Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/December 2005

A comprehensive list of F1 Drivers' Champions with no redlinks, info on the specific season and some useful notes. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 04:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - excellent work. — Dan | talk 05:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Quite good. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 18:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, meets all requirements. Phoenix2 22:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support easily. As said, meets all requirements. Sam Vimes 13:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, excellent work and meets the criteria. -- Ian ≡ talk 16:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Only slight quibble: surely some paper references could be found? relatively easily -- ALoan (Talk) 18:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only books I have in my possession just list the champions, and the # of wins/poles/etc that they had in that season. I didn't use them to do the list, but the list agrees with the info in the books. Is this ok or should I try to dig up some that have more info from a library or something? AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 13:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, at least the printed version verifies the list. Why not add it, if it is to hand? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 14:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, excellent work. CG 16:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've completely redone this list - it now includes a summary of the key events and notes of the PM's time in office. I'd like to see this as a featured list! Talrias (t | e | c) 20:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments It's a good list. It needs a "References" section (officially oppose till this is rectified). Some explanation of what the political parties are would be welcome (particularly for non-British readers). Some piccis would be welcome too, as would comments on the term "Prime Minister" not actually being used until the beginning of the twentieth century. See List of popes or List of Presidents of the United States for further ideas of improvement, jguk 09:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also see the impressive List of Presidents of Venezuela, promoted to FL status today, jguk 14:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources I've used are my historical knowledge, 10 Downing Street's website (which is in the external links) and the various Wikipedia articles on the Prime Ministers. The key events are all factual events, without analysis, so there's not really a need to have many sources. What do you recommend? Talrias (t | e | c) 16:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you explain what you mean by explanation of the political parties? Do you mean explain their political philosophy? Talrias (t | e | c) 16:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the external link is really a reference, then it should be placed under a "References" section. There is a need to back up the factual events - that could be by having references from them all or by linking them to WP pages that themselves have references. By explanation of the political parties, I'm only looking for a brief one or two sentence explanation of what they stand for. For instance "Labour" could be described as a socialist party up towards the mid-1990s, when it became more left-centrist. "Conservatives" as moderate right-wing, etc., jguk 18:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically the WP pages are already linked from the article. :) The heading has been changed, and I've added in a (somewhat) brief explanation of the political parties' ideologies. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - looks excellent. I especially like the way that the party affiliation colour is just a small bar down the side rather than colouring the whole list. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Really good and genuilely useful list. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looks like a wonderful list, but surely some images would help. --Sophitus 19:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of every Prime Minister? I would hope we have images of them all, but in case there aren't, what do you suggest? Talrias (t | e | c) 23:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps then only pictures of the most historically significant. --Sophitus 17:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added in two pictures, of Sir Robert Peel and Clement Attlee. I don't think any more can fit in, it would distort the table. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I believe this list is amazing — simply fascinating! —Hollow Wilerding 22:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support Hollow said it best. This is beautful. karmafist 00:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I support this crucial Wikipedia list. Information is well presented. Phoenix2 23:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Would it be appropriate to explain why each Prime Minister left office - which died, which were deposed, which retired, which lost an election (did I miss anything)? Morwen - Talk 01:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The default is 'just lost an election' unless noted. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't note that Thatcher was deposed, or that Wilson resigned - I haven't checked others. Morwen - Talk 01:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE from one of the FL directors: OFFICIAL OPPOSE I was about to promote this when I noticed that whilst the reference cited supports the names, years in office and political parties, there is no reference for the precise date they became or ceased to be prime minister. I'm assuming that the key events by each prime minister are listed on the Downing Street website one link away from the reference that is cited, but could the list's sponsor confirm this? I'll allow 4 days for this objection to be dealt with (and for other comments, if desired), jguk 08:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the objection from? The dates the PMs become PM and cease to be PM are from their Wikipedia articles. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And what are the references for those? jguk 18:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to look in the individual articles for each Prime Minister. I think it would be rather silly to have 50 or so references to a biography of each PM in this article. It's clearly a list of articles, so the information is gotten from the articles. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, excellent list which meets the criteria. Previous voters wishes should be respected and this nomination should have been promoted before my vote - based on consensus within gained within ten days, regardless of the FL directors concern about refs. Question: Does an official oppose carry more weight than a support vote? -- Ian ≡ talk 16:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I have no idea what an official oppose is, but this list is great. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The official oppose is because the dates PMs became and ceased to be PMs are not referenced in the article and referencing is an absolute must for a featured list. The "official" bit is a reference to ALoan and myself being the de facto featured list directors (though I'm sure more would be welcome) and therefore one of us takes the decision as to whether to promote or fail an article. In this case, the article is clearly on its way to being featured and has a lot of support, so failing it would be utterly inappropriate. But on the other hand, the contents of the list must be referenced if the list is to become featured. Hence my approach of putting the promotion on hold for 4 days so that the issue of referencing the dates can be resolved, at which point I fully anticipate being able to congratulate Talrias on a great featured list:) jguk 18:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to sound rude in my question, and after reading what I wrote, it could sound a bit that way. I apologise for that. The point I was making was that the criteria is for a references section to be present, but not specifically that that every last fact in the article be verifiable against the refs quoted. It just seemed to me that having a concern about one detail in the list not being in the refs was splitting hairs, especially considering the nom effectively had 100% support. -- Ian ≡ talk 00:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page meets all of the recuirements of Featured lists. List includes all OVA's and released TV serries (ongoing) as well as the movie. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I support my own nom. :P --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: what's up with the "Adventures of the mini Goddess" section? why is it empty? Also having so many fair use images may be an issue. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 14:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  See List of Star Trek: TNG episodes more images there. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's not a FL. Plus we have a precedent on that in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of South Park episodes 2 -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 16:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I seriosuly believe it is necesary to have one very low resolution screenshot for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents. And hence qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Each episode has about 32000+ frames. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not trying to accuse anyone of anything, just a reminder: we should evade m:Copyright Paranoia. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess you may have to provide a fair use rationale as to why a particular frame was chosen. There are definitely people who know better than I do on this subject, but I was only pointing out a particular concern that has been raised here before. No need to get defensive with the copyright paranoia link. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how much more can I expand this... --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 03:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The most notable event on episode one is the arrival of Belldandy, the most notable event of the second episode is Keiichi getting kicked out of his dorm. The most notable event of third episode is belldandy using her powers to repairing the temple which is why Koshan leaves the temple for a nation wide pilgrimage. The pictures are from these events. To better illustrate the episodes the pictures are more then necesary. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 11:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, write that on each image's description page and you'll be all set. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 15:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is what the template suggests isnt it? " screenshot for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents." --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But that's only for an article on each individual episode. You have to provide a separate rationale for additional uses, such as in this list. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. Your call, really, but this objection is actionable and if you refuse to act on it I'll vote oppose at the end. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you predetermined your vote please do not waiste my time. Also read m:Copyright Paranoia. All images used on the list appear on a linked article for the episode. The list unifies it all. It is still for the same episode. Geeez --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 23:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1) I've read it, it is not policy, and there is a fair bit of disagreement on the page itself. 2) My understanding of fair use is that it allows use of an image once and requires a rationale for further uses. 3) You cannot choose to simply ignore precedent. 4) If you don't want (or care) to work on those rationales simply say so and it will not be held against you, but bear in mind that getting articles featured goes a bit further than a stamp-of-approval process. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 17:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To back up my claim, I provide this link where it currently says every page that uses the image will have a distinct rationale for using the image on that page even though Fair Use is claimed on the image page. Yes it is under revision but it is the most current guideline we have on this. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 17:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did as you asked. However not because I agree with the mess you mentioned. Serously, have a read of m:Copyright Paranoia. Currently your complaits have been about the tagging of the images which has NOTHING to do with the article here. If there is a violation of fair-use in your view, your concerns should have beem adressed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. The template is generic so we dont deal with this stuff... You really are giving me a hard time. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Note that I did not ask you to remove the frames, but to provide a fair use rationale for each of them as per Wikipedia:Fair use, which in my opinion is straight-forward. But you can do as you see fit. This will be my last comment on this nomination. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to edit 24 image pages writing a uneque paragraph to each, id rather delete the entier article. Given the template is more than enough. I really find staring a wall without purpose more productive. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Adventures of the mini Goddess section removed. I want to treated that as a seperate entity. Adventures of the mini Goddess was a "super deformed" serries completely detached from the plot of the OVA TV and Movie. Furthere more each episode was about 12 minutes (8 minutes without the opening and ending theme). Ill remove the section now. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Oppose - needs a major copyedit. Full of typos, spelling and grammatical errors, from the very first sentence onwards. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, sending in the Cavlary. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Better? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, definitely, but not quite there yet. Still contains sentences like "Sora Hasegawa, whom has no self confidence, is enlisted to race on the upcoming race for women only." --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Easy fix. :) You seem to have a tallent in locateing such errors, why not copy edit too :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 11:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really cant see anything else, please tell me what you see is wrong and I can gladly fix it, furtehrmore I do not object you fixing them for me :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 23:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not happy about the quality of the text, a lot of which reads like it's been written by a non-native English speaker. I'd happily fix things myself, but I don't know the series at all. I'm switching to Neutral, rather than actually opposing, as it has improved - but I'm still not convinced that this is an example of "Wikipedia's best work". --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done what I can to sort out the language. Have a look at the changes I've made, and if you can confirm that I haven't changed any meanings I'll switch to supporting this. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Impresive work. Yup looks all good. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I agree that this has too many images... pare the number of those down and it may be of a high enough quality. AKMask 11:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC) -AKMask 12:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Too many images he says, loads fine on a 56k link. I wont do that. I cannot and will not reduce the number of images (from 11) to anything lower, man facs are so annoying. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 11:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I removed the images that most bothered me, made sure the list still looked fine. Fufills all requirements. -AKMask 12:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Yah that wasnt bad, I thought you were complaining about DVD covers :P --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 11:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -all the work done to this article has brought it up to FA status, in my opinion, but I'm peeved I wasn't invited to this sooner- I would have liked to work on it. :) -MegamanZero |transerver 19:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE from one of the FL directors: OFFICIAL OPPOSE I was about to promote this when I noticed there was no "references section". If the external links are references, please change the heading of the section, or separate out which external links are references and which aren't. I'll leave this nomination another 4 days to sort this objection out (and to allow for further comments if required), jguk 08:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, get him ;) I thought I had opposed on those grounds but apparently not. To be clear - this is generally an excellent list, apart from failing that one criterion. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]
    • Support as it now stands. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely. Had references not been in issue I would have promoted the list this morning. Once this point is dealt with, (barring last minute additional objections, of course,) I expect this to be a featured list, jguk 18:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really its a thing of the past. :) I did use the referances cited, I just had forgottent to cite it :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, no References section which is specifically called for in the FL Criteria. -- Ian ≡ talk 16:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is directly from episodes themselves each episode is its own, The external links do contain the info you are looking for indirectly, adding more direct source links. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did as you asked. I am not citing sources for the OVAs or the DVD as that is common knowlage, you can search for it even on amazon. Also the exiting scans of DVD/VHS covers on is adequate enough. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furtheremore I actualy cited OVAs :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Support as references have appeared. An excellent piece of work. -- Ian ≡ talk 00:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Complete list, no redlinks, jguk 14:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks good. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I have made a small grammar change to prevent the prose being out of date in a few weeks time. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ALoan (Talk) 12:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This list meets all the crieria for becomming featured:

• It is complete - all currently open stations are listed, a separate List of closed London Underground stations exists and is clearly linked to.
• It is acurate - the list is empircally verifiable by anyone in London and by referece to the external links.
• The list is stable and uncontroversial - the criteria for inclusion are factualy and very easily defined, meaning there are no edit wars over inclusion. The only addition recently was an anon adding a station to the list that is actually in Philadelphia!
• The list is useful in that it lists and links to all the stations of the London Underground - there are too many to inlcude as a section in another aritcle.
• It is well structured and annotated - the stations are listed alphabetically and annotated with the lines (and branch where apropriate) that serve them.
• The brief lead section is sufficient to define and summarise the list, and the table of contents includes all the headings and does not overwhelm.
• The images add to the list in that they illustrate the diffent styles of stations on the underground, are not overwhelming and are all available under a free license (except Image:South Kensington station.jpg, which I have left a note on the uploader's talk page about the uploader has now added a GFDL tag to the image. Thryduulf 18:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)). The only reason there is no image to illustrate the D section is that there is not one available (something I have noted on the UK Wikipedian's noticeboard, so I hope someone will do the honours and rectify this shortly). I beleive the captions are all good, but as I am the person who has written them all I cannot be objective about this.[reply]

Thryduulf 16:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - provided some references are provided (a link to the TfL website, or a citation of some official literature should suffice). -- ALoan (Talk)
  • The TfL website is already one of the external links. Thryduulf 18:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to be a bore, but we follow the recommendation in WP:CITE for a separate section entitled "References" for the sources that have been used to verify the content of the article. I've tweaked the lead to add the title in bold. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - but shouldn't you put the title words in bold anyway? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not certain what you are asking here, the only logical thing to bold in the introduction is "list of currently-open stations on the London Underground and the Docklands Light Railway.", which at about 50% of the introduction seems a little too much imho. Thryduulf 09:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I would much prefer this to be presented in a table format. Looking at the talk page history I can see it was at one stage, and was changed to a list - but table formatting in Wikipedia has improved immensely since 2003. This would allow for better readability, and also potentially for added columns with additional information, such as year that the station opened and notes such as the one for Queensway. The lead is also pretty short - it could do, for example, with something on some stations being shared by mainlines. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The repeated links to lines and zones distact from the station links. Susvolans ⇔ 10:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry, but I'm going to oppose. It is missing some useful links from talk which indicate the actual distance between stations and provides little more info than a category would. Personally I would prefer either expansion with opening years of stations and stuff, or simply sort by line instead of alphabetically. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The distance between stations would seriously overcomplicate the list in this format, as you'd need to note which station was adjacent to it. This would be better done on the individual line pages where the order is already given.
  • Sorting stations by line is already done on the pages about each line, where it fits better as many stations are on more than one line they would need multiple entries - making the list less useful. Thryduulf 12:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to agree on this - so many of the Underground stations in central London are on more than one line that the list would be a mess if it were sorted by line - King's Cross St. Pancras tube station, for example, is on six line, and adjacent to eight stations (three lines run along on the same tracks here). I am a bit torn on table format - I think it the article is OK as it is, with the limited information that it presents, but if more information was added (such as date of opening, which would be useful) then I think a table would be better. And cells could be coloured with the colour of the line, which would make it prettier and possibly easier to read. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I can see your point. Scratched the oppose. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- Please add your references under ==References=. I also don't see how this is a useful list. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a list of links to Wikipedia articles on the Underground stations. That is useful, IMHO. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Ian ≡ talk 14:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC) Changing to Oppose until a ==References== section appears per at least two comments above, which is an explicit criteria -- Ian ≡ talk 14:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Filiocht | The kettle's on 16:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC) Object for now. As well as the references section, there are large areas of ugly whitespace at the starts of the G, K, P, R, V, and W sections as viewed in IE6 (and "don't use IE" is not a valid response to this objection) Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • This white space is probably caused by pictures from the previous section but are too large to be contained entirely within the section. Do you have any suggestions as to how to fix this? It renders fine in firefox so it is difficult for me to test anything. Thryduulf 12:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reduced it to a minimum by moving images around a bit. Now it may look horrible in Firefox! Just need the Refs now. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A couple of possibilities: some images could be floated on the left, so the text wraps after them. Alternatively, <br clear=all> before a heading would make sure that it appears opposite to the next image. Neither is ideal: left-right images may look messy, and br clears would leave spaces befor ethe heardings rather than after. Here is a go at the first - [1]. I see Fil has also had a go too, putting the images before, after or in the middle of their sections - [2]. Fil's version is a bit neater, but breaks the bullet pointing where the image is inserted. OTOH, my version falls foul of the problem with left-floated images overlapping bullet points. Which do people prefer? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tried the left float idea, too, (in preview mode) but didn't like the lost bullets. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK - I prefer yours too so have reverted, but shifted them around a bit more. I think it works best if the problem images come immediately after the one before, rather than arbitrarily moving them up or down a bit. Better? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not bad now, apart from the start of the G section, bu even it is better than it was. Now if only there was a References section! Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fixed "G" (moved the image up to "F"). I've added a reference from tube.tfl.gov.uk. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I've started adding the opening dates (where given in the article) for the station, and the name they opened as (where this is different). I've also started a mockup of what the table format would look like at User:Thryduulf/List of London Underground stations in table format. Thryduulf 11:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the openening dates as it just makes the list look very messy - see this version to see what I mean. Thryduulf 12:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a self-nomination, I found it and thought it rather good. It is useful (it has a descriptive couple of opening paragraphs), it is comprehensive (all presidents are listed), it is accurate, it is stable and well-constructed (has a picture of each president with no omission, their dates of office, form of entry and occupation). It is uncontroversial and well-referenced. The list is certainly one of the better heads of state lists I have seen and should serve as an example for all others. --Oldak Quill 04:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support. Remarkably thorough, neutral, informative, and aesthetically pleasing. A great resource for readers and researchers, and a great starting point and hub for future editors to work on the individuals listed here from, since most of the people listed have only a couple of lines of text on their pages. -Silence 08:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - muy bien. But query whether the title should be Presidents of Venezuela (with an s) or List of Presidents of Venezuela. {Compare List of Presidents of the United States, already a featured list of heads of state, which is separate from the article on the President of the United States). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but that's only because the article "President of the United States" is already long enough to justify separating the two; compare President of the French Republic and its "Presidents of France" section, which is not its own article yet because the current article is not yet long enough to justify it. If we separated now, we'd just end up with a stub for President of Venezuela, and the only result would be more people having to search longer for the information they want. Once the non-list portion of the article grows closer to the size of, say, President of Argentina, a split will be make much more sense. -Silence 10:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - an excellent piece of work. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral -- I would prefer to support it if it was under "List of presidents..." =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, nice layout, maybe too many images (IMHO). Article title is ok as there is an lengthy introduction. -- User:Docu
• Support. Nice list -- Ian ≡ talk 14:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (with the disclaimer that I have heavily edited this list). I would be happy to take a vote on the renaming proposed by Nichalp. Saravask 02:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that the article would be perfect at "List of Presidents of Venezuela", but that would leave nothing at "President of Venezuela" itself. The current introductory prose is just the right length for a WP:FLC. --Oldak Quill 09:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, a joy. Maybe it could be moved to List of... Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I could put in a redirect at "President of Venezuela". Saravask 15:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I just moved it. The FLC link on the talk page is red, however. I do not know how to fix this. Saravask 16:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Very well designed list. Carioca 21:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]