Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 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 promoted 22:43, 29 April 2008.

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Minneapolis and List of tallest buildings in Pittsburgh. I have been working with Alaskan assassin, Hydrogen Iodide and Postoak to bring this list up to FL standards, and I think it is now there. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai•me 03:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only thing I see wrong with this article is that references 33 through 63 are just skyscraperpage links with no links to emporis. Besides that its perfect. Alaskan assassin (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for catching that. It may take awhile, but I will fix them all. Cheers, Rai•me 04:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Never mind, I guess it took a lot less time than I had thought. Anyway, all of the "doubled" SkyscraperPage links have been removed, and Emporis refs have been added. Cheers, Rai•me 04:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Another great effort, definitely worthy of FL status. VerruckteDan (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alaskan assassin (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 03:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Support Some of the notes in the table are not sourced at all. Especially, those "formerly known", "also known", and "originally known" names that are unsourced. I checked both Emporis and SkyscraperPage, and I can't find that JPMorgan Chase Tower was known as Texas Commerce Tower, or Wells Fargo Bank Plaza was known as Allied Bank Plaza, etc. --Crzycheetah 20:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done - I have added references for all of the "former name" entries that required them. What other notes need references? The "tallest constructed in the..." decade notes are easily discernable from the sortability of the "Year" column. -- Rai•me 21:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's better. One more thing, the links to the world and U.S. lists should be added to all notes, not just for the Chase Tower. The reason is that if I sort alphabetically, the order of the notes is going to change and those links will be at the bottom instead.--Crzycheetah 22:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done - links added. Thanks for the review, Rai•me 23:14, 28 April 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 promoted 22:43, 29 April 2008.

previous FLC (21:24, 15 April 2008)

Alright, lets try again! I rewrote the lead in the time between the last nom and now. Again, I am welcome to any construtive criticism. There was a couple of comments on the previous FLC that did not have a conclusion, so if you would like to bring them up again, go for it. Thanks, Burningclean _[speak] 20:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support like last time! Drewcifer (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - major concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've copyedited the lead twice, so I'm a contributor I guess. I would like to see citations for music video directors, stuff like that can be argued...but it's not a *must*. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only two sources are MVDbace (unreliable) and The Videos: 1989-2005 (first party) Burningclean _[speak] 03:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Put Some Kind of Monster in the EPs section, because that's what it is. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Burningclean _[speak] 18:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a statement about selling 100 million albums worldwide but the citation only says 85 million. And, it's a self-ref to boot. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh, I didn't notice that. Thanks. I'll change it to 85m. Burningclean _[speak] 00:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support looks good. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Check the Album column in the misc. section: Most of those need "soundtrack" along with the movie name. Otherwise its quite confusing; Shoot 'Em Up links to the movie etc. Also I don't understand the Darwin Awards link. And The Videos: 1989-2005 is fine as a source to refer the directors. indopug (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done Burningclean _[speak] 00:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Try to keep it all in one line. Link "soundtrack" to the soundtrack article, if available. indopug (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Looks great, awesome work! ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 23:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral as I am unable to see this nom to the end. Sorry. Hope my comments were helpful though. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:43, 29 April 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 promoted 22:43, 29 April 2008.

This is one that I had been meaning to clean up, but never got around to it... Until now. It is modeled after List of areas in the United States National Park System (which I am actually considering nominating for removal because it doesn't have stats like area) and is fully sourced. Any comments are welcome and will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• "...is a List..." no reason why List is a proper noun so decap it.
  •  Done
• Captions full stops are the wrong way round - the lead image is a full sentence so full stop yes, all others are fragments so full stop no.
  •  Done
• "The goal of the national park service..." needs citation.
  • It does. The citation is a couple of sentences later.
• "feasbility" - typo.
  •  Done
• "For a list of National Historic Sites, see: List of national historic sites of Canada." - isn't this what "See also" sections are really for?
  •  Done
• Wikipedia:MOS#Color_coding says don't use colour alone to depict particular properties.
• "Year Estab'd " - no capital E required, and why not write the whole word out? You've got space. Use a
if you like.
  •  Done
• Area should be shown in acres (or similar imperial measurement) as well.
  • No, this is a list about a Canadian subject, so we're allowed to use the metric system.
    • Featured content should be accessible to all and that includes the hundreds of millions of people who use the imperial system of measurement. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, I'll experiment with it, but it might screw up the sortability. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 06:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Consider right aligned area col so commas align correctly.
• I would consider merging the proposed and abolished tables into the main, colour code and/or reference accordingly. The abolished/proposed date can go into the ref. Then you get a nice contiguous table.
  • I would prefer to keep the seperate, I think it works better when it is the seperate tables.
• Polar Bear can be polar bear - neither word is a proper noun.
  •  Done
• Do National Park Reserves table have year established available to make it consistent with the previous table?
  • I think they are already included.
• Some tables look forced in width, some not, be consistent, and try to make all tables consistent in column widths.

Starter for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Done, thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few minor things from Suicidalhamster (talk · contribs)

• Park Canada is first mentioned in the third sentence, a few sentences later it seems to be introduced again with Parks Canada–the governing body for the system–. These two sentences say similar things (if administered and governing body mean similar things). Could they be merged?
  •  Done
    • Actually what I wanted to see change has not. I made this edit to show what I was on about. Feel free to re-word. Suicidalhamster (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Can the year the parks were abolished be added to that table.
  • They were already there, I had accidentally mislabeled the table header. It has been fixed now.
• I take it there are no newer statistics than 2005 for progress?
  • None that I could find. I doubt there would be any because during that stretch they only announced one new park. Three new ones have been created in the last year, so I expect there will be new stats soon.
• I've probably missed something but I count 7 national park reserves (excluding Kluane) in the table, however the lead says there are six.
  • One is a future park, which isn't open yet. It has been moved to its own table.

Cheers Suicidalhamster (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could the Lead be slightly longer? There must be so much that could be said on this topic, seems quite mean to leave it so short. And it'd balance the lists better. --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment OK, this could be annoying because it's been discussed somewhere, but I'd expect to see one list, not several. This way, you can't easily scan them all alphabetically or by size etc because they've been broken up by type. Surely some creative work with an additional column could allow a single table to display all of them without being misleading? (I'd omit the putative future ones from tables but include it as footnote or text or something, as they're not actually national parks, so have no place in a list of such) --Dweller (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I am open to merging the National Parks and National Park Reserves column, I think the rest should be kept seperate. I think adding an additional column would make the table look worse and it would seem unnecessary since there are only 2 NMCAs and 1 Landmark. As for the future parks, I suppose they could be merged into one table, but they really should be included for completeness, because they are National Parks that have been confirmed, they just aren't open yet. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll go along with your thoughtful response. Slightly confused by this though: "

Future National Marine Conservation Areas

Four more Marine parks will be established as part of the Marine Conservation Areas Act." says four but only one listed... I can guess why, but needs some explanation. --Dweller (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Curious about tenses in "National Landmark". They're a mix of future tense and past tense about something that does seem to exist, although not in the manner originally foreseen, perhaps. Could this be sorted (and my {{cn}} dealt with - could be in following ref, I know). --Dweller (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the Lake Superior thingy has been announced, but not yet established. I guess this from the lack of established date, but the text isn't clear on this. --Dweller (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I trust Scorpion to deal appropriately with my remaining issues. Good job, nice article. --Dweller (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. When I see a list at FLC by Scorpion, I just assume that it will pass now. Another great list, all issues addressed, no reason to oppose. Qst (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - My comments have been addressed. Great list. Suicidalhamster (talk) 21:41, 29 April 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 promoted 22:43, 29 April 2008.

This is modeled after the 1928 Summer Olympics medal count which is a current FLC. The list is fully sourced. It includes which nations won their first medal and who won the most, but I decided not to get too much into individual/nation achievements because it's a list of the games medal count, not a list of medalists. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Why does Iran sort before Italy?
  • Because r comes before t.
    • Wow, I must have been tired...! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "divided in 198 events" into?
  •  Done
• rugby points at a dab - it should be rugby union.
  •  Done
• "and most overall medals (129)" in the lead, 125 in the table.
  •  Done
• " in 23[7] different " put [7] at the end of the sentence.
  •  Done
• "pommel horse and men's horizontal bar events, and a second-place tie in the women's vault " link pommel horse, horizontal bar and vault.
  •  Done

That's it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I don't have any comments, as I think it looks very nice and meets all the featured criteria. Tuf-Kat (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Meets all the criteria as far as I can see. Has appropriate image, well sourced, table sorts properly. Appropriate Lead. Well done. Woody (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Although I find the use of "medaled" distasteful, it's possibly just a personal thing. I'm also unsure about the use of dashes in the Lead, but that's a small thing and you're probably fine (I regularly have to re-read WP:DASH and I'm tired right now) --Dweller (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I removed that part because it wasn't specific to the 1976 games. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Needs sprucing up. Examples only: "a total of ... a total of" in the same sentence, and another further down in the lead. "South Africa" not a person. "Athletes of"? "Won one"—awkward. Semicolon after "medals.". En dashes, not hyphens, for interrupters in piped refs. TONY (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed all of the "a total of"s except two, I have fixed everything you mentioned, and I've done a little rewording. Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:07, 26 April 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 promoted 04:07, 29 April 2008.

Another season of The Simpsons. Personally, I think each of these lists is better than the last. Anyway, it is fully sourced and I will address concerns as they are brought up. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Release Dates" header in the DVD table should have had a little d, per WP:HEAD so I changed it. Meets the criteria, and follows MOS, so I Support. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 01:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Good stuff. Although I do think at times it verges on over-detailing certain things, it looks all good to me. After tweaking a weensy bit of grammar myself, the only issue I'd have to bring up is Compared to previously produced episodes, the episode featured several elements that could be described as silly and cartoonish. This was a result of the staff's careless attitude towards the end of season four. The episode ran long which led to the creation of the rake sequence, which became a memorable moment for this episode. Originally, Sideshow Bob was only supposed to step on one rake after he stepped out from the underside of the Simpson family's car, but this was changed to nine rakes in a row. The idea was to make it funny, then unfunny and later funny again.[9]
  • Firstly, a source would be great for "silly and cartoonish" - this could be considered POV. If ref 9 at the end of the paragraph does support this, it would be nice to have a secondary source if one's available.
    •  Done
  • Secondly, "the staff's careless attitude" might need to be reworded. Reading it as it is, I'm not sure if they really just couldn't give a damn, or if they just weren't trying as hard, or any other possibility. What does the commentary say?
    •  Done
  • I'm taking "the episode ran long" to mean that it went overtime - which led to the creation of the rake sequence? Wouldn't they add in all the extra rakes if the episode ran short? I swear I'd heard that. Am I wrong?
    • I think an IP must have changed that, and we missed it. It's supposed to be short.
  • "Originally, Sideshow Bob was only supposed to step on one rake after he stepped out from the underside of the Simpson family's car, but this was changed to nine rakes in a row. The idea was to make it funny, then unfunny and later funny again." Could we lose all of this? This is the kind of over-detail I was talking about. The article's about season 4 as a whole, and shouldn't spend too long highlighting individual episodes. I don't see this serving much of a purpose unless it's supposed to be talking about the staff's "careless attitude", in which case trimming a bit might be nice.
• I'll be happy to support with changes made or some kind of reply. —97198 talk 09:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made all of the changes. Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 11:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Looks great! —97198 talk 13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments Are there any information about ratings? Also, it would be better if this page had a reception section where you could mention some quotes from TV experts; both positive and negative comments if available. --Crzycheetah 03:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have to remember that this is a fifteen year old season, so there isn't much from reliable sources on the internet. As for ratings info, I probably could try to dig something up. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are many archives on the internet nowadays, though. Glad to see the ratings section. One more question, for the 86 - 5 episode, you use both "&" and "and" in the writers' column, shouldn't you use a comma instead of the "&" symbol?--Crzycheetah 00:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason is that the episode was split into four parts. The first was written by Greg Daniels & Dan McGrath, the second by Bill Oakley & Josh Weinstein, the third by Bill Canterbury and the fourth by Conan O'Brien. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see, then I would just add a <br /> after Canterbury and remove "and".--Crzycheetah 01:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maybe, but I'd prefer to keep it to three lines rather than four. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I made two minor edits in terms of style. References show not be put in the middle of sentences. They should go after punctuation (commas, full stops, etc.). ISD (talk) 06:55, 24 April 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 promoted 19:10, 28 April 2008.

I have had this list peer reviewed and fixed those changes. No college football list like this, but the NFL has a few FL that I used as a template. Everything else looks fine. Picture is fine.

• Support as nom. PGPirate 16:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Everything looks to be in order. I have no other comments besides those from the PR which were taken care of. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support yes, improved drastically since last time. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 19 April 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 promoted 19:10, 28 April 2008.

This article is based on List of United States cities by population and is of a high standard. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice. Drewcifer (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Why not List of cities in Israel by population?
• You could also remove the area column, and make a List of cities in Israel by area article
•  Done I don't really understand the need of the second paragraph of the lead. I would say that poulation#s to importance may be true for a lot of cities in all parts of the world. One sentence begins with "Because", too, which is gramatically incorrect, and the parenthesesed part, "(and people's perceptions)" should be referenced.

Other than that I agree with all of Drewcifer's comments. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. To be honest, I was weighing up making two lists in my own mind before but just thought with the sortable tables it would give two almost identical pages so I personally am not sure whether it is worth doing this although if you feel it would be very beneficial/the general feeling is this, then I will go ahead. Is there a way of ordering it automatically or is it a manual job? I removed that paragraph also. Thanks again. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

•  Done A bit of over-capitalising - Common Name could just be Common name... etc.
• Can the area be given in metric and imperial as well please. You could embed the {{convert}} template in a {{sort}} template to ensure sortability is maintained.

Sorry - I dont understand how to do this.

Well you need to first use the {{convert}} template to convert from km2 to miles2, and then use the {{sort}} template to ensure it still sorts. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably best to right-align the population so the commas align. Same for decimal point alignment of area.

I have an issue here as I was told by Drewcifer3000 to center align the numerical figures. Either way, I still dont know how to do it.

You can right align large numbers like this by using align=right in the relevant cells... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was told by Drewcifer to center align them! Im not sure what to do.

• Population doesn't seem to sort correctly for me - Jersualem is in a weird place.

I dont seem to have any issues. Let me know.

I have problems in Safari with both Jerusalem and Kafr Qasim when sorting on population. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I dont use Safari - its fine on IE. I dont really know what to suggest here.

• Why do two entries not have Arabic translations? Worth a note.

I'm getting these at the moment.

•  Done References should be in numerical order, there's a [6][4] for instance.
•  Done 12% is an arbitrary level of growth, isn't it? Is there a reason why it's not 10 or 15%?

I have no idea why that's like that but its now 10%

•  Done "large immigrant population" - large is POV.
•  Done "Immigrants are considered those who arrived in Israel after 1990." - according to whom?
•  Done Note c could use a full stop.

Some issues there for me with POV, so I must oppose at the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully Ive now addressed the bulk of these issues. The arabic names should be on their way. I dont really know how to do the conversion template although will be happy to do so, and dont have any issues on my comptuer with the sorting. Theres a contradiction between you and Drewcifer over alignment - what do I do here. Thanks for your comments. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As per previous nominations, I do not believe that the status of the cities in the West Bank is adequately explained. The sentence "The list includes three cities in the West Bank to which Israel has not applied its sovereignty with which it is roughly contiguous" is virtually unreadable - I certainly can't figure out what it means. What is "roughly contiguous" with what? In order for me to support this list, I think it needs three things:

•  Done Rename to "List of Israeli cities" rather than "List of cities in Israel", in order to define the cities by what rather than where they are. A city which is in the West Bank is ipso facto not in Israel, just as the British embassy in Paris is not "in" Britain, even though it might be considered to be British territory.
•  Done A paragraph in the intro properly explaining the status of the three (four?) West Bank cities, including some mention of the view of the international community as well as the Israeli view.

I've put it under List of Cities though because I dont feel it is notable enough to be plaed in the intro.

•  Done Some similar explanation of the status of Jerusalem. It may not need a full paragraph, but at the very least it needs to state whether or not the figures for population and area include East Jerusalem (I assume they do) and why that might be controversial. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, this is in the same paragraph as the West Bank

Hope this is ok. Thanks for your comments. I dont see why the Jerusalem and West Bank bits cant go as notes because they only apply to 5 of 74 but if it is neccessary I have no real issue keeping it here. Thanks again. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Much improved, thanks. I'm still not sure about this sentence: "The list includes four cities in the West Bank to which Israel has not applied its sovereignty". It's not clear whether "not applied its sovereignty" refers to the West Bank as a whole or whether to just the four cities - I assume the former, but it's ambiguous as written. Subject to that being clarified, I'm moved to support. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now support. Thanks for your rapid responses. One other small point - could you please have a look at footnote C. It uses the same awkward wording that I pointed out around "roughly contiguous". --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 19:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — Coherent, understandable, and informative. A spot check of references turned up no problems, and a cursory glance through the article revealed no glaring grammatical or factual errors that I could detect. I might suggest editing some of the prose for smoothness and flow, but even as it is now, it's still better than 95% of the prose I've seen on Wikipedia. Good job by all involved. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Meets all requirements. Good work :-) Tompw (talk) (review) 20:38, 27 April 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 promoted 00:36, 22 April 2008.

Here's yet another list based on the same format as existing FLs PFA Players' Player of the Year, FWA Footballer of the Year, etc. Let me know what you think........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Can't find anything wrong, although the colums for Country and Club in "Breakdown of winners" needn't be so wide, and references 6 to 12 are footnotes, but it's no big deal. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, my comments were dealt with at the peer review. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks like a good list. Gary King (talk) 07:46, 16 April 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 promoted 00:36, 22 April 2008.

This is an excellent list. However, with the lack of free use images, there are none next to the table. Other than that - looks good. - Milk's favorite Cookie 21:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nom.

Comments Just a couple of little things

• Shame there's no free images. Did you look at Flicker yet? If there are some that are copyrighted to the user, it might be worth asking them to free it so it can be included on Wikipedia
• "...including coaches for the Portsmouth Spartans (1930–1933), of the National Football League (NFL)." It sounds like only the Spartans were of the NFL
• "...a play off of the..." "Off of" is a little poor
• Per COLOR, do not use only colours to highlight. Some sort of text, such as an asterisk, caret, dagger or double dagger.

And that's it. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Milk's favorite Cookie 22:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes needed.

• There is no link to either Detroit Lions or head coach, which is unhelpful to readers. Can probably be done best in the bolded text in the lead.
• I have a feeling Portsmouth, Ohio should be just Portsmouth, Ohio. I don't think there's anything in the MoS but I remember reading it in another FLC nom the other day... not sure on this one.
• Note 7 says Clark lost 1 playoff game, whilst the lead and table say he won the superbowl/1 playoff game (respectively).
• I don't like the key being a completely separate section to the table, personally; it looks disjointed from it.
• The lead claims Mornhinweg is the worst coach statistically by win%, yet the table says Karcis has a win% of .000. I think Mornhinweg should still be mentioned - his record is particularly poor over so many games - but Karcis should be added simply because it's contradictory not to have him noted.
• The lead seems strangely formatted... I would probably merged paragraphs 2 & 3, then have "Statistics correct as of [...]" in a separate one myself, but this is up to you. Something to consider at least.

NB, I disagree with the above editor on the WP:COLOURS thing. It doesn't mention anything about using colours as a backdrop in tables (and infact shows examples of it being used on the main page). I've seen other lists pass FLC without anyone else noting this, and personally like them. But this is your call, just airing my opinion. :) Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 06:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:COLORS#Using colours in articles, "Ensure that colour is not the only way used to convey important information. Especially, do not use coloured text unless its status is also indicated using another method such as italic emphasis or footnote labels. Otherwise blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a colour screen will not receive that information." -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 07:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Milk's favorite Cookie 22:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - all concerns dealt with, good work. :) AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Hal Griffin should have an article, even if it's just a stub.
• External Links should be External links (per WP:HEAD).

Otherwise, Matthew's right about the colours, and that's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Milk's favorite Cookie 22:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also support if an article on Hal Griffin is written. Wizardman 21:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And  Done - Milk's favorite Cookie 22:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I finished everything - except the images. I couldn't find anything. - Milk's favorite Cookie 22:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm ready to support, as long as the green shading is used with some sort of text identifier, per the MOS quoted above. Also, there was no real need to remove the Hall of Fame shading, as long as some text identifier was used alongside, otherwise it doesn't follow the style set by other Head coach lists. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks like a good list. Nice work! Gary King (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - all concerns dealt with, good work. :) AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can you throw in a See also section? Seems incomplete without it. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, looks great. Very well done list. Support. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "changed their name to the Lions.." spare period.
• See Also and External Links should be See also and External links per WP:HEAD.
• "...in terms of winning percentage, with .000,..." - why not just say he never coached a win?
• "Regular Season" in the table, why not just Regular season? (i.e. small season?)
• The asterisk in the key should say "Elected to the Hall of Fame", not just "Hall of Fame".

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 01:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all good, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 18 April 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 promoted 00:36, 22 April 2008.

A list of the record attendances of the 92 clubs in English league football. When I first came across this list it was more or less complete, but lacked references. Now it is fully referenced and has had a productive peer review. I am therefore now submitting it in the hope that it cuts the mustard at FLC. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hey Oldelpaso, some comments before I give unequivocal support.

• Last two claims in the lead are unsourced. Now, if they're sourced in the main list then fine but you've sourced the previous statement so it creates an anomaly.
• Since the table is sortable (and as you have done for Maine Road) the competition column should be referenced in each row since it could sort any which way.
• No need to allow the ref col to be sortable, and I'd personally opt to centrally align it.
• "As of April 4, 2008" - I'd write "Statistics correct as of April 4, 2008."
• Does Group Stage need that capitalisation?

These are all minor issues; their resolution will result in my support for an excellent list. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done, I think. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't linked the competition in each line... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I hadn't. Now done. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support wholeheartedly. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with the most minor of minor points. Does the rank column need to be sortable? It's the same sort as the attendance column. Peanut4 (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This looks like a great job. Good job. Gary King (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Very well researched list which satisfies the FL criteria admirably. The nominator has clearly put a deal of work into it, taken it to peer review, left the peer review open long enough to gain a decent amount of comment and suggestion, and actively responded to said comment. A few odds and ends:

• Is the title of the list misleading? especially in the light of the ongoing Arsenal players list FLRC. It's called ...of English football clubs, yet in the lead we find out it lists only Premier League and Football League clubs.
• Should the image caption use St Mary's Stadium rather than the abbreviated St Mary's? Either way, the article name hasn't got a dot after the St
• When the competition column is sorted, it looks rather odd with the FA Cup rounds sorted alphabetically, i.e fifth, first, fourth, etc
• Do you know in which round of the Amateur Cup Barnet's attendance record was set?
• If you're using citation templates for formatting references, I'd prefer to see them completed as per the documentation, specifically that the distinction between "work" and "publisher" be properly made. For instance, note currently #9 has the "work" parameter set to The Football Association, which is in fact the publisher; perhaps this should be changed to publisher, or the work should be The Football Association website, as you've done with the football club websites cited. There are (only a very few) others.

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) It is not claiming to be Record home attendances of all English football clubs, and I do not think we should treat readers as if they have an absolute lack of common sense.

2) I have removed the rogue full stop. It is almost universally referred to without the "Stadium" appellation, so I don't think leaving it out it a problem.

3) I have no idea how to resolve this.

4) It seems it was the fourth round, now added.

5) I've made the changes, though I still maintain the distinction is of no consequence :)

Oldelpaso (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Agree entirely :-)

5) In terms of showing clearly where your information comes from, I'd agree it doesn't make any difference. But if you're going to choose to use citation templates to format your references on an article which you then nominate for featured status, I can't see an argument against filling them in precisely.

3) I've carried on where Peanut left off and got the cup rounds sorted. If you'd like me to do the league divisions similarly, for consistency, let me know.

Thanks, I've now sorted the league divisions. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • 3) I've done the first. Basically use {{sort}}. Though you'll have to keep it consistent with the divisions as well I suppose. I'll leave it up to you if you want to revert my change, or apply them more consistently. Peanut4 (talk) 19:27, 17 April 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 promoted 00:36, 22 April 2008.

Self-nomination - I have followed the same approach for the first List of songs in Guitar Hero in fixing up this list, and have already asked Drewcifer for an off-the-cuff check of the table (as there's some new formatting that needs to be done for this list). --MASEM 23:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good work! One last minor suggestion: the year column is wider then it needs to be. I'd recommend putting the sortable button thing on the line below "Year", since you've already got room for it. Drewcifer (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That sorting icon is not easily placable, I've forced a small column width to make it drop onto a second line. --MASEM 03:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Whatever you did, it looks good to me. Drewcifer (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Agree with Drewcifer over the blog references, though I can't see where it references Wikipedia.
• The article talks about having to unlock the tiers, but then auto-sorts the songs alphabetically. I think they should be sorted to the PS2's Tier, as it was released first, and is probably how most readers of this page will want it presented to them.
• What does the dagger represent?
• Nevermind. The dagger note should be above the table, with the mdash; note and master recordings note.
• Use Y or Y ({{ok}} or {{tick}}) instead of the image, if you have to have a check mark.
• Again the dagger note and the double-dagger-or-whatever-it's-called Xbox exclusive notes should appear before the table. That double dagger is too close to the dagger, too, which would be fine if it was being used to show which songs include bass, but I would choose an entirely different symbol to highlight the XBox tracks
• Should the cost, even in funny money, be included per WP:DIRECTORY?
• ¶ key should be before the table

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewedwards (talk • contribs)

The alpha order, and the current checkmark, is based on Drewcifer's comments from the previous List of songs in Guitar Hero and comments. First, that these lists need to be less specific about the gameplay and more about the songs (thus the reason it's closer to a discography than a level list), thus sorting alpha on title is more appropriate. Secondary, he was the one to suggest the use of the black checkmark instead of a colored one for the checkmarks. Costs are a bit tricky, since it is noted in the Guitar Hero II article (albeit standalone from this) that these are considered 'expensive' and that a lot of money has been made on the DLC. Look at WP:NOT, I don't see these falling absolutely any of the cases for sales catalog (it may be that these all can be considered "competing products"), but it has been the case that most downloadable content from XBox Live, PlayStation Network, or Wii Shopping has been included across many other articles. I think this is a good question for the WP:VG project to consider, but for now I think they should stay in, but I can remove them if necessary. --MASEM 13:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of the points listed above, I've fixed the mini-keys to be above the table, removed the cost and size info per a discussion on WT:VG and WT:NOT. Again, see above for the alpha order and the use of the black checkmark symbol. --MASEM 23:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks like a good list. Gary King (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RkOrToN 03:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Agreed, everything looks good and well-explained. Killervogel5 (talk) 11:18, 21 April 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 promoted 15:55, 18 April 2008.

This is another of the Victoria Cross recipients lists. It follows on from List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality and its "sublists" Australian and Canadian recipients, all FLs. It meets all the criteria as far as I can tell and it has built upon comments in previous FLCs. Thanks for your time. Woody (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all my concerns rapidly addressed, great list. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Support Before I make any decision, I was wondering if there was a specific reason that some of the recipients have notes, but most don't? Cromdog (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notes are for extraordinary circumstances say the Andaman Islands recipients who weren't "in the presence of the enemy". It also lists the couple of cases where if you go to the page e.g. Robert Scott (VC) it says he was an English recipient, so I added in the notes to avoid confusion. They will become redundant once I get the articles up to scratch I suppose. Woody (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, that sounds good to me. Cromdog (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment James Joseph Magennis's unit is listed as HMS Stygian (P249), but in the List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Royal Navy it is down as HMS XE3. I suspect that HMS XE3 is the more accurate, as Stygian towed the midget submarine into the area, stood by whilst Magennis & Co did the deed, and then picked them up and towed them back after it was done, but then perhaps there's a reason for listing Stygian? Benea (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the sources said the Stygian, but I checked Ashcroft which said it was the HMS XE.3, and Magennis's VC was the first one Ashcroft bought so he has researched it a lot. I believe that they must have listed the Stygian as the ship, due to it being the base of operations. Thanks. Woody (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - another excellent list. Benea (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great job. This looks like a great list. Gary King (talk) 07:45, 16 April 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 promoted 15:55, 18 April 2008.

previous FLC

After some recovery work performed by me, User:Dweller and User:Jpeeling, I feel now that this list is worthwhile of featured status. It was a previous FL which was delisted by a single comment about lack of sources in the lead. That's fixed, and besides that we now have a nicely illustrated set of tables with comprehensive references and nationalities included. I'm invoking my own carpe diem clause to get the ball rolling here at WP:FLC and will happily attend to any comments and criticisms as soon as I can. Thanks in advance for your time and energy. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was happy to work on this in memoriam, ALoan. --Dweller (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• John Wisden (1913, 29 years posthumously and 50 years after he retired from first-class cricket), : I guess you have to mention that this was to honour him in the 50th year of publication.
  • Sorry but do you have an explicit reference stating as such? I'm not in possession of the 1913 almanack. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The online edition of 1913 doesn't explicitly talk about the connection. Is this sufficient - "The jubilee issue of the Almanack was in 1913, and for that year the editor, Sydney Pardon, chose a portrait of the founder, John Wisden." (Wisden's cricketers of the year : The first century, 1989) ? . There are also indirect references like these - "John Wisden, founder of the Almanack, to whose memory the whole feature was devoted in the Jubilee issue of 1913" [2] For more specific references, we may have to poke Johnlp or Jhall1.
      • I think that's fine, I've reworded the text and added an appropriate reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Also found that Wisden was not the CoY - there was no official CoY in 1913 - but as mentioned above the 1913 edition carried a personal recollections section Tintin 01:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Jayasuriya's award was exceptional in that he did not play in England in that season but was treated as a special case. May be worth a mention.
  • Note added. Good spot. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Wisden Cricketers' Almanack: each annual edition from 1889 to the present. -> Why does this go to an internal link ? It is linked from the very first line, and should rather be linked to the Wisden archive.
  • I've reverted that internal link to an external, general link to the Wisden Almanack site. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Seventy percent of the photos are of non-Englishmen though the Brits have won some 75% of the awards. I know why, but it doesn't look too good. Tintin 17:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that's my PC mind gone haywire. But we are stuck with the images we're stuck with. I'll have a dig around. By the way, have you seen the non-English flag version in my sandbox? That would reduce the number of images further. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, replied in WT:CRIC Tintin 17:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Photos reorganised, with a more pro-English approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Great work and looks really good. A nice, neat, easy to read layout. Some quick points:

• "Nationality for internationals reflects the team they played for, while for non-internationals, country of birth is shown" This means I am unsure if the flag next to Bill Alley, Mark Waugh and Ottis Gibson means they were named as Cricketers of the Year playing for their nation or only that they were born in that country.
  • Ok, well perhaps a reference here or there will help alleviate your confusion! Stick with us! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Use of the new South African flag before 1993 is a little anachronistic, perhaps? The same with the Indian flag pre 1948. I'm not sure the flags add much at all to be honest. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take the point about pre-x year flags, but one of the reasons this was delisted was because it didn't contain the nationality info. So I think excluding ENG is a fair compromise. However, I'll def. look into those pre-x year flag. Funnily enough I felt that as I was adding them in. Silly old me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "was delisted by a single comment about lack of sources in the lead", if you disagreed with its delisting, then you should have commented, the FLRC was open 30 days and the Cricket WikiProject was notified. There were two commenters, and nobody left any comments that it should remain listed. Besides, it was actually delisted because of a lack of sources in general (the only ref pointed to a general Cricket site), and because it was poorly formatted, not because of a "lack of sources in the lead". Surely you can agree that the current versions is WAY better than this. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just talking facts Scorpion! I was too busy on other lists to hit this one hard. Anyway, it seems that even now we can't satisfy everyone, looks likely that the nationality information will have to go, this list should not become a repository of every fact about each cricketer listed, it's about who won this award. I thought the current version is way better, that why a few of us have worked really hard on it. But it's gradually devolving back to the delisted version. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Collectonian (talk · contribs)

Support, all issues I had have been adequately addressed and I feel it is now ready to regain its FL star. Collectonian (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Okay, to assuage concerns over citation of nationalities, depiction of such with flags, contravention of MOSFLAG etc, I've created a new sandbox version of the page here. I'd appreciate some quick comments to see if we're getting any closer. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so confident it's better (in a different way) I've made the same modifications to the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the revised version. It looks great without the flagcruft and the references are now much more appropriate and navigable. Thanks for taking the time to deal with my concerns. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 08:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Johnlp (talk · contribs)

1. . The picture of John Wisden is less appropriate than the previous picture of Wisden Cricketers' Almanack, since the Cricketers of the Year were instituted years after Wisden's death and are the choice of the editor based on deeds in the game of cricket in the previous season. Wisden himself was featured in a commemorative section in the 1913 almanack, and no Cricketers of the Year were selected that year (possibly because 1912 was such a disastrous season!). The almanack in recent years has carried a list of Cricketers of the Year: for 1913, it says "John Wisden: Personal Recollections". Before the present table was constructed, Cricketers of the Year were identified in the long list of "Births and Deaths of Cricketers" by "CY" and a year: eg "Subba Row, R. CY 1961". The John Wisden entry does not identify him with a CY note.
2. . The word "Winners" at the head of the table seems odd in this context, since this isn't a competition that is "won" or even entered for. It's an honour in the gift of the editor of Wisden. Perhaps it should just say "Cricketers of the Year".

John, thanks for your comments. Okay, so we'll rework Mr Wisden's entry and change the image. And I've modified the winners heading accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - The list now looks pretty good to me. Two points:

• 1. I don't know if it's because I use 800x600 resolution (being short-sighted), but the pictures don't appear to the right of the table but precede it. Thus you have to scroll down a long way through the pictures before reaching the table. Would it be possiblt to intersperse the pictures between sections of the table?
• 2. In view of the discussion above about John Wisden not actually being a true CoY, in the table the 1913 entry for him should either be removed or at least have footnote 7 attached to it.

JH (talk page) 09:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you're using Firefox? It renders fine in IE7. I'm not sure what it looks like in Safari (I'll check tonight). As for the footnote, I'll add that in asap. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No, I'm using IE7. I suspect that my preferred screen width of 800 pixels means it isn't wide enough to fit the pictures in alongside the table, which has a fixed width. I've now confirmed that by using IE7's facility to set text size to "smallest", when the pictures ddo appear alongside the table. Since few people will be viewing at 800x600, I'm content for things to be left as they are. JH (talk page) 09:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-huh, I'm running 1600x1200x2 here but running down at 800x600 I get the same problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, John, are we done? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, yes. :) Thank you for all the work that you and Dweller have put in. JH (talk page) 10:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have slightly tweaked the wording and the footnote about the 1913 award to better reflect the comments made here. Please feel free to criticise or fix.

I've also expunged "winner" from all the captions and I'll also do one last flick through the Lead text to ensure "winning" isn't there. This is despite my own feelings that they are indeed winners - they have won an award, a fantastic, historic honour and a supreme accolade. Best of all, they have won immortality. Not bad, huh? Anyway, I'm a consensual editor ;-) and the word's gawn. --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, far be it from me to canvass your opinion, but are you now prepared to, dare I say, support this FLC? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the article as it currently stands JH (talk page) 16:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support from me too. Johnlp (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This article looks great. Good job! Gary King (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller insists that I find some error in the article, so shall try my best.

• Hobbs was first recognised in 1909, but was selected a second time in 1926 to honour his breaking W. G. Grace's record of 126 first-class hundreds;[4]

The reference goes to the CI page of Hobbs. What is the reference for ? If it is to prove that Hobbs did it twice, ref.3 is sufficient. If it is to cite the reason for the second CoY, the CI Hobbs page - as far as I can find from a quick check - does not mention it. A link like http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/153105.html will serve the latter purpose better.

Exactly the same comment for Warner and ref.5

• From 2000 to 2003 the award was made based on players' impact on cricket worldwide rather than just the preceding season in England, but the decision was reversed in 2004 with the introduction of a separate Wisden Leading Cricketer in the World award.[7]

Ref 7 talks only about the Leading cricketer of the year. If you want to cite the "2000-2003", ref.3 does that better.

Looks good. Tintin 05:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tintin, thanks for your careful notes. I think I've used the suggested refs accordingly, if you'd be so kind to check. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine now. Tintin 07:53, 17 April 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 promoted 15:55, 18 April 2008.

I based this list off of List of Florida hurricanes, and I feel it is featured-worthy. There is one potential problem I should address right now. The article is based off of the four sub-articles, all of which are featured (except one, which is one FLC) and thus perfect sourcing is near-impossible. I hope that's not a problem, and I'll address any comments or concerns. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• "Floyd is considered the worst modern natural disaster " isn't Floyd a hurricane and did Floyd cause the worst modern natural disaster?
• I'd expand the lead to two paragraphs.
• " 17.5 percent" why not just 17.5%? And other instances..
• "occassionally " should be occasionally.
• 1900-1949 should use en-dash so 1900–1949, same for 50-79.
• Since this article is the overview, direct/indirect fatalities should be explained.
• Suddenly the windspeeds switch to knots in the table. Why?
• "Landfall Location" - Landfall location.
• Why are some "unnamed" linked to named hurricanes? (I think I asked this before but can't remember the answer!)
• Why are only some years linked in the table? And why the italics for one hurricane only?
• I think you need some references for the 1900-1949 and the 1950-1979 sections.

That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified the Floyd thing, and added a ref. Regarding the lede, I opted to keep it short, since that's what List of Florida hurricanes did as well, and I figured that any more info would be redundant with the climatology section. Regarding the percentages, WP:MOS states Percent or per cent are commonly used to indicate percentages in the body of an article, with % usable for more scientific articles. Though this article is scientific, it usage is more for statistical purposes, so I think percent and not % is more appropriate. I added an actual table for deaths, which explains direct vs. indirect deaths. Regarding windspeeds, I opted not to put both mph and km/h in the table, and went for the less controversial "knot". I added the name to one of the unnamed hurricane links, since that is a more accepted name, but the other I left as a link; the Wikipedia title of the other one was the 1933 Outer Banks hurricane, but because the table specifies the landfall location (which was the Outer Banks), I thought it was redundant. I added the links to the years. The italicized names did mean those names are not official, but it wasn't that important, so I removed the italics. I hope that's good! ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure whether this should be here or on FAC. I'd clearly pass either one, so support. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Wonderfully written, greatly detailed, and should definitely be featured. Hello32020 (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good. Nice job! Gary King (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good article as ever by Hurricanehink 02blythed (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks like The Rambling Man already mentioned all the issues, and they were all fixed perfectly. I can't see anything that should prevent this from being featured. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:23, 16 April 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 promoted 08:25, 16 April 2008.

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Detroit and List of tallest buildings in Tulsa. I have been working with Alaskan assassin and Hydrogen Iodide to bring this list up to FL standards, and I think it is now there. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai-me 05:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Eleven of the 20" looks odd with words and numbers in one sentence. WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words doesn't mind words over ten being spelled if they use only one or two words. Personally, I prefer words over numbers, but the rest of the article uses numbers, and it's not a big deal as long as its consistent.
  •  Done -- Rai-me 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "(after Philadelphia)" and "(after New York City, Boston and Philadelphia)" needn't be in parentheses
  • Well, if they are not listed in parentheses, then the sentence would contain 6 commas without any breaks (Overall, Pittsburgh's skyline is ranked (based on existing and under-construction buildings over 500 feet (152 m) tall) second in Pennsylvania, after Philadelphia, third in the Northeast, after New York City, Boston and Philadelphia, and 13th in the United States.) Personally, I think it is better with parentheses, as they make the sentence much easier to read. -- Rai-me 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Notes B and C could be referenced
  •  Done -- Rai-me 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, good list! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the review. Cheers, Rai-me 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support try as I might I can't find anything beyond Matthew's comments. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! Cheers, Rai-me 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nothing wrong with it but I think is better for the lead than the current. Just because the panoroma gives that same view as the current image in the lead. Alaskan assassin (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good, a great addition to the Featured Lists. I also agree with Alaskan assassin about the picture. VerruckteDan (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• •  Done - Image changed. The problem I had with Image:PittSkyline082904.jpg was that it doesn't show as much detail of as many buildings (U.S. Steel Tower, the tallest in the city, is not very visible), but it is more aesthically pleasing. Cheers, Rai•me 03:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - list looks great. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 02:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks great. Nice job! Gary King (talk) 07:41, 16 April 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 promoted 21:33, 15 April 2008.

This is a list of episodes of the True Tears anime. I believe it qualifies under the featured list criteria, as well as satisfying project-specific criteria such as WP:FICT. It is of similar or better status than similar anime episode lists such as List of Myself ; Yourself episodes, List of Blue Drop: Tenshitachi no Gikyoku episodes, and List of Claymore episodes. The episode summaries are not excessive in length, and other relevant information is covered. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks good and complete. One additional piece of information that might be relevant to have would be the DVD sales figures, because I recall reading they were remarkably low, but that's more relevant to the series as a whole than the list of episodes, so I won't fault the page for it. --erachima formerly tjstrf 06:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Would probably be more relevant to a reception section at True Tears (anime), yeah. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse)

• Support my major concerns addressed, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The linked True Tears is so placed because it's part of the subject's title. I see that's specifically advised against, but is it better to leave the words unbolded or unlinked? --erachima formerly tjstrf 06:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I'd opt for unlinked and still bold since "True Tears" is in the title of the article. You can link the True Tears on its next occurence. Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Please inform me if anything else needs to be addressed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "This is a list of episodes of the 2008 Japanese animated television series True Tears." would be better as "This is a list of episodes of True Tears. True Tears is a 2008 Japanese animated television series... blah blah". This will fix the WP:LEAD#Bold issue
  • Cut the bold. I think it's fine now. If you still want it changed, I'll do it.
• The sentence "The episodes are loosely based on the visual novel True Tears by La'cryma, using an entirely different story with different characters, and a different art style" should have a reference, because the way it describes it, it seems nothing like the visual novel at all!
  • Reworded the sentence.
• Who's father died, Shinichirō's or Hiromi's?
  • Says "her father," which makes it fairly evident I think.
    • I think it needs to be clearer who is male or female. A native English speaker won't know just by the names who is what, like they would John and Sarah-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reworded accordingly.
• "interacts" → "interactions", maybe?
  • Fixed.
• "The title for a given episode is a line spoken within the episode." Reference this, as not many people will be able to speak Japanese to verify themselves
  • Hard to source this. Would you rather have it cut?
    • Doesn't {{cite episode}} have fields for quote and minutes? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So 3-4 cites for that sentence or do I need all 13? Just curious. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added a couple references. Is this sufficient or is more verification needed? Thanks, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 16:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• How does Shiniciro continue to lament when this is the first episode?
  • Fixed.
• "Shinichirō Nakagami continues to lament how he cannot express his feelings for Hiromi Yuasa, noting that when he knew her before, he always treasured her smile, but she acts coldly at home, and Shinichirō regrets not being able to see her tears, or any form of significant emotion" is an extremely long and unweildy sentence.
  • Fixed.

Real life calls. Gotta jet. I'll do some more tomorrow. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 07:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please tell me if anything else needs to be addressed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little bit of copyediting for the first six episodes. You can see the diff here. I felt the summaries were extremely long and convoluted with a few too many commas. The remaining episodes still need looking at, I think, but if you think otherwise, feel free to undo it. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good per above. Gary King (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry I didn't get around to answering you. So many FLC recently means I lose track! Anyway, my concerns seem to have been met, and it meets the criteria, so I Support. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:10, 15 April 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 promoted 21:33, 15 April 2008.

Another well done list, nicely referenced, info, accurate. - Milks F'avorite Cookie 22:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As nom. - Milk's favorite Cookie 18:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Otherwise no real complaints from me! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Milk's favorite Cookie 16:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise, nice list -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with everything above. There are also know other free use images (I think), so cropping would be useless. Thanks, - Milk's favorite Cookie 01:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I see no problems with this FLC. Wizardman 20:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure about Benny Friedman being classed as a hall of famer since he's in there as a player. Buc (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Concerns taken care of, and it meets the criteria.
  • Sorry, per WP:COLORS#Using colours in articles, "Ensure that colour is not the only way used to convey important information. Especially, do not use coloured text unless its status is also indicated using another method such as italic emphasis or footnote labels. Otherwise blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a colour screen will not receive that information." I'll support once again when the shaded cells have some sort of text-identifier inlcuded, such as astericks, daggers or carets. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now I support. Nice job -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I don't think the colors are a major problem. Very well-done list. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:07, 15 April 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 promoted 21:33, 15 April 2008.

Another season list. Any comments or concerns raised will be addressed. Thank you. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 02:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Support as nominatior -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 14:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, sorry for the delay... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looking good.
  • marked the first death in the series of a main character - it's picky, but seems to read better as "the first death of a main character in the series"
  • Publication names in Reception such as Winnipeg Sun should be italicised.
  • Episodes: "dad" to "father" and "mom" to "mother"?
  • her feelings for current boyfriend Peter, and her ex-boyfriend, Sean - latter comma, or even both, not necessary.
  • Pick "webpage" or "web page" and sweep through the article for some consistency.
  • Ellie's ex, Jesse - maybe "ex-boyfriend" is a little more encyclopedic.
• Hope the comments helped! —97198 talk 12:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting those. They've all been addressed. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 16:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This list needs to move along out of the WP:FLC backlogs, where other articles need more attention :) Gary King (talk) 03:46, 15 April 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 promoted 21:33, 15 April 2008.

Another Degrassi season page. Everything looks to be in order, well referenced, seems to meet the FL criteria. No dead links, fair use rationales missing. The one thing I'm not sure on is if the word "realize" is spelled the British way in Canada, so if someone can let me know, that'd be great. All other comments/concerns also welcome, and will be addressed in a timely manner. Regards. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:16, 30 March, 2008

Support as nominator -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per all the other D:TNG lists. Good work Matthew. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done I've applied these changes across all the D:TNG season pages too, including season 6, which I've just nominated, too. Thanks for the review. If you find anything else, holler! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support In the Venus' description, you wrote "her parent to throw...", maybe you meant her parents? If not, then be more specific and write "her mother" or "her father".--Crzycheetah 23:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for your support. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It's just as good as the other Degrassi pages. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good. This shouldn't still be in the WP:FLC backlog, where other articles need more improvement :) Gary King (talk) 03:45, 15 April 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 promoted 21:33, 15 April 2008.

It's a complete, well referenced and useful list.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good list. A few comments:

• ) Can any images be possibly added to it?
• ) Please replace "Martyred" with "Killed" per WP:MOS
• ) Please check the reference for "Sacrificing himself and his family at the Battle of Karbala for the sake of a true Islamic polity" I couldn't map it to Britannica.
• ) Possibly add a famous saying for each Imam.
• ) Please fix "Suny press" to "SUNY Press".
• ) A few sentences are not sourced, please fix them.

--Be happy!! (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ) A shrine of Imam Hussain has been added to it.
• ) Fixed.
• ) Fixed.
• ) Will in a moment. On second thought, I don't believe this would be a good idea, as the list is saturated enough. I can do it if you feel it to be really necessary however.
• ) Fixed.
• ) Will soon.

--Enzuru 07:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is a good idea to add few sentences from each Imam. It's not Wikiquote article.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• The first sentence of the page is very long and heavy. It should be broken into at least two, and also referenced.

 Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Instead of "Theology of Twelvers", use "[[Theology of Twelvers]", and Twelvers later in the article

 Done--Seyyed(t-c) 04:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Instead of "or Ithna Ashariya", it should be "(Language used: Ithna Ashariya)"

 Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why "'Ali" and not "Ali"?

 Done--Seyyed(t-c) 03:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Should "jurispudence" be "jurisdiction"?

"jurisprudence" is correct.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I omitted that part.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "who is the divinely appointed infallible authority, who has jurispudence on all matters" is repetitive and heavy

 Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have problem with new lead.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done We wrote a new lead.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The final sentence of the first Lead paragraph is also long and heavy.

 Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have problem with new lead.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done We wrote a new lead.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "An Imam ," stray space

 Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "successors to Muhammad.[1]" → "successor to Muhammad.[1]"

 Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead needs an explaination of what an Imam is.

There is an explanation:there is an infallible and knowledgeable male descendant of Ali and Fatimah at any given time who is the divinely appointed infallible authority, who has jurisprudence on all matters of faith and law in the Muslim community.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't say that this is Iman. It just says it's some guy -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:51, 25 March, 2008

 Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Seyyed(t-c) 04:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]