Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/November 2010

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 18:22, 29 November 2010 [1].

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn 05:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it satisfies the FLC criteria. New episodes will begin in March, and I will continue to maintain the article to ensure it remains in compliance. I am ready and willing to address any concerns. Thanks! (Incidentally, the article Sister Wives is nominated for GAN, if anyone is interested in reviewing that one.) — Hunter Kahn 05:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for three reasons

The lede, at just over 100 words and only a single paragraph, is woefully short.

The image fails NFCC 8 on this article. (Though it passes it on the main series article.)

The list is still too short to pass criteria 3b, with only seven items. This would stand a much better chance after another season... or, preferably, two.

Courcelles 07:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Fails WP:LEAD. Not sure how reliable Religion Dispatches is as a source. Also seems to fail 3b of the criteria. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 13:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is my first FLC nomination, so I may have been a bit too quick with it. (Although regarding Religion Dispatches, the reliability of it has already been discussed on the talk page.) I'll be happy to withdraw the nom until at least after the second season and bring it back. One question before I do though, what exactly is the size criteria here? A user above referred me to criteria 3b, but all that says is "In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists", and at that page I can't find anything specific about size... — Hunter Kahn 14:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Though some lists are shorter, it generally is recommended that each list has at least 10 items. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 14:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hunter Kahn, and welcome to FLC and your first nomination. As usual these process can seem a little challenging. So, bear with us, we're here to help you, and all advice provided is usually just to improve your list (and, eventually, your experience of FLC!) so with luck you'll be able to succeed in due course. A couple of ideas of mine:

• The mysterious "3b fail" thing. Well, in my mind at least there seems no reason why not to merge this list into the main article, as it's not so long and therefore may well not be a reasonable standalone list. "Ten items" is an unwritten rule, and in general has recently been nothing more than an unwritten guideline. In fact, if a list is truly standalone then the ten items business is pretty much irrelevant.
• Courcelles' comments are important, the lead is too short, it needs to summarise the list (i.e. could easily be a synopsis of the whole main article), the fair use rationale doesn't usually swing it on a list of episodes, unless it's an image of the DVD of the series or similar.

Although I'm a featured list director, please do remember these are just "thoughts" of mine and I will bow to community consensus. Let me know if I can help further. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • No problem, I appreciate all the comments and now have a better idea for what you'll all be looking for when and if I nominate this again. In the meantime, I'm good to withdraw this nomination. — Hunter Kahn 18:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 18:27, 24 November 2010 [2].

Nominator(s): Thaddeus Venture (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it provides clear, concise and well researched information. It is well maintained and well organized and properly cited. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Both the lead and list are severely under-referenced. How can I verify any of the fighters' records, or that they are fighters for that matter?
• All of the references that are included are not properly formatted. See Wikipedia:Citing sources.
• Starting the lead "This is a list... " is deprecated. See other current featured lists for professional ways to introduce the list.
• The lead in general does not provide a good introduction to what UFC is.
• Pictures of a few fighters would be useful.

Needs significant work, suggest putting it through a peer review and returning to FLC once these issues have been addressed. Regards, Jujutacular ^talk 23:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Little to no references and what references are on the article don't use the appropriate {{Cite web}} template. Also there is a ton of unreferenced content within the list. Afro (Talk) 09:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The ten-cent tour: Sorting on the name is broken; I'm thinking countries should probably be split out into their own column (newer FLs tend to do this, it seems); you can sort nicknames without having to resort to the unkindly ", The"; zero general references; the specific references that exist seem random; there's not even a reference stating that these weight classes are official divisions; the infobox is superfluous, and the information in it should be moved to a table in the article I think; the article needs at least some kind of pictures, preferably photos of the top men in each class; and the list at the very least needs something saying what date the records are valid as of. All in all, oppose.

Oppose and I'll close this soon if User:Dabomb87 doesn't do it before me. This is not peer review, but a few pointers (which may overlap the above, but which should help should you renominate in the future):

• Image (File:UFC logo.svg) has no fair use rationale for use in this list.
• Infobox is not useful, and contravenes WP:MOSFLAG.
• Lead needs expansion and shouldn't start as it does.
• Images of fighters would be good.
• Don't use abbreviations (like UFC) until you've explained them.
• What is "Zuffa"?
• You say all fight records are shown the same way. They're not.
• Fight records need en-dash, not spaced hyphens (per WP:DASH)
• I would introduce each section with some prose on how many fighters and how heavy they are, rather than put that information into the headings.
• "Current" is a bit worrying too, you probably need to say when the last update was so we can judge for ourselves quite how "current" the list is.
• Avoid disambiguation links (like Michael MacDonald).
• You force the sorting on nickname to avoid sorting by "The" (for example) but the fighters' names are sorted by first name. Use {{sortname}}.
• What does (C) mean?
• References need complete formatting using {{cite web}} or similar.

I hope you don't take these critiques badly, we would very much welcome the nomination back if you pay heed to the advice. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: "list of current fighters" can change so rapidly that there's little chance of this ever meeting the criterion for stability. This should be closed. — KV5 • Talk • 17:58, 24 November 2010 (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 23:08, 23 November 2010 [3].

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because Bonanza was a long-running television series and generally regarded as a classic. I have addressed all suggestions in the peer review which is now archived. I believe that the article has met the criteria to become a featured list.

Two items of note:

• Bonanza aired on American television on NBC before the days of cable TV, internet, and home video. Thus, unless the tuned in to a local independent broadcast, people in America who were watching televison back then had only the three networks to choose from (NBC, CBS, or ABC). Because of this I have chosen to lsit in the overview section all the shows that aired opposite Bonanza during its 14-year run. It has been suggested to me that only people in the United States would be interested in this. I disagree and think that people in other countries might be interested as well, thus getting a fuller spectrum of American television in the years 1959–73.
• In the past the web site All-movie has been used as a reliable reference source for featured list. All-movie documents every episode of Bonanza individually. Rather than have an individual reference for each of Bonanza's 430 episodes (which would make for a ref list so long that it would almost justify its on page) I have used an alternate site called Bonanza World which has the episodes listed in a season-by-season format. I've check the information on both sites (Airdates, episode titles, names of directors and writers) and they both correspond with one another. Thus I think Bonanza World can be offered up as a reliable source.

I'm now opened to suggestions. Jimknut (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Media files (WP:FL?#5(b))

• File:Bonanza title screen.jpg is being used without a Fair Use Rationale. I doubt a valid one could be written because a title card does not meet WP:NFCC#8 ("Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.") A title card does not significantly increase the readers' understanding of a list of episodes about the show.
  • Now replaced with an image of the four original cast members
    • The new image is still a copyrighted image. There is still no Fair use rationale for its inclusion on List of Bonanza episodes, and I doubt a valid one could be written because a photo of four characters does not significantly increase the readers' understanding of a list of episodes about the show. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose (WP:FL?#1)

• In that section, fix the "played" and "starred" to present tense
  • I think it should remain in the past tense as production on this films has been completed.
    • Per MOS:TV, part of the WP:MOS, "References to the show should be in the present tense since shows no longer airing still exist, including in the lead" Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lede (WP:FL?#2)

• For the DVD section, looking at Amazon, it appears that there's more DVD and VHS releases other than Season 1 and 2. Also, there's no mention of new media (Drelbcom channel has full Bonanza episodes, Retrovision and Project Free TV does too (I haven't checked out the legalities of any of these). There may be more, Amazon, iTunes, TV Guide, etc.
  • The copyright of several Bonanza episodes have apparently lapsed into the public domain, which acounts for DVD releases other than what I have listed. I don't know about the legality of the sites you mentioned so, for the moment, I think it's best not to mention them.
    • So why not say that the copyright of some episodes has lapsed? This is encyclopedic information. I've read the legals of the sites, and it looks like only Project Free TV is dodgy. You should mention these per the comprehensive FL criterion. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • FYI, I was glancing through my copy of 5000 Episodes and No Commercials by David Hofstede (ISBN:0823084566) today, and on page 42 he reviews some of the older Bonanza DVD releases. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Per a precedence of previous FLCs, you need either episode summaries or season pages with summaries. See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of 7th Heaven episodes/archive1 for a previous discussion. (There are a couple of others, but I remember this one because it was my nomination)
  • There may be a precedence but I don't think there's a set rule yet. Since Bonanza ran for 430 episodes a summary for each would make this page extremely long, so it's better just to have the episode titles here. Links to season pages can be added once those pages are created. However, let's do one thing at a time, such as getting this page in shape.
    • Well, there's MOS:TV#Episode listing that mentions that episodes such have a 100-200 word summary per episode. And there's MOS:TV#Multiple pages, which says that for shows with 80+ episodes, they should be split off into season pages. Summaries then appear on those pages, and the main list, while still keeping airdates, titles, directors, etc, should not have plot details. And there's WP:SS that applies as well Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Style (WP:FL?5(a))

• The use of colours is a bit haphazzard, some are a bit glaring. Do you need them at all?
  • The colours I used (for the most part) are based on colours in the List of Smallville episodes. They can be removed if anyone else objects to them, but I'll keep them in for now.
    • See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Currently it violates WP:COLOR.
• WP:ELNO. There's too many unofficial websites linked in the EL section

WP:V

• Article appears to be verified by unreliable sources.
• Regarding http://bonanzaworld.net/ as a reference. Even though you might have checked that all information on this site corresponds with the information at AMG, we don't know that, and you can't expect someone go verify 430 pages at AMG with 430 pages at this site. That's 860 pages you're expecting us to go through. It's obviously a fansite, it's not very professional because I've spend 5 minutes going through it and already found typos. See WP:FANSITE#11. "Links to ... most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." Who writes and maintains this site? What authority do they have in the world of Bonanza? What other than your say-so makes it a WP:RS? To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. I noticed in the references, you say Bonanza Ventures, Inc., and NBC, Inc. are the publishers of this site, but reading the website, they clearly aren't.
• The link you're using for Ref 4: A Bonanzaworld website reader appears to have typed it up and stuck in on their site. How do we know it's typed up correctly for one thing? Second, if it is, it's a copyright violation. If you do think of a way to use the reference legitimately, the ref needs formatting correctly. Magazine title should be in italics, and with a magazine this old, you should give the publisher and location, issue # etc, so that if someone does want to verify it, they have a chance of finding the magazine
• What makes http://www.tvhistory.tv/ a reliable source? It looks like http://www.tvhistory.tv/1959-PrimeTime.jpg et al are copyright violations
• What makes http://ponderosascenery.homestead.com/scenes3.html a RS?
• There are plenty of published books about Bonanza listed at Amazon, why don't you use those instead of unreliable websites? Same for books about ratings and schedules. Look at the books used as references at articles like 1959–60 United States network television schedule#References

I don't think this article is anywhere near FL-ready, so I must oppose at this time. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - On sources alone I'll oppose, none of them seem to be verifiable. There seems to be no indication of where TVHistory retrieves their content. On Bonanza World the only FAQ or about I can find is on their forum. Regarding TVShowsonDVD it doesn't state where they get their information from. Afro (Talk) 06:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, TVShowsOnDVD.com is a reliable site. It's owned by TV Guide.[4] Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If thats the case then I have no problem with it, what threw me off about it was on the FAQ "The site is owned and maintained by BlueFrog Studios.", if its owned by TV Guide, I guess I have no problem with it. Afro (Talk) 07:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've ordered one of the books about Bonanza and will use that as a reference once I get it. This may take a few weeks so I'll have to put the ref chances on hold until then. Can we hold the page in FLC "limbo" until then? Jimknut (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's up to the directors, User:The Rambling Man and User:Dabomb87 Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As long as sufficient progress is being made in other departments and there isn't prolonged objections to the references, I would assume this nomination can stay open. Afro (Talk) 07:55, 8 November 2010 (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 23:08, 23 November 2010 [5].

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am renominating this for featured list because I believe this is a fine list worthy of the featured status (the previous nom was closed without any votes). Nergaal (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—no dab links; dead external links to http://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/12/arts/music/1996lolla.html?pagewanted=1 and http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/12054238 . Ucucha 22:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the first one minutes you posted here, and the second works fine (it redirects). Nergaal (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:Kirk Hammett replaced Mustaine in 1983, while the bassist role was taken by Cliff Burton (1982–1986), Jason Newsted (1986–2001), and Robert Trujillo (from 2003). i would write since 2003-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Nergaal (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Than you very much! Nergaal (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - The link in ref 8 is totally wrong as it links to their 1982 schedule, I don't see how this references 1983 onwards. I once again raise the question of how Ref 64 can reference the whole column since its a link to the 2008 European Vacation. Ref 44 has a small typing error with the code. Afro (Talk) 19:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 4 is split by years: selecting the year and then tour will show all the shows in that year. I am not looking forward at splitting it into almost 30 links. Should I just add a note to it? Nergaal (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I did not add #64 so I don't know what to do with it other than remove it. Nergaal (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• On Ref 8 I did check and it does only show 1982 on the dropbox. I think adding a note like Note 1 in List of number-one singles from the 2000s (New Zealand), would be the best option. Afro (Talk) 20:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.metallica.com/timeline.asp Just looking over the link again this would probably be the better link to add since it doesn't lead to the 1982 section. Afro (Talk) 01:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've changed the format to a summary note for each decade with yearly links, and a general reference in the Refs section. Is it ok now? Nergaal (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can the image galleries for Ref 8, 15, 40, 50, 60, constitute as Realiable? also I think per MOS:TEXT "Increased and decreased font size should primarily be produced through automated facilities" so I think adding the small html tag is against the MOS. Afro (Talk) 21:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the images are hosted by Metallica.com, the official website. The first image for example has the caption Advertisement for the show on April 23rd, 1982 at The Concert Factory in Costa Mesa, CA: since all the other links of the Metallica.com are considered reliable, I don't see a reason to consider images hosted by them with such descriptive captions to be unreliable (if the captions would say something like "original advertisement of a show that had different supporting bands" then yes, but the captions imply that the ticket description is accurate). Nergaal (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Font sizes: are you referring to the locations? If yes, then all the FLs like this employ similar format, and I see no reason to have this different. Nergaal (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I ask on the images because you seem to be referencing the supporting acts and not the entire gigs, since 8 only has Metallica listed, 15 is unreadable, 40 is a picture of Metallica, 50 doesn't have any supporting acts listed, 60 I can't find any specific references of bands, maybe WP:RS was incorrect maybe WP:VERIFY would be more correct along the lines I'm thinking of. On the font sizes I don't think just because all other FLs employ it should be means for inclusion, whether it meets FL criteria should be the means. Afro (Talk) 00:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not added the images myself so I don't know for sure what happened. But seeing that the accessdate was Feb 2009, I am tempted to think that the image IDs were changed since then, so the link shows a diff image. I went through each of them and fixed them: Changed 8, 15, 40, and 50 (doubled it to 50 and 51), and removed 60 since is superfluous. Nergaal (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The font size still hasn't been taken care of which I've listed the appropriate reason above.

Copy-pasting from above: Font sizes: are you referring to the locations? Nergaal (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 14 I'm slightly confused as to what its referencing, my best guess is that the content of the link has changed since January 2009, same goes with Ref 19, 28.

Ref 14 contains drop-down menus that are not linkable directly. For example, if you click on 1985, you will get the lineup that corresponds to the first instance of the use of ref 14. I have merged 19 into 14. I am confused to what is the problem with ref 28 (now 27). Nergaal (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 44 I'm pretty sure constitutes as WP:OR and definitely violates WP:CIRCULAR.

current #43: are you saying Metallica.com uses wikipedia to reference its own playset? As for OR, I am not convinced it is: [6] & [7]. Nergaal (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure on the WP:VERIFIABILITY of Songkick.com, whiplash.net, and musicmight.com.

On Songkick after signing up I can edit the artists listed, which means the information can change on a daily basis.

Switched. Nergaal (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the About of MusicMight its all user submitted.

By Whiplash.net About page section (more specifically here) "Actually the whole site content is written by volunteer contributors." (requires translation obviously) so its all user submitted.

Question - Would it be more useful to separate the one off shows and the concerts into a new section, what prompts me to ask is "Several shows outside tours" from "2000-2003", it seems logical to separate material like this. Afro (Talk) 10:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list is meant to be chronological, with only three occasions where they played outside official tours. Splitting the list further would not help achieve anything extra. Nergaal (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-and-pasting from above "per MOS:TEXT "Increased and decreased font size should primarily be produced through automated facilities"

I have no idea what are you specifically referring to! What TEXT you think uses the wrong size, and what automated facilities are you referring to? Nergaal (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must've mistaken 28 for something else.

On Ref 44 (now 43) at the time it consisted of internal links obviously has been changed since, however I still do not see any information regarding the debut of 2 new songs all I see is a setlist maybe the songs are within this setlist the average reader cannot verify this, changing the information you're citing might be appropriate.

I changed the verb from debuted to played. Nergaal (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the structure of the lead, it does violate WP:LEAD#Length as short as the 2nd is.

You are saying the lead is too long? Nergaal (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the splitting I only ask because this article is about concert tours, would it not be useful to the reader to split dates which are essentially just concerts and not tours themselves. Afro (Talk) 13:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you would want to drop the "tour" part from the title? Nergaal (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note: could you strike out the issues that have been fixed? Another reviewer passing through here might think that there are plenty of issues to be solved to bother dropping by to make another review. Nergaal (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was obvious the text I was referring to was the location, what other text are you using the small html tags for? I wasn't suggesting dropping the tour part from the title all I am suggesting is it might be better to separate the "tours" which are just concerts, it doesn't make too much sense to me that the one-off concerts are grouped with the tours. Afro (Talk) 13:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at List of concert tours by Michael Jackson and The Jackson 5, List of Madonna tours, List of Kylie Minogue concert tours, and List of concert tours by Michael Jackson and The Jackson 5 and go ahead and nominate them for FLR with your concern that you have here. I don't understand why it is acceptable to have this in current FLs but it is not in FLCs. Nergaal (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the non-tours entries to a separate section. Is the oppose still standing? Nergaal (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had I been apart of those FLCs I assure you I would've brought up the very same concerns regarding MOS:TEXT, for reference the Kylie Tour probably needs bringing to the FLRC for the Lead alone. Fact is the Criteria specifically states 5. "Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages." unless I'm mistaken the table does not comply with MOS:TEXT, and yes as of right now I am Opposed. Afro (Talk) 14:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Sorry, but it doesn't seem to be very broad in its coverage. There is little to no info on many tours. It would be helpful to add more info and insight.--AlastorMoody (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you even remotely aware of what do the current FLs on tours look like? There are four of them: NIN one does not cover any details other than band setup; Kyle Minogue has 16 entries with one or two short sentences for each; the Jackson one has 15 entries with one or two lines for all except the last 4 ones; Madonna has 12 entries, all with details. This has over 30 entries! Also, and only a small part of these have separate articles, have you thought that there are no separate articles because reliable, independent sources with more information on those tours are simply not available? Nergaal (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2010 (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 23:37, 16 November 2010 [8].

Nominator(s): Camelbinky (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is complete, accurate, and is useful not just for casual readers but also as a resource for improving Hudson Valley town, city, and county articles. Camelbinky (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

One glance comments. The lede is too short, and colour shouldn't be used as the sole way of presenting information per WP:ACCESS. Courcelles 23:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added letter coding to supplement the color coding. Also expanded the lead.Camelbinky (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• More Comments

"Other changes that occurred include the transfer of Dutchess County's northern section, the Livingston Manor, to Columbia County; and Greene County was formed in 1800 by the combination of the southernmost towns of Albany County with the northernmost towns of Ulster, the history of the towns of Greene and Columbia counties can be found at the Timeline of town creation in New York's Capital District." Whoa... take a breath. That's an incredibly long sentence. It actually becomes unclear so much is thrown into some of these sentences

I'm really not sure about this format. Perhaps I'm just the type that hates charts and glosses over them, but this "list" is a maze at times, especially in Orange and Putnam. I wonder if a table with explanatory prose in a note column wouldn't be simpler. Or even a map? I mean, for pete's sake, I know this area and am getting lost.

The general ref- location is Syracuse. But, I'm wondering if something 150 years old is really the best source available?

Ref 5. What is this and why is it reliable?

Ref 4, same thing, why is it a RS?

Ref 7, more bibliographic details please. Also, have you examined this source in detail, or just the 50-word excerpts available online?

Ref 11 needs fuller bibliographic detail. (publisher, location, ISBN if available)

There's more sourcing problems. Personally, it looks like only online sources have been examined. For this subject, that leaves no confidence the best sources have been examined.

Courcelles 09:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Ruslik_Zero 18:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment: I am impressed by the diagrams, and find this to be a very informative list. One suggestion might be to add one or two relevant images to the lead for additional visual value. (I do not feel qualified to offer support or oppose the promotion of this list, as I am particularly unfamiliar with timelines on Wikipedia, but I think you did a great job--even if it does not reach FL status!) --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added photos and maps to a few of the county sections and a photo to the lead. To be honest you shouldnt worry about being unfamiliar with this type of article since to my best knowledge it is unique and a first for Wikipedia (except for the other ones I have created for other NY regions such as Timeline of town creation in Downstate New York). I am quite relieved that it has been received so well, I was afraid initial reactions might be against something so new.Camelbinky (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment – Just one small thing to point out: I see "southernmost" and "northern most" in the lead. The two should probably have a consistent style, one way or the other. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DoneCamelbinky (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:08, 16 November 2010 [9].

Nominator(s): Candyo32 16:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after making massive overhaul of the article (from this to the current version) removing fancruft and adding reliable sources, and then converting to the new discography style, I believe it now meets FL criteria. Candyo32 16:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Prose

• Brown debuted in 2005 with his self-titled debut. is repetitive (by the way, the single Run It! was released months before the album appeared)

Done. Also It says "the album's lead single" signifying Run It! came before the album.

So what's your point? Lead single says "the lead single will often be released before the rest of the actual album ... This is not always the case". Note often and not always the case. And where it says "the album's lead single" is three sentences after. So Brown debuted in 2005 with his self-titled album is still wrong. Matthewedwards :  Chat 

Done but instead of saying he debuted in the album, just saying it was released.

• The album reached number two on the Billboard 200 in the US charted in the top-ten of most other music markets. sentence is missing a conjunction

Done

• Internationally, the single either charted at the top or inside the top ten of most other countries. -- "of most other countries' charts" perhaps? There's definitely a word missing here

Done

Now it's repetitive: Internationally, ... international charts. Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• Chris Brown also spawned the US top-ten singles Which spawn would that be? Even most generous definitions at wikt:Spawn "To generate, bring into being" or "To bring forth in general" don't really work in your favour. An album is inanimate, it can't really do anything other than "include" or "contain".

Done

Wrong tense. Unless the album has been deleted, and all copies sold destroyed, then it "contains". Matthewedwards :  Chat 

Done

• There's punctuation inside the quotemarks of song titles that should be on the outside. "Run It!," "Poppin'." "Gimme That," "Shortie Like Mine," "Say Goodbye,"

I believe that is grammatically incorrect as commas always go inside the quotations.

For speech the American style is fine; these are titles, and Logical punctuation should be followed. See WP:LQ Matthewedwards :  Chat 

Done

• Brown released his second album, Exclusive in 2007. Sentence is missing a comma

Done

• The album's lead single, "Run It!," featuring rapper Juelz Santana, topped the Billboard Hot 100, spending a month atop the chart. and It followed in the steps of its predecessor, reaching the top-ten in several most countries. Please see User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing.

Done.

Not the second sentence. Note also "several most". Matthewedwards :  Chat 

Done now.

• "Exclusive" included the worldwide hits "Kiss Kiss," featuring T-Pain, "With You," and "Forever." Multiple issues

Still grammatically correct as all punctuation is supposed to go inside quotes.

WP:LQ Matthewedwards :  Chat 

Done

1. Violates WP:ITALIC/MOS:TITLE.

Done

1. 9 countries ≠ Worldwide.

I know this is WP:OTHERSTUFF, but worldwide is used for a song that charts in the US and elsewhere because "international" means outside the home country and this is not the case.

"Worldwide" means wikt:Worldwide. If this usage exists elsewhere then it is also incorrect. 9 countries is not "spanning the world" Matthewedwards :  Chat 

See comments about the usage of "worldwide" below.

Never mind, Worldwide is removed.

1. Sentence is written in the wrong tense, unless Exclusive has been deleted and all copies destroyed.

Done

1. More misplaced punctuation. One comma shouldn't even be there.

Done

• "In additon, the album spawned the top five US R&B single "Take You Down," international top-thiry song "Superhuman." as well as "Wall to Wall." Multiple issues with this sentence.

Done

1. No, no, no it didn't spawn anything.

Done

1. Where is Additon? Did it "spawn" anywhere else?

Done

1. Written in the wrong tense again

Done

1. Punctuation are in the wrong places

Done

1. What is a thiry?

Done

1. Does US R&B single mean the US R&B chart or is it just informing the reader that the single is R&B?

Means US R&B chart

It's not clear. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is as well as supposed to be a different sentence? It needs a qualifier because by itself the sentence As well as "Wall to Wall". means nothing. Also, per the common Sentence case used in the English language, a new sentence must begin with a capital letter

Done

1. If it's not supposed to be a new sentence, and is part of the previous, then "In additon ... as well as" is repetitive

Done

• During the Exclusive era, Brown also recorded a Christmas single, "This Christmas." per era, I don't think this is the right word to use. Per wikt:era, it most probably isn't an era either. More misplaced punct.

Done.

• the worldwide hit, "No Air," a duet with Jordin Sparks -- I'd hardly call 51 a hit. So "worldwide" is wrong.

Worldwide is just a general term. I was just trying to cut down on listing every single chart position. Do you have any suggestions?

Never mind, it is removed.

• the "Shawty Get Loose" doesn't need an article

I'm confused at what you mean right here

I see it's been fixed, but "the" is an article Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In 2009, Brown's fourth album, Graffiti was released, preceded by the lead single "I Can Transform Ya" featuring Lil Wayne and Swizz Beatz, which peaked within the top-twenty of several countries. Sentence needs rewriting because it has two subjects. First the album, then the single. Which it refers to when it says it peaked within the top 20 is unclear

Done

• Originally a mixtape cut so it was removed from the track-list of the mixtape?

Done

• was Brown's first US R&B number-one since 2006. I'm pretty sure that the R&B song "Kiss Kiss" got to number 1 in 2007

Meaning US R&B chart

It's not clear. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Brown is preparing to release his fourth studio album, F.A.M.E. in early 2010. He'd better get a move on -- it's nearly 2011. Or the article is completely out of date.

Done

• List of non-singles in one of the captions is poor word choice

Done

• Lede

• The criteria says the Lede "introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria." All I read is an overview of his recording career, not his discography. What's the difference, you might ask? Well read The Beatles discography and compare. I don't expect it to have quite the same format or anything, but the Lede here is still missing crucial discography-related information such as the format of the releases and record label information. There's not a single mention of any kind of certification, but the tables are laden with them. And other than the words "four DVDs" there's not a single other mention of the DVDs. Not a very good introduction of the subject, then. Finally, there's no mention of the 36 music videos that are in the music video table, so the Lede also fails to define the scope and inclusion criteria properly.

The reasoning behind the inclusion is that they really aren't notable. Sort of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but you could more than likely check the lead of every FL discography on Wikipedia and none talk about the music videos. The DVDs aren't mentioned because they didn't chart.

It is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And it isn't a valid reason for doing or not doing something. Expectations and requirements are fluid, and they're higher today than they were six months ago, so something that was promoted then might not be now. If music videos aren't notable, why are they given in the table? The fact that the DVDs didn't chart is not a reason to ignore them. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just like all of the featured singles aren't included because they just aren't notable, I believe the same applies for the DVDs.

• Comprehensive

• As previously mentioned, the scope says nothing about music videos, so in "comprehensively covering the defined scope", it's gone beyond that and covers stuff that the reader cannot put into context
• Since F.A.M.E. hasn't been released, it cannot be a part of a discography. Same for "Ain't Thinkin' Bout You" and Who Is Shad Moss?

Kind of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but Kesha discography and Ciara discography (which were passed not so long ago with the inclusions), both FLs show future releases. "Ain't Thinkin' About You" has been released.

If I'd have noticed in those FLCs, I would have opposed. Chance brought me here instead. I see an unreleased mixtape has crept in, too. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are the charts in "As featured artist" different than those in "Singles" and "Albums"?

Because some of the featured singles did not chart at all in some of the markets that his singles and albums did.

So the page is a biased representation of how well his stuff performed? Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No listing for Fan of a Fan. Why? It's official and it "spawned" a charting song.

Consensus at WP:Discography was that mixtapes were not be included, but the song was released as a single from the mixtape. So.....

Never mind now included as consensus on WP:DISCOGS was to include tthem.

• Style

• One table is poorly formatted, and it has nothing to do with ACCESS or DISCOGSTYLE. The albums table has an empty, narrow column (approx 7px) at the far right.

I myself notice that but did not know how to get rid of it.

And yet you still nominated it instead of asking for help at WP:TABLES, WP:HELP, WP:DISCOG. Stunning. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Chris Brown singing at Brisbane Entertainment Centre 2.jpg -- Source and author are apparently [10]. However, the image is actually located elsewhere on that site, at [11]. What's worse, is it says the source is Wikimedia Commons. Copyright/ownership usage is questionable.

Substituted image.

• References

• Internationally, the single either charted at the top or inside the top ten of most other countries. -- All we can see from the table is that it charted at the top or inside the top ten of 7 other countries. Unless List of countries is grossly incorrect, 7 is not "most other countries" and, assuming there are ≈200 countries, yours is such a bold statement that it needs citing.

Done

• "Exclusive" included the worldwide hits "Kiss Kiss," featuring T-Pain, "With You," and "Forever." Same. 9 countries is not "worldwide"

Worldwide is just a general term. I was just trying to cut down on listing every single chart position. Do you have any suggestions?

Worldwide is just a general term. I was just trying to cut down on listing every single chart position, and thought it woudl fid considering it made the top ten in most worldwide markets. Do you have any suggestions?

Never mind it is now removed

• the worldwide hit, "No Air," a duet with Jordin Sparks -- I'd hardly call 51 a hit, so "worldwide" is wrong. Again, the 8 countries used is a gross misrepresentation of "worldwide"

Worldwide is just a general term. I was just trying to cut down on listing every single chart position. Do you have any suggestions?

Never mind it is now removed

• Refs 16, 31, 45, are formatted incorrectly

16 & 31 fixed, but I can't see why #45 is still showing up like that.

Ask for help at WP:CT Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Walmart and Amazon are companies, and shouldn't be italicised. "Soul Culture Media Ltd. Retrieved 2010-11-14." is a publisher and accessdate, and shouldn't be in italics. ARIA and RIANZ shouldn't be italicised.

Neither Walmart or Amazon are italicized.... Fixed other issues

• What makes ref 61 a RS?

Nothing that I know of, I can bring it up on the noticeboard I suppose, but If you insist on the removal, it can go. By it being a mixtape video, it was covered by most major sources like Rap-Up.

• Either link all the publishers/works in each ref, or link only the first one. There's a mixture right now, such as MTV and VH1 which are linked once, and ARIA and Prometheus which are linked more than once

Done

• Foreign language refs such as 19 need to say they are in a different language
• Why use chartstats for the UK when the Official Charts Company provides it?

I assumed that Chart Stats could be used in the same fashion as TOCC as it can be used in Template:Singlechart.

• For other reviewers: This is far from an in depth ref check. It's just what I noticed on first glance, so they still need looking at.

Oppose Everything besides the Lede and Prose should be easy to address, but FLC is not a substitution for WP:PR, and shouldn't be used as such. This should have gone there before it came here. The prose is far from the "professional standard" required by WP:Featured list criteria#1. Find a good copy editor if you can't write decent English, because that's what's letting this page down. Matthewedwards :  Chat  08:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - Lead is totally unsourced, coding error on Studio albums, Ref 16, 31, 45 have coding errors, Swiss is not a language, violates WP:&. How reliable is the TV Realist? Afro (Talk) 15:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead doesn't have to be sourced as long as what is said is sourced later in the article. And to be fair, most of it is. Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

• Hot 100 only goes up to 100. I'm not sure about R%B Songs...

Can't find the particular discussion at the moment but there is consensus on discogs somewhere where Bubbling 100-125 can be used as Hot 100 extensions.

[14] seems to be divided, but I won't object. If you decide to keep 'em, please put a note saying that they were BU not Hot 100.

Done

"Superhuman" is missing a note. BTW, the note says "...either the Bubbling Under Hot 100 or Bubbling Under Hot 100...". Are both called BU Hot 100?

• I have sorted music video names. Please check that there are no dab/wrong links

Wouldn't this new sorting conflict with WP:OVERLINK

• Why do some music videos have "N/A" director?

Because the music video director is Unknown. And I put "N/A" because Unknown would imply that it is completely unknown who directs the video, while "N/A" would just mean the information is not available or not accessible.

• Why isn't "Better on the Other Side" mentioned (except for videos)?
• Refs 26 + 27 should be in table headers

Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:08, 16 November 2010 [15].

Nominator(s): Mister sparky (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because alot of work has been done recently do improve formatting, sourcing, layout, info etc and we feel it's up to a high standard. Mister sparky (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restarted, old version.

• Note I have restarted this nomination because the consensus and status of various concerns was unclear. Can all reviewers please revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Still no dab or dead external links Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I was ready to support before, but forgot. Ruslik_Zero 07:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you :) Mister sparky (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I have no real problem with the list. Afro (Talk) 10:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you :) Mister sparky (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: nice discography, i think it should be a FL-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you :)

Oppose

Worried by the number supporting a list which is lacking in verifiability IMO.

• Can I ask where the numbers "(EREDV #270)", "(#0094633073623)" all that kind of stuff comes from as it isn't covered by the general references.

the cat numbers for the albums are on the occ ref and the allmusic ones. Mister sparky (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found the CDSIN... ones on The Official Charts Company not the others. For example, take the box set you have (#0094633073623) but Allmusic just has 30736. And Atomic Kitten has the Cat. No. blank[16]. Additionally, Allmusic list it as a main album not a compilation? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

allmusic lists as a main because it's an american site and it is the only album they released in america. but it's a compilation of the right now and feels so good albums. and it also lists cradle as a main album, and that was a single, so allmusic does make mistakes sometimes. and the hung medien sites also list the cat numbers. Mister sparky (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but I can't find any reference on the discog that give the Access All Areas: Remixed and B-Sides (#0094633073623) number I listed as example. Similary for others. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Music videos" section. The directors all need references.

they are. ref 42. Mister sparky (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do I sound like I was born yesterday? A DVD released in 2004 is referencing music videos that weren't even made or directed yet? Predicting the future like that, I'm suprised EMI aren't more successful... Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

very rude. and very unnecessary. Mister sparky (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't rude, or unnecessary!.WashesOverMe (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But still very unreferenced. Sorry if my you didn't like my tone but I didn't like being told something was referenced when it clearly wasn't and in a tone suggesting I was completely ignorant of where a reference might be found. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

still unnecessary. your comment makes it sound like none of them are referened, when in fact it's only 1 that isn't. but removed for now until one can be found. Mister sparky (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Cradle 2005". Access All Areas: Remixed and B-Sides "DVD Greatest Hits (Music Videos)" section has "Cradle" but not "Cradle 2005" so one of those is not referenced. Also an animated video would still have a director. By the way this has also alerted me to the fact that the release date of the box-set is a year earlier than the references say. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the cradle listed on the dvd is cradle 2005. cradle was originally an album track on the right now album in 1999, but was re-recorded and released as a charity single in 2005, hence the different name. and yes you are correct, was 2005 not 2004. Mister sparky (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you're wrong... The "Cradle" on this DVD is the original that was only released in Asia. "access all areas" is basically "Greatest Hits Live", but was only released in Asia, but has an added album which includes some remixes and B-sides, hence the title "Remixed and B-Sides"...I've added another reference, however. WashesOverMe (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then the original "Cradle" (dir. Alex Hemmings) is unreferenced then. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

changed to unknown. Mister sparky (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot just change to "unknown". That fails 3. Comprehensiveness IMO. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

then what do you suggest?! cuz this is going nowhere... Mister sparky (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference for "You Are" (UK#90) and "Anyone Who Had a Heart" (UK#77)? [17] only covers top 75.

added. Mister sparky (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference for Right Now (AUS#86), Ladies Night (AUS#67), Greatest Hits (AUS#24)? [18] only lists Feels So Good

added refs for right now and ladies night. the article does not say that greatest hits was 24 in australia. Mister sparky (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I misread AUT as AUS for that one. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have checked a very small sample of other charts which were okay (although some of the sites are not easy to navigate www.top40.nl!!) so I retain some faith, just a bit sloppy in checking everything is referenced. Please double check.

with the dutch ref you just click on the song you want to verify and it goes straight to the page that shows the chart for that week. Mister sparky (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't usually do DISCOGS but looking at Wikipedia:GOODCHARTS I don't see www.top40.nl. All the others seem okay at a glance. That wiki page isn't actually as helpful as I thought as I assume anything from HungMedian is okay although the page doesn't seem to list a lot of the websites you've used.

[wp:goodcharts] is just a guide anyways, this article uses the same websites that the majority of fl discogs do. top40.nl is the official website of the dutch top 40, you can't get more reliable than that. Mister sparky (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think allmusic may have reindexed the site. Take http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:fjfrxqujldae~T21 which redirects back to the All Saints main page but I guess is meant to go to http://allmusic.com/artist/atomic-kitten-p398542/discography/compilations. Goes for both general refs too. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes it appears they have. thanks for pointing that out. Mister sparky (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• [19] mentions nothing about the group's sales numbers

Yes it does, in the "about Liz" section. WashesOverMe (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you have to click on the "about liz" sub-section. cannot link to the actual page. Mister sparky (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but how is it a reliable source? Also it doesn't mention anything about selling 'almost' 10m. Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's the official website of one of the band members. the source says "sold 10 million records globally", the 'almost' was added due to being told to in the previous nom. Mister sparky (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to find a different source, as this primary source can interfere with WP:NPOV. Why not "about" 10 million?

• Why is the 'year' column so wide in the 'Video albums' section?

It is the same size as the rest! WashesOverMe (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is the same as the rest, no width is specified. Mister sparky (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Google Chrome the year column is massive. Can you please force the width? It seems fine on IE and Firefox. Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems Chrome has trouble here. Advice from the VP is not to use pixel widths and em or en widths instead. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

googlechrome having trouble is not my problem... Mister sparky (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note these edits by WashesOverMe are a sock of blocked user AtomicMarcusKitten. I've reinstated those remove comments in small font as the parallel edits to the list have not been reverted and this gives some explanation as to why they edits occured, also some of Mister sparky's replies were based on these comments. AtomicMarcusKittenwas formerly part of this as a joint nom. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, 'Albums' is the first section (level 2 header), but why are video albums not in here? Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

because the video albums are vhs and dvd's of live perfomances and music video compilations, not music albums. Mister sparky (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Everything looks ok, nothing I would oppose for.--AlastorMoody (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you :) Mister sparky (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Have The Rambling Man, Adabow, and Rambo's Revenge been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

they have. Mister sparky (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Why are the albums' tables formatted one way, but the rest of the discography (for eg, video albums) in another? Same goes for the "List of albums, with selected chart positions and certifications" note; why isn't it consistently used for all tables? (I'd actually prefer it if it were removed throughout)—indopug (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

new WP:DISCOGSTYLE guidelines are being rolled out sporadically. has been discussed previously in this nomination that anything related to that is irrelevant to the FLC review. however, things may have changed, as they do very often.... Mister sparky (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this doesn't seem to be formatted in line with other interpretations of WP:DISCOGSTYLE, moreover the overuse of bold text appears to be in direct conflict with WP:MOS (and, after all, featured lists must comply with WP:MOS, not a Wikiproject style guide). The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "Video albums" table so oddly formatted (e.g. year col is far too wide?) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the comment Adabow made above. I pointed out it is due to Chrome, but despite providing the nominator with a solution to the problem they have refused to implement it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, well I'm using Safari (which many Mac users will be doing) so it's not just a Chrome problem, so I suggest the nominator pulls out the finger to fix this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well maybe the nominator just can't be arsed with all this crap anymore and actually has better things to do with his time. Mister sparky (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you withdrawing the nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's userpage says he is retired, but he is still active. There have been no attempts to fix issues in the last fortnight. I suggest an FLC director pulls the plug here, as FLC is quite backlogged. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:35, 16 November 2010 (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 21:06, 9 November 2010 [20].

Nominator(s): Cohneli (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article, because it instructively exemplifies how the main relevant point of an interesting UN survey, which was ignored (and almost "lost") in the web so far, can be exhausted - verbally and visually - into a neat, well-ordered and well organized encyclopedic article, which is appropriate mainly for online encyclopedias like Wikipedia, due to its futuristic characteristics. Cohneli (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. First, this should be a featured list, not a featured article. Furthermore, text such as that under "Special cases" should have a reference to a reliable source, to avoid the impression of original research. In fact, no secondary sources are used. Last, there seems to be an article missing from the list title. Ucucha 22:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

::Re your first objection: yes, this article could also be proposed as a featured list candidate, but the list itself constitutes one chapter only, out of 8, so I think this article can also be proposed as a featured article candidate.

Re your first objection (about the "special cases"): thank you for your constructive note. I've just fixed the problem, by moving the unsourced comment to an editorial footnote.

Re your second objection (about absence of secondary source): Notice that the article uses two sources (one of which was given an external link).

Re your third obejection: Sorry, but I couldn't figure out what you mean. Could you add more details?

Cohneli (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

::#I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I think it would defeat the purpose of a separate process for featured lists to propose an article entitled "List of ..." as a featured article.

1. Original research is as bad (or good) in a footnote as in the main text.
2. Although there are several sources, all appear to be primary in that they are directly related to the UN paper. Has there been no third-party analysis of this list? If not, the list may not even be considered notable.
3. I think you need to say "by the UN". Perhaps "List of countries by projected HDI" would be even better. Ucucha 23:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::#I agree that this article could also be proposed as a Featured List candidate, but just by default, because it's more suitable for the category of Featured article candidates, and let me explain why: The separate category of Featured List candidates, is not for proposing an article whose title is "List of..." only, but rather mainly for proposing an article most of which is devoted to presenting the list. In our case, the very list constitutes one chapter only (out of 8), whereas most of the article is devoted to discussing the list, rather than to presenting it.

1. Ok, I've fixed again the problem, by re-formulating the editorial footnote. Now the footnote does not assume anything, but rather asserts what everbody should accept.
2. The article mentions two surveys: The first UN survey, that was published in April 2010, was performed by a pair of authers, one of which is Hu Difei (the other one being Beth Daponte). The other UN survey, published in September 2010, was performed by a pair of authors, one of which is Asher Jana (the other one being Beth Daponte). Note that Jana just quotes the figures taken from the first survey, but he does that for other purposes (i.e. for his "Cohort Model"). So, the first UN survey is the primary source, whereas the second UN survey is the secondary source. Anyways, thanks to your constructive note, I've just made it clearer in the article, by replacing the word "re-published", by the word "quoted".
3. Ok, I've fixed the problem, according to your suggestion.

Cohneli (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It should definitely be a Featured List candidate if an article at all. It's just republishing information available in a primary source. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Re your first comment (about the Featured List candidate): see above my response (no. 1) to Ucucha. :Re your second comment (about the primary source),

see above my response (no. 2) to Ucucha.

Cohneli (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Move to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates Fifelfoo (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Are you sure I'm allowed to move it? Cohneli (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

If you're amenable to it being moved, contact a FAC and a FLC delegate to organise it. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not sure what to make of this page, but I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be featured.

1. As Ucucha, there are no secondary sources in this page. Also, references need formatting correctly. Accessdates, publishers, publication dates, authors, etc etc
2. Moving an unsourced statement to an editorial footnote doesn't fix the problem. The statement is still unsourced. Why should everybody accept it just because you say they should? You're telling us that they made a typo. Why? Why isn't it more likely that they have it right and you've decided they made a mistake?
3. Don't use contractions such as "doesn't" in that footnote.
4. WP:LEDE section is too short. The Lede should introduce all the main points of the main body of the page
5. Background section is a bit waffly
6. "The UNDP indicates (ibid.)" -- I don't think WP does ibid referencing..
7. Small text in tables is too small
8. Where one or more entry is the same, such as Australia and Norway in the first table, instead of "1-2", use "1="
9. No need for flags per MOS:FLAG. Removing them will give you the extra space needed for increasing the text size
10. I also have the same concerns about this not being any third-party analysis. Your rebuttal seems to be that the UN is the secondary source because they've used their own papers for their information? That doesn't fly.
11. What are the UN's copyright policies. Seems we're just republishing their list here.

Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your constructive comments:

1. Re the secondary source: Note that all of Wikipedia articles about economical lists, e.g. the article List of countries by Human Development Index, and the article List of countries by GNI (nominal, Atlas_method) per capita, and the article List of countries by GNI (PPP) per capita, and many other articles, are about lists given by the UN (and by its institutions, like the World Bank), so, do you really think that all of those articles about economical lists should be deleted? Anyways, thanks to Ucucha's last comment you've mentioned, I had already improved the article (see my last response to them), thus making it clearer that the article does include a secondary source! Notice that the article mentions two surveys: The first UN survey, that was published in April 2010, was performed by a pair of authers, one of which is Hu Difei (the other one being Beth Daponte). The other UN survey, published in September 2010, was performed by a pair of authors, one of which is Asher Jana (the other one being Beth Daponte). Note that Jana just quotes the figures taken from the first survey, but he does that for other purposes (i.e. for his "Cohort Model"). So, the first UN survey is the primary source, whereas the second UN survey is the secondary source.
2. Re the editorial note: It seems like you haven't read it! Where does it "tell us that they made a typo"? This footnote does not need a source, just because everybody accepts it, since it assumes nothing ! It doesn't even assume that they made a typo! let me cite it, and try to tell me where it assumes anything, or which part of it is not accepted by everybody: "If the calculation does not involve a simple error that wrongfully replaces the first (correct) digit 9 by 8, then - according to this UN projection - Czech Republic's HDI is expected to miss 96 points (out of 903) by 2010". Do you really disagree with any part of this footnote?
3. Re "doesn't": thank you for your constructive comment, I've fixed that.
4. Re the LEDE section: thanks to your constructive comment, I've just improved the LEDE. Really, even the current LEDE is still short, however that's just becuase most of the article is about details, e.g. the details included in the very country list, or the technical details about countries not included in the list, or the technical details about probabilistic reservations, and likewise. I can't imagine which of those details should be mentioned in the LEDE, which (in my opinion) introduces all the main points of the main body of the page, i.e. excluding the details mentioned in the article.
5. Re the Background: could you be more specific? "a bit waffly" is not a constructive comment, is it?
6. Re "The UNDP indicates (ibid.)": thank you for your constructive comment, I've fixed that.
7. Re the small text in the tables: thank you for your constructive comment, I've improved that, by replacing the small headers (of the tables) by bigger ones. As for the country names, the flags help as well (they are needed, as I will explain below).
8. Re "1=" instead of "1-2": Note that "1=" is used whenever it's already known that both entries are ranked first. However, this is not our case, because (maybe) only one country is ranked first, the other one being ranked second, whereas we don't know which one is the first, because the source gives rounded values of HDI only, and does not rank the countries, except for the 2030 projection, for which the source gives an exact ranking (with rounded values).
9. Re the flags: Wikipedia does not recommend to use flags attached to personal names, and the like; However, attaching flags to country names, mainly in tables, is standard and widely accepted. In our case, using flags is even recommended, because this article belongs to a category of many other articles containing economical lists, such as the article: List of countries by Human Development Index, and the like, whereas all of those articles do use flags along with the country names.
10. Re the secondary source: see above, note no. 1.
11. Re UN's copyright policies: The UN is a public institution, belonging to all citizens of the world, and financed by these citizens' countries. As such, it permits to use any information it publishes, unless indicated otherwise. That's why Wikipedia contains many other articles about lists published by UN (and by its institutions, like the World Bank), e.g. the article: List of countries by Human Development Index, and the article List of countries by GNI (nominal, Atlas_method) per capita, and the article List of countries by GNI (PPP) per capita, and many other articles.
12. Re your claim that it "Seems we're just republishing their list here". Well, you could claim that also about the article List of countries by Human Development Index, and about many other articles mantioned above. Anyway, notice that Wikipedia doesn't quote only: It also re-organizes the data in an encyclopedic manner, e.g. by ranking the countries according to their HDI, in every table of the five, what the UN has not done.

Anyway, I thank you again for your constructive comments. You are welcome to add more comments, that may help improve the article.

Cohneli (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the "special case" of the Czech Republic, it is frankly impossible that the prediction published in the PDF is correct (this should obviously not go in the article). The country is politically stable and was less badly hit by the financial crisis than for example Hungary, which is growing nicely. To avoid original research in the article, it would be appropriate to mail those behind this list and, in case they did in fact make a mistake publish a correction, which we can then cite, or in the case that they did not in fact make a mistake remove the footnote altogether. --Aqwis (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already sent them an email a few days ago, but I haven't received a response yet. Meanwhile, as long as they haven't responded, it's most recommended to add the footnote, which avoids original research, because it doesn't assume anything, but rather refers to both options: that the calculation is wrong, and that the calculation is correct. Cohneli (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2010 (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 MBelgrano 11:39, 9 November 2010 [21].

Nominator(s): MBelgrano (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it's one of the most important lists within the Argentine topics I work with. I have checked all the entries with a related book and adressed the points mentioned at a recent peer review. I think that now it should be ready, or at least if there are further final points to adress that I haven't noticed they should be small and easy to fix. MBelgrano (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I believe theres a long list of issues with this just ones I can point to off the top of my head, inconsistent dates, the fact the key (or affiliations as its noted in the article) comes at the end of the article not to mention there is inconsistency in applying these abbreviations. There's a ton of unreferenced information in the Lead. The table for the Triumvirates is extremely confusing to the average reader also and I'd be interested to knowing why it isn't formatted like the other tables. The tables also do not have the correct sort facilities. The Retrieval dates for the references also fail WP:DATE. Afro (Talk) 13:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table for the triumvirates is formated that way because, unlike the other tables, they were triumvirates, composed of 3 heads of state working at the same time (which is explained at the lead). Horizontal order for the members of a same triumvirate, vertical for first and second triumvirate. Each file has actually four members because in each one a member left it and was replaced. I though that with the notes it would be undertood, and it would be less misleading than making 4 files of 3 members, because history books talk about 2 triumvirates, not 4. Anyway, I'm open to other suggestions. I didn't thought the lead would need much references because that's mostly trivial information, but I included more footnotes as required. I fixed the access dates as requested as well. I can improve the sort feature if needed, but is it really needed? It's a list of heads of state, I didn't thought there could be an interest to read it in another order than the cronological one. MBelgrano (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Sort feature is unquestionably in need of sorting as proved by the Presidents table, after all theres no point in having these if they can't sort, its also required they work by the Criteria. I'd also like to bring up a question as to why the start and end dates aren't separated like I've seen in other articles. The Triumvirates needs to be sorted either way as it seems out of place and the sorting function is very confusing for the table. You've fixed all but one access date. I do assume the lead needs to be referenced better if I am judging WP:LEADCITE correctly. Afro (Talk) 04:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the triumvirate section; to make it more accessible (and the rest of the article)..... Is it good enough? --TIAYN (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • Don't just write "Interim" and "Resigned" all the time; write a sentence or two on why he resigned or how he became an "Interim" leader...
  • Most of the article is left unreferenced...
  • There are more, but these two will probably take some time.. --TIAYN (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that this is a list, not a summary of history. I made a specific efford to remove or reduce all the info that goes to other divergent topics, and keep just those related to the nature or duration of the mandate in the shortest ways possible. Sometimes this simply wasn't possible (such as with the strange system of the 2003 elections), but that was the system I followed. Consider that you are asking for something like es:Gobernantes de Argentina, which lost featured status for this very reason, and I don't think this project has different ideas about this either. As for the references, I followed the system of referencing material "challenged or likely to be challenged", comments like saying that Duhalde resigned seemed very trivial to justify references. But if it's needed to reference each entry of the table, I can easily give the pages MBelgrano (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be concerned about what happens on other projects first off this isn't a good reason to leave out information on the given subject because another project decided it wasn't warranted 3 years ago, looking over the discussion page for the demotion there also seems to of been concerns regarding the POV which may of had more to do with it. Afro (Talk) 14:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can, see List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom... Either write full-sentenced or remove those one word tags which are all over the article.. They are wasting valuable space, if you are going to have space for it, use it.. If you don't want to have tags, take a look at the List of Presidents of Venezuela. Spanish wiki doesn't work the same way as English wiki, just as Norwegian wiki doesn't work the same way as Russian wiki! --TIAYN (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, this may take a while, so we can close this nomination for the time being. I would have worked on this topics before nominating if they were mentioned in the peer review, but there's no rush, and I don't want to bottleneck the featured lists nominations with an incomplete list. Just some final clarifications. Do I reference each entry, even if the content is trivial? Even if I expand from one-word sentences, do I keep the policy of mentioning just the info related to the mandate of do I give more lengthy explanations on who was each ruler and the things he did? MBelgrano (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you will have to reference the text in each entry, even if the content is trivial. In my opinion you should reference everything, just as I have done to the List of leaders of the Soviet Union, I don't think this is a 'must do thing' however. Just write to to four sentences about the country under each ruler; try to include the most important events. --TIAYN (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tips, take a look at other FL articles before re-nominating this list again. --TIAYN (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Drawing mostly from the work I've done on U.S. governor lists:
  • The Affiliations box is huge and should not be the first thing people see. Furthermore, I'm not sure it's necessary; I can't think of any U.S. politician list that included a list of every political party on it. If people want to know more about the affiliations, we have links. At the very least, it needs to be collapsed, but I don't see why it needs to be here to begin with.
  • There's no reason to stack dates and parties. Put them next to each other. Especially since you switch back and forth between formats, there's no justification for that.
  • Don't force image size; use upright.
  • IMO, if the notes are entirely how they entered and left office then perhaps they can be tagged to the dates as footnotes.
  • Not sure we need their lifetime in the table either. Again, they have links. That's not immediately relevant to the matter at hand.
• --Golbez (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 20:25, 4 November 2010 [22].

Nominator(s): --K.Annoyomous (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination before was not promoted due to lack of reviews. The reason why it didn't have any reviews was partially because it wasn't on the nominations urgently needing reviews list. If the nomination is promoted, I can get back to school work, and wikibreak until Winter break! :D --K.Annoyomous (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—no dab links, but the external links to riaa and http://junoawards.ca/database/artist-summary/?artist_name=Drake&show_details=1 are not working. Ucucha 19:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• They work on all my browsers (IE, Firefox, Chrome). --K.Annoyomous (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Both are also working for me now. Ucucha 01:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Seems a bit inconsistent. Some sections only have sources in the table, or only have them in the prose. Why? Choose one, the other, or both. Sources and grammar are good, I give my support overall once this problem is assessed and if any other reviewer has no problems with the article. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 02:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Some respective awards sites have their award winners listed on one single link, while other awards sites list their award winners by category. I can't do any of your options, because like i said, it depends on the sites that I got my sources from. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose, the table(s) in this article do not meet the requirements of WP:MOS. If you look at WP:Wikitable you'll see that tables are required to use ! scope="row"| and ! scope="col"| -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted comments for now... its fairer since I would like to see a mass change that I am making notes on the featured list talk page instead. Sorry for the disruption caused. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The colors in the infobox are annoyingly bright. Perhaps, you could exchange them for the ones used in the rest of the article?

• The infobox template is used in every awards lists. I like related articles to be consistent with others, so if you would like the colors in the infobox to change, it would be best to talk to WP:MUSIC about that. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You could certainly talk to them about it, but don't stress yourself. I'm merely pointing out a minor imperfection here. I wouldn't hold back my support just over this. Goodraise 00:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead is somewhat weak. It's less of a coherent piece of writing and more of a pile of facts grouped into paragraphs. It feels rushed and overly minimalistic.

• I agree with you that the lead is weak, and I am hoping to fix the lead when my desktop is fixed. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth, it's giving me no pleasure to bring this up in your FLCs time and time again, but I simply can't support nominations with less than exemplary prose. Really am sorry. Goodraise 00:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• References 39 through 42 are exact duplicates of reference 38 and don't appear to support what they are used to cite.

• Fixed. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goodraise 07:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• "He began his acting career in 2001 under his legal name, Aubrey Graham, playing the role of Jimmy Brooks in Degrassi: The Next Generation." - any of that cited?

• The whole first paragraph is cited by IMDB. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There is not inline (or any other) IMDB citation in this list. Additionally, iMDB is not reliable. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't be lazy with cites. For Young Artist Award you just give one home page. Cite the five places that reference the awards (also denote if won as Aubrey Graham)

• Umm...some sites do not list all their awards in different links, which is why I use the link best for the citation. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This cites nothing. You need to cite the individual pages: 1, 2 etc. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Similarly with the 2010 MTV Video Music Awards

• Similarly with the above reply. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• BET Awards cites 10–14 are dead to information not verifiable

• Could you please clarify? --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Try clicking the links! "We're sorry, but something went wrong." Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 2010 MOBO Awards nomination completely unreferenced.

• The section is referenced by the reference in the prose. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong the prose has one reference [31] which cites the 2009 MOBO noms but not the 2010 one. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "reached the Billboard Hot 100" - you reach #1 but enter the Hot 100 I think

• I believe that reached can also be used in this case. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs 38–42 the same

• Fixed. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Four Soul Train pendings need refs

• Done. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay but the prose says he recieved "three nominations". I see another as Aubrey Graham for Un-Thinkable (I'm Ready) but as they don't count it I don't think wiki should (it might be another Aubrey Graham too). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So at this stage I'm opposing. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have Rambo's concerns been addressed? I will give this a review once they are. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no replies or action on my comments (list not edited since 21 Oct). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also see now that the user has not edited either since the 20th. Oppose and request archiving, unfortunately. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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