Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/May 2009

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 00:34, 30 May 2009 [1].

Nominator(s): CallMeAndrew (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because when i first came across this list, it was pretty good already. it had all the band members. it had a summary at the top. i worked hard and made a table at the bottom of the list, added some pictures and checked if there were other things i could add. i think its ready. how about you? CallMeAndrew (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - just looking at the list

• Per WP:WIAFL #3b, why split this info into a separate list when it could be include in Ozzy Osbourne#Backing band?
• Also info should be in table format

—Chris! _ct 22:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After some thoughts, I tend to agree that this is too long for inclusion at Ozzy Osbourne#Backing band. So, I strike my oppose.—Chris! _ct 19:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree it would be easier to read in table format, but it make sense that this is a stand-alone list. Between the major releases column (on a future table) and the large and very helpful chart at the bottom of the article, this is way too much information to include in the main article, especially with the main article so long already. Geraldk (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i will make all the info into a table, making it nice and easy to read. but should i really include it into the backing band? Geraldk has a good point. CallMeAndrew (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is definitely OK here. The main article is huge as is, and the list adds a lot of information that would make the main very clunky. What I would recommend, and what is proscribed by MOS, is that you use some of the information in the lead here as a summary paragraph in the backing band section (it shouldn't be just a bulleted list - perhaps just write out a short summary about the current backing band members?), and then use a see also link to direct here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, its all fixed up and lookin sexy. does it need anything else? jeez this is hard work. CallMeAndrew (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Where are the references?
• No need to link English.
• "Keyboardist Don Airey was also brought in temporarily" done
• "In 19 March 1982, while on their way to a festival in Orlando, Florida" done
• "the band were taken" "were"-->was (I know that British uses collective nouns differently, but we're talking about one band.) done
• "During an attempted prank, the plane crashed, killing the three people inside, one of which was Rhoads." What was this prank? done
• "one of which was Rhoads" "which"-->whom done
• "and he was followed" done
• "late-1982" No hyphen. done
• "and he remained as guitarist" done
• "ex-Sabbath member Geezer Butler also joined" done
• "in 1987, and he was replaced by" done
• "Former Faith No More co-founder Mike Bordin became the band's drummer in 1997, and he remains to this day"-->Former Faith No More co-founder Mike Bordin has been the band's drummer since 1997. done
• Can you make the table sortable? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i fixed all the crossed off ones. i dont know what u mean by sortable table. just tell me what i should change. and i got 1 reference in there about the randy rhoads death. i dont know what you mean about no need to link english. i dont know who wrote this but they had bad grammar. anything else? User:CallMeAndrew (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not strike other people's comments, thanks. I went ahead and unlinked English for you. I still don't see any references. For sortability, did you read the link I provided? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose no references! Nergaal (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference does [[2]] count as a reference? CallMeAndrew (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the references must be reliable, and I'm not sure if the above qualifies. See List of Metallica band members as an example of a well-referenced band members list. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/osbourne_ozzy/artist.jhtml. This good? CallMeAndrew (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See WP:CITET on how to cite sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks for the help with the references. i will add more later. but you said make the table sortable. i looked at the link to sortable tables and i get what a sortable table is but what would i sort this table by? alphebetical name order? CallMeAndrew (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to be used in the lead and the list of members, too. See List of Metallica band members again for how to do this. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 00:34, 30 May 2009 [3].

Nominator(s): Esemono (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after making the recommended changes after the peer review it is ready for you to pick apart. But I do have a question in the Escapee field most of the time there is only one person so it is nice to sort the table so you can find a specific Escapee. But sometimes there is several people who escape by helicopter. So my question is how do you handle the formating in a sortable table for the escapes with several people? Do you sort just the first person, don't sort that field, give a default sort symbol like a dash? If you have the time any advice would be great! -- Esemono (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you close the peer review, please? As per the FLC instructions, nominations may not be listed at PR at the same time as being here. Cheers. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I closed it for the nominator.—Chris! _ct 04:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks, Chris. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! My mistake, thanks Chris -- Esemono (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Even though it has a key, the "Success or Failure" images also should have alt text. I personally think the whole thing is tacky. I'd just have a column "Success?" and Yes or No. If you want to have graphics you could use {{Yes}}/{{No}} or {{Tick}}/{{Cross}}.
  • They have alt text -- Esemono (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Helicopter prison escapes as the name implies is escaping prison using a helicopter." is not a good opening sentence. As it stands it is missing a couple of commas, but I would suggest changing it completely. You don't have to repeat the title of the article in the lead.
  • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not happy with the fair use claim for the non-free image. We have very strict criteria for fair-use images. Just because a free image doesn't exist, does not mean we can use a copyrighted one.
  • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "One of the first instances of using" if there were others before it, this list isn't comprehensive. Ideally I think there should be a reference for being the first escape to use a chopper.
  • What if it's changed to, "one of the earliest"? -- Esemono (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref for the book existing and being based on his experience.
  • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Do thinks like horizontal and
  • Unsure what you mean-- Esemono (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "The most spectacular" according to?
  • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Also the Times article mentions "spectacular" in reference to 10 jailbreaks. Who's to say the most recent 11th wasn't more spectacular
• "On one of her first solo flights" The reference doesn't say that, it's WP:OR
  • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Titles is "escapes", lead says "to be counted as a helicopter escape, a helicopter must be used to free prisoners from a place of internment, a prison or correctional facility". But foiled plans like the January, 1983 one are included.
  • Tried to clear up-- Esemono (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Prose needs copyediting.
  • "By far the most helicopter escapes happen in France with at least 11 helicopter jail breaks." bad wording
  • "in Jan, 2003" don't use three letter months
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • nor a comma between month and year Reywas92^Talk 23:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Of the five only Victor Gonzalez Diaz wasn’t recaptured immediately." should have a comma after five.
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "use a helicopter free a one or several people out of the prison" missing word.
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, is is really necessary to define what a helicopter and a prison is? Reywas92^Talk 23:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the toolbox to your right, there is one disambiguation link that needs to be fixed and a one dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the dab and that Timesonline link isn't dead its just something with the timesonline site. -- Esemono (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead

• I also find the explanations of what a prison/helicopter is unnecessary, these are common items that people are aware of.

• fixed -- Esemono (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 'By far the most helicopter escapes happen in France with at least 11 helicopter jail breaks.' --> By far, the most helicopter escapes have occurred in France, with at least 11.

• fixed -- Esemono (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Using her new found skills she a rented white helicopter and flying low over Paris plucked her husband off the roof of his fortress prison.' --> Using her new found skills, she rented a white helicopter and flew low over Paris to pluck her husband off the roof of his fortress prison.

• fixed -- Esemono (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Michel was later killed in a shoot out with police and his pilot wife arrested.' -- 1)Comma before 'and' 2)+was before 'arrested'

• fixed -- Esemono (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead could use some expansion to summarize the list more, such as the most recent jail break via chopper, and other significant statistics.

• expanded -- Esemono (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List

• I too find the use of the images to detail successful/non-successful attempts a bit tacky. If you're going to at least use them, can you write Yes or No next to them?
• I don't know about the use of that much details is good for this list. I think just a summary of why the convict is in jail should suffice.

Escapes in fiction

• Why is this needed? Its a bit trivial to me, as it takes away from the overall meaning of the list.

References

• There is an inconsistency with formatting of some of the publishers, be consistent. Such as Times/TIMES.

• fixed -- Esemono (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Linking of the publishers also needs to be consistent: link all, link on first occurrence, or don't link at all.

• Cleaned up-- Esemono (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 40: Filmhobbit is the work, Cinema Blend LLC is the publisher.

• fixed -- Esemono (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Truco 23:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 00:34, 30 May 2009 [4].

Nominator(s): Esemono (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I'm curious if it will pass Esemono (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking good, I will support —Chris! _ct 04:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Is this a complete list of convicted computer criminals? What about The Pirate Bay guys or the Isohunt guy? What about Shawn Fanning, Gary Glitter, Pete Townshend? Are there any notable people (with or without WP articles) arrested and convicted due to Operation Ore, Operation Avalanche or any of the other Kiddie porn stings? (Note that I'm not saying for sure they have been convicted; you'd need to check up on it, and any others to make sure they're not missing)
  • There will always be future computer criminals but:
    • Pirate Bay is under appeal
      • But they were convicted, or not? The page isn't "List of convicted computer criminals who have not appealed their conviction or had their appeal turned down" Matthewedwards :  Chat 
    • Pete Townshend was never charged with any crime and in an April 2007, an article in The Guardian stated that Townshend was "falsely accused of accessing child pornography".[5]
      • OK. Matthewedwards :  Chat 
    • Shawn Fanning of napster fame was also never charged with any crime and napster still functions.
      • OK Matthewedwards :  Chat 
    • ISOHunt the company was never charged with any crime and is still running. So I doubt any of their members would be charged.
      • OK Matthewedwards :  Chat 
    • Operation Ore and Operation Avalanche netted lots of individuals but not really any notable ones. Also U.K investigative journalist Duncan Campbell wrote a series of articles criticizing police forensic procedures and trial evidence which basically prosecuted a large amount of innocent people who had their credit cards hacked.[6]
      • So what? Does his criticism mean the convictions don't stand? If there are no notable ones, so be it, but just because someone complained, doesn't mean they automatically get discounted from the list. Matthewedwards :  Chat 
        • Yeah I see what your saying but the scope of the article doesn't include copyright infringement or child pornography. The article defines computer crime as criminal activity involving an information technology infrastructure, including illegal access (unauthorized access), illegal interception (by technical means of non-public transmissions of computer data to, from or within a computer system), data interference (unauthorized damaging, deletion, deterioration, alteration or suppression of computer data), systems interference (interfering with the functioning of a computer system by inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer data), misuse of devices, forgery (ID theft), and electronic fraud. -- Esemono (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • But isn't it misleading? Computer criminals can be people charged and convicted of child pornographic crimes, and other non-hacking crimes. Matthewedwards :  Chat 
            • The scope of the article is defined in the lead. I just go by what the sources say, I didn't think original research was encouraged.... -- Esemono (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Convicted computer criminals or hackers are people who break into computers or computer networks." but not all people who break into computer or computer networks are convicted computer criminals.
  • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "The subculture that has evolved around hackers is often referred to as the computer underground." By whom? When? Is this subculture notable enough to have an article? There should be a link to it. Could we get this statement referenced?
  • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Computer crime is a relatively new crime." Relative to what? Will this statement still hold up in a year? Five years? Perhaps anchor it to a certain time with {{as of}}. Again, do you have a reference?
  • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "often they have to write the laws after a crime has taken place" so technically, many may not have commited a crime because there was no law to say it was a crime?
  • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Below is a list of computer criminals" Is there a way to avoid the article referencing itself?
  • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not fixed; it still says "Below is a list of computer criminals with a conviction in a court of law:" Matthewedwards :  Chat 
      • I had changed it but then a more senior editor disagreed with you and changed it back -- Esemono (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • • Well that put me in my place! Even King Jimbo is no more senior editor than an unregistered IP. Still, it made me laugh! Articles referencing themselves is poor practice. We know there is a list below. We know they're computer criminals, and we know they're convicted. We know all this because that is what the article is about. Matthewedwards :  Chat 
            • Whatever you say man! I don't want to get involved in your senior editor power struggles. -- Esemono (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "From the earliest days of hacking criminal convictions have been hard to come by as in the beginning of the hacker subculture there was some type of honor ethic, a sort of honor among thieves." -- A bit long winded. Can this be broken down with some punctuation?
  • Still unresolved. Matthewedwards :  Chat 
    • How about now -- Esemono (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Hackers who felt this way broke past computer security for non-malicious reasons and did no damage, akin to breaking into a house and looking around. These types of hackers enjoy learning and working with computer systems, and by this experience gain a deeper understanding of electronic security. This would change as the computer industry matured and those with malicious intentions would emerge to exploit computer systems for their own personal profit." All requires sourcing
  • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:LAYOUT -- page is formatted incorrectly
  • Can you be more specific? -- Esemono (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• A contents box for one real section isn't really necessary
• There are two dabs and a few redirects that should be fixed
  • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of punctuation errors. Could you find someone to copy edit the prose, including that in the "conviction" and "penalty" columns of the table? Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• How about Dutch Kournikova virus author Jan de Wit? He was convicted. Baldrick90 (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is in the list -- Esemono (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose until thorough copyedit is made per GeraldK's comments below. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I will support once I am ensured that the content in the table has received a copyedit for grammar and tenses.--Truco 20:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - there are still a great many inconsistencies in spelling and grammar throughout. Please in the future either have your lists copyedited or peer reviewed before bringing them to FLC. Specifically:

• • Some of the entries under convictions and sentences have periods, some do not. I would look for a way to make them consistent, which would probably require rewording of a number of statments to make them either sentences with periods or sentence fragments without.
  • "One count of computer trespass and One count of computer conspiracy" - if this is a single sentence, the second use of 'one' should not be capitalized.
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pleaded guilty"... in multiple entries should be 'pled' if the article is using North American English spelling, if not it's fine. But repeated use of "Also plead guilty" is wrong either way because plead is present tense in both version, and the statements should be in past tense for consistency.
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two years three months imprisonment"... should have an 'and' between years and three.
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One year suspended sentence, he was put on a AUS $1,000" should use a semi-colon rather than a comma.
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eleven months in a Massachusetts juvenile detention facility[13] Although a search shows as of May 6, 2009" needs punctuation near the ref, and if it's a comma 'although' should not be capitalized.
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Microsoft, LexisNexis and The New York Times" vs. "guilty to seven counts of mail, wire and computer fraud, money laundering, and obstruction of justice" - if you are going to use a serial comma, you must use it consistently throughout the article.
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Forty six months" to Forty-six months.

Forty six months

• • • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Memorial Sloan- Kettering Cancer Center" to "Memorial Sloan-Kettering" and wikilink.
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not introduce the list with, "Computer criminals with a conviction in a court of law:". Either get rid of it or give more information about what the criteria for inclusion in the list are. Right now, it effectively repeats the title of the article so is repetitive and not additive.
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ancheta is the latest notable computer criminal to be arrested, convicted and then on May 9, 2006 sentenced." should be more like "Ancheta is the latest notable computer criminal to be arrested and convicted, his sentencing having taken place on May 9, 2006."
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He is also the only person to be sentenced to more time in prison, with five years." more than what?
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "criminal convictions were hard to come by because there was ethics, a sort of honor among thieves" probably better with 'a code of ethics'.
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These white hat hackers broke past" vs. "They enjoy learning and working " one is present tense and one is past tense, though both are talking about the same topic. If you are talking about white hats at the time, it should all be past, if now, it should all be present, if both, there needs to be some transitions so that the differences in tensing make sense
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm thinking the list of definitions of computer crime in the lead's first paragraph may work better as a bulleted list, as in Wikipedia:Embedded list#Lists within articles

Geraldk (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I won't fully review, as Geraldk has provided a substantial list of examples to work from, but the first sentence is a red flag: "Convicted computer criminals, or hackers, are people who get caught and convicted of breaking into computers or computer networks." "get caught" is much too awkward and sounds like something written by an elementary schooler. How about "...who are caught..."? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Fixed. -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 00:34, 30 May 2009 [7].

Nominator(s): ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C}

I've compared it to other Featured chapter lists and I think I've got everything. Prose looks fine to me, but there's probably an issue or two with it. I'm sure it's long enough too, at ten items. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 03:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I sat down and decided to read this, but then didn't. Unfortunately, real life^TM decided to interfere, so I simply haven't had the time to comment. But I'm back!

• Although Fuuma Village is dedicated to preventing the Shinra Banshou's use, Kotarō admits he wants to use it as it allows Miharu to surpass human understanding. Try Although Fuuma Village is dedicated to preventing the Shinra Banshou's use, Kotarō admits he wants to use it as because it would allow Miharu to surpass human understanding. And are you sure Kotarō wishes to use it, as "he wants to use it" implies, and not Kotarō wants Miharu to use it?
  • Well, Kotarō is saying "if I had it I'd use it". I guess it's to emphasize how the man really isn't on their side or something? "Although Fuuma Village is dedicated to preventing the Shinra Banshou's use, Kotarō admits he would use the Shinra Banshou if it were in his possesion because it allows one to surpass human understanding."?
    • If he only "mentions" this, I have some WP:WEIGHT concerns, but I can't judge without reading the series.
      • The only significance is Kotarō wanting to use it in some way. "Although Fuuma Village agrees to help prevent the Shinra Banshou's use, Kotarō is not completely dedicated the cause." I'm iffy about using "the cause"
• Such a thing can be considered "God". EH!? Miharu can become God? What?
  • Kind of random. I don't know why I put it there. I think it's a direct quotation, so I guess. More pressure on Miharu? I removed it.
• Kotarō and Hattori declare that they must obtain the kinjutsushō before the other. Firstly, it should be the other does. Second, is there only one kinjutsushō? That's what it sounds like here.
  • Well, there's five (I think). But kinjutsushō is a Japanese word and cannot be pluralized (or something like that). I'm afraid Jump Guru will kill me if I do. I'll add a number.
• Kouichi, Raimei, and Miharu return to Banten Village. Where? Why? Why do we care?
  • It's there because of another fear. I'll remove it.
• Thobari claims Kotarō's methods cause too many casualties. Kotarō, however, believes Thobari is too naïve and kind You can probably combine these two sentences.
  • "Thobari claims Kotarō's methods cause too many casualties, but Kotarō believes Thobari is too naïve and kind"
• he is trying to do something he is incapable of. I can guess which he is he, but there are too many hes, making he confusing. (Clarify which he you are referring to; you can either do this once or twice, depending on which you clarify).
  • "Thobari is trying to do something he is incapable of."
    • Alright, what exactly is he incapable of? Not causing casualties?
      • "Thobari is trying to something beyond his capability: fight a war without harming anyone."
• In Banten, Yoite knocks Kouichi and Raimei out. Err, context?
  • Removed. Didn't contribute much.
• When Yoite dies, the fragments and those carrying them also die. I told you to copypaste this, didn't I? Needs some context; why don't you just tell the reader that he threatens to kill Kouichi and Raimei?
  • Because the group would die when Yoite dies, the rest of the series (Read: Up to volume 10) is spent trying to beat the clock. IMO, it's a bit different. Now says "When Miharu starts to refuse, Yoite tells Miharu that Kira left fragments of Yoite's ki in Thobari, Raimei, and Kouichi. When Yoite dies, they will also die."
• Miharu agrees to help and Yoite promises to make Miharu Nabari's king. Help... Yoite?
  • Fixed.

Anyway, sorry for the off-kilter comments. I'm tired, it's late, etc. More later when I'm less tired and more sane. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 04:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any kind of comment is good for me. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 23:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to a few. I'm so utterly confused by this that I would like the aid of other capable reviewers, if possible. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 19:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a request on the project's talk. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 21:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm neutral on this one after reading it very carefully. Non native English readers may need to re-read of the beginning to get in the train as i did. I guess it can't be help with the numerous in-universe terms present (no criticism here) --KrebMarkt 22:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no actual article for underground culture. So I don't know how to fix that. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 21:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Collectonian (talk · contribs)

• Considering this is an on-going series, isn't there an offiical site listing the release dates rather than just Amazon (and why is it listed as Amazon.com instead of Amazon.co.jp)? Square Enix is usually good about having official pages.
  • I can answer this one. They have official page [8] but to get the ISBN & release date you have to use Amazon links (Evil money scheme) --KrebMarkt 06:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They do like to hide it more, but Square Enix does publish it on their site. I remember having to hunt it down for another series to replace ANN links....searching....searching...found :-) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok i will fix it. Don't you need some sleep ? Fear Zombie No sleep Collectonian ;) --KrebMarkt 06:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done
        • I looked for it but I didn't find it. Thanks!
• Checked FUR on image, looks good.
• The plot summary sentence in the lead, "The plot follows Miharu Rokujou, a fourteen-year-old student, who becomes king of the hidden ninja world Nabari because the means to control all of creation is written onto his cells as he tries to escape the peril of his new position by searching for a non-lethal way to remove his ability." is too long and gets confusing. Maybe break into two sentences.
  • Didn't do much to it. "The plot follows Miharu Rokujou, a fourteen-year-old student who becomes king of the hidden ninja world Nabari because the means to control all of creation is written onto his cells. He tries to escape the peril of his new position by searching for a non-lethal way to remove his ability."
    • It still isn't really clear to me. It took me several sentences to get the idea. Why is position "perilous" and how can the means to control all of creation be written into his cells? Why does make him king of a ninja world rather than the whole world? Might be good to note that he hold the Shinra Banshou. From the summaries, it seems he is nearly killed first, then made king? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The plot follows Miharu Rokujou, a fourteen-year-old student who becomes able to control all of creation because a secret art called the Shinra Banshou has merged with his body. He tries to escape those wishing to posses the Shinra Banshou by searching for a non-lethal way to remove it."
• Why doesn't the lead mention the French license nor the seeming novel adaptation?
  • Fixed the non-English licensor (France & Taiwan) --KrebMarkt 06:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • D: There's a novel adaption!
      • There seemed to be one from the Square Enix pages? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd move the sentences on English license and serialization to the third paragraph, and move the Japanese tankōbon release info up to the second paragraph after the first sentence, to better follow the ordering seen in other FL chapter lists and keep it more cohesively organized.
  • Gotcha.
• The unreleased chapters section has no serialization info to identify where they were found. Adding a sentence along the lines of "They were originally serialized in issues of Monthly GFantasy from month year to month year." (see List of Bleach chapters for an example of this in another FL on-going series).
  • Got it.
• Kotodama should probably be in italics in that note

Will go through the volume list section later. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some half-joking replies. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 21:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Few replies. Others confirmed fixed. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

+1 reply. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 22:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Prose looks OK. Next time, please aim for slightly shorter sentences overall. Most are of reasonable length, but the longest 20% are needlessly hard. I lose the sense of a table when the plot texts are so long, but maybe this is a well-accepted format. Tony (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That goes along the way of my first comment. If some sentences could be a bit shorter, i will pass from Neutral to Supportive for this FL review. Thanks --KrebMarkt 21:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That certainly motivates me. ;P Let's see what I can do. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 21:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The big chunk to chew it the first summary which determine to reader understanding for the rest of the list. I tested with tool the readability of the whole list and it ok [9] but if i check just the first summary :( [10]. I had to copy paste the summary into my user space to use the tool. Hoping to have been helpful. --KrebMarkt 22:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's extremely helpful. I was tweaking the first summary and I improved it a couple of points (http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/readability1.4.py?page=User%3AItzjustdrama%2FClean-up) I still don't think it's good enough. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 23:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I admit I've been avoiding this FLC because of all the anime I would have to read, but I don't want this to fail because of lack of commentary. So, I'll review the lead and three chapters right now, two chapters later today, and the rest on tomorrow and Monday.

• "it was announced that Yen Press licensed the manga for an English language release in North America" Do we not know who announced this?
  • Fixed
• "July 29, 2008 with five Square Enix titles including Nabari no Ou." Comma after "titles".
  • Added
• Please check the toolbox, I see disambiguation links that need to be fixed.
  • Well, there isn't an article to underground culture. Fixed anyway.
• "control all of creation."
  • Removed.
• "Kotarō is not completely dedicated the cause." Missing "to".
  • Added
• "The Grey Wolf leader Tojūrō Hattori declares the Grey Wolves" Needs "that" after "declares".
  • Added
• "To remove the Shinra Banshou, the kinjutsushō are key."-->The kinjutsushō are key in removing the Shinra Bansho.
  • Fixed
• "Thobari is trying to something beyond his capability: fight a war without harming anyone." Who makes this generalization?
  • Fixed
• "At a conference, Thobari has an opening to kill the target." I think "finds" is better than "has" here. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 22:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Although Oda has control of Yoite's secrets, Yoite's mind is too unstable and he attacks indiscriminately." I don't see the logical connection of these two facts. Is there blackmail involved?
  • Fixed.
• "revealing Katō as a Fuuma Village spy" "as"-->to be
  • Fixed.
• "She agrees locate Banten Village's kinjutsushō Engetsurin." Missing word.
  • Fixed.
• "Disabling the teacher, Yukimi and Raikō go downstairs." "Disabling" doesn't sound like the right word here.
• "Meanwhile, the teacher shoots Kouichi kills him." Missing word(s).
  • Fixed.
• "Miharu is given the wisdom to fulfill Yoite's wish; instead Miharu saves Yoite's life" How does he recieve this wisdom?
  • Fixed.
• "she demands Daya" Demands Daya to do what?
  • Fixed.
• "After, Thobari looks"-->Afterward, Thobari looks
  • Fixed.
• "Yukimi gets a list of Hattori's past"-->Yukimi receives a list of Hattori's past
  • Fixed.
• "Yukimi finds the half-brother of Sora, the boy Yoite used to be." This is very confusing. Did Yoite switch bodies or something?
  • Fixed.
• "However, Miharu refuses" Comma after here.
  • After refuses?
    • Yes. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Can you cite Note 1? It shouldn't be hard. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Got all but one. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 00:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in its current form. Far too many grammar errors - needs a good copyedit before coming to flc. In addition, despite the specialized nature of the topic, I believe that the prose in the chapter description could be made much more clear to the lay reader. As it is, it's enormously confusing. Examples of grammar and stylistic issues, aside from the two minor fixes I made to the lead:

• "Thobari is trying to ? something beyond his capability"
• "When the clan's head refused to step down, she and her husband were accidentally killed." lacks clarity as to who 'she' is
• "a panacea that uses the brains of ninja children." doesn't make sense, needs clarification, uses the brains for what, and in what way is it a panacea?

... interrupted, more later. Geraldk (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Yoite suggests Raikō he should use Daya to help Gau"
• "When visiting Yukimi, Miharu starts to remember he erased someone. As Yukimi remembers he forgot about someone, the erasure was not properly done." unclear use of 'he' in the first sentence makes this passage confusing.
• Also, why is there no plot information filled in for the chapters not yet in tankōbon format? They have been publicly released in a different format, so it should be possible to summarize their plots as well. Geraldk (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't a plot summary for those to avoid blow-by-blow summaries of recent chapters, and the constant updating. Other FLC chapter lists, such as List of Gantz chapters and List of Fullmetal Alchemist chapters do not summarize the chapters either. Although I do agree with my stylistic issues. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 16:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see. That makes sense. You're running up against the wall here with the nomination, so if it fails, I just want to encourage you to seek out a thorough copy-edit and then re-nominate it. It is a well done list, just has some prose issues. Geraldk (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 12:53, 29 May 2009 [11].

Nominator(s): Alex Douglas (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The final, Young Divas member discography for FL! The discography has been formatted similarly to other three Young Divas members' discographies, Jessica Mauboy (FL), Paulini Curuenavuli (FL) and Ricki-Lee Coulter (FL). I'm ready to address all concerns and will check this candidacy several times a day. Please see below for notes about objections or comments that may arise during the featured list candidacy process.

NOTES:

• Kate DeAraugo's albums have only charted on the Australian Top 100 Albums Chart.
• Kate DeAraugo's singles have only charted on the Australian Top 100 Singles Chart.
• Unless, consensus has changed, a previous precedent made in the successful featured list candidacy of Jessica Mauboy discography, found that a list can become featured when it contains ten releases, the same number of releases this has.
• The only reference, in existence, that can cite the last assertion made in the lead ("As of December 2008, DeAraugo is working on her second studio album."), is the one currently used; a YouTube video. If you consider it unreliable, notify me and the assertion will be removed.

I ask you to consider, the above, before reviewing this discography. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose I'm fine with most of the notes above, though I don't agree with the third: that this discog has enough releases. Or with the assertion that it has 10 in the first place. First, I don't think I'd call a music video a bona-fide release, since it's really a release based on a single, not so much an independent work. That aside, the last table (Other Appearances) has 4 songs, but only on 2 releases. This definitely seems like a case of fudging the numbers a bit. Finally, I'm not sure if I'd count The Final 13 either: she's appears in it, but along with 12 other people. The same could be said for "Ready", where she is one of 13 artists. I'd hardly call either a "Kate DeAraugo" release". None of these complaints are earth-shatteringly big deals, but combined they make me question whether you have the necessary 10 releases. And I'm not mentioning this just to adhere to an arbitrary number, but with such a low count, which barely just reaches 10 even with a fair amount of creative counting, this is a list that could probably be incorporated into DeAraugo's main page. Drewcifer (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your expressing your unactionable objection. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All bitterness and/or sarcasm aside, the action I suggest is to simply cut+paste most of the content into the main DeAraugo page. If you're dead set on getting an FL notch in your cap, I guess I can't help you there; if you actually want to make Wikipedia better, than maybe you should consider my suggestions rather than pout about it. Drewcifer (talk) 07:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No sarcasm or bitterness intended, I apologise if you felt that my comment exhibited it. Thankyou for your suggestion, I have merged the list to Kate DeAraugo. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Sorry I misinterpreted your last post. But yeah, glad to see the stuff moved; I think it helps keep things centralized and more user-friendly. I'm sure miss DeAraugo will have more releases in the future, so I look forward to seeing her discog back here once there's enough content to warrant a separate list. Keep up the good work! Drewcifer (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Glad we found common ground. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Merged with Kate DeAraugo. Alex Douglas (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 00:40, 28 May 2009 [12].

Nominator(s): --Music26/11 20:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the FL criteria. I have my doubts about the episode summaries, but I figured this is the best I could do. Please feel free to give you honest opinion. Thanks.--Music26/11 20:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yet another list that I believe violates the 3b criterion of the WP:WIAFL. There are only 6(!) episodes listed here that can easily be mentioned in the main article.--Crzycheetah 22:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—3b. There's no need to split off a new list that contains six episodes. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, is there anyway I can withdraw this from FLC?--Music26/11 15:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 14:26, 23 May 2009 [13].

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria. It's another step in my (hopefully coming soon) baseball awards topic (I'm sure you all saw the Silver Slugger lists). I recently expanded this article and added references. I added the list of winners, which is separate and distinct from the list of World Series winners because of the inclusion criteria. Additionally, this is about a specific award rather than simply a list of champions. I realize my edit count on this article is low, but I added all of the references and the entire list of winners, so I think that qualifies me as a major contributor, rather than pure edit count. Questions/comments will be addressed by me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is this any different from List of World Series champions#The modern World Series? It looks like the exact same thing except that this is only since the trophy was introduced in 1967. I suggest they be merged. The same info is also at List of World Series winners and List of World Series champions#World Series (modern) appearances by franchise. All three of these lists need to be incorporated together somehow before I can support. Reywas92^Talk 00:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other two lists you mention definitely ought to be merged. This list, however, contains additional information. I ask you: what becomes of a "Baseball awards" topic if there is no article on this trophy? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The trophy itself is important, but there's still no need to duplicate the info. You could easily say, "See this article for the list of winners. This specific trophy has been awarded to all winners since 1967" or something to that effect. I do not like redundancy. Reywas92^Talk 02:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is this article a perpetual stub in your eyes? There's very little available information on it besides what's here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary "a perpetual stub". It can actually be a GA like my article Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy.—Chris! _ct 19:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I've included every piece of information I could find on the topic. I don't think that there is enough information available for it to become a GA. If you think there is, then I will certainly considering withdrawing this nom, removing the list, and going that route instead. However, there's very little that can be done to expand the current lead into an article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough information already for this to become a GA, that what I am trying to tell you. Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy is even shorter than this article, but it still passes GA criteria.—Chris! _ct 19:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right. In keeping with this line of thought, I'll withdraw this nom and try to work it up to what I would consider GA quality/length in the next few days. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck.—Chris! _ct 20:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is withdrawn in case anyone doesn't know. I can help remove this, but I am not sure if nomination withdrawal required FL director's approval first.—Chris! _ct 01:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 03:49, 22 May 2009 [14].

Nominator(s): Geraldk (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this list because... the one I just nominated got shot down for length and is about to be merged. However, this one will not be affected by the medal count mergings and is of good quality. It was nominated once before, and I think pretty much all of the issues raised during the nomination have been resolved. Geraldk (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support With 21 entries it's long enough. I see no problems here, except to lowercase the names of sports. Reywas92^Talk 23:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, and good catch. Switched them to lowercase letters. Geraldk (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - don't think "To sort this table by nation, total medal count, or any other column, click on the icon next to the column title" is necessary—Chris! _ct 22:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, if we assume our readers have a functional brain, that is. It's gone. Geraldk (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't like how note b starts with "Also ..."—Chris! _ct 02:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If this gets promoted, will it be the smallest WP:FL? I know that the table is long enough, but there's no additional info in this page other than those 11 more countries that received medals. There is a FL that's longer and bigger than this one and it is about to be removed because of its size (click here). So, how does this list pass WP:WIAFL's 3b criterion?--Crzycheetah 23:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think List of United States Presidents who died in office is the smallest FL we have. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technically, 1900 medal table is smaller (in size) than that one.--Crzycheetah 02:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume you're focusing on the latter part of 3b, the question of whether it could 'reasonably' be included in another article, since that seems to be the point of discussion on the No Doubt article. It seems that the long-standing consensus on WP:OLY is not to include more than 10 places in the main article. In the absence of WP:WIAFL including an objective standard for length, it only makes sense to me that one would defer to the wikiproject with the most experience on a certain topic and/or the standing wikipedia tradition. Otherwise, the length issue would be utterly and completely subjective. Geraldk (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, what you're saying is that since 21 countries instead of 10 are listed in the table, it must be in a separate list? Does it really make sense to you? It doesn't, to me.
      All I know is that these Olympic medal tables look eerily similar to those awards pages that Gary was producing last year. I have a feeling that if start promoting these Olympic tables, we'll see them at WP:FLRC in about 6-8 months.--Crzycheetah 04:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know about that one, these pages have existed for several years, whereas Gary created most of the ones he nominated. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • What does that have to do with what I said? I never said these medal pages were created recently.--Crzycheetah 02:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • What I meant was that it is different because most of the awards lists were created solely so they could be FLCs, whereas in this case, it's improving on existing content. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I'm saying is that there is no objective standard for length in the featured list criteria. Until there is, yes, I feel a list that has 21 items is of length significant enough to be a stand-alone list and that the WP:OLY standards tend to override inexact concerns about length (and therefore that this list is eligible for FL - I wouldn't have nominated it otherwise). Frankly, if the rule becomes that 21 items is too short, then there are a lot of current FLs that would need to be reviewed. The only difference here is that the medal counts include single numbers for each entry and so the information in each individual cell is not quite as long as some. And FYI: There are already 8 olympic medal table lists with FL, though one of them (1896, which is significantly shorter than this one) is likely to be merged per previous discussions here and at WP:OLY. Geraldk (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It really doesn't matter whether there are 2, 3, or 20 items listed; what matters the most is the content. Right now, there is not much content other than those 21 countries to split it from the main page. We will never put any arbitrary numbers in the criteria because there are so many factors involved.--Crzycheetah 02:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I thought about this, and I'm going to oppose on 3b for this list. I feel it doesn't meet the "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article" part of the criteria. I am aware some people will consider this significantly above the 10 item threshold, but this list really doesn't provide much information. The top 10 are all ready included in the main article, and I don't think it would make it too large if the other 11 were to be included. There also isn't much prose to be merged across. I realise that eventually medal tables to become long enough (i.e. I have no problem with 2008 being split), but I don't consider this list to have enough material to "exemplify our very best work". If you are interested in my opinion, I would probably advocate merging tables up to around 1936. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So what is the cut-off, then? Geraldk (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• By which I mean - what is the exact number of entries that make a list pass 3b. For example, the 2002 Winter Olympics medal table only has 24 items, and the 2006 Winter Olympics medal table 26. Is it 22? 23? Both of those are featured lists, and have been for some time. In other words, as I was saying to Cheetah, just looking at a list and saying 'not enough' is utterly arbitrary. If you guys feel there should be some lower limit to the number of items in a table, fine, but then that needs to be spelled out clearly in WIAFL. Otherwise, the decision to support or oppose is little more than random. As to the list not providing much information, well, I suspect that's what this really boils down to. Because a number of medals is a single number, and not, as on some lists, a name of a video game or career earnings of some poker player, it looks like it's less information, when in reality each number is a discrete piece of information as important as a discrete piece of information on any other list. Geraldk (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There purposefully is not fixed cut-off. The cut-off is whatever is sensible. The 10 items threshold isn't a "rule", hence not being in the criteria. Here, the cut-off should be when it becomes no longer reasonable to keep the medal table unsplit, and I do not think this list falls into that category. Also I do not want to get into discussing which other lists are/are not suitable, but I will mention that both were promoted to FL before 3b was implemented. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Look, here's my frustration. I'm a teacher, right, and when I give my kids writing assignments I provide a rubric that tells them exactly how they will be scored. In effect, WIAFL is a rubric. Now, 3b says that the list submitted "meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." You use the word sensibly, WIAFL uses reasonably, but in effect what that means is a gut feeling. A gut feeling has no reasonable use as part of an assessment. If a student asks me how long an essay they should write and I tell them, "whatever is sensible", or if I hand my kids an essay and say that their argument "could reasonably have been longer", they would rightfully complain. If I expect a minimum of 5 paragraphs, I ask for it. Otherwise, the assessment tool itself is invalid, because I am scoring them by a standard I never made clear. For the purposes of FLC, different assessors will judge 'reasonable' in different ways, which means there will be no consistency in the process. I can nominate a list (like this one) and have you raise an objection saying that it doesn't seem long enough. Someone else can nominate a list, and if you or the other people who interpret 3b very strictly don't happen to assess that particular article, it can get FL. It's frankly unfair to editors and the articles they create. And, in my opinion, comes perilously close to conflating quantity with quality. Geraldk (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, FYI, I was pointing out those other lists partially because you, again rather arbitrarily, suggested 1936 as the cutoff for when medals tables should be separate lists. Geraldk (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm not going to make up an arbitrary value just for you. It is worth noting that recently this 20 item list was delisted under 3b, whereas a television series list of less items (e.g. this 16 item one) are not in danger of delisting. Basically, we don't have a value because we are not able to compare all the lists using one. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only sorry you're sinking an FL nomination based on the arbitrary application of an unclear standard. I have no problem with there being no exact number specified if 3b is being applied to lists that are blatantly short like List of counties in Delaware, which was rightfully rejected from FLC. But 21 items with four pieces of data per item? That's a significant list, and if 3b is going to be applied in that gray middle, than it needs to be more specific. Otherwise, your doing this undermines FL as any kind of objective standard. Geraldk (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I guess it's open to interpretation, but I'm not sure if 3b comes into effect because the main 1900 Summer Olympics article could conceivably be expanded quite a bit (see 2008 Summer Olympics for an example of how big these pages can get). There's also the case of notability. I may be biased because I love the Olympics, but I find the medal counts (which have received a lot of third party coverage) to be more notable than how many Kerrang awards Good Charlotte has been nominated for. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article were in the main article...!. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 06:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Before any review from me, I must address the 3b issue. Perhaps I'm biased (I got 1998 Winter Olympics medal table through FLC), but having the full table in the main article really unbalances the end of it. The table itself is not so bad, but the prose before it is longer than that on any of the events. A 10-item list and a few descriptive sentences would be fine, but SRE.K.A.L.'s example is pushing things a bit. Also, I agree with Scorpion that lists like these are not what 3b was created for; one of the goals was to get editors to stop creating forky lists for FL purposes only and to start improving existing lists. Hard to complain that this is an FL grab when the page has existed since August 2004. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think SREKAL's version of the main article with the list merged looks fine, but I am not opposed to keeping this separate either. I always prefer merging for anything, but this one's long enough for me if others agree. I will, however, be merging the smaller ones as previously discussed. Reywas92^Talk 00:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may get some pushback on that. Many of the commenters at WP:OLY are opposing mergers for various reasons. Geraldk (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for compromise - OK, so this discussion seems to be stuck in neutral. I've got a proposal for a compromise, and let's see what everyone thinks. Cheetah and Rambo have concerns about the length of the list. I and some others don't have the same concerns. The core issue to me is that some of these medals tables have qualified for FL and some have not because of length, and there is no firm rule on exactly where 3b applies. That's because, as Rambo has stated, it's impossible to set an across-the-board rule for all lists because 3B applies differently to different types of lists. But there is nothing that prevents the reviewers here from agreeing to a sort of unofficial policy for only the Olympic Medals Tables. Specifically, I suggest the following:

• That medals tables with 24 or more entries (the size of the smallest current FL medal table) be considered to meet the 3b standard, assuming a sort of precedent from the current FLs. This will limit the lists of this kind eligible for FL to somewhere between a third and a half of the total.
• That I (and hopefully others who are interested in working on those tables) refrain from nominating any Olympic medals tables shorter than that for FL, instead nominating them for GA a la List of counties in Delaware (given that there was significant opposition on WP:Oly to the idea of merging the shorter tables that followed from my nomination of the 1904 list, I'm not going to merge them).

Thoughts? Geraldk (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose cutting them off. As I've said elsewhere, either a list should be able to be featured or it should not exist as an independent list. If the others refuse to let them be merged, then I support them being able to be become featured. There's no reason to have such a cutoff. Also, 1896 Summer Olympics medal table with only 11 members, is the current smallest. I will go to OLY, but there's no reason to duplicate the info solely for the sake of having articles for all of them. I think the Delaware counties got through a loophole; according to WP:WIAGA, lists may not be GAs, and that's not comprable to FL. Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. That brilliant idea is shot. Didn't realize that was in the GA criteria. So... look, there needs to be some sort of consensus reached about whether these lists meet 3b. And frankly, at this point, I don't know what the answer is. If they don't meet FL standard, as Rambo and others have argued, but they aren't eligible for any other standard like GA, than they become effectively the only true content on Wikipedia that I know of which have no set standard towards which to improve. Kind of removes a major motivation for dedicated editors to work on them. Geraldk (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They do have a standard to improve towards. They can be merged into a parent article, which can then be aimed for GA/FA. I don't want to get into a long drawn out debate with OLY over this, but keeping articles split (e.g. especially 1986) just to have a complete set of unsplit medal tables is not the right course of action. The navboxs could easily be piped to a section in a main article, and consensus at a WikiProject, in this case not to merge, should not dictate. Basically, if a list is short enough to merge, it should be merged. By that I mean, I don't think it should be an all or none merged situation, so somewhere we need to have a cut off. I've already stated my rough opinion on a cut-off, with which some disagree, and that is fine. This takes us full circle, and means we are getting nowhere fast. I'd be keen to hear what the other people who discussed 3b's implementation think. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is a review needed here or not? If so, let me know so I can get going on it. If not, I see no reason to keep this FLC open; the discussions should be taken to FLC talk. Personally, I don't think a cut-off date makes sense when many of the Winter Olympics tables are much smaller than some of the earlier Summer Olympics tables. A number would be better, but I'm unsure what it should be. The table I worked on is 24 items, so I'm not the best person to comment on Gerald's proposal. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 is right, we're not talking about this list anymore, we're talking about Olympic medal tables now. I am against that "all or none" talk, as well. If we start encouraging this "all or none" talk, then one can say "if Metallica has its awards listed separately, so should Blink-182", some even can start threatening by saying that they're going to have an anxiety attack if their lists somehow get merged. I believe if we go with all or none, we're going to have those low quality lists again that we're trying to get rid of with the implementation of the new 3b criterion. As for the cutoff, I don't think using an arbitrary number is the best solution. It depends on the amount of content next to the table, as well.--Crzycheetah 04:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you didn't see the comment above! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 05:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you did merge(props to you!) and the main page became a quarter of a screen longer. Oh, it's also worth noting that 1900 Summer Olympics is in a bad condition even without the full table and it's hard to analyze how the merger will change the quality of the main page. If there is something that I didn't notice, please point it to me.--Crzycheetah 06:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is now a larger discussion. Frankly, its a larger discussion than FLC, something which should get wider attention from the community. I'm fine with this nomination being withdrawn until some resolution is reached. Geraldk (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 22:50, 16 May 2009 [15].

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and comments. First, why does 1980-present include Washington D.C., but this one doesn't? Second, why does this list even exist? It's rather small, and it could easily be part of a larger time period. Stopping it at 1950 seems like a pretty arbitrary split for the larger "List of Maryland hurricanes" list, which is not yet made for some reason. More importantly, perhaps (which would negate one of my questions), the list is not complete. I see a lot of storms that produced rainfall in the state but were not included. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of missing storms would be appreciated. A trace of rain is not notable enough for inclusion in my opinion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you include Isbell in 1964 and Hallie in 1975 for producing light rain. I count 12 tropical cyclones in the rainfall page, which you already use, that are missing from the article. Do you care to comment on any of my other comments? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aiming for each list to encompass a ~30-year period. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) has gone on Wikibreak, so I don't really know what to do with this oppose. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain my original oppose, that several storms are missing. Like I said, you include Isbell in 1964 and Hallie in 1975 with their light rainfall, so the list is not comprehensive if it does not include every known storm in the state. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, a trace of rainfall is not notable enough for inclusion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as I said, you include two storms in the list for having very little rainfall. Those 12 missing storms produced as much rain as Hallie or Isbell. It isn't a matter of notability, rather it's a matter of factual accuracy. If you don't include them, then this article fails FL criterion 3a, as the scope is not well-defined. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I removed Hallie and Isbelle. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does that accomplish? If the scope of the article is supposed to be any tropical cyclone affecting the state of Maryland, then you're removing legitimate data. Also, of the missing storms, one caused over 4 inches of rainfall, which is more than some of the other storms listed. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm trying to write an encyclopedic article, not a rainfall database. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can you have a comprehensive list of tropical cyclones if you're arbitrarily removing storms that only have rainfall data? All other tropical cyclone list articles like these have the same format. If there is rainfall info known, then it is included. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The prose in hurricane FLs and FAs has been improving; this is great to see. But the issues raised by Hink need to be addressed. Just a few things I noticed.

• Why link "US state" bumped up against the link to "Maryland", which surely contains a link itself to "US state"? Select the links carefully and they'll stand out more, and attract more clicks. Too much choice ends in fudge.

• Good point, fixed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "During the time period"—huh?

• Reworded. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reasons for saying "1955 USD", where it's clear from the example in the lead that money amounts are from the period cited? Why specify US? I'm sure MOSNUM says US and UK currencies are just $ and pound symbols. US is tagged to every amount. And why are some amounts translated into 2007 equivalents (not 2009?), and others not at all?

• I've revised these for consistency. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we need the histogram as well as the table? They both say the same thing, and really, the amounts are easy to conceptualise. True to that, the deaths below is not histogrammed. Hmmm ... unsure either even needs a table, but I'm willing to be corrected by regulars here on that point. Tony (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed; removed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "twenty-nine"-->29 (per WP:MOSNUM)
• "known tropical cyclones have affected the U.S. state of Maryland." Is there such thing as an "unknown" tropical cyclone?
• Why are "List of Delaware hurricanes and List of New Jersey hurricanes included in the see also section? Seems to me that you might as well include List of Pennsylvania hurricanes too. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• All fixed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• Please link and define abbreviation of NOAA on the first appearance.

• Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/index.html reliable?

• It's a branch of Unisys, which is fairly reliable in my opinion. Also, the information it cites is uncontroversial. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Likewise http://www.midatlantichurricanes.com/Maryland.html?

• This is a truncated copy of Hurricanes and the Middle Atlantic States as far as I can tell, so it should be reliable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs 4 and 17 seem to be from newspapers. If this is true, they should be in italics. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Got it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we have to have a list of hurricanes for each state why dont we have a general list of all known Maryland hurricanes that are not split off by date. As far as i am aware all of the other countries that we have are a general list of Cyclones that have hit Jason Rees (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose After a bit of my own research I found that ten storms (including depressions) were missing from the list. Until they are in, I'm opposing this nomination. Cyclonebiskit 18:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One dab found. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 22:50, 16 May 2009 [16].

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²²

This is my first Simpsons-related list in quite some time, so... Yay. As always, all concerns will be addressed by me. Enjoy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - The plots should be consistent in size. There are some that are 2 lines long, and others that are 4 lines long (that's a big difference in word count). I'm not sure if the other season lists that are featured for The Simpsons is like this, but I have to ask, why is the lead being treated like the body of the article? The lead should summarize, not be the primary substance of reading.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some are, some aren't, it depends on the article. The Simpsons (season 8) has a large lead, while The Simpsons (season 5) uses sections. I just felt that everything seemed to work better in the lead, rather than having more sections. As for the plots, I'll see what I can do about making them consistant. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then maybe we should think about drafting some amendments to WP:MOSTV's section on LOE pages to state something to the effect of "By definition a page is generally identified as a 'list' because it lacks the necessary amount of prose to be considered an 'article'. As such, the lead may sometimes be converted to be the sole location of certain information because...blah blah" (this would need to be hashed out on the MOSTV page), because right now this would fail (and so would the other page) the criteria for meeting the guideline standards (which would be MOSTV and LEAD). I mean, I have no probably is this is going to be the growing trend among LOE type of pages (and it kind of makes sense...it's hard, and dumb, to summarize a list of names that are going to appear two inches below the lead).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you think I should move all of the writer/director/cast info to a "cast & crew" section? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think at the moment, that would be the best bet because, even though LEAD doesn't dictate List pages, at the moment it's all we have next to MOSTV (which just follows that LEAD says).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, a section has been created. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the toolbox, there is one dab link. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I cannot find a source listed for the airdates, at least not one in-text cited. Is it the source that's at the end of the plot, or is that solely for the plot?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the source at the end covers everything. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be good to put a source in the infobox or the lead sentence for the beginning and ending. You could just use the two you have in the episode table, or possibly TV Guide's website or MSN's website, since they should list every episode for the season. Just a thought on that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Many areas of unclear wording and awkwardness.

• No need to link United States in the infobox.
  • Fixed.
• "amongst "-->among (mutiple occurences)
  • Fixed.
• "could have sworn it's been 302."-->"could have sworn it's been 302".
  • Fixed.
• "Hank Azaria also won an Emmy Award for Outstanding Voice-Over Performance for voicing various characters in the episode "Moe Baby Blues"."
  • Removed the also, but I think the various should stay in. The sentence reads better with it in there.
• "The show also won four Annie Awards in 2003" The show, or the season of the show? You give a year for the Annie Awards, but not for Emmys...?
  • Fixed.
• "including it's twelve consecutive " wrong "it's", and "twelve"-->12th
  • Fixed.
• "Other nominations include: "'Scuse Me While I Miss the Sky", which was nominated for an Environmental Media Award for Best Television Episodic Comedy,[12] the series was nominated for a Golden Globe Award in 2003,[13] and Chris Ledesma was nominated for a Golden Reel Award for Best Sound Editing in Television Animation – Music for his work on "Large Marge".[14]" This listing doesn't make grammatical sense; when you isolate the listed items, you see the problems: "Other nominations include: ... the series was nominated for a Golden Globe..." Suggest:

Other nominations include: "'Scuse Me While I Miss the Sky", nominated for the Environmental Media Award for Best Television Episodic Comedy [in year?]; the series, nominated for the Golden Globe Award in 2003;[13] and Chris Ledesma, nominated for the Golden Reel Award for Best Sound Editing in Television Animation – Music for his work on "Large Marge" [on date?].[14]

Fixed.

• So, "Treehouse of Horror XIII" actually contains mini-episodes within itself? Please explain.
  • Done.
• "Homer attempts to feel intoxicated breathing thin" Needs "by" after "intoxicated".
• "Homer attempts to feel intoxicated breathing thin air on top of a mountain, licking toads and giving blood. However, he is sent on a taxi home in his drunken state. Unbeknown to Homer, the taxi is part of the show Taxicab Conversations; consequently, he rants about his family. " You say Homer attempted to feel intoxicated, but then the next sentence affirms that Homer was actually intoxicated. Then, "consequently": So Homer rants about his family because he doesn't know about being featured on Taxicab Conversations (is this a fictional show?)? Doesn't make sense. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rewrote that entire section. I'll also give all of the other summaries a copyedit. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Bart learns that he was once a child actor in commercials and all the money earned was blown by Homer." "blown" is much too regional and colloquial in register, and what exactly did he blow it on?
• I'd like to know whom the guest stars act as.
• "in the process becoming the pride of the town" She becomes the "pride of the town" (another questionable phrase) during the spelling bee or in being selected for the Spell-lympics?
• "However George Plimpton" No need for "However", there is no contradiction here.
• "out on the date." "the date"? The definitive, all-time date? I think you mean "a date".
• "The noise starts to ruin their lives" I think "disrupt" is a better word.

All this to show that you need an outside copy-editor is needed. Not withdrawing my oppose just yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Rambo's Revenge 22:34, 16 May 2009 [17].

Nominator(s): Geraldk (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a lot of work on this before a veeeeeery long wikibreak and it seems to be ready for FLC (edited it as Le Comte, my editing handle at the time, not Geraldk, in case anyone checks the history and wonders why I'm nominating it). Thanks in advance for comments. Geraldk (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FLs do not start with "This is a list of..." or any similar statements anymore. See recently promoted FLs for suggestions on how to change the lead. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have any ideas for how to modify it so it avoids that? I'm having trouble figuring out a way to word it so it still keeps the words 1904 Summer Olympics medal table in bold. And, unfortunately, the comparable FLs don't help, because they're all worded like this one. Geraldk (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Or is that no longer required in the lead? Geraldk (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't have to force it; if it works better without, you can certainly discard it. I will look here and come up with a suggestion. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say you can just start with "The 1904 Summer Olympics were held in St. Louis, Missouri, United States from July 1 to November 23, 1904 as part of the St. Louis World's Fair." I'm sure you can find somewhere else to fit in the link to National Olympic committees, and you don't need to say how it's ranked because this is a sortable table. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done and thanks, that reads a heck of a lot better now. Geraldk (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that you can discard the "Mixed Team" section and incorporate that information into the lead after you mention the mixed team. It would help the length of the lead due to the increasing demand for prose at FLC. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done, thanks for the suggestion. Geraldk (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm a member of WP:OLY, and this would obviously have to be discussed, but do we need these for the first few Olympics? The custom tends to be to list the top ten countries in the main article and all in the sublist, but for early Olympics, there were only 10 or 11 countries total. This entire list already exists at 1904 Summer Olympics#Medal count. These lists are great when they're longer, but they should probably be merged when they're so short. Other than the length - and therefore likely 3b fail - this is a great list. Reywas92^Talk 23:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd argue that having a separate list has value, but am not the best person to comment on this since I've put a ton of time into a number of the early medal count lists and therefore don't exactly have a neutral perspective on the question.Geraldk (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's rediculous to have the table of ten in the main article and simply duplicate it in the list. There's really no need for a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 00:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This issue could certainly use more discussion. I've noted it at WT:OLY. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 00:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Jonel. Reywas - there is more to these lists than the list itself. The main reason to have separate medal tables, even short ones, is because of the content and contextualization provided in the medal table leads. I'd argue that a reader of a general article about the 1904 Summer Olympics could care less, for example, about what exactly the term 'mixed team' means or that the water polo medals are not currently recognized by the IOC even though they were part of the games at the time. Having it separate allows one to be more detailed. Further, I'm operating under the assumption that at some point one of us editors is gonna get off our tookus and actually make the 1904 Olympics article not blow quite so much. When that happens it will presumably be a very long article detailing information about competitors and events and all that fun stuff, at which point taking up more space with a detailed discussion of what mixed teams are will make even less sense. There is also the point that there is a certain uniformity to the ancillary articles for olympic games, and that kind of makes sense for ease of user navigation. Further, since we always need to keep in mind the reader, I think there are plenty of people out there who are happy to flip through the medals tables without ever reading about or scrolling past text about exactly what the mascot of a particular games was or how much it cost to host the games. And finally (although this may be a larger discussion about the philosophy of wikipedia) who cares whether it's a separate list? It's not like it's breaking the servers to have it so long as it has some purpose and some readership. But, as I said, I'm a little biased on this one, though I certainly see your point. I would, however, avoid using words like ridiculous which may be a little inflammatory. Geraldk (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Gerald, I've read your comments and agree with much of them; however, on the general issue, I may have to side with Reywas on this one. I know you've been on an extended wikibreak, as you mentioned, and during that time there were substantial recent revisions to the FL criteria. A lot of this was to cut down on content forking, and I didn't realize when I first looked that this was largely recreated in another article. Honestly, your comments above about the information not being appropriate to the 1904 Summer Olympics article... well, I don't want to say that they are wrong, and won't, but I don't believe those concerns are justified (just my opinion, of course). Having this information in the article could prove very valuable because it gives context. Additionally, the table here is sortable, which the table at the main article isn't. Technically, this article is a daughter of 1904 Summer Olympics and, as such, that article should have a need to be split before it gets done. For an example, the contents of List of Philadelphia Phillies seasons used to be entirely contained in the article Philadelphia Phillies. Before it was split out, it took up a huge amount of space, and adding things to it would have made the article bulky and unwieldy. Once it was split, more necessary information could be added. However, in this case, the table is short enough, and the lead is short enough, and the parent article is short enough, that this may need to be merged back into the main article. I know that it's tough if someone wants to merge a lot of your hard work into another piece; it's happened to me before too. But think of it as motivation to improve the main article; it could become an FA too! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald, I agree with your argument that there's more than a table, but that's not enough. Other than that, the other information is rather insignificant. Yes, it might not be fully relevant to the main article, but it can be condensed. You claim that eventually 1904 Summer Olympics will expand, requiring a separate article for the further information, but look at 1896 Summer Olympics. It's a featured article and has plenty of room for the table. Yes, there is also an FL for its medal table, but that is mostly redundant and could easily be merged. Since Olympics other than the first few summer/winters have more than 20 countries, they may be more qualified for a separate FL-able list, but I don't feel that the information must be duplicated for these early Olympics when there's insufficient info to require a separate list. Reywas92^Talk 02:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw - bah. You guys are right. Reywas - your reward for pointing this out is getting to help me merge the early medal counts and fix the template. Geraldk (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. Sorry for the hassle, but separate articles aren't needed for everything. I'm sure you'll do a great job on getting the more recent lists to FL! Reywas92^Talk 20:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 17:23, 11 May 2009 [18].

Nominator(s): Theleftorium (talk), Nergaal (talk), Hunter Kahn (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fulfills all the criteria of a FL. Nergaal (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Some phrasing needs touch-ups. Sentences such as "going a Nielsen Rating rating of 1.3 for the first episode" (where did it go?); "Several episodes have received several award nominations" (repetitive wording); "From television critics instead" (an odd order of word placement); "The low-budget crudely made Jesus vs. Frosty film" (needs commas); "did not do well" (crude); "However," (shouldn't be used to begin a sentence <use a semi colon>; "they requested" (Comedy Central is an 'it')
• Why "the Simpsons" and not "The Simpsons"?
• You should have a cast section. Who voiced the four main characters? Do they provide voices for other background characters (like in The Simpsons)? Did any big names guest star? Etc etc
• Finally, I'm not sure FL is the right venue. Yes, it's a list of episodes, but the majority of the page is prose. Some of the most recent FL season pages have prose too, but it's just a list of directors, actors, awards, etc written in prose form instead of a traditional list. There are a few season pages that are listed at GA, and I think this might be better suited there.

Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right about the FL/GA thing. Can the nomination be withdrawn? TheLeftorium 14:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the article/list debate for a second, where should this page be submitted for featureed reviewing? I bet somebody at GA will simply pass it, but when it comes to FAC, I am 100% sure the reviewers there will say to submit it to FLC. So why go to GA if this IS going to come back here ? Nergaal (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smallville (season 1) is an FA so I don't think that will be a problem. TheLeftorium 20:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ks then. Sounds fine by me. Nergaal (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:42, 10 May 2009 [19].

Nominator(s): Esemono (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria for promotion, but will quickly make any changes deemed necessary by the reviewers.. Esemono (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now:
  • I'm not sure a near-identical caption is required for every image.
  • Need dates. It's not sufficient, for example, to say "Barbados became independent in 1966"; give the exact date.
  • This is slight vanity speaking (since I originated these types of lists :), but I think the images need text labels rather than relying on color; color alone makes it impossible to see which is which in a monochrome environment or with someone who is colorblind.
  • Each image, IMO, doesn't need the graphic timeline. That's a tool for the animation; since each image includes the date (well, year, more on that in a moment), the timeline is superfluous.
  • You currently have one image per year; need one image per change.
  • It's okay to remove obsolete countries from the labels, especially in the individual maps.
    • Yes, that means you should use one set of maps for the article, and a second, slightly modified, set for the animation.
  • For a map including North, Central, and South America, it's bad to label a part of the United States as "America"
  • IMO, possessions should be listed separately from lands that are part of a particular country. Specifically, I see at least:
    • Puerto Rico should be listed separately; it is a possession of, not part of, the United States.
    • The Cayman Islands are a territory, not part of, the UK
    • Now, St. Martin and St. Barts appear to be part of France, though not an integral part like Guadeloupe is, so I'm not sure an extra map is needed for 2003. (This may seem out of place but I initially had a long bit explaining why a 2003 map was needed =p)
  • You should mention from whom these nations are becoming independent.
  • You don't need to mention that a nation joined the Commonwealth of Nations.
  • Belize is marked as independent starting from 1964; however, as the text notes, it didn't actually declare independence until 1981. It could be argued that it also be marked disputed between Belize and Guatemala, however since Guatemala never acted on that claim, that could be seen as superfluous.
  • This is the biggest nitpick ever but the Panama Canal Zone was not a straight band.
  • I might suggest that the British occupation of Guadeloupe, however brief, should be mentioned, at least in a 'disputed' mark.
  • I'm impressed. When I was planning these things out I had intended to simply omit Florida, South America, and Central America, and only deal with the changes in the islands. But this is probably a better idea. --Golbez (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]