.[b]" no need for an artificial full stop. No longer applicable. " Importance - the best examples " should be an en-dash, not a hyphen. Done by Tomcat7. "without sticking to " reads a little colloquially to me. Done. You may like to ask User:Goodraise to take a look over this list as I know this editor is particularly scrupulous when it comes to this kind of thing! Done. Be consistent. It's "London clay" or "London Clay". And in a sortable table, anything that's linked once needs to be linked every time. Done. En-dashes should be used for page ranges in the references. Done by Tomcat7. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Please reply to comments by inserting new, indented lines.)

• In two places, a hyphen is used where there should be an en dash.

• Can you advise where. I do not understand the rules.

• It's in refs. 16 and 66.

• I have copied the en dash from the article on dashes and pasted it in these refs, but it looks just the same. Is it OK now?

Keys

• "NO = means no public access"

• Done.

• "damage to these sites would mean a significant loss to the borough" – This is a complete sentence. Suggest reword to "sites of significance to the borough" or similar.

• Revised to "of significant value to the borough"

• "the public has a right to roam freely, not only on paths" – This too is a complete sentence. Suggest reword to "free public access to all of the site" or similar.

• Done

• "Site of Metropolitan Importance" – Linking terms like this in the Keys: Type column would be useful (not everyone will want to read the lead).

• I have linked to LNR and SSSI but there is no good article to link the other terms to. (I ought to sort this out but I have too many things on my list already.)

• Notes [b] and [c] are in the wrong place (readers who know what Local Nature Reserves and Sites of Special Scientific Interest are will likely ignore the notes here). Try putting that information elsewhere.

• Done

• "important sites for nature and/or geology" – Rather vague. Actually, I don't really see the point to all the annotations in that column. Wouldn't just linking the terms be equally as good?

• I have found a source which gives a clearer (less unclear) definition: "of special interest locally for wildlife or geological features". I think it is worth keeping the annotations. Another editor complained that I had not defined my terms, and I think he was right, that some readers will want definitions.

Sites

• It may make no difference in most cases, but MOS:DTT still demands scope="row".

• Done, but have I done it right?

• "The site covers thea lane" – Not yet introduced.

• "The" refers to Arkley Lane, the site name, but I have changed to " covers Arkley Lane" for clarity.

• Suggestion: "The lane is thought to be an old drovers' road, and is now a quiet country path." -> "The lane, now a quiet country path, is thought to be an old drovers' road."

• Done.

• "The woodland is probably ancient, and it supports a variety of nesting birds."

• Done

• Suggestion: "Its importance lies in its breeding grassland birds, and it is the main site in the borough for skylarks and meadow pipits." -> "Its importance lies in its breeding grassland birds. It is also the main site in the borough for skylarks and meadow pipits."

• The suggestion does not convey what I meant, ie grassland birds including skylarks etc, so I have change for clarity to "Its importance lies in its breeding grassland birds, including skylarks and meadow pipits, and it is the main site in the borough for these species." This is still a bit clumsy, but does it seem acceptable?

• Suggestion: "the main site in the borough for skylarks and meadow pipits. Skylarks have declined rapidly in recent years, and they are a priority species in the UK Biodiversity Report." -> "the main site in the borough for meadow pipits and skylarks, which have declined rapidly in recent years and are a priority species in the UK Biodiversity Report."

• I think this could be confusing. It could be misunderstood to mean that meadow pipits have declined.

• "Skylarks have declined rapidly in recent years, and they are a priority species in the UK Biodiversity Report." – Is this still true? After all, the source is from 1997.

• I have found an up to date source, and deleted "rapidly" as the decline has slowed. It is now "Skylarks have declined in recent years, and they are a priority species in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan."

More to come. Goodraise 02:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "This site's fields are rated by the LEU as one of the best examples of old hay meadows in London, divided by ancient hedgerows." – This sentence structure is just awkward.

• Revised to: "This site's fields, which are divided by ancient hedgerows, are rated by the LEU as one of the best examples of old hay meadows in London." Is this OK?

• "Wild flowers are abundant in the summer, and each field has its own specialities, including two small fields on top of Featherstone Hill at the west end." – Confusing. Why is this one sentence instead of two? What kind of specialities is this referring to? Wild flowers?

• I have revised this to "Wild flowers are abundant in the summer, with each field having its own specialities." Does this make it clear that 'specialities' refers to wild flowers? The last part on Featherstone Hill I have deleted as superfluous.

• Don't bypass redirects using pipes. It's okay for links to point to redirects. Redirects just shouldn't point to other redirects. (See WP:NOPIPE.)

• Editors have complained to me in the past when I have put in links which are double redirects. Does this mean they are wrong? If so, this clarifies the point for me.

• Links aren't redirects. You can't put double redirects into articles. Redirects are Wikipedia pages which contain only one link which is supposed to be followed automatically. When a link in one redirect page points to another redirect page, that's what's called a double redirect. There's bots running around fixing those, so you don't have to worry about them. Linking from inside an article to a redirect page is perfectly acceptable, even encouraged. Unfortunately, a lot of editors don't understand the advantages of linking to redirects, and keep "fixing" those links by introducing pipes. Yes, those editors are wrong.

• I think I now understand. I should have said that I have been putting in pipes to avoid redirects because editors complained when I put in links which pointed to redirects, but you advise that this is wrong and pipes should not be used if the link points to the correct article.

• That's right. Those editors are wrong; in most cases creating and linking to redirects is preferable for a variety of reasons. For example: If you replace [[Meadow Pipit|meadow pipits]] with [[meadow pipit]]s, the article source becomes easier to read.

Goodraise 23:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC) More to come. Goodraise 21:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your very helpful comments. Please advise if you are not happy with any of my replies. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revisited. Goodraise 23:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "but it is now closed to the public." – Words like "now" and "currently" are problematic in encyclopedia articles and should be avoided whenever possible. If the place opens again tomorrow, this article will be wrong. Try putting it differently. You might, for example, say when it closed or "as of" when it is closed.

• Done

• "Its woodland has a wide range of birds, p. Ponds support aquatic life and more open areas have a wide variety of insects." – Comma splice.

• Done

• "This small cemetery has mown grass in the western part, but in the east it is less managed, and it has a wide variety of wild flowers."

• Done

• "The local RSPBRoyal Society for the Protection of Birds has recorded a wide range of birds for a small suburban park." – See MOS:ACRO.

• Done

• "This steeply sloping field has a varied topography, with dry areas at the top and bog lower down, with several small streams." – "..., with ..., with ..." Please reword.

• Done

• "which is now a footpath." – What was it before it became a footpath?

• The wording is "an old green lane which is now a footpath". I prefer to keep this. I could put something like "is an old green lane which was used by wheeled vehicles but is now just a footpath" but this seems unnecessary and clumsy.

• "TheIts hedgerow has several species of trees, such as wild service-tree and black bryony, which suggest that it is ancient, and theits verge is rich in wild flowers."

• Done

• "The pasture area is dominated by Yorkshire Fog, and it. It is crossed by Burtonhole Brook, which supports a number of uncommon plant species."

• Done

• TheIts tree canopy is mainly oak and hornbeam, and theits sparse undergrowth has a number of species associated with ancient woodland, such as wild garlic and wood-sedge."

• Done

• "TheIts canopy has fine old oaks above an understorey of Midland hawthorn, blackthorn and hazel."

• Done

• "Efforts to re-open it have so far failed" – As of?

• Done

• "...purchased the site in 2006, and t. The farm buildings are currently an equestrian shop."

• Done

• "...farm buildings are currently an equestrian shop." – As of?

• Done

• "The trees and scrub provide..." – What trees and scrub?

• Done

• "The trees and scrub provide a habitat for birds, and; even pipistrelle bats have been recorded." – Suggestion.

• I prefer to keep this as it is. Pipistrelles are not that uncommon.

• "Pipistrelle bats" and similar terms should really be linked.

• I was not sure what to do about linking here. The source probably means common pipistrelles, but it does not say so, and it does not seem helpful to link to the article on the pipistrellus genus. I have linked where I could find a suitable article, but in some cases it is not clear which species is referred to and in others there is no article, such as the dusky cockroach.

More to come. Sorry for the long break. I'm a bit low on spare time and energy these days. Goodraise 21:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comments. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Wizardman 06:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I nominated a list, and since baseball's nearly listed out at this point, I'm bringing over a football list instead, one based off the newly promoted List of North Carolina Tar Heels in the NFL Draft.

This one gives us nearly 70 players from Hawaii. Only a handful of big football names on the list, but I fund the non-football guys more interesting; we have at least one musician and one mayor on this list, as well as a murderer sadly. I addressed everything in advance that I think would be an issue, so hopefully this will be a rather easy list for you all to tackle. Wizardman 06:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Perhaps link the AFL Draft to "separate draft" instead of just "draft" to make it clear where the link is going (otherwise the reader may believe it is simply a link to the article on drafts in general).
• Also the tables in the key need to meet WP:DTT (specifically use of scope and a caption).
• Any reason the table isn't sortable? It would be nice to be able to sort for instance by overall pick and NFL team.
• Some references use the ISO date formatting and some write them out. Please be consistent.
• It would be nice if works/publishers such as ESPN and Sports Illustrated were linked, either every time or on first occasion. For information from the NFL, could you please be consistent about spelling it out in full or abbreviating it, and make sure either the first or all are linked.

Overwise a nice list. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember right I tried making one of these sortable once before, and because of the way the years are listed (just one for each group), adding a sort option breaks the table completely. If I were to split the years and make that column like everything else then it would work, but since no other draft lists have that I'll get a second opinion on that first. The rest I'll address soon. Wizardman 17:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sortability code was changed not that long ago. I tried making the table sortable and it works good to me, as the first column is "fixed" automatically. Have a try at it and see if you're happy. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done except for the DTT thing, since I'm not sure what else is needed even after reading that. The colors are different and different icons are used, which I figure should address any accessibility concerns. Wizardman 16:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• "One warrior, Jim Mills, is a member of the Canadian Football Hall of Fame." "warrior" needs capitalization.
• Photos could use alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Wizardman 04:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Is there a reason that "Hawaiʻi" has alternative spellings throughout this list? " drafted into the National Football League (NFL) since the league began holding drafts" this maybe boilerplate by now, but I've just realised that this repeats "league" and "draft" in a single sentence. "the merger agreements" vs "the merger agreement". Not sure Notes needs to be sortable. You have NT in the key but it's not used. Check others. You link NFL.com in ref 3, but it's already been used in ref 2. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] For the first one, the only time Hawai'i is used is the one time that the University itself is referenced. I could change it to Hawaii but it would just be a redirect to the article with the apostrophe anyway. The rest I'll address now. Wizardman 18:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Issues addressed. Wizardman 18:39, 28 February 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this article will become the fourth Rosenborg FL. I believe it meets the criteria, but I'm sure you guys will find at least a few issues I've overlooked. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - my main concern is that the article only includes stats from 1967 onwards - what about the teams/games Rosenborg played before that date? Current FLs like Luton Town F.C. league record by opponent include stats for all league games, in the case of Luton even from the super-obscure United League. If the intention is to only include top-flight stats then a) why is that? and b) surely 1978 should be excluded as well..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main reason for starting with 1967 is that no reliable sources have published statistical information for earlier seasons, so it is physically impossible to produce a more extensive list within WP guidelines. I agree that going back to 1918 would be ideal, but back then RBK wasn't even allowed to join the FA (for instance it is not even known which date Rosenborg played its first match). While Luton Town always has been a spectator-based team, it was first in the 1950s did Rosenborg become sufficiently good to draw a significant crowd and even then it was a smaller player in town. All major, reliable sources I have come across (the club itself, major news sites etc) put 1967 as the starting points for stats. Thus starting in 1967 is the only way to not violate WP:OR and WP:V. As for inclusion of 1978, I have a neutral stance. I have included it because the source includes it, but if it would make the article more neutral by excluding that season, then I am open to that too. Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it the book by Svardal that puts 1967 as starting point? On the website "Motstandere" published by Rosenborg BK, cited in the article, all league-matches from 1964 are listed. If we mail them, and ask if they could add the matches from the 1963 season, would it be OR to add those 4 seasons at the second tier to the list? I think starting from 1963 would be reasonable, as the Norwegian league-system was reorganised in 1963. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are several possible starting points and 1963 would also work, as would the "marathon" 1961–62 season. As for the website you mention, it has been updated further since I created this list and adding that information would be fine, although I am not sure if it is complete or not. I'll have to look a bit closer at the stats. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Statistics is complete back to 1964, all three additional season when RBK played in the Second Divison. I can add these years, alternatively remove 1978 or leave it as it is. Either way is fine for me, but I would prefer any discussion to take place before I do the bulk of the work. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe it would be strange to start in 1964 and not 1963, so if the stats from 1963 is unavailable in RS's, we have two options left: remove 1978 or leave it as it is. I have no opinion on which of those two options should be chosen, but I understand that it looks strange to only have one season at the second tier included. On the other hand, when RS's included 1978, why shouldn't Wikipedia? Mentoz86 (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 21:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments Just suggestions, but I am inclined to support the list. "It is Norway's most successful club,[2] having won the Norwegian Premier League 22 times and the Norwegian Football Cup 9 times.[1]" - I would write "Norway's most successful club,[2] Rosenborg won the Norwegian Premier League 22 times and the Norwegian Football Cup 9 times.[1]" "it was not permitted to play Football Association of Norway-sanctioned matches until 1928.[4]" - the compound modifier is odd in this case, how about "it was not permitted to play on matches sanctioned by the Football Association of Norway until 1928." Perhaps " Rosenborg joined the top league in 1967 and won the leagueit in the club's inaugural top tier season.[5]" "With 41 seasons, Viking is the club which Rosenborg has played the most times. " suggest "Viking is the club with which Rosenborg has played the most, on 41 seasons" "With 40 seasons, Brann has been played the second-most times and the team Rosenborg has beat the most times." "Strindheim is the only other team from Trondheim that Rosenborg has played against in the top league against." "is the only team which has beaten Rosenborg more times than Rosenborg has beaten it."--Tomcat (7) 18:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Thank you. I have amended the lead as you suggested. Arsenikk (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--Tomcat (7) 21:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "on" matches and "on" seasons in Tomcat's suggestions above should be "in" matches and "in" seasons. "On" is not correct English in those sentences -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – "based in Trondheim, Norway. Norway's most successful club...". Try to avoid repetition like this from one sentence to the next. You could try "The most successful club in Norway" to fix the issue here. Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "Rosenborg won the Norwegian Premier League 22 times and the Norwegian Football Cup 9 times." Add "has" before "won" since the club is still in existence and this serves as a running tally. Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "Brann has played the second-most times and Rosenborg has beat the most times." Could use "is the club" after "and". Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "the latter three in which Rosenborg holds a clean sheet." Don't like the sentence structure here; a semi-colon before this, followed by "Rosenborg holds a clean sheet against the latter three" would be better. And can we say a club holds a clean sheet through multiple games against another? Amended as proposed. I honestly don't know if clean sheets count for multiple games; it sounds good to me, but I am happy to change it if others feel it sounds odd. Arsenikk (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "are the only teams Rosenborg has only played while in the Second Division." Would be nice to avoid having two "only"s in five words. Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Using List as a section heading is really plain and boring for an FL. The Manchester United list used All-time league record, which I think is a lot better. Agreed. Arsenikk (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] The lead image could use alt text. I forget this at almost every FLC. Arsenikk (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] To get the alt text to show up, you'll need to decapitalize Alt in the parameter title. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Done. Arsenikk (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] "while for the 1978 this represents the Second Division." Remove "the". Giants2008 (Talk) 23:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] All fixed. Thank you for the comments. Arsenikk (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] I meant the first one, not the second. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Yes, that would make a lot more sense. Arsenikk (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Per WP:ACCESS, it's best not to use a semi-colon for bolding as done in the reference section (i.e. the "General" and "Specific" headings). Screen-readers don't pick them up very well apparently, so it's best to use the three apostrophes instead. Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] For the general refs, put {{refbegin}} at the start and {{refend}} at the end of the section, in order to make the text the same size as the specific refs. Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] For the specific refs, use {{reflist|30em}} instead. Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Add table caption to the main table per WP:DTT. I'd suggest "Rosenborg BK league record by opponent" in order to match the Man United one. Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) As a sidenote, could you please help review my current FLC in exchange? —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for the comments. All has been seen to. Arsenikk (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – meets all 6 criteria in my opinion. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you say in the lead "Rosenborg joined the top league in 1967" and then at the top of the list "Rosenborg BK has played in the domestic league from the 1967 season and onwards", so a simple question, did Rosenborg have a "league record" before 1967? If not, then this list is either incomplete or incorrectly titled, or inadequately caveated in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section header title was proposed by a reviewer here, so I guess I have to get more careful of what advice I accept. I have changed the section header title. I have only been able to find a league record for a single season prior to 1967, per the discussion above, which is why the list has the chronological scope it has. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The parent article, Rosenborg BK, discusses the club's history prior to 1967, or 1964, or any arbitrary time-frame being discussed. I accept that you can only provide reliable information for that time period, but unfortunately, without the remaining information, I think that the list is incomplete, and fails criteria 3a. Harrias ^talk 09:28, 12 March 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Surge_Elec (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this list for featured list because I feel that I have significantly improved the quality and it meets all 6 FL criteria. Surge_Elec (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Four paragraphs for an article of this size is too much
• The prose is not so engaging. For eg., "Lagaan dominated Indian film award ceremonies, earning various nominations and winning numerous awards, including Best Film and Best Director, in each." The sentence is non-neutral and needs to be verifiable. The film did not win "Best Film" and "Best Director" awards at the National Film Awards.
• The "Recipients and nominees" column lists not just the recipients, but also the work
• Nobody would be interested in "Date of ceremony". Rather you could mention the order of the ceremony
• References are incomplete and some are non-reliable (IMDb, Apunkachoice.com, to name a few)

• All in all, this list needs copy-editing and reference formatting. Consider taking the article to PR before bringing it here for the second time
  

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - suggest the nominator follows Vensatry's advice. At a glance I can see several MOS issues (e.g. WP:CONTEXTLINK, WP:HASH, MOS:REF, WP:DASH), grammar issues (e.g. "in Time magazines' list"), not to mention those issues raised above. It's a good framework for an FLC, but it needs a thorough copyedit. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has the quality required, according to the Featured list criteria, to qualify to be considered a top article. The subject itself is also noteworthy as it determines the club World Champion. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Toa Nidhiki05

Comments Remove italics from federation and tournament names. There are a couple spelling errors in the following: Following a change in format which saw the FIFA Club World Championship absorbed the Toyota Cup and the competition's pilot edition, it was relaunched in 2005 and took its current name the season afterwards. Change it to something like: Following a change in format which saw the FIFA Club World Championship absorb the Toyota Cup, it was relaunched in 2005 and took its current name the season afterwards. Toa Nidhiki05 02:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - All concerns addressed. Toa Nidhiki05 21:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed those issues. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Astros4477

Comments – Column heading "Ref." – replace with "Ref(s)", since some have more than one. The Ref column shouldn't sort. The date formats in the references should ideally be the same. -- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] I fixed those issues as well. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] I didn't mean change all the dates to the same date, I meant the same format. Before, you had some that were "year-month-day" while others were "month-day-year". You should keep the dates the same as before but change the format so the format is the same.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 22:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] I already did that. The dates are month day, year. The date that the references were retrieved happen to be the same. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support-- Astros4477 (Talk) 23:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• No need for two Corinthians links in the lead.
• The List of finals heading has two words more than it needs. The last word would make a fine heading by itself.
• All of the photos need alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the above issues. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good work and well sourced page. --Carioca (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As the nominator, I also support the promotion of this list to FL status. Since it is long past 10 days, and seeing that it clearly exceeds the criteria, can someone go ahead and finish this? EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Just as a general note, you don't need to support your own nominations - it is generally regarded that, by nominating it, you support it. Regardless, I agree this should probably be promoted. :) Toa Nidhiki05 00:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments The list is confusing. First, the competition names in the lead should be bolded. Then I think the list should be moved to List of FIFA Club World Cup winners or List of FIFA Club World Cup finalists, as it seems the competition was renamed (?) and you discuss the finalists, not the finals. However, I would name it List of FIFA Club World Cup winners, because the emphasize is given to the winners, and it is logical that each competition has a final. And additionally I am not sure if this list is standalone, even if the main article is large enough. The Club column in "Results by club" does not sort correctly. I think "Results by confederation" may be merged somewhere, perhaps into a column. If that does not fit, I would remove the Host column in the section "List of finals", since the Venues column includes cities, and in which country a season was played does not seem to be very notable. Finally I think the only table which should remain is "List of finals", because the below tables are overall redundant given that there were not many finals and every reader would be able to count, particularly if you have listed the flags. These are my initial thoughts; I am happy to revisit this nomination once these issues are addressed. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)--Tomcat (7) 12:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIFA Club World Championship and Club World Cup finals = finals. If you find that confusing, you need help. On the FL criteria, and lists in general, there is nothing saying that anything in the lead needs bolding. As a matter of fact, I have never seen a list with bolded material in its lead. As for the rest of this rant, I go back to the first sentence.

BTW I fixed the sortable issues you mentioned. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need help making constructive comments without personal attacks. I clearly indicated my position. This list is clearly confusing, especially for non-football gurus. You are writing about the winners, not the finals. As for the bolding, see WP:BOLDFACE: "The most common use of boldface is to highlight the article title, and often synonyms, in the lead section (first paragraph)." We have a lot of featured lists with highlighted phrases, for example a bunch of WP:GRAMMY lists. And finally, because of your harsh response and the list's failure to meet 3b, I am opposing this list for promotion. The initial table can be merged into the main article, and other tables are redundant. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 17:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this assessment - I am by no means a soccer guru (aside from US women's soccer), but it is quite clear as to what the event and finals are. The finals are included and listed, in the very first section no less, and if you didn't see that you must not have looked over the article very well. Bolding is either way, but I don't really see it as needed and I haven't seen it on many other soccer lists. Toa Nidhiki05 19:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toa, the reason I didn't took anything he said seriously is because I know there are people that likes derailing things out of personal spite. Don't feed the troll and just ignore him. Nothing he said made sense and that is how one knows not to deal with their issues. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* List of finals section: "Yokohama, Japan's International Stadium Yokohama (横浜国際総合競技場)" is unnecessary detail, particularly the Japanese text. "The International Stadium Yokohama in Japan" would be plenty. Think the key should be immediately above the table, not top right of the prose. For clarity, could you re-order the columns so that the host country goes with the host stadium, rather than ahead of the participants? Please could you move the footnotes to immediately below the table, so that the sighted reader with a deep enough screen doesn't have to click down and back up again. What's the asterisk for in the 2000 score? If it were me, I'd use the caption of the Barcelona picture to say what it's a picture of. Much more interesting than the dry statistics. What's the relevance to this list of the other images: an office block, some random fans, and a meeting at Soccerex? Table needs row scopes, and appearances is spelt wrong in the column heading. References section: Some have hyphens where they should have dashes. Publishers of references, such as FIFA or football clubs, shouldn't be italicised. Italics are for published works such as newspapers. I'm usually reluctant to review prose quality, but a bit of a copyedit wouldn't come amiss here. For instance, three out of four consecutive sentences use the construction "the xxxx final saw...", and there are a few too many ending "... with xxx", as in "saw the least amount of spectators turn up with 43,050". Results by club section: WP:ACCESS#Text bullet point 3 says we shouldn't use tooltips. The results by nation table heads that column "Nation": why not do the same here? The sentence "Corinthians remain the only club World Champion to have qualified to the competition by being the host nation's national champions..." has champion in both singular and plural. I think other usages in the article are plural, so it's the singular that should change. For similar reasons to those expressed at e.g. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of UEFA European Football Championship finals/archive1, I'd expect to see some prose about each final, to justify this list being spun out of the main FIFA Club World Cup article. For foreign-language sources, please could you provide an English translation of the title (|trans_title= parameter in the {{cite web}} template). Per WP:OVERLINK, we shouldn't link names of major geographic features and locations. In the tables is OK, but in normal prose, places like Japan and Brazil wouldn't need linking. Could you add helpful alt text to the {{dagger}} and {{double-dagger}} template calls, both in the key and in the table, for the benefit of screen-reader users. Repeating the words used in the key definition would be fine. The lead is entirely unsourced. Results by confederation: the abbreviations CONMEBOL and CAF should be written out in full first time of use, as you've done with UEFA. In British English, instead of e.g. "In 2011, Barcelona would once again show its class after winning their semifinal match", we'd use the straight past tense: "In 2011, Barcelona once again showed...". Is U.S. English not the same? Ref#48 leads to a contentless page; URL might have changed since you accessed it? "The 2005 edition saw São Paulo pushed to the limit by Saudi side Al-Ittihad to reach the final.[9]" ref#5 is just a match sheet that shows them winning 3-2 in normal time, which doesn't justify "pushed to the limit"; On sources for the table rows: sorry, but to reference a specific fact, you do need to link to the page containing the information. If you want one FIFA link for 2009, then why not use the "Report" page of that year's section, which appears to contain all the info in that table row?

Oppose for now.

• On a spot-check of sources: the 2009 final has three cited sources, none of which seem to verify the attendance (unless I've missed it). If it isn't there, you may want to check the others.
• Following on from that, the main table rows all have several references, but some of them seem superfluous. For instance, the contents of the 2000 row is entirely verifiable from the FIFA ref. I can understand that you might include the RSSSF page as an independent source, but can't see what the Portuguese-language honours page at the Corinthians website adds? Or any of the other honours pages, for that matter.
• It seems that you've done quite a lot of work on the list, edited the lead, added refs and some prose etc. But the article itself, including the main table and lead section, was created quite recently by User:Arbero. Have you considered asking them to co-nominate, or to become involved in responding to reviewers' comments?

Struway2 (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed every single issue above. Now...about the 2009 final and the spectators...there are links on the above page that details in statistics and whatnot and you can see it there. I didn't want to be too redundant in putting references from the same source on one final.

As far as sources go with things like this, I like having a FIFA link, RSSSF link and a link from the club that won said competition. If anyone needed any information on the final, the details or the victorious squad, that would be three links that anyone can use. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps add a sentence explaining what the Toyota Cup was and why it should be absorbed/merged into this competition. Also, in English I think it's generally called the Intercontinental Cup.
• What's more concerning is that some of the cited sources don't verify the sentence they go with. e.g.
  • "FIFA agreed with UEFA, CONMEBOL and Toyota to merge the Toyota Cup and Club World Championship into one event.[4]": ref#4 doesn't mention the Toyota Cup or CONMEBOL or UEFA;
    • You've removed UEFA and CONMEBOL from the sentence, but the ref still doesn't mention the Toyota Cup. Struway2 (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Milan crushed Boca Juniors 4–2, in a match that saw the first player sent off in a Club World Cup final: Milan's Kakha Kaladze from Georgia at the 77th minute. Eleven minutes later, Boca Junior's Pablo Ledesma would join Kaladze as he too was sent off.[15]" ref#15 shows the players sent off, but not the minutes, and I can't see anything to say Kaladze was the first to be sent off in a final.
    • Still nothing to say Kaladze was the first to be sent off in a Club World Cup final. Struway2 (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Struway2 (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed all of the above issues.

Yes...I do use American English and that shouldn't be a problem. After all, Wikipedia is an American website that was founded by an American. If you noticed, I use the American way of dating things.

I am not putting any more information into the Toyota Cup than it needs. A mention is more than enough since it will only derail the article from its main purpose: to provide information on the FCWC finals. For your information, the competition was a friendly tournament officially called "European/South American Cup" by its organizers, UEFA and CONMEBOL, and later renamed to "Toyota Cup" for obvious reasons. It has been called "Intercontinental Cup" informally. If anyone wants to learn more about it, they can click on the actual article or go into the main FCWC itself. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you over-react on two counts.

I asked if "would show its class" was acceptable usage in American English, that's all. The featured list criteria include a requirement for "professional standards of writing".

Second, on the Toyota Cup. If the reader comes across a sentence telling them that the Toyota Cup was merged into this competition, then they'll want to know at the very least what it was. And if this article is intended to be an example of Wikipedia's "very best work", it shouldn't be driving the reader to another article, or off the site entirely, for want of a few words of explanation. Struway2 (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I go by your logic, I will have to do the same for every club and nation mentioned since that is of far more relevance to the list than a friendly competition. Derailing the article would not be considered a "professional standard of writing".EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, the idea that including one phrase of explanatory wording helpful to the general reader, something like "the Toyota Cup, an annual match between clubs representing the European and South American confederations,..." would be so unprofessional as to "derail" the article escapes all logic.

Since I reviewed, a couple of quoteboxes have been added. Not sure what the Martin Edwards quote adds, but the second one hints at controversy: perhaps that might go better with context in the relevant bit of prose than in a quotebox.

I'm sorry, but I can't devote any more time to this review. Those facts that my limited spot-check turned up as unsourced and have not been capped, have still not been fixed. While this is the case, my oppose stands. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Navbox {{FIFA Club World Cup}} (below the article) uses unbelievable terrible colours. Nominator wrote this is "FIFA colours" (#234670) without explanation where we can read about "FIFA colours". Other FIFA navbox use standart blue colours. Need change all FIFA templates (not only this one) or keep all in standart colours. Also in section List of finals key to table must be above table but not left of it. Lead section is without bold text. Also unneeded big quotes are present in article. NickSt (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nominator is indefinitely banned as a sockpuppet of an account indefinitely banned for disruptive editing. Kevin McE (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: the "history" section in this list is more relevant in FIFA Club World Cup (which is full of false and useless information, as all the writing and citations discredit the Intercontinental Cup in a whole paragraph not have any relation with this tournament) being a companion article to the "main" article. In addition, the two citations included in this article does not make any reference to any final, but there are part of the author's attempt to give more value to the competition.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Since this is a club competition, honours are reserved just to clubs, not countries or confederations of origin of the winning team.

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has the quality required, according to the Featured list criteria, to qualify to be considered a top list. The subject itself is also noteworthy as it determines the club World Champion. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - WP:FLC states "Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." - The nominator has already nominated Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of FIFA Club World Championship and Club World Cup finals/archive1, and this one is one of four FLC that was nominated yesterday. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose what Mentoz said plus the same situation as the other list. The only table that is actually needed is the very first one, which may be easily merged into the main article. Finally, you need to clarify how this list is standalone, how a manager differs from other ones, etc. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 17:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been unsuccessful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Hahc21 10:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [9].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have recently finished a major cleanup and sourcing effort, adding reliable references for every orbital and suborbital launch in 2012. As far as I can tell, the list is complete – no major launches are missing – and it meets the FL criteria. As well as listing all of 2012's launches, it includes useful and properly-sourced information on EVAs and deep-space exploration. — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 14:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*General comments The tables do not meet WP:ACCESS. I added column headers as a start, but captions and row headers should be added.--Tomcat (7) 21:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Must confess I'm not very good at formatting wikitables, particularly very large and complex ones like this – I usually focus on the content and sources. Could you or another editor help out with this? Thanks. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Cells in the Remarks columns are often blank. I would advise using en-dashes or something similar, because currently it looks like the page is not finished.--Tomcat (7) 21:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Done. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] References need a clean-up. Inconsistent date formats, questionable reliability (particularly blogs).--Tomcat (7) 21:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Fixed ref formatting; will get on to reliability issues shortly. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Removed and replaced unreliable blog refs; let me know if I missed any. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Comment McDowell is not a blog and I believe a previous discussion has already established that it meets the criteria for WP:SPS, although I do not recall where. --W. D. Graham 19:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, that was a misjudgement on my part.– Michaelmas1957 (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure about the accessibility of the first table, mainly because of the "sections" within table (eg January, February). I think they are used as column headers, which are disregarded. The table is complicated and I must confess I am not an expert in accessibility. I will ping User:RexxS. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 14:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The months, January, February, ... are not marked up as headers and won't cause any problems for screen readers in this case, although the nature of the organisation of the table (where the 11 pieces of data for each launch are wrapped onto 3 lines) rather precludes making the table navigable by a screen reader, other than by left-to-right, one row at a time. I'd prefer to consider the table as a layout table that is designed merely to present the information in a convenient form for a sighted reader. We are probably aiming too high if we try to fit 11 pieces of data into each row - as we would need to make a more accessible table:

Date and time (UTC)	Rocket	Launch site	LSP	Payload	Operator	Orbit	Function	Decay (UTC)	Outcome	Remarks
9 January 03:17:09	Long March 4B	Taiyuan LA-9	SAST	Ziyuan 3	MLR	Low Earth	Earth imaging	In orbit	Operational	–
9 January 03:17:09	Long March 4B	Taiyuan LA-9	SAST	VesselSat-2	Luxspace	Low Earth	Earth imaging	In orbit	Operational	–

As you can see, one launch would require being 'unpicked' into a row for each payload - and even that won't allow us to create useful row headers because of the duplication of key information. So, in brief, we could improve accessibility of these tables, but it would be a small gain for a large effort - particularly as the templates seem to be used in about 70 pages and we'd need to check each of them if changes were made. My recommendation is to accept that it's not perfect, but probably about the best we can manage under the circumstances. I wouldn't oppose this list on the grounds of accessibility of that table. --RexxS (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I am actually impressed by this list. It still needs an expansion of the intro, and perhaps a bit more detail under the Europe entry in the top summary table. Nergaal (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, high quality, incredibly well sourced, meticulous in citations. Also, SCIENCE! — Cirt (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 11:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Quick comment still see reference issues, eg some questionable sources (FlightGlobal, etc), [10] does not show the content. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 19:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Fixed the Khrunichev source; I don't see what's wrong with FlightGlobal, though. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Overlinking of ISS Pirs and ISS Quest in the EVAs section--Tomcat (7) 13:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Fixed. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Ref 125 Septiembre histórico: Satélite Miranda está en órbita is dead, and no archives--Tomcat (7) 13:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Fixed. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Ref 10 Astronauts take spacewalk to find ammonia leak is dead, and no archives--Tomcat (7) 13:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Fixed. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Some unneeded capitalization--Tomcat (7) 13:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Ref 137 needs a language note and publisher information--Tomcat (7) 13:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Fixed. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Foreign language titles could be translated into English, as Ref 94 demonstrates--Tomcat (7) 13:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nitpicks were resolved. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question - did the accessibility of the table get resolved? I find it hard to work out as a sighted reader, so I'm not sure how this comes across to a screen-reader user. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick answer - it's usable, if not optimal. --RexxS (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, as always, thank you so much for spending so much time helping us to decipher our way through some the accessibility hurdles. I can honestly say that, as a visually able reader, I find the current table to be too complex. I hope we can simplify it for everyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose really sorry but I find the table virtually impossible to navigate. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why that is the case? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rows don't seem to follow the key, either in content or colour, there seem to be multiple rows while the key indicates singles rows, it's very hard to know what's what. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TRM. I am not happy with Level 3 headers inside a big table that only have row headers at the beginning. Are we supposed to scroll back to the beginning each time we want to know which thing is which? My recommendation is to break the table into 12 tables, each for each month, with their correspondent row headers to identify the content. In my opinion, as it is, it doesn't meet accessibility. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The dates are already noted in the Date and time cells, so there should no problems. --Tomcat (7) 18:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that my oppose is still here, stronger than ever, the list is far too difficult for me to interpret. It seems my esteemed colleagues think otherwise but I cannot support this list in its current format, it's far too confused. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, but I'm afraid that I'm limited to improving the list's sources and content - I don't really know my way around these complex wikimarkup templates. If a more skilled editor could do some work on the table's layout, that would be a great help. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question - What is the FL policy on redlinks? To me it looks messy and I'd prefer them simply removed rather than red. This is the only thing holding me back from a full support !vote just now. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Red links are allowed. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, FL doesn't have any policy that differs from the guidance at Wikipedia:Red link where the summary is "Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it." If there are any redlinks to topics that have no prospect of being created as articles, I'd encourage you to remove them; otherwise they remain a good source of inspiration for editors looking for new articles to create. --RexxS (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hahc21 and RexxS for clearing that up. In that case I move to Support - Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note: I've been checking some of the red links, so far at least two actually have articles under slightly different names. I've only really checked down to March so far and will continue to do so later if I get a chance. I would suggest the nom maybe go through and check that all red links are, in fact, red because an article doesn't exist and not just point at the wrong target. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm delighted that you've done that checking, Cabe, and I'm sure Michaelmas1957 will want to take on board your suggestion. This is yet another example of how the FLC process gets multiple editors involved in collaborating for the benefit of the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention - I'll do some redlink cleanup now. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done – I've resolved redlinks that already have related articles. Most of the remaining redlinks would need a specific new article created for them (which, as RexxS noted, is why redlinks are allowed). – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC) [11].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 10:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe, after significant revisions of prose and the tables, that it meets the criteria. As always, any comments are appreciated if they help me to improve the page. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 10:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• Literally a third of the lead is about one song. (just sayin')

• Trimmed it a little, but I don't think this is that unreasonable – the digital downloads in the UK fact is a rather notable chart feat, so I feel that should stay as well. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Similarly, the "Crazy" row looks comically large compared to the rest of the Singles table. I suggest removing the Gold certs; the song article can cover it.—indopug (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I see your point, but we can't just remove valid certifications for the reason of a song being massively more successful than the others in the table. This seems somewhat unnecessary, and I've never seen it done at any similar discography. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Holiday56 (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Great work, as usual. The final line of the lead's first paragraph ("Three further singles...") is referenced using a source for Billboard 200 chart positions. Should probably be changed to a reference for Billboard Hot 100 positions. I'd also suggest going into a bit more detail for chart positions of those three singles in other countries – "Smiley Faces" seems to have performed particularly well in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Done both of these things. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 08:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Holiday56 (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as my comments have been addressed. Holiday56 (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Ruslik_Zero 16:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

• Three further singles – "Smiley Faces", which reached the top ten of the UK and Irish singles charts,[8][9] "Who Cares?" and a cover of the Violent Femmes song "Gone Daddy Gone" were released from St. Elsewhere, although none of them appeared on the Billboard Hot 100.[10]

  
  Add another hyphen after "Gone Daddy Gone".
• Everything else seems good to me. Good job! Toa Nidhiki05 02:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 11:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS explicitly states that positions on the Bubbling Under chart should not be shown as a Hot 100 position of x+100..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Editorial opinion is widely divided on this topic, and it has been allowed in multiple FLCs before, but if you're still determined that I should do this to make it a FL then I'll make the change. Personally, I'm fine with this listing as long as a note is added explaining that it is not a direct extension, as Billboard themselves and Joel Whitburn's books have used this method. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 11:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose very concerned about the 3b issue here. Oddly, the main article on Gnarls Barkley actually goes into more detail about the releases than the discography article, and I don't think that can be right. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I acknowledge that it's not as long as other discographies, I don't think it's quite short enough to violate 3b - it has a similar number of releases and similarly detailed lead to Gotye discography, which you recently supported (sorry if that probably violates WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). As some of their releases are not very notable, it isn't really content forking to list them here, Also, the prose in the Gnarls Barkley article isn't that great: lots of it is unreferenced, and mostly concerns "Crazy", and the most significant aspects of its chart performance have already been mentioned in the lead. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 11:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but all I'm saying is that you could easily merge the tables back to the main article right now. To answer you query about the Gotye discog, it was 26KB in length and the main article is 34KB. This discog is 22KB in length and the main article is 13KB, in total about half the size of the Gotye effort. So, combining the leads and removing repetition for the Gnarls Barkely stuff, you'd end up with a reasonable length article. I don't think it's a good idea to fork out a discog which is twice the size of the main article but still repeats a lot of the content of the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the bandleader Cee Lo has 19kb prose text. And since Green is the main force behind the band, his article should not be fully ignored. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 18:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As this is clearly a significant issue that will require great effort on someone's (probably me) part to expand the Gnarls Barkley and Cee Lo Green pages, I would (with great sadness - sigh) like to withdraw this nomination. I am currently unaware of how to do this, so any assistance would be well appreciated. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 20:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Hahc21 10:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC) [12].[reply]

---

I am nominating this for featured list because it's one of the last steps in the long process of the establishment of a Maya Angelou featured topic. It's very ready to be declared a FL. The sources are strictly accurate. Please enjoy. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose based on a quick run-through.... Any reason why this information isn't tabulated? It would be useful to understand why/for what she won each award, and what each award is actually about. What would this look like? I did a short search of other lists of awards, but most of them were for artists and entertainers who, for example, won the same award more than once, like the Oscars or People's Choice Awards. I found no comparable list of awards won by authors. Most of the awards that Angelou won, especially the honorary degrees, were given to her once. Also, many sources don't provide that information anyway, and most are linked when possible. Could you provide some more direction regarding what you're asking? Well since fewer than half of the "awards" you've listed have a Wikipedia page, I'm think it would be useful to our readers to have some kind of description of what the award is about, perhaps if possible why it was awarded to Angelou etc. In other words, why are awards that Wikipedia currently consider non-notable seemingly the majority of the awards she won? Regarding a format, look at any of the recent awards FLs, there are a couple of formats to choose from. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Good enough. I'll get to work on this shortly. See my response to Reywas92 below. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Don't need the {{main}} at the top of this list since you introduce the main topic in the lead. Easily done. "presidential committees" what's one of those? I think you're asking me to define "presidential committees"? Personally, I think it's fairly obvious; committees created by presidents. I changed the sentence: She has served on two presidential committees, for Gerald Ford in 1975 and for Jimmy Carter in 1977. Is that enough? If not, I'm not sure how to define it, so I'm inclined to simply removed the sentence. We're not all Americans, so I'm not such what the point of being on a "presidential committee" is, what they do, what powers it confers etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] If the Lincoln medal is prominent, why isn't it linked in the lead? I noticed that this award wasn't included in this list! So I fixed that error. I put it in the lead because I assumed it was presidential, and found that it has more to do with the Ford Theatre than the office of the U.S. president. So I removed mentioning it in the lead. "Over 30 health care and medical facilities have been named after Angelou,[1] and she has been awarded over fifty honorary degrees.[2]" this list has no mention of health care facilities, and certainly doesn't include "over fifty" honorary degrees, so I guess the list is incomplete? You're right, it is incomplete. It should have {{Dynamic list}} as a result, so it's been added. " 1975-1976" en-dash required, and WP:YEAR would remove the second "19". Got it, thanks for the catch. Ref 36 is showing a bare URL. And another catch! Ref 14 should use an unspaced en-dash, not a spaced em-dash. Ref 42 is showing a bare URL. Ref 61 should use an en-dash. Ref 50 is showing a bare URL. Year ranges should use en-dashes, not em-dashes throughout. Got all the above, thanks again for the catches. Ref 37, for example, why is BBC a work (i.e. in italics) and not a publisher? This discussion [13]] notwithstanding, I disagree with the recommendations within. Yes, I actually disagree with the venerable SandyGeorgia! ;) I disagree that on-line news sources shouldn't be italicized, and since the BBC is a news source, it should be italicized. Personally, in the instance in the discussion, I'd italicize ESPN. I do agree with the result of the discussion: that it should be consistent, and for this list, it is. Thanks for the valuable feedback; I await more from you, sir. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Weak Oppose I concur with some of TRM's statements, such as the mention of medical facilities in the lead but nowhere else and the lack of all fifty honorary degrees mentioned. I would expect an FL to be generally complete and without the dynamic tag. Many items listed as awards are not awards at all, including memberships to councils, being a lecturer and inaugural poet, and being named Ambassador to UNICEF. I think this would be better titled List of honors received by Maya Angelou, though the scope of that would still need to be better defined; the UNICEF position isn't the same kind of honor as others. Reywas92Talk 17:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] I've just moved the page as recommended, since it's very reasonable and well-reasoned. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] I've been convinced about changing the format of this list to tabulated, so I'll tackle it next. I feel like I should explain why certain items have been included and others have not. Mostly it's due to whether or not something can be sourced with reliable references. The New York Times has said that Angelou has been given fifty honorary degrees, and that's referenced here, but there isn't a definitive list of them, not even by Gillespie et. al. And there's certainly not a definitive list of every honor she's ever received. She's been honored in different ways compared to other authors/performers/entertainers/artists. For most of the subjects of these kinds of lists, their honors can be defined and divided in specific ways, like acting or music awards. Angelou's awards are so varied, they can't be separated in traditional ways. That's a challenge, so please be patient while I figure it out. I'm also wondering, after going through this experience, if this list is eligible to be a FL; all it may have the potential for is a GA, which I can accept because I understand that not all articles/lists should be featured. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what would you like to do Christine? If you're going to overhaul it, I'd suggest a withdrawal. If you're going for GA, then obviously this nomination is no longer relevant. Let me know what you think. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have started to overhaul it, see here [14]. It's my intention to continue, and to perhaps finish in a few days. All it's required is reformatting the information in a list and writing up a short blurb about each honor. The sticking point I can see here is the honorary degrees. It's never going to be a definite list, not without some primary research. If the reviewers think that's in the way of this being a FL, then I'll withdraw, work on the formatting, and submit it to GAC. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, well let's give it a few days and see where we go from there. No stress. Oh, and we have {{incomplete list}} for a reason! No problem with that being used.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dude thanks! Appreciate it. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: so I've finally completed formatting/expanding the table. Please tell me if the formatting's off or can be improved. For those who have a better grasp at tables than I have, could you please tell me what we can do about the image of MA with Pres. Obama, and how we can increase the size of the table? Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would convert the table into a wikitable. Some notes are not referenced as far as I can see.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitable done. The references in the far-right column ("References") correspond to everything in its row. If I have to cite every cell, I'll just remove that column. That seems like over-citing to me, though. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as references for the claims in the second columns likely exist, I see no reason to view the content as original research. I think everything is in order. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "African American" normally hyphenated or en-dash, can't recall which.

Hyphenated when modifying a noun or verb, as in "African-American writers". I re-checked, and the only error was the lead, which I fixed. Thanks for the catch.

• "Maya Angelou, reciting..." no need to repeat her first name.

Got it.

• "the longest-running record (two years) on" sorry, was it a record or a book?

A book; I changed the phrasing so that it's clearer.

• When I sort by year, the first sort shouldn't make any difference as the table should be originally in chronological order, but things move....
• No need for the References column to be sortable.
• Similarly, since the Notes column is free text, no need for it to be sortable.

Fixed.

• Be consistent with your use of periods at the end of the notes.

Pretty sure I got 'em all.

• Avoid using acronyms when you haven't explained them (e.g. NAACP).
• "1975.[49]" no need for those periods, any of them, in that section.

Finished addressing all the above.

• Worth checking the refs still work....

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All done; thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [15].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Sycamore (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I took it to GAN and the editor who closed the Good Article nomination believed that it was more of a list and would be suited for FLC. A peer review was just recently closed after I had addressed all comments by the reviewer. While this article uses two primary sources, these are only to establish the exact wording of the description of the award and the complete list of recipients; other important information is sourced by third-party secondary sources. I believe that this list is now ready for FLC. Sycamore (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, are you able to make a table for the recipients, the years they recieved it etc etc? Otherwise, nice dataCoal town guy (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly could. I currently have it as a three-column list because I thought at first that it was more attractive to have a shorter list than a long table, but if other commenters feel like a table would be better, it would be a simple change. Sycamore (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. With table or without it is a nice list. However, it can benefit from being decorated by a couple of photos of its recipients. Ruslik_Zero 16:46, 19 February 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [16].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When this page was nominated in 2009, it was quick failed, and it's clear to see why. Now, even though there are only eight "items" for this list, I believe that the additional sources discussing the topic and the quality of the page merits featured list status, once I address any concerns. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The opinion I expressed in the previous FLC still stands, and I do not believe 3b is met. I see no reason why this page cannot be merged into African Americans in the United States Congress, especially when looking at the similar and replaceable table at African Americans in the United States Congress#United States Senate. While the prose in that article needs working on, it is still somewhat redundant with this article's lead as well. Reywas92^Talk 19:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the argument that it doesn't meet 3b. I disagree, however. There are sources that discuss the fact that only 8 African Americans have been seated in the US Senate, enough so that I believe this meets 3b. I think the Senate and House are different issues, as pointed out by the gerrymandering of House districts to make majority minority districts. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose under 3b, the majority of this is covered elsewhere, as noted above. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [17].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 12:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list status because I've been working on this for a few years (on and off) and taken it through a couple of peer reviews, and I feel it is now ready for a full review. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 12:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the list is very nice, but I am opposed to the inclusion of the 'Other active teams'. First, I don't think youth teams in general are notable enough to be listed. [18] lists five teams in passing, but I see no reason why they deserve to be mentioned here. [19] mentions the first game for a local club, but I see no evidence that the team still exists. I am astonished that the Sheffield Vipers are included, as they are souced just to a Facebook page. This news article also mentions the creation of a team, without proof it is still active or why it's notable. Think about football/soccer teams in the UK, or American football teams (and even soccer) in America: there are way, way too many at all levels without notability to list every one. Although there are few UK Am. football teams altogether, that does not lower the bar for notability for inclusion. The rest of the list looks terrific and I support its nomination. Reywas92^Talk 16:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean restricting the list to teams that are actually affiliated with a league? I certainly don't have an issue with that - consider that section gone. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 19:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Seem to be a couple of issues with links per the tool here. Hate "World War II" for a Brit English article, we'd usually say "Second World War". You link to Touchdown: UK a lot, but no specific page numbers are given, I'd expect to see those here. "the very first " no need for "very". "have been formed since then," -> "have since been formed," Four paras under the BAFA section, could be merged easily to three or even two. The table is going to need administration every year, since you have time-sensitive columns... Sometimes you use flag with a capital F where it's inappropriate. You have "college" as a col heading but they all look like universities to me. Some of the uni names are incorrect, e.g. "University of Teeside" is actually "Teeside University". Make sure all ref titles (and the rest of the list for that matter) comply with WP:DASH. Last two external links look really poor quality, are they really appropriate to link out to in featured material? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Hi Rambling Man, and thanks for your comments: - I think that tool is throwing up a few false positives as all those links check out, although the Swansea site is sometimes slow to connect. Fair enough, that happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Text changed to "Second World War". This one may be a problem as I had borrowed (and returned) a copy of this book and the owner has since left the country! If I can get my hands on another copy I can dig out the page numbers, but in the meantime I have inserted some more references to confirm the statements. Would it be worth removing the TD:UK references until then? No, leave them, just don't be surprised if someone else picks up the same issue! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Text changed. Text changed. Section merged into three paragraphs. Although the tables need annual maintenance, it's easy to do so as most teams remain in the same division between each season. Text changed, except where used in reference titles. Column heading changed to "University" University names changed where needed (3 in total) I did check the dashes / hyphens in the second peer review so these should be okay - however, I'll check them again tomorrow. I've removed the last link, but I'm reluctant to remove the High School Football Europe link - I know the website is a horribly dated design (and that's putting it lightly), but it's still the league's official website. Cheers, ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 22:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] I've gone through the list and, as you suggested, there were a few stray hyphens lurking about. I believe I've dealt with all of them so the list should now comply with WP:DASH. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 16:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Steel City Knights has a blank row in the Other team column, which I'm assuming was meant to be an em dash. British Universities and Colleges Sport: Don't think BAFA needs a link here, since it was linked in prose in the previous section and the lead. In this table, Division should be decapitalized, unless it is usually presented in capitalized form. Both of the last two tables in the article could be made sortable. It would be beneficial even with the limited number of teams. "The American High League in Europe...". Given the section title, is "School" missing here? Bristol Academy Community League: In the table, Represented should not have the R capitalized. Page numbers would be nice for the items cited by reference 1. Print publishers should be italicized in the reference. This needs work in references 3, 4, 22, 33, 38, 51, 73, 99, and 157. Ref 71 needs a publisher listed (Britball). What makes Double Coverage (ref 117) a reliable source? It looks like somebody's blog, and blogs aren't typically reliable sources. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Hi, thanks for your comments. I've taken care of most of these... Done (twas an emdash, well spotted!) Done (removed link) Done (removed capitalisation) Done (both are sortable now) Done (fixed that typo) Done (removed capitalisation) The Rambling Man also picked this one up in his comments - as you'll see, I need to get myself another copy of the book before I can add page numbers. Done (all italicised, would've been nice if the cite template did this automatically though... ;) ) Done (publisher added) I regard Double Coverage as a reliable source as it's a site produced by 17 writers (rather than just a single writer) who are directly involved in the British game - mostly players and coaches.[20] --★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 16:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Not to worry, I've been able to find alternative references to replace the Double Coverage ones. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 17:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] I've decided to remove the Touchdown UK references until I can get hold of those page numbers - thankfully, all the statement which used this book are also backed up by other references. I can re-add them as soon as I can get hold of another copy. I believe this addresses all of the comments now. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 09:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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