Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 2012

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:56, 29 April 2012 [1].

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting my latest effort in the list genre...we have (drumroll)...amphibians! I've been playing with this list over the last couple of weeks, and am at the point where I can't find further aspects to improve. Courcelles has been kind enough to take a quick look, and I think that (with his help) the issues of table formatting and accessibility have been addressed. There wasn't a lot out there to base this list on, so it's pretty much just off-the-cuff - please let me know if there is further information that should be included. Dana boomer (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Since you have "binomial name" shouldn't the other column be "common name"?

• De-capitalize "Name" in "Binomial Name"

• I'd like it if the subheadings under the "references" section were semicolons instead of subheaders, producing:

General references

instead of what it is now; looks cleaner

• More information can be added. See for example a list I've been working on List of reptiles of Minnesota. The notes column can be expanded for all amphibians, including size and color.

• One species is considered to be threatened and two species are considered endangered care to say who they are, I think that's an important detail hinted at but not elaborated upon; violates wp:LEAD.

Albacore (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Albacore! I think I have addressed everything above. I had been waffling on adding a description column, so having someone ask for the inclusion of one helped me to make up my mind. On your last point, could you please elaborate on why this was a violation of WP:LEAD? I have added the information to the lead, but it was already present in the body, so I think the lead was a proper summary of the body previously - now it's just slightly more detailed. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support NapHit (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I didn't have any specific additions in mind for those papers I mentioned, just wondering if you had seen them. The paragraph on habitat is great addition that definitely enhances the article—thanks. I'm satisfied the article meets FL criteria, and am happy to support. Sasata (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much, Sasata - I always appreciate your reviews, especially the lit searches that always seem to find something I missed :) Dana boomer (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Things that should be addressed:

• File:Acris crepitans blanchardi.jpg – Source website?

• I can't find this image anywhere on the Ohio gov website. What should I do? Dana boomer (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't find it there either. Three other websites using it ([2] [3] [4]) make no contradicting copyright claims. We can't expect online sources to stay alive indefinitely, so I suppose this should be fine. Just add a link to the ODNR website.

• Link added. Dana boomer (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Hyla versicolor.jpg – Description page names an original uploader, but leaves it unclear whether that person is also the author.

• This is a bit confusing. Apparently, the author (User:Dawson) uploaded the image to en.wp in May 2006 (see this, search for Hyla versicolor). It was then uploaded to zh.wp in August 2007, and that has somehow become the "original upload". So, the author is the one who originally uploaded it, and the tag is wrong. Am I allowed to just going in and change the tag to the correct "original upload"? Dana boomer (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, you're allowed. It's a wiki after all. Important is not who uploaded it, but who took the picture (see commons:Template:Information/doc for what goes where).

• OK, I think I've dealt with this. Dana boomer (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Pseudacris maculata.jpg – Requires cleanup.

• I've removed the duplicate tags. If there is other cleanup that is required, please let me know. Dana boomer (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Same as above. And there's still a duplicate.

• Removed another redundant license. Now have I got them all? :) Dana boomer (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Grenouille1.jpg – Requires date, author, and, if possible, a source URL.

• I can't find this image anywhere on the US government website. What should I do? Dana boomer (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See below.
• Replaced and tagged for deletion. Dana boomer (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Fourtoedsalamander.jpg – Requires author, source, and general cleanup.

• I can't find this image anywhere on the US government website. What should I do? Dana boomer (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as FLC is concerned, if you can't add the information necessary to comply with our image use policy and Common's own requirements, you shouldn't use the image. Beyond that, you might want to nominate the image for deletion on Commons.

• Replaced and tagged for deletion. Dana boomer (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Things that would be nice:

• File:Pseudacris crucifer01.jpg would benefit from cropping.
• File:Western chorus frog.jpg would benefit from cropping.
• File:North-American-bullfrog1.jpg would benefit from using {{information}}.
• File:Necturus maculosus maculosus.jpg would benefit from using {{information}}.
• File:Siren intermedia 2.jpg would benefit from using {{information}}.

• The way I understand it, Steinhart Aquarium in San Francisco is not the source, but the place where the image was taken.

• Whoops, fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, all used images appear to be free and properly tagged. Goodraise 20:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've added individual responses to the need to have section. For the nice to haves, I'm horrible with cropping and don't have good programs to do it with, so I'll probably leave that for someone else. I've added the information templates to the last three. Please let me know what you would like me to do with the need to have stuff - I'm afraid I wasn't too successful at finding sources for the three images that need them. Since I haven't been able to find these sources, should the images be removed from the list and tagged for deletion? Dana boomer (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied individually. Goodraise 12:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:56, 29 April 2012 [5].

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another Summer Olympic medal table from me. Hopefully I haven't repeated any mistakes that I've made previously in the three other Summer Medal articles, but you never know! Certainly one of the most notorious Games out there, being "the Nazi Games". Miyagawa (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support NapHit (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:WoodRuff 1936 Olympics medal front.jpg is tagged as "own work". I'm willing to believe that the uploader took the picture himself, but I doubt that he is also the artist who designed the medal.
• File:Ibolya Csak.jpg should not use {{self}}.
• I may be wrong about this, but I don't believe that merely cropping an image meets the threshold of originality. Thus File:Berlin, Olympiade, Tilly Fleischer.jpg should not use {{self}}. Furthermore it cannot be licensed under the GFDL, as the image it was cropped from is not available under that license.

Aside from these issues, all used images appear to be free and are properly tagged. Goodraise 11:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched out the licences on commons for the Tilly Fleischer and Ibolya Csak images for the licences on the original images rather than the cropped versions. As for the medal itself, it was designed by Giuseppe Cassioli and was used from the 1928 Olympics onwards. The artist himself died in 1942. Miyagawa (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who holds the copyright to the design of the medal? Goodraise 00:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked that question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Once I get a response there, then I'll respond here. Miyagawa (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dissapointingly I didn't get a response and the query has now been archived. I've looked into it in some more detail and I would argue that the medals don't qualify as a two dimension piece of art being that they are indeed three dimensional. Therefore such copyright wouldn't apply to them. Photographs of them then fall into the general realm of copyright, which means that if the photographer themselves uploaded it on a CC free use tag, then they're ok. It's certainly not the only image of olympic medals uploaded, and there are photographs of more recent ones too (including the Games from the period after this design was no longer used). Miyagawa (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments - overall, looking quite good. Just a couple of comments before I support:

• "cancelled at the last moment after the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War after the athletes had already begun to arrive." - after...after, any way to remove repetitiveness?
• "While no NOCs eventually boycotted the Games", "eventually" sounds a bit off here. Perhaps "ended up boycotting" or "In the end, no NOCs boycotted" or something similar would be better.
• "to the ire of Nazi Germany leader Adolf Hitler after Owens won the men's 100 metres." Why was Hitler particularly upset about him winning this event? Also, giving a bit more explanation as to why Hitler was upset that Owens was winning medals (because of his race, yes?) might be interesting.

Other than that, things look good. I looking forward to supporting. Dana boomer (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've rectified each of those points. Miyagawa (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made one small tweak, but other than that everything looks good. Happy to support. Dana boomer (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:56, 29 April 2012 [6].

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 14:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it recently underwent a peer review and I feel it is up to FL-quality. I am a fan of the group and found the process of improving this discography enjoyable, and it would be nice to have my first FL. Toa Nidhiki05 14:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• The "one holiday albums" part needs to have the last word be singular, not plural.
  • Done. Toa Nidhiki05 14:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The photo could use alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Toa Nidhiki05 14:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment

• The music videos and other appearances tables do not comply with MOS:DTT. You need to add row and col scopes to these tables so they do comply. NapHit (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support NapHit (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review: All used images appear to be free and are properly tagged. Goodraise 00:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Problems appear to have been solved. What a pro (talk, contribs) is on fire. 11:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:56, 29 April 2012 [7].

Nominator(s): 12george1 (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After some unsuccessful FACs, I have decided to attempt an FLC. I am nominating this article for featured list because I firmly believe that this meets the criteria for FL; it was edited/revised in accordance to the standards used in the Timeline of the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season and the Timeline of the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season (two very recent FLC candidates). As always, if you disagree with my assumption that this should be an FL, please comment about what needs to be done below. Finally, I would like to note that this is a nomination for the WikiCup.--12george1 (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. Prose still needs considerable work: I'm still seeing some prose errors, but as I don't have time to resume reviewing I will strike my oppose. Cheers, Auree ^★★ 18:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "with 14 tropical cyclones becoming named storms" is sloppy construction. You can either remove "becoming" or rephrase to something like "during which 14 tropical cyclones became named storms."

• Done--12george1 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Although Tropical Depression One formed on May 24, the season officially began on June 1 and ended on November 30, dates that conventionally delimit the period of each year when most tropical cyclones develop in the Atlantic basin." In this sentence, grammatically, "although" contrasts both "began on June 1 and ended on November 30," while it's supposed to be in contrast with only "began on June 1."

• Why didn't you say that for the FLC of the Timeline of the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season? The sentence is worded the same way, but you didn't have a problem with it then.--12george1 (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Because reviewers learn and grow, and as such they identify new mistakes. I'm not sure what it is you're accusing me of here. Auree ^★★ 04:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikilink major hurricane (it redirects but it's still useful).

• Done--12george1 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do you mention deaths and damage totals? Those are not discussed by the timeline.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "formed roughly halfway between the northern coast of Honduras and Cape San Antonio, Cuba" Honduras' northern coast is pretty big. Anything more specific?

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Tropical Depression One attain its" grammar

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Tropical Depression One made landfall near Guasimal, Matanzas, Cuba with winds of 30 mph (45 km/h)." Needs a comma after the country (Cuba); check for consistency throughout.

• Fixed every occurrence throughout the article--12george1 (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "0000 UTC (8:00 p.m. EDT May 31) - The 1990 Atlantic hurricane season officially began." Why the change in tense? It switches to present tense again at the end of the timeline. Please be consistent and per convention change everything to present tense.

• Better?--12george1 (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd much prefer present tense since that's conventional in timelines. Auree ^★★ 16:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything in this article is now in present tense.--12george1 (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm seeing inconsistencies in the ways numbers are rounded and estimates are given. If converted from nautical miles or knots, please round to the nearest 5 digit, and when rough estimates like 1,000 mi are given, converting to a more precise value of 1,610 km (rather than 1,600) is rather inconsequential.

• I tried to be as accurate as possible, without using decimals. Would you rather I say 1,609.334 km?--12george1 (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, quite the contrary. 1,000 is an estimate, so the kilometers value should be an estimate too (1,600 rather than 1,610). Auree ^★★ 05:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I checked the TCR again and it actually wasn't 1,000 miles, it was 1,000 nautical miles. So 1,000 nautical miles is approximately 1,150 statute miles. In conversion, that would be near 1,850 km. So I corrected this.--12george1 (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If this one had the problematic conversion, you should check if others might too. Auree ^★★ 16:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hyphens are used in the timeline throughout, when really they should be replaced with en dashes.

• I have used & nbsp;-, just like it is on the Timeline of the 2002 AHS--12george1 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you need en dashes (–) here, not hyphens (-). Please change this in the table as well, where wind speed ranges are currently denoted with hyphens.

• Alright, now I have it for sure.--12george1 (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources could be formatted more professionally. Please see Timeline of the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season, and rather than indicating page numbers in brackets after the title, make use of the page parameter. Auree ^★★ 02:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But they aren't PDF files--12george1 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So? Auree ^★★ 05:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay; fixed--12george1 (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review: All used images appear to be free and are properly tagged as such. Several of the File: pages might benefit from some clean-up though. Goodraise 13:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have resolved all of your issues--12george1 (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• First sentence: "The 1990 Atlantic hurricane season featured the most named storms at the time, during which 14 tropical cyclones became named storms." The part before the comma doesn't flow at all with what comes after it (most at the time, during which?), and there's a prose redundancy with "named storms". Needs a rewrite.
• The "most named storms at the time" part appears later in the lead, which is a bit redundant in itself. At least vary the language a little.
  • Still needs an "of" between "number" and "named". Giants2008 (Talk) 18:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, now it should be fixed--12george1 (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• October 5, 1200 UTC entry: "Simultaneously, the attains its peak intensity...". Was this supposed to have "storm" in it? Giants2008 (Talk) 02:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have fixed those three issues. On the first one, I decided that it would be best to split that sentence in order to prevent the redundancy and "most at the time, during which" thing.--12george1 (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support NapHit (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:05, 25 April 2012 [8].

Nominator(s): Albacore (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meets FL criteria, based on Tony Award for Best Featured Actor in a Play, another FL. Albacore (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ruby2010

• No DAB links, and images look good
• "In 1976, when the award's name changed to its current name..." Perhaps change one of the words for flow

Changed

• "Supporting actress in two of three plays in Neil Simon's Eugene trilogy (Brighton Beach Memoirs and Broadway Bound) were nominated for the Tony..." Should that be "actresses"?

Yes, fixed.

• No refs for the omitted ceremonies (1948, 50)?

Do I need them?

• Maybe not, but I am curious why they weren't held. Perhaps a footnote? Ruby 2010/2013 02:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added a note. Albacore (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote looks good, but perhaps you could add more information than merely noting a ceremony wasn't held? Why did two years not have a ceremony? Has this been difficult to find reliable sources for? Ruby 2010/2013 22:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can't find any sources saying why the award wasn't held. Is the note necessary then? Albacore (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, but I just wanted to check. Ruby 2010/2013 17:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Align the ref column so that each ref is in the middle (like you did with the year column)

Fixed, I think. On my browser/monitor I can't tell the difference. Albacore (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby 2010/2013 19:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the promotion of this article. Ruby 2010/2013 17:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment – Note V appears to be missing a quotation mark toward the end of the sentence. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Albacore (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review: All used images appear to be free and are properly tagged. Goodraise 11:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support NapHit (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

  "six parts of August Wilson's The Pittsburgh Cycle series" -> I'm not convinced "series" isn't redundant here, coming right after "cycle", which already conveys that it's a series. I also think that you could pipe link out the "The" in "The Pittsburgh Cycle", it's not necessary given the possessive—the target article already makes use of "Wilson's Pittsburgh Cycle".

  "in the 2011 remake of The Normal Heart." -> Could be wrong, but wouldn't revival be the correct term, rather than remake, when it's stage plays we're talking about?

  " In 1976, when the award's name changed to its current title, Shirley Knight, portraying Carla in Robert Patrick's Kennedy's Children, won the award." -> I think this one reads a bit awkwardly. Perhaps " The award was renamed in 1976, with Shirley Knight becoming the first winner under the new title for her role as Carla in Robert Patrick's Kennedy's Children" might work a little better.

  Other than that, though, I'm happy enough to support this one. GRAPPLE X 20:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed. I agree that "series" was redundant. Albacore (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:05, 18 April 2012 [10].

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another Liverpool players list, as opposed to the last list, I've gone through every player and checked that their details are correct, I may have missed the odd one or two, but unlike the last list there are not discrepancies with the majority of the players. I look forward to your comments, cheers. NapHit (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ALT for the Arbeloa image? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Since playing their first competitive match, more than 700 players have appeared in competitive first-team matches for the club" This doesn't read brilliantly for me due to the repetition of first and competitive. Other than that it looks good. Adam4267 (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, added alt and removed the first competitive from the sentence. NapHit (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Lemonade51 (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Adam4267 (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – "was the first player from the club to play to represent his country." I think "to play" should be dropped. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done NapHit (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:05, 18 April 2012 [11].

Nominator(s): What a pro (talk, contribs) is on fire. 08:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all of the criteria. What a pro (talk, contribs) is on fire. 08:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review: The one image used appears to be free and properly tagged. Goodraise 12:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support only issue spotted was that ref 7 doesn't come after punctuation, other than that, great work. NapHit (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks great to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 07:49, 16 April 2012 [12].

Nominator(s): Ruby 2010/2013 19:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC), User:Glimmer721[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because, after a lot of work, I believe this amazing trilogy deserves the FL star, particularly in preparation for the release of The Hobbit. Thanks in advance for your comments. Ruby 2010/2013 19:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominator here: This was a list I tried to improve by adding references to back in early 2011 but eventually stopped; in November I noticed Ruby had begun working on it and asked if we could collaborate. This is my first foray into featured lists so I've kind of watched and learn; hopefully I can learn from this nomination, too! Glimmer721 ^talk 01:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Looks very good. Jimknut (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

• This looks good to me, great work. But please check for double links to WP articles in the plain text and the awards tables. E.g. Andy Serkis has been linked several times. De728631 (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Think I straightened this out with Fellowship--do you want things linked again for the other two movies? Glimmer721 ^talk 22:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Ucucha/duplinks.js is useful for checking this, if you need it. To jump in on this comment, the only link I think should be repeated under each film's headings would be the link for the film in question—for instance, if The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is linked earlier in the article, it should still be linked in the heading for its awards. GRAPPLE X 22:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Been keeping an eye on this one and its progress, and provided my tweaks here and there don't qualify as active involvement then I'm happy to support it for featured status. GRAPPLE X 11:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• The File: pages File:Peter Jackson01.jpg and File:Andy Serkis 2003.jpg would benefit from using {{information}}.
• File:Peter Jackson01.jpg and File:Andy Serkis 2003.jpg claim to be available under GFDL v1.2. Their named sources ([14] and [15]) mention nothing about that however.

Aside from these issues, all used images appear to be free and are properly tagged. Goodraise 17:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added the {{information}} templates. Should I just remove the GFDL tags? Will that affect the images' licensing? (they're still covered under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 22:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be one way of "fixing" it. Goodraise 23:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked the licensing in favor of Creative Commons (and removed GFDL). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 04:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revisited. Goodraise 09:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support NapHit (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 22:05, 11 April 2012 [16].

Nominator(s): Reckless182 (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This list of Malmö FF managers is the third FLC nomination of Malmö FF related list from me in my pursuit to make Malmö FF a featured topic. This list features all of the managers in the history of the club complete with statistics and honours won by each manager. The list is also illustrated with relevant images and fully referenced with footnotes to further explain some things that might be confusing to the reader. I hope you enjoy the list! --Reckless182 (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks good. Two questions, 1. would it be possibble to combine "1973–74 Svenska Cupen — Winners, 1974–75 Svenska Cupen — Winners, 1977–78 Svenska Cupen — Winners, 1979–80 Svenska Cupen — Winners" to like Svenska Cupen — Winners 1973-74, 1977-78... with small resolution (1280*1024) the cell becomes huge and makes the table harder to read. 2. should the super-cup runner up in 2011 really be an honour? It's a one match competition and the only match was lost. -Koppapa (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to stay consistent with the rest of the table, I'm not sure on how to solve the problem with the titles for Houghton. Some kind of roll-up menu would be perfect but I don't think that is possible inside a table. Svenska Supercupen is the same match format as the Community Shield albeit with a much shorter tradition, surely it should be included? --Reckless182 (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A good way to get around this might be to put the honours in <small> text, and abbreviate "winners" and "runners-up" to "W" and "RU" respectively (with appropriate notes in the key). —Cliftonian (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good idea! Now done. --Reckless182 (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The managerial history section is quite a lot of text. Would it be possible/appropriate to add some sub-sections? Looks a useful list though. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, I'll look into it. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has been taken care of (thanks Cliftonian!). --Reckless182 (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Should appearances in the Royal League be counted. Wasn't this regarded as a notable competition? Eldumpo (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, appearances in Royal League are not notable as it wasn't recognized by UEFA and was primarily organized as a pre seasons competition. It was also short lived. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support NapHit (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, this looks good to me now. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks man! --Reckless182 (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support some good additions and fixes made during this FLC, good nomination, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 22:05, 11 April 2012 [17].

Nominator(s): –Grondemar 02:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I based this new list on the current FL List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NBA and WNBA Drafts. I also pulled from the NFL draft FLs as well as my previous FL Huskies of Honor. I believe this list fully meets WP:FLCR and invite your review. Note that unlike this Oklahoma list this is a list of only women's basketball players; I believe 23 draftees is plenty for a stand-alone list. I plan to build List of Connecticut Huskies in the NBA Draft subsequently. –Grondemar 02:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review: File:WNBA Sue Bird cropped.jpg should use {{cc-by-2.0}} instead of {{self}}. Otherwise, all used images appear to be free and are properly tagged as such. Goodraise 23:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed as requested. –Grondemar 05:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Criterion 3b. Sorry, but I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be included as part of a combined NBA and WNBA Draft list, like Oklahoma's. I just checked how many men's draft picks Connecticut had, and the number is actually one fewer than the Sooners. We're talking about a net difference of 11 players from Oklahoma's list to what a combined Connecticut list would contain. I don't think that's enough to support two lists. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per Giants. Goodraise 12:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • I strongly disagree with the rationale behind the two above opposes. I will provide a full response later today. I request patiences from the FLC delegates until I can post my full response. –Grondemar 17:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the above oppose rationale provided by Giants2008 and concurred with by Goodraise, I object on the following grounds:

• It proposes merging two different subject areas into a single list: men's basketball and women's basketball. While basketball is indeed a single sport with a common set of rules, there are significant differences in both the rulesets and the style of play between men's and women's basketball at both the collegiate and professional levels. Among the differences at the collegiate level include length of the shot clock (35 seconds in men's, 30 seconds in women's), location of the three-point line, and certain violations such as ten-seconds-in-the-backcourt. Similar rule differences exist between the NBA and WNBA. The style of play between men's and women's basketball is even more of a apparent difference: men's basketball is characterized by "above-the-rim" play with slam dunks while the women's game plays more "below-the-rim" as in general women do not dunk.

• It is not consistent with how reliable sources treat the subjects. Reliable sources treat men's and women's basketball as two independent sports. ESPN, as an example reliable source, has separate pages for men's and women's basketball at both the college and professional level: [18] [19] [20]. You will be hard-pressed to find any reliable source that simultaneously discusses both the NBA and WNBA Drafts. The two drafts occur months apart. While the WNBA is still managed by the NBA, most of the WNBA teams are now independent of NBA teams. The NBA and WNBA are separate entities drafting from different sets of players. It does not make sense to insist on the merger of men's and women's basketball content in featured lists when no reliable source organizes itself that way.

• It is not consistent with how other Wikipedia articles are structured. In general, the format for university athletic department articles is to have an overview article at UNIVERSITYNAME NICKNAME such as Connecticut Huskies or Oklahoma Sooners. These articles then if needed per WP:SUMMARY have subarticles on each sport, such as Connecticut Huskies men's basketball and Connecticut Huskies women's basketball. You'll notice that Connecticut Huskies basketball is a disambiguation page, not an article about both programs. If there is any university that has a common article for both their men's and women's basketball programs I would be interested in learning about it. This draft list exists as a stand-alone list rather than an embedded list because merging it into Connecticut Huskies women's basketball would be WP:UNDUE. The standard for whether a stand-alone list should exist should be whether it would overwhelm its parent article, not whether it could be merged into another list with another defined scope.

• It is not consistent with other featured lists. The vast majority of basketball featured lists only discuss men's basketball. No current featured list only discusses women's basketball; of the lists that discuss both men's and women's basketball, there are as follows: List of members of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame and List of coaches in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, where it makes sense to cover both men's and women's basketball in these lists, since the Hall of Fame inducts from both sports; Huskies of Honor, a university-wide recognition program that includes inductees from men's and women's basketball as well as other athletic personnel (John Toner); and List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NBA and WNBA Drafts as well as List of Oklahoma Sooners head basketball coaches. The Oklahoma Sooner articles are the only basketball FLs that cover both men's and women's basketball, and in reviewing the history it appears the only reason these were merged is that the nominator felt that the women's lists would be too short to pass on their own. I submit that 25 entries is not "too short" for an FL. Additionally, if it is required to cover both men's and women's basketball in every featured list, we should look at delisting lists such as List of North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball head coaches, List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head basketball coaches, Big East Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year, 2008 NBA Draft, List of National Basketball Association awards, and so forth.

I am very interested in your response. Thanks, –Grondemar 01:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose struck. Connecticut Huskies basketball being a disambiguation page is the argument that convinced me. In my opinion, the nominated list does not presently violate criterion 3b. Goodraise 01:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mine is too. I'm still a little shaky on the list based on the minimal increase in size from an already featured list, but the argument that the two teams each have subarticles is a strong one. I'll probably end up refraining from supporting after a more thorough review due to my concern, but I won't oppose over it. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your reconsideration. –Grondemar 05:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• In the second paragraph, the hyphen in "win-loss record" should be an en dash.
  • Fixed. –Grondemar 23:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt text for the images would be a nice luxury.
  • After all of the debate on alt text over the years I notice that WP:ALT isn't labelled a policy, a guideline, or even an essay. It would be nice if there was some kind of consensus to include alt text and of what that alt text should consist. For now, I added "refer to caption" to the alt parameters of each of the images. –Grondemar 23:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• In the Notes column, I don't believe the "Champion" in "WNBA Champion" warrants the capitalization.
  • Changed as requested. –Grondemar 23:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 (Talk) 00:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• One thing: Could you add wikilinks to the names in the captions of the images?
• Other than that, Support -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, and thanks for the review! –Grondemar 02:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - with comment. "three players—Taurasi, Charles, and Moore" - there are two Moores in the list, so you'll need her first name here. Good job on archiving all of the references- means I get to skip my spiel here, though note if you care that if you add |deadurl=no to the reference, then the current page will be listed first, not the archived version- super-optional, though. I have no problems with the WNBA list being separate from the NBA list. --PresN 19:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have addressed all of your comments. I did not know about the deadurl parameter and will make use of it going forward. Thanks for the review! –Grondemar 00:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment some double full stops in the refs e.g. 37, 39, 45, 47, 49... need to be fixed, and I think since you have "Center / Forward" and "Forward / Center" (I guess meaning the first is the usual position but can play the second?) you should have a note to explain why you have this. I don't think Notes need to be sortable either. But other than that, I'll support. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I fixed the first and last points above. Regarding the ordering of positions, these were generally based on what the sources said rather than any kind of editorial judgement, so I'm not sure what I can say here. Thanks for the review. –Grondemar 02:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 11:57, 8 April 2012 [21].

Nominator(s): Struway2 (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. It follows the layout of the Luton Town and the recently promoted Liverpool league record by opponent FLs. Please feel free to pick holes... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Believe this meets requirements set by the Liverpool, Luton Town and recently passed Manchester United FLC. Nice work. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• Seems like "their" or another word is missing from "Birmingham have recorded most league victories against Leicester City".
  • Reworded as "Birmingham have recorded more league victories against Leicester City than against any other club, having beaten them 50 times out of 120 attempts." Struway2 (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Is a page number possible for reference 1? Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added, thanks for noticing. Struway2 (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support reluctantly I tried to catch out some of the maths, failed. Prose is good, can find no flaw. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Just one query, ref 5 you have another link directly below it, but it's not formatted as a reference. Firstly, does the first ref not render the second one obsolete? Secondly, if it doesn't, why is it not formatted like the other refs? Other than the list is fantastic, great work. NapHit (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's two sources supporting the same fact, one source from each "side", as it were, Wimbledon Independent Supporters Association and MK Dons FC. See WP:CITEBUNDLE which explains why we might want to lump them together rather than having a string of separately cited sources. Admittedly, two refs on the end of a footnote doesn't clutter up any prose, but I've got into the habit of doing it that way when more than one source verifies the same thing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough I was curious as to why it was formatted that way as I've never seen it done before. MOS clarifies this, so no problem. NapHit (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Great work. I redid the Wimbledon footnote but apart from that this looks positively fine. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for fixing the note. Don't think I could have got it more comprehensively wrong if I'd tried :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 11:45, 8 April 2012 [22].

Nominator(s): U+003F^? 15:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list as part of a fun mission getting the Tranmere family of articles to a better standard (than the team). This list recently had a positive peer review, and seems of a comparable standard to the recent list on Watford (unlike the team). Hope you enjoy the read! U+003F^? 15:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "It includes first-team appearances and goals in the in The Football League" - bit of a stutter there