Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/September 2008

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 22:00, 30 September 2008 [1].

I am nominating this list because it's come a long way from being an AfD. It's gone through a major upheaval, to the point that it's now eligible for FL. It's had a peer review. It's an important topic, and deserves attention for educational purposes. The only thing this list has against it is its short length, especially in comparison to other lists, but other FLs are shorter. I also believe that its shortness is due to the stigma attached to hepatitis C, which more attention could only serve to decrease. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've been a significant editor of this list in the past, so mustn't given an opinion here. Just to say that I agree with Figureskatingfan's assessment on the lack of names "on public record". Although the disease is extremely common, few people know they have it or will publicly admit to having it. Colin°^Talk 08:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to comment Colin has "handed me the baton" on this article (I won't drop it, I swear), and as an editor, I tend to be a stickler on sources. Also, there are names that could've been added, but they weren't notable enough for a WP article. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Wrt the opening sentence, I disagree with the deletion of it. See Wikipedia:Lists#Lead sections in stand-alone lists which states that the lead must explain what the list is about and define the inclusion criteria, even if obvious from the title. In addition, the FLC guidelines require the lead "defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list". Without that opening sentence, the lead is just a discussion on Hepatitis C. I've tweaked the lead sentence a little. Colin°^Talk 21:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's interesting to note the contradiction between WP:LISTS and WP:SELFREF then. I'd avoid self-referencing at all costs. It doesn't really matter that this isn't introduced as a list - the title should be adequate enough for that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tweaked it to make it less of a self ref. I'm not sure the current text "This list includes people..." is any more of a forbidden self ref than some article saying "The following list includes people...". I don't see anything in WP:SELFREF that prevents you introducing a list. See comment below for the common reaction that the list is hopelessly incomplete because it doesn't list everybody in the category. If you can suggest another way of noting the precise inclusion criteria (an FL criterion) ... Colin°^Talk 22:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I see that selfref isn't really applicable, however I'm perplexed as to why we need to state this is a list. The title of the article is "List of people...", there's a note at the top of the article which states "This list is incomplete...", why do we need, for the third time in three sections, repeat the fact it's a list? As for comprehensiveness, I can't tell you what the inclusion criteria applied in this list is, although I believe you're saying "everyone famous who has said they are suffering from it". Is that it? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm fine with deleting the first sentence as suggested, and as I did when the recommendation was first suggested. I will go ahead and take care of it. The criteria for inclusion, I believe, follows WP:V. Other than that, you're correct, but I'd add, "Everyone who is notable (i.e., has a WP bio so that there are no red links) whose 'claim' to having HVC can be verified." --Figureskatingfan (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Sorry but this list cannot really ever become fully comprehensive, and therefore fails the third FL criteria, the list even says at top it is incomplete. Sorry. Sunderland06 (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for my sudden change of mind, but is the list comprehensive in it's own right, that it can be complete for all the people that have released they have the infection, I'm not really sure on this one actually. Again sorry. Sunderland06 (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S, the tag you mention is a standard tag for this kind of list. Also, I think that those of us who have edited this article has done their best to ensure that everyone who's gone on the record with their HVC-status are on this list. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok thanks for clearing that up. Good luck! Sunderland06 (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. Here are a few points.

• I suppose we can accept that transmission is "blood-to-blood" (alone), but we really don't know much about this, still.

That's what the most reliable sources say, not just the one cited. If people want to know more about HVC, they can look at those sources or at the WP article. This list has never been a complete discussion of the disease.

• The pic doesn't seem to show.

Which pic? All the images are loading fine for me. Are you talking about the lead image? Please explain.

• Why is "United States" linked? Please delink.

Sorry, I'm a victim of over-linking. Fixed.

• You could remove "against hepatitis C".

Done.

• "The symptoms of infection can be medically managed"—slight overstatement, since when it's advanced, the symptoms are difficult to control. Step back and say "can usually be".

I went for the middle ground, and said, "The symptoms of infection can be medically managed when the disease is diagnosed early..."

• "Although early medical intervention is helpful, people with HCV infection can experience mild symptoms, and consequently do not seek treatment." --> "The symptoms of HCV infection, especially in its early stages, can be mild enough to conceal the fact of the disease; thus, some people do not seek treatment." Or something like that?

Changed as suggested.

• Why not abbreviate all the time, esp. in the table?

Huh? Please explain. I don't see any abbreviations; could you point out examples?

• I'd prefer "since 1967" rather than an en dash pointing to death.

Again, I don't understand this statement. Are you talking about the years in the "Life" column in the table? If you are, that means that they're still living. The en dashes are there so that the sortname template works, as explained above.

Tony (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tony. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SatyrTN comments

• MOS:DATE doesn't address this specifically, but I think the "1976–" format is discouraged in favor of "b. 1976". See MOS:DATE#Dates of birth and death. Further, be aware that changing those means changing them to use {{sort}} as well. For instance, Pamela Anderson's entry will be changed from "1967–" to "{{sort|b. 1967|1967}}"

I just addressed this issue above. Let's not make things *too* complicated, shall we?

• I *think* the "Life" heading might be better as "Lifetime"? I've had a similar situation with List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: R and haven't come up with a satisfactory solution, but that seems to work.

Ok, will change with hesitation.

• On a very general level, I'm leery about this list passing Criteria #3 and Criteria #7. My biggest concern is that, out of 170,000,000 people that have the disease, we have a list of roughly 50. I recognize that people don't come forward about their status, but I'm concerned about the encyclopedic value of a list such as this, and I'm concerned about a list such as this being FLC. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions, Satyr. I'll address Criteria #7 first. This list has had very little edit wars. I think a look at the edit history will show that this list is unusually stable, in spite of its subject matter. Regarding Criteria 3, no list like this will ever be completely comprehensive. Its sister lists, even though they're longer, aren't even comprehensive. I don't think that the status of this list should "suffer" due to the stigma attached to the disease. It's so odd that more people are willing to admit they have HIV than HVC. This list could help relieve the stigma, so it that way it's encyclopedic. WP can have FLs on artists' discographies, but not this one? Also remember that the majority of the 170 million people with hep C aren't notable enough to have a WP article, and that's one of the "criteria" for this list. In addition, as the lead states, a big portion of that 170 million don't even know they have it. Perhaps this list can help more people get tested. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

• How about making "1967–" → "1967–present"; it makes it clearer and it doesn't change the meaning at all.

Gary King (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did this, since it doesn't affect sorting in the table, but I rolled back myself because, well, actually, it does change the meaning. It says that someone lived from (pulling a year out of the hat) 1964 until present, making that person 44 years old. "B. 1964" messes up with the sorting, so I think we should just leave it as is. Other lists have the en dash, so there's no reason why this one shouldn't, either. Perhaps it's just an aesthetic issue. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 22:00, 30 September 2008 [2].

I feel this list meets all FL criteria.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No sources for the first appearances. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Great to see it with no one-timers and in a nice single table. However, a lack of first appearance sources is a problem. Also, are we sure every recurring character is listed? And is the external link to a German Simpsons Wiki really needed? Gran² 19:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Nice work, but it needs more sources. Also, I think it would be better if there was just one big sortable table, like this. TheLeftorium 20:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Overall, a basic "okay" list, but it needs an expanded lead/prose and needs more references to reliable sources to verify the first appearances.--^SR_X 01:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Per all above and I truly believe that this list is very incomplete. I saw more than 1000 (or even more) characters in The Simpsons Movie. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 01:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair the objective of the list is not to list every background character ever produced on the Simpsons. Such a list would be indiscrimate information. --Maitch (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is great to these improvements to the list. It is much better than it used to be. Here is what I think needs to done. It needs more citations (I know this one is hard). Some characters have not listed their first episode. This should be fixed. The voice actors should be sortable by their last name like the characters. --Maitch (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that it would be great if the list could be sortable in the order of first appearence. --Maitch (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That one is easy. Just add {{sort|[enter season #][Enter Episode #]|[Enter episode name]}}. Or alternatively, you could show the episode number, ie. "0101 - "Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire"" -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The main issues being the lack of sources for first appearances, three entries without first appearances and that voice actors don't sort by surname. Sorry, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 21:10, 30 September 2008 [3].

This article meets all FL criteria.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Suugest speedy close This page is a huge mess. There is little to no real world info, a lot of unsourced statements and several characters missing. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick fail springs to mind. Unsourced material galore. e.g. no sources for any material in Helen Lovejoy, Herman, Jack Larson, Jasper Beardly etc. - a list so long I could probably get it featured! You haven't addressed the issues raised in its peer review. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close - per above. To be fair, this list would be incredibly hard to get to FL. Gran² 18:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowy Oppose + Suggest Speedy Close - the list itself is a mess and is not comprehensible and fails most of the FL Criteria.--S_RX 20:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 20:56, 30 September 2008 [4].

I made a new list over the Swedish municipalities. I feel the list illustrate the municialities in a good way and feel it meet the FLC criteria. Røed (talk · no) 16:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Sweden municipal borders (click image to enlarge)" – remove the "(click image to enlarge)"; think about how useful this would be if the page was printed, for example
• remove the bold from the link "Municipalities of Sweden" per WP:BOLDTITLE
• should "to the 21" be "in the 21"?
• "of a uniform type" – what's that supposed to mean?
• add references to the statements made in the lead

Gary King (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Think I have clearified most of them now, if there is any more in the lead that need citations. make a note on them, and I will find sources. Røed (talk · no) 20:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources need to state that they are in Swedish. Can't evaluate the sources because they are in Swedish. Can't check links because the link checker tool is down today. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the links are working, and I changed some of the links to go straight to the spreadsheet(s), except the first one, it's only the numbers that are interesting anyway. Røed (talk · no) 20:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There need to be units for the Area and Density. Kaldari (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done (km2) Røed (talk · no) 20:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected some spelling mistakes in the lead but I have further comments.

• Why is the list primarily sorted on municipality number rather than name? There are gaps in the numbering which could imply that there are entries missing (I presume that the reason for the gaps is municipality mergers). A link to something that explains the numbers would also be useful.
• I am not convinced by the utility of the very small maps. For a start each map is of a county which most people outside Sweden will not recognise. What is more it is very difficuly to see the highlighted municipality except for some of the larger ones. You also need to bear in mind that they add to the load time of the page.
• For me (on IE6) the column width of the Coat of Arms column at the top doesn't line up with the width for the arms themselves. Additionally the population value almost overlaps the shield.

Boissière (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Code: The numbers/code is the statistical way of SCB to devide between the municipalities, and I used the same way (also get sorted by counties and there are a mixed reasons for why not all numbers are used (in addition to mergers). :*I have now linked to a new article about the topic, but can also make a short sentence about it in the introduction.
• Maps/Counties: I have now put maps over the counties on the right side, I can put them in each line too, but this will increase loading time. If someone could find a way to get them roughly the same place as the coounties in the table it would be great (I did one try, but it messed up the sorting). I feel the maps are useful, even some of them becomes small (could increase size some too). There is loadingtime, but I feel it will be difficult to reduce this without reducing the quality of the list.
• IE6: I don't have IE6 on any of the computers I got available, so it's difficult for me to fix this. if you can fix or look on it, it would be great. But, there is little doubt that this table is not ideal for the smallest screens. Røed (talk · no) 20:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now. Røed (talk · no) 21:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put sq. miles into the table as well after looking on similar nominations of municipalities/counties, but would like to hear some more comments. Røed (talk · no) 05:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Is it "municipalities" or "Municipalities"?
• "The current 290 municipalities form sub-divisions divided into 21 counties " - this needs a little work, particularly "sub-divisions divided" which reads poorly.
• Don't link individual years like 1971.
• " now a uniform type" - what does this actually mean?
• The lead needs expanding really. What's there now should only form one para and we need at least another big para - talk about the biggest, smallest, history, other notable municipalities.
• "by municipality code" - not really. It's a sortable table so it could be listed by any of the col headings.
• "(2008-12-31)" - isn't that the future? And we don't like ISO dates when human-readable versions could be used?
• Area doesn't sort correctly.
• Some coats of arms without images.
• Some English references wouldn't go amiss - this is, after all, English Wikipedia.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed most of the issues you are pointing too, I will work on the lead tomorrow, but found it difficult to balance between Municipalities of Sweden and the list, since I find the main article to be to long to have just one. So I focused the lead on the parameters in the table (counties, area, population). I can and will expand the lead, but want tips on how to balance the article (or if they are possible to merge)
• There are some copyright issues regarding the last municipalities on commons, and I'm not familiar enough on fair use to upload them here. (13 municipalities, 4,4% of total)
• I found a source in the database of Statistics Sweden with the same parameters (except the first history reference) in English, I merged them to one citation. Røed (talk · no) 04:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I merged the article with Municipalities of Sweden, but let both be there for now so people can give comments on what they prefer. If the large version is keept it obviusly need some more proof reading. The introduction/history naturally got longer too. Røed (talk · no) 22:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Are you sure it is municipalities? To me it seems to be communes! Nergaal (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Swedish it's kommmun, however in English the term municipalities are used (see references in article and Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions). Røed (talk · no) 22:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't use a word to translate a foreign word into English just because it looks/sounds alike. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 20:56, 30 September 2008 [5].

previous FLC (15:40, 1 September 2008) Everything is sorted out from last time and many changes mean it should now be even more ready. Andre666 (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good list and remember you don't need to remove chart positions cause other users sais so. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Cannibaloki 16:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha yeah, thanks dude. Andre666 (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh actually just noted something, if you don't replace the source for the music video directors i'm forced to change my support to oppose. I'm not good spooting problems, so whats the problem with the list Cannibaloki. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the source? It is the official site and for facts like this (as opposed to those like sales) it is reliable, surely. Correct me if I'm wrong, though, by all means. Andre666 (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official websites are not considered reliable sources on wikipedia so if that list is ever goin to become a FL get a more reliable source which is accepted. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may as well be removed now then, because I've looked and looked. I can not be bothered to argue for the reliability of this source, which it really is. Ah well, looks like it won't be FL. Andre666 (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "...six singles and one video." → "...six singles, and one video album."
  •  Done, despite the fact that linking to video helps nothing!
• "In 2005 they released their full-length debut, also called Wolfmother, in Australia..." (this album is called entitled Wolfmother only in Australia? – reword this sentence)
  •  Done - changed to "is also self-titled".
• The notes about EPs, could be inside of this same table/section. (will become more harmonious ←hmm...)
  • I think the separate Notes section looks more professional, don't you think? Andre666 (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No professional, but perhaps uniform. Cannibaloki 17:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Peak chart positions → Peak positions (please, singles table only)
  • What; why?
    • To make the table less stretched vertically. Cannibaloki 17:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "—" denotes a release that did not chart. → "—" denotes releases that did not chart or were not released in that country. (mainly)
  •  Not done "—" denotes a release that did not chart or was not issued. (issued were? – in this subtitle does not add anything!) Cannibaloki 17:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it does. Each "—" is in its own section, and denotes whatever is declared. It denotes that a release did not chart (in the area the "—" is, the same applies to issues in countries). Andre666 (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Jay Martin, Michael Angelos, Nate Young → Jay Martin<br />Michael Angelos<br />Nate Young
  •  Done
• "Apple Tree" (Live) → "Apple Tree" (live); (cleaner and elegant)
  •  Done
• Where this Other appearances on infobox?
  •  Done
• Replace Label with Ref. on other appearances; (take a look at Mastodon discography)
  •  Done

Cannibaloki 21:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC) }}[reply]

Small note Using the band's official website to cite music directors is perfectly fine. indopug (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks. :) Andre666 (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - after the many comments to fix issues, it now meets the FL Criteria.--S_RX 13:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose (due to the references)

• "currently consists of one "- currently is redundant. There'd be little point in this not being "current"...
  • Why? I believe "currently" should be there if the band is still active and likely to release more material, and it should be removed if the band is disbanded and they are not likely to release any more records. Andre666 (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have no timeframe on "currently" so even if they released a new album and you weren't around to fix the list, it'll be incorrect anyway. As a compromise, you could add "as of September 2008, ..." The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's cool. Will sort it now! Andre666 (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't like the non-specific references which the reader has to follow instructions to see.
  • It is not ideal, is there any way to isolate the site's subpages from the flash as standalone pages? Andre666 (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know. Point is that you should seek to reference this material elsewhere if you all you can provide is instructions - I might as well type it into Google myself which pretty much undermines the principle of specific references. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not think there will be references to replace these, but it will be an ongoing search. I think it still meets the FL criteria though, as I have referenced it nonetheless, it just takes more work. Andre666 (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• The studio albums table are completely wrinkled, singles table (bottom key) aren't resolved, and refs. for music videos directors include problems per comments above. That's all. Cannibaloki 17:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Gimmetrow 22:55, 30 September 2008 [6].

previous FLC (15:45, 16 August 2008) It previously failed because of a lack of comments, and I still believe it meets the criteria. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie » 03:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC) A couple of Comments[reply]

• What was it called before it was renamed in 1964?
  • I don't think it even had an "official" name until 1964.
• The intro seems a little short, couldn't you expand it like List of Heisman Trophy winners. Expanding on it's history.

REZTER ^TALK ø 10:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Expanded.   jj137 (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Killervogel5

• "The Boston Celtics hold the record for the most wins of the Walter A. Brown Trophy, with a total of thirteen times."→"The Boston Celtics won the Brown Trophy a total of 13 times, most in league history."
  • Fixed by MFC.   jj137 (talk) 03:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Basketball Association of America should be linked at its first appearance (currently second).
  • Fixed by MFC.   jj137 (talk) 03:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Walter A. Brown Trophy was a trophy" - It is obviously a trophy. Change to "The Walter A. Brown Trophy was awarded to...".
  • Fixed by MFC.   jj137 (talk) 03:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "conclusion of every NBA season"→every should be "each," and link NBA season to this location.
  • Fixed by MFC.   jj137 (talk) 03:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "The trophy was kept by the winning team for one year, and given to the next championship team after the following finals." - remove comma.
  • Fixed by MFC.   jj137 (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• New trophy design doesn't need to be linked in the lead and the footnotes.
  • I removed the link from the footnotes.   jj137 (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Boston Celtics linked twice in lead.
  • Fixed by MFC.   jj137 (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The "1" note in the 1950 season doesn't go anywhere. Remove.
  • Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Footnote C: The trophy was replaced by a new design.
  • Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reference lists should be no more than 2 columns per MOS.
  • Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I would also like to see some expansion in the lead.
  • Expanded.   jj137 (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• What about sorting? Colspans would need to be removed for that to happen.
  • Sorry, I guess I don't really see how sorting would help. Could you explain a bit? Thanks.   jj137 (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Killervogel5

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working on everything, please give me some time. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie » 14:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• "from 1946–49" - never keen on this in prose - why not just "from 1946 to 1949"?
  • Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm odd - " of each NBA season from 1947 to 1977. " - but the comment above discussed the BAA being from 1946 to 1949... so what happened in 1946?
  • Fixed it.   jj137 (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "next championship team after the following finals" - not good English - I know what you're saying but currently it sort of says "the next one the following time" which is awkward.
  • Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "the NBA in 1949." but previously... "NBA season from 1947 to 1977." - implying NBA existed from 1947.
  • Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "The trophy was renamed in 1984 to honor former NBA commissioner Larry O'Brien.[3][4][5][6] " - four citations for this one claim
  • I removed one of them that was redundant.   jj137 (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hang on - this list finishes in 1977 but the renaming took place in 1984 - what's the deal? New design but same name so surely this list needs those winners too?
  • Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• And it wasn't named after him until 1964...
  • Nothing to change there I think, as I don't think it even had an official name until 1964.   jj137 (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 1950 - what's the superscript 1 mean?
  • MFC fixed it - it links to the notes section now.   jj137 (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No need for full stops in the key table.
  • Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The title suggests it is an article about the Walter A. Brown Trophy, not simply a list of winners. Could you call this List of Walter A. Brown Trophy winners or something similar, and redirect? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie » 21:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:14, 29 September 2008 [7].

What the hell. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

previous FLC (15:45, 17 September 2008)

• Weak support - Support because it meets the FL criteria, but its weak because of the nominator's reason, no personal offense intended.--S_RX 23:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, very good list, Jaespinoza (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Please address the concerns of the previous FLC before renominating in the future, e.g. the inclusion of the MMVAs and fixing the Infobox where the numbers don't add up.
• " Canada's Juno Award, " awards?
• "on Bobby" need to explain what "Bobby" is. Done
• Put AMA in parentheses after "American Music Awards" Done
• References should be in numerical order unless you have a good reason for them not to be... ".[7][8][6]" should be "[6][7][8]" Done
• You've got the nominated and won the wrong way round in my opinion. You say "won one and nominated for three" - this reads as if he had four overall... I'd consider "From three nominations, Adams has won one award." or similar. Done
• "eighteen awards out of fifty-five nominations" 18 awards from 55 nominations. Done
• Ref 5 is not specific and does therefore not cite those 55 nominations. Done
• Do you honestly think you need to wikilink music and art? Done
• Ref 6 title is just Bryan Adams - the work is Rock on the Net. Done
• Ref 4 - the language shouldn't be part of the link. Done
• Refs 4 and 5 need their dates sorting out so they're in English.
• Why is Oscars in bold? Done
• " is among the oldest, most prominent, most prestigious, and most watched film award ceremonies in the world" interesting but not really relevant here. Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Could you replace reference [4] with an english one. e.g. This from the golden globe website, with the same information and probably more reliable. Done
• In the Honours section the "Order of Canada" is not something your really win. It is more of a recognition. I don't think the "Result" and "Won" can really apply to this section. Maybe just list them as "Other recognitions" or something. Done
• Also nominated for a Satellite Award for "Original Song" in 2006.
• Nominated for two World Soundtrack Awards in 2002.
• The numbers don't add up in the infobox. Done

Also regarding your "What the hell" comment. It failed because it wasn't of a featured standard. You really should have addressed these things before immediately renominating it again.
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Could you source the honours section so that you can remove the sources from the lead please. — Realist² 17:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

• You have noted the following things as done but they are not
  • The numbers still don't add up in the infobox
  • Also in replacing the reference I mentioned you simply copied into the current citeweb, template. You did not change the accessdate= or the date= (which in an incorrect format anyway).
• For the Golden Globes, ref 4 - the title should be 2007 not 2006.
• Ref 5 adds nothing to the section on Golden Globes all it says is "[Adams] has an impressive array of Oscar and Golden Globe nominations." It doesn't cite any of that sentence.
• The 1992, 1996 & 1997 Golden Globe nominations are unreferenced.

As it stands I oppose, for failing criteria 3, this list is not comprehensive (see previous comments).
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Lead is far from engaging - basically just proseline.
• "also" x 3 in the lead is repetitive and makes for boring reading.
• "Overall, Adams has received four awards from 4 nominations." - don't think so.
• I'd state nominations before awards since you have to be nominated before you can win them so, for instance, "Adams has won one AMA, and been nominated for three" becomes "Adams has been nominated for three AMAs, winning three."
• Infobox has 31 nominations, total is 34?
• "for five Golden Globe." Globe awards?
• "to recognize excellence of professionals" is this a quotation? If so, cite it.
• " The formal ceremony at which the awards are presented is among the oldest, prestigious, and most watched film award ceremony in the world." as I said before, interesting but irrelevant.
• Fix dates of refs 4 and 5.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:14, 29 September 2008 [8].

I believe this list is worthy of being featured in Wikipedia. It's the result of very expansive research and effort that I took over several months. I was looking for advice to see if I should add these two sections (number one and number two from the "sister article" History of Kansas City Chiefs quarterbacks. Both articles were originally merged together as one, but now split. Thanks! conman33 (. . .talk) 22:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• The Chiefs have had a total of thirty quarterbacks start a game in their franchise's 48-year history. - unbold thirty quarterbacks start a game or remove the link in the bold per WP:LEDE.
• The team has also had numerous backup quarterbacks that have stolen the spotlight from the starters. - stolen is POV, reword sentence
• Under Len Dawson, the Texans/Chiefs won three American Football League championships and appeared in two Super Bowl championship games. - needs a transition to say that Dawson is a QB.
• Under Len Dawson, the Texans/Chiefs won three American Football League championships and appeared in two Super Bowl championship games. Dawson was named Most Valuable Player following the Chiefs' victory in Super Bowl IV. Dawson played a total of thirteen seasons with Kansas City and retired with many franchise records. The Chiefs achieved success under many veteran quarterbacks, including Dave Krieg, Joe Montana, Elvis Grbac, and Trent Green. - this entire paragraph needs verification.
• I feel the lead can be expanded to state more about the starting quarterbacks, like those who helped the team accomplish something, or simply state the first quarterback, the middle and current QB.
• The table is horrible (sorry to say that but IMO it can do better).
  • For one, the table would benefit by being sortable.
  • Wikilinking the seasons would help.
  • The parenthesis are confusing, it would be better if they just went in chronological order.
  • Why are the seasons in one year format, while there is another in a two year format (i.e 1999 versus 1966-67)
  • The notes or key should be made into table format to make it look more presentable.
  • The quarterbacks column should be renamed to "Quarterback(s)"
  • I think the key would benefit by having colors versus italics and bold font, to make it more easier to distinguish items.
  • I would also make the key into a separate section to squeeze a table of contents.

--S_RX 23:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up

• I unlinked "quarterbacks" in the bolded sentence.
• Reworded "stolen the spotlight" sentence.
• Added transition to say Dawson is a QB
• Changed The Chiefs achieved success under many veteran quarterbacks, including Dave Krieg, Joe Montana, Elvis Grbac, and Trent Green. to say that they have had three Hall of Famers play for the team.
• Added info on Cotton Davison, the team's first starter, and mentioned the 2008 season's situation with using three quarterbacks so far. Thigpen will be the next starter on Sunday 9/24 vs. Falcons.
• As for the table, you know you can help me out, right? Thanks for your opinion but I tried my best.
  • Changed to sortable table.
  • Added "Quarterbacks(s)"
  • If you read carefully, you would see that the years (1999 and 1966-1967) are combined for a reason: If a quarterback started all games in consecutive seasons, all consecutively played games are combined in parentheses. I did this because I'm sure if I were to list out every year-by-year, somebody would complain or it would be making the article too long. SCRAPPED
  • Parentheses aren't so confusing when you read The number of games started is listed in small parentheses. and like I said above, if they started consecutive games, the numbers are added together.
  • Added colors to the key: I'm not sure how to highlight a name (say I want to note that Warren Moon is a Hall of Famer, but if I add color to that column in the table, the entire thing will be highlighted. I might just leave out the mention that they are HOFers except for the lead. If readers want to know something like that they can read their respective articles.
  • Moved notes section to new subsection.
  • Lastly: notes or key should be made into table format to make it look more presentable -- how would you recommend this? I'm not sure I get where you're coming from.

Thanks for looking over it. conman33 (. . .talk) 18:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• An image in the lead would be nice
• "The Chiefs have had a total of thirty quarterbacks to start a game" - firstly this does not need to be in bold, and it should be re worded to "The Chiefs have had a total of 30 starting quarterbacks"
• "Three future Hall of Famers played for Kansas City–Dawson," - no need for dash, just use a comma
• "For more information on Chiefs quarterbacks, see History of Kansas City Chiefs quarterbacks." this should be at the top of the page
• The reference should not be sortable to achieve this add class="unsortable" before the reference column
• Years should be centrally aligned, and years should be separate not listed like this: 1966-67
• As the table is sortable everything needs to be linked
• A link to the appropriate season would be nice
• Use the <cod>[[{{{first}}} {{{last}}}]] to sort the names
• Split the references into two columns

Cheers NapHit (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up

• Image of Tyler Thigpen (current starter) added to lead
• "The Chiefs have had a total of thirty quarterbacks to start a game" -- reworded, and unbolded.
• "Three future HOFers" -- added 'including Dawson, Joe Montana..."
• Reference column is now unsortable
• Years are now centrally aligned, all have links to season articles

You haven't centrally aligned the seasons, also the "(s) is not needed, you don't need refs in the images either NapHit (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I'm not sure what to do with the [[{{{first}}} {{{last}}}]] coding. Got it

Next, by splitting the references, what would you reccommend? I'm not understanding that.

Thanks! conman33 (. . .talk) 20:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose

• Beef up the lead image, WP:MOS#Images allows up to 300px.
• Is it possible to link to quarterback?
• thirty-one ->31
• "a total of " redundant
• "In the 2008 season (currently in progess)" if you insist on keeping 2008 in here (which I wouldn't recommend as it would potentially result in the list being incorrect every week), then progress has two r's!
• Avoid the small font for number of games started.
• "Season(s)" why (s)? I can't see more than one season in each row of this column?
• Seurer and Hodson should have articles, even if they're stubs - expand the Wikipedia!
• Moon's caption seems the wrong way round to me - focus on how many he started and then mention he finished his career with the team.
• " 1 interception" - one interception.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

• Image increased to 300px
• By linking to quarterback, do you mean in the lead? If so, I linked it.
• Thirty-one changed to 31
• 'a total of' removed
• Progess -> Progress. I love to misspell.
• Small font -- I may omit the numbers all together, but if not, the numbers will be in larger font
• 'Seasons(s)' originally included merged years, but I forgot to remove this, now it's gone
• Seurer and Hudson now have articles, Hudson's article is now up for Did you know?
• Moon's caption was reworded, might not be what you were looking for though
• '1 interception' -> one interception'

conman33 (. . .talk) 05:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:14, 29 September 2008 [9].

This list, although it isn't "list of", still doesn't disclude nomination, as it is more of a summary rather than a normal article. The article summarizes all 5 state-maintained highways in Hamilton County, New York, and although it uses only 13 references, every fact in the article is cited. I am open to any comments and or improvements. Thanks!Mitch32^(UP) 20:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Looks pretty good, love the intersections table. ~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 22:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments This is a perfect example of an exception to the "10-item rule".
  • I think you're forcing the boldface here, just lose it
    • Removed.
  • After "New York State Route 30", add "NY 30" in parentheses; same with "NY 8".
    • Done.
      • I meant add them in the first instance, i.e. in the lead.--Crzycheetah 01:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph has just one sentence, so either expand/merge.
    • Changed.
  • Isn't the "county" column redundant here? The title states clearly that we are going to read about highways in Hamilton County, so why are we mentioning it over and over?
    • Something in the template I cannot fix.
      • Why are you using a template for such a short table?--Crzycheetah 01:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does the blue-ish color indicate?
    • Overlap between routes. That's used in all road articles.
      • Mention it somewhere.--Crzycheetah 01:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's already a link to the Hamilton County in the lead, why do you have it in the see also section, as well?
    • Removed.
  • The current ref #6 states "PDF", but there is no pdf file in that citation.

--Crzycheetah 07:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replies and dones mentioned.Mitch32^(UP) 22:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I'm sorry, but I think this should be expanded to cover all highways in the county, a la List of highways in Warren County, New York. The only reason I can think of that might have led to the exclusion of the US/Interstate/County routes is because it is less effort to exclude them, but I feel this leaves the article much weaker than it could (if not should) be - rst20xx (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This cannot happen. Reasons being, there are NO interstates, U.S. Routes or reference routes in Hamilton County. Other than the 5 (6) state routes I've mentioned, there is a very limited CR system and that can be covered in County routes in Hamilton County, New York. So this is a better format to keep it in rather than having a bad condition list.Mitch32^(UP) 22:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, surely just adding the limited county routes, a la the sections here and here, would be all that's needed for you to be able to turn this into a general "List of" article? I don't see what's wrong with having both things in one article - rst20xx (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because its crap, and makes the article off topic - and btw - I hate the "list of" header. Your example, in my opinion, is crap as well, and I'd perfer keeping County Routes out of it.Mitch32^(UP) 22:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...see also here - rst20xx (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose

• "Map locating where Hamilton County is in New York" - I'd prefer something neater like "Map showing location of Hamilton County within New York state"

Fixed.

• "The five state highways travel the more rural parts of Hamilton County ..." little bit WP:ORish...

Fixed.

• What does blue represent? And pay heed to WP:MOS#COLORS, don't use only colours to indicate a particular property.\

This a USRD thing brought up in the past. Consensus is to keep them.

• I'd prefer the columns of each table to be the same from section to section...

They are the same.

• Confused between the Location vs Mile in table NY 8 v table NY 10... I think you're a column off somehow...

Tried something and forgot fix it.

• "continue farther than its " further?

Fixed

• "[13][8][11]" I'd prefer numerical order if there's no good reason not to..

Changed.

• Table NY 30 relinks NY 8 and NY 28 but not NY 30 - be consistent with relinking throughout these tables, either link it every time or just the first time and never again, at least in the same section.

Changed.

• "Herkimer[15], " move ref to the other side of the comma.

Done.

• Not particularly overwhelmed by all those external links - is there a more generic link you could add instead?

Done.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments below each post.Mitch32^(UP) 17:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:14, 29 September 2008 [10].

I believe the article meets the criteria of a featured list. If there are any issues I will work to correct them.-5- (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per everything in this nomination. NSR77 ^T_C 20:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I respect your opinion, I would say this article offers far more content than the List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members article.-5- (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the amount of content is relevant. The basis of my argument is the concept of a band member's list, which is almost trivial. The graph on the bottom should accurately represent those who have come and gone in the band, and placed on the bottom of the main article. You're basically just relaying fragments of history, when all of this is covered in the main article. A list such as this one seems unnecessary. NSR77 ^T_C 02:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you feel the same about the featured lists List of Dream Theater band members and List of Slipknot band members?-5- (talk) 04:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was not present during those FACs, but had I been I would have opposed as well. NSR77 ^T_C 19:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a personnal reason which has nothing to do with a FL nomination. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Current ref 7 (Erlewine... ) lacks a last access date.
  • Addressed.-5- (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Other websites lack last access dates (the newspaper articles)
  • Addressed.-5- (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes http://www.theywillrockyou.com/index.php/interviews/mike_mccready_of_pearl_jam/ a reliable source?
  • Well, the information comes straight from Mike McCready. Whether McCready did the interview with theywillrockyou.com or Rolling Stone or Spin, it shouldn't matter, because the information is coming straight from McCready himself. The information isn't coming from some random writer who is making stuff up.-5- (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, the reason we know that an interview with Rolling Stone or Spin isn't made up is because the magazine itself stands behind the interview, i.e. the magazine has a reputation for being reliable. What makes this site have such a reputation? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's many other interviews with notable music artists on the website, all of which can be found here. I'm certain that they are real interviews otherwise the site would face legal troubles.-5- (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Why cherry-pick three individuals in the lead with " Since its inception, the band's line-up has included ..." ?
  • Addressed.-5- (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "drummer Dave Krusen. With Krusen as its drummer" repetitive.
  • Addressed.-5- (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "checked himself into rehab" too chatty, not encyclopedic enough.
  • Addressed.-5- (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Abbruzzese " mentioned six times in five sentences.
  • Addressed.-5- (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "a close friend of Vedder " needs citation.
  • Addressed.-5- (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "In 2002, the band brought in organist Boom Gaspar as an additional member. Gaspar has appeared on the studio ..." appears out of chronological order...
  • I don't think so. Gaspar became involved with the band after Matt Cameron joined, and that is what is stated in the paragraph.-5- (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "on the Temple of the Dog project " what's that?
  • Addressed.
• Not at all keen on the galleries.
  • List of Dream Theater band members and List of Slipknot band members, both featured lists, have the same thing.-5- (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:14, 29 September 2008 [11].

re-nominated. Be Black Hole Sun (talk · contribs)

previous FLC (07:07, 22 August 2008)

Oppose - awesome list but:

• the introduction fails to define the term of Roman Emperor. The term was actually invented only around the dominate (I believe Dominitian was the first to really use it?). Until them, the position actually consisted of several titles (not sure which ones exactly but one of them was leader of the praetorian gurards, another one was something like first magistrate, etc), including imperatorum—which ironically was one of the lesser titles.
• I think the position of Emperor should clearly be defined in terms of the period: especially difference between the principate and the dominate
• the Byzantine Empire section should probably have some text to briefly discuss what is in the link.
• perhaps add a note about the Caroligian Empire?
• while it is nice, I am not sure why are reign period, name, birthplaces grouped together, while death gets its own section. perhaps get the reign period in its separate column?
• I believe there are small gaps in the reins (one example 350-361)
• worst of all, the list is veeeery under referenced: imperial titles, and reign periods should be the main concern to receiving proper referencing.

The list is referenced, it uses the books

prove that by showing the relevant refs for each entry Nergaal (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.aboutroma.com/romans.html
• While Machiavelli did amazing work for his time, I really don't think using his historical commentaries on Livy is the best way to go to source something. It's a BIT out of date (like 500 years?)
• The books are, while okay, borderline as far as sources. Guiness book of Kings, Rulers and Statesmen? Asimov?
• VERY underreferenced. Very very very underreferenced.
• List your books in alphabetical order by author, it looks neater.

Otherwise links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Infobox is incomplete.
• Not enough references in the lead.
• "The Latin term Imperium Romanum (Roman Empire), the best-known Latin expression was the word imperium denotes a territory known as homoland," what?
• How much of the earth's surface is 5,900,000 km² (2,300,000 sq mi) ?
• "The term is first coined " - was coined.
• Columns should be made same width from table to table.
• "Caracalla " has "IMPERATOR CAESAR MARCVS AVRELIVS SEVERVS ANTONINVS PIVS AVGVSTVS " for imperial name. Why are those parts bold?
• Why are imperial names in small fonts?
• Where's Vetriano's imperial name?
• "Julian the Apostate|IMPERATOR CAESAR FLAVIVS CLAVDIVS IVLIANVS AVGVSTVS " is this really the imperial name? some English and a pipe?
• Perhaps consider putting the name of the emperor before the reign?
• Subdivide references into specific and general.

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:14, 29 September 2008 [12].

I haven't submitted a list to be featured in a while (Not after the whole The White Stripes discography fiasco), but after being suggested to by Gary King (And he should know), here it is. Red157(talk • contribs) 12:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support GREAT LIST. Why don't you re-nominate the white stripes discography? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
• Since it is not a sortable, maybe you could use rowspan on the Grammy table for Elephant as you did on the MTV tables. Jaespinoza (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://top40.about.com/od/awards/a/2005mtvawards_3.htm (Wouldn't it make more sense to link direct to the MTV awards?)
  • http://www.tourdates.co.uk/news/2984-MTV-European-Award-Nominees-Timberlake-White-Stripes-Lead-The-Pack (Again, wouldn't it make more sense to link direct to the MTV awards?)
• http://www.movieweb.com/tv/news/31/21731.php (Again, wouldn't it make more sense ...)

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, no direct sources to MTV's website could be found. Granted some pages exist, but I was unable to link to them directly. I may not have full knowledge of what makes a reliable source, but these are correct and explain clearly the info needed. At the time, if I could find an MTV source, I would have obviously used them. Red157(talk • contribs) 18:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose

• "...to celebrate music videos..." peacock/POV - if it's a quote, quote it, if not, tone it down.
• What's "Shockwaves NME "?

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused how that's peakcock, as an award ceremony for music videos is of course going to be a celebration. And what's "Shockwaves NME"? As I said, they're 'Founded by the music magazine NME, the NME Awards are awarded annually'. The Shockwaves part is obviously their sponsor, should I have mentioned that? Like they didn't on List of The Killers awards? God... Now I remember why I stopped submitting stuff to this. Red157(talk • contribs) 13:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chill out man. State the facts - it's an ceremony which presents awards for videos based on some criteria. Shockwaves is not obvious to someone who doesn't know that it's a hair product, is it? As for "it's not on this, that, the other FL so why should I here..." - standards have improved around here quite a bit and therefore lists undergo a higher level of scrutiny than they did before. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this a list about awards which have been painted with white stripey lines? Please rename to List of awards and nominations received by The White Stripes Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  ✓ Gary King (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The band was formed in 1997 and consists of vocalist, multi-instrumentalist and songwriter Jack White and drummer Meg White, who also occasionally provides vocals. - comma after multi-instrumentalist.
• White Blood Cells was followed by Elephant, which proved an even bigger success, earning the band four Grammy Award nominations, and winning the band the Best Alternative Music Album and Best Rock Song awards. - even bigger is not adhering to a NPOV.

S_RX 23:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:14, 29 September 2008 [13].

previous FLC (23:06, 26 May 2008)

I believe this article should be a Featured List because it meets all the criteria.Blackhole77 ^{talk | contrib} 16:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Current ref 6 is lacking a publisher.
  •  Done

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• " International Cricket Council(ICC) on this list are recognized by the ICC" - space after the Council. Not keen on the US English too - recognised.
  •  Done
• "founded in Lord's" - in or at? And explain what Lord's is to the uninitiated.
  •  Done
• " These members were soon joined by India, New Zealand, and the West Indies in 1926 and later joined by Pakistan in 1953.[2]" - this implies India, NZ and WI joined in same year but it doesn't make it explicit - is that what you mean? Also - "joined" used twice quickly reads badly.
  •  Done
• "South Africa resigned due to South Africa " - awful prose.
  •  Done
• "new rules " - did you mention the original "old rules" anywhere?
  •  Done
• "Associates" - did you mention the new rules only allowed new members to be Associate members?
  •  Done
• "this time the International Cricket Council." -poor prose again, at least "this time to International Cricket Council" or similar.
  •  Done
• Full Member - I guess I missed the bit where you discussed the difference between a Full and un-Full Member?
• No, I didn't - I just didn't get there. If you use terminology like that then you should explain it before you use it rather than afterwards.
• "Although in a few Affiliate Members cricket is the national sport e.g. Bahamas." - is this a full sentence?
  •  Done
• Is it "associate member" (per caption) or "Associate Member" per lead?
  • Per lead
• "Representative teams" - why capitalise R?
  •  Done
• The section before the Full Members section seems to be a brief rephrase of the last para of the lead.
  •  Done
• "15 July 19091 [3]" - remove the space before [3]
  •  Done
• In fact, since every Full Member is referenced with [3] then you could just reference the member since heading.
  • What do you mean by referencing from heading?
• "Top six Associates are awarded " - what is Top six?
  • • •  Done
• "laws ..." or "Laws... " of Cricket?
  • Laws

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SatyrTN comments

• I don't think being able to sort by "Governing body" is helpful, since that's free text.
• "All the Full Members' representative teams from each of the Full Members are qualified to play official Test matches." That sentence is confusing to me. Do "Full Members" have several teams they represent? "from each of the Full Members" - from each of the Full Member nations? I don't understand :)
  •  Done
• From what I gather, there are qualifications to being a Full Member - are these listed somewhere?

-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:14, 29 September 2008 [14].

I am nominating this article because I think it fulfills the FL criteria. It is modeled after Los Angeles Lakers seasons, a featured list.—Chris! _ct 00:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just Support with one more comment. The second paragraph is all about the 1995-96 Chicago Bulls season. ust try to find more interesting fact/information and the list would be perfect! -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 02:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not supporting as I did not noticed the disarrayed prose. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 19:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 01:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not supporting until ALL consensus are resolved. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 17:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - lead is in disarray...

• Opening three sentences set a bad precedent - very choppy and not engaging.
• Can you link expansion team?
• You've used ref 1 seven times in the lead - a bit overkill.
• ", the team's fortunes changed when they selected Michael Jordan in the 1984 NBA Draft" but then "1992 to 1998, the Bulls won six championships with the" - so the team's fortunes changed 8 years later...
• "with the help of superstar Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman and coach Phil Jackson" - superstar is peacock/POV and I'm sure the rest of the team helped too.. not just these three and the coach..
• "eight year span from 1992 to 1998" that's seven years at best.
• "the franchise's all-time leader in regular season games and playoff games won" - leading coach?
• "When Jordan retired for the second time " did you mention him retiring for the first time?
• "the team fired Skiles " not really - I expect an individual was responsible for this.

I didn't fix it yet. Article on ESPN simply says the team fired the coach. If you still want me to change it, I will do it.—Chris! _ct 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "disastrous start" POV.
• "the team headed for a new direction " what does this mean?!

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I copyedited the lead and fix everything.—Chris! _ct 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready for FL status - The table and references look good (this is based on only a superficial review), but as The Rambling Man stated, the lead is (still) in disarray.

• It seems to me that the lead for an article like this one should provide a concise overview of the team's history. For example, the first paragraph of New York Yankees seasons gives the team's total number of seasons and summary information on League championships and World Series results, while the first paragraph of Virginia Tech Hokies football seasons tells when the team started and says it has played in more than 1,100 officially-sanctioned games, including 21 bowl games. In contrast, the current lead for Chicago Bulls seasons has no broad historical overview statements, but rapidly descends into details about individual season records, coaches, and draft picks.
• The very first phrase is a problem. The fact that the team was founded (not "found" -- this was supposed to have been fixed; did something happen?) in 1966 as an expansion team is hardly the single most salient point to start the article with.
• Is it necessary to highlight the name of the stadium as the second sentence of the lead section?
• The first reference to "the playoffs" would benefit from some context (a reader from Mars would ask "which playoffs?") and a link to NBA Playoffs.
• Copy editing is needed to address subject-predicate disagreements (such as "the Bulls hit its low point" and "the Bulls holds record"), the incomplete sentence "Both of which were achieved in the 1995–96 season", and some idiomatic phrasing that misfires (such as "the rest of supporting casts").
• Speaking of "supporting casts," I think the lead section makes too much use of mixed metaphor (including "supporting cast") and sports jargon (such as "rebuilding phase").

--Orlady (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I copyedited it again following New York Yankees seasons closely. Hopefully, I have addressed your concerns.—Chris! _ct 23:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits resulted in a nice improvement in the focus of the lead paragraph, but I see some serious copyediting needs (including those noted by TonyTheTiger, below). --Orlady (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would reconstruct the first sentence to use one less preposition by converting something to the possessive. I.e., either use Eastern Conference's Central Division or National Basketball Association's Eastern Conference.
• The second sentence is vague. I think you mean to say which ranks third in number behind because you could say they won them behind Jordan and Pippen.
• The third sentence should be reconstructed to say they initially played at Chicago Stadium, but since 1994 have played at the United Center.
  • Actually, they played their first season at the International Amphitheater. See [15].
• The second para starts with an odd construction. I would throw the word Having in front of it.
• The All-Time record section should have a footnote saying statistics include games through Month DD, YYYY. During the season this may get confusing.
• I just reformated the footnotes.
  • Since the first four sentences all need work, I suggest you take this to WP:PR. I don't want to rewrite your whole article for you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, sorry. I agree that the prose could use some more work. I think too many sentences begin with participle phrases, which gets a little grating. Some more specific comments:

• the team compiled a 33–48 record in 1966 under the franchise's first Coach of the Year Johnny Kerr

Technically, the team compiled that record between fall 1966 and spring 1967.

• With the leadership of Jordan and head coach Phil Jackson, the franchise's all-time leading coach in regular season games and playoff games won,[2] the team appeared in the playoffs in the next 14 seasons

Is Jackson the leader in regular season games coached or regular season games won? Or both? Also, the sentence suggests that Jackson was coach for all of those 14 seasons, but he didn't join the team until 1989. See List of Chicago Bulls head coaches. (And while I'm on the subject, Michael Jordan was only around for 13 of those 14 seasons.)

• The Bulls missed the finals in 1994 and 1995 when Jordan briefly retired to play baseball.

Jordan returned to basketball in time for the 1995 playoffs, so this needs some rewording. (It's true that he was probably a little rusty, but he was playing basketball in spring 1995, not baseball.) Zagalejo^^^ 22:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is Ok. I guess I rush it a little when I nominated. I will fix all the suggestions. Thanks all.—Chris! _ct 01:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 08:27, 26 September 2008 [16].

I've expanded the article from redirect, and I think it meets criteria. Thanks for comments in advance.--LAAFan^sign _review 13:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Unfortunately, this list too small and not comprehensive enough. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie » 00:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A good list, nothing more. This list should stay as a section in the main article.--Crzycheetah 05:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• What makes http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/buck-showalter/ a reliable source?

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - A great prose but the list is too small and fails Cr4.--S_RX 00:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 08:27, 26 September 2008 [17].

Created the page yesterday and got much help from -5- (talk · contribs). --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - most of my concerns have been addressed, good work. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a 'list' with seven items is not considered to be long enough to be featured quality. I suggest you merge this information into the Soundgarden article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a personnal meaning which has nothing to do with a FLC nomination. And the list is big and has much information. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't opposed it, I'm just trying to make everyone aware of the consensus that a list of less than ten is not featured quality. Consider merging it with the Soundgarden article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do realise that you're one of the FL directors but I don't see anywhere on WP:FLC or WP:FL? it saying featured lists need to contain more than 10 things, so in fairness how is anybody to know? How about List of Dream Theater band members? REZTER ^TALK ø 18:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - per comments by The Rambling Man and the fact that the article fails CR 4, structure. It's not long enough to be a list, maybe if if the band had like 15 members, then it would be good.S_RX 23:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Current ref 5 (Erlewine... ) lacks a last access date.
  • Addressed.-5- (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose simply not Wikipedia's finest work. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 07:15, 25 September 2008 [18].

If this becomes a FL i'm goin to start work on The Who, Bryan Adams, Led Zeppelin, Queen, The Animals, Bryan Adams, Bruce Springsteen, The Pretenders and many more discography. If any one wants to help me with this, just contact me. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

previous FLC (23:06, 26 May 2008)

Comments - please check the basics before coming here..

• Caption is fragment, remove the full stop. Done
• "This page lists Pink Floyd albums and singles." - no it doesn't. Delete. Done
• " twenty-six singles" - 35 according the infobox. Done
• "fifteen music videos, and six video album" - 11 and 7 according to the infobox... Done
• All of last para of lead is uncited. Done
• "Although they were unsuccessfully sued by Waters for rights to the name, they again enjoyed..." - that's not a logical run-on clause. Suggest a decent copyedit. Done
• "Eventually they reached a settlement out of court with Waters allowing them use of the name." - what does this have to do with the discog? Done
• ""—" denotes releases that did not chart." - once again, prove they were released please. Done
• You should discuss the fact they released Ummagumma as both a live and a studio album in the lead. Done
• 10 compilations in the list, 7 in the infobox... Done
• Release dates do not need to be wikilinked per the recent WP:MOS deprecation of linking. Done
• Ref 18 not specific and quite why I should specify QOTSA I know not. Done
• Ref 39 looks like a wiki - what makes it reliable? Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the work BBHS is doing on this article. But I notice he has been making a dozen edits to it per day, for quite some time, changing things around in tiny steps. I wish he would use a personal sandbox to prepare his changes, and move them all at once when they are ready. His edits could also use edit summaries. More to the point of the featured list request, it looks like his work is not done, as he is still making significant changes daily, and I would have liked to see the changes reach a state of completion before announcing the candidacy. How can we be expected to assess the article while it is still being developed, and is continually changing? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • One of rock music's most successful acts, the group have sold over 200 million albums worldwide[1][2] including 74.5 million albums in the United States alone.[3] - have --> has, comma after worldwide Done
  • Im not sure whether using ref 35 is okay, due to it being a video, are there no other sources verifying the director? at the bottom of the page it sais alan parker directed the video Done
  • Other than that, looks okay in my eyes.--S_RX 22:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The lead is largely a carbon-copy of Pink Floyd. So many books on the Floyd have been written, is there any particular reason why they haven't been consulted? Considering that the band formed over thirty years ago, I doubt newer online sources would be as accurate as books. indopug (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps only the first paragraph is needed? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Finally, a classic rock discography is nominated! My comments are mostly trivial, but I think they're important:

• Perhaps Is There Anybody Out There? The Wall Live 1980–81's capitalization should be changed to Is There Anybody out There? The Wall Live 1980–81 to comply with WP:MUSTARD and WP:CAPS (prepositions under five letters shouldn't be capitalized).
• Also, should it be Pink Floyd The Wall (film), Pink Floyd The Wall, Pink Floyd: The Wall or Pink Floyd's The Wall? Should we include "Pink Floyd" in the link from the discography or should we use a piped link to only show "The Wall"?didn't get that one

  Note to BBHS: For The Wall (film), I'm talking about the piped link. Right now it links to Pink Floyd The Wall (film), but on the actual page you only see The Wall (because the link is written as [[Pink Floyd The Wall (film)|The Wall]]. I'm asking if the link should display the full name of the film in the piped link (since the movie's name appears to be Pink Floyd The Wall and not just The Wall). Another slightly unrelated topic is whether the movie's actual name is Pink Floyd The Wall, Pink Floyd: The Wall, or Pink Floyd's The Wall. Xnux the Echidna 20:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cover sais Pink Floyd The Wall  Done--Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is "Have a Cigar" really by "Pink Floyd featuring Roy Harper" or is Roy Harper merely a session musician? If so, there's no need to put (featuring Roy Harper) next to "Have a Cigar".The dud sang lead vocals Done

  I realize that. The question is if the song is attributed to Pink Floyd featuring Roy Harper or just Pink Floyd with Roy Harper being mentioned in the production credits only. Xnux the Echidna 00:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Should we include "DVD" in the piped link for Pulse (1995 film)? Done

Xnux the Echidna 15:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Out There" capitalization is correct, it is a 2-word phrase, see WP:MUSTARD capitalization #3 examples. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. That only applies to verbs, and neither "out" nor "there" is a verb. "Out" is a full-fledged preposition in this example. For example, suppose the title was Is There Anybody in There? You wouldn't capitalize "in" in this example either. Xnux the Echidna 18:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. (However, in speaking the title out loud, I would tend to put some emphasis on the word "out", so it doesn't seem right for it to be lower case. But I agree the MOS says nothing about this.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You're using the Pink Floyd wikia as a source. Using wikis is a big no no in featured content. Done -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I Support this FLC. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Jaespinoza (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Why is WP:BOLDTITLE ignored. And why is The Dark Side of the Moon is the third best-selling studio album in the world (not counting compilations and various artists soundtracks). not sourced? Done and none of my FL has ever used a Boldtitle so i don't think it's needed. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jennavecia ^(Talk) 03:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose
  • "as they evolved" - what do you mean?
  • " London underground music scene " potential very confusing with London Underground.what do you mean?
    • London Underground. You need to explain what you mean by London underground music scene. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After Barrett's departure, the band released Ummagumma the album was released as a doubel disc, the first disc was contained songs performed live the other disc contained the new studio recorded songs. singer and bass player Roger Waters gradually became the dominant and driving force in the mid-1970s," - I can't begin to tell you how much is wrong here...but I'll try...
    • "...Ummagumma the album..." needs a full stop or some other punctuation here.
    • "doubel" spelling please. Done
    • "doubel disc, the first disc contained songs performed live the other..." punctuation again. Done
    • "...songs. singer and ..." - Singer (capital S please)
    • "gradually became the dominant and driving force" - what context? What do you mean?
  • "[[List of best-selling albums worldwide|third best-selling studio album in the world] (not counting compilations and various artists soundtracks" - missing a ] and various artists should be linked.
  • "Waters sued the remaining members for the rights to the name, Waters lost and the band enjoyed worldwide success " - Waters...Waters... awful - rephrase please and also, the last clause of the sentence is really a non-sequitur - it isn't a logical follow-on from the Waters business.
  • "denotes releases that did not chart or weren't released in that country." rephrase and avoid contractions. Right now, it reads "denotes releases that... weren't released in that country" - releases that weren't released... reads peculiar to me.
  • US or U.S.?
  • Odd formatting in IE7 on the col headings for US/UK for the Soundtracks table.
  • Ref 39 is not specific.
  • What makes the following reliable sources please?
    • ourworld.compuserve.com.
    • brain-damage.co.uk/.
    • Clipland
    • neptunepinkfloyd.co.uk
    • weshow.com
  • Be consistent - is allmusic a work or a publisher? Compare refs 1 & 44. Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Opening sentence could do with being combined with the second. This is the article about their discography, and so that should be mentioned first. Done
• "This list does not include material performed by members of Sigma 6." Well why would it? Who are they to Pink Floyd? Done
• Try to reduce the commas in the second paragraph's opening sentence. Done
• "After Barrett's departure, the band released Ummagumma the album was released as a double disc," looks like it should be two sentences, perhaps? Done
• "the first disc was contained songs performed live the other disc contained the new studio recorded songs." ? Done
• "songs. singer and bass player" New sentences begin with a Capital Letter Done
• The lead mentions the albums very well, but it should introduce the entire article. There is nothing relating to singles, videos, etc. What was their first single? Which got to number 1 first? What's their most successful, for example
• Ummagumma should be in itallics Done
• 26 B-sides perhaps, but WP discogs don't include B-sides because they're not releases, just tracks. Done
• Ummagumma should probably be included in the tables only once. Either studio albums or live albums, but not both, Done
• You have labels for UK and US. What about all the other countries that you give chart release information about? Stick with just the label from their home country. Done
• "The Committee: Label: ?" What does the question mark mean? If it's unknown, then perhaps the list is incomplete. Done
• "London '66-'67" WP:DASH. Done
• Use letters from the Latin or Greek alphabet for footnotes, instead of I and IIHow do you do that? done.
• Footnote I should probably be moved to the "Album" columnWhat do you mean? Done.
• Footnote II should be moved to the UK chart position columnWhat do you mean? Done.
• Pink Floyd The Wall doesn't appear to be a video album, rather a musical movie. Done
• The Pink Floyd and Syd Barrett Story is a documentary film Done
• As is The Making of The Dark Side of the Moon Done

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Where possible, pipe link to the name of the Record chart, instead of just the country.Think i did it  Done
• Tonite Let's All Make Love in London and Zabriskie Point are not Pink Floyd soundtracks. They just happen to feature songs from them. Done
• There is one dablink in the article Donethink i did it?
• "See For Miles" should be "See for Miles"  Done

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:11, 24 September 2008 [19].

The lead and content was not considered appropriate for a featured article but was recommended as a featured list. It satisfieI am nominating the list as it satisfies the guidelines on length and content for a featured list. 03md (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• References need to be formatted per WP:CITE/ES to include at least publisher and access dates. References 4–11 are missing these.
• Some dates are linked while others are not; please be consistent in this. "On April 13th, a" should be "April 13" and be linked if other dates are to be linked.
• "International protests" is mostly proseline, so it doesn't flow very well. Perhaps merge some of the paragraphs to solve this.
• "Brazil - The" – if dashes are going to be used in places like this, at least make it an en dash per WP:DASH.

Gary King (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

• As above, websites need publisher and last access dates at the least.
• Please give the language if the source is in a non-English language.
• Please use link checker tool to check for dead links. It shows plenty.

- Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Lead says it's an article, this is FLC.
• Lead is inadequate for either FL or FA.
• Not keen on the bold links.
• You haven't addressed the reference or proseline issues Gary picked up over a week ago.
• Not featured quality at all I'm afraid.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:11, 24 September 2008 [20].

After starting a flag column, adding references and making general improvements to the list, I think this list can be nominated for featured list status. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]