Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/October 2012

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 15:44, 28 October 2012 [1].

---

Nominator(s): ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC) and User:25 Cents FC 19:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is a comprehensive list of cities in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, 67 cities with a population over 100,000 people. For anybody wanting to explore the cities in the state this is an excellent starting point, order by population size, and just by viewing the list alone will familiarize yourself with a lot of the names. The data is all sourced to latest census figures and I believe it is sound as a featured quality list with relevant background info, map and photos of the larger cities. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose

1. Map is wrong. Lucknow and Kanpur are not that apart. They are just 70 kms from each other.
2. Photograph of Kanpur (the biggest city)?
3. "The Himalayas lies in the north of the state and the Deccan Plateau is at the south". Deccan Plateau to the south? wrong. Deccan Plateau is far away not just south of Uttar Pradesh.
4. "Uttar Pradesh can be divided into two distinct regions, Southern hills and Gangetic plain" - Citation needed.
5. "The central and western regions are densely populated regions of Uttar Pradesh" - Source needed, and I believe that this is completely wrong.
6. The Legend at the bottom of the table says "CT=Census Town". There is no mention of neither "CT" nor "Census Town" in the article.
7. The Type column in the table is unsubstantiated. I believe it is wrong. Areas in India are classified into 4 types:Municipal Corporation/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayat/Gram Panchayat. Refer File:Setup of India.png. In this case, I guess the last two categories may not come into play.
8. The "Census of Uttar Pradesh" section does not look relevant.
9. Biggest Blunder - The population figures in the table doesn't match with the source.

--Anbu121 (talk me) 21:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Whats a "city" by the way? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 21:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• My biggest and primary concern with this list is that the title reads "List of cities in Uttar Pradesh" and lists populations of urban agglomerations. This overlaps with "List of urban agglomerations constituents in Uttar Pradesh". Also is there a specific criterion for defining a city
• "borders with National Capital Territory of Delhi?" I don't think so, many area like Ghaziabad, Noida and Meerut belong to UP, although they come under the NCT
• The first five lines in the lede are unsourced
• "under 18 divisions" is not verified by the source
• "The central and western regions are densely populated regions of Uttar Pradesh. As of 2011, 67 cities in the state had a population of over 100,000 people" unsourced
• "The sex ratio as of 2011, at 908 women to 1000 men, is lower than the national figure of 933", ditto
• Is there is a source that explicitly states, "Because of both a large population and a high population growth rate, Uttar Pradesh figure among the list of states with large number of people living below poverty line"
• 199,581,477 million?
• "Kanpur is the largest city with 1,640 square kilometres (630 sq mi) area having an approximate population of over 3 million which comes under Kanpur Metropolitan Area". This needs clarity, as it's impossible to have such a huge area for an Indian city. The 1640 figure corresponds to the area of the Metropolitan area
• The first two lines of the second para in "Census of Uttar Pradesh" are unsourced
• There is a mix of data representation between million and lakhs. Be consistent
• Ref #12 is leads to the 2001 district data
• Ref #10 leads to district data and ref #11 corresponds to 2001 town data
• Why is " Government of India" italicised in refs
• PDF refs needs the format to be specified
• Ref #9 needs formatting
• Cats need to be sorted alphabetically
• Above all these are just provisional population figures and the final results are yet to be released

• The biggest problem is that there is factual inaccuracy and data mismatch. Given the number of concerns, I may have to oppose this list at the moment.
  

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments as well as the above:

• "Uttar Pradesh can be " followed by "Uttar Pradesh is divided" is repetitive.
• You repeat "Uttar Pradesh" five times in five sentences, this isn't elegant prose.
• " with 1,640 square kilometres (630 sq mi) area " grammatically weak. Perhaps "with an area of..."
• "over 3 million " -> three million.
• "2001–2011" (see WP:YEAR) vs "r 2004-05" (see WP:DASH as well).
• "The sex ratio" normally we'd refer to this as gender wouldn't we?
• "high population of state have" do you mean "has..."?
• "The Scheduled castes and Harijans are also exits in state" I don't know what this sentence actually means.
• What is BPL?
• What is "lakh people"?
• What is the context for it being "the largest BPL population"?
• Your gallery section is called "Cities and towns", this is about cities right?
• You need to be clear up front about the inclusion criteria for this list, not embed it somewhere in the middle of the lead.
• When sorting the table, the final row (which has a colspan of 30, not sure why) is included in the sort and therefore breaks it.
• Tables need to comply with WP:ACCESS for row and col scopes for the benefit of screenreaders.
• Literacy Rate -> Literary rate.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was a nom for 25 who asked for me to nom it. I added the map and the table and background made it seem a worthwhile candidate. Feel free to close this AFD, its clearly faulty. A shame none of you brought this up in the peer review..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two points from me. (1) It's an FLC, not and AFD. (2) I wasn't invited to participate in the peer review. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry RM, wasn't referring to you, I was referring to the others, I thought this was advertised at WP:India noticeboard.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't. --Anbu121 (talk me) 15:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, I hope he doesn't do that again, sorry that you weren't alerted in such an obvious place to ask for input.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above. TBrandley 14:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to close this FLC, its clearly faulty...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:01, 28 October 2012 (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 NapHit 14:01, 27 October 2012 [2].

---

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally decided to nominate a non-baseball list for once. I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly and meets all 6 criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question any reason for this to be a stand-alone list and not part of Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The previous embedded list in the Archdiocese article was unsourced and contained only the incumbent's name and tenure in years. Since this list contains more details about every archbishop (e.g. the "Notes" section and the lead), I think this merits to be a standalone list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, but only eleven entries. I don't think this would be UNDUE in the main article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the rule of thumb at least 10 entries to qualify for FL? That was an early sticking point in this FLC I nominated. And from that precedent, all that is required is that the entries have substantial information about themselves. The addition of the "Notes" section satisfies that requirement. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually would have supported that one as there was no good place to merge it. This one... if consensus is that this is solid enough to stand on its own, look for a fuller review from me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. And thank you for expressing support for the 20–20–20 club list. I tried to get it passed, but too many users thought it failed criteria 3b (and then gave ridiculous ideas of where to merge it into). —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - if we want this to be a really useful standalone list, then let's talk about the Archbishops. I want to see more info in their notes, not just "appointed" and "resigned" which effectively is already in the From and Until columns. Specifically:

• "He is in charge of looking after..." reads a little colloquially, "He is responsible for ..."?

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You could link Archbishop of Vancouver in the lead.

• Unfortunately, there's no separate article for that. Only this list specifically covers the subject in question. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reason why " Vicariate Apostolic " is capitalised?

• It's a proper title, the ranked lower than a "Diocese of..." or an "Archdiocese of..." —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems odd that Vancouver is linked only midway through the second para of the lead.

• Done. Linked at the very first sentence. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Avoid that bold linking per WP:CONTEXTLINK. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And then linked twice.

• Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "present" messes the sorting up.

• Sorry, but I'm not sure what I should do with this. Should I remove the sorting, or replace "present" with another term (could you suggest a word?). —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's just that using text in a column which you expect to sort by number is problematic. "present" is fine, but it needs to sort later than any other year in chronological order... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• How should I do this? —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:YEAR for format of year ranges within a century.

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments "He" in second sentence should be "the person", perhaps I think "He" is better as it is more specific (and more appropriate, since the position can only be held by a male). —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Eleven" should be "11" per WP:MOSNUM It states "numbers greater than nine, if they are expressed in one or two words, may be rendered in numerals or in words". Since this number only entails one word, I prefer the word format (IMO it is more formal). —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "List of Ordinaries" header is a violation of MOS:CAPS, ordinaries should be in capitals The word "Ordinaries" is already in capitals. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] What's the reasoning for the color of the table, should it even be there, what's the reasoning. Looks a lot like a WP:ACCESS and WP:COLOR violation, but not really much of color The color purple is utilized for ecclesiastical positions per precedent in FL List of Archbishops of Canterbury (though I'm not sure whether it is still up to date). —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Ref(s)" is missing period dot at end Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Categories should be sorted in alphabetical order Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] TBrandley 18:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I hate to do this, as the list otherwise is a worthy candidate. However, in my opinion the list clearly fits into the scope of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver article. If you can whirlwind around and bring out more context and size, I am more than willing to reconsider. Given sufficient size, a list of archbishops is inherently within range of the bronze star. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Request for withdrawal – already 2 oppose votes, both which say I should expand the list. However, there really isn't much I can add further to it, since all the bios of archbishops are in the individual articles linked. Given these circumstances, I would like to kindly request the withdrawal of this FLC. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2012 (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 NapHit 18:01, 21 October 2012 [3].

---

Nominator(s): Jona^{talk to me} 20:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because...it received copy-editing from two users (one from GOCE) and two PRs. I believe it is now ready to be a FL =). Best, Jona^{talk to me} 20:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ΛΧΣ21™ 23:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

;Sources comments FN#11 is missing most parameters, which would be these: Billboard, Nielsen Business Media/Prometheus Global Media, Issue N°1, ISSN 0006-2510. I see several Billboard references without the publisher, and other with it. (e.g. refs 21 to 23) FN#16 work? publisher? something? I see several Allmusic works wikilinked and other not. Same for its publishers. FN#41 is missing the accessdate, publisher, year and ISBN. All of them are available at the link. Try not to mix both types of references, as they may seem confusing. — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] I believe I have fixed them all. Best, Jonatalk to me 22:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] FN#28 has no accessdate FN#7 to 10 have a different date format. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] All done. Thanks again for the review. Best, Jonatalk to me 01:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments No image? There is no free images of her. Jonatalk to me 01:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Uses or stuff inside the table should by used with scope="row", rather than col Done Jonatalk to me 01:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "List of albums, with selected chart positions, sales and certifications" missing something? This applies to all, (eg: the one in the studio albums section, needs "studio" in the caption) Done Jonatalk to me 01:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Allmusic should be AllMusic Done Jonatalk to me 01:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Why do some references have publishers and some don't? Use the same method for each please. Done Jonatalk to me 01:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Don't use double quotes in quotes/references, per WP:MOS, as in ref. 40, 44, etc. Those don't have periods that were manually added. Jonatalk to me 01:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Categories should be sorted in alphabetical order Done Jonatalk to me 01:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Any external links? Done Jonatalk to me 01:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] More TBrandley 00:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Lead is a it big per WP:LEAD, i would expect three paragraphs for a discography, certainly not four fairly chunky paragraphs, I would try and cut down on this as best you can Not done per Mariah Carey albums discography (longest para has 12 lines, includes four paras) and Madonna albums discography (longest para has 13 lines). Jonatalk to me 23:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] As TRM states below, the lead is too long, lengths of other articles is not relevant here, we are talking about this one. For the size of the list it is simply too big. NapHit (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Done Jonatalk to me 18:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] I am really not a fan of sentences starting "In..." try and re-jig the sentences where this prefix is used. Done Jonatalk to me 23:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "In 1989, Selena began recording music for her self-titled debut album, which was released in October 1989." This a prime example of where that prefix is not needed. Remove it altogether as the sentence works without as you state when it was released, having two mentions of 1989 is redundant. Done Jonatalk to me 23:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Dreaming of You sold 175,000 copies its first day of release, a record for a pop singer." Firstly, its first day of release is port grammar. Secondly, is the claim it is a record for a pop singer correct? I'm not convinced surely more recent releases will have sold more? The fact the source says making her THEN one of makes me question this even more I'm only going what Billboard and other high-quality reliable sources tells me. Most music fans already know that record has been beaten but at the time Selena held the record and I do not know who holds this record. Jonatalk to me 23:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] A quick google search led me ot our Britney Spears article, which states that Baby One More Time sold 500,000 copies on its first day, so I think this proves it is no longer a record. NapHit (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Changed the content to "then-record for a pop singer." Jonatalk to me 17:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "largest-selling album to bow at number one..." that is not encyclopaedic writing, never seen bow used in this context before Done Jonatalk to me 23:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "top twenty" -> top 20 Done Jonatalk to me 23:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] You don't need to include the page ranges in the Bibliography, especially as just one page is used for each book Done Jonatalk to me 23:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] NapHit (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• I really don't understand the significance of adding the Blue in the Face soundtrack. If her only contribution is a song, then it should be under Guest appearances under the singles discography, but not here. Erick (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 23:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Lead is too long, the list isn't actually that big, a large portion of the page length is contributed by the refs, so I would expect to see only three paras. Whether or not other lists have a lead that's also too big is not relevant here.

Ok, so can you kindly point to me which sentences are irrelevant to the page? Then I would be more than happy to remove them. Jona^{talk to me} 17:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can point you to our guideline on how to write a lead - WP:LEAD. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jona^{talk to me} 18:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Remix albums aren't in the infobox.

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 17:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Most discog infoboxes link to the relevant sections (e.g. studio albums is "hashlinked" to the Studio albums section).

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 17:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are chart headings left aligned (e.g. the US TLA heading)?

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 17:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What territory are the release dates relevant to? Where are the release dates cited?

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 17:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• How can you use the US release dates if the albums didn't chart in the US? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• They were all released in the US regardless the fact that they didn't chart in that country. Jona^{talk to me} 18:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, so where in ref 21 does it cite that Selena was released on 17 October 1989? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jona^{talk to me} 19:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm still not seeing precisely which references are citing which release dates and which release territories. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All information gathered from AllMusic.com would you like me to add a ref to every album here? Also, AllMusic does not specify which country these albums were released so I removed (US). Best, Jona^{talk to me} 19:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, have a look at current FLC discogs, I expect them to reference the release date and the territory relevant to that release. If AllMusic is lacking, then you need to find the info from somewhere else. 19:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Was the soundtrack album released by EMI or EMI Latin?

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 17:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Same for Unforgettable? I would check all these as the articles for these don't say EMI Latin...

• Not my problem if vandals change the distributors, only relaying on AllMusic. Jona^{talk to me} 17:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is your problem if I oppose this nomination because the labels are uncertain. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jona^{talk to me} 19:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So now it's "EMI Music Distribution" for every release? Redlinked? This needs to be addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mis Mejores Canciones – 17 Super Exitos" sold six times platinum but didn't chart anywhere?!

• According to RIAA yes and no it never shared a position on Billboard. Jona^{talk to me} 17:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No need for "List of best-selling Latin albums in the United States" in the See also since you've already linked it in the lead.

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 17:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are my remaining points going to be addressed? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a valid reason on why I need to add a source to verify the release dates of these albums. I checked others and did not see that they had a source for a release date. Jona^{talk to me} 12:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, oppose until you can show me where the dates are verified. I've questioned the fact so you need to demonstrate how I can verify it. How does anyone know you haven't just made them up? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I waste my time on making up release dates, if your so critical about it go and check AllMusic yourself and not have me wasting my time on adding a source to something so ridiculous. Jona^{talk to me} 12:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand why you're so hostile about me asking for something that I've asked for on all currently running FLCs and will continue to do so in future. Where did you get the information from? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is coming at me and judging hatefully on the work that I dedicated then damn right I'm going to be hostile. Secondly, all information was retrieved from AllMusic.com. Just because you *now* are asking all current FLCs for a source on release dates doesn't do nothing on me, I follow models not amateur articles. Jona^{talk to me} 13:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not judging hatefully, I'm not sure where you get that, but I am asking the same from you as I have everyone else. Unfortunately, we expect the featured material to be of the highest standard, and that includes referencing dates which, it appears, have no references. And quite what makes you think the DISCOGSTYLE is the "model" and not "amateur" I have no clue.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are, shall we reminisce? (a) "lead is too long" first of all how are you not going to bring up this "issue" to this discography? this?, this?. I had to remove all record titles Selena had broken and some she currently holds the title to after 17+ years just to make you and that other complainer happy, yet I see other record titles in these discographies, a fan much? I bet if there were a freely licensed photo of her there wouldn't be a problem. (b) "What territory are the release dates relevant to? Where are the release dates cited?" is another one (though I do see you asking for all 2012 nominees) I don't see why you waited until now to bring up this minor issue, but yet have seen you comment on FLCs for the past several years ("but I am asking the same from you as I have everyone else") I just denounced this. Just because these recently promoted lists nominators did as you say, doesn't mean I need to follow the leader and could care less of an oppose from you, I can always renominate again. Lastly, WP:BESTNP was a reference to older promoted lists like Mariah Carey albums discography and Madonna albums discography not the style guidelines that you and other "delegates" have come up with. Jona^{talk to me} 13:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(a) I was not alone in suggesting the lead was too long. Train lead (490 words), Arjona lead (528 words), Usher (621 words), this discog lead originally (826 words) and now (429). Much better. If you think you need a records page for Selena, by all means create one. What do you mean "a fan much?"? Asking for a good summary-style lead is not hateful. (b) asking for references for specific information you have added is not hateful, it is asking for information in the list to be verified. And (c) OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument to use when claiming that the Carey and Madonna discogs are "best". They need work! (d) By now, you probably could have added those references in, instead of which we've had a quite pointless discussion going in circles which basically can be summed up by (e) "Standards change". We never used to insist on WP:ACCESS-compliant tables, but we do now, for example. If you threaten to disrupt this process to prove a point, I'm afraid you will not be welcomed to participate in the process in future. There's no need to do that, I would just reference the release dates, so much easier. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea because there is no photo of her so of course the complainer was going to be critical about the lead and then you followed. Nope, I'm not going to follow you, I don't do Twitter. Secondly, the lead was better off how it was when I started this nomination but yet haters up in here just didn't like that Selena has a lot of records she broke and wanted me to remove them. You are a fan of those artist(s) I have brought up in this lovely discussion, you didn't complain about the lead on their respective discographies and have been complaining about how the lead is too big on here. Exactly, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument either TRM, don't come at me asking me to go and look at other lists and see how they have their references on release dates, again, just because they bark when you command don't expect all users to bow down. I'm sticking to what I believe how the list should be, and you could go and comment on others and do something productive today instead of arguing with me about this stuff rule you made up. Jona^{talk to me} 14:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read anyone else's review before I made my own, so please don't suggest I did. The lead was too long. I am not a fan of any music in particular besides Lemon Jelly, please don't make unfounded accusations that I may somehow favour one artist's discography over another. As I mentioned above, their leads were all considerably shorter than the original lead here. I'm not "commanding" and I don't expect anyone to "bark", so please don't make that unfounded accusation. I simply asked you to verify the release dates. I don't "expect all users to bow down", so please don't make that unfounded accusation. If you checked my edit history, I have certainly commented at other FLCs today, so please don't ask me to "do something productive today instead". Finally I entirely refute that this a "rule [I] made up". Please check WP:V. It's a policy of Wikipedia, which I certainly didn't "make up". In that policy, you'll read "... any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation..." I challenged the material, so either you'd like to follow a Wikipedia policy by providing verifiable information via an inline citation or you don't want your list to be the best work on Wikipedia. My oppose stands, and I won't be returning to this FLC, the closing director/delegate can determine whether my concerns have been adequately addressed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2012 (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 NapHit 17:21, 21 October 2012 [4].

---

Nominator(s): TBrandley 02:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria. Though an unsual topic (there are no FLs of this kind), I find it interpreting, and hope you enjoy read it. Thank you in advance. Cheers, TBrandley 02:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments "Fox currently maintains 19.5 hours of programming per week." -- 'Currently' should never be used; it would be better to say something like As of the 2012 television season, Fox.... TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Done. Anything else? How does it look now? Thanks! TBrandley 06:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] "The Fox Broadcasting Company, commonly referred as the Fox network or simply Fox, is an American commercial broadcasting television network owned by the Fox Entertainment Group, which is a division of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation group; Murdoch co-founded the Fox Broadcasting Company, along with media executive Barry Diller." -- A few problems. First, there should be a 'to' after 'referred'. The sentence is also really long. I recommend splitting it where the semi-colon is. Done. TBrandley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Though it was officially launched in October 9, 1986,[2] Fox began its official prime time setup on April 5, 1987, with the series Married... with Children and The Tracey Ullman Show airing that night." -- Instead of "launched in", it should be "launched on". Also, I'm pretty sure 'primetime' is a compound word, and should not be spaced. Done. TBrandley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Fox had a programming block for children entitled Fox Kids, which ran from September 8, 1990, to September 7, 2002. -- There shouldn't be a comma after '1990'. Done. TBrandley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Unlike the "three larger networks", which aired prime time programming from 8 to 11 pm Mondays to Saturdays and 7 to 11 pm Sundays, Fox has traditionally avoided programming in the 10 pm time interval, leaving that hour to affiliates to program locally" -- Again with 'primetime'. Also, which time zone is this referring to? EST? Please note that. Done. TBrandley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] "On April 21, 2012, Fox celebrated its 25th anniversary, with a two-hour television special, featured numerous people related to Fox and its shows." -- "featured" should be "featuring". Done. TBrandley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] "The networks' animated shows are listed under the Animation Domination banner, which is a Sunday night programming block." -- You're only talking about one network, so it should say " network's " not " networks' ". Done. TBrandley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] "It is a full member of the North American Broadcasters Association (NABA) and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)." -- What is 'It' referring to? The Animation Domination? This needs to be disambiguated. Done. TBrandley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Why are some (the majority of) shows on the list not referenced? See below. TBrandley 23:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Wait, are you saying the one reference used for some titles supports each show's existence? If so, just list it as a general reference. Picking out random ones is odd. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Oh, I didn't. Those were already there when I started working on this (I check to see if it wasn't WP:OR on Google Books), and figured I wouldn't removed them, and there book sources, which people often enjoy seeing. TBrandley 23:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – All the issues I listed have been resolved. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick and strong oppose Where's the lead? The issue is now (at least I think) resolved, per consensus on the article's talk page. TBrandley 22:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Some of the entries are cited, some aren't. Click on the links for them, and their is prove. It is a huge pain referencing every single show on the list. Suggest you expand upon each entry to describe what kind of broadcast it is. Again, there's the link. It already states what type of show it is (as this is a list, not an article). TBrandley 22:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Withdraw the list, and go to peer review, asking what we'd expect from a featured list. This, most certainly, is not. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] A user keeps commenting out the lead. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] If the list is suffering from instability, i.e. edit wars, or content dispute, then it shouldn't be listed here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] See above. The issue is now (at least I think) resolved, per consensus on the article's talk page. TBrandley 22:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Bruce Campbell (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* There's been a lot of trouble with user Vjmlhds, who has been repeatedly vandalizing the article, even to the point to his own blocking. He seems to have no idea how featured articles work; he's continuously removed the lead and doesn't seem to understand the concept of how images should be used. One of his versions of the article in particular is a mess, utilizing a total of three non-free media images. There's a discussion occurring currently within the article's talk page, and it appears these unproductive edits need to cease immediately. Otherwise because of instability I would have to oppose. Bruce Campbell (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] See above. The issue is now (at least I think) resolved, per consensus on the article's talk page. TBrandley 22:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] This version of the article I would support however, other than the fact that I can't see why some entries are referenced and why some aren't, in an apparently random manner. The article is lovely when it's not being ravished by unproductive edit wars. Bruce Campbell (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] See above. TBrandley 22:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Alright. For now I'm going to change the oppose to neutral and I'll support if it the prose comments made by other editors are addressed. The vandalizing seems to have stopped outright. Bruce Campbell (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support at this point. Bruce Campbell (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• I would prefer tables to be used instead of bulleted lists, as I think they would be more useful to the reader. For example you could have columns of Title, Years broadcast, Type of show.
  • I don't see a problem with the current state of it. TBrandley 22:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the reader is receiving hardly any information about the programs. I'm not sure in the current format, this list is the best wikipedia has to offer. NapHit (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Concerned that large parts of the article are not referenced, specifically the Currently broadcast section.
  • See above. It is a pain to reference every show, the article link itself proves its existence and run. TBrandley 22:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a pain but its necessary. Unless those two general refs cover every item in the list then you will have to source individual programs. Wikipedia can't be used as a reference unto itself, specifically because anyone can edit it therefore the information has the potential to be wrong. As every other list that comes through here is expected to be properly referenced, there is no reason why should make an exception because its a pain to reference. NapHit (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. See List of X-Files episodes. None of the episode titles are referenced, as are all other episode list FLs. Those general references cover former programs. For currently broadcast, I could reference to the official Fox site, however. TBrandley 16:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not entirely correct, ref 1 in that list provides all episode titles, so despite the fact they are not directly referenced, they are in effect referenced. The problem here is that those general refs do not cover every item in this list, none of the sports programs are referenced for instance. What proof do I have that Fox only broadcasts certain Formula One races? This is currently a big problem, all programs that started or have new episodes after those general refs were published, will need to be referenced. I still also think tables should be utilised to provide the reader with more info. This list should be able to stand alone and I would expect more info on each program from wikipedia's best work. NapHit (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Seeing as there been a lot of edit-warring and discussion over the content of the article recently, it fails criteria 6.
  • See above. The issue is now (at least I think) resolved, per consensus on the article's talk page. TBrandley 22:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from --Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Has the edit warring stopped? If so, good. Yes (at least I now believe). See above. TBrandley 22:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Many, if not most, of the entries still need citations. See above. It is a pain to reference every show, the article link itself proves its existence and run. TBrandley 22:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Why are some given citations then? This makes it even more confusing.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] See above. Those were already there when I started working on this (I check to see if it wasn't WP:OR on Google Books), and figured I wouldn't removed them, and there book sources, which people often enjoy seeing. TBrandley 00:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] That doesn't make sense. Just remove the individual citations from next to the certain shows, and place it as a general reference at the bottom of the list. Who enjoys seeing book sources? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Done. TBrandley 00:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Those are the only immediate issues I see, but they are big ones.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comments Deux Also, to be picky, Millennium wasn't an X-Files spin-off, but rather just a show created by the same person. Removed. TBrandley 23:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] For Mike Judge, shouldn't you mention he was co-creator and voice actor, rather than just creator and actor? Fixed. TBrandley 23:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Many of the images have unsourced claims, like "star of Married...with Children, which was Fox's signature series during the network's early years." I'm not saying it's untrue, but when was it called the signature series? Replaced and removed. TBrandley 23:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Some of the dates use YYYY-YYYY and others go YYYY-YY. I know the exception is dates like "1999-2000", but I'd pick one and use it. See below. TBrandley 23:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] --Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am content to Support now.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose some quick comments.

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*"It was the highest-rated broadcast network" highest-rated in what sense? Most viewers? Most popular? Removed. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Where is that claim referenced? Removed. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Fox began its official primetime setup on April 5, 1987" vs "On April 21, 2012, Fox celebrated its 25th anniversary"... And? That's when Fox actually celebrated it on television. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "As of October 2012, Fox maintains 19.5 hours of programming per week.[3] " but ref 3 was written in 1992, so how can that ref something from 2012? And that ref says 18 hours in any case. Changed "October 2012" to "1992". And, regarding the source information, it says increasing its daily average to 19.5 hours, so that's now fine. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "its original debut" has it had more than one debut? Removed. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "the longest running sitcom" context, do you mean animated sitcom? Do you mean in the US or worldwide? Clarified. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Do you mean "led to"? Done. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Fox had a programming block for children entitled Fox Kids, which ran from September 8, 1990 to September 7, 2002.[8]" seems oddly place, and makes the end of that para read like a list of factoids, not elegant prose. Moved. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Check image captions, those with incomplete sentences should not have a period. Removed. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Some of the sports shows don't have dates. What does "(Mid-season)" mean for upcoming shows? They are planned to air in Mid-season. Added a link. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Piggsburg Pigs!" has an exclamation mark. Added. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Ripping Friends is The Ripping Friends. Fixed. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Similar comment for The Big Guy and Rusty the Boy Robot. Can you make the Digimon: Digital Monsters link more precise? That's the only and best there is in this case. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Link to the correct The Tick article please. Corrected. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] D.E.A. doesn't link to a TV show. Unlinked.TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" Than->than. Done. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Super Greed article says it started airing in 1999. Done. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Boot Camp article says it started in 2001, not 2000. Done. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps you should check all these articles against the dates you're claiming....? Done. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "from which The Simpsons spun off from." grammar fail. Removed. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Doesn't appear to be a colon in Osbournes Reloaded. Done. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Is the second general reference the whole book or specifically pages 1 to 1566? If the former remove the page range, if the latter use an en-dash. Done. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Tracey Ullman has an e in it. Removed. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] No, it should have an e in it, that's what I'm saying. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Oops, sorry, done. Thanks, TBrandley 16:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "which lead to two future spin-offs Millennium and The Lone Gunmen" surely all spin-offs occur after the original? So no need for future.
  • Done. TBrandley 16:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 1990–1992 or 1990–91? Be consistent.
  • For shows that only went for one year, I use the second method, but, to clarify, I used the first one if it went longer. Also, "1999-2000" is like that cause it is a new century. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand your logic. Fine, cross-century date ranges do that, but for other year ranges, just two digits for the second year are required. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see WP:YEAR. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Are these dates including re-runs?
  • No. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you should note that, because when I checked some of the articles on the shows, the dates you quoted here included re-runs. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good job. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• "As of October 2012, Fox maintains 19.5 hours of programming per week." This is followed by ref #3, which is a newspaper article from 1992. I'm somewhat stumped as to how a 1992 article can support Fox's current schedule.
• Similarly, a 1992 reference can not really be used to say that the "The Simpsons is one of Fox's most popular shows..", only that "The Simpsons was one of Fox's most popular shows.."
• Following on from that, your general references are from 1996 and 2007: what is the source for the parts of the main list that are more recent than this? You can't rely on references in other articles, information in this list needs to be referenced in this list.
• Oppose I understand that some of these questions have been asked already, and I have read the answers to those questions, but I'm not satisfied by them. For that reason, I have to oppose this list. Harrias ^talk 06:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• How about talk-shows and news? Also, the list is heavily lacking on references. Nergaal (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has all the programs. The ones you are talking about are local programs, on local stations, not the full channel. It has all of them. TBrandley 19:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, regretfully. The main issue I have is the fact that the information is not in tables. There is some inconsistency in the years. For example, "2001–2003" and "2004–05", in which the latter is correct. Zac (talk · contribs) 16:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I withdraw this nomination, while I work on the list, with above issues raised. I well certainly be bringing this list back to FLC soon, though. TBrandley 16:35, 20 October 2012 (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 NapHit 17:21, 21 October 2012 [5].

---

Nominator(s): Plant's Strider (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for featured list because I'm sure it meets the criteria. I've already contacted the main contributor. Plant's Strider (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Image should be a thumbnail with a caption. Done. Odd ref placements, e.g. "on Global in Canada[1] and is broadcast in dozens of countries worldwide" you ref Canada and not the "dozens of countries worldwide"... It's self-referential. What's the point of linking the tattoo when it just links back to Prison Break? Done. Two empty cells in the Blu-ray column. The second and fourth seasons haven't been released on Blu-ray in the US. Where are production codes referenced? In the episodes' articles. Spaced em-dashes should be spaced en-dash. Done. Check for misuse of hyphens as well. Done. Our article is called TVShowsOnDVD.com (capital O). Done. You don't need Category:Prison Break. Done. Check all tables meet MOS:DTT for row and col scopes. All 6 tables meet MOS:DTT. Plant's Strider (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Make similar columns the same width from section to section.
  • I don't know how to do that. Can you help?
    • Have a look at coding in a recently-promoted episode FL. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've done the widths for you, although I'm not sure about what to do with the specials table. NapHit (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• What's No. and #?
  • No. = entire series. # = that particular season.
    • Spell it out (e.g. No. in series, No. in season). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Images need to have alt text briefly explaining the contents of the image, as per WP:ALT
• "The official logo of the series." → "Prison Break logo"
• "the television network Fox" → "the Fox network"
• comma after 2005?
• "and broadcast in dozens of countries worldwide" that statement needs to be supported by a reference
• "2005–2006" remove "20" from it per WP:YEAR, same goes for the other years from other seasons.
• Tables don't meet MOS:DTT, add scope cols and rows, as well as table captions, to ensure it does
• Change No. to "No. in series" and change "#" to "No. in season", as per WP:MOS, WP:POUND, etc.
• Please reference the production codes; they have to be here

I've found this ref for the production codes. The only issue is, that as the tables for the seasons are in the season articles, that will produce four duplicate refs. I'm not sure if there is anyway to get around this, so the ref is only displayed once. NapHit (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Make similar columns the same width from section to section.
• "Teleplay" and "Story" should have "by" at end
• "The second special episode for the series runs for approximately 23 minutes" remove; not important.
• Change from "was aired only on Sky1" to "was only aired on Sky1"
• "The third special episode was aired only on Sky1 in the United Kingdom" also needs a reference
• All of those do
• "FOX/Global simulcast of Prison Break" what's that doing there? Not needed.
• Speaking of that, FOX should be Fox per WP:TRADEMARK
• "Amazon offers full length movies as well as TV shows, with shows like Prison Break" not needed
• Don't "shout" in reference titles
• Don't italic the series only in references
• Lots of publishers in references aren't linked, but should be
• Ref. 91: Use a dash rather than hyphen per MOS:DASH
• Categories should be sorted in alphabetical order
• You should create more redirect links to the list please; there's only one as of right now

:I still haven't figured out how to edit the templates. Could you help on this one? Plant's Strider (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC) TBrandley 02:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template issues have been fixed by NapHit (huge thanks to him). I'll try to address the rest of the issues by the end of the day. Plant's Strider (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2012 (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 NapHit 17:21, 21 October 2012 [6].

---

Nominator(s): Khanassassin ☪ 11:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list as I believe, that after quite some work, it's ready for FL Status. :) Khanassassin ☪ 11:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comments The lede should have three big paragraphs, per WP:WIAFL. The lede of that list seems rather short. Also, the lede seems very messy. I'd recommend a peer review, and a copy-edit, perhaps from GOCE. The lede is indeed too short. A peer review for a short lead only? Also the question is what should be written and not how much.--Kürbis (✔) 17:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Correct. Perhaps just a copy-edit. TBrandley 17:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Nowhere in WP:WIAFL does it say that leads must have three paragraphs. WP:LEAD doesn't even say that; in fact, it says that some shorter articles should have leads that are less than three paragraphs. As it happens, I think this lead is a bit short for my tastes, but I don't want some non-existent criteria to become a standard by force. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] The problem is that the series didn't receive enough coverage. Interview, reviews, almost nothing, though there's a very big following. If I could I'd make 3 gigantic paragraphs... but I can't. --Khanassassin ☪ 19:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Unlink action per WP:OVERLINK Done. The lede image should have alt text Done. Image needs a caption and description, with a thumb* Done. That image doesn't seem very high-quality. Could it be replaced? Looks pretty fine to me. Add plainrowheaders to the top of the series overview table Done. series overview table does not MOS:DTT, need to add row and colscopes to ensure it does Done. Series overview table seems a little messy Not anymore. Add table captions to all tables per MOS:DTT, with add the begin of the coding of the table Done. Don't use ";" due to a recent discussions about it. Use actual sub-section headers Uh... I didn't. I used plain bold, which is OK. 2004–2005 → 2004–05, as per WP:YEAR Done. Only have "Megas XLR episodes" linked in external links Done. "The series was met with positive reception", to "The series has met with positive reception" MOS:TV states that "For very lengthy series, generally 80+ episodes, it may be necessary to break the episode list into individual season or story arc lists." This series has far less than 80 episodes and the season articles contain nothing but the episode list tables. There's no decent Lede, nothing about cast, production, reception, or anything that would require separate pages per WP:SIZE, WP:SPINOUT, WP:SS or WP:SIZESPLIT. "may" does not mean "should" or "must"--Kürbis (✔) 17:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, but at this time, the article doesn't meet featured list criteria. Please get a copy-edit, and/or a peer review, then re-nominate. TBrandley 15:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] If you think that it is a content-fork, why you state that it should be peer reviewed and re-nominated?--Kürbis (✔) 17:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] See above. TBrandley 17:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] I got the rest of the minor issues. TBrandley 01:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Lead too short, should be at least two paragraphs.* There are two paragraphs. :) There's no fair use rationale for the use of that image in this article. There is now. :) Don't really think we need to link "comedy". OK, de-linked. :) " a New Jersey Junkyard" junkyard shouldn't be capitalised. Sorry, didn't notice. De-capitalised :) Columns for the same information should be the same width from section to section. Done. Where are the air dates referenced? MSN source. Directly cite it then, like you do with production codes. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Done. How could number 12 be aired 8 months after number 11? Sorry, air date error. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] I believe I've resolved the issues. :) Cheers, --Khanassassin ☪ 14:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You might consider adding some more DVD information like release dates, rather than just stating it was released on DVD. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't say what the release date was, that's the problem. --Khanassassin ☪ 14:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, per criterion 3b. I don't think there is enough content yet to warrant three articles (1, 2, 3). Goodraise 11:21, 21 October 2012 (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 NapHit 12:43, 17 October 2012 [7].

---

Nominator(s): Jona^{talk to me} 16:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because...I believe it meets the criteria to be a featured list. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 16:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Link Jennifer Lopez and Selena in the main box Done Jonatalk to me 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Avoid bold links per WP:CONTEXTLINK Do you mean in the infobox? Jonatalk to me 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Yes. TBrandley 02:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Tables don't meet MOS:ACCESS, add scope="row" to ensure it does Can you tell me how to do that if I'm using {{awards table}}? Jonatalk to me 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] That template only covers scope="col" for the main header, scope rows can still be added with the contents of the table. TBrandley 02:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Table don't meet MOS:DTT, add table captions to ensure it does Per above. Jonatalk to me 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, I'm stuck on this one. It's fine, I guess. TBrandley 02:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] The publisher of Box Movie Mojo is actually Amazon.com (who owns the Internet Movie Database) Done Jonatalk to me 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Double quotes (") should be single quotes (') in references per WP:MOS, as seen in ref. 9 Done Jonatalk to me 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Add alt text to the image per MOS:IMAGES and WP:ALT Done Jonatalk to me 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] TBrandley 16:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I question whether this article meets criterion 3b ("In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.") With such a short list, could this not reasonably be inserted into the main article body? Ruby 2010/2013 05:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Um no it cannot, it will drag the main article down (once fully expanded for FAC) plus FAC reviewers never favor list in article prose and will almost always ask the nominator to turn it into prose. So planning ahead, what is on this list is what it has to offer. If merged into the main article, it will be removed to please FAC reviewers. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 22:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Ruby, fails 3 b. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Per above. Jona^{talk to me} 22:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above. It is fails criterion 3b, as well there are not many awards for the film. I'd put it into the main article body. And, if you are taking that article to FA status, just write the awards and stuff out in prose, it is done on many FAs including House (TV series). Also see Grey's Anatomy, an A-Class article. And, the tables still don't meet MOS:ACCESS, but that's another story. TBrandley 23:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose could easily be merged into the main article which will then make a suitable candidate for good or featured article. If the FAC reviewers object to a couple of lists in a mainly prose article, then more fool them. (Also, you have another candidate running without any support, please re-read the instructions for running simultaneous candidates...) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But it's not going to be merged because I figured it would be best to have a separate list on it instead of stressing about what FAC commenter's have to say about a list-format section and turning it into prose which is not my forte. Secondly, why on Earth do you favor on criticizing me about having two nominated lists yet I see others that have 4+ lists? If you are only going to comment on me then save yourself the embarrassment. Thirdly, I will renominate this candidate again and again until an open minded reviewer sees potential in this list and not bitch about how "easily" it can be merged into the main article. However, what about this? it can easily merge with the main article but yet it passed . Jona^{talk to me} 12:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid threatening to disrupt this process to somehow prove a point won't help your nomination. And yes, I'll go and check other people running multiple nominations and ask them not to if they're not following the instructions properly. And no, the list you gave as an example could not easily be merged into the main article. Firstly the list is a lot longer than this one, secondly the article it would be merged into is a lot longer than the one this would be merged into. Finally, since this list is never likely to grow, merging it into a good/featured article candidate is the optimal solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I can also assure you that FA reviewers don't care about lists as much as you think. See Pride & Prejudice (2005 film) and Ed, Edd n Eddy for two recent examples of FAs with accolade lists. Ruby 2010/2013 16:28, 16 October 2012 (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 Giants2008 17:25, 16 October 2012 [8].

---

Nominator(s): SchroCat (^ • @) 17:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC) and Cassianto^Talk 19:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Known for his clumsy character Inspector Clouseau and his many comic roles on radio, Peter Sellers was one of the best known comedians of his generation. This record of his professional work has recently been split away from the main Sellers page as it was out of place there and not a full reflection of his work. A number of very good people have assisted in specific areas, including Rothorpe, who re-worked the lead, RexxS, who advised on the table format, Br'er Rabbit, who cleaned up the citations and J Milburn who looked at the images. We are now nominating this for featured list status because we believe that it now satisfies the criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Image can use a better caption. Is he noted for anything, etc. He is, but the format follows that used in other filmographies, such as Christopher Walken filmography, Woody Allen filmography, Spike Lee filmography, James Nesbitt filmography, David O. Selznick filmography and Vittorio Storaro filmography. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] TB, that's my fault, I cut away the blah telling us he was at home when the picture was taken. I do think the caption is better in its current form as per the listed FL's. -- CassiantoTalk 08:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Tables don't need to be aligned to the top Now altered accordingly - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Align references to the center Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Notes and Footnotes should be actual sub-sections, per MOS:ACCESS Now sub-sectioned - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] TBrandley 03:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Many thanks, TB. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Thanks TB. I knew if I came knocking you would give some good comments. -- CassiantoTalk 08:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Thanks! TBrandley 15:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I think this article still has some way to go before it reaches FL quality. I've gone over and it and made some changes here; please revert if I've made things worse. I'm not sure that the Role columns really benefit from being sortable. I must admit that I've found it useful in the past on a couple of articles. Would you mind if we left it like that unless someone else also comments on it? - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] "The Official UK Charts Company" should really be "Official Charts Company". Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Is there any reason why "The Last Goon Show of All" is sorting under G rather than L? No; now done - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] For The Running Jumping & Standing Still Film, was Sellers nominated for the Best Live Action Short Film award, or was the nomination for the film itself? Additional note to clarify - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] It may just be my laptop or something, but the Advertisements heading isn't showing at all. Anyone else experiencing this? I'm seeing it OK on IE and Google Chrome. Anyone else having issues? - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Safari also OK. -- CassiantoTalk 12:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] It's most probably because 1000 Doors is using Firefox with the "Adblock-Plus (ABP)" addon. I can reproduce the problem where ABP hides the heading "Advertisments". If you disable ABP for enwp you won't have those sort of problems again. --RexxS (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] If you add a row that acts as a key to the bottom of a sortable table (like ' "—" denotes releases that did not chart.' in Discography), you also need to add class="sortbottom" to that row to prevent the bottom row from being sorted with the rest of the table. I've applied the fix for you. --RexxS (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Many thanks ATD: your time and thoughts are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Thank heavens for RexxS! Your input here is much appreciated as always. -- CassiantoTalk 19:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The biggest sticking point for me is the lead – it's incredibly brief. By my count it's about 860 characters long, which wouldn't qualify it for DYK, let alone FL. Obviously it needs to cover the major aspects of the rest of the list, but it doesn't mention Sellers's career on either stage or record at all. I see that on the talk page it was decided that there wasn't much of a need to discuss Sellers himself, but personally I'd disagree with that – per WP:Summary style, I would expect the lead of this article to give more background on who Peter Sellers was.

• Now extended. We feel this word count now mirrors others at FL in terms of quantity. -- Cassianto^Talk 12:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's certainly a significant improvement, but I do still feel that the lead needs to at least mention Sellers's careers on stage and record, since obviously that comprises part of the scope of the list. Just a short sentence on each would probably suffice for me personally. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks ATD: it's now been tweaked to include that missing information. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Wow; pretty solid. TBrandley 21:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Tate, I'm looking forward to your next FAC so I can return this favour. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! Your in luck, "Nightswimming" will be at FAC soon. Also, some FLCs also very soon. Cheers, TBrandley 05:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments "Sellers's" argh. I had hoped that BritEng could maintain its dignity and just stick with Sellers'... This is a point that was raised on the Peter Sellers article during Peer Review and the consensus from those with a better grammatical grasp advised me to change them all to s's as the correct term—see Talk:Peter Sellers/Archive 2#Sellers's for a further discussion after the changes. I'm unsure either way - my graps of the apostrophe use is awful. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Not sure for English Wikipedia you really need to link a term so common as "radio". True - now removed "in a nuber of " ummm. Ouch - changed - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Year" heading should be "Year(s)" shouldn't it, for those with a range? It should, and now is - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Orders are Orders" -> "Orders Are Orders". Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Any reason why you don't link BAFTA Award for Best British Actor? There are other nominations you don't link either... what's the deal with that? Only my idiocy! Now corrected - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] "What's New Pussycat" ->"What's New Pussycat?" Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] "I Love You, Alice B. Toklas!" -> "I Love You, Alice B. Toklas" Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Waltz of the Toreadors" -> "The Waltz of the Toreadors". The article here is Waltz of the Toreadors (film) - it appears that although the play is "The", the film isn't - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] "London Film Critics Circle Award" should have a apostrophe > "Critics'" Now suitably apostrophied - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Some notes start with capital letters, some don't. No longer! All now capitalised - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Harry Seacombe" no a in surname required. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Hi RM, Thanks very much for your comments. I think I've addressed them all fully, but if I've missed anything, or there is something else you spot, then please let us know. Thanks again - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - from a quick glance at Amazon, the list is incomplete: hhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0002CH8TW and http://www.amazon.co.uk/Million-Sellers-Peter/dp/B002EGLFP2. Who knows what else is missing. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 01:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• These are not original releases by Sellers, but re-hashed excerpts put out by third parties, the contents of which are covered in Sellers's original recordings. As such they really shouldn't be on the list at all. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, no problem. Oppose is stricken Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 16:50, 4 October 2012 (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 NapHit 15:05, 13 October 2012 [9].

---

Nominator(s): Kürbis (✔) 16:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discography of the "quiet Beatle", George Harrison. He was nicknamed as such because he did not contribute much in the songwriting. After the Beatles break-up, Harrison recorded the most-successful post-Beatles album, All Things Must Pass, and several other successful albums and singles. In the last years he was a member of the supergroup Travelling Wilburys. The discography follows the contemporary standard format. Regards.Kürbis (✔) 16:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Lead
  • "George Harrison was once invited by his friend Paul McCartney to watch the skiffle band The Quarrymen playing." This is a weak and non-specific statement. When was he invited to watch them play?
    • The date is unknown but he joined in 1958--Kürbis (✔) 09:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1960 the band was changed to The Beatles and Harrison eventually became a full member and the lead guitarist for the quartet." This suggests that Harrison joined The Beatles after 1960 rather than the Quarrymen in 1958.
    • I reworded it slightly--Kürbis (✔) 09:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are still several problems with this:
        1. You need to make it clear that the Quarrymen were Paul McCartney's band.
        2. It now says he beceame (note the typo) a member in 1968.
           • The spelling has been corrected, but the date is still wrong (see below)--DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
        3. "Two years later the band was changed to The Beatles and Harrison eventually became a full member and the lead guitarist for the quartet". This is still incorrectly worded:
           1. He was already a full member of the band before it changed its name.
           2. The band was not changed to The Beatles - the band name was.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1) Actually Lennon formed the band, 2) Corrected, 3) I am not sure if this band changed its name to Beatles. I was told that "changed their band name" is incorrect English
          • "changed their band name" isn't particularly good English, but the previous phrasing was definitely worse. The current phrasing is better, but the dates are wrong. The Beatles article says he joined the group (whatever it was called) in early 1958. The same article says they adopted the name "The Beatles" in August 1960. It still also says "eventually became a member and the lead guitarist for the quartet" which reads oddly as he was already a member.--DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ok, it was previously "full member" but some user insisted it was false... Now reverted back. Also fixed the date.
  • "In the later years, his musical effort however was distinguished by some songwriting." This seems incomplete.
  • "Harrison growth as a songwriter was evidenced on such tracks as "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", "Here Comes the Sun" and "Something"." Needs to be "Harrison's growth" and how do these songs evidence the growth?
    • The songs are one of the most respected and were very successful
      • Then give their success as evidence of his growth.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done
          • "...evidenced on such successful tracks..." would be better as "...evidenced by such successful tracks..."--DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done
  • At the start of the third paragraph, say when the Beatles broke-up.
    • Done
      • "in" should be "on".--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done
  • "were still active", I suggest "remained active".
    • Done
  • The Wonderwall album was release in 1968, but the context of the sentence after talk of the break-up in the previous sentence seems to suggest the album was released after the break-up.
  • "The album produced one of his most successful and famous songs, such as chart-topper "My Sweet Lord" and "What Is Life"." Which of these two songs is the one you mean?
    • Actually the first, but now as both topped the charts somehow...
      • This still says "one of", but names two songs.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done
  • "His next albums were not very successful, receiving silver, gold and platinum certications". Spelling of "certifications" needs to be corrected. Is this three albums that you are referring to; if so which three, as the table does not show an album after All Things Must Pass that received a platinum rating until Cloud Nine in 1987.
    • Corrected typo.
      • The rest of the issues still need to be addressed.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't understand what three albums... Simply all albums after this.
          • If you mean all of this subsequent albums, say so, e.g. something like: "His subsequent releases were less successful..."--DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Next is for me the same as subsequent, but I changed it anyway
  • Why is the reference to The Concert for Bangladesh preceding Live Aid by 14 years relevant?
    • Not exactly sure what you mean. The footnote or the mention of this statement?
      • I mean. Why is it relevant to the discography that the concert preceded Live Aid by 14 years.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, it is an interesting info; always paraphrasing from the tables is lame.
          • But why is it interesting in a discography and why is it interesting that it was 14 years before Live Aid?--DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, the wording implies that it was bigger than Live Aid, which was to my knowledge the largest concert
  • "After the release of "All Those Years Ago", all songs beginning with Gone Troppo, the worst-charting album only after Electronic Sound, did not chart; this changed after the release of "Got My Mind Set on You"." This is muddled and needs to be broken down into separate sentences. Make it clear the "All Those Years Ago" was a single and state which album it was from. Why not just say that Harrison had a run of six singles between 1981 and 1986 that did not chart.
    • Done
  • "Bearing the several flops in mind, Harrison joined the supergroup Traveling Wilburys in 1988..." Are you saying that he joined the supergroup, because of the several flops?
    • Removed that bit. I think I was mistaken
  • "The group released on 18 October 1988 its debut album Traveling Wilburys Vol. 1, which received three-times platinum and peaked at several music charts worldwide in the top 10." I suggest this be rephrased as "On 18 October 1988, the group released its debut album Traveling Wilburys Vol. 1, which was certified three-times platinum and peaked at several music charts worldwide in the top 10."
    • Done
      • You need a full stop after "top 10".--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done
          • Rereading this, I think "peaked at several music charts worldwide in the top 10" would be better as "reached the top 10 of several music charts around the world."--DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ok done
  • Not sure that Concert for George is relevant in a Harrison discography as he does not play on it. If nothing else, that should be made clear.
    • I think it was a very important release and should be mentioned to round off the lead.
      • It might be important in a history of George Harrison, but it is not part of his discography.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I find it notable but will wait what others say
• Tables
  • NZL and SWE in the first table are the other way around in the following album tables.
    • Thanks. Not sure how I missed that...
  • The note indicates that a strike indicates that an album release did not chart. Is it confirmed that the records were released in all of these countries and failed to chart in each case. Did they sometimes not chart because they were not released or is because the source does not have the data?
    • Some were not released or just did not chart, so I reworded the note.
      • "denotes releases that did not chart or were not released." The "releases" needs to be "albums" or "singles" as appropriate.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think this is unecessary. Also other discographies include this wording.
          • By definition, you cannot have a release that was not released, which is why I suggested that you change "releases" to "albums" or "singles", so you would get "denotes albums that did not chart or were not released".--DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • ok done--Kürbis (✔) 11:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--DavidCane (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I will work on the remaining points. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose still copyediting issues.

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some really quick issues... Skiffle is overlinked in the lead. Delinked Infobox says 4 compilation albums, lead says three. Updated The Times reference(s) are subscription only. Added a note. Are you sure the original band name was "the Rebels" and not "The Rebels"? Done "was changed to The Beatles and " ->"was renamed The Beatles". Done "became a full member " you said he became a member. What's the difference between a member and a full member? Member may also mean session musician or similar Nope. This doesn't make sense to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Done "the quiet Beatle". Needs a reference. This looks suitable. Added "his nickname "the quiet " -> "his nickname of the "quiet Beatle"." Done "In the later years" the later years of what? Replaced with career "In the later career..." this is still grammatically incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Reworded "his musical effort however was distinguished by some songwriting" what does this mean? Reworded "After a meeting with Indian musician Ravi Shankar he discovered " -> "After a meeting with Indian musician Ravi Shankar, Harrison discovered..." Done "he discovered a new musical instrument" it's not really a "new" instrument is it? perhaps just "he was introduced to the sitar". Done "Later he also tried out with the slide guitar" -> British English doesn't normally say "tried out with". Replaced with tested "of The Beatles in 31 December 1970" not "in", "on". Already corrected " as solo-artists" no hyphen needed. Done ""as members in other " members "of" other bands. Done "debut album" just links to album, worthless link. Delinked The soundtrack to Wonderwall was released two years before The Beatles split up... Yep But you list in after the Beatles split up in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Moved and reworded "This album was not very successful" this just reads poorly to me, I would just say where the album peaked.. was it released in any other territories? Shortened "by short-living recording " -> "by the short-lived..." Done John Lennon is overlinked in the lead. Delinked Apple Records is overlinked in the lead. Delinked "one of his most successful and famous songs, such as " no "such as" if you're talking about "one of..." Reworded "His next albums were not very successful, receiving silver, gold and platinum" sorry, that doesn't make any sense at all. Platinum is extremely successful, don't you think? Not compared with the 6x platinum. I replaced with "moderately" "certifications by British Phonographic Industry " by "the" British... Done "receiving eight-times platinum by " platinum certification or "being certified eight-times platinum". Done "receiving eight-times platinum certifications " nope, see what I wrote. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Oops, done Where are the release dates referenced and for what territory are they relevant? (e.g. the first album seems to be the US release date while the second album seems to be the UK release date...) Will check this Just stated the year. Hope it is ok. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 15:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Most discogs these days implement captions for the tables. Added Why is The Concert for Bangladesh album referenced by both [9] and [23]? Because the information is only available in 23 Then only use ref 23. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Done Where is "This Guitar (Can't Keep from Crying)" referenced? They are referenced by the several Hung Medien references Same comment applies to all non-charted singles. Ditto Please provide inline citations for all non-charted singles. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] The references are listed below the country abbreviations. "Best of Dark Horse 1976-1989" en-dash required. It has an n-dash Not every time. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Ah, I see. Done Don't abbreviate OCC without saying what it is. And it's not The Official Charts Company, it's just "Official Charts Company". According to the site, it is The Official Charts Company Be consistent with author names, either First Last or Last, First. Done Allmusic -> AllMusic. Done Is that the Shanghai Surprise you meant to link to? Yes A long way to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your comments. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 12:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for replying. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* "Harrison's debut career began with skiffle group..." debut career? his career is viewed as a whole as its within one industry, so no idea why debut is used, needs to be removed Removed "Two years later the band was renamed The Beatles and Harrison eventually became a full member and the lead guitarist for the quartet." -> The band was renamed The Beatles two years later, with Harrison as the lead guitarist Not sure about this. I think the sentence is in conflict with "renamed"; Harrison was not renamed. I would write "with Harrison being..." but that is not great English. Its fines it reads better than the previous version. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Harrison's songwriting skills progressed considerably in the last Beatles years." statement like that needs a ref The reference is AllMusic: "In the wake of that decision, Harrison's playing and songwriting grew exponentially." "It was not only the first official solo album by one of the Beatles, but also Apple Records' first LP release." too many weasel words in this sentence change to It was the first official solo alum by a member of The Beatles and Apple Records first LP release Done "This album peaked" This should be The Done "Harrison's next album was the experimental album Electronic Sound" no need for the second use of album Done "There he received the nicknames "Nelson Wilbury" (on its first album) and later "Spike Wilbury" (on its second album)." what has this got to do with his discography? and if it has any relevance it needs referencing Removed "In honour of Harrison, Concert for George was released two years after his death, receiving an eight-times platinum certification by RIAA." As David states above this article is about Harrison's discography, as this album is not part of it, there is no reason for it to be included Removed Avoid bold links per WP:CONTEXTLINK Done ref 1 The Times is a printed publication and should be in italics, so the parameter work should be used not publisher Done ref 3 publication is date is 30 November 2001 not 30 November 2011 Done ref 5 has two full stops after the author Done ref 6, New York Times is The New York Times Done ref 7, needs a publication date adding and Brautigan was not an author of the page Removed ref 8 needs a publication date adding, there are two full stops after the publisher Done ref 14 has no publisher and it does not look to be the most reliable site It is published by Oricon ref 43 has no accessdate Done You have musiccanada.com and Music Canada be consistent Done The dagger and double dagger symbols are not WP:ACCESS compliant. See WP:NOSYMBOLS, use {{dagger}} and {{double dagger}} instead It does not state they are restricted It does: Symbols that cause problems for screen readers may already have templates created to produce an image and alt text. An example is †; see Category:Image insertion templates for more. Again they need to be replaced by the above templates as its a WP:ACCESS issue. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] AllMusic is not a work, as its not a printed publication, so it shouldn't be in italics Done Nope still see some refs that have AllMusic in italics. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose copyediting issues and sloppy referencing again

• Also do you have a date for when he formed The Rebels, would be helpful for context

• I could not find the date.

Well if you can't find the date, then you can't start the next sentence with Around this time, when none is given. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Around the time he formed the rebels

I'm sorry but I'm not sure you understand the issue. You cannot start a sentence with Around this time when you do not specify a date, needs re-wording. NapHit (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "John Lennon's impulsive rhythm guitar playing and McCartney and Lennon's ability for writing and composing songs led Harrison to his nickname of the "quiet Beatle". This sentence troubles me, firstly I fail to see how the qualities of Lennon and McCartney led to him acquiring this nickname, it reads as if this is how he got the nickname. This is compounded by the source not reflecting what the text says, doesn't mention Lennon's impulsive rhythm guitar playing or Lennon and McCartney's ability for composing songs. By all means mention his nickname was the quiet Beatle, but reflect what the source is saying.

• Done

Still got issues with this, the new source mentions Lennon and McCartney's songwriting skills, but says nothing about Lennon's guitar playing. The new source also mentions his aversion to the spotlight was a reason for him earning the nickname, that needs including. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about Lennon

It may not be about Lennon, but when you state the reasons above as leading to Harrison's nickname then they ARE relevant to the article. This has still not been addressed, please alter the sentence to reflect what the sources say. NapHit (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Harrison's growth as a songwriter was evidenced by such successful tracks as "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", "Here Comes the Sun" and "Something". How was it evidenced? What's the difference between these songs and the ones he wrote earlier?

• Explained

No, now it says they were successful and influential again without saying why there were successful or influential, provide some context. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need. This is a general, non-controversial statement.

No it is not a general, non-controversial statement. You cannot say the songs were evidence of his growth with providing a reason why this was. A non-controversial statement would be he wrote the songs. NapHit (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was certified six-times platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and became the best-selling album by any of the former Beatles." Again a statement like that needs a referenced as it can be challenged

• The reference is displayed

Where? because it doesn't come at the end of the sentence. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is at the end of the paragraph

No, that source mentions nothing about the album being certified six-times platinum. NapHit (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The album produced such successful songs as chart-topper "My Sweet Lord" and "What Is Life"." This sentence reads poorly, needs re writing. Also how successful were the songs provide some context

• I already stated "chart-topper". Reworded.

chart-topper is not exactly encyclopaedic, still not enough context, our article says it was the biggest selling single of 1971, also why is What is Life used? what separates this from the other songs on the album?

Ok, but this does not belong into the discography. "what separates this from the other songs on the album?" because they were the only singles of the album, and the only to peak the charts (Isn't It a Pity was a b-side)

Actually it does belong in the discography, I would expect more context from a featured list. Mention they were singles to avoid confusion, have a look at some recent discography promotions to see the context they provide. NapHit (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The live album The Concert for Bangladesh was recorded on 1 August 1971 at New York City's Madison Square Garden, and consists of tracks played at the charity event The Concert for Bangladesh, which preceded Live Aid by 14 years." there are so many issues with this sentence its scary. Firstly you go from past to present tense in the sentence. You don't provide any context for the reader, why was there a concert in the first place? Why is it relevant this preceded Live Aid by 14 years, this an article about Harrison's discography not the concert itself, seems irrelevant to me.

• Removed

instead of repeating the name of the album when you link the concert, pipe it and mention why there was a concert in the first place, provide context. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Both need to be mentioned as first is the concert itself and the other the album--Kürbis (✔) 09:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they both have to be mentioned then re-work the sentence so the concert itself starts the sentence. Then you can explain why there was a concert in the first place, which is what I asked nearly two weeks ago to be included. NapHit (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Harrison's next album was the experimental Electronic Sound, which was the second and last album released by the short-lived recording label Zapple Records" no full stop at the end of this sentence

NapHit (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has still not been addressed. NapHit (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The whole of the travelling wilbury's bit in the lead needs referencing as the albums are not part of his discography. Therefore those statements need a source
• * ref 2, book needs an isbn, year of publication, and author's full name

• Done

The isbn is not formatted correctly, see ref 34 where it is. Also this ref uses a 13 digit isbn, while the other two use a 10 digit, need to be consistent. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC}

This is still not formatted correctly! NapHit (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 7 is International Business Times not Time
• Ref 12 does not work
• Likewise ref 24

Thanks for your comments, much appreciated. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 20:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done a few. Thanks for your comments.--Kürbis (✔) 09:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very troubled by your attitude to this nomination, if you cannot be bothered addressing issues then just withdraw the nomination. We already have a lot of lists in the backlog and if its going to take you two weeks to respond to concerns then I don't think its fair on other nominators who do respond promptly to issues. You've made hardly any attempt to address important issues I've raised above, answering with often incorrect answers such as saying the six-times platinum sentence was referenced at the end of the paragraph when it is not. If you are not prepared to address issues reviewers raise, then why bother nominating in the first place? NapHit (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 20:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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