Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2006

How about another one of these, following Avon's successful candidacy. SP-KP 17:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Provided you fill in the Acres column. Also please note the two minor edits I made: I added a break to stop the picture interfering with the table. It isn't needed when the table is in a new top-level section, but is for this short list. You may want to apply that to other such lists. The second edit was to fix the county ID in the reference URL. Was this a copy/paste typo or has that web site changed the IDs since you added the reference? If the latter then you may need to rethink using those URLs if they keep changing. If the former, then it would be good if you could try to find a volunteer to proof-read your links, figures, etc. You appear to be doing this on your own - perhaps there is a project page where you could recruit some extra help? Or look up the editors of related articles? Colin°^Talk 08:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for those two edits. The URL was almost certainly a copy/paste typo. You're not quite correct in saying I'm doing articles on SSSIs on my own; I've done the bulk of the work to date, but several other people have since joined in. I think you are saying we should take these lists to peer review prior to FLC, is that right? SP-KP 18:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Well, not a full peer review - that could be a bit tedious after you've posted a few and folk realise there are dozens. I'm just suggesting that you pair up with someone and check each others links/figures/references/etc before FLC. I don't mean to imply you are being careless. Everyone makes mistakes that someone else spots easily but you would never see. Colin°^Talk 00:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with Colin on the acres thing. Also does this need to be List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cleveland, England? Rmhermen 14:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Acres - yes, the intention is that this will be completed prior to the close of this discussion. Suicidalhamster has volunteered to do it; alternatively, I'm happy to do it if it's straightforward and someone can explain how. The Avon list reached FA status without ", England" being added to the end - is there a good reason why we need to do that on this page? If so, that's fine. SP-KP 18:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There is another very famous Cleveland, while other Avons are far less famous than the original. Rmhermen 15:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good reason. I'd be happy with a name change if you want to make one. SP-KP 20:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You can use google to make the conversion. Just type on the search field, for example, "12 acres to hectares" (without the quot. marks) and press enter. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that; that shouldn't take too long for this page, with just 18 entries. For some of the longer lists, is there a way we could automate that task, do you know? SP-KP 09:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, done - probably a good idea if someone checks it as that's the first time I've converted a hectarage to an acreage and have no idea whether the numbers are right! SP-KP 09:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've checked them all and fixed one. Then I went to check Avon and found one of the Hectares was wrong. The only automatic way of checking them is to put them in a spreadsheet and multiply by 2.4710538. It is a bit difficult to get them off the web page and into a column on the sheet - best to do this as you collect the info. However, I then noticed that many of the Avon acres were out by 1 decimal place. I discovered that the English Nature data sheets almost always give both values. They are converting from a more accurate source figure. So I would thoroughly recommend that you don't convert your 1-decimal-place value but instead use the value from the data sheet. If occasionally, the acre isn't given, then you can often convert from their 2-decimal-place value. I've now updated the article with more accurate values using this method. Note, the Pinkney and Gerrick Woods datasheet has hectares/acres that don't agree. I don't know which one is correct - do you have another source? Colin°^Talk 16:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No, but I'll raise it with English Nature. Thanks for doing all of that checking work. SP-KP 20:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Short and simple. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support a useful list. — Rod ^talk 11:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote this article, and I feel it covers the topic well and it covers the featured list criteria. Support as nominator. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Would it not be more accurate to call this article 'List of Delaware tropical cyclones'? CheekyMonkey 22:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I suppose, but the reason it is named like this is because it coincides with the category name. Every category place name is Hurricanes in XXX or XXX hurricanes (Florida hurricanes, Canada hurricanes, Hawaii hurricanes, Typhoons in the Philippines, etc.) Hurricanehink (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for clarifying, I now Support. CheekyMonkey 18:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment : Well there is List_of_South_America_tropical_cyclones. --Technosphere83 11:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yea, but that was only after someone proposed it. I don't necessarily agree with that either. Hurricanehink (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • You should probably follow in any case the naming guidelines of the Tropical Cyclones Wikiproject. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 16:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
      • In that case, Delaware hurricanes is correct. Nearly all of the categories are Florida hurricanes, Japan typhoons, etc. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed. The current naming convention is that the lists are called "List of {area} {hurricanes|typhoons|tropical cyclones}, depending on which is the correct regional name for a 64 kt storm, even if the historical record shows that there hasn't been a hurricane/typhoon/tropical cyclone affecting the area. So, we have List of Arizona hurricanes, List of South America tropical cyclones, etc. The only exception is List of California tropical cyclones, but that should probably be moved back, though. Titoxd^(?!?) 15:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support, great work from the Project. – Chacor 17:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Very well writen, great job all who put it together Hello32020 01:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Aristotle made one. Many books on epilepsy have one. Every epilepsy charity web site has one (try Google). I believe this list is unique and represents Wikipedia's very best work. Unlike many other such lists, this one has references for every person and does not include speculative retrospective diagnoses. I think it meets all the criteria. OK, it doesn't have pictures or colourful tables. A previous peer review can be found here. This is a self nomination. Colin°^Talk 16:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Not a chance it is comprehensive... :( Renata 16:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As an incomplete/dynamic list it can be acceptable "by not omitting any major component of the subject". It is pretty difficult to prove this, so that might be a drawback. I can assure you that I have been thorough in researching books, newspapers and reliable online sources over many, many months. Every single person listed on a "Famous people" list has been checked for suitability/verifiability and are noted on the talk page if they fail. The List of notable brain tumor patients had/has similar issues but was accepted. Colin°^Talk 16:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Difference is, most of the people in the brain tumor list are dead already. Brain tumor diagnosis is relatively easy and unambiguous, unlike epilepsy. Also, for such a widespread condition the list indeed seems fairly short. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

These are problems with the subject matter and entry criteria, which aren't changable without it becoming a different list. As editors, we don't need to worry about ease of diagnosis - verifiability, not truth. Yes, epilepsy is widespread. It is also quite treatable (and therefore not noticable) and has a stigma attached (many folk thinking it is a mental illness, for example). Many notable people will not mention their epilepsy. If you die of a brain tumour, your obituary is going to mention it for sure. I really can't think of how to make the list significantly longer without adding all the "rumoured to have" names - of which there are about 40 (see this article). As I said on the peer review, a list of opinions is not as useful as a list of facts (which can be verified).

Are there any other points on which this would fail, other than comprehensiveness? Colin°^Talk 18:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't think so. It is a very good list, very well referenced. If I wanted to be really cruel and nitpicky I would say the intro is a bit too short. But too see that there is only one person in science section... hm... Renata 00:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that when the brain tumor list got featured, it had 65 names (vs 39 on this one) and only one scientist. [1] It now has 106 names and only three scientists. Scientists don't get much press compared with sports, actors, etc. Colin°^Talk 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that regarding all the living people you should follow the guidelines at WP:LIVING, especially the bit about "high-quality" references. Although the vast majority of the references you have are very good, you still have a good number of links to personal websites and magazines. You need to define the scope of your sources too, else you run the risk that other editors could end up using tabloids as sources just because their citation can be verified.

Additionally, the wording on the lead is confusing and does not define the entry criteria clearly: the use of tense in "believed to have had" does not square with "retrospective or posthumous diagnosis" in the following sentence. For instance, Julius Caesar is "believed to have had" epilepsy but that's a retrospective diagnosis, so which one of the criteria should prevail and why? Once you decide you need to reword the lead and adjust the list accordingly. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Could you change the layout and use tables rather than text. List of notable brain tumor patients is a great example that could help you. CG 18:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Rebutle: I think this list is one of the best examples how to create a nice-looking list without a table. It is not a requirement that a list should/must be in a table format. And I really welcome a change... Renata 00:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying that tables are a must, but look at List of notable brain tumor patients, it's far neater and more comprehensive. CG 13:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added substantially to this article: two new sections covering retrospective diagnoses and misdiagnoses. Altogether, it now contains about 90 people, more than any single "famous people with epilepsy" site. More details on the talk page. Can you consider it to be comprehensive now? Colin°^Talk 23:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think this is a case of something being a bad article/list, rather, you can have an awesome list in many respects, but it still isn't feature-worthy. Per Part 1 "Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet.", and 2a "Useful". The articles on these people, or them having epilepsy, doesn't lead the reader to knowing anything more about these people as a group (other than that they have epilepsy) and doesn't lead to knowing more about epilepsy. Thus, a list of them... really isn't useful, it's just trivia. -- Ned Scott 04:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree quite strongly with this. The charge of "trivia" could be made against most of the featured lists by one group or another. I have absolutely no interest in cricket and can't get excited about any of those lists. Presumably those who are interested in cricket would beg to differ.

This list (IMO) is one of the very best lists in Wikipedia of people with a medical condition. Such lists are currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles)#Suggestion. It is also quite unique on the Internet (or anywhere for that matter) in the quality of its sources and standards. I believe it offers the only (!) source on the Internet where one might reliably find out about notable people with epilepsy. No other list comes close. If you don't believe me, just Google.

This list is useful. A user researching this topic can gain all sorts of epilepsy related information from people throughout history. We can learn how people in the past tried to hide their epilepsy, whereas several modern celebrities are happy to give interviews or speeches to discuss it. Perhaps most useful of all is the new section of misdiagnoses. Correcting these spurious mistakes of history-writers is a very important purpose for this article. The misdiagnosis of epilepsy amongst the general population is remarkably high (perhaps a third of hard-to-treat epilepsy isn't actually epilepsy).

Do we learn something about this group? Yes, we learn that people with epilepsy can excel in every aspect of society from sport to academia, from literature to leadership. This encouraging statement is repeated on most epilepsy sites. Where epilepsy has a stigma and is often associated with learning difficulties and other disabilities, it is great for parents/children affected to know that epilepsy need not bar you from anything. You only have to notice how the epilepsy charities scramble to get celebrities to "come out" and be ambassadors for them. User:SandyGeorgia made a similar comment regarding his list of people with Tourette syndrome.

Finally, I hope readers stumbling across this list will read it and say "Oh, I didn't know that" and felt they have learned something intesting or corrected a previous belief. Regards, Colin°^Talk 08:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The MOS page only shows you using the list as an example for your comments. In responce to "Do we learn something about this group? Yes, we learn that people with epilepsy can excel in every aspect of society" This isn't an after school special, and Wikipedia isn't here to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy. The fact that people with epilepsy can live a full and successful life is something already covered in Epilepsy. I would agree that there are likely more featured lists that are just trivia, and should have their featured status taken down. Like I said, this is a good article, it's well cited, but it's just so... trivial. I believe you when you say it's one of the best when compared to other lists of people with epilepsy, but that doesn't address what I was saying. To be honest with you, despite this list being better than most, it could use more improvement. The lead section contains at least one self reference, and the speculation section of "No evidence".. well.. that really shouldn't be there.. So other than the encouraging thoughts and "oh that's interesting" reactions, I'm not sure what else a reader will take from this. I'd hope that particularly notable situations (such as ones that involve specialized treatment or that changed how the condition is viewed) would be covered in the main Epilepsy article. I donno, maybe I'll take a fresh look at the list again in the morning, but.. I'm just not seeing this as featured material. -- Ned Scott 10:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thinking more about Colin's responses to me, as well as Rune.welsh's comments below, I think that maybe I am wrong about my evaluation on such lists. I withdraw my oppose.-- Ned Scott 01:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment. As per the brain tumor list, I'd say the value of this type of articles is that they are pretty much unique. The fact that the condition of every single person listed is backed up by many legitimate sources helps enormously to this, given that conditions like epilepsy tend to be shrouded by ignorance and taboo. Not only the general reader, but advocacy and research groups can refer to it for their own purposes. The addition of the "no evidence" and related sections can help clear popular misconceptions. Again, the use of sources here is the key and that's what prompted my comment above. I'd say this list has the potential to become featured material simply per Criterion 1 alone. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added more names (46 certain, 4 retrospective, 48 negative = 98 names). I experimented with CG's suggestion of using tables as per the brain tumour list. I decided this was more readable and neater so have moved over to tables rather than a bullet-list. Following Rule.Welsh's query, I've performed an audit of the sources for still-living people and posted the results on the talk page – I think the sources are OK but please comment. I've also changed the order from alphabetical to chronological – it is easier to order people with names that aren't obviously forename/surname. I've also tweaked the wording here and there. Finally, I've even added a picture, which I think helps make it more real. I hope this now meets the standards for comprehensiveness and presentation. I'd appreciate some more opinions. Thanks for your time. Colin°^Talk 21:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's far better now. Just two comments before I vote. I like to compare the list with the exellent List of notable brain tumor patients: First, could the two titles have the same structure? eg: List of notable people with epilepsy or List of notable epilepsy patients (I don't know if the terminology is right). And second, could the lead be expanded? you can take List of notable brain tumor patients's lead as a model. CG 13:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. A model list although the lead could be expanded. Not sure about the naming issue though, but I'm under the impression that using the term "patient" would not be accurate in this instance. Again, excellent work. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Thanks for the feedback. I'll have a go at expanding the lead.... Actually, the brain tumor list's title conflicts with Wikipedia guidelines Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming conventions and policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Lists. This issue was raised during that article's candidacy. It was decided to be not relevant to the feature/not-feature argument and postponed to be discussed on the talk page. The basic idea is that Wikipedia's lists should contain only notable people anyway, so use of the word "notable" or "famous" is redundant. This rule doesn't seem to be enforced and so we have a wide variation in the naming style's being used (though, IMO it should be enforced for featured articles). So I'd prefer the word "notable" was dropped from that list. You are only a patient whilst receiving treatment for that condition by a doctor. So it is hard to see the word applying to everyone in either list. IMO, it also introduced a medical POV. I think it is very hard to come up with a good terse title that accurately describes all aspects of such lists. It is much easier for lists of cricket captains! Colin°^Talk 16:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I've now added a longer introduction. Colin°^Talk 08:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Ya, well, fine :) Great efforts! even though I am still a bit uneasy on over-reliance on ref #6. Renata 10:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Wrt over-reliance: I will endevour to find and detail either supportive or contradictory sources for each of these names, so that the reader gets as complete a picture as possible and can make their own mind up. Colin°^Talk 12:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the changes. Now I can support. However do you think we should move List of notable brain tumor patients to List of people with brain tumor? CG 13:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a note at Talk:List of notable brain tumor patients, where it can be discussed further. Colin°^Talk 13:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support this candidate appears to now meet the requirements of featured list status. It is as stable as any other health issue regarding living people, and is wonderfully presented. LinaMishima 14:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support I am new to the featured list criteria and don't have much experience voting. But the list is extremely well done, well-referenced and seems to meet the criteria as I read them! Great work! InvictaHOG 15:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Now the chore is to maintain strict references of the highest quality. Sandy 16:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I wish all medical lists like this were as well referenced. Great work on even the "Misdiagnosis" section! -AED 20:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am the creator of two of Wikipedia's featured lists (List of notable brain tumor patients and Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc) and was also the primary editor who raised the article Joan of Arc to featured status. If Wikipedia had a "good list" designation comparable to the "good article" label I would award it to this page myself - it is certainly the result of much thoughtful effort. My urge to applaud the work is tempered by several concerns. First, some citations make me hesitate. This article editor's defense by comparison is unsupportable. It is far from true that an obituary of a brain tumor patient necessarily states the diagnosis. Due to stigmas against every neurological ailment those announcements often describe only "cancer." The brain tumor list, which is three times as long as this one, would have been far longer if I had allowed myself the same latitude as this editor appropriates (and then glibly supposes that my chore was effortless). Actually some of the leading brain tumor charities requested an earlier version of that list from me and subsequently published excerpts in their public literature - which gives a sense of how laborious the research really was. Every featured page should strive to be authoritative. WP:V does not bend to suit our convenience. Nor is it likely that only three dozen noteworthy people have ever been probable epileptics. We must attempt comprehensiveness even where absolute success is impossible. While this page shows a fine effort so far, some rather obvious searches (such as PubMed) have been overlooked. I mean to encourage. Please reapply for featured status in two or three months. This hasn't met the standards yet. Durova 00:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The list is currently weak wrt religious figures. There are, as you say, numerous articles listed on PubMed that contain speculation regarding Temporal Lobe Epilepsy and almost any religious figure who claimed to have had visions. I have bunch of names which I am preparing to add to a new section on Religious Figures.

Other improvements will include the addition of other opinions where there remains controversy regarding the diagnosis. This may result in some names moving from "no" to "possible" in order to reflect the level of doubt currently appropriate.

I anticipate that there will be shortly close to 60 names in the yes/possible group (currently 50). This is comparable with the level in the brain tumour list when it was featured. I agree that comparisons between the two lists are only useful to a certain extent.

I have already discussed the difficulty of producing a bigger list of "yes" names. For comparison, please consult Epilepsy.com, Epilepsy Foundation, Epilepsy Action, NSE, Epilepsy Museum, Enlighten, Epinet and finally, a personal web page. If none of these big epilepsy organisations can produce a more comprehensive list (and believe me, they would love to have more names) then this indicates that the information just isn't available. I have a list of about a dozen names from the web that aren't notable (and as such most have no reliable evidence either). I also have a handful of names from the web that lack evidence. A few of these I suspect are genuine and may eventually appear in the list if evidence comes forward. The others I think are spurious. As a test, it is relatively easy (if very labourious) to scan online US and UK newspapers for "epilepsy" and other keywords. This subject just gets very little news. Yes, there are far more famous names with epilepsy, but they are keeping it a secret. Colin°^Talk 10:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (without vote) I would say that this is a good, responsible list for this type of thing, and a model for others to emulate. Whether a list can be a featured article or not I will leave to others to decide. IdlP 10:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well-referenced, no red links. -ArcTheLad 22:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support Constantly updated, it is a very good reference for boxing champions. It has several references on the page, even the history portion is extra useful to view past champions. Maya Levy 02:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Quite impressive indeed. You may want to use class="wikitable" to make the tables look even nicer. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support even though I oppose boxing... ;) Renata 00:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Great list, but I'm very unfamiliar with this subject. Could you explain what are the numbers under each name? Thank you. CG 13:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The numbers are their professional boxing records. The format is Wins-Losses-Draws-No contests (Knockout wins). The reference for all of the records is boxrec.com. ArcTheLad 16:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Could you add this to the list? CG 19:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I have added a sentence to the first paragraph. ArcTheLad 01:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks. Now I can support. CG 08:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I went looking for an article about professional boxing organizations, but we don't seem to have one. In its absence (unless you want to write one and link it from this list), could there be a sentence or two in the intro explaining why those four organizations are the main ones? Just in case anyone wonders why, for example, the International Boxing Organization champions aren't listed. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have added a note. ArcTheLad 02:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Support. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Original Nom I am going to kill whoever suggested that I convert the whole damned thing to table form. Well, now it's done, with complete listing and research. Now I'm going to curl up and die.

• Support as per self nom. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 02:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Nice improvement. The two main references need to use the {{cite web}} template. The IMDB year links would look better and take less space if they were arranged in columns (there's a template for that, but I forgot where it is...:-S) -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I used the cite web template for the notes on Laurence Olivier, but I was told off, and forced to change it. Apparently the cite web thing is only for out of line refs. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 22:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case have include the same information you'd have used for the template (For the two main references at least, not the individual IMDB year links). -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Certainly you deserve a star for tabalizing the whole thing. But let's finish the job, shall we? :) Table columns should be of same width. References should be formated not as simple external links, but as references. Even if you don't want to use cite web template, the format should be followed. I think a good example how to organize long list of boring references is List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Avon. And while you are at that, maybe you could add a couple more sentences to the intro explaining what is BAFTA, who judges the films, when the winners are announced, and some other background info. Renata 00:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Done, but how do I get the Table columns to the same width? That BAFTA info, however, should all be on the BAFTA page, not here. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 06:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A one-sentence description of what BAFTA is would do, just for context. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Done ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 02:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I made the tables to be the same width, so I guess, support. Renata 13:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Good work on the tabling of the list; I know how tedious that is; it looks good. Fix the references so that they aren't just external links and you have my support. You might also want to make a point that the highlighted films are the winners. --Arctic Gnome 19:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Done ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 02:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The imdb site has links to every year, you don't have to link to them yourself; the references looks a bit cluttered as is. --Arctic Gnome 03:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Done ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 23:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Previous nomination

Renominating, as all of the issues are either fixed, or (in the case of US areas units) in the middle of being fixed (by User:Suicidalhamster - thanks for that). Old discussion is below. Any other issues we need to deal with? SP-KP 17:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Cool. Renata 04:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think all previous issues about area, units, references etc have been addressed and I'm now copying the format on List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Somerset. — Rod ^talk 14:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Question: is the grid reference a standard Ordnance Survey thing? You may want to clarify that. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does seem to be the standard way of doing grid references. I've added a note about it and this reference. Does this help explain the issue? - Suicidalhamster 14:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, it does. Support. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Can we give some thought to whether the non-auto numbering of map links is the correct thing to do? I've just added in a missing site which I found out about while starting to work on the Gloucs list (EN's website, our source, has it in the wrong AoS). Because each map is given a specific numbered label I had to go through and renumber lots of entries. Is there a better method? SP-KP 15:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think i'm responsible for that! I did it so that the links appeared without brackets, so as not confuse inline citations with external map links, when you look at the article. I realise now that this makes it harder to add new sites (however this is unlikely to be a common occurrence). I'm not fussed which style is used. - Suicidalhamster 18:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's not a big issue - new SSSI notifications have slowed to a snails pace. This shouldn't stand in the way of FL status for this article. SP-KP 12:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I believe all previous issues have been dealt with. (although I have edited this article a fair bit since the previous nomination.) - Suicidalhamster 11:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

When this was last nominated, most of the big problems seem to have been fixed right before it failed, so I’m resubmitting it now because it must be really close to being featured. To paraphrase the old nomination: this list has exact dates, elections, the prime ministers, opposition leaders, parties, speakers, number of sessions, and graphical illustrations of the house after each election. It has a decent intro and a picture. It’s arranged into straightforward horizontal rows to make it easy to read. Considering that it has been assembled bit by bit from several sources, I believe that it is now the most comprehensive list of Canadian parliaments on the Net. ----Arctic Gnome 03:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Could you add a link to the old nomination/s here. That is standard procedure on FA and I think we should make a habit of it here as well. Rmhermen 05:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Done

• Just convert notes to cite.php and you got my support. Renata 04:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I second that. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • And you got my support :) Renata 10:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support conditional on what Renata and Rune said. —Nightstallion (?) 12:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Sure, so what is cite.php? --Arctic Gnome 13:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a citation system which by now is standard for use in Featured Articles. It's quite easy to use, see m:cite.php for instructions. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It looks like it is already formated that way. It uses < ref>, < /ref> and < references/> tags. --Arctic Gnome 00:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Alright, support then :-) -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 08:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The same sort of list as List of Anuran families. It looks as if there is less information in this article (and there is), but this is because the distinction between the turtle suborders is much more distinct than it is in the Anurans, and needs less explanation. Much more families are illustrated with photos this time, and there are very few red links in the table (none for the families). --liquidGhoul 12:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Very nice if, as you say, short. I am not sure that the "Taxonomy" heading is really required, and the lead section is rather brief: it may look better if the two were combined. The Anuran list also lists mumber of families, genera and species - could this be added? I also wonder whether we ought to say something about how the families are distinguished, in addition to the clear differences between the two suborders.

More importantly, why does this list give different families to those in Cryptodira (which mentions only 4 "main" families, Meiolaniidae, Testudinidae, Protostegidae, Trionychidae, 2 of which are not included in the list, and the list has another 9) and Pleurodira (which mentions 7 families, Podocnemidae, Chelidae, Dortokidae, Eusarkiidae, Propleuridae, Bothremydidae, Pelomedusidae, but the list has only 3 of them, assuming that Podocnemidae a typo for Podocnemididae or vice versa)? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I will merge those sections. I will also try to get the numbers for genera and species. As for describing the differences in the families, isn't that something the articles should do?

That other thing is strange. Those two articles are really inaccurate, I will fix them up in the near future. I can't find references to any of those redlink families on wiki or in my books. I am guessing they are old terms. This list is accurate against the turtle article. I also checked all the families against the first reference, which seems reputable. --liquidGhoul 14:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Support now my comments have been dealt with. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• I am not sure it merits a separate article/list. Testudines#Order Testudines - Turtles has the same list (with very different items, btw). Renata 00:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• They have exactly the same items, but this list has omitted the extinct familes. They are omitted as there is very little information on them, and require a simpler table. A seperate list for them will be created when needed. The idea, is that eventually the article will remove the list. If work ever goes into the turtle article as happened with the Frog article, long lists like this need to be split; they lengthen the article too much. If there are only a few families, the list can remain within the article (like Salamander), but there are too many families in this order. --liquidGhoul 04:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Couls you add the number of Generas or Species for each family? I made the same request in Talk:List of Anuran families. CG 14:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunately not (at least yet). I have no source which lists the number of or every species. If you have a suggestion, then I will be happy to include it. Also, what could I name the column? --liquidGhoul 14:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• What about the IUCN Red List? -- Froggydarb ^croak 23:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't contain a lot of species. I just looked up Chelodina, and it only has 7, and doesn't even include C. longicolus. --liquidGhoul 23:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Used this page. I looked at the source, and copied the species names from frop down box. Then matched each species to its family, and counted. Took ages, but it is now done... --liquidGhoul 00:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

We can keep the number of generas instead of species to make it more accurate. CG 07:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Good, I was worried about that too. They have been removed. I will get to adding genera numbers to the frogs later. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 08:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Great work. Support. CG 15:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support.--Tnarg¹²³⁴⁵ 09:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- Froggydarb ^croak 10:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support looks good to me. Joelito (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot of hard work has gone into the creation of this list. It has been checked for accuracy and is informative and well referenced. It is especially useful going into the 2006 season as a means of comparison (a 2006 version of the page is already created and ready for population as the season starts). --NMajdan•talk 14:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• There should be some text, not just bear-bone tables. E.g. explain a bit more what's Coaches Poll, how it works, who conducts it, etc etc. Also, I like how you did it on the last table (last line provides sources), I think same should be done to other tables. Otherwise, good. Renata 11:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. We have a References section that displays where we got info for the other tables. We pulled some bits of information from multiples sources for those other tables whereas we pulled all information about the Preseason Polls from that one source. Do you still think we need to include multiple sources in a separate bottom row for every table? Do you think the text explaining the poll would be best on this page or on its own separate article? I ask because we hope to get the 2006 version of this featured as well after the season is over and I didn't think both tables should include identical explanations. Should be work on articles for the other polls as well? There is an article for the AP Poll.--NMajdan•talk 13:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I have created short articles for the Coaches Poll and Harris Interactive Poll. Does this suffice?--NMajdan•talk 16:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • What I really meant that after the ==Coaches Poll== there should be some text explaining the very basics: who, why, how, when. Of course, a separate article is awesome, but I still think the list should give some (5 sentence or so) heads up on what's that poll. Renata 00:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok, I can work on that. But, basically, the main articles themselves are only five sentences or so (at least the general explanation is).--NMajdan•talk 00:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Longer descriptions have been added.--NMajdan•talk 13:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support I am a major contribuitor to this article as well. --MECU≈talk 15:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• support Renata 12:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: the sentence "Only two teams appeared at the top spot of any of the major polls" on the lead is without context and doesn't really make sense to me. --Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Reworded that sentence. Make better sense?--NMajdan•talk 13:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It does, thank you. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support: please rework the lead so that the article title appears in the first sentence, and make it bold. Otherwise, great work. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 22:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Done.--NMajdan•talk 13:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support, I found a couple errors a while back and corrected them, but overall looks good. VegaDark 20:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I came across this list on the Main Page and was impressed! It has an informative yet short paragraph, contains a graph, a pic, and lists the references! Tennis Dynamite 21:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! As author of the article, I support. --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 22:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support just could you give a total tally in the intro? You know, so that I don't have to count the bullet points to figure out how many huricanes there were. Renata 17:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Got it. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It looks well-organized, and well-referenced. Lots of good information here, as well. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 18:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Good references, nice list. Wish there was a bit more flushing out of the "Deadliest storms" section, but support nonetheless. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What would you recommend for the Deadliest storms? --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't know, really. Perhaps just a little snippet about the one or two deadliest storms that isn't in the list itself. Maybe a note about why the storms that hit tend to kill people (if something like this could be found, else it would be OR). Dunno. Just seems a bit odd. Thanks for your contributions. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Is that better? I know it isn't great, but it helps explain a few of the storms. --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Another fine contribution by the Tropical Cyclones Wikiproject. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support, impressive, meets FL criteria. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I've just noted some instances where the conversion of units between customary and SI don't match. Example "October 8, 1954 - Hurricane Hazel [...] 100 miles (160 km/h)" and others. This should be fixed. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Got that, good catch.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Question: I'll put it up here where more people will see this rather than the articles talk page. Should Hurricane Beta (2005) be included in this article? It affected the Colombian island of Providencia and so a South American country. However, as that island is off Central America it can't really be said that the storm affected the continent of S America. Should it be included or excluded from this list?--Nilfanion (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it should be included, seeing as it's part of Colombia and it couldn't go in any other list. I'm not sure though. To make things easier, I adjusted the intro to say "...Storms affecting the continent of South America or its countries". The same problem now occurs with Hattie as well. --Hurricanehink (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)