Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 2006

Self nom. I figure it is stable and well-referenced. The images are tagged nicely. Used inline citations. Looks good to me. Circa 1900 06:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The images are not tagged nicely. {{coatofarms}} is a very crapy template which basically says "we have no idea what license to use. But since we have to do something, we will use fair use." In other words, this template is a fair use template. And you cannot use fair use images for decorations. And even if you could you would need fair use rationalles. Smaller things: table widths are inconsistent, please spell out all the schools everywhere, I would like to see reasons for suspension for differen seasons (eg 61-65 of Juniors), how come nobody hosted the NCAA tournament in 83-84 (and some other years), a short summary section (which school won how many times) would be nice. I do give you credit for nicely citing references. Renata 14:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now removed the images, since I can't think of a tag suitable enough. Also, I've standardized the table widths. By the way, the summary can be found at NCAA Philippines Basketball Championship article. Only the 1936 season doesn't have an explanation why it is suspended, while only two years did not have hosts. Those 2 things may do a little researching for I can't find the reasons on the net. Circa 1900 05:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is the {{Univ-logo}} tag appropriate enough? Circa 1900 11:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is better to retag those logos with univ-logo. However, again, this is a fair use template and you cannot use fair use images for decoration (as in this list). If you are going to retag the images, could you please also write the rationale.

IMHO, the summary section would do better in the list than in the article. I would replace the table with prose outlining the main points and directing to the list for details. This way your list gets more stuff to list and the article gets rid of ugly-looking list :) I would also expand that table to include how many times a team palyed in the championship. Also, if you could make a summary of what schools won the title several years in a row, it would be really nice. And being a complete nitpick, the lead is a bit too short.

But the list looks much better now. A couple more edits/improvements and I will support it. Renata 14:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the images would have to be removed altogether. About the summary section, some of the earlier seasons have lost their records already (especially those before WWII), so finding information about those, and hence, about the number of times the team played for the championship maybe impossible. However, your other suggestions, such as the summary, the schools that won several years in a row and the lead has been addressed to. Circa 1900 16:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by "how many times a team palyed in the championship" was how many seasons the team was member of the championship and not how many matches it played in total. Sorry for confussion, and very nice changes, hence...

• ... change vote to support per recent improvements. Way to go ;) Renata 18:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per recent changes. Howard the Duck | talk, 05:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I know someone who may have the list of all runners-up. I'd ask him if he does possess such data. Howard the Duck | talk, 14:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm open to the idea although the page might surpass the size limit, and it might make the page to loaded. Nevertheless, it looks good to me. Circa 1900 03:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • The person hasn't responded so I'd just leave it the way it is. Howard the Duck | talk, 10:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Looks good and meets the criteria. Afonso Silva 09:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After a peer review, I think this meets all the criteria (I'm new to the featured list scene, though). There are still a lot of red links (~30%, looks like a "large majority" of bluelinks to me), but many of those could be redirected somewhere - the granularity of these articles is a bit too fine at places anyway. So, what do you think? (Disclaimer: This is a self-nomination) -- grm_wnr Esc 22:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Both graphical and table, and nice scroll bar (not even featured periodic table (large version) has that!) It would be nice if I could see the key and the graphical diagram simultaneously (and if you know a way to do that please fix it), but I'll overlook that. Could also use some book sources,, but again, that's nitpicky.--HereToHelp 03:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, very nicely done (except for references which I sort of fixed). Renata 14:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for fixing the references! I forgot to do that :/ -- grm_wnr Esc 17:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Very good. The timeline is impressive and it meets the criteria. Afonso Silva 09:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Graphical timeline is great. Pepsidrinka 18:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - in my browser (Firefox, WinXP, classic skin) the graphical timeline is squashed up in the top left hand corner of the first section. I#m sure it isn't supposed to look like that - is it using some fancy tricks that I am not seeing? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's using an overflow div to make the timeline horizontally scrollable. However, I'm using Firefox and XP as well, and it works fine for me, even when I switch to the classic skin... Could some other people check this? Classic skin, Monobook skin -- grm_wnr Esc 22:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah - it works for me when I log out, so its probably some of the funny stuff that I don't entirely understand in my standard.js... -- ALoan (Talk) 22:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Slick compilation. Great job with the side-by-side timeline. ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 19:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice touch with the scroll bar, nicely done. Howard the Duck | talk, 12:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, great work. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 13:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this list qualifies as a featured list. It is comprehensive, stable and accurate. Pepsidrinka 04:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm just worried about the fact that we could "easily" make lists like this one to every draft in NFL (and other sports have drafts too, isn't it?), that would make us have lots of featured lists with similar content. Of course I'm not saying that it is not a very good effort, this thing certainly gave you lots of work. Just one more thing, could you make all the tables have the same size? Afonso Silva 23:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I see your concern that if one of these manage to be featured, it is going to ease the path for about 150 other articles. However, I don't quite see it as such a bad thing. If these lists of sports drafts are brought up to featured list criteria, then, in my opinion, that is not a bad thing. If soon there are many lists brought to FLC, then certainly that will only make it harder for lists to be featured. The bar will soon have to rise. Also, the tables have been edited for uniformity. Pepsidrinka 07:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, this one seems to meet the criteria. I just wanted to discuss that issue, it's nothing against this kind of lists, I love sports (mainly soccer) statistics. I'll just have a better look. I have no time now, because I'm leaving the country in a few hours, I'll return after Easter Sunday and after that, I'll probably make my support vote. Afonso Silva 09:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - While I understand concerns about these sorts of articles being "easy", I don't think that's a problem. The purpose of Featured Anything is to recognise the best pages here, not for the edification of those who worked on them. This list meets all the criteria, so it should be Featured. My only quibble is that the first reference is not a reference at all but a footnote. Soo 16:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks good. -- I@n ≡ talk 10:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - As I said, it meets the criteria, therefore, I support it. I never said that the aim of the featured articles was the edification of those who worked on it, I just said that being wikipedia built in a totally unselfish way, it is important to recognize the efforts of other people. Afonso Silva 16:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list was originally spun off from 2005 Atlantic hurricane season when that article became too large, but it has become a detailed and valuable resource of information rather than a mere dumping ground for excess information since then. While not all of the storms listed have their own articles, 17 of the 30 (16 if Tropical Storm Tammy is merged, as is under discussion) do, and the rest are fully covered in this list as it was concluded that they were not significant enough for articles on their own. This is a self-nom on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 03:45 (UTC)

• Support, although I don't like the modified TOC very much... and I would also add the list of related articles found at the top of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season as a navigational aid. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The old version of the ToC did not allow direct linking to the External Links or Notes sections. Or do you mean the default ToC? I removed the related articles template because it was redundant to the new ToC. Better to condense links. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 03:55 (UTC)
    • I've tried modifying it slightly now, so it looks more like a normal TOC, and still is shorter. Does it look all right? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There were some slight formatting problems with your version, so I've made what looks like a compromise version. Does it look reasonable? —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 16:04 (UTC)
• Object. To be a featured list, I think each entry (storm) in the list needs to have a level of information/detail proportional to its notability. This is currently not the case, primarily because some sections for storms that have articles are shorter than sections for storms without articles. The problem is only with a few of the more notable storms (from Ophelia on up) that just need a little more detail, so in the short term this should be easy enough to fix. However if articles such as Tammy, Maria, and Epsilon were to be merged back in the problem would come back, since people would want to see all of the information contained in those articles and this would again imbalance those sections. I don't really have a solution to this problem, except to say that this problem is a large part of the reason the storms-list page was split from the main season page in the first place. — jdorje (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be frank, every other featured list does not do this. Compare, for example, within the WikiProject, List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes. Hurricane Andrew is surely more notable than Hurricane Dog, but the two are covered equally. The same is true in this list. However, I will make some effort to equalize length. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 15:55 (UTC)
    • I've expanded the sections on Dennis, Emily, Ophelia, Rita and Wilma. Katrina and Stan both already seemed sufficiently long. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 16:44 (UTC)
      • Ok, I withdraw my objection. To Cuivienen: the difference between this article and those others is that they contain only tables. While I think tables should be an intrinsic part of a list of storms, I won't insist on it for this article. If those other articles had text, they should follow the same principle. And even if you disagree with that principle, you probably think that each storm should have the same level of detail - which would naturally make the more notable storms longer since there is simply more information available, contrary to the old setup (still visible in many older AHS articles) where some storms with sub-articles just have stub sections in the storms list. — jdorje (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent list. well referenced, images, complete, and easy on the eye. -- Ian ≡ talk 07:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow. (Yes, you can consider that a support.) —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 12:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones editors are discussing a reorganisation of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season articles here, Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season#Articles for every storm. This article may be severely reduced as a result, making this nomination nonsensical. -- Nilfanion 23:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that conversation is trying to find information to fill new articles, not cut this one. Several editors who would severely object to such a cutting have not commented yet. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And even if the article was cut, that's an issue for then and not now. Here, we are discussing the article as it is currently. We should not crystal ball too much. -- Ian ≡ talk 00:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Titoxd pointed out, none of the original mergists have yet entered the discussion there. In any case, even if articles are created for each storm, the list page shouldn't change. After all, we only need articles if there is additional information to present beyond the list page. 69.86.17.202 (I really need to remember to log in.) —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 6 April 2006 @ 01:08 (UTC)
• Support. A strong article. Soo 00:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Efforts like this must be rewarded! Very good article. Keep the good work! Afonso Silva 23:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - Too much information to be an FL, merge it with 2005 AHS (which it should be an inseperable part of) and put it up for FA. I always have and always will oppose the seperation of the two articles. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 22:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As brought up on the peer review and the discussion linked from above, doing so would be considered unacceptable by many. I'd like for it to be merged too, but we're in the minority. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • E. Brown, do you really need to be sore about this? The consensus was to maintain this page, and you are doing nothing productive by opposing the nomination. Stubbornness on your part is not going to make the overwhelming majority opinion (as it currently stands) change. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 @ 03:50 (UTC)
    • I have every right to be sore about being repeatedly ignored and even critisized on this issue. Just because a bunch of guys disagree with me isn't going to change my opinion. I reserve the right to maintain my opinion and not support based on that opinion. I'm getting a little tired of being lectured by pro-split gurus who will berate anyone who opposes them. You don't see me going around telling supporters "Hey, your vote is pointless! What's wrong with you?", which is basically what you're saying to me. My opinion is my opinion and you guys saying it's worthless is not going to change it so quit chiding me. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 13:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look, I'm not accusing you of anything, nor am I saying your vote is pointless. However, I would like you to take into consideration the fact that your opinion is in the minority, and apparently quite severely so. I am not one of the "pro-split gurus", and I am not going to repeat the arguments for and against the split here, but I think it would be most productive if those who opposed the idea, yourself included, attempted to reconcile themselves with the situation rather than unproductively recite their opinion, which is essentially what you are doing. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 12 April 2006 @ 17:28 (UTC)
        • Yeah, Nilfanion and I talked about setting up a mediation and I think that would be a good idea. I don't really need to get into that here, I just thought I'd let you know in case you didn't. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 22:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How does the unnamed subtropical storm affect this FLC? It at least needs to be listed in the TOC. — jdorje (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll get around to that as soon as I can (or someone else can do it if they want). I'm not sure how to label it, for one, but I suppose "Un" would suffice for now. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 @ 03:50 (UTC)
• Conditional support. Everything looks good. There are however three statments in the lead that I think would be better off sourced.

1. "The 2005 season was the most active season on record."
2. "Among these Category 5 storms was Hurricane Wilma, the most intense hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic."
3. "These storms made a combined twelve landfalls as major hurricanes (Category 3 strength or higher) throughout Cuba, Mexico, and the Gulf Coast of the United States, causing over $100 billion (2005 USD) in damages and at least 2,048 deaths."

The second sentence, while it looks like it is already sourced later on, should be sourced here as well. Many readers will not make it to Wilma, and may only read the lead in this article/list. Everything thing else seems fine. I'm not sure, but I think this would be a nice article to feature on the main page - a first for a list if it happened. Pepsidrinka 05:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was bad style to have a citation in the lead? Because these are easily cited, but I was not sure about the style... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Never heard that. Is that what the Manual of Style says? If that is the case, then I would change my vote to an unconditional support. Pepsidrinka 05:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, I remember a conversation about this on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Anthem of Russia, which pretty much said that something that is covered in the lead should be covered at greater length farther down the article, and the references should be there. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Great, great article — but if they start following the links to the Katrina articles, people are going to find a huge difference. Still a lot of work left there, if anyone's interested in pitching in. *cough cough* Tijuana Brass 06:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a list of things to do at Talk:Hurricane Katrina. *cough* Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This list is very complete. juan andrés 03:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self nomination, though this is mainly the work of others. This list meets all of the criteria IMO. For copyright and fair use reasons, I decided to add the flag of Alberta instead of pictures of the premiers. I did not use templates for colours on the main list to avoid the objection that was brought up for the Prime Ministers or Canada list. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - It meets the criteria and I particularly like the layout, the timeline is very good. Of course pictures would look great, but if no appropriate pictures exist, there's nothing to do. Just one thing, is it really important to include Frederick Haultain? I would remove him, but perhaps there is a very good reason to keep it. Anyway, it is a very nice work. Afonso Silva 23:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haultain is listed at the source. That's why he is included. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the timeline is nice, except for the fact that it runs chronologically from bottom to top, whereas the table it is alongside runs chronologically from top to bottom. One or the other should be changed. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how to do timelines, so I asked the creator of the timeline for help. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was impossible to reverse the order of the vertical timeline, so it's now the best I can horizontally. If people don't like the timeline now I'll take it out instead. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• What OTP said. If that's fixed, I'll support. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 12:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how to do timelines, so I asked the creator of the timeline for help. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was impossible to reverse the order of the vertical timeline, so it's now the best I can horizontally. If people don't like the timeline now I'll take it out instead. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, reversing the timeline is only possible with a date format of "yyyy", i.e. without the day and the month in the date. Such thing will disrupt the timeline, as several transitions ocurr in fractions of a year. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's what I understood by analyzing the use and the code of wikipedia timelines. I suggest changing the order in the table, changing the timeline to a horizontal layout or else leave the article as it is, as I don't find any conflict, for me, the timeline and the table are two different entities. Afonso Silva 23:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not enough substance. Ardenn 03:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order for me to take action to resolve this objection, you need to provide information about where this list is lacking in substance. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 15:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Yes, it's fairly short, which is a consequence of their having been few Alberta premiers! This is hardly the fault of the article. The table is well detailed, clearly offering considerable advantages over a category, and the timeline is a nice touch. Soo 17:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all this new content, I don't know if this is really a list any more. The list aspect is certainly small compared to the prose. On the other hand this would never make it as an FA. The article seems stuck between the two. I don't know what to vote. Will look again when the dust has settled. Soo 01:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Would be nice if the colors in the table matched the colors in the timeline better. Should there be a note explaining the color to party correlation? Rmhermen 17:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the colours in the table. The colours are basically those that the parties themselves use. How is it now? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object #1. Party colors do not match or use the templates from Template:Canadian_politics/party_colours they must be standard with all other Canadian political articles. #2. <no primer on the history of the changes in the administration of the Alberta Government (ie:) the conditions that led to change, the broad direction the government moved in. --Cloveious 03:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to adjust the colors in the timeline to match the colors in the template? I gave up after my first attempt to make a timeline so I couldn't say. Rmhermen 18:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only colours available are listed at the Ploticus Color page. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to currently use templates for colours in the timeline, so I made them close. ie, the Liberals in the timeline are coral, while they are lightcoral in the table. Could you please explain your second objection more fully. I don't understand how the table does not provide enough information about the changing of administration, because the reasons for a change in premier are given in the table. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came to that realization about the time line after I objected, but good job with changing the colors, as for the other object. I will help you out on. --Cloveious 21:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added a larger introduction, more substance and am now ready to support. --Cloveious 01:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose with new additions. This is a list, not an article - this is far too much material. Rmhermen 02:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inactionable objection, see List of Northwest Territories general elections for example. --Cloveious 05:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point it was not made a featured list and is now attempting to be made a featured article. Action is easy remove new additions. Rmhermen 17:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Northwest Territories general elections was made a featured list Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Northwest Territories general elections/archive2 and has nothing to do with being a featured article. The fact is there are hundreads of complete lists of politicians or anything for that matter, to me that does not define a featured list. Making a list pretty doesn't quite define a featured list. If I follow your comments I could go put my list of grocerys down here link to to some food manufactures websites and submit it for featured list status without adding anything else to it. There was an objection up top complaining about substance, I added substance. You can read in summation how this list got from point A. to point B, and hopefully it primes the reader to read in detail. Premiers of Alberta is a fasicnating subject and 10x the volume can be written then the four brief sections added to this list. If you want to take substance out of the article the blood will be on your hands. --Cloveious 11:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's really that much material about the subject it would probably be best at this point to separate the list from the subject (as in President of Mexico vs. List of Presidents of Mexico or similar articles, for instance). Right now this list has a lot more text for my taste, and List of Northwest Territories general elections doesn't have as nearly as much as this one, IMO -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 08:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - nice list, shame there is no images. -- I@n ≡ talk 10:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third list Formula One nomination's post Driver's and Contructor's Champions. Only four-five pilot links are red. Another Formula One list best ever seen and complete for current 2006 season. User:Piniricc65 14:57, March 31, 2006

• Support - we clearly need a list of cricket-playing birds that have driven an F1 car in a Class 5 hurricane... -- ALoan (Talk) 14:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: 107.643 points? Are numbers like this correct? The linked article (List of Formula One World Championship pointscoring systems mentions awarding half points but how would such uneven fractions arise? Rmhermen 15:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think that should be explained, apart from that, the list is very good. Afonso Silva 17:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 0.143's came about in the 1954 British Grand Prix, where incredibly 7 drivers all set the same fastest lap time (which was worth 1 point at the time). Obviously the timing systems weren't that accurate, I've added a note to the pointscoring article. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 06:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. GREAT WORK! —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 17:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Could you put at the end the number of drivers by nationality like in other Formula 1 FLs? CG 04:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have a go, due to discrepancies on what websites say is a Formula One driver I'll probably have to count them up myself. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 06:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Table added. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 10:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - very good Afonso Silva 18:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - however, I have nominated three days ago but not also supporting Piniricc65 08:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, very good (and wow, that's a lot of blue links). —Cuiviénen, Monday, 3 April 2006 @ 21:45 (UTC)
• Support. Informative, well linked, references, footnotes. Everrything I expect in a list.
  • Everything but my signature... Above vote was mine. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A minor thing, but it took me a minute or so to work out what the Total column represented in the By nationality table. It is number of drivers. Perhaps it could be titled slightly differently. Also, why rank this table by number of drivers, surely number of championships or even alphabetically would make more sense. -- Ian ≡ talk 02:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Column renamed "Drivers", countries put in alphabetical order, with their rank by number of drivers also shown. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 09:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks and Support. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom. List is comprehensive, accurate and stable, and has reasonably objective criteria for inclusion. References are supplied as well. Qwghlm 12:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, well done, maybe you could throw the Aresnal logo in there as well? Phoenix2 23:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, though fair use rules are quite strict and recently there has been a big clampdown on using team logos on any page apart from the actual page about that team, so I'm reluctant. Qwghlm 23:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem, wasn't aware of the issue. The list can be more than featured without the logo. Phoenix2 00:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object: The lead doesn't indicate what constitutes an "exceptional player": is there some authority you're referencing, or is it just the opinion of Wikipedia editors? --Carnildo 02:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now further explained the circumstances in which a player is considered exceptional at the top of the page. Qwghlm 09:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Comprehensive list. Oldelpaso 19:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, provided you at least create substubs for those three red links. -- Zanimum 22:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - three redlinks in a list that long is entirely acceptable. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Picky Comments - good stuff and I have several simple suggestions: it is not like you need to cram everything because there is no space, so why don't spell out Nationality, Appearances, Goalkeepes, Right back, etc? I would appreciate if the list was numbered. I am curious how many players are on the list? Why does Jock Rutherford have two career dates (1913–1923 and 1923–1926)? Please add an explanation/note. (I understand dates like 1995-2000 and 2003-present). Also nationality could be spelled out, people don't always recognize flags (which is nice touch). What do you mean by "Career"? At Arsenal or in general? Renata 13:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "Career" means career at Arsenal, but this should be explained. The player whose date you question is Jock Rutherford (1913–1923, 1923–1926), and his article says "In April 1923, Rutherford left Arsenal to become manager of Stoke City, but he only stayed at the club for four months ... Rutherford re-signed for Arsenal in September ..." I'm not sure this needs a footnote (unless all of the others with gaps in their Arsenal career get footnotes too). But I agree with giving names of nations alongside the flags, and expanding the abbreviations for playing positions. Numbering could be a bit misleading - this is not a list of all Arsenal players, just selected "notable" ones. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK:
  1. I've expanded the table headings and made clear that "Career" is discussing their Arsenal career, not their general one.
  2. I've also marked players that have had two spells with the club with an asterisk, and added an explanation at the bottom.
  3. I do not like the idea of numbering the players, it would serve no useful informative purpose (especially as it is clear that it is not a comprehensive list of every player, so it's not as if n would denote this was the nth person to play for the club).
  4. I'd prefer not to specify nationality or position out in full text, as it is the kind of information that gets repeated often on the page - to use full text becomes monotonous and clutters the page unnecessarily. Also, it is fitting with current Wikipedia style on denoting nationality and position of footballers in current squad lists (e.g.) and indeed many other sporting articles. Also, the flags add a touch of colour to what would otherwise be an all-text list. Qwghlm 17:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re spelling out countries and positions, certainly the flags should stay whatever; but adding a name would help to distinguish, say, England from Northern Ireland (which are pretty similar); and some people may not know the flag of Wales, say. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I know not all users think of it, holding the mouse pointer over the flag gives the country name. I don't think the country names should be added because: 1) It is not that significant to the list, 2) clicking the player link (or the flag image) gives you the info if you really must know and in case you don't recognize the flag. – Elisson • Talk 18:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, an already Featured List, List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions, uses flags in the winners' table without feeling the need to explain which country they are for - why can't the same apply here? Qwghlm 20:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that example also has a "by nationality" table that explicity names the countries next to the flag. The first table doesn't really have space for names; this one does. But if the strong feeling is that names are not necessary, far be it from me to resist. Spelling out the abbreviations for playing positions would be helpful, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. – Elisson • Talk 18:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

peer review

This is a partial self nom (Joaopais gave me a great help). This lists all the 308 Portuguese municipalities, we've made a huge effort to create the 308 articles and now the list has no red links. The list has about 2500 variables including areas, population, density, number of parishes and ruling parties, along with that, the area, population and density have a rank. For any concerns about the accuracy of the data, check the article's talk page, I've made several calculations and the conclusions are there. This gave me a huge work as none of this data is gathered and listed, at least on the internet. It was like a puzzle. It also has some maps made by me, I hope they are useful. Afonso Silva 10:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Awesome except for one thing.... references. They should be cited in reference format and not just as external links. You can fix that in 5 mins with {{cite web}}. Renata 13:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix that, thanks. And by the way, I forgot to say that the article is inspired on Renata's List of municipalities of Lithuania. Thanks! Afonso Silva 13:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Afonso Silva 14:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not :( I did first two as an example. Having in mind that my Portugese is non-existant, I could not figure the rest and I have no time to play around with it. So, what you need to do: 1. you put publishers as titles, 2. titles are names of specific pages, 3. home page is not good enough, you need a link to specific page you used (e.g. a specific table within Stat institute's website). You should know that I am picky :) Renata 03:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok, sorry, I'll put that in a more specific way. Afonso Silva 09:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Now it's just simply awesome :) Renata 12:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Request. Could you fix the sorting in the "Overview" table? As in alphabetically starting on the left column instead of "jumping" from left to right. I think that would help for easier reading. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure, I've already noticed that, but I forgot to correct it. Afonso Silva 15:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support barring any issues with image copyrights, which I still haven't checked. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 00:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It's absolutely awesome. My help was hardly "great". Afonso, what a huge job. 308 municipalities... Joaopais 18:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Could the notes section be above the maps section which is less related to the main list? Why are some places in bold in list? (I didn't see an explanation) If they are not municipalities, should they even be on the list? Rmhermen 00:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are the district capital. Where the civil govern is located, usually, they are also the location of the most important city in that district. Afonso Silva 09:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should be mentioned in the article - maybe in the notes? Rmhermen 18:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've included a further note about it, thanks for the suggestion. Afonso Silva 21:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support will change to full support if emphasis is explained per Rmhermen's comments Changed to full support. Oldelpaso 19:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've included a further note about it, thanks. Afonso Silva 21:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Generally excellent. Sorry, but I detest TOCright unless there is really no other solution. I can see why you needed it, with the big top-left image, but I think a neater solution is to put the image and the TOC next to each other, after the lead section (as I have edited). I've also added an explicit first sentence to the lead, explaining what the article is, and a few other minor tweaks. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I included TOCright by Renata's suggestion, as the TOC is very long and created a huge blank space. But your changes are also good to me, the image occupied that blank space. Thanks for your help. Afonso Silva 15:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support now that I have given the "history and division" section a badly-needed copyedit. I've broken up one massively long sentence about the municipal chamber and municipal assembly - this should be checked by someone who knows the subject to ensure I've understood what was meant. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your copyedit, as a non native speaker, my prose usually demands it. Afonso Silva 15:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Very impressive, indeed.--cjllw | TALK 05:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator -I have created this article, and feel that it is a similar case to Wisden Cricketers of the Year, which is also a featured list.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The external link is actually a reference, so it should be formatted as such. Preferably, all tables should have the same width. If free pictures of some of the recipients are available they could also be included in the layout. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Update - I have put in pictures which are available, and illustrate the subject individually, in a manner related to swimming - I don't think the Amanda Beard or Summer Sanders photos are appropriate in this regard. Changed the "References" and studying up on table-formatting. This is a good way of learning the "high-culture" of "wiki-style" I think.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ALoan (Talk) 11:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - wondering what the view about using the little flags - see User:Ianbrown/Sandbox2 -- Ian ≡ talk 13:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yes, why not. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update - in progress, also dabbing, and bypassing redirects on European swimmers with accent marks in their names.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great work. -- Ian ≡ talk 02:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Update - redlinks are down to 13%.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Update - redlinks are down to 10%.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice work. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Heaps cool.Ausswim 02:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Update redlinks are 7%.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, meets guidelines. Linuxerist E/L/T 18:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list had great potential for a featured list when I came across it. It is filled with "on-the-fly" information, which is informative yet quick to read or glance at. The table is set up quite nicely, the pictures on the side give a nice feel, the list is not too long and overwhelming (although if people need more information, about 50 or so more "Tours" are hidden in the page using <!-- -->), and the intro at the top gives a nice segway into what is to be read. (Special thanks to Metropolitan who created this page and helped bring it to where it is now.) → J@red ^talk+ _ubx  22:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. As nominator. → J@red ^talk+ _ubx  22:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. The image Image:Paris-panorama.jpg is tagged as being under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, but does not indicate who the creator is. --Carnildo 23:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's sort of a lousy reason to oppose; the picture is great, though, and does tie it all together. I alerted the person who crested it, but he/she hasn't made any edits since January. Hope for the pic might be lost. → J@red ^talk+ _ubx  23:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it's a pretty good reason. By not providing attribution when the license requires it, Wikipedia is in violation of the license, and is not legally permitted to use the image. We're not likely to get sued over it, but it's quite possible that the creator of the image will stop providing free-content images. --Carnildo 00:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, as well as the ridiculous number of red links. Phoenix2 00:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support - well the list is much improved in the sense that there are no longer so many red links, but there are too many pictures, I think. If this is addressed, I will support the list. Phoenix2 04:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose you have 6 blue links out of ~60 links! you don't have references, just external links. Renata 00:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't this the Featured "List" category? I didn't think I was in the Portal category! It doesn't really matter if there are red links, because this page's sole purpose is not to link to other pages. It's a list! Not a portal. Red links shouldn't matter. → J@red ^talk+ _ubx  01:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The criteria states that there large majority should be blue links, to link to useful information, I think.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. (as placed on this page)

Okay, just quick comments. First, I would like to thanks Jared/JP06035 not simply for the nomination, but also for his work on the page (making it looks cleaner). As for the picture of La Défense skyline, if there's any copyright problem, I could upload another one. I've only used this one because it was already on Wikipedia. And finally, about the red links, actually this page has been created in order to improve Wikipedia's contents on Paris' skyscrapers. All towers above 150m/500feet will have very soon an article (translation from French Wikipedia articles). Metropolitan 03:09, 17 March 2006 (CET).

The panorama from La Défense has been replaced by a picture I've taken by myself. Metropolitan 05:04, 17 March 2006 (CET).

• Oppose due to the large number of red links. The criteria for Featured Lists states that lists must be composed of a large majority of blue links. I take on board the point about lists not being portals, and with the rise of the Portal namespace we might need to reconsider the criteria, but for the moment I can't support this. It is very good list in most other ways, and I would certainly recommend resubmitting once the reds are down below a third of the list. One small issue is that on my browser (IE6, 800x600), there is a massive white space before the first table, caused by all the pics down the right hand side. I can't think of a good way to rectify this without messing up other formatting - anyone have any ideas? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - some of the linked articles are not all that well written, but that's no reason not to support this. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above. -M^ask 04:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The article subject should be bolded, as per the WP:MoS.—thames 02:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Just a quick update to learn you that nearly all of the articles mentionned in the list have been created. Today, the list is composed of a large majority of blue links, something which fits with Wikipedia's criterias for Featured Lists. As for the Article subject, all of its appearances are bolded. Metropolitan 03:09, 17 March 2006 (CET).
• Comment I'd ask you not to strike through other users votes. It's one thing to request a revote or let people know you updated the links, but it is against policy to alter another users text on a discussion, and is considered vandalism. As such, I'm reverting the strikethroughs. Also, I'm keeping my Oppose due to excessive images... clear it down to just the panorama on the top and I'll support. -M^ask 02:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your concern, but I in fact did send a message to each person alerting them of what I did (including you). I will keep them unstruck, seeing as how that is a little rude, but please don't just assume that I would cross out votes; that's not something an experianced Wikipedian would do, right? And I do support your deciding to keep an oppose vote, too. → J@red ^talk+ _ubx  02:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, when I wrote that, you had not made the post to my talk page yet, and I jumped the gun in assuming that you wouldn't pop in... my bad :) just making sure you know for future reference, but feel free to smack me around a bit, this was just a case of a minor lack of knowledge on policy and a bunch of forgetting to Assume Good Faith on my part. -M^ask 03:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images are good, I see no reason to oppose because there are 7 free pics. would oppose if there were none. Renata 10:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both myself and Pheonix2 above would support only if the images are pared down... 7 is too much. Lets work for some middle ground? -M^ask 17:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - the article is comprehensive, factually accurate, well-organised and has a majority of blue-links and some nice pics (especially the skyline view). Green Giant 23:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. - I just realized I haven't already mentioned it here, but references have been added to the page. Metropolitan 03:52, 2 April 2006 (CET).
• Comment:The future structures section lack measurements in feet. I would suggest swapping the two panoramas because the one buried at the bottom of the list is a stronger image technically. Rmhermen 06:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for this, feet have been added to the list of future structures. As for the two panoramas, they've been switched by JP06035 and have been switched back by Hardouin. I personally support Hardouin's position in here as La Défense is the tallest skyscraper cluster in Paris, and as such certainly more significant than the 13th arr. towers. Metropolitan 13:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • That's a valid argument too. We could hope for a better quality picture of the same subject. Rmhermen 18:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - this has improved substantially since being listed. My only caveat is that the images and tables are not laid out particularly well for readers with narrow browser windows, but I'm not sure what can be done about that. (I would implore those who have opposed above to re-review: they could easily change their votes). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Before getting to my unique criticism, this article is indeed clear and concise and deserving of merit. Yet there is one major problem: Its namespace is not fitting to its content. This article is in fact an improved-upon version of its French Wiki counterpart called "Liste des plus hauts bâtiments d'Île de France" - there is good reason for the French article's title, as over 60% of the towers it (and this article) contains are outside of Paris. To be fitting and accurate, this article should be called "tallest structures in the Île-de-France" or, perhaps preferrably, "tallest structures in the Paris region." I won't even speculate on the reason for this 'bending' of an already fitting French namespace, but this inaccuracy fixed, you'd have my vote for sure. THEPROMENADER 15:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the french page has been copied from the english page. If you don't believe me check the History of both pages and you'll see the English page has been created earlier. As for the name, it is completely irrelevant. The article about the Tall buildings and structures in London is also made of a high proportion of towers being built outside the city of London, including its three tallest towers. Is this a reason decent enough to consider renaming it "Tall buildings and structures in the Greater London" ? Let me doubt about this. 100% of towers mentionned in this list are located in the heart of the Paris urban area : either in the city proper or in its inner suburbs. Furthermore, the district and the municipality of each single building are mentionned in the list. As such, there's absolutely no issue in the factual accuracy of this article. I wouldn't see any reason to rename it as "tall structures in Ile-de-France" oustide of course if it's about making the article less visible as the Ile-de-France region is a lot less known than Paris. Metropolitan 15:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I stand corrected for the 'what from where' of this article - sorry for that oversight. Still, the naming difference between these remain, and again, the London comparison is inapplicable here - anything within "Greater London" can still generally be called "London" - and this even in official sites - but around Paris there exists no "Greater Paris" entity or name of any sort. The closest thing in common use and references you'll be able to find is the "Paris Region" (région Parisienne or generally IDF) - for this I think using "Paris region" for the article namespace will make it 100% descriptive of what the article contains yet remain 100% recognisable to all. Saying simply "in Paris" is unnecessarily inaccurate and the fact that a reader will 'get it' only after reading the article is an unnecessary added extra step, and this I think will reflect on the article quality. You do get my point I'm sure. It's up to you though; I won't be bothering you (all) any more on this matter. THEPROMENADER 17:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be complaining that La Défense is not in Paris. While technically accurate, our article on La Défense actually says that is "one of Paris' major central business districts"! Most English people would, I think, be surprised if you said that La Défense was not in Paris. The situation is similar to Canary Wharf, which is in Inner London but not in the City of London (although London has long ceased to be synonymous with the City of London). I would suggest that the concern could be satisfied by making the scope of the list a little clearer in the lead section. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not complaining, noting. Because something is dependant upon/connected to/serving the city doesn't mean it is the city. Paris' borders and naming conventions are very clear, commonly known and well-documented. I think the only exception to this would be on the occasion that one foreigner, in a foreign land, would explain to another the location of a near-Paris place: here he would say 'in Paris'. I'm not sure you want this article to cater to that particular poiint of view, but that's up to you. THEPROMENADER 21:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - per ALoan. Afonso Silva 20:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]