Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/May 2008

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [1].

Discography of the much loved Britpop band, Supergrass. The list covers all of their records and a list of their music videos.

Thanks, --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still to be done/Additional comments (All new comments signed)

• Per MOS:DISCOG, only songs made especially for soundtracks and compilations should be given, rather than every instance an album track was used. (See also WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:IINFO

• I have now only listed songs which have appeared on film soundtracks. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Still, most songs can be found on original Supergrass albums. Only "We Still Need More (Than Anyone Can Give)", "Oracle" and "Don't Be Cruel" should be listed. The three should then be referenced, and remember to update the lead section where it talks about nine contributions which itself is misleading because only 3 songs were original contribs, the others were simply licensed from the albums Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)  Done[reply]

• I have referenced "We Still Need More (Than Anyone Can Give)" and "Don't Be Cruel" but couldn't find a source for "Oracle". --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added an EAN for the Mike Bassett: England Manager OST. I'm not sure if that's a good enough source. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Me either! :P -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:CHART, Billboard's component charts should not be listed, and according to US Modern Rock, it is

• Keep using it for now, WP:CHART is really meant for single song/album articles and is not relevant here. Besides, I think you've misunderstood when component charts are to be excluded. indopug (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see why. You've made conflicting comments here and at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Foo Fighters discography/archive2 about the same thing. I also don't see why WP:CHART is irrelevant here. It deals with charts, and discogs utilises charts. Their positioning should reflect that. My personal preference would be home country, then alphabetical order of English language charts followed by foreign lang charts, but policy overrules that, too.

• Is there any chart/sales information for the Live album and EPs?

• The live album was a digital download for iTunes so I don't think sales for that can be found out. Same with the EPs. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the EPs don't have Wikipedia articles of their own, they should all be referenced

• I have put "Information taken from iTunes Store UK" at the bottom of the EPs table.

• I'd like to see references for the music video directors Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The expanded Chart titles in the singles table is unnecessary. Display them like the albums table Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• In the lead, wikilink "Caught by the Fuzz", In It for the Money needs itallics, and put quotes around "Alright" Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a space between the fullstop and reference 3 which needs removing Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reword the "have had" part from "This is the highest chart position the band have had with a single" Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "The album lead the band to numerous awards in the following years." Check this, because the period an album is legible for any awards usually expires after the 2nd year of release. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For now my oppose still stands Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is cite 9 reliable? Also, Diamond Hoo Ha has charted in France. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Which one would that be now? The cites have changed around. I have added the french album charts. Indeed Diamond Hoo Ha did chart there. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose lead is too short. See The Libertines discography indopug (talk) 09:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead has now been expanded. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They have sixx albums, but the lead only discusses as far as the second. Remove the catalogue.release info from the singles. Despite what the above reviewer said, including so much detail for singles is contrary to existing discography standards. indopug (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why can't standards be raised? The beauty of Wikipedia is that it is an ever-changing thing, and we're always seeking to improve. Including the same details on singles as albums is simply consistent. (Also there's quite a few older discogs that should be brought to FLRC. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm still working on the lead... How much detail do I need to put in the singles? Release date and label? --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring the Singles table; check the Libertines link i gave you. That pretty much follows all requirements. indopug (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, for now. Looks pretty good, but it does need some work:

• I don't think the catalog numbers need their own line. Just put them after the label name.

• How should I should I put that? Label: Parlophone PCS7373? --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I usualy put something like "Label: Parlapahone (PCS #7373)" Drewcifer (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Dates should be in the international format, not the American format. ie. DD Month YYYY.

• I did [[15 May]] but the wiki link makes it come out 15 May. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, whatever you did, the Studio albums table looks good to me now. Drewcifer (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The Live albums table needs the year column on the left.
• Ideally, similar columns between tables should be a consistent width.
• There needs to be a legend explaining what the — means in the charts. Something like "—" denotes releases that did not chart.  Done

The Compilation albums still needs the legend. Drewcifer (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The chart column of Compilation albums is a little problematic: first, I don't think a header and a sub-header are necessary here. Just call the column "UK Albums peak position" or something like that. Also the second release needs a —.  Done

There's still two headers, the second one just has the citation in it. Drewcifer (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Japan only" is kind of vague and a little unhelpful.  Done

I didn't mean you should remove, it just reword to something like "Released in Japan only" or something like that. Drewcifer (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The charts columns in the singles table should look more like the chart columns in the Studio albums table.  Done

The chart names need to be abbreviated, since they're awfully long. Take a look at other FL discogs to get an idea of what abbreviations are usually used for particular charts. Drewcifer (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Singles don't need label and release date info.

• Are you sure they don't need release date info? --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I question this also. I think espically release date info is required, and for consistency lable and catalogue number (though that could be left for MOS:DISCOG talk page. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, I'll let this one slide until MOS:DISCOG is made official. Drewcifer (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Try and merge similar cells in the Album column in the Singles table. Also don't bother wikilinking them, since they're already linked above.

• Can you explain more please --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Also try merging cells in the Director column in the Music videos table.

• What do you mean? --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like what you did with the years column of the singles table. Drewcifer (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The in-line citations need a bit of work. All should give accessdate, publisher, and author if applicable. Also, consider doing {{reflist|2}} Drewcifer (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2008

(UTC)

• Be sure to add a "— denotes albums that did not chart." somewhere in the article like how The Libertines discography article has. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)  Done[reply]
• Oppose, not enough in-line citations for the list itself. GreenJoe 23:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [2].

previous FLC (04:02, 8 April 2008)

Me and Kodster have worked really hard on this article, we are sure its strong enough to pass FL. It has improved significantly since the last review. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 00:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as co-nominater. I support --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 01:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as co-nominater. Every entry is well-sourced, it is organized clearly, and has a lead that summarizes the list, with inclusion criteria and other information. Definitely a worthy list. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 00:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I support, it's a good list.Xp54321 ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm unsure about this one. It is certainly well-researched, but it seems to be pieced together from multiple articles and multiple sources, some dating as far back as 2000 and are just mentioned in passing in articles. Album sales can change a lot in 8 years and different sites use different sources for their sales figures. Is there at least one reliable list of top selling albums that you could use as a source? Also, one of the links doesn't work [3] -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, some do date quite far back, but i used them because they were respected sources and the sales figure actually wouldnt have moved much in 8 years. There is no list as such, there are a few good sources that might give the top ten selling albums but not a list of the top 50 or so, such as we have. As for that link, it did work a few days ago, i have now replaced it. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 01:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I have to oppose on the grounds that several of your figures may be out of date. There is just too much of a range in the dates of sources for me to support it. For example, this BBC source for the Backstreet Boys' Millenium is from February 2000 and says it has sold more than 30 million copies. The album was released just over a year prior to that, so isn't it more than possible that the album has sold several million more copies since then? And then you have potentially outdated sources like that mixed in with some as recent as a couple of months ago. It's not just that one, there is a huge range of sources. Either try and find a reliable list, or try and get sources from roughly the same period. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, we can look for more up to date sources where possible. How recent would you be prepared to accept (as a guideline for me when i go looking). Cheer.Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 01:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Scorpion on this one. I think anything dated 2006 or before would be considered out of date. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email)
    • Why not something like 5 or 10 years after the album was released (except for recent albums). I think after this period the sales would settle down. Eklipse (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thats a bad idea, we would have to rename the article; List of best-selling albums worldwide (Oh according to how well they sold in a ten year period). That no way represents what this list is called or about. Best bet is to go for up to date sources, my question is, just how up to date do we need.Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 07:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That what I was saying. Instead of fixing a year (like 2006), I say that we can consider that any source published after 5 or 10 years after the release of the album, the sales figures that it mentions for that album can be considered accurate enough. It's more flexible and easier than a fixed year. Eklipse (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, i get you, sorry. However by that standard im not sure it would take affect here. When it comes the older albums we are well within that suggested limit. The problem sources seem to be for the newer albums such as backstreet boys. --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • What about a Beatles album released in 64? If a figure was published in 69, that would be fine for "Best selling albums in the 1960s", but if no figure has been reported since, I'm willing to bet my house, car and kidneys that that figure is now out of date. This is why I said "anything before 2006 is out of date". That could be changed to 2005 to give more leeway. It's not feasible to get figures for 2008 yet, there's a good chance for 2007 and 2006, and 2005 is too far gone to get any kind of figures that is still up to date in 2008. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I could settle with 2005, however we wouldnt be able to get that done anytime soon i imagine, im not sure how many are older than 2005. --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• as determined by sources that have a history as being trustworthy and reliable." I would hope so if this is featured. It's an unnecessary statement
  • DONE
• "The criteria are that the album must have been published by some organization (self-publishing by the artist is allowed)," "Some organization" is a bit colloquial.
  • DONE
• Why is it capped at 20m copies? What makes that figure the magical number for best selling?
  • The answer to that is when you go below 20 million it gets stilly, there are so many albums that have sold between 15-20 million its not a particular achievement. It is also prone to a lot of fan craft, you can just about find a half reliable source that will tell you any album sold 15 million. I could try explaining why 20 million is the cut off in the lead, i would be interested to know how i should possibly word it? Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 06:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't understand why the list isn't auto-sorted by sales figures or even albums given that it's an albums sales figures-related list. It would be different were this for artists, where more than one release would be included in a total figure
  • DONE
• "This list can contain" → "This list contains"
  • DONE
• "Information is also lacking for non-English language albums." I'm sure it's not, and it's probably more likely that it exists but hasn't been translated into English by someone who contributes to this page
  • DONE
• "The BBC claim that the Guinness Book of World Records lists it as 65 million copies" Why not simply "The Guinness Book of World Records lists it as 65 million copies"?
  • DONE
• Because of the different figures given regarding Thriller, why is it listed at above 100 million, rather than 45 million, or 65 million?
  • Because many if not most sources now put it at 100+, but to appease michael jackson haters i also added the opinions of lower sources, they can just be removed if you wish. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 07:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or perhaps to appease the Michael Jackson lovers you included the higher figures? -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC) As mentioned by the reviewer below, something more definitive needs to be found, and it doesn't have to be online. Surely the Guinness Book of Records has something on this? -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, okay. Instead of getting offensive, maybe you should suggest what we should specifically do with the numbers? Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 01:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd prefer to see the sections as 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44, 100 rather than the oddly picked numbers the list currently uses
  • Take a look at the talk page archive 2, i suggested that exact thing, however on closer inspection we realised that a 35-39 box would only contain 3 albums. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 06:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • At present, perhaps. But maybe not by the end of the year or decade. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The genres should be wikilinked
  • DONE
• classicwhitney.com and Casper's Queen Site are fansites, and disallowed as a reliable source
  • DONE
• Spice Girls biography at spicegirls.com is owned by the management company, and they are likely to exaggerate figures for their own benefit.
  • DONE
• Less-biased reliable sources must be found

That's all I have for now. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose A good amateur effort but the sources just aren't good enough to make this a solid trustworthy list that we can say "exemplifies our very best work". For example, the BBC may be a reliable source for many things, but an editor reviewing an article on Mark Knopfler's motorcycle crash isn't going to be that concerned over whether Brothers in Arms sold more than 30m or 40m copies. I appreciate you're having difficulties with vandals on Jackson's entry, but you've got to agree on an authoritative figure for the #1 album. The fact that all the sources are online says to me you haven't ventured to the library or the bookshop to see if you can find a better source. This is a significant topic. I can't believe there isn't a book or music magazine containing an up-to-date listing drawn from record industry figures, rather than newspaper clippings. The list's lead section is still weak and the statement "Additionally fans, record companies and the media are prone to exaggerating sales figures to boost the image of the relevant act." needs a source. I wonder if the list would be better as just one table. That way readers can sort the whole list, and find the biggest selling album of the 70s, for example. Colin°^Talk 21:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK there's the Guinness Book of Hit Singles. IIRC, that has this kind of information. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that's Hit Singles, not albums. I'm not sure whether that would have this kind of information. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 22:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it now consists of both and has been renamed, but I haven't lived in the UK for some time so check www.whsmith.co.uk -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know any books that give a list of best selling albums, guiness only mentions Thriller. The only "list of albums" are internet sources and none of them are reliable. Thats why we've found individual claims for individual albums. A magical reliable list doesnt exist. Ill check whs now but if its not there then its not there. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, nevermind. It was Guinness Book of British Hit Singles & Albums. Actually, you might have an easier time rejigging this list to a number of different best selling albums lists for America, UK, Australia, and any other countries you want to take a stab at. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why, then its not worldwide. There already is an article on US albums. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But how do you know those sources are truly worldwide figures? Writers can be very parochial and a US journalist may only actually consult US sales figures before saying "XYZ has sold more than NNN million albums". If there is no authoritative source collecting worldwide information, then where do you think all the journalists who wrote the articles you cite got their information from. Either they aren't telling the whole story (likely) or they have access to sources you haven't yet found (also likely). At the moment, it looks like this list is doomed to be just a "best guess". Colin°^Talk 11:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its easy to tell these arent just US figures, ive checked the official RIAA for the sales of these albums. The RIAA figures and these figures are commpletely different. Also the tagging on of the word WORLDWIDE in each source helps. Every source identifies its figure as worldwide and non of the match the US sales of the RIAA. I specifically checked to make sure they werent just using RIAA figures. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you definitely say that all 245 countries are represented when each "worldwide" claim is made? -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 17:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the music market is only made up of about 35 countries, yes, i think i can. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, by the looks of it there are no reliable lists out there that document the list of worlds best selling albums. At least they woundnt be considered reliable by FA standard. Therefore it seems unlikely that this article could EVER be FL, no matter how well researched. There seems to be a concern that the list almost amounts to original research or something. Thus i have a suggestion, to word the article like it was when first created. Instead of giving the article the bold notion of being a definitive list of the worlds best selling records, could be instead reword the article to state that it is a CLAIMS article, an article that documents the highest claims for an albums sales. It needs to be worded carefully, but i think thats more accurately what this article represents. It documents claims from sources that are reliable. Basically it will be worded like it once was. Instead of saying "Albums that has sold 25-29 million copies" it will read "Claims of sales between 25-29 million". Other things need rewording but i think it will work better that way. Thoughts. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 20:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to pop in and check my watchlist. Your suggestion would be a good idea, but it (I think) would never reach FL. Wikipedia should be able to hold on on its own, and shouldn't have to resort to pick-and-choose sourcing. Realist2's suggestion is a solution to the problem, but would have the same result (namely, failing FL). If you're an FL reviewer, and you disagree with me, feel free to do so. But I doubt the probability, for lack of a better word, of your suggestion reaching FL. Thanks, Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 01:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, im just trying lol, ive called a few people back, maybe they will like it, otherwise the article is stupped. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 01:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. I'm going to be here for exactly 2 more minutes, so bear with me. I think that this article, unless a/some definitive lists can be found, is pretty much down the drain. This isn't the easiest list to source, unlike the U.S. best-selling albums (LOL, RIAA to the rescue). That's all, but keep trying and maybe we'll find a way. :) Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 01:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the attempt with the reword suggestion, but no, an encyclopaedia lists facts not claims (except perhaps if those claims were notable in themselves because they were widely documented lies, for example). Colin°^Talk 07:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK ive found a definitive list here. One problem, it only ranks the albums but doesnt give specific sales. If people are opposed to suggestion A, we can use this list and do either of the following. i) Write the list out exactly as the source does, removing any sales figures. ii) Write the list out exactly as the source does and add a column for "Highest claims" so we can at least try and give some figures. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 14:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the list, it doesn't seem accurate based on the few reliable sources that the article uses. For example, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is ahead of Back in Black. Might want to check that out. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 19:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think the research we have done counts for anything against a definitive list, still thats why we should keep a highest claims catagory so all that stuff can still remain. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republishing media traffic's list could be a case of WP:COPYVIO, so I'd be careful there. :::When was their list last updated? It could be years old. There are still problems with any "highest claims". Who made the claims? Reliable news sources? Where did they get their facts from? Perhaps the record company, who might be inclined to up the figures for their own benefit. Perhaps from an interview with the artists themselves. Again, they could up it for their own benefit. You'd have to be careful not to use any fan sites, or any primary sources. You'd also have to make sure any tertiary sources are not simply rehashing primary sources. See also WP:SOURCE and WP:RS Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also take care of when the claims were made. As discussed above, anything older than 2005 is unlikely to be correct now, and even claims made after then may be using figures from before then. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just scrap the figures, its going to be inpossible by wikipedias mad standards. Lets just get the definitive list down. This is getting silly different sides are telling us different things, at last i find the definitive list i was told to look for now all of a sudden thats copy vio. Either way i just cant win, you know? I say scrap the figures and just write the list. The list was compiled in 2007 so its fresh. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [4].

Discography of Australian iconic rock group, Hoodoo Gurus - is being nominated because I believe that it is complete and well referenced.Dan arndt (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Definitely a good start, but I honestly see alot of problems. The majority of my issues with the list come from the WP:DISCOG style guideline proposal, so I'd recommend looking there for further suggestions, specfically the examples at the end. Here's a few of the issues I see:

I edited it a bunch myself, feel free to revert if you dislike my changes. I still feel like there's more work to be done, so I'll take another fresh look soon. Drewcifer (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. Drewcifer (talk) 05:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Completely contradictory to existing discography standards. indopug (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, not enough in-line citations for the list itself. GreenJoe 00:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of clarification: do you mean that each column heading should have a ref e.g. Album details or do you mean that each individual line in the Album details column should have its own ref? Then similarly for other tables. Or have I missed your point entirely?Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "This article is a comprehensive listing of all official releases" Couple of issues with this one, firstly, if it were to be featured, it's comprehensiveness is a given, per the criteria, so that doesn't need to be mentioned. Nor does "all official releases", because if they're not official, the shouldn't be listed, and if there are any official releases that are missing, again it shouldn't be featured.
• Go for simply "This is a discography of Hoodoo Gurus". But also read over Wikipedia_talk:FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence. Perhaps a better opening would be "The discography of the Hoodoo Gurus consists of eight studio albums, thirty-two singles, one extended play, six 'compilation' albums and four video/DVD releases." You could then go on to say that the Hoodoos are Australian and previously known as Le Hoodoo Gurus.
• Instead of "(aka Le Hoodoo Gurus until after first single)", how about removing the parentheses and making a sentence out of it, such as, "for their first single, the group was called "Le Hoodoo Gurus""?
• Missing/extra punctuation: "Hoodoo Gurus debut release was the single, "Leilani", in October 1982, Hoodoo Gurus first album Stoneage Romeos was released in 1984." → "Hoodoo Gurus' debut release was the single "Leilani" in October 1982; their first album, Stoneage Romeos was released in 1984."
• no comma needed after "'Best cover art'"
• For "Live recordings and compilations", use "Aus peak chart positions"

So it's an oppose for now due to MOS and prose issues Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had an attempt to cover these Comments and hope I've got all the ones listed here. I changed a number of AUS to Aus not just in the "Live recordings and compilations" one for consistency.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [5].

Self-nomination. I nominate the List of baryons because I believe in now satisfies all the criteria of a featured list.

The list provides information (masses, decay products, quantum numbers...) of all the particles than can be made out all quarks that are expected to form baryons in both spin 1⁄2 and 3⁄2 configurations, as well as all reported exotic baryons. Everything is fully referenced through the Particle Data Group Review of 2006 where possible, with some additional references provided where needed. Naming conventions of baryons are given, and the articles related to a full understanding of the naming conventions were expanded (namely, isospin.

About 10 editors worked on this and gave comments, and every concern was addressed (except a minor thing that will be fixed tomorrow (May 16th). Wikiproject Physics was notified. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 06:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Unkowns in italics (Resolved)
• List is mangled up on certain browsers (Ongoing)
• Concepts such as X aren't explain at all (Ongoing)

• Spin, orbital angular momentum, total angular momentum (Resolved)
• Isospin and relation with charge (Resolved)
• Flavour quantum numbers (Resolved)
• Parity (Ongoing))
• Decay (Ongoing))

• Explanation for topic X are confusing for the layman (Ongoing(?))

• Spin, orbital angular momentum, total angular momentum (Ongoing(?))
• Isospin and relation with charge (Ongoing(?))
• Flavour quantum numbers (Ongoing(?))
• Parity (No explanation yet))
• Decay (No explanation yet))

• Not enough reference in lead (Resolved (?))
• Not enough reference in overview (Ongoing)
• Ref tags should be after punctuation (Resolved)
• 4 main articles should be on 1 line, not 4 (Resolved)
• List of known baryon should not be bold (Ongoing)
• Too much link in the list (Ongoing)
• Clickable footnotes (Resolved (?))
• Symbols could be recapped before in the list section (Ongoing)

• Why are the Unknowns italicised? indopug (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No particular reason. Should they be unitalicized? Headbomb (ταλκ ·κοντριβς) 00:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think so. Things are italicised to indicate emphasis or for names of movies, books etc. Here it is unnecessary. indopug (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, I'll fix that tonight.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 14:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• All the unkowns were unitalicized. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 03:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There's something wrong with the {{SubatomicParticle}} template. It messes up the page by widening it.--Crzycheetah 06:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see what you mean. Things look fine to me. I use Firefox in widescreen 1200x800.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 06:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I have the most used browser, IE7, and the page's width doubles because of that template. As soon as I remove that template from the page, I click on preview and everything is fine. Also, I can't fully see what is written in the "J^p" column in the first table. All I see is "1/".--Crzycheetah 08:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked at the page with IE7 and everything displays fine. I really don't know what the problem is. Try clearing the cache? Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 12:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I spent about 40 minutes trying to figure out what's wrong with this page. When I remove {{SubatomicParticle|Bottom sigma0}}, {{SubatomicParticle|Bottom sigma*}}, and {{SubatomicParticle|Bottom Xi-}}, all the mess disappears. So there's something wrong with these three particles. The mess in the table remains, though. I can't see what's written in the "I" and "Jp" columns in the first two tables. For me, it is not visually appealing(criterion #6) because I can't see most of the entries in the table and the page remains wider than normal, which in turn makes reading the page difficult. --Crzycheetah 22:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I would love to help you, but things display just fine here (both IE7 and Firefox). I've used different computers and it always looks fine. I really don't know what causes your problem. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 23:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've contacted SkyLined since he wrote the template. Perhaps he has some insight.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 06:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I tried something with the JP titles of sections. Tell me if things have improved on your side. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 02:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's much improved, but still not there yet. Now, I can see those "1/2" parts at least. Those "+" signs at the bottom of each cell are seen in some cells, but not the others. In some cells, those "+" signs are to the right of 1/2. Whatever you did here, you can do to the JP = 3⁄2+ baryons (triquarks) section. I think it would have been better if you used ½ instead of {{frac|1|2}}.--Crzycheetah 22:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you could take screen shots I could use it to see if there's a pattern that emerges. Your computer seems to have a problem handling templates. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 02:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I like the table, although I haven't checked the individual entries throughout. One suggestion might be to give a fuller, more-lay-person-centric explanation for some of the columns; for example, readers may have no idea about isospin or J. I don't think we're writing for the experts—they're not going to look things up on Wikipedia, right?—but rather for amateur college students, educated adults and maybe advanced high-schoolers. It'd be better if they didn't have to follow links all the time. Willow (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I took me a damn long while to figure what the hell isospin was at first (as in a month or so). I wrote isospin#Modern understanding of isospin as a result. It was on the list of baryons, but it was rather lengthy and outside of the scope of the list itself. There was a general agreement that the isospin section was more appropriate at the isospin page, so I put "Main article: Isospin" in the overview section. As for layperson explanations of J (total angular momentum), it would be very hard to achieve in a few lines, but I will try to give laypersons a bone to chew on. Give me a day or two and I'll get back to you.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 23:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As I wrote the spin section, I decided to give a full coverage of pretty much topic of particle physics. Isospin, spin, isospin and spin projections, total angular momentum, charge, flavour quantum numbers, symmetry breaking, etc... This article is now almost self-contained (only an explanation of Pauli was left out). Tell me what you think (feel free to copyedit).Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 04:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And for the layman! Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 04:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone expanded the lead a while ago, things were a bit messy so I've tidied them up. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 03:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, the lead fails to use in-line citations. GreenJoe 00:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you think needs citations? Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 01:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added some in-line citations for the current state of the pentaquarks. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 04:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Please refer to Wikipedia_talk:FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence
• Move refs 1 and 2 to after the punctuation, per WP:CS
• Are the 4 {{main}} links necessary in the "Spin, orbital angular momentum , and total angular momentum" section? I noticed that at least two of those links are used within the prose
• {{main}} is pipable, which means that instead of the remaining two under two different lines, you can do {{main|link1|link2}}, which will render
  Main articles: link1 and link2
• Place reference 4 at the end of the sentence
• Prose needs more citations. Except for reference 4, nothing in every single subsection of the "Overview" section has been cited. For a math/equation/science buffoon like myself, how do I know that anything that has been stated is true?
• I have no idea what any of those abbreviations in the JP = 1⁄2+ baryons (triquarks) table mean.
  • I think there should be an additional column to explain in words what each of the entries under the "Symbol" column is.
  • You could use a small Key table to explain what uud, udd etc means for "Quark content"
  • Also no explanation of the contents of the "Commonly decays" cells.
    • I know that I could click on each link, but I don't particularly want to navigate away from the list to find out what every single squiggle or abbreviation means. It's also a problem for people who are reading the list after printing it out on a piece of paper
• Clicking on the sort buttons for "I" "JP" "Q" "S" "C" and B'" columns four times makes the columns not sort correctly
• Make the footnotes clickable by using {{ref label}} and {{note label}}
• The JP = 3⁄2+ baryons (triquarks)* table has the same sortability problems
  • For example "Q" sorts +1, +2, 0, "S" and "b'" don't sort at all, "C" does some funny sorting after a few clicks (sometimes it includes the 0 in the sorting, other times it doesn't)

It's a good topic, but right now it's too exclusionist in that probably only scientists or people with a good knowledge of the subject can understand it. under The criteria (1) the PROSE must be professional, not too complicated for the average user; and (4) the STRUCTURE should be easy to navigate. With the sortability issues, and the fact that all those symbols and abbreviations have to be clicked on (which as mentioned before is a problem when using a printed version), means it isn't. As such, I'm opposing. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up to Matthewedwards

• First, thank for the feedback that will be very useful.
• The bold List of known and predicted baryons was made according to MOS. After reading that discussion, it seems that people are worried about having straight repetitions of the article title (aka the topic "List of Nascar pilots" would have "This is a list of Nascar pilots." without further info in the sentence) or repetition of the bold part as a explanation (The list of baryons is a list of known and predicted baryons). In this case, what is in the list is further expanded (List of known and predicted baryon), and there is no repetition, so I don't see why it should not be in bold.
• Refs [1],[2],[4] were moved after periods.
• "Main articles" were merged in one line.
• Overview has been expanded recently so I did not add references yet. I'm actively searching for some as we speak.
• I means isospin (see on isospin), J^P = 1⁄2⁺ means a total angular momentum of 1⁄2 h-bar with positive parity (see section on spin and total angular momentum), S, B′', C, T are the flavour quantum numbers (see on flavour quantum numbers). I guess I could recap symbols things in the Lists section (end of the day done).
• Overview will be expanded to contain parity and decay (give me a day or two for that however)
• I'm very iffy about removing links. I'm not saying it can't be done, but every particle symbol are linked for uniformity (link one, link all I say), and because many people don't know their greek, so just by hovering they are reminded of what the name of the Greek letter is.

• For the decays, their are simply too wide a variety of particles listed to give explanations that would remove the need for links. The importance of printing a nice and tidy list is IMO superseded by the need for quick info when navigating the list. The links in "particle name" were removed, as I agree there is no need of linking "Sigma" twenty times.

• What do you mean by making footnotes clickable? You can click on the [#] to go to the relevant footnote, and when in the footnote section you can click on the ^ to go find where it was used in text.
• Sortability seems to be a problem with the way tables handle things and reaches far beyond this article alone. It could be removed, but then people would complain that you can't sort the table. I tried looking on the village pump for help/place to report the problem, but I got lost in there.
• I tried to explain everything at the layman's level, and I think I've done a fairly good job at that (but don't be shy in pointing places where explanations are confusing, or where the "prose" gets murky). This is a topic that usually requires a very high level of understanding of advanced physics and advanced math topics such as group theory and lie algebra. So I do not think the criteria should be "can Jimmy understand everything here with a quick read?", but rather "Are the important concepts required for an understanding of this list explained in terms that can be understood by non-experts?", "Does this give a good overview of what is known about the properties of baryons" and "Is the encyclopedic value of the list comparable or superior to the other featured list".

Check the list in a day or two to see what progress has been made to address these concerns. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 04:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [6].

User:Haus suggested on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Maritime_Trades that we should submit this as a candidate for featured list. This list of 57 Navigational stars is used in Celestial navigation and has been originally published by Nathaniel Bowditch in 1802 in the American Practical Navigator. It is, therefore, stable and uncontroversial. I'd appreciate any feedback you can provide that will make this list better. Alexander Falk (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

Gary King (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Quickie review
  • The chart should be in its own section.
    •  Done Alexander Falk (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any images that could be included? (ie. If there enough, you could add small images of every star in the table).
    • See reply below. Alexander Falk (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations should go after a period, ie. .^[1]
    •  Done Alexander Falk (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should add a key explaining what each column title means (like S.H.A.)
    • See reply below. Alexander Falk (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Added key to explain column titles. Alexander Falk (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are only two citations on the page, you need a general reference to cover the table.
    •  Done Alexander Falk (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• That's all for now. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from afalk42 (talk · contribs)

Thank you for the feedback. I've made all suggested changes to the lead prose and also made the list into its own section and added general references. I do have two questions/comments, though:

• Re Adding a key to explain column titles: I've made SHA into a link to the corresponding article hour angle. Is that sufficient, or would you still like to see a key on the page? If so, can you point me to examples of I would find a good key and how it should be formatted?
  • There are several different things you could try. You could try bullet points like here or a table like this (although not all on the same row like that one). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked at those examples, but the keys in those examples are all explanations of values used within the table, rather than explanations of the column titles. The only one that does need an explanation, in my opinion, is SHA, and I've explained that in the lead prose as well as made it a link to the definition. Alexander Falk (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Added key to explain column titles. Alexander Falk (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Re Images: no, there are unfortunatley no good images of the stars that would make sense to include here. However, I did add all the links to SIMBAD so that people can find out more data about the stars, including links to images.

Alexander Falk (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • What about this? And isn't Polaris a navigational star? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re Alpheratz image (this): I have included links to all the individual star articles (including the once you cited) so that people can find out more details. But I am not sure that adding 57 images of stars to this list would make it a better list, because the purpose of the list is to serve as a reference for celestial navigation much more than astronomy. Furthermore, all other Lists of stars are merely references and don't include pictures, and I tried to be consistent. Last, but not least, we would need to find images taken with the same magnification of all these stars, and I am not aware of a source that has all of them available without copyright issues. Alexander Falk (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re Polaris: it is true that Polaris was used in Celestial navigation in the past, such as for directly determining Latitude, but it is not included in the list of 57 navigation stars in either Bowditch or the Nautical Almanac, because it requires a special calculation and cannot be used to determine Longitude, so for all practical purposes the navigator today - when using a sextant rather than GPS - takes 3 sights of either planets or the 57 navigational stars and uses them to determine Latitude and Longitude. Alexander Falk (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps that should be mentioned then, because I'd assume that most people that kinda know astronomy but aren't experts will wonder where it is. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I need to take that back. I just realized that Bowditch lists Polaris in his list, which has 58 stars after all. But the Nautical Almanac only lists 57 and exculdes Polaris, because it is no longer used for practical purposes. I will definitely make sure that I add Polaris to the list and add lead prose to point out that this difference between 57 vs. 58 navigational stars exists. Thanks for pointing me in that direction. Alexander Falk (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done Added Polaris to the table, clarified lead prose, and added footnote. Alexander Falk (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Haus (talk · contribs)

• Should "Proper Name" be "Common Name" as per s.1531 of Bowditch 2002?
  •  Done I originally used "Proper Name" because that is the label given in the other Lists of stars, but you are right: Bowditch calls it the "Common Name" Alexander Falk (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the "Meaning of Name" column in fig 1530a of Bowditch 2002 would be useful to add.
  • I will work on that. Alexander Falk (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Alexander Falk (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the star charts in ch. 15 of Bowditch 2002 could add significantly to the list. While individual pictures of the stars don't add much, seeing where they are relative to each other is extremely useful. Some experimentation is probably in order.
  • I finished creating 1 of the 3 star charts necessary to contextualize these stars at Image:Bowditch-equatorial-stars.svg.
    • Very cool. I tried scanning the charts on page 253-256, but the quality wasn't good enough to warrant uploading. Converting them to SVG is, of course, a fantastic approach. I will integrate them into the page once we have all 3 uploaded. Alexander Falk (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done I have added the first star chart in a new section, because it already adds context to the list. Please let me know once you have the other 2 images ready and I will incorporate them, too. Thank you. Alexander Falk (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• More later. Haus^Talk 12:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The list is coming along nicely. Please understand, Alexander, that getting a piece to featured status is supposed to be fairly demanding...
• Column ordering: it seems to me that the columns should start as number/common name then some combination of magnitude/sha/declination.
  •  Done I've moved the common name to the second column. Regarding the other columns: I'd like to keep the Magnitude and Bayer name columns next to each other, becuase that is also the format used in List of brightest stars Alexander Falk (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I haven't been able to put my finger on it, but there's got to be a way to make the SIMBAD column less redundant.
  • I saw your last edit and that certainly helped, but I am not sure how we can further improve this. I used the format that was on List of brightest stars as a starting point, but we need some text in this column as the basis for the link to SIMBAD. Also, please note that this is not always the same name as the Common name column, because SIMBAD has them under different names. Even though this column seems to be very redundant, it really isn't. Alexander Falk (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia has at least 2 nice facilities for imagemaps.
  • I'll tackle that once we have all images added. Alexander Falk (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This is not a "to-do" item, but I want to make sure to point this out: there is another list in the back of the Nautical Almanac of 200-ish other stars that can be used. There is probably a description in the frontmatter of the book of what the difference is between the 57 and the other 200-odd stars. My understanding is that you'll usually be able to find 3 or 4 out of the 57, they're easy to find, and they're spread out nicely in terms of SHA and declination. I wouldn't be at all shocked to find out that the number 57 was picked because that's how many lines fit on the daily pages in the Almanac.
  • I am certain that the 57 stars are not picked by how many lines fit on the page. Bowditch already listed 58 stars in 1802. The only star omitted from that list in the Nautical Almanac is Polaris (because it requires special calculations and is, therefore, used less frequently). The 57 stars (or 58 in Bowditch) are picked, because they are some of the brightest stars and, therefore, much easier to get a fix on with the Sextant. Normally you always try to use one of the 57 stars, if you have an unobstructed view of the sky. The other 150+ stars in the back of the nautical Almanac are for reference if you have a cloudy sky and cannot do your sights on the 57 brightest stars. You can use them, but navigators try to avoid it, unless those are the only available options due to visibility/clouds. Alexander Falk (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• For declination, use 2 digits so that sort works. For example, Menkar's coming after Alkaid right now.
  •  Done However, the sort should ideally start from N 90 descending to the equator and then increase from the euator to the Southpole. I have not idea, if one can specify a custom sort-order, though. Alexander Falk (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• For SHA, use 3 digits, i.e. Enif would be 034. Again, for sorting.
  •  Done Alexander Falk (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Variable magnitudes should probably be explained. This could be accomplished by, for example, a footnote or a legend.
  •  Done Alexander Falk (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As of tomorrow I'll be incommunicado for a while. If these items can be addressed, the authority who closes this candidacy can consider this a support.

Cheers. Haus^Talk 18:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• ", because" in the first sentence of the lead doesn't need a comma
  •  Done Alexander Falk (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "and/or because they are nearby" two "because"es in one sentence. Nearby to what?
  •  Done Rewrote to say "proximity to our solar system" Alexander Falk (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "These stars are practically a subset" what does this mean? And is "practically" necessary? Either they are or they aren't. Consider "Most of these stars are a subset.."
  •  Done Alexander Falk (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• should nautical almanac be alphabetized?
  • I am not clear what you are suggesting? The list of navigational stars is using the numbering that is used in the nautical almanac. The user can view the list in alphabetical order by clicking on the column header. Alexander Falk (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "typically on a tear-sheet that then serves as a bookmark throughout the year and is placed on the almanac page for the current 3-day period" Again, I don't know what this means
  • The list of navigational stars is printed on a page of the nautical almanac that is using a heavier paper, and the page has a perforation. The idea is that a navigator will buy a new nautical alamanc every year, and will then tear this page out of the book and use it as a bookmark throughout the year. The nautical alamanc lists important data for each 3-day period on two opposing pages, so the tear-sheet will serve as a bookmark for a 3-day period and will then be advanced by one page to the next 3-day period. Alexander Falk (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "SHA" means nothing to the reader because it hasn't been used previously. Write out the acronym in full on its first use, then put the acronym in brackets, if it is used again elsewhere in the article
  • I disagree: Sidereal hour angle (SHA) is being defined on its first use in the first sentence of the third paragraph. Alexander Falk (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "V Magnitude" and "Bayer Designation" should follow WP:HEAD and not be over-capitalised
  •  Done Alexander Falk (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few English grammar, MOS and prose issues to address before it meets the criteria, so oppose for now. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from afalk42 (talk · contribs)

I will be traveling for the next 3 weeks, so I won't be able to make any further edits for a while. If this gets the necessary support before the end of the 10-day period, then I'd appreciate it being promoted. But if it doesn't look like this will begetting the needed support, then there is no need to extend the FLC period, as I will not have time to do further edits anytime soon. In that case, I would make future edits when I get back and would then potentially resubmit once further outstanding issues have been addressed. Alexander Falk (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TONY (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• A lead picture would be nice
• Reference 1 in the lead is placed after a space
• References 3, 4 and 5 are actually footnotes. Can you use {{ref label}} and {{note label}} for them instead?
• "shortened form of "north star" (named when it was that,..." Have you got another way of phrasing the parentheses-ed part (specifically, the "that")?

That's all I've got. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [7].

I've made some severe modifications to this list as of late, using other featured discogs (mostly Nine Inch Nails discography) as inspiration for bringing this up to a higher quality. A few quick notes about the page:

1. While most discographies include chart info, Boredoms albums have never charted to the best of my knowledge (and I've looked long and hard).
2. This was also the best method I could think of for noting reissues, since there are tons of reissues. There was no standard for me to go by, so I've done what I think is best to include this information.

Thanks for taking a look at this. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 17:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment They must've charted in Japan right? Have you checked offline sources? indopug (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Japan charting. Searching online for charts hasn't proven fruitful, any online info about the albums themselves doesn't mention anything, and it would be next to impossible for me to check offline sources since I live in the United States. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 22:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must say it sounds very strange that you do not check Japanese charts for a Japanese band. Anyway, Nirvana discography lists a book called "Album Chart-Book Complete Edition 1970-2005. Orikonmāketingupuromōshon (2006). ISBN 4871310779." for Japan chart info. indopug (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to check their charts online; I've found some but Boredoms were not on them. Considering how they don't make pop music, I'm not surprised (if) they haven't charted. However, I'll try to contact whoever has that book and see if they can look them up. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 15:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, the user who added the Japanese chart source was a suspected sock puppet and has been blocked. Great... = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 18:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few comments:

• The album titles should not be in bold. It goes against MOS:BOLD (see discussion WT:MUSTARD#Album bolding).
• Maybe add a few external links? Such as a link to the band's website and/or Discogs or Allmusic.
• According to proposed style guidelines, all separate types of releases such as albums and remix albums should have their own individual sections.

-- Underneath-it-All (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• While that's easily changeable, I find it interesting that most, if not all, of the featured lists I looked at had bold titles in the same style.
• Sure.
• They do have their own sections. I don't understand what you're getting at. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 02:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just disregard that. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'm going to have to agree with indopug's take on the bolding issue: that is, to ignore the Manual of Style in this case since bolding is very convenient for discographies that contain a lot of links so that readers can more easily see and click the titles. I hardly need to reiterate that many featured discographies already do this. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 07:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I remember looking at this article a few months back and wondering if it were even possible to get it into shape, so I'm definitely impressed with the work done so far! It looks pretty good, but I do see alot of room for improvement. A few suggestions:

Definately looking better. A few more minor issues:

• What's with Boretronix 4?
• What's up with the years of "Psycho Nite Tape II", "Eat Shit Noise Music", and "Ne San"?
• Boredoms shouldn't be wikilinked in the bold intro. Try linking it as soon as possible afterwards, though. (Perhaps change the second sentence to "To date, Boredoms have released"
• "Although the band's work can be documented back to 1982 with the Early Boredoms compilation released with Soul Discharge,[1] the earlier records by the band under the name Boredoms, Anal by Anal and Soul Discharge, were put out on the small independent Japanese labels while American label Shimmy Disc and English label Earthnoise distributed records overseas." Very long, kind of confusing sentence.
• "picked back up" somewhat unencyclopedic wording there.
• "When the band reconvened in 2004 as V8redoms for the release of Seadrum/House of Sun, they were signed on to Vice, who also reissued the band's catalogue of Super Roots EPs up through 8 (minus Super Roots 2)." Another long confusing sentence.
• Similar columns between tables (in this case the "Title" columns) should be kept to a consistent width between tables.
• This does not look like a reliable source.
• Discogs is also not considered reliable. Drewcifer (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As is stated in the article itself, there isn't any information (reliable or not) about the release date of Boretronix 4, but it is mentioned in a discography here (that is sourced at the bottom).
• The years of those compilation albums were taken from the Pop Kiss site, and that is how they are listed there. I should have looked elsewhere for dates.
• No, Pop Kiss isn't a reliable source by WP standards, but it's honestly all I have for certain things and I think it is good enough for now. I can also definitely remove the Discogs source, but I don't know if I can find another to replace it.

I'll take a look at fixing the rest of the points as well. Thanks! = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 02:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, not enough in-line citations for the list itself. GreenJoe 00:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which parts are of debatable accuracy? = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 02:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Per WP:LS#Bold title, do not wikilink the bold lead sentence. Also, "This is a discography of Boredoms" would be better than "This is a listing of the recordings by Boredoms", but please read WT:FLC#Straight repetitions of the title in the opening sentence about it being unnecessary.
• I would rename the section "Various artists compilations" to "Other appearances", per other FL discographies
  • Per WP:NOTCATALOG, do not include any song in that section that has appeared on an Official Boredoms release as they were not made for the compilation, they were simply licensed for inclusion. Only include songs that are original to the compilation
• Echoing the comments above, I'd like to know if any release actually charted in (at least) Japan. Just because noone (on Wikipedia) knows, doesn't mean they haven't. As of now it appears incomplete, unless a citeable statement such as "No album or single has ever charted on the official music charts of any country" could be included.

So mostly for the final reason, but also because of the MOS errors, I'm opposing at this time. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've fixed all the style things you've mentioned. I understand that it's possible that they could have charted, but seeing as how the article doesn't state either way if they have or not I don't see that as too big of a problem. I know they haven't charted in the US but searching for Japanese charts is difficult at best. It's a little disappointing that no one's offered to help, either, but I'll ask around. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 13:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [8].

Self nomination - Fully cited, reliable discog page. Will act on and reply to suggestions. Thanks. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--Lead is way too short. For a ten-album band, two large paragraphs (apart from the intro one) is suitable. indopug (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Acknowledge. Will work on it. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at the rest later. indopug (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looking good! One more very minor suggestion: the "RIAA Certification" column in the videos table is really wide, could you put in a <br />? Drewcifer (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few comments:

• The album titles should not be in bold. It goes against MOS:BOLD (see discussion WT:MUSTARD#Album bolding).
• Maybe add catalog numbers for albums, EPs, live albums and compilations?

-- Underneath-it-All (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. The discussion on bold album text has not reached a consensus yet. The MOS:Discography (not completed yet) seems to say that using bold is okay Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added cat numbers Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• No music videos?
• Cite the BPI certifications like I told you. Also, you can make two columns: UK certs and US certs
• I see both "sixty-one" and "33" in the lead. Pick one way. I recommend using words throughout.
• What about misc. appearances on soundtracks and compilations (with other artists)? indopug (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose let's add in some in-line citations. Thanks. GreenJoe 00:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - I need to sort out the info on music videos. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I know you've asked for this to be withdrawn, but it hasn't yet so here goes:
• Please wikilink to Billboard 200 for the chart in Live albums
• Did none of the compilations chart?
• The "US Main" for the singles chart is misleading (for me at least, because I thought it meant the Billboard 100. Check out other rock discogs for what they use.

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:06, 26 May 2008 [9].

previous FLC (19:05, 4 May 2008)

I've been working on this article for a long time now and i think it's ready for a nomination. --Freedom (song) (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Ah please the previous flc debate ended just a week ago. Please take care of the issues before listing it here or get a peer review. Before this is going to be worthy of anything you will have to do something about the references. It's a mess.

• Make sure you add all information available.
• All references should have a title, publisher and accessdate at the very least.
• You should not include "Netherlands" etcetera in the reference, especially not in italic because it's confusing, one might think that "Netherland" is a publisher.
• Lots of spelling mistakes. (ref 19) You should not write "Netherland", it's either Netherlands or The Netherlands (don't use Holland either). Another example is ref 21. It's "Portuguese", not 'Portugise".
• There should be no links in the bold title per WP:LS#Bold title. Find another place for the "England" and "Progressive Rock" and "Pink Floyd" links.

That's a start. Baldrick90 (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note there is no minimum waiting period for renominating FLCs. That being said, from what I can tell, a lot of the concerns from the previous one have not been addressed, and lists should only be resubmitted once that is done. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's no shame in nominating it later, once the issues previously raised have been addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Simply since the majority of the issues from the previous FLC have still not been addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:06, 26 May 2008 [10].

Self-nom. Believe that this satisfies all the featured list criteria. -RunningOnBrains 13:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments I've followed this article for quite some time, and I've wondered it it was ever going to FLC. Seeing as it has, I have a few concerns. First, I'm not so sure I like the format of the list. You might want to consider a format similar tp List of snow events in Florida or List of New York hurricanes. Also, the references are poorly formated. All references should be in {{cite web}} form for internet references and {{cite news}} for newspapers and printed media. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those actually do look better, definitely less white space. I will change the format ASAP. First, though, I will format the references (forgot to do all of them). -RunningOnBrains 14:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, good. It's starting to look better already. A couple other comments, though. Is it possible to expand the lead? Also, why are the Fujita ratings in bold? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

• I definitely agree that this list would benefit from bullets rather than separating every event with a new line.
• Also, be sure to use en dashes for date ranges, including the section titles.

Gary King (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Is the lead long enough? It's still pretty short, but I'm not sure what else to write. -RunningOnBrains 00:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead could still be expanded. During which months did the most tornadoes occur? Did any years have multiple tornadoes? Which county was hit by the most storms? Were there any particularly notable tornadoes? Just little informative facts like that. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Gopher backer — I like where this article is now, good job. I did have comment.

• for the sentence: "They occur most commonly in Hartford County, although since 1950 Litchfield County has recorded the most tornadoes, suggesting that many went unreported in the past"... I think that the suggesting that many went unreported in the past' could be considered speculation. I would suggest either finding a reference for that statement, or just removing it. I think that saying "They occur most commonly in Hartford County, although since 1950 Litchfield County has recorded the most tornadoes" would be just fine on its own. Otherwise, it looks good. Gopher backer (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done with all concerns, I believe - RunningOnBrains 00:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Gopher backer (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any other concerns? Anyone? Bueller? -RunningOnBrains 01:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All my concerns have been addressed. Good work! Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now
  • The last sentence should be incorporated into the first paragraph because of its importance.
  • There are three links to United States in the lead; remove the last two.
  • Link "$" to United States dollar.
  • Why is the Wallingford Tornado of 1878 bolded?..along with other similar links?
  • Footnotes should be in numerical order. ^{[15][4][4][15]}
  • Whenever you mention time, indicate the time zone for non-Americans.
  • Your main reference, the Grazulis' book, needs page numbers for each citation.
  • If you still have access to those NYT articles, find out who wrote them, then add the names of the reporters.

--Crzycheetah 05:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:06, 26 May 2008 [11].

I believe this article should be a Featured List because it meets all the criteria for becoming a Featured List.Blackhole77 ^{talk | contrib} 00:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• "recognized" vs "recognises" be consistent with Brit Eng.
  •  Done
• Still not overwhelmed by the lead. It needs to be copyedited by someone who doesn't know the structure of international cricket. I get everything you're saying but it doesn't read particularly elegantly and I think grammatically it falls short. I'd ask for an independent view. Perhaps drop User:Dweller a line? He's a cricket kind of guy but enjoys a good copyedit too...
  •  Done
• Still need to expand the "member since" column.
  •  Done
• Make the tables appear similarly, i.e. make the columns the same for each table.
  • {{done}
• Remove the space before [3].
  •  Done
• "get ODI status until " - would prefer something like "are awarded ODI status"
  •  Done
• "Turks and Caicos Islands" takes up two lines on my monitor. You should work more on the col widths to optimise them.
  •  Done
• Your {{Cite web}} references need to have publisher information and you need to make sure the title's are correct, e.g. for Cayman Islands link, I would expect the title to be something like "Teams - Cayman Islands" or "Cricinfo - Other countries - Teams - Cayman Islands"
  •  Done

Still a way to go for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping me in it, TRM! I'll take a look... hope that's OK with you Blackhole? --Dweller (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I started copyediting, but really, the Lead is too flimsy. It's almost entirely unreferenced, and lacking basic information (I guessed, from memory, the ICC's original name, but I could well be wrong. I also guessed the addition I made about ODIs). Drop me a line when there's a thorough and referenced Lead and I'll help tweak the copy. --Dweller (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed up the Lead by ading some background information of the ICC. Hopefully, that fixes the problem.Blackhole77 ^{talk | contrib} 23:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reviewed the first three sentences. Hopefully that diff shows you the level of citation required for a featured quality list article. Have a look at some of the recently promoted FLs. This is some way off and needs work. It's not that the list cannot reach FL, it's just that there's too much to do. In short, this nomination was premature. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have added inline citations to the Lead. I believe the Lead is up to the level of citation needed for a FL.
        • A huge improvement. Minor comment; please check that references follow punctuation without spaces? I spotted one; there may be others. --Dweller (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Done
• Comment: In the lead you first say "The Imperial Cricket Conference was renamed the International Cricket Council in 1965", then you go onto say "In 1989, the ICC was again renamed, this time the International Cricket Council", am i missing something or is this an double up of names? Salavat (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done

Comments

• See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence regarding the verbatim copy of the article's title. Also, the way it is now is a parastub, and the first two paragraphs should be merged into one.
• "Shortly after World War II, Pakistan joined in 1953." doesn't read too well
• "South Africa was reelected as a Full Member to the ICC in 1991[2]", "there are 10 Full Members[4];" and "there are 58 Affiliate Members[4]," - per WP:CS, don't place references mid-sentence or before punctuation
• Reference [3] is given in the paragraph for Full members, so I don't see a problem if it was removed from the columns in the table, especially as it's the only one used.
• In Associate members and Affiliate members, create a new column titled "Reference", and move over the references from "Member since"
• Per WP:HEAD, only the first word and proper nouns should be capitalised in header titles. So unless "Associate Members" and "Full Members" are the terms used by ICC, the section titles should be "Associate members" and "Full members". Same for "Affiliate Members", and for the table titles ("Governing Body" should be "Governing body")

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

(might overrun with Matthew)

• "The Imperial Cricket Conference was based at Lord's." It seems this could be merged with another sentence, probably the one immediately before it.
• "They were soon joined by India, New Zealand, and West Indies in 1926." Using "they" is unclear pronoun reference.
• "Shortly after World War II, Pakistan joined in 1953." Should be joined with another sentence, as it is rather short.
• "In 1961, South Africa resigned due to South Africa leaving the Commonwealth." Link to Commonwealth?
• "The Imperial Cricket Conference was renamed the International Cricket Conference in 1965.[3] New rules were permitted to allow countries from outside the Commonwealth to be elected in to the governing body for the first time." Could be combined, I think.
• "The ICC currently has 101 members." Could be put in the first paragraph, I think.
• "Associate Members are regarded as having cricket firmly established and organised." I think this could be moved to after the first instance of "Associate Members. So: "Below the Full Members are the 33 Associate Members, which are countries regarded as having cricket firmly established and organised."

Noble Story (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose—1, 2, refs.
• Is the lead trying to "engage" me, as required by Cr. 2? The ponderous lists of which countries joined when comes before I learn what the purpose of the organisation is. I don't mind the founding members at the start, I suppose. And when you says "soon" joined, um ... 1909 vs 1926—is that soon? And why saying soon at all if the years are given? Same with the redundant time-statement about Pakistan.
• the West Indies.
• Two alsos.
• Spell out "ODI" first off; not everyone's an expert.
• ize or ise: which is it to be?
• "Full Members are the governing bodies for cricket of a country or countries associated for cricket purposes."—No idea what it means.
• Refs: I looked at just one—45. What makes "Crickinfo" authoritative? You need to name the producer of the site (I see "ESPN.com - espnsoccernet.com - www.scrum.com" at the bottom – can you look into it?) Refs generally need an audit for reliability and authorship/site owners. TONY (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:06, 26 May 2008 [12].

Self-nomination. Looked at Lost (season 1) and copied the format from there. The only image has a fair use rationale. Gman124 ^talk 15:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I believe that this article is of a high enough standard, though I have corrected a minor grammar error. ISD (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is not a list. This is an article with a list. If you want, take it to GAN or FAC. But not here. Noble Story (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Its in the exact same format as Lost (season 1) and The Office (U.S. TV series) season 1, which are featured list. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fine, if this doesn't pass or if editors feel this shouldn't be a list i'll take it to GAN or FAC. Gman124 ^talk 04:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be an article, it should stay a list, now. Gman124 ^talk 20:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current consensus is that season pages are designated as lists. Therefore, this is in the correct place. I should be able to review the article this evening, also. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 15:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not all season pages are lists, see Smallville (season 1) for an example of a featured article. In this page, I see that the prose part is longer than the table(list), so it can be argued whether this is an article/a list.--Crzycheetah 21:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still going with having this an article, not a list, so I'll oppose (but not just for that reason). Noble Story (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The plot summaries should be 3-4 times bigger than they are right now. See the Simpsons' list, where the entire episode is described. indopug (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done fixed summaries Gman124 ^talk 15:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll list the rest tomorrow, now I sleep. But "Season one of Seinfeld, an American television series created by Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David." is not a sentence. indopug (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Gman124 ^talk 13:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]