Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/November 2008

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 20:31, 29 November 2008 [1].

previous FLC (20:37, 2 September 2008)

I am resubmitting this list as a featured candidate after spending some time reworking its layout following comments at the first FLC. I believe that this time, the list is ready for featured status, as it is complete, well laid out, factually accurate and cited, and has plenty of relevant images. All comments will be addresed. Thanks, Resolute 23:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I went just went quickly through the article, I came up with these comments that should lead to a Withdrawal of this nomination.

• The table is not sorted properly. Use the template, Template:sort and {{sort|9|09}} would look like this, 09.
• Did not mention any draft trades. There are example of these on List of Los Angeles Lakers first and second round draft picks and Toronto Raptors draft history.
• I am going to discuss with WP:NHL to see whether or not these lists should be renamed to "(NHL team) draft history".

-- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 00:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not at all sure why this nomination should be withdrawn. Really, your concerns are fairly simple to address, albeit somewhat time consuming. I'm adding the Sort template, and the article was originally called Calgary Flames draft history. It was moved to List of... to match naming conventions agreed to by the hockey project. As far as listing trades, that simply is not practical for 30 years of a draft that has averaged 10 rounds. I'd have to look it up (using a non-reliable source), but I'd bet the Flames have easily made 50-100 trades involving draft picks in their history. That simply is not practical to list. Resolute 05:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think putting up trades related to how some draft picks were taken are very practical to list. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 06:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two problems I see: First, since it is impractical to list all, I am left with picking and choosing which trades to mention. That introduces WP:POV concerns. Second, this is a list of draft picks, not a complete draft history. Where listing trades works for a very small draft like that the NBA holds, it does not for a larger draft like the NHL. Similarly, a full list of draft picks, which works here, would be completely impossible for baseball. Probably the most I could reasonably do is expand on the most recent draft in the lead, adding mention of trades that occurred for that draft. Resolute 16:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, I reluctantly oppose. My reluctance stems from the fact that I really like the visual elements of the list, but I cannot support a list with so many shortcomings right now. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I've completed adding proper sorting function for the players, fixed how the Supplemental Draft picks sort, and managed to push the goalie stats out of the way when other stats are sorted descending. I believe I have addressed all of your concerns, save the reasoning behind the Supplemental draft, which I am searching for a ref. Resolute 00:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the completion of my concerns, I've withdrawn my oppose, but remain currently neutral until completion of all issues. I will re-evaluate the total list in 2 to 3 days. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've simplified the statement on the Supplemental Draft and sourced its existence, as it is proving surprisingly difficult to find an online explanation of the reasoning behind the draft. I'll have to head to the library to check some old newspapers for a source, but that will be a few days yet. In the meantime, I hope this suffices, and I believe I have at least tried to address all concerns all three reviewers thus far have expressed. Resolute 01:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the sorting, when you sort by Nationality and Games Played, there are still some issues. There are a chunk of players at the bottom that are still out of order. I haven't tested all columns, but there may be other issues. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've fixed the sorting by nationality - whomever added the sort template to the flags in the entry draft table did not do so for the supplemental draft table, which I did not notice when I merged the two. I've had no problems at all sorting by GP, A, Pts or PIM. There was an odd intermittant issue with the G column, but I believe I have resolved that with yet more sort templates. Resolute 16:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Try sorting by points, assists, PIM, etc. The sorting doesn't work. The players with "0" are randomly scattered about throughout the blank spaces (which can be remedied by setting blank spaces to sort as negative 1), and the goalie stats sort randomly in that portion as well. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I can do that, however this would greatly increase the size of the article for little to no benefit. I'm not sure a 100k article size with 50k of that being sort templates is ideal. I'll see what I can do for this, however. Resolute 16:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Done, and it only added about 10k to the chart size. The goalie stats seem to all be sticking together towards the end fo the numbered columns. Hopefully this resolves these sorting issues... I don't think the sort template ever really envisioned such a complicated table, heh. Resolute 20:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Still some issues. Numbers are sorting "1, 10, 100, 2", etc.. Adding hidden sortkeys will fix that. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've tried sorting the numbers in every combination I can think of in both IE and Firefox and have not been able to duplicate it. I have seen that happen before, but it seems to be very infrequent at most, and more than likely a bug with the sorting templates themselves than anything else. Resolute 04:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←I sorted by assists (only 1 click), and the numbers are still sorting in logical order rather than numerical. That doesn't help anyone but a computer. I tried it at work on IE and at home on Firefox, and it's the same both places. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support —Chris! _ct 23:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The list is too wide on a standard resolution monitor, so the images are lined up to the right with white space to the left and the list starts below the images. Doesn't look very good unless you have a widescreen. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 00:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What resolution and browser are you running? I've checked on a 22" widescreen, 19" 4x3 and a 14.1 laptop screen in both Firefox and IE and don't see any problems. Resolute 16:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm, playing around a bit, I can see what you are talking about. But this only seems to happen at a smaller resolution when the chart is unable to shrink any further to fit the images. Given there is no %width parameter in the image syntax, there isn't any great way for me to fix this for you, aside from forcing the images even smaller than 150px. I've gone down to 130px to help reduce the odds of this happening, but I don't really want to go any smaller, as it begins to degrade the quality for monitors on higher resolutions. Hope this helps. Resolute 17:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I my self have no problem with it since I have a widescreen monitor, but I usually construct and asses lists based on 1024x768 resolution since it is the most common resolution world wide. You managed to squeeze it in now, good work. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 01:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting you had issues, as that is the resolution of my LCD screen, which displayed fine. Resolute 02:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SatyrTN

• The sortability of the "Notes" column is not necessary. Put 'class="unsortable"' in the attributes of the header field to remove.

• Probably not a bad idea.

• The sortability of the "Team (League)" column is suspect. I can't sort by league, only by team. And the team names are often "City Teamname (League)" which means I'm really sorting by city. I don't see the usefulness.

• I had been considering this, and was thinking of moving the league into its own column.

• The "Rnd" column needs to make use of the {{sort}} function, since right now "10" is coming before "2".

• I have not been able to duplicate this problem in that column. Unfortunately, it seems that I am going to have to wrap every single cell in a sort template as a result of limitations with the template itself.

• I'm not sure how to fix this, but there's no way to get back to the initial sort order. Try sorting by a couple different columns, then go back to year. Actually, I think I *do* know a way - use the {{sort}} function on the "Year" column with a combination of year-rnd-pick. So Denis Cyr's "Year" entry would be {{sort|1980-01-13|[[1980 NHL Entry Draft|1980]]}}.

• Reload the page, I guess. I am not aware of any reset option for a sorted table, and the documentation on the templates offer nothing.

• Weak Oppose until these issues have been addressed - I'll re-review later. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I will look to address your comments soon, likely tomorrow as they may require a small measure of time. Thanks, Resolute 21:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 00:18, 26 November 2008 [2].

Created by me, I feel that it is at FL quality. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination is premature. For starters, there are several misspellings to fix. I moved the article to fix the misspelling in the title, but there are others in the article. Additionally, make sure all of the sources you cite are WP:RS. (A featured list would not pass relying on nndb.com, for example.) After you have checked these things, consider asking for peer review before coming back here. --Orlady (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected spelling errors I was able to find. Changed NNDB link. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment
  • Why aren't the names of president spelled out?
  • Establishment dates for the department position need references
  • The first column says "department", yet the column is about the positions. I suggest having one column for the positions (eg. Attorney General) and another for the departments (eg. Department of Justice).

—Chris! _ct 02:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

President names are spelled out now, found references for all but one position, changed title to "position". --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference does existed. Here is one. It says the dept was created in 2002, not 2003.—Chris! _ct 04:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I just notice that Ref 3 is missing relevant info. (eg.publisher, access date) —Chris! _ct 04:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments (expanded after initial entry)
  • This may sound like a nitpick, but it's important for accuracy. Barack Obama has not yet been elected President of the United States. Under the law, his election doesn't happen until the electoral college meets. Furthermore, until Obama is inaugurated, Colin Powell is still the highest-ranking African American ever. Revise the article to clarify the status (and be mindful of WP:CRYSTAL -- Wikipedia cannot say that Obama will be elected or that he will take office on January 20, but I guess it could refer to his "expected inauguration in January 2009"). --Orlady (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every entry on this list must be supported by references to reliable sources that support all of the information in the entry, including not only dates of service in the position, but also that the person is African American and was the first African American to hold the position. The entries are all valid, as far as I know, but the sources may not be sufficient. I fixed the entry for Hazel O'Leary by adding an additional reference, but there are other entries that still need additional support. --Orlady (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

• What makes http://mumford1.dyndns.org/cen2000/BlackWhite/BlackDiversityReport/black-diversity01.htm a reliable source?
• Current ref 3 is lacking last access date and publisher.
• What makes http://www.aaregistry.com/african_american_history/637/The_first_African_American_secretary_of_state_Colin_Powell a reliable source?
• What makes http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20061222014017231 a reliable source?

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I have the authority to close a nomination, but too many problems have been addressed for me to reasonably fix them in a short amount of time. I'd like to close the nomination and then work on the list and re-nominate once all these problems have been addressed. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 00:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: It omits obsolete departments. This is, however, only an issue in the case of Patricia Roberts Harris, who was secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare before it was split and she became secretary of HHS. This should be mentioned somehow. The Obama sentence is quite bad, and is also inaccurate, as Condoleezza Rice is tied with Powell for highest-ranking African American ever. --Golbez (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it omits ones like the Post Office Department. It never had an African American head, but you list current ones that don't... I don't know if they should *all* be mentioned, but certainly if the PO Dept HAD had an African American secretary, it would be listed. This list seems to suffer from a crisis of scope. --Golbez (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, editor has made no attempt to clear up comments, no edits to article in nearly two weeks. --Golbez (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Right after the First African American Secretaries header, it says "The table below is organized based on the United States presidential line of succession." However, the line of succession is based on the date each cabinet department was originally created. This should be noted in the article. Reywas92^Talk 01:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SatyrTN

• I recommend using {{sort}} for the "Position" column so that Agriculture comes before Attorney General, Interior comes after Housing and Urban Development, etc.
• {{sortname|Patricia|Roberts Harris}} needs to be changed to {{sortname|Patricia Roberts|Harris}} so she sorts by last name (Harris).
• I have no clue why, but the sort feature for the "Party" and "Administration" columns does not work.
• Take United States Cabinet out of the See also section - it's linked in the article.
• Since you have "The table below is organized based on the United States presidential line of succession." at the beginning of the table, you should include a way for people to get back to that sort order. For instance, a "Succession" column with the numbers 1 through 15 would work.
• Weak Oppose until issues are addressed. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Rambo's Revenge 12:18, 23 November 2008 [3].

This is my finest hour; my first article to land itself as a candidate to be featured content. If you're going to oppose because it failed its GAN, I withdrew it because the timeline is a list, and lists can't be good articles. --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 22:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I almost forgot; if you're opposing because the timeline graph has no text, there's a bug that's preventing the text from showing; oppositions with that serving as the reasoning will be ignored. --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 01:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- The following sentence from November 3 seems a bit awkward (IMO). 4:00 p.m. EST (2100 UTC) – Hurricane Michelle's pressure drops to 933 millibars, not only making it the most intense storm of the season in terms of pressure, but in the same terms tying it with Hurricane Lenny for the most powerful November Atlantic hurricane on record. [3] Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, how can I fix it? --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 23:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4:00 p.m. EST (2100 UTC) – Hurricane Michelle's pressure drops to 933 millibars, making it both the most intense storm of the season and tying with Hurricane Lenny as the strongest November Atlantic hurricane on record. - I may be wrong though, just my opinion, yours might be just fine the way it is. Regardless, I'm Supporting this article :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!! --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 23:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the other paragraph should give a worded chronological summary of the list. i.e The first name storm was...., (then list other significant storms) Then say the last name one was... Then the continue it with the other prose about the storms that caused the most damage, etc.--TRU_CO 22:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The storm slammed into Belize as a Category 4 hurricane, causing $66.2 million (2001 USD) in damage, and killing at least 31 people. - slammed is to wordy, word recommendation: made landfall
• Expand lead, FL's have a paragraph that say a summary on the list, like the first thing in the subject of the list, significant listed content, and the last/recent content, so it should be expanded to be like this. Some of it is already like so, but it needs a few more sentences.--TRU_CO 00:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the Iris part, but I've yet to fix the other thing. --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 01:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks good to me Jason Rees (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Not so sure about the lead. Any suggestions about improvement? --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 01:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For the first paragraph, it's a bit different than the standard one. Below is what would normally be used for the first paragraph. As for the number of storms, that would be the first sentence of the second paragraph.
  

The 2001 Atlantic hurricane season was an active Atlantic hurricane season, during which fifteen tropical cyclones formed.^[1] The season officially began on June 1, 2001 and ended on November 30, dates which conventionally limit the period of each year when tropical cyclones tend to form in the Atlantic. This timeline documents tropical cyclone formations, strengthening, weakening, landfalls, extratropical transitions, as well as dissipations during the season. The timeline also includes information which was not operationally released, meaning that information from post-storm reviews by the National Hurricane Center, such as information on a storm that was not operationally warned upon. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - could you change the first sentence? It's really weird, especially "weakenings". Also, I think some of the operational changes should be mentioned, such as Allison's last NHC advisory. For Barry, it was never called "Tropical Depression Three", so something needs to be fixed. Operationally, it was only known as Barry, and in the post-season, the number of three was never applied or mentioned in the TCR. This is part of a broader question of whether operational changes should be mentioned. Shouldn't peak intensities be mentioned? I have a really big issue with calling Noel "Subtropical Storm Two", since that term was only applied to Olga. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment When will the bug be fixed? The current table is useless, and i would strongly oppose it's featuring. It cannot even be properly reviewed at the moment. I don't think it should have been submitted until the bug was fixed, personally.Yobmod (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, i think the list is too streched out and ugly in the current format. It would be shorter and more attractive tabulated, with the dates then in line with the info given.Yobmod (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is now an ongoing centralised discussion about opposes based on bug 16085 here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly?! I break my back over this thing, and you call my work ugly?! --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 13:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And not ideally formatted. The same info can much more efficiently be displayed in a table.Yobmod (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

>:( I take that as an insult. I worked long and hard, and it could be a GA if lists were accepted at GAN. Back to the drawing board; I'm contacting my mentor about step-by-step improvements. --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 16:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=X Hink, I missed your comment entirely! The timeline of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season has the term "weakenings," and it's featured, so I don't think that's a problem. The same timeline doesn't have the storm's peak intensities unless they're notable for their peak intensities (like Iris and Michelle were), so I don't think that's a problem. I'll do my best to fix the other problems, though. --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 13:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Fuck this; I'm withdrawing the nomination. --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 13:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

im sorry but that timeline image is not ugly - it would be ugly if we put the data in to a Table Jason Rees (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly; if we put the data into a table (and if my vision is correct), it would be worsened to Start-Class at best; that's significantly lower than its present B rating. Thank you, Jason. BTW, I'm not fucking this anymore, but I am still withdrawing the nomination to allow improvements to be made. --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 17:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily closed per nominator withdrawal [4]. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 20:53, 22 November 2008 [5].

I am nominating this article because I believe it covers all the FL criteria. This is also my third nomination for the FLC contest. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 00:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes, looks much better. —Chris! _ct 01:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question sorry, but what is an assembly in this case? You have a whole column dedicated to it yet you don't explain what do 1st, 2nd, etc mean. Nergaal (talk) 06:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic.gnome wikilinked Assemblies to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. I hope this clears things up. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 21:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please get an experienced image reviewer (i.e. User:David Fuchs to verify that all images are properly licensed/attributed. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SatyrTN

• Alexander Edmund Batson Davie's row is all messed up. There's a ")" missing after the "no party affiliation". The date span probably belongs in the last column rather than the one it's in. I suspect the "Period" column is missing.
• The "Elections" column confuses me. It has some of the same information as the "Period" column. Also, some of that info wouldn't seem to belong - if the column is "Elections", shouldn't it only have entries like Elected October to December 1871? Alberta's list has "Period" and "Reason for leaving", which seems to work - consider using that format?

• Hm - now that I look further, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Ontario all have the same format as this one. I'm not sure why this bothers me, but maybe the heading of the column could be changed?

I really don't know... -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 00:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The general reference "The Canadian Encyclopedia (2000). (1999)." has two years. The ISBN is for the 1999 version - maybe remove the "2000"?
• At the moment, a Weak Support is what I'd say. If you could fix the "Election", "Period" and/or "Reason for leaving" situation, I'd strongly support. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• DONE all. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 00:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images and other comments:

• Why is there a duplicated image in the lead and then in the list?

Because they are in different sections. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is party affiliation given by text and by color coding?

It said so on WP:MOS. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:McCreight.JPG, Image:Beaven_r.jpg, Image:Smithe.jpg, Image:Alexander Edmund Batson Davie.png, Image:John Robson.jpg, Image:Theodore Davie.jpg, Image:John Herbert Turner.png, Image:Joseph Martin.png, Image:James Dunsmuir.jpg, Image:Richard McBride.jpg, Image:Harlan Carey Brewster.jpg, Image:JohnOliver.jpg, Image:John Hart.jpg, and are all either missing information (source/author/date of publication, et al) or do not have the information presented in a clear manner. I would use the description template.

I will ask a image professional do to that. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:Charles Semlin.png - need evidence of free use (pubdom) in United States, and all the missing info.

I will ask a image professional do to that. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:Edward Gawler Prior.jpg - get rid of all the bot crap and put the actual pub info in the template fields.

I will ask a image professional do to that. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:Byron Johnson.jpg - missing information, duplicate image.

I will ask a image professional do to that. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:I 61926.gif - duplicate image, no evidence of how the license was obtained.

I will ask a image professional do to that. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on these comments

I suggest you not to tell users here, since this is a FLC nomination, and is not my fault for these fixes that are needed to be done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're the nominator, and thus you're responsible for making sure the candidate meets all the criteria, including images. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comments. doesn't things like "Resigned (scandal)" break WP:BLP without citations? I would oppsose' this unless the reasons for resignation are cited. the dates i can take on faith, as being trivial to cite, but reasons, especially those that reflect on the persons character, need citing.Yobmod (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 20:53, 22 November 2008 [6].

The main list received no consensus recently, so we're trying this one to see what happens now. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slgrandson responds:

• I think I can rewrite the plot descriptions, since I have the R1 DVDs. (Actually, this may as well affect any chance for the next two seasons to have a go at FLC any time soon, because I haven't seen every one yet!)
• The R1 discs for season 1 are in English only, and I don't seem to have found anything online concerning this season's French cast. (This calls for an R2 import, but it'll have to wait how many days or weeks...)
• DVD tables may be a problem because, unlike those of major U.S./British shows, the packaging and content(s) of Bellflower's first two seasons vary across different countries.
• I've already revamped the episode tables with {{Episode list}}, and made other tweaks per comments.

So, what else is there after this? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my issues are resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SatyrTN

• The cleanup banners means the list doesn't meet WP:WIAFL #3 and/or #7. I recognize that the nominator added those after nomination, but the fact that they are there makes it hard to recommend promoting the list.
• There's a *lot* of lede text for four episodes. I'm worried that a single-season list may be too short - but I haven't read the previous discussion, so I may be off base.
• Two of the summaries are a bit long, and two of them are a bit short.
• Are the trailers public-domain? If not (and I suspect not), then the "External link" to the YouTube trailers is inappropriate.
• Ditto with the two minute clip at KI.KA
• I could be wrong, but I don't think the "External links" to distributors is appropriate either.
• For now I'm going to Oppose this FL candidate. If the cleanup banner and summary issues are addressed, I may change my !vote. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Imo, this is inherently too short a list to need to be a list article. It should go to GAN. Only 4 episodes does not need a list, and breaking up the table with prose means there is absolutely no benefit from using the table. that, along with the unbalanced plot recapsfor the episodes = oppose. Recomend this for GAN, and only the combined list for FLC, although i wonder why seperate series articles are even needed - none are so long that they would look better merged. Yobmod (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 18:59, 15 November 2008 [7].

previous FLC (01:14, 29 September 2008)

Time to give this another try. I don't think that it got a fair chance last time on FLC, so I feel that after a month, we should try again.Mitch32^(UP) 21:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SRX (talk · contribs)/Oppose

• IMO, this looks more of a Good Article than a Featured List.
• Hamilton County, New York has five currently state-maintained highways which form a combined 170 miles (270 km) of the touring routes in New York. - Just current, no need for currently.

Changed.Mitch32^(UP) 15:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• These highways are spread throughout the county,[2] which is the least populated in the state of New York - what's the least populated?

Changed.Mitch32^(UP) 15:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You keep saying state-maintained, maintained by who?

Clarified (see lead).Mitch32^(UP) 15:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEDE. Add more about the route's history, add about what was the first highway in Hamilton, the most recent one, etc.

Expanded, thanks for that advice.Mitch32^(UP) 15:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• New York State Route 10 (NY 10) is the shortest state routes that traverse Hamilton County. - in this context, routes should not be plural.

Changed.Mitch32^(UP) 15:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• NY 10 used to continue further than its present length. Its original assignment in the 1930 renumbering included a concurrency with NY 8 into Speculator, which continued along the road named NY 30 to the international border with Canada in Franklin County. - is there a link to the numbering?

Linked.Mitch32^(UP) 15:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Route 28 and NY 30 become concurrent and head to the northeast for over 10 miles (16 km) into Blue Mountain Lake. In Blue Mountain Lake, NY 30 turns off at the western terminus of [NY 28N, which is a suffixed route of the highway. - Why is there a bracket in "NY 28N"?

Fixed (was a typo).Mitch32^(UP) 15:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There is too much prose versus what is listed, I see this more of a article than list. I have review previous GA Highways, and this looks like one of them.--S_RX 14:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's right now a mixed debate - no one is sure what it falls under, although I've heard more people say "list" rather than article.Mitch32^(UP) 15:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I so much prose versus content in list from. WWE No Way Out has a good amount of prose, but an equal amount of content listed. This should be discussed IMO at the talk page of FLC or right here.--S_RX 15:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no one's complained about this (even on the first FLC). On the first FLC, people even mentioned that its a list that actually does not violate the 10-item rule. I don't exactly see the problem with a lot of prose. "Lists" aren't clearly defined. I believe, personally that lists should have more prose, and I think this is an example of what some should be like. There is no need for something like List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft to have so few words to it. There is the possibility someone could be curious of what happened. I understand your point, but in most people's opinion, it is a list.Mitch32^(UP) 15:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't oppose it now, but I can't support unless I am convinces by consensus that this is acceptable for a list, I'm sorry that it just may be my eyes but it's really hard to see this as a list.--S_RX 21:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, for exactly the same reason as in the previous nom for this list - rst20xx (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's crazy. You know my opinion on this - I am not taking your advice, and I am gonna put the very few county routes in Hamilton County into their own list, so they have their own coverage. I told you that List of highways in Warren County, New York will not be duplicated in other list - even if you mass oppose the FXCs of all counties, I will not be doing such.Mitch32^(UP) 19:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I told you that I think it's a better format of article, because it seems to me that this article simply summarises 6 other articles, which is a bit pointless really. Oh, unless you're simply trying to make a lead article for an FTC - rst20xx (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I talked to Matthewedwards, the FLC co-director. He says and I see that criterion 2 has a DEFINED scope. The original Warren list does not have a defined scope and thus violates criterion 2. Now if you don't believe me that i discussed it with him, you can go ask Matthewedwards himself.Mitch32^(UP) 02:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it not have a defined scope? Surely the scope is the highways in Warren County... rst20xx (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The scope is too dang broad. If there are more lists that break each section down, it'll help readers in the long run. What's more beneficial, one FL or 3 of them? As far as I care, you can oppose all of these that you want, but you gotta understand that I will not be changing the format and not giving into you into your problems.Mitch32^(UP) 13:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But to me, this article looks basically to just be a summary of 6 other articles (namely, the 6 state routes), which is utterly pointless as the 6 articles contain all that information themselves, and so the scope of this article is too narrow to merit it. Whereas the Warren article doesn't have any of this pointless repetition - rst20xx (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 22:28, 11 November 2008 [8].

I'm nominating this list because in my opinion meets the FLC. It's a short article, but shows all the works released by the band. It' won't be any longer than what already is, as the band broke-up last year. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 17:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-failed This discography needs more work to be a FLC. Cannibaloki 18:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like? Gary King (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem? You can not see? Cannibaloki 23:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least specify. It makes it easier for everyone. Gary King (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Like the last FLC I just commented on, is there anymore prose? I think more should be added. Mitch32^(UP) 21:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, nothing else can be added, there's just no more info. If some of you just want to make the article longer, the only thing you'll be able to do is repeat the same info over and over again. This is not like Metallica's or Iron Maiden's discography, they just released 3 albums, that's it. If you "Cannibaloki" say that needs more work then don't just attack people asking if they have any problems after asking a logical question: "What else can you do to that page?" You... know-it-all guy. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 03:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His opinion does not interest me. I can not fail to note its tone of anger, but part of this is by your lack of creativity, also all work on this discography was done by User:Be Black Hole Sun. And that I could realize is that you are using the same strategy that has been trying to do in the discography of Iron Maiden, usurp the work of someone, very interesting... You do not know how move a single page, as in List of WarCry band members, see the comparisons of his glaring error before and after. Finally, in comparison with you I really am "know-it-all guy". I left the link to this page, because it certainly will have some suggestions to awaken your creativity. Cannibaloki 14:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SRX (talk · contribs)/Quick-Fail

• This list does not include material recorded by Audioslave band members with Soundgarden, Temple of the Dog, Rage Against the Machine, The Nightwatchman, or Puscifer. - This should be near the list itself not the lead.
• The sentences about the members and how they met should be in the first para. Then it should state how they gained to prominence.
• The second para. should explain more about their work and it's recognition.
• The rest of the directors need sources.
• So do the soundtracks, need sources.
• Fails CR 1-5--S_RX 14:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 22:08, 8 November 2008 [9].

I nominate this list because I believe it satisfies all required criteria. It is also in its content an analogon to several other featured lists (English football champions, Italian football champions, etc.). OdinFK (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - tables are a mess, they are not sortable, the content is not in the best format it can be in, such as the years. Also, the lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEDE and 4 references are not verifying the entire list, needs more reliable sources. I will not review the list in depth because after a quick glance, it should have been peer reviewed. --S_RX 16:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be respectless but I'm not quite sure what you mean. Please compare the article to similar articles. The tables are not sortable because they are not supposed to be sortable as there is not meaningful way to sort them (imho at least). If you say the tables are a mess then *wow* a lot of features list seem to be perfectly messy. I copied the table from English football champions, adapting it where it made sense in the context. Same for the lead: It is actually about as comprehensive as the leads of comparable articles (see Danish champs and English champs). Regarding the references: The external links are perfectly accepted references for the article. Everything is on rsssf, r-archiv or fussballdaten. Probably they should be put under references. I will move them if that is preferred.

I still don't mean to be rude or anything but I like to bring this article to FL and am perfectly willing to improve the article where possible, therefore a little more constuctive criticism would be appreciated. OdinFK (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Much better. I would like to preface my comments with the intention I had when reworking this list in the way I did. Optimally all lists of national football champions should be coherent in appearance while having some identity of their own. At the moment national football champions FAs are Danish champs, English champs, Italian football champions. As all of these were accepted as FAs things accepted there should be accepted here, too. If wikipedia standards improved since those lists became FA, then they should be improved in points analogous to points where this list failed your review.

• Is it really called the "German football championship?"

The German name is a word-by-word translation if I am not mislead by what the DFB site says.

• Teams in bold won the DFB-Pokal in the same sesaon thereby completing the double. The football champions from the GDR (1949–91) are also included in the list. - this should be in near the tables explaining that not in the lead.

Copied that from England. I found it pointless to include that in the front of every single table as the lead should describe the content of the table briefly. If this is in the introduction everybody can understand all information in the tables without reading any further text.

• Since 1903 there have been 141 tournaments held which decided 138 champions. - how about, Since 1903, 138 champions have been decided by 141 tournaments.

Done

• From 1949 until 1991 two German champions were decided each year, one for Eastern Germany and one for Western Germany. - how about, Between 1949 and 1991, two champions were decided each year, one each from Eastern and Western Germany, respectively.

Done

• 40 clubs have since won a German football championship with Bayern Munich holding the most titles (21). - how about, 40 clubs have since won a German football championship with Bayern Munich holding the most titles, 21.

Done

• Lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEDE: State who was the first champion, who is the most recent champion. State any other relevant information to the records themselves. State how the title was formed, etc.

This is for articles. The way I understand Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lead and selection criteria the lead section of a list should primarily define its content.

• When the competiton was incepted in 1903 no nationwide league existed in Germany yet. The tournament instead featured several regional champions which competed in the single elimination to decide the German football champion. - Okay, how about stating that the competition, which has a spelling error in the original sentence, was incepted in 1903 by whoever. Something like The championship was incepted in 1903 by (whoever) in (where ever). During this time, no national league existed in Germany, instead the tournament featured regional champions competing in single elimination matches to decide the German football champion. Also, source for this statement?

The 'Bundesliga - History' source is the source. Added a ref tag to that sentence to make it more clear.

• After the competition had been halted due to World War I for several years until it continued in 1920. - bad wording. It's also weird how you never say when the national league was established. Anyways, this sentence should be, Due to World War I, the competition was halted from (state the actual years), until it resumed in 1920.

Done

• The mode was changed by the Nazis in 1933 and from then on several times until the competition came again to halt due to World War II in 1945. - first of all, what does "mode" mean in this context?

That's an in-paragraph reference to the description of the mode two sentences before. It is pretty obvious, but I added "of the competition" anyway to make it more clear.

• From 1946 on championships were played out in the occupied territories of Germany and in 1948 the champions form the four western territories decided the first post-war German football champion. - wow, I don't even know how to reword this because the original one makes no sense, please revise.

It's form but from. Should make sense then.

• While the competition was continued in the West, Eastern Germany incepted its own competition, the first nationwide football league in Germany, named Fußball-Oberliga. - While the competition continued in the West, Eastern Germany started it's own competition, named (w/e it's called). Notice how I didn't include "the first nationwide football league in Germany" because how is it nationwide if it's only in the East?

Due to the fact that two nations existed on the territory formerly and afterwards known as Germany, the GDR and the FRG. Each nation had its own nationwide competition. Certainly it is not necessary to make an in-depth analysis of the political situation here. It's probably a balancing act how to phrase that. In your sentence you ignore the very notable fact that the first leagues, perceived as nationwide, were actually seperate leagues in the east and the west.

• In 1963 the DFB created the Bundesliga, the nationwide league in West Germany. - 1)Spell out the entire name of the DFB and place the acronym in parenthesis. 2) It's not nationwide if it's in one half of the country.

1) done. 2) see above

• After the German Reunification in 1990 the Oberliga was dissolved in 1991. Hansa Rostock and Dynamo Dresden were admitted to the Bundesliga the follwoing season, thereby forming the first German football league covering all German states. - merge: After the German Reunification in 1990, the Oberliga was dissolved a year later; this followed with Hansa Rostock and Dynamo Dresden's admission into the Bundesliga the following season, therefore forming the first German nationwide football league.

see above

• The last team to win the Viktoria was Dresdner SC who defeated the air force club Luftwaffen SV Hamburg in Berlin's Olympic Stadium 4 – 0 at the end of the 1943–44 competition. ---> The final team to win the Viktoria was Dresdner SC, who defeated Luftwaffen SV Hamburg 4-0 at Berlin's Olympic Stadium in the final game of the 1943-1944 tournament.

Done

• In the confusion at the end of World War II, the trophy disappeared. It was re-discovered decades later in an East German bank safe-deposit box where it had been placed by a Dresden supporter for safekeeping. - Sounds like POV, should be reworded to something like After World Ward II, the trophy was unable to be located until (specific date) when it was found in a safe-deposit box, which is where it had been placed by a Dresden supported for safekeeping. Also needs a source.

A specific date is unknown. Actually it is rather unclear what is fact about this and what myth. The DFB states they received the trophy after the reunification. The Wikipedia general consensus seems to be that the trophy was hidden by a Dresden supporter. I also read somewhere that the trophy was hidden beneath a pile of coals. Maybe the DFB even knew. Unfortunately I was not able to (re-)locate an article about that outside the Wikipedia. So I changed that to a rather unspecific but citable version.

• It has since been returned to the German football association. In the meantime, a new championship trophy, the Meisterschale ("Championship Plate"), was created in 1949. 1. FC Nuremberg, the first post-war champions had to make do with a pennant. - How about, During the time without the trophy, the (name of new trophy) was created in 1949, however, the first post-war champions were unable to receive trophy and instead got a pennant because ....(elaborate).

Changed my version a little. Should be more clear know.

• The competition was a single elimination tournament with each match held on a neutral ground. - what does "neutral ground" mean?

Aren't you a little picky here?

• In 1933 the Naziregime changed the German league structure drastically. At first 16 Gauligas were incepted. The champions of each Gauliga competed in the national championship. The championship itself had a group stage which qualified for the final single elimination stage. - very confusing, should be reworded to make more clear as I myself do not understand.
• Beginning in 1939 the mode of the competition was often changed in its last years. This was owed to the war leading to material shortcoming and difficulties in transportation. Also several new Gauligas, partly from the occupied territories, had to be included. - same thing with this one.

Done.

• Basing it off previous FLC's that were promoted before the tightening up of the FL criteria, the year section should be made sortable.

Done

• The winner should also be made sortable.

I got mixed feelings on that (see below), but done.

• The reigns # should be in small font, like in the FL List of WWE Champions.

English champs should be changed, too, then?

• Runner ups should also be sortable

see below

• Score should be sortable as well.

Sortable winners and runner-ups okay, but isn't this a little silly? Including a sorting feature just because we can? Sorting by result is not really meaningful. I actually did it. It is more work to make it unsortable anyway, but I disagree that this is a good table this way.

• VfB Leipzig would have faced Berliner TuFC Britannia 1889 but no final was held. - Is Berlin TuFC Britannia 1889 their name? also comma before "but"

It's not their name any more. It was then.

• Every table should be sortable.

Disagree. The one-rowed table should not be sortable. The rest is sortable now.

• Also, more sources need to be referenced to verify this information, 4 sources are not citing all this information.

There are more sources now. The tables were completely verifiable with the external links anyway. If you have any suggestions how to place these to be more obviously references I would appreciate that. Added DFB and Abseits for good measure as external links/sources.

• So you wanted a more thorough review, well here you go, and it fails CR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.--S_RX 23:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It fails your review, but now I know why and I could do something about it. I was probably a little overconfident about the article making it to FL instantly. So apologies if the nomination was premature and I should have let it peer-reviewed before. Anyway there should not be too much left to do now. I hope for some more constuctive criticism and then the article should be there. OdinFK (talk)

Comments

• In the chapter Bundesliga (BRD) and Oberliga (GDR) 1964–1991, you name the West German champion, the runner-up and the league´s topscorer. But you only name the East German champion. How about naming the East German runner-up and league top scorer, too? --Hullu poro (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that myself. Now that it comes up I think either champ (west) - RU (west) - champ (east) - RU (east) or champ (west) - scorer (west) - champ (east) - scorer (east) should be inclued. If all of six categories would be included the table will look absolutely terrible at most resolutions. Opinions on what to include? OdinFK (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would make two seperate lists. First a list for FRG and then the GDR. --Hullu poro (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont' find that very appealing because it disturbs the chronoligical order of the article. But it is certainly a solution to the problem. OdinFK (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility would be to kick the top scorers out. Then you´d have enough space to name the East German runners-up. --Hullu poro (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest losing the top scorer. It's an interesting tidbit to be sure, but as this is a list of the champions, individual achievement should have a lower priority than the East German RU.

You should also be aware that there was no championship awarded for the winner of the 1955 season in East Germany. This was just a half-championship placed between the summer-winter 1954-55 and summer 1956 seasons for purely technical reasons. DDR-Oberliga 1955 needs to be corrected accordingly. Madcynic (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

• See also sections usually come before the references.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved see also section and also changed some things to reflect Madcynic's comments. OdinFK (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• The sortability has not been resolved, whilst you have added class="wikitable sortable" the colspan feature of the entries 1904, 1992 and WWI and II, meant sortability function doesn't work for runners-up or the scores.

I see, but I have no idea how to solve this right now.

• Ref 2 & 6 need language tags i.e. and (in German).

Why? These references refer to the english site of the DFB. While reference 6 does not really utilize any language other than names it is still the English page.

• Don't assume someone knows what (a.e.t.) means

No, I don't, but I suppose somebody interested in finding out will click the link. I can add those links at the first occurrence in each table, though.

• From 1959-1991, the linked years go to the Bundesliga (or equivalent), so clicking on it is completely useless for someone expecting to find out more info on the Oberliga.

There are no articles about the Oberliga. Everything you can find out in the English Wikipedia you will find out when you check out the link at the top.

• Why are Oberliga runners-up not listed pre-1963, but are listed post-1964

I don't know to be honest. Probably space seemed to be an issue, but it is really not. It will be up shortly.

• "Champions of the occupation zones 1946–48" appears to be completely unreferenced
• Same for "German football championship 1948".
• In fact note that alot of these sections appear to be referenced. NB. External links do not count as references.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will find these if you check out the fourth external link. I will make it more clear that this is the reference here.

OdinFK (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see all your issues have been resolved. It would be great if you could check that this is really the case. If it is not or you have some other suggestions I won't tire. Cheers, OdinFK (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All my issues have not been resolved and the list is far from featurable quality. So I still oppose.

• Some examples
  • "Check out the fourth external link" is not a valid response to a lack of reference. They are external links (not references)

It was kind of an informal explanation. I've given that specific fact a ref, didn't I?

• • The lead is too short.
  • In ==German football championship (BRD) and Fußball-Oberliga (GDR) 1949–1963==, should be "BRD champions" or something equivalent not "winners" as that could be confused with the Oberliga champions.

Done.

• • [OL 2] No championship was awarded ths season. Why? Had it been awarded in the previous seasons.

It was a transitionary round, played in between two other championships. It's the only time that happened. I have no source going into detail about that, therefore I didn't go into detail either. Take a look at the references given now. I'm not perfectly happy with the source because it is tables only, but it is the best I could find out there.

• • Why is fussballdaten.de a reliable source?

Is it not? Nobody complained when I used fussballdaten.de as a source for a GA so I supposed it should be okay.

• • Image is of questionable copyright.
  • Prose issues e.g.
    • "After the competition had been halted due to World War I from 1915, until it was resumed in 1920.", makes no sense as a sentence
    • Football scores shouldn't use Spaced endashs, they should be unspaced.

I wonder where you found that. I've been looking for that guideline more than once, but could never find it. In the article you link to I cannot find it either. Thanks, OdinFK (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Ref 6. "German Chmampion" sp.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the [OL 2] reference to include an explanation. I have also fixed some of the prose in the history section. I have removed the spacing from the result dashes. As for the WP:RS issue, fussballdaten.de is widely used in WP:FOOTY and is generally regarded as reliable within the project.Madcynic (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 22:08, 8 November 2008 [10].

previous FLC (03:15, 20 October 2008)

Last FLC ended with 0 Supports and 0 Opposes. -- Goodraise (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - My review was addressed in order satisfy WP:WIAFL.--S_RX 21:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, it is a lot of times better than the last nomination. Sources look okay.Tintor2 (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now Why does this list have tables with one row and two columns???? Please merge everything into a sortable table with more than two columns. Nergaal (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the opening sentence of the previous FLC, this list is modeled after the featured List of Castlevania titles which uses the very same Template:VGtitle to generate these tables. The same goes for the featured lists of WWE SmackDown video game titles and Harvest Moon titles. Leaveing the examples aside, I don't see what kind of information you want that table to be sortable by. The titles are already sorted after release date. What else could you sort them for? The slight irregularities in publisher and developer hardly seem to justify such a drastic change. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that this is the best format that wiki can come up with. There is a huge amount of empty space by using this template... Nergaal (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a new table proposal can be brought up to WT:VG.S_RX 21:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 22:08, 8 November 2008 [11].

previous FLC (16:39, 2 October 2008)

Third time's the charm? I believe all actionable concerns from the previous FLC have been addressed. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all my concerns were addressed in the previous nomination. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose A very misleading title that should be changed. The current title leads me to believe that there were actually hurricanes in Maryland. I know it's not true because No storms made landfall in Maryland at hurricane intensity. The title should describe what the list is about.--Crzycheetah 04:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would be a better title? We shouldn't call them "tropical cyclones", since that is the name for a 64+ kt cyclone in the Indian Ocean. Also, "hurricane" is a term that is recognized by HURDAT, the Climate Prediction Center, NOAA, Colorado State University, even though technically, tropical storms and depressions are included. So does that mean we as an encyclopedia should contradict the US Federal Government? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This list is about how hurricanes affected the state of Maryland. It cannot possibly list "Maryland hurricanes", since there are no "Maryland hurricanes". List of hurricane damages in the state of Maryland, List of Maryland damages created by hurricanes, or just simply List of hurricanes affected the state of Maryland is a better description of this list than the current title.--Crzycheetah 07:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • With all due respect, those titles are unnecessarily long, confusing, and poor. If you don't agree with the title, that's fine, but I cannot violate project standards by changing it. Juliancolton Public (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's better to have a long title than a wrong title.--Crzycheetah 03:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, "List of Maryland hurricanes" is the correct title. Per WP:V, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Therefore, we have to follow the terms used by reliable sources (NOAA, CSU, HURDAT), not what we believe is correct. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator is currently on a wikibreak, so odds are that any concerns posted will not be addressed. Unless somebody agrees to take over, it will be removed on Saturday. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check in every now and then to address any issues. Juliancolton Public (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 16:20, 4 November 2008 [12].

I am nominating this page for FL status, I believe that it fully meets all FL criteria. Any problems, please let me know. C4v3m4n (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, I'm going to have to oppose for now. I haven't read the article yet, but I notice quite a significant issue. Virtually the entire article relies on http://afl.allthestats.com/. My main concern is this statement at the bottom of that page: "No guarantee regarding the accuracy of the statistics on this site is given." Is there any way to prove that it is, in fact, reliable and accurate? Better yet, could you replace it? Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, this is the only website available that records all of the VFL/AFL coaches. I, myself, was reluctant to put them in, put I had no choice. I hope you understand. C4v3m4n (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be used. Use another one please, or find other reliable sources that consider this one reliable. Gary King (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Looking at it, looks more of a blog type site, especially with that note that they have claiming that they don't guarantee the validity of the statistics deems it less reliable, please search either for more reliable sources or a general reliable source.--S_RX 01:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

• "just a few kms north of " – this is too colloquial, and it's too vague when it could be exact. Can't an exact distance be given? It's about five kilometers, isn't it? Provide a converted value for miles, too; you can use {{convert}} for that.
  • Fixed. C4v3m4n (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "1869 purportedly" – "1869. It was purportedly" – and do you have a reference for this information? Who claimed this, if it was purportedly?
  • Fixed. C4v3m4n (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Oppose from SRX (talk · contribs)

• The Kangaroos are based in North Melbourne, just a few kms north of Melbourne metropolitan area. - please spell out kilometers and use {{convert}} to convert it to miles as well.
  • Fixed. C4v3m4n (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The North Melbourne Football Club was formed in 1869 purportedly established to satisfy the needs of local cricketers who were keen to keep themselves fit over the winter months. - makes no sense, do you mean fit as in "health in exercise"?
  • Fixed. C4v3m4n (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• They entered the VFL (Victorian Football League) in 1925 after 48 years in the VFA (Victorian Football Association). The name of the organization is first, than the acronym in parenthesis.
  • Fixed. C4v3m4n (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Wels Eicke became the first coach of the North Melbourne Kangaroos in 1925, serving for two seasons before retiring after the 1926 season. - after one mention "North Melbourne Kangaroos," you can say only Kangaroos or just Melbourne, switch throughout don't be repetitive.
  • Fixed. C4v3m4n (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• In terms of tenure, Denis Pagan has coached more games (240) and seasons (10) than any other coach in the clubs history[2]. - citation should go after period.
  • Fixed. C4v3m4n (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The first three paragraphs need to be merged into one.
  • Fixed. C4v3m4n (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The parenthesis are really killing the flow of the prose, like In terms of successfullness, Ron Barassi has been more successful (65.91% win/lost record) than any other coach in the club's history[3]. - First of all "successfullness" is not a word, also would be better stated as "Barassi has been more successful, with a 65.91% win/loss record) [notice it's loss not lost]. Also, citation after period.
  • Fixed. C4v3m4n (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• IMO, the Term years should be linked to the respective seasons.
  • Fixed. C4v3m4n (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Need more variety of references, you mainly only use one, which I also question it's validity.--S_RX 23:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned above, this is the only website available that records all of the VFL/AFL coaches. Any suggestions? C4v3m4n (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Like those commenters before me, I dislike the reliance on one website with questionable reliability. However, I don't like the tone of some phrases in the lead, and I see MOS issues. This article would have greatly benefited from a peer review.

• "The Kangaroos are based in North Melbourne, just 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) north of Melbourne metropolitan area." "just"-->which is.
• "It was purportedly established" Sounds skeptical.
• "They entered the" The previous sentence referred to the team as "It", now it's called "they".
• "In terms of tenure, Denis Pagan has coached more games (240) and seasons (10) than any other coach in the clubs history."
• "He coached the Kangaroos to two AFL Premierships in the 1996 season and then again in the 1999 season." Colon or semicolon after "Premierships".
• "In terms of successfullness, Ron Barassi has been more successful" Repetition.
• "(65.91% win/loss record)" Is this level precision necessary?
• "7 coaches" Spell out numbers under 10.
• "He played only 21 games for the Kangaroos and coached 20 of those games."
• Use symbols along with colors in the table per WP:COLORS.
• Use unspaced en dashes for the year ranges in the "Term" column.
• "Thomas coach the Kangaroos for a single match in 1926, while a replacement coach was found after the sacking of Gerry Donnelly." Wrong tense. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 20:13, 1 November 2008 [13].

I am nominating this page for FL status. The article is clearly written, heavily referenced, visual appealing; all which meet FL criteria. C4v3m4n (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• This List of Australian Football League grounds lists every ground upon which a senior VFL/AFL game has been played. Australian rules football is played on a grassed oval, according to the specifications in the Laws of Australian football, with an average length of between 135 and 185 metres and a width of between 110 and 155 metres.
  • Featured lists are discouraged to begin with This is a list of _____
    • Fixed. C4v3m4n (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be reworded to say that The Australian Football League has (# of grounds). Then continue with the other sentence.
    • Fixed. C4v3m4n (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should you the {{convert}} template to convert metres into feet.
    • Fixed. C4v3m4n (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Most Australian rules football grounds are also used for other sports, such as cricket, rugby, soccer or the the Olympic games, and for events such as rock concerts or exhibitions. - Reword to such as cricket, rugby, soccer, the Olympic games (see how the word "the" is not pipelinked), and for events such as concerts and exhibitions. (doubt they are only rock concerts.
• The lead needs to be expanded, say what was the first ground, what is the most recent ground built, which ground has the most capacity, which has the less.
  • Fixed C4v3m4n (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Table: Name of Ground should just be Ground
  • Fixed. C4v3m4n (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Table: Year First Used how about Opened
  • Fixed C4v3m4n (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Table: The capacity needs to be in a {{sort}} template.
• Many of the grounds now serve as a training ovals for an AFL team, as it is highly unlikely any of them will be used in regular competition again. - violates WP:NPOV, reword.
  • Fixed. C4v3m4n (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Waverley Park, located in Mulgrave, Victoria is by far the highest capacity stadium in the list below, able to hold as many as 93,000 people. - the prose needs to be written in encyclopedic format, not as if you are talking to the reader and telling them about the list --> Waverley Park in Mulgrave Victoria held the highest capacity, at (total capacity) until it's closure in (when it closed).
  • Fixed. C4v3m4n (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The stadium was closed due to a lack of public transport infrastructure (as the stadium was situated outside Melbourne), lack of parking, inadequate public and corporate facilities and, since the ground was unusually larger than normal AFL grounds, spectators felt they were too far away from the game. - many grammatical errors.
  • Reworded. C4v3m4n (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Princes Park (now known as Visy Park) was the most recent stadium to close, which occurred in 2005. With the construction of the new stadium, Telstra Dome, the AFL decided to cease all AFL matches from being played there as the ground's capacity wasn't adequate for the modern game. - same here.
  • Reworded. C4v3m4n (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The references need to be in {{cite}} template.
  • Fixed. C4v3m4n (talk)
• References need to verify the information, not the existence of the stadiums.
  • You'll find the websites used verify the stadiums capacity. C4v3m4n (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• References should be before External links.
  • Fixed C4v3m4n (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• After seeing the references and content, I Quick-Fail this list, too many grammatical errors, MOS issues, and fails WP:WIAFL. Before FLC, the article should have been peer reviewed.--S_RX 15:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It looks like it's a work in progress, still some more issues.
• The first three paragraphs should be merged, they are two short.
• How about in the lead state what's the most recent stadium and which stadium has the lowest capacity.
• Did you use the {{sort}} template? The capacity isn't right when sorted.
• The current tenants IMO shouldn't be sortable because there are more than one entries in one box.
• The prose of the former grounds needs to be verified with reliable sources.
• There needs to be a note explaining why a ground's capacity has a ?.
• Prose of the former minor grounds also needs to be verified with a reliable source.
• Section title: Future or Proposed Grounds ---> Proposed grounds
• Same thing for pre season venues, the question marks.
• The years used for that table shouldn't be sortable either.
• The international venues table should be made sortable.--S_RX 21:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• References need to be formatted.
  • Fixed. C4v3m4n (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, since there are also the above issues that exist, I'm opposing for now.

Gary King (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose All references need to be formatted correctly. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Surely it can be a featured list. C4v3m4n (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 20:13, 1 November 2008 [14].

Nominating - A State Of Trance (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Make "This is the discography of Daft Punk" more interesting
• "Paris-born musicians Guy-Manuel de Homem-Christo and Thomas Bangalter met in 1987." – perhaps mention the fact that they also formed Daft Punk?
• "album, Discovery was " – "album, Discovery, was "
• "Concurrently production" – "Concurrent production", and Concurrent probably isn't the best word, anyways
• "2001 also saw the" – don't begin sentences with numbers

Gary King (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All  Done - A State Of Trance (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a side note: Daft Punk was not "formed" in 1987 - they simply met then, in school. just64helpin (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Material shot for an eventually-canceled video was reworked and expanded to create the feature film Daft Punk's Electroma." No hyphen after -ly adverbs.
• "In the summer of 2006 the duo performed live for the first date of what would become their worldwide 2006 and 2007 tours." Comma after 2006.
• For albums that did not chart, use em dashes instead of hyphens and make a note of what they mean, like at Rachel Stevens discography.
• Why is there a section about the Grammy Awards? That should be in an article about the awards and nominations received.
• Reference 1 needs publisher info.
• In the Music videos section Daft Punk is overlinked.
• "While marketed and broadcast on television as music videos," "While"-->Although. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All  Done - A State Of Trance (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "the duo performed live for the first date of" What does "first date" mean in this context? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - A State Of Trance (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Please allow your high-value links to stand out, and delink French

• de-linked French - A State Of Trance (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Where are the references for Peak Chart Positions?
• According to List of record charts, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland have articles about their album charts. Same for the singles table. It's inconsistent to link to the articles about the countries

• added sweden and switzerland articles, delinked Finland. - A State Of Trance (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the singles certifications into the table, as it is with the albums one

•  Done - A State Of Trance (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The tracks they remixed, do they have any official names, or are they all like "Take Me Out (Daft Punk Remix)"?

• I believe they are all simply "(Daft Punk Remix)" - A State Of Trance (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you provide years and possibly the releases the remixes appeared on?
• Do they have any songs that appear exclusively on any compilations or soundtracks?

Matthewedwards 21:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

• All chart positions need to be referenced by reliable sources
• Home video → Video albums

•  Done - A State Of Trance (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Home video" section contains Daft Punk's Electroma, which is not a video album. just64helpin (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• All music video directors should be referenced by reliable sources
• Place live albums & compilation albums in separate tables
• Add catalog numbers and release formats
• U.K. → UK

•  Done - A State Of Trance (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• U.S. → US

•  Done - A State Of Trance (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the practice is to use "U.S." or "USA" to disambiguate from the word "us".

• All remixes should be referenced
• Notes should be added to references that direct readers to a search engine (see Geri Halliwell discography#References)

-- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Ref 28 needs a publication date.
• IMBD is not a reliable source.

• removed - A State Of Trance (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• On ref 9, the words in the access date are running together.
• Links check out with link checker. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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