Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/October 2009

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 12:46, 31 October 2009 [1].

Nominator(s): Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it's a solid list. Former FA candidate before there was FL Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - doesn't pass FL criteria. Lead is a bit short. No in-line citations. References not formatted properly.—Chris!_c/t 21:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Chris, does not meet criteria 1, 2, and 5b. There are plenty of images that could accompany this list but do not. Geraldk (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

Instead of telling us to see a law, link to it.

The wording is poor. Was Cabazon the only one to unincorporate, or the only one to do so in 1975?

Needs to be sortable, perhaps don't even split into multiple tables.

The asterisks should not be part of the wikilinks.

Delink the dates.

Explain why township is obsolete.

Why mention Willow Glen, et.al., if you aren't going to supply a list of defunct municipalities? I suggest adding such a list.

Oppose. --Golbez (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW oppose. The above comments are all legitimate; this list doesn't fulfill the featured list criteria. Please consider peer review as an alternative before nominating at FLC. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:49, 27 October 2009 [2].

Nominator(s): Alansohn (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it provides a detailed list of baseball players who have accomplished the feat of setting the Major League Baseball record for most runs batted in during a single inning. The American League record was set on October 4t by Alex Rodriguez of the Yankees. In addition to the raw date in the table, there is ample text provided to offer context on how the records were set. This list corresponds favorably to other featured lists of baseball topics. I will be happy to further improve this list with additional material during the nomination and will promptly address any issues raised here. Alansohn (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Images need alt text. I'll be happy to help with that if necessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments for now Support. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24_[c]

• The "Record holders" section only talks about Tatis and Rodriguez's games. Should talk about more, or if possible, all the games.
  • Done I've added details for the individuals who had set the MLB and AL records at 6, but I'm not sure that adding details of all games is necessary to back up the list. Alansohn (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The added information you inserted into the section has been written like it was only for readers who are fond of baseball. What's a doubleheader? What's a pennant? What's a 3 for 5? You should also mention the dates on which the players knocked the 6 RBIs on their respective paragraphs. More can be added, like how Juan Rivera's 6 RBIs in one inning is the only one in Canada, and how Griffith Stadium is the only park with three 6 RBIs by a player in one inning. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose from KV5

• I'm not really a fan of the first sentence; the bold looks bulky and forced. Honestly, the second paragraph may be a better way to open this list. Since 1900, there have been 17 different players who have batted in six [or more] runs in a single inning. strikes me as a good opening, followed by an explanation of what an RBI actually is, such as A batter is credited with a run batted in (RBI) when....

Drive-by comment. It would probably also be useful to briefly explain why getting more than 4 (.e. from a grand slam) in a single inning is so rare. Boissière (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Major League Baseball (MLB) leaders in runs batted in (RBI) in one inning are topped by record holder Fernando Tatís, then with the St. Louis Cardinals, who set the MLB record with eight RBI in a 1999 game in which he hit two grand slams in the third inning of a game against the Los Angeles Dodgers." - this sentence is humongous.
• "All of the teams with a player with six or more RBI in an inning have won the game, usually in a blowout, though two of the games ended up with a two-run margin of victory: The Montreal Expos defeating the Chicago Cubs 17–15 in 1985 behind Andre Dawson, and the Boston Red Sox by a score of 19–17 over the Texas Rangers with David Ortiz providing six RBI in the first inning." - another huge run-on sentence. Two corrections besides the length:

• Don't capitalize "the" after the colon
• The comma after Andre Dawson should be a semicolon, since the list is subservient to that colon

• Yankees are linked twice in the lead.
• After the first mention of a team, you need only refer to them by the team name, rather than the full franchise designation (e.g., Red Sox instead of "Boston Red Sox" after the first mention). This, of course, only applies within the prose.
• "The Washington Senators / Minnesota Twins franchise" - either link both teams together or (preferred) just keep it to The Minnesota Twins franchise. Readers who click through to that article will easily see that the Senators and Twins are the same team.
• "knocking in" RBI is very WP:JARGONy, and it's everywhere.
• "Dodger starting pitcher Chan Ho Park entered the game's third inning with a 2–0 lead, but would implode in that frame, giving up a total of 11 runs (six of them earned) on six hits, an error and 48 pitches in the inning before being relieved by Carlos Pérez who was able to get the third out of the inning on three pitches." - run-on sentence
• "Three more runs scored before Tatís would again come to the plate" - tense; everything should be past.
• What is a full count? Link, please.
• "to give Tatís the MLB record for most RBI in an inning and becoming the only MLB player to have hit two grand slams in a single inning." - two different tenses again
• "leaving him likely to come up short" - speculation, and it didn't happen. Re-word.
• "13th consecutive season of 30 home runs and 100 RBI" - "of" → with
• "deep right center" - center what?
• Totals like "5 for 6", etc., should use hyphens, e.g. 5-for-6
• "the Philadelphia Athletics scored a 16–5 win" - you don't score a win, you can record one, notch one, earn one...
• Section header: "List of players with six or more RBI in one inning" duplicates the title. "List of players" would probably be sufficient.
• "Though the current official designation of a Run Batted In was not officially set until 1920" - don't capitalize "Run Batted In".
• Column header: "Final Score" → Final score
• If every team has won the game in which a player has collected 6 or more RBI, there's no need to note that in the "Final score" column.
• Suggest condensing the "Reference" column to "Ref"; table is already crowded on 1024x768 browsers as is.
• Baseball Reference isn't a publisher. Sports Reference LLC is a publisher, and Baseball-Reference is a work.

Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

• Why is the same image in the article twice?
• I know little to nothing about baseball and was left completed baffled by this article as it does not give any indication of what a "run batted in" is. Considering that I recently saw a FLC for a football (soccer)-related subject where one reviewer insisted that text be put in explaining what a goal is, I think this article should also have to explain what seems to be quite an esoteric stat -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to clarify for your reference, Chris: the RBI is not an esoteric statistic at all; it's one of the "big 3" statistics used to judge batters in reference to the triple crown, which is one of the most respected achievements in the game. That being said, I fully agree with you that it needs to include an explanation of the statistic itself. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to clarify my comment, I didn't mean to imply that the RBI was a really obscure and little-known aspect of baseball or anything like that. The point I was trying to make (possibly very badly) was that probably 90% of people on the planet know what "scoring a goal" in football/soccer refers to, yet someone still felt that it had to be explained in a footy-related list, whereas probably very few people other than baseball aficionados would know what a RBI is, which would suggest it would be even more likely to need explanation. Hope that makes sense...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course; we're both trying to make the same point in different ways. I got it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I also think RBI should be explained at the beginning, as it will confuse a non-baseball fan like Chris. List of Major League Baseball players with 100 triples, which is currently at FLC, is a good guide for what should be attempted here. Would offer a full review, but there's already enough to do above. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Never assume, and I did. I've added a definition for RBI in the lead paragraph and explained why six or more runs would be an unusual feat for a single inning. Alansohn (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Any progress on the rest of the comments above? Giants2008 (17–14) 19:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The licensing of the images looks fine, but two of them still need alt text. Goodraise 18:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)

• The lead needs to be adjusted to comply with WP:BOLDTITLE.
• The references need to be changed to comply with WP:ALLCAPS.

Goodraise 01:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Per KV5's numerous unresolved comments above, which show that the list has substantial problems involving run-on sentences, jargon, and overuse of passive voice in the prose. As of now, it clearly fails Criterion 1 of the featured list criteria. If these aren't fixed soon, this FLC should be archived. Giants2008 (17–14) 16:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per Giants2008's comments, and my unresolved comments, I also oppose the promotion of this list in its current form. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 14:33, 24 October 2009 [3].

Nominator(s): Lightlowemon (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked on it for the past month, and a peer review has been completed where all issues were addressed and taken care of. I have compared it to other lists of similar nature and have completed it to the best of my ability, it is currently completely up-to-date. I feel it now meets all necessary criteria. Lightlowemon (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Ok just some comments regarding a few issues, i didnt read the lead or check the sources so i wont give my support to the article has been fully covered.

• Missing a references:
  • on the lead sentence in all the sections of the list
  • on the fourth note of Bleach: The Blade of Fate
  • 3rd note for Bleach: Dark Souls
  • 3rd note for Bleach: Heat the Soul 6
  • on 2nd note for Jump Super Stars
  • on 2nd note for Jump Ultimate Stars

Done one and four, removed three, do original names really need sourcing, and I did not reference the last two per the example in the One Piece video game list.--Lightlowemon (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Could there be something to add to the notes section of Bleach: Soul Carnival 2

Something added--Lightlowemon (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is multiple references for a single release date nessacary. surely if they all show the same date and are all reliable then one is sufficient

Whilst I agree, I used, as a template, the One Piece article, so I made sure to insert multiple sources, it can be easily changed though.--Lightlowemon (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Same would go for the system release. One reference would be enough to tell us that it was released in 2005 on the Nintendo DS for example.

See above--Lightlowemon (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the maximum width for a non-free thumbed image is 300px and therefore the logo should be reduced in the article. A smaller version should also be uploaded to better comply with fair use.Salavat (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shall shrink it down in the article, but the actual logo was originally uploaded by a prominent user, so should I shrink it down still? --Lightlowemon (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh you should reupload it maybe at a width of 300px, disregard the fact that the uploader is a prominent use, IMO it seems a little large. I still think those last two notes above should have a source and that some of the referencing is a bit excessive but i guess leave it up to the other reviewers to voice their opinions as its only a minor issue. Salavat (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've shrunk to 300 x 70 and I shall wait for the response of others for the sourcing, as I counted those numbers myself, there was no official source that stated outside of "various levels and stages". --Lightlowemon (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Reception toward the games has been mixed, ranging from "the best fighter"[3] to "(not) a bad first effort, but the competition is leaving this one in the dust."" Can you mention the games the quotes are referring to? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the lead edits, as well as the release date update, I missed that, I've added in the games the quotes are referring to and moved the references to the end. --Lightlowemon (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Chrishomingtang 19:52, 19 October 2009 [4].

Nominator(s): Discographer (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because...this discography is well-ready and worthy-enough of being nominated, as it is absolutely complete, entirely true of said information, and corrected of all errors, as well as much-appreciated in appearance by myself and all my peers who have helped me on this discographical project. --Discographer (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Glaring issue - Having coloured tables is a major change, as discussed here. Consensus has been reached between the main contributors of the page, but a request at WP:Discog hasn't really attracted any further edits from fellow regular discographers not involved. I propose that there is consensus seeked at both WP:Accessibility and MOS:DISCOG before we go promoting one of the most popular discographies with an against guidelines, previously unused and dominant method. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 11:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As a recent contributor to the article, I won't state whether I support or not. However, I would recommend that the nominator withdraws the nomination as the discography is still very much a work in progress. There are unsourced chart positions, the singles' certifications are incomplete, the video directors are incomplete and unsourced, the notes at the end of some of the tables are formatted differently from table to table, and the singles table doesn't follow any standard layout I've seen in a discography. There's still a lot of work to be done. --JD554 (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 02:20, 12 October 2009 [5].

Nominator(s): Hadrianos1990 ^talk 14:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think that this is very close to FL status. Hadrianos1990 ^talk 14:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – At the last FLC, two of the general references were questioned and remained as an outstanding issue at the time of archival. Considering that they have been questioned before, are replacements possible? Giants2008 (17–14) 16:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second the comment by Giants2008.BLUE_DOG^TN 02:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Add images of the players at the side of the list.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 20:18, 10 October 2009 [6].

Nominator(s): Tsange ^►talk 19:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because i feel the page is up to FL quality. Tsange ^►talk 19:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is the difference between a building and a structure? Why can't the article just be named "List of tallest buildings in Liverpool", like the articles in Category:Lists of tallest buildings in the United States? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think its optional as seen on this template Template:TBSW some list structures and buildings together and some don't. The other cities in th UK such as London, Manchester and Salford all list in the same way. Tsange ^►talk 14:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the UK featured lists are a)not up to current FL standards anymore, and b) not even consistent; for example List of tallest buildings in Glasgow. "structures" just seems redundant. I think all of those lists should be moved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status on this? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the following reasons:

1. You need to add ALT text to all images.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. The References in the Under construction section contain a lot of info that could be added to the notes section. Please add them.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Center the height, Floors, Year, Coordinates and Notes.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)done[reply]

• Please address the issues above ^ .--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose.

  Please, standardize all dates. They should be either Jul 17 2007 or July 17, 2007 or 17/07/2007 or 17-07-2007. Now all these formats are used. Ruslik_Zero 12:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)done[reply]

  • I should add that the latter two formats are not used on Wikipedia. I suggest using July 17, 2007, or 17 July 2007. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin fixing this issue. And will be using the July 17 2007 format. Tsange ^►talk 18:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as it is a UK topic, the 17 July 2007 format should be used, as that's the way dates are written in the UK -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. July 17 2007 looks awkward and is non-standard. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will use the 17 July 2007 format.done Tsange ^►talk 20:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Comment in the early 19th century when the city became one of the major importers of cotton and slaves. I have thought that slavery in Britain was effectively abolished after the Somersett's_Case and specially after Slave Trade Act of 1807. So, can you explain how Liverpool could import slaves in early 19th century? Ruslik_Zero 18:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruslik, you are absolutely right. I have fixed the problem. good job spotting it! Tsange ^►talk 18:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial revolution was at the end of 18-th/beginng of 19-th century. So, no slaves during industrial revolution. Ruslik_Zero 19:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the text. Tsange ^►talk 14:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to support. Ruslik_Zero 14:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now I'm still not convinced that the article's title is the best, and the lead sentence has not been improved. Furthermore, the lead's prose needs improvement ("outside of" redundancy, "In 1965 the Liver Building's 54-year reign ... " is a run-on sentence). Common terms such as United Kingdom should not be linked, and in general don't link words more than once in a section. Conversions are needed in the lead. What makes http://www.e-architect.co.uk/liverpool/mann_island_liverpool.htm and http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=443 reliable sources? I'm willing to withdrawn my oppose, but not until some work is done. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently had List of tallest buildings and structures in Tokyo promoted, despite its name. If ANYTHING, the articles should be named "List of tallest structures in..." because not all structures are buildings. Either way, I'm ok with the current title. --Torsodog^Talk 18:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Torsodog makes a point. All buildings are structures, but not all structures are buildings. The lede does need work. I suggest you contacting User:Raime who has worked on a number of featured tall building lists.
• The panoramic photograph should have a caption that corresponds with the scope of the article, and list each tallest building, not just 3
• Surely we should be using Title case on website names in references?
• I doubt the EL for a car park is appropriate, nor the one for the developers

At the moment I oppose mainly on the prose in the Lede. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 20:18, 10 October 2009 [7].

Nominator(s): Mister sparky (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because i have done extensive work on improving this article, its content, sourcing etc and feel its a good representation of the artists work Mister sparky (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Support (suspended Support until further comments by Matthewedwards are resolved) everything looks good.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on the whole with regard to the list until the information is verified.

Sources

• The refs are formatted inconsistently. For the Allmusic refs, you list the name of the website (Allmusic), followed by the publisher (Macrovision), and list both as unitalicized. For the other refs though, you italicize the name of the website and don't italicize the name of the publisher. This is inconsistent. On the whole, the first style is more correct. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

have un-italicised the refs. Mister sparky (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Perhaps you can fix this on your other discographies, too...? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm...hint taken. and what did you mean above by "until the information is verified"? Mister sparky (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting until someone makes sure that the info in the article matches the sources. I don't have time to do this myself, so I'm waiting for someone else to do it so I can be sure. I might get a chance to take a look later this week. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Prose in lead section needs some work:
  • "an American pop and R&B singer-songwriter, record producer,"
  • "In 2006 Ne-Yo's debut album, In My Own Words debuted" -- should have a second comma after the album title
  • "In the same week his second single "So Sick" debuted" -- commas should be inserted here, too
  • "The album has been certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America[3]" -- Missing a closing full stop

changed and gone through the rest. Mister sparky (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please include Ne-Yo: The Collection in the discography and the Infobox

it was there, just hidden. but have un-hidden it. Mister sparky (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Navbox for Ne-yo has a redlink for "Good Night Good Morning" -- can this be verified and added to the article if it's true?

yep it does exist, brandy ft. ne-yo, due out this month. added. Mister sparky (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 1 points to the overview page, but it is being used to verify US and Canadian chart positions. The actual page needed to verify is another two clicks away. Can you fix this for albums and singles, please?

fixed for albums and singles. Mister sparky (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They still point to the Overview page. You need http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=NE-YO&sql=11:fzfwxqysld6e~T5 for the albums and http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=NE-YO&sql=11:fzfwxqysld6e~T51 for the singles. Really, I shouldn't have to do this Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you're right. My apologies. It's odd, using popups, the link takes you to the overview page, but clicking the link in the ref section takes you to the right page. Very odd. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you look at the refs, they are exactly the same links that are already there. it goes to the right page when i click on it? Mister sparky (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Allmusic says "Ladies Man" is a 2009 Neyo album, but I don't see it here

yea i noticed this but the only other places i have seen it are sites like amazon, which i'm told cant be relied on, and on torrent sites. so i wasn't sure whether to include it or not. Mister sparky (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, to be honest. Surely Amazon can be used to prove something exists? I don't know. Anyway, the fact that it does exist means it should be included, otherwise it's not a complete set of items Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thats what i thought, but it previous FLC's reviewers have said sites like amazon cant be used. so i'm really confused! Mister sparky (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do u have any example in mind?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

at my very first FL nomination the Lostprophets discography, was told amazon cannot be used as a source because it is unreliable because it is a retail outlet. Mister sparky (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mixtape, don't know if that's considered an album... Play.com has it and u can use Amazon but only under certain conditions... You are using it here to display that it exists, was released and is available to the public. You can't use it maybe for track listing or saying who is featured in the Album. On Lostprophets you used it for displaying them as part of the singers in the Album, this is listed in the description which isn't reliable.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well i'll let you and matt decide whether it should be included, yes or no guys? Mister sparky (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The ref for Canadian singles shows positions for two singles on the Canadian Singles Chart, the rest are all on the Hot Canadian Digital Singles. Since our discog is linked to Canadian Hot 100, which is the Singles Chart, the other positions need verifying

replaced candian ref with billboard.com Mister sparky (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 1 doesn't verify anything listed in the "As a featured artist" section for the US/CAN charts, and I'm not about to go digging through the site to do so. Nor should we expect any other reader to do so

fixed. have removed positions that couldnt be verified by billboard or allmusic. Mister sparky (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 13 doesn't verify anything listed in that section for the German chart, either

wont let me access the german site at the mo, but will fix those when it does. Mister sparky (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

all done now. Mister sparky (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 2 doesn't verify anything listed in that section for the UK chart, either

fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Back Like That" is missing the Irish chart position

done. Mister sparky (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• All other chart positions with references have been checked and verified, and references for director have been checked and verified

thank you :) Mister sparky (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Out of interest, whyy aren't the promo vid directors wikilinked?

bcos i forgot about those, done now tho Mister sparky (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until referencing fixed and prose is worked on. You may want to look into getting it copy edited. The things I pointed out aren't the only issues Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I've stricken what's been resolved. There's still a few things left open though. and I've replied to a couple of points Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the font usually smaller than normal in Discography tables?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to be standard practice to use smaller text for the chart/country names, catalogue numbers and featured artists. I'm not a fan of small text due to WP:ACCESS issues, and quite a few FLCs from before I was director will show this as well as a few threads at WT:ACCESS. Basically I was told that it's not an ACCESS issue, because users can make the browser display text at a larger size if they need to. A ridiculous "fix" and reasoning in my opinion, but at the time it was a losing battle so I've let it go since. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why the font of song titles as featured artist should be reduced. Please put a normal font for the titles.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • reviewers always contradict each other. in other featured lists and at other reviews ive seen its always been said to make the featured artist bit in smaller text. it makes it so confusing when you get told to do different things by different people. Mister sparky (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not a big deal. I don't care that much actually and in reality there isn't that significant difference between normal and this smaller font, but if it's in some guideline then ok, leave it... My support still stands.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Under the music videos section, would Ms. Melina happen to be Melina Matsoukas? — ξ^xplicit 23:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes it would, i couldnt remember her full name. thank you! :) 23:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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 20:18, 10 October 2009 [8].

Nominator(s): NW (Talk) 02:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on this article over the past spring, and intended to featured status one day. For some reason that I can't really remember, I never really brought it through the process, and instead let it sit there. Staxringold and I were talking about FLCs earlier today, and he encouraged me to nominate the article, so I figured I might as well. So, what do you guys think? NW (Talk) 02:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I managed to cover all of your points, Diaa abelmoneim. NW (Talk) 19:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's all I can see for now. I really hate this original and archived links. There should be a switch like dead=true would make it look like it looks now and dead=false means only the original link should be displayed. I'll wait a day or two then support. Maybe I'll find something while reading through the episode summaries. I suggest you read the read a couple of times and see if you can improve it in any way, then move on to read the episode summaries since most FLCs episode summaries contain grammar and spelling mistakes.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. " However, he leaves" Is the "however" really needed there?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. "As he is driving away" "while" ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. "The episode opens with Robert Hawkins, clad in an Hazmat suit" "Robert Hawkins is clad in a Hazmat suit"--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. "Goetz, a Ravenwood unit leader, commandeers gasoline from Stanley's farm." reword (truck, bottles what??)--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I think I addressed all four concerns there. NW (Talk) 15:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. "Gray Anderson, later revealed as having left the heart attack victim to die, publicly challenges Mayor Green, who in return privately attacks him." is the event important enough to be in the summary?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. "Robert Hawkins is clad in an Hazmat suit, moving a large metal canister and other items from a small moving truck into a storage locker." why is this important event in the episode?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. "The town holds a cookout and the Hawkins family wishes to attend, but Robert Hawkins will not let them do so. " why is that important?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. "When Jake leaves, Miller tells Hawkins of an unidentified traitor " I think "about" would be better.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Type out ICBM the first time their mentioned.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Try to reduce the summaries to the bare minimum, since they have their own articles. I think 4 lines should be a maximum... --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I can't support with a good conscience right now because I think the prose is at best undistinguished. You've probably had at least one copy-editor for this list, but I must regretfully say that it needs more polishing. Spot checks of the summaries revealed logic errors, awkward sentence structure, and general wordiness. I do think the writing is saveable in the timeframe of FLC if you can find someone to polish it, which is why I am neutral right now. I have a few questions about things I encountered in my spot checks:

• Why is "Morse Code" capitalized?
• "faint news report" How is a news report "faint"?
• "Jonah attempts to drive a wedge between Jake and the townspeople before leaving." What do you mean by "drive a wedge"? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 20:18, 10 October 2009 [9].

Nominator(s): Doctor Sunshine (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Restarted, old version.

• Note I have restarted this nom, as the page was getting really long, and it was not clear what the consensus was. As a clarification, I have neither failed nor promoted this nom—that is, it is still going—and I will not because I have already supported it. This action is just for maintainence purposes. Can all reviewers please restate their opinions and list whatever concerns they have left? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Because Otis rocks. Also because it meets the FL criteria or whatever. Drewcifer (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. As far as I can tell, all issues have been addressed appropriately. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per 5(a): ...it has a minimal proportion of red links. I'm not a big fan of this clause myself, but it's explicitly in the criteria. There are two solutions, neither amazing (which is part of my distaste for it) - either you make at least nominal articles for each of the red links, or you delink them. I don't really see a way around this, and as I said before, I'm not a fan of it, but the criteria are the criteria. (As far as debating this issue, this should be done on the criteria's talk page, and not here.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I made a pretty good case for removing that clause and I will bring it up on the criteria's talk page once this nomination closes—a touch more precedence can't hurt. In the meantime, minimal is not a definite number nor rough percentile, it's the least possible. And following the WP:REDLINK guideline none of them should be removed as every linked name and title fits the context, is notable and may plausibly be created. Intuitively, "minimal" sounds like it should be less than 300 but what's the minimum number of meals you've eaten in any given year? Unless you were born after September or are Mahatma Gandhi chances are it's never dropped below that number. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take minimal to uncontroversially mean - at the least - less than 50%. As I said, I'm not a fan of the criteria, but I'm not going to abrogate it either. If you have a bone to pick with regard to this, overt attempts to subvert the criteria via nominations are not the proper venue. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's best to discuss the criterion (which I don't like either) on WT:FLC rather than on an individual nomination page. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take "minimal" to mean not a particular number or percentage, but something like "the least amount necessary". Dictionary seems to concurr: "constituting a minimum... the least possible" These are all films produced by major studios with notable personnel involved. They are notable films, and we should have articles on them. Red-linking these notable films is "minimal" and necessary, to show that we still need articles on these films. The Red link may inspire other editors to work on these, while a no-link gives the false impression that this list is a closed portal, i.e., that Wikipedia is "complete" in regards to this list, that it doesn't need articles on these notable films. Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Less than 50% is a minority, not a minimum. I know it seems like I'm contorting the spirit of the law, which would appear to be "red link hate" as David Gerard put it, but I believe as it stands the clause is a compromise to keep both sides happy by at least mentioning red links without damning them altogether. If that doesn't work for you I can only suggest WP:IAR—as removing them would be detrimental to the project and writing that many stubs would be detrimental to my mental health and by proxy the project—and we'll let it rest for the moment. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status of Girolamo's oppose? Has he been asked to revisit? If there are disagreements over a specific criterion, can someone begin a discusson about this at WT:FLC ASAP? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From his contribs, it looks like he's probably been busy or away the past couple days. If he doesn't revisit this by tomorrow or remains unmoved I'll go ahead and start a WT:FLC or WT:FL? discussion on the criteria. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the red link criteria discussion here. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Format fine, all info checked out good. (If I might be allowed to grumble: Red links to notable subjects are a good thing. They show us where more addition of content is needed. As such, I take "minimal" to mean, "the least amount necessary". These are all films produced by major studios with notable personnel involved. They are notable films, and we should have articles on them. Red-linking them is necessary, and "minimal". The fact that we don't have articles on them yet is not a reason to punish this list. If anyone should be punished, it's those who spend all their time here removing rather than adding content, when there is so much more to be added-- Next time you see someone whose only purpose here is to delete articles on a verifiable, real topics, this would be a very good list to point them to for some constructive work. "Blue-link a few of those films." Speaking of which.. I also find it perplexing that "Consensus" at about 51% / 49% is good enough to delete an article, but that one oppose is not enough to promote one...) Anyway, good job, Doc! Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I have suspended this nomination while the red link criterion RfC is active. This means that the nomination will be neither promoted nor failed during this period. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd been meaning to ask about that. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (5a) it is a sea of redlinks. The RfC was closed after two weeks by our FL director as no-consensus to change. I know Dr Sunshine re-opened it, but that is IMO largely because this FL is hanging on the outcome rather than because the debate is worth continuing. One other less critical point is that since the list is composed from three general references (and, I believe, not capable of being supported by just one -- which is worrying in itself since if they are reliable sources they should also be comprehensive) then a list of this size really must indicate which source was used for which entry. Colin°^Talk 16:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, you don't know me and your track record for guessing my motivations has proven consistently wrong, so, I don't know why you keep doing it. Red links are a tiny issue, I would agree with that, but it's obviously a debate worth continuing as it's been a thorn in FLCs side for some time. Second point, I'd originally considered that but given the small amount of exceptions it's not worth the clutter. Thanks for following me here from the RfC though. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have now two option: Delink most redlinks or create all stub articles with an imdb link and "Is a film released by XX and directed by Takeo Kimura".--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:53, 1 October 2009 [10].

I would like to withdraw my nomination for this, as it now qualifies as an article rather than a list. Ophois (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Ophois (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it now meets the criteria for a featured list. Ophois (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is there no production section? Recently promoted FLs, such as Seinfeld (season 2), and Desperate Housewives (season 1) , have them. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed as "Crew", as I based the article on the season articles of Lost, such as Lost (season 2). Ophois (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But is there no info about the filming, how the settings were determined, the scriptwriting etc? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do any lists? Looking through them such as for Veronica Mars, Lost, The Office, 30 Rock, that really isn't included in any of them, save for a couple lines here and there. Ophois (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if it's required, then I'll try and find some stuff on it, but it doesn't seem to be judging by other articles. That said, I will look into it. I should have some stuff that can be added. Ophois (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those lists were promoted a while ago and don't necessarily meet current FL standards. Those which I mentioned originally are better examples. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Highlander: The Series (season 2) is also a good example. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added in more production details.Ophois (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a more detailed look at the article when I have time (which may not be anytime soon). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb, as I pointed out in my comment below, what you are asking for is something that would turn this list into an article. The reason most season pages are "lists" and not "articles" is because 90% of their information is lists of information in prose form. The "Production" is typically (1) repetition from the main page (2) a list of the crew members who worked on the season (3) a list of the filming locations (maybe). If you start getting into how the season was truly produced (writing, filming, SFX if applicable) then you're getting into "article" territory because you're turning the page into primarily true prose information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#First_season_production_vs_TV_series_Production--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Based on the type of production info on this season page, why is it still listed as a "list" and not an article. Obviously, it would need some expansion to be "comprehensive" enough for FA, but the type of production info on the page is about the production of episodes (whereas with list pages like Desperate Housewives and Lost all you're really getting is a list of producers for the show). Based on the production that is being added, it doesn't seem appropriate to call this a "list" any longer. Also, why are the episodes last? This is a season page, and you'd think that something that is more connected to the season (i.e. the episodes) would be first. I've never understood the tendency to put those last on these season pages. Film pages don't do that, and I don't believe that the episode articles do that either (at least not the ones I've seen).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When it was nominated it wasn't that long. Most of the featured season list are structured that the Episode list comes before the DVD release after Cast, Production and Reception. I guess the rest of seasons followed. Maybe if Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/Style_guidelines#Parent.2C_season.2C_and_episode_article_structure had articles/list it would be seen as a guideline and practiced throughout the Seasons articles/lists. IMO the current production, Cast, Reception, Episodes arrangement is better because the Episodes list is really long and in lists general info should be before the main list. I think if the production section of this article gets expanded it can be nominated as featured article.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, but WP:MOSTV lists it in a different order. The fact that the "list is long" shouldn't negate the fact that the article is about those episodes. Plot information is supposed to provide context to the real world information. If the plot comes after the real world information, then you have no context. You'd force people to have to read your production info, have no idea what the episode in question is about, and then have to wait till the end just to find out. Whereas, if it's first, it's already there to read. If they don't want to read it, we have a table of contents that will zip them right past it. But organizationally, putting the plot info last is actually wrong. It's like trying to explain what an omelet is before you've explain what an egg is.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess you're right. All of the season articles/lists should be changed to have the plot/episode list first. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the production section has expanded already, I think it would be better to have them in subsections. Ophois (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It would be better if it would have subsections. It needs however more expansions from Supernatural (TV Series).--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on soon creating an article for the pilot episode, so any non-series specific info in the main article would go to that page, IMO. What else would there be to include? Ophois (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supernatural_(TV_series)#Music has some info about Season one episode Dead in the Water. If you could find more info about specific music of episodes would be nice.

• You've added a Music section with a list of Rock songs used in the Season, which is pretty good. What's the reference used for the songs? And is there any production notes for this.

Yeah, it's from the companion guide. I don't really have many production notes for the songs, although I will look for them. There is a lot of info about the score, though, which I'm adding now. Ophois (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comparing with Smallville (season 1) the book reference can have all the information ISBN and so on in the first used reference and doesn't need to have a general subsection of References.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to be careful with that music subsection. Per "Things to avoid", a simple listing of the featured music is discouraged. The only need to list a specific song for an episode (or the season) is when you have commentary to back it up. Otherwise, it's just an indiscriminate list. For instance, providing commentary on why AC/DC was chosen for the pilot. IMDb already keeps those extensive lists for us. Also, music should be part of the production section, since it's part of the process of making an episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are are articles with lists of just songs. The Guitar Hero franchise has featured lists that merely contain the songs in the game.Ophois (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying that I agree with that type of page, but that's an entire page just about those songs and it's also and completely different WikiProject. For Guitar Hero, you're talking about a game whose sole purpose is about those featured songs. That isn't the case with TV shows (unless you're talking about Remember The Lyrics, or whatever it's called). It was decided awhile ago that listing "featured songs" on TV related sources had no real encyclopedic purpose, unless there was commentary on why those specific songs were picked.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the list turned into an article that is actually well written and is just a bit shy of Featured quality. I suggest you do a peer review in which case I can continue reviewing the article, getting it ready for FAC. You have a lot of resources available to fill the comprehensiveness criteria of the FA. This includes information about the music production of Faith episode and general info about music in the Season. You seem to have access to two companion books which give a lot of detail regarding the Season production.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, peer review sounds good. Thanks. Ophois (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What else do you think it needs? Ophois (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It generally needs expansions in the production and cast sections. In the cast it needs: How the characters developed and why these actors were chosen for the specific role. The production section's subsections need expansions, you are detailing 22 episodes... Info about writing, mythology, filming locations and music of key episodes needs adding. Were there any visual effects used in the episodes? Special filming techniques of key episodes... Comprehensiveness means all the info available and accessible about the season should be in the article.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I was looking over the article (looking good btw), and I saw the "Cast" section. From what I can see, it appears to just regurgitate plot info about the characters. Unless there is some casting info to put in there (in which case it should probably be under "Production") I think it should probably be removed. You can put the actors' names next to their characters in their first appearance in the episode section, or just identify them all in the lead.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of including some paraphrased casting information from the main article. Ophois (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that article needs it, then go for it. Right now, the section as it stands isn't really needed because it doesn't have any real information that isn't already in the episode section (or should be there).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• IMDB is not generally considered a reliable source. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the closest thing to a reliable source I could find for that.Ophois (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than finishing off the score and cast section, I think the article has been expanded as far as it can. Ophois (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb cannot be cited as a reliable source. The only time it's ever acceptable is when someone points to it. I don't mean someone saying, "I read on IMDB", but for instance the Golden Reel Awards website will point to IMDb's award lists for their awards because they don't keep a comprehensive list of archive awards. Other than that, it's not to be used.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know of any websites that list the nominations for Teen Choice Awards?Ophois (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd look at the Smallville pages for the years that you need, because it typically get nominated/wins Teen Choice Awards each year.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one for 2006 only links to the winners.Ophois (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that means they didn't win anything in 2006. I'll see if I can find you a 2006 nomination link.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this link. It's a translated webpage where they talk about the 2006 Teen Choice Awards. I see that Supernatural was nominated.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfect. Thanks. Ophois (talk) 10:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mind looking over the writing and effects sections?Ophois (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look when I get a chance, but I think the whole article needs a thorough copy edit that will take some time. A couple of other things: Why include the "story by" in the writing credits. Those credits are largely irrelevant because they didn't actually "write" the episode just came up with the story. Also, I don't think we need the "series" number for season 1 given that it's season one and the season number is the series number.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the companion guide lists people who came up with the story as "writer". As for the numbering, yeah, I guess it's fine if the numbers are removed. Ophois (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "Crew" section is probably okay to be removed. Unless these people are restricted to just this season, chances are they are just the people that have always run the show (i.e. it's something that would probably be identical on every season page, with minor changes here and then when someone new comes in). We don't need a list of the executive producers, and the writers and directors are all listed in the episode table. If anyone important is listed there then they'll probably be mentioned somewhere else in the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: What is the purpose of the "Legend" section of the episode table? The plot section already identifies the legend, so it seems redundant to list it all by itself there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It makes it easier for browsing, and other articles like the Lost episodes use a similar format. Ophois (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Browsing what? If you don't have any idea what the show is about then you won't understand the format. I don't know what Lost does it either. It's redundant to the plot section. Also, how does it make it easier to browse? The legend list isn't in the table of contents, so it isn't like you can see a name and zip right to the plot section it appears in. Given that all the legends are identified and linked in the plot, they tend to stand out already.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. I guess they can be removed, and just link the stuff within the plot section.Ophois (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Article is pretty much finished content-wise.Ophois (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is information from http://www.mania.com/supernatural-music-christopher-lennertz_article_51827.html that isn't in the article, like the music of "Faith".--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added in more stuff from it. Ophois (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ophois should probably go ahead and denominated this FLC, as we've been carrying on here instead of on the article talk page like we should have (given that it seems agreed that we move this to full "article" status to get it read for an FAC.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do I just delete it from the list?Ophois (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, an Admin takes care of the actual process. What you need to do is put a note at the top of the page requesting that the process by closed--that you are withdrawing the nomination--as the page no longer reflects that of a "list" but an "article".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:42, 6 October 2009 [11].

Nominator(s): Remurmur (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, all of the issues brought up during the list's previous nomination were addressed, but discussion died down too quickly and nobody changed their votes. Remurmur (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "the summer of 2006" It's winter in half the world.
• The image needs alt text per WP:ALT. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• Check the toolbox, there are many dead links.
• There are inconsistencies. For example, ref 9 has periods in between the URL and publisher, and between the publisher and access date, while ref 27 does not. Basically, the inconsistencies stem from the fact that cite templates are used for some refs but not from others; please make this consistent.
• Spell out all abbreviations in the publishers.
• Preferably, citations to publications such as Billboard and Spin should have the name of the publication as the publisher rather than the name of its website. For example, ref 15, which is currently formatted as "Billboard album positions". billboard.com. Retrieved April 12, 2009. should preferably be "Billboard album positions". Billboard. Retrieved April 12, 2009.. Same goes for Spin, Variety and Allmusic (but note that Allmusic is not italicized because it is a website).
• Web refs should not have their titles in all caps, even if it were like that in the original. Change them to title case.
• What makes http://www.director-file.com/gondry/news/?p=207 reliable?
• Likewise http://www.mvdbase.com/tech.php?last=Gardner&first=Tony? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose there's no action to resolve Dabomb's comments above, plus:
  • There's no ref for Canada's chart positions
  • There's no ref for Belgium's chart positions
  • Strongly suggest to ask one of the members of the WP:DISCOG to review this list

--Cheetah (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:42, 6 October 2009 [12].

Nominator(s): EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 22:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is complete! I was annoyed when it was demoted because it was the lead article of a featured topic I nominated, but since then I have brushed it up and want to restore the topic "Gwen Stefani albums". Constructive criticism welcome; I will try to resolve any issues as soon as possible. EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 22:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Not really sure what shape it was in when it was demoted, but I still see alot of problems. Alot of MOS:DISCOG stuff in particular:

• MOS:DISCOG recommends a limit of 10 chart columns. I think you've got 11 here. Done
• The chart columns also need to be in this order: home country first, then alphabetical by English name. Done
• Why are the formats small text? Just abbreviate the formats (CD, CS, DD) if you're worried about space. Done
• The two music videos that are missing directors could probably go. One was never released (and therefore doesn't really belong in a list of works released), and the second was only shown during live performances? (The note is a little unclear about that). I don't think I'd really call that a music video, more like a visual accompaniment. And the fact that it's 3 or 4 songs leads me to the same conclusion. Done
• Some of the directors have multiple citations. Only one is necessary. Done
• Most of the country-specific chart websites are published by Hung Medien. So that needs to be there. Done
• It would be nice to see some more consistency in the width second column from the left. I have little-to-no table-fu. The second column is wrapping around the song titles. It doesn't look that bad.
• Some general references are needed. A la Yeah Yeah Yeahs discography. Drewcifer (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Done as an external links/general citations section[reply]

Will get to work on the other stuff. Thanks for the comments. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 00:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished all that you've mentioned and will have a look at MOS:DISCOG. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 00:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 00:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support the list was improved to meet FL Criteria and is of high quality.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The music videos table is a bit lacking. The three consecutive Sophie Muller videos could be consolidated into one cell spanning three rows, and you really should have another column showing which album the videos were taken from. In my opinion, that is. Seegoon (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in other FL reviews i have participated in, having the albums column with the video is strongly discouraged because its perfectly clear what album the songs belong to from the singles table. Mister sparky (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I have merged the Sophie Muller cell across 4 rows and, yes, it does look better. I haven't added an album column in because I think it's unnecessary (per what Mister sparky said) and I can't see a recently-featured discography-FL with albums in the video section. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 14:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Things change at FLC/MOS:DISCOG. It was only a quibble anyway – I support this fine-looking article. Seegoon (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• What makes aCharts reliable?
• The BPI link is dead. Fixed
• Ref 34 is missing a publisher and access date. Fixed
• Ref 37 is missing an access date. Fixed
• Spell out ARIA in the publisher. Fixed
• Ref 12 needs a publisher. Fixed Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page on acharts explains why Music Square redirects to acharts - they are published by Music Square, just on a separate website. That page also has a section on acharts being used as a reference on Wikipedia. WP:GOODCHARTS lists acharts as reliable for certain charts. I haven't used any unofficial charts in the page. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 00:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Personally, I do not believe that acharts is a reliable source for reasons that I have stated numerous times in the past, but rather than start a firestorm over it, I will remain neutral on this FLC and allow others to debate over it if necessary. The other attributes of the list that I really looked at (formatting, lead) seem fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The changing colours in the "Music videos" section are a tad distracting, since there are some cells that use rowspan. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Music Square references all appear to be broken. Also, I'd like to hear why the nominator thinks that aCharts is a reliable source for the information referenced. Goodraise 01:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the website is broken. I can't help that. A message on the page says the server will be back in a few days; it worked when I took information from the site. See paragraph above and WP:GOODCHARTS for why aCharts is a reliable source for the charts I have used. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 14:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already looked at WP:GOODCHARTS and read the paragraph above. What I'm still missing is a rational as to how aCharts meets WP:RS for the information cited. Goodraise 14:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the information from aCharts in the lead is only to give a general impression of how each single performed; raw data is taken from Hung Median. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 14:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see your comment. Sadly, I can't give you a decent answer until I can see the website again, except that concensus at GOODCHARTS has accepted it. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 14:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if GOODCHARTS has accepted it, which by my understanding of the page is only partially true, that doesn't mean that I have to accept it as well. In any case, I'm not going anywhere. I can wait for however long you need to come up with a decent answer. Goodraise 23:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:42, 6 October 2009 [13].

Nominator(s): 03md 22:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I took it to Peer Review a couple of months ago where I acted upon all the points raised. I have improved the list and kept it up to date. I feel it is ready for FL. 03md 22:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done 03md 00:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments by --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Popstars is a British television programme that ran for two series." doesn't make sense to me. It's either ran for two seasons or it's not a programme but a franchise or something. And is it British or international? according to Popstars it's international.

   • The franchise is international but this article deals with only the British programme, which ran for two series (Popstars and Popstars: The Rivals). I have slightly reworded the lede - should the article name be changed to List of music releases from Popstars (UK) contestants

2. The link "Popstars (Series 1)" is probably more like "Popstars"?

   • The link is to a specific page on series 1 which has not been created, like there is a page for Popstars The Rivals.

   It should be Popstars (UK series) and not "UK series 1". Please change it to that. I suggest creating a stub article about this series so that readers who don't know anything about it, like me, could know what it's about. Please also explain in the first paragraph its relation to the international Programme.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Please reference everything in paragraph 1 of the lead.
   1. The Lede isn't referenced yet, why is that?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. I think you should split Series 2 from Series one in the sections Singles and Albums.

   Do you mean separate tables or grouping all the series 1 releases together in the same table?

   I mean creating two tables one for season 1, and one for 2. Each under a Subsections of Albums and Singles.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I have addressed 1 and left some questions. 92.6.154.189 (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - why is Darius Danesh only mentioned in passing in a footnote and his releases not included in the tables? He wasn't a finalist, fair enough, but then neither were the Cheeky Girls and yet their releases appear in the tables..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I think they should be added. Let me know if there are any other contestants that I have forgotten. 03md 21:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• The image needs alt text per WP:ALT.
• "Despite this initial success and hiring a new member when Kym Marsh left, the group split a year after formation." The part about hiring a new member seems largely irrelevant, and disrupts the flow of the sentence.
• "the girls finished on top and debuted at number one, and the boys debuted at number two" It's not clear who the "boys" and the "girls" are.
• "have become one of the most successful female groups in the United Kingdom" Cite for this claim?
• "the singer who missed out on a place in Girls Aloud" What do you mean by "missed out on a place"?
• Some of the footnotes are unsourced. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • The "UK peak chart position" column should be narrowed.
  • Most of the cited "shart stats" pages for the rows do not include release date information. Where is that coming from?
  • Most of the statements in the "Other releases" section are unreferenced. Why aren't they included in the tables?
  • Could you create a page for the PopStars series 1? It doesn't have a page, which seems like a big oversight, especially when the second series has one.
  • "Girls Aloud, in contrast, have become one of the most successful female groups" - Unsourced POV.
• -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist the list was nominated for a month and the user hasn't addressed various issues. I suggest delisting this candidacy. The user can renominate after the suggested improvements.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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