Missed that one.... On the "1897 and/or earlier" issue, I think either works... I;ve rephrased it as "Vote share not known for the elections in the 19th century." Tompw (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
could the following sentence be made more precise as to exactly what is being referred to: "It was determined in the courts that the variance of electors in these ridings was too great and was therefore unconstitutional." There were not two ridings before one was split. Hmains04:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-phrased as "In 1996, a court determined that the number of electors varied too much between ridings, and was therefore unconstitutional. This resulted in a new set of (single-member) ridings being created." Tompw (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're referring to the openign sentence "This article provides a summary of results...". WP:SELF states "Avoid self-references within Wikipedia articles to the Wikipedia project" (italics mine). The article refers to itself, not to Wikipedia. Quoting WP:SELF again: "References which exist in a way which assumes the reader is using an encyclopedia without reference to the specific encyclopedia (Wikipedia), or the manner of access (online), are acceptable". Hence why I believe the opening sentence is OK. Tompw (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list has been a project of mine for sometime now. I believe it meets all the criteria for a featured list. The list is very useful, comprehensive, accurate, uncontroversial, well-constructed, and stable. --WilsBadKarma(Talk/Contribs)17:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at one description: Special Warfare Operator. The text has problems with sentence structure and spelling (frigid, travelling?), and do they all open one parachute? Should it be "beachhead"?
Special Warfare Operators are Navy SEALS they are trained to jump from airplanes at high altitudes and open their parachute are low proximity to the earth into frigged waters, jump from helicopters travailing 30 knots at 30 feet over the water with no parachute. Oversee ocean-borne mine disposal, carry out direct action raids against military targets, conduct reconnaissance and secure beach heads for invading amphibious forces.[8]
Comment. Can you please explain the capitalization of each rating word? Some of the newly created articles have already been moved per WP:MOS. Michaelas10(Talk)15:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 10:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the capitalization is that each rating is a proper title and the names of the ratings are the subject of each section. So, being used in that context would make the ratings nouns.--WilsBadKarma(Talk/Contribs)03:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a follow up to the above. Very few areas of society are as formal as the military so it is hard to draw comparisons at times. While it is common to see a term like Associate professor in the civilian world you would never see a person's rank or title shown as Lieutenant colonel or Commanding officer in the military. Ranks, titles, etc... are always capitalized. The best equivalent I could think of is if someone is a Queens Counsel in the UK. A formal title describing their job. It would not be shown as Queen's counsel. Hope this helps--Looper592020:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who moved the articles, and I don't care who moves them back. I'm just saying proper nouns should be represented as such in article names, and incorrectly moved articles should be moved back by someone. Rfrisbietalk13:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I made a quick pass through the text, removing four typos. The text needs more copy-editing. The phrases "also" and "in addition" are usually unnecessary and weaken a text, so most were removed. Common terms seem over wiki-linked. The job descriptions are very similar to those in the Navy ROTC pdf. While this may not be a copyvio (government texts are usually public domain), it seems inappropriate for featured content. Gimmetrow13:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Gimmetrow – are your concerns enough for you to object to it being featured? I ask because it has had 10 days and has enough support otherwise. I encourage you to be bold here since this list contains a lot of text (more than most lists) that should be of a high quality. Regardless, I hope the author's take on board your suggestions and arrange for some copy-editing help. Wrt copying text: the article does admit this (in the References section). A lot of the list entries are effectively definitions. In my experience, it is very hard to rewrite a definition from a single source without either introducing OR or weakening it. If the body text at the top is copied, then I agree that should be improved. Colin°Talk13:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to go through again and correct any typos or errors and try to rewrite the descriptions but honestly there isn't much I can do without making the text weaker. No part of the lead or top sections have been copied in fact they have been rewritten several times. As for the comment regarding overlinking, prior to adding the list to FLC I showed the list to one of your reviewers, User:Michaelas10 and the comment was made that many of the technical terms weren't linked according to WP:CONTEXT so I linked all relevant terms seemingly to his liking. If you would like me to delink them thats no problem either but, I don't want to loose support from one reviewer just to gain it from another. Thanks, — WilsBadKarma(Talk/Contribs)17:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead and the first section is not over-linked in the least. In the later sections, however, there are some very common, non-technical, terms that don't need linking, like "schools" for example. Since those are just a list of common buildings, they don't need links. --GunnarRene17:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed a few more things. Can these sentences be rephrased: "These were titles of the jobs that individuals were actually performing and became the basis for petty officers and ratings. During this time, ship crews were taken from civilian life and enlisted for only one cruise, thus making the job at hand rather than career possibilities the primary consideration." This suggests that the current ratings are not titles of jobs that individuals actually perform. I see what you want to say, but this could be clearer. Gimmetrow19:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(was asked on talk to explain this) These sentences seem to contain important information. Apparently the titles began as simple job titles and changed somehow. That could be explained better. Gimmetrow01:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add bolding and link both "general elections" and the name of the province in the lead.
Years alone (1978) shouldn't be linked per WP:DATE.
Again, notes and references shouldn't go one space ahead of the text.
"Changed its name from Yukon Progressive Conservative Party for the 1992 election." - Changed its name to what? Was it for the 1992 elections only or ever since? Of course it's obvious, but it should be mentioned. Michaelas10(Talk)18:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a self-nomination. The list organizes information on modern administrative and territorial division of the Russian republic of Adygea, provides background and brief history, and explains used terminology. The list is referenced and comprehensive. While future changes in administrative division are possible, they are likely to be minor and can be dealt with fairly quickly. There've never been any edit wars or disputes over this list. All used maps are licensed under GFDL. The list undewent a peer review in the past, and most of the peer review concerns have been addressed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I appreciate it very much. Many thanks to Ëzhiki, nice job. I wish he does something similar in ru_wiki, unfortunately I don't even have a hope (sigh). MaxiMaxiMax17:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: per WP:WIAFL 1a ("useful") requires that "the list covers a topic ... by bringing together a group of related articles". Most of the Rural okrugs do not have articles. What this list currently does is is bring together articles on the Districts and "Urban-type settlements" in Adygea. If the list was named "Districts of Adygea", this wouldn't be a problem. Tompw (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, but must say it misses the point. "Administrative division" of any Russian federal subject includes, first and foremost, its division into districts, as well as the definition of status of its inhabited localities, which is precisely what this list is about. Lower levels of administrative divisions (in this case rural okrugs) are generally of very little interest, since they are basically nothing more than groups of rural settlements combined for purposes of having a unified local self-government. One can write a perfectly encyclopedic article about districts or about each inhabited locality, but there really nothing to say about rural okrugs besides the fact that they exist and what villages they include. That's the reason why rural okrugs are not formatted as links—whatever one has to say about them would not be sufficient for such an article to be kept.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (This is seperate from my above vote - it's some thoughts about possible improvements). I feel the article would benefit from a map showing the location of Adygea within Russia (maybe based on Image:BlankMap-RussiaDistricts.png). Also, it might be worth replacing Image:Adygea districts.png with a trimmed down version showing less of the area around Adygea. Also, some of the items listed under "Administrative division structure" don't have any explanation (what's the difference between an "aul" and a "selo", for instance?) Tompw (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am hesitant to overload the list with generic maps. We already have an article on Adygea with the map you are seeking, and that article is linked to from inside the list. As you yourself pointed out, the list deals with the administrative division of Adygea, not with the republic's general overview and description. While I am not strongly against adding such a map, I'd rather hear more than one voice asserting its necessity in this list.
As for the map already in place, I'll contact its creator (I wasn't one making it). It could probably use some trimming on left and right.
Finally, both aul and selo are wikilinked, so a reader would have access to further information. Plus, it is already pointed out that there is no difference in status between various types of rural settlements, and that different names are used purely by tradition (see the "rural settlement" bullet under "Administrative division structure"). If you think that is insufficient, I would appreciate your further thoughts and ideas on how to improve it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree that the map would benefit from L/R trim and also a larger font size even if this means the words escape outside a district. The use of small fonts elsewhere in the article doesn't seem justified and makes it harder to read. The layout isn't attractive IMO. The map juts into the text in an awkward way (don't think we need another map here BTW). The individual district maps could be folded into the tables as a big cell. Perhaps the district name and its language variants could be handled in a more compact form. Although many of the foreign terms are wikilinked, it would help to briefly explain some of them here so the reader can understand the article at a basic level without having to follow lots of links. The list of rural settlement types could have an explanation after each term. I agree that the rural okrugs probably aren't significant enough for articles. The prose is hard work to read due to the foreign terms and the dense amount of info covered. Perhaps someone can help copyedit to make it flow easier? Colin°Talk20:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, Colin. You are welcome to tweak the list yourself if you can think of any obvious improvements, by the way. Now, to address some of your points:
The author of the map intends to tweak it (L/R trim; increase fonts) over this weekend.
The small type was used purely to emphasize the fourth-level section titles. When regular font is used, it becomes very difficult to see where one subsection ends and another begins. I agree that small type is probably not the best solution, but I can't think of a better one. Ideas are welcome.
The layout has been a problem from day one. Incorporating district maps into corresponding tables has been tried, and the results were far from appealing (cf. administrative divisions of Moscow where this approach is utilized). I am willing to try any other suggestions, though.
The types of rural settlements only have different names due to tradition; there is no difference in their status whatsoever (which is already mentioned in the list). Effectively, all these terms are nothing but synonyms. The histories of each type of settlement are different, but they are outside of this list's scope, because, again, none of that matters at present.
The prose is indeed dense, but that's the nature of the list and the subject it deals with. My assumption is that people interested in this topic would devote some time to studying terminology, because there really is no way one can understand the subject without understanding the terminology first.
Support - not as perfect as it could be (pedant speaking), but really good and deserves FL status. The "bringing together a group of related articles" part has been discussed before and it was agreed that it should not be followed letter-by-letter. There is a number of featured lists that don't bring "blue links" together and I don't see a slightest problem there. Renata22:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very good stuff, informational and needed for consistency with other related lists. Should be a FL definitely. - Darwinek10:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support this good example of what the list should be. We have so many totally useless lists that I never expected to actually find the good one ever. This one is just great! --Irpen02:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Status update. By now, several people voiced their concern that the list does not explain the difference between various types of rural settlements in Adygea (auls, stanitsas, etc.). I am happy to report that I found an excellent reference that contains just that information put in historical context. I will be adding it to the list during the course of the next several week, and will probably not be done before this nomination expires. If lack of explanations on differences between rural settlements was your only (or main) concern, please do not let it stop from supporting this list for FL status. I give my assurances that this information will be added to the list once I parce the reference source I have.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ëzhiki ~ would Category:Lists of municipalities be a suitable one? or if not, then perhaps a Category:lists of subdivisions of federal subjects (ouch :) - or something along the lines... my point was to try and apply a category that'd branch off the Category:Lists // Category:Geography-related lists so to avoid limiting the category tree for such lists by placing them into their locality's categories only. So which one sounds better, if any at all? - Introvert • ~21:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that Category:Lists of municipalities is a good place for it either. What those lists seem to do is to take a country and list all its lower-level divisions. For Russia, it would be something like "districts of Russia", listing all districts of all federal subjects in Russia, hundreds of them. This list only lists districts of Adygea. I just don't know how to fit it into existing list categories, and I'm afraid I am not very good at categories at any rate. Like I said before, if you think you know which list cat this list best falls into, feel free to add it. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point in the renomination, but I still oppose. The list still lacks complete remarks on achievements of each of the described people, and requires a reference to each bio page. The bios listed here are satisfying for this task, but please link each person separately. Styling concerns: What's the point in the reference in the lead? That is already is an external link. Unnecessary space before the "See Also" section and only the first word of the header should be capitalized per WP:MSH, same for the "External Links" section. Even if there is no "birthplace" for Crazy Canucks you should at least add the province where they originated. No such profession as "The Polka King", maybe a singer? ...there are currently 100 stars n the walk - change to 100 people in the walk, the word "stars" has a POV and is unencyclopedic. ...with eight being inducted in 2006 - Change to with eight of them. List of inductees at the Official website - "Official" shouldn't be capitalized. No interwiki links? How about this for example? Fix the above concerns and you'll get my support. Michaelas10(Talk)22:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to include a reference to each bio page, that's why I tried to use as few notes as possible.
"the word "stars" has a POV" How so? It refers to the STARS that are put in the walk (Ie. Each stone with an honouree is in the shape of a STAR).
In most cases, I used the profession listed at the official website, and they list Walter Ostenak as "The Polka King" -- Scorpion22:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the stars are actual drawings/shapes on the sidewalk: if it's unclear, it should probably be reworded (maybe a photo?). The "Polka King" should be moved at remarks as nickname, the man is a musician. The title (bold words in lead) should not be wikified per WP:LEAD, you could move the link further in the paragraph. Louis B. Mayer and Jack Warner are producers, "Hollywood pioneer" should probably go to remarks. --Qyd22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well otherwise it fails criteria 1c of WP:WIAFL, the point is not to include as few references as possible, but rather to confirm each fact (including profession and birthplace) on the list effectively as the most of the individual article don't do it correctly.
I'm sorry, I thought it meant to stars as people, thanks for clarifying that.
Since Polka is a sort of music, it will be more understandable to list it this way. You might want to check other of his bio page to see if he's indeed a singer. Michaelas10(Talk)22:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Sennatt, Warner and Mayer were listed as Hollywood Pioneers (So is Fay Wray, but she's easy to group), but I couldn't figure out whether to call them directors, producers, studio founders or executives, so I kept Hollywood Pioneer. Changed Ostenak to "Polka Musician" and reworded lead. -- Scorpion22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"rather to confirm each fact (including profession and birthplace)" Like I said, every profession and birthplace listed is taken directly from the list at the official website. -- Scorpion22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be usefull to list professions uniformly, i.e. singer/songwriter/composer/etc could all be listed as musician; this would help in sorting; don't worry if it's not verbatim as the cited official website. A few words as why they were inducted (where it's not clear) wouldn't hurt. --Qyd22:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, "singer" will become "musician", "polka musician" would become "musician, polka", "rock band" would become "musician, rock", etc. It's just a sugestion, feel free to disagree. Another sugestion: all professions should be in the same style (all Title Case or all Sentence case). The list is starting to look very good. --Qyd00:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I came back to check progress, and I like what I see. Sadly, the references aren't formatted properly using the {{cite web}} template and there are some capitalization issues, I formatted one reference as an example. The reference in the lead isn't used to confirm a fact, please get rid of it. Remarks are still sentences and require a period. Some POV, avoid using the word famous. Michaelas10(Talk)16:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, okay. You tell me to assume good faith, and yet you automatically oppose the article after I completely overhaul it, AND your still complaining even after I added sources just because the format isn't the way you want to see it? I've already gone through and changed the entire article five times just for you AND I still have to add notes for 60+ other people, and you're STILL going to be a dick about it? -- Scorpion16:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scorpion, you might want to strike the above after reading Wikipedia:No personal attacks. This nomination has only been active for a couple of days so you've got plenty time left to work on things. Already, suggestions by two editors have resulted in significant changes that have improved the layout and content. Getting featured is/should be difficult. It is quite common for an article to be worked on and improved during the nomination process. I don't think what you're being asked to do is extreme. The above suggestions by Michaelas10 on formatting the references, capitalisation and avoiding certain POV words are all issues that another editor would mention and may (esp. references) cause them to oppose. Whilst the cite web template isn't essential, it does help prompt for things like access date (which is considered important for web references). Michaelas10's comment about the reference in the second lead paragraph is correct but I'd go further in saying that that whole sentence is possibly redundant. The first paragraph is unsourced. Perhaps you could try expanding it a little with info from the various pages on the official site – there do appear to be pages on the history and gala events, etc. This list is definately heading towards FL status so don't dispair. If you think a particular comment isn't reasonable, ask politely for a second opinion. Colin°Talk17:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. You don't call the transformation the article has undergone reworking? I'm not changing the reference styles because there's no need to, and I have reworked the lead a little. The main Walk of Fame page here already has a bit of history, but I can add more criteria. If not changing the references means I lose your vote, then so be it. -- Scorpion20:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Comprehensive, accurate, well constructed, stable, nice having an image. Important list for Canadian entertainment. --Qyd20:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well-referenced, nicely put together. Just a few minor things that can be easily fixed:
Can the first occurrence of each occupation be wikilinked? You don't have to link every occurence of the word "actor," just the first.
The table doesn't stretch the width of my browser screen -- is this just me or are the percentages of the table funny? I'm not so good with tables.
There's just a little bit of continuity issues with sometimes "Winner of …" being used and sometimes "Won …". I'd opt for "winner of."
The title "birthplace" should probably be changed to hometown or something better, as John Kay and Kiefer Sutherland were both not born in Canada, as stated in their remarks. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the table to 90% of the screen, birthplace has been changed to hometown and I'll work on the wikilinking (althugh none of the professions are linked as you mentioned) and continuity. -- Scorpion14:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support and self-nominate - Looks like it's useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial, and well-constructed. --Arctic Gnome17:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page in the references has links to subpages with each premier's bio, where all of the information can be found: names, parties, dates, and ridings. I figured that anyone who wanted to see the specific reference could just go to the site and click on the one they wanted, but would it be better if I referenced each premier's subpage individually? --Arctic Gnome18:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In the description of colours at the top, the Unionist government should not be the same colour as the PC Party, as the former was a coalition government with the Liberal Party. Also, the PC colour should include all five names that the pre-2003 Conservatives have used: Liberal-Conservative Party; Conservative Party; National Liberal and Conservative Party; National Government Party; and Progressive Conservative Party. --Arctic Gnome19:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used the colours at Template:Canadian_politics/party_colours, which "consist of the consensus determined colours for Canadian parties to be used in electoral result and other tables reflecting the parties by colour." This is why the new Conservatives are seperate from PC etc.; and the Unionists lumped in with the PC. That said, I agree with you the Unionist shiould be a seperate colour, so will do something for that, and change the PC blue description to include LibCon etc. Tompw (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, re-reading I clearly missed the point slightly in my first reply... anyway: I agree with you, and have changed things accordingly. Tompw (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's about it for post-confederation parliamentary elections, and there are another eight pre-confederation ones. We could keep doing this forever if someone wanted to work on the innumerable municipal elections. However, I'm going to start focusing on the lists of legislative assemblies resulting from these featured elections. --Arctic Gnome03:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have a bit of a problem with the links to the election articles being just the year. For one thing, the official title of the elections is "Xth General Election"; and secondly, many people will glance over the link thinking that it's just another link to the article about the year itself. --Arctic Gnome04:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Self-nom and support I've checked it for completeness and everything looks to be in order. I would like for someone else to also do a game count though, I may have miscounted. Be careful not to count alternate names though. --SeizureDog15:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions on what more needs mentioning in the lead? Information on the Nintendo 64 itself would likely just be redundent with the main article, so what should be said on the games themselves?--SeizureDog21:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Ideally there would be something about sales figures but finding reliable sources on that is tough. If the list is indeed complete I don't see much that could be done to improve it. For the lead, could perhaps mention what the best selling game was in each of the three markets you've listed. If you've got access to the NPD Group reports they should contain this. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-4 02:12
Comments: Two small things.... The "cancelled" section needs a citation sorting out (contravening WP:WIAFL 1c). . You could potentially remove the section, as the material is listed at List of cancelled computer and video games#64 and 64DD. Also, the current table of contents doesn't include links to the last few sections (possibly contravening WP:WIAFL 2b). I suggest subst'ing the {{compactTOC2}} template (rather than transcluding it), and then editing the result to include links to the currently unlinked sections. Sort out these, and I'll add my support. (I also removed "language = English" from {{cite web}}, as it's assumed - see template itself for details). Tompw (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does the fact that games were cancelled really need to cited? Isn't it kind of common knowledge that games get cancelled as a system loses support? Anyways, I reworded the section to where it doesn't imply that it's a complete list (which it isn't meant to be). "Notable" is basically determined by if it has an article or not. The articles themselves should verify their cancelled-ness. Does that work?--SeizureDog03:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SeizureDog on this one. The fact that titles are cancelled as a system loses support doesn't need to be cited, falling under common sense if not common knowledge.DocDragon03:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Whilst the fact that some games got cancelled might be obvious, actually naming the cancelled games requires verification. And, no, the articles can't be used to "verify their cancelled-ness" as that is using Wikipedia as a source, which isn't reliable. So you need to find a reliable source for those or else remove the section and replace with a See also to the other list. Oppose until this is done (good references are essential). Apart from this, the list is good. Colin°Talk20:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, what a hassle. Cited some, hid the rest. They can easily be cited later, but for now I'll just keep this nomination complaint free.--SeizureDog00:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Colin's objections. He's actually picked up what I orginally was worried about (but got sidetracked thinkinh about the TOC). Tompw (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support now the above had been sorted. (The cancelled games are not part of the list proper, and so not having them all has nothign to do with comprehensiveness. Also, I don't think one could ever be certain that *all* cancelled games have been included). Tompw (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The only thing that could make this list better is if all the links in the list actually led to articles, but since most of those are obscure japanese exclusives, I'm not exactly holding my breath on that.DocDragon03:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportTimkovski I put a hell of a lot of effort into improving this article when it was just a normal list of games and I'm extremely pleased to see it get a push to FLC. As far as I can tell, the list is complete and accurate and so there is nothing else to be done. I fully support the nomination and believe that all lists of games by system should be modelled on this and List of Virtual Boy games. Timkovski12:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Don't see why not. If the nominator is counted as voting for the article, there's no particular reason why a major contributor can't vote as well, particularly if they disclose their role in writing the page. The important thing about the FL candidacy isn't really the number of votes, after all (beyond the required 4), but the process by which objections are raised and addressed. Waitak01:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a spectacular list, and it surely meets all FL criteria laid out at WP:WIAFL. It contains every piece of information one needs to know about a game's release (who/when/where) and is laid out in the best possible manner. -- Kicking22215:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support If I were to make a list, I'd use this one as a guideline to what I'd want it to look like. It's smart, organised, and most importantly, it is complete. This list should definatly be featured, as it is very nearly as good as it could be. And anything that is very nearly as good as it can be should be featured. Cream14700:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support. Nto every data needs to be wikilinked, you can remove the excess ones. Shouldn't be a big deal seeing as how there's only a handful of years. I can at least lean towards support without it, though I'd like a little more info added in. --Wizardman01:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the wikilink format was like that before I got there. Due to it not really hurting anything for everything to be wikilinked, I kept it as is. Too much of a hassle with no real benefit to unlink a bunch of stuff.--SeizureDog01:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support and self-nominate -- I've worked on this list over the last while, and think that it may be qualified to be a featured list at this point. I've made a serious attempt to make it comprehensive, by checking against many lists of culinary basil varieties, and am reasonably confident that it's at least very close to comprehensive. If there are any varieties I've missed, I'll be happy to add them. All entries are sourced, there's adequate use of images, and the list is inherently stable (people just don't make new varieties of basil very often!). Waitak16:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make the name of the list at the first sentence appear in bold, and change it properly to reflect the lists actual name.
Done.
Per WP:WIAFL, the list must be composed of a large majority of links to existing articles. Seeing as the articles for the most of the plants in the list don't exist, I suggest creating an at least 2-sentence long stub for each.
Okay, I've started on it. I'll work on more over the next few days.
Oppose for the moment, I'm afraid. It's an excellent link as far as it goes, but if all of the cultivars were actually links, there'd be 13 red as opposed to 11 blue. I see you say above that you'll work on creating stubs, so I'll keep an eye on it and change my vote if articles are created for some of the missing ones. Alternatively, I would be open to arguments that some of the cultivars are so minor as to not require their own articles (as with, for example, some of the minor characters in the List of Metal Gear Solid characters). However, in that case I would want this list to contain a bit more info about them. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that there is such thing as species "too minor to deserve an article", Wikipedia should have an article on each single animal or plant by definiton. Adding a description on each, even if it's complete, doesn't help the list pass criteria 1a of WP:WIAFL. Michaelas10(Talk)17:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Not sure if you noted the history, but I added seven of those eleven since User:Michaelas10's comment above, and will keep at it. As you suggest, some of the less popular cultivars might not merit their own articles, but I'll make sure that the list is within the spirit of WP:WIAFL. Waitak01:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question If there are an estimated 50 to 150 species of basil then why are only 5 or 6 (and their associated cultivars) culinary? What makes a species of basil suitable to be used for culinary purposes? CheekyMonkey11:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good question! The list actually contains all cultivated basils, all of which happened to be used as culinary herbs. I've clarified it in the article. Waitak11:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WIAFL criterium 1b states "Comprehensive" means that the list covers the defined scope by including every member of a set. The set here is New Brunswick elections since Confederation. The article states "This article only covers elections since the province became part of the Canadian Confederation in 1867". Also, the introductory paragraph refers to the province of New Brunswick, thus excluding the colony of the same name. (I've added an opening sentence for extra clarity). Tompw (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The title of this list is "List of New Brunswick general elections", which means it should includes all elections. The title of the article also doesn't state if it's a province or a colony, so both should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelas10 (talk • contribs)
The most common usage of "New Brunswick" is for the province, rather than the colony. It lists all articles within its clearly defined set, and thus fulfills the "comprehensive" requirement. Maybe the title isn't as exact as it could be, but if you follow your line of argument, then List of Newfoundland and Labrador general elections should only contain the one election since that province changed its name to "Newfoundland and Labrador". Tompw (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A short list should remain as much comprehensive as it can, if there are any very related lists, despite the name, you should merge these. I don't think it would be much of a problem to create a new section stating that it refers to the colony. Michaelas10(Talk)16:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we're clearly go round in circles here, so I shall say that I disagree with you, and leave this for the closing editor to decide. Tompw (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Vote changed to support as article has been renamed to accurately reflect its content - Jord 22:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)) Weak oppose per User:Michaelas10. The change from New Brunswick the pre-1867 colony to New Brunswikc the post-1867 province is insubstantial especially with respect to the elections to the Legislative Assembly. An assembly elected in 1866 continued in office through Confederation until 1870, as did the Executive Council made up of members of that Assembly. New Brunswick general elections elect members to the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, nor the electoral process, nor the electoral laws changed upon New Brunswick moving from a colony of Britain to a province of Canada. This list should include all New Brunswick general elections as it once did. - Jord15:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK... several points I'd like to make:
I shall say again that WP:WIAFL criterium 1b states "Comprehensive" means that the list covers the defined scope by including every member of a set. The set here is general elections in the province of New Brunswick, and the list includes all members of that set.
There is nothing wrong with breaking up a long list by chronology - consider Canadian federal election results (1867-1879) and similar. Should that come up for FL status, no-one would say that the list should include all federal elections, because the list limits itself to federal elections in a given range. So, a list can define its own scope. (For an extreme example of this, see the List of major opera composers, a FL that definately defines its own scope).
I also wish to point out a very direct precedent: List of Nova Scotia general elections includes all general elections for the province of Nova Scotia, and it got FL status.
What happened with the Leglislative Assembly is completely beside the point - this is an article about the elections. You're argumenty would be perfectly correct for List of Legislative Assemblies of New Brunswick (if it exsisted).
My view is that this is not comprehensive, we seem to be viewing the list through two different lenses. You consider a list of provincial elections, while I see it as a list of elections to the Legislative Assembly. With respect to the Nova Scotia precedent, had I notice that list up for nomination I would have opposed it on the same grounds. - Jord18:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The intro states: "This article provides a summary of results for the general elections to the Canadian province of New Brunswick's unicameral legislative body, the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick", which is why I view as a list of provincial elections. Were it of elections to the Legislative Assembly, it would run something like "This article provides a summary of results of elections to the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick. New Brunswick was orginally a British colony, and is now a Canadian province" (or similar). The article would also be entitled "List of elections to the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick". With regard to NS... someone did raise a similair objection, but this was dealt with by making the introduction more specific. Tompw (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<--(unindent). The problem is partly the article name is ambiguous, so the text in the lead is there to clarify. The name "List of Presidents of the United States" clearly states its content and scope, while "List of New Brunswick general elections" is ambiguous, because New Brunswick refers to a province and an ex-colony. With this in mind, if the article was named List of general elections in New Brunswick (province) would that help? I wouldn't oppose the re-naming of the list to resolve this matter. Tompw (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is though that the "colony" of New Brunswick, was commonly refered to as and legally stood as a "province" of the British Empire prior to Confederation. I think the solution here is to (re)combine the two articles. It is problematic to have them separate because the 1866 election and the 1870 election returned the same number of members to the same body under the same electoral laws, thus the should be categorized together. - Jord18:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that you only split articles/lists up when they become unnecessarily long. Returning the first 20 elections (pre-Confederation) to the same list is the ideal solution in my mind. WP:NAME says "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" and goes on to explain that "names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists", this the unnecessary spliting and disambiguating of two lists about the same subject is not appropriate here. WP:DAB says "when there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate", I do not believe that there would be any confusion for readers if they came to "List of New Brunswick general elections" and found a list of all general elections that have occured in the political entity the province of New Brunswick both in its British days (1784-1867) and its Canadian ones (1867-present). Conversely, spliting the article and creating disambiguatory navigation promotes confusion. - Jord19:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" - most English speakers would associate New Brunswick with the province rather the colony. "names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists" - again, most English speakers would associate New Brunswick with the province rather the colony. This is why List of New Brunswick general elections contains the general elections for the Canadian province. "when there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate" - but you say that the "New Brunswick" could be interpreted as colony or as part of Canada, thus indicating potential confusion (which I have no problem with)... but you don't want to disambiguate. Further, there's seems to have a shift in your comments from whether or not the article shoudl become a FL (which you have made clear you have opposed, and why); to the nature of the article itself (which really belongs on the article's talk page). Tompw (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not shifted my comments, I do not believe this should be a featured list because it is not comprehensive. It excludes a great deal of elections that for no reason should be excluded. If they were added, I would enthusiastically support this list's candidacy. As for your rebuttals, you are misunderstanding the crux of my argument. My argument is that there is no difference whatsoever between the election of 1866 and the election of 1870; that "New Brunswick general elections" describes elections to the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, a body which has not changed since 1784; and, that the change of New Brunswick from a British colony/province to a Canadian province did not change the electoral process which this list describes. - Jord21:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK.... we are cleartly *never* going to agree on this one....I think we have both said everything we want to say, and I don't think there's anythign mro I can add. Tompw (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think that it's featured as it is now, but it wouldn't hurt to change the title to reflect that the list only covers post-Confederation elections. --Arctic Gnome17:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good. I'd make the existing name a re-direct, as most people will be looking for post-confederation rather than pre-. --Arctic Gnome17:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have always liked this page, even before what it is now. Well referenced, useful, clear and complete. Only two slight objections: The page could do with an image, but this may be difficult to get one that serves a strong purpose. Maybe of Dan Radcliffe? And, the links to the films at the top of the table. COS an POA have cast on the end of the link, where as the others don't, could use some continuity. Gran220:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the "cast" issue. As for the image, I've added it but I'm afraid it might not be very informative to the list and therefore violate WP:FUC. I would like to see what the others think about the issue. Michaelas10(Talk)21:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't feel qualified to vote (because in addition to referencing I completely redid the page to make it appears basically as it appears now from its old version), but I'm wondering if this is okay to be featured considering it is known not to be complete? I've also removed the image as I don't think it's appropriate for the page logistically nor within the guidelines of FUC. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's good to know. I will of course support if in need of a vote to pass the 4 support mark, but as I said above, I'd rather have another voice say something. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent point of reference. Pulls together an incredible amount of information into an easy to read reference page. Truly something by which other lists should be judged. John Reaves02:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a suggestion: if I were you, I would center the names that need to appear in more than one column. i.e. Daniel Radcliffe would be centered over Chamber of Secrets - Order of the Phoenix columns. Renata13:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've centered all the names, just to be uniform (and since it was easier), and I'm having slightly mixed feelings about it… it seems to me that somebody like David Bradley, who appears right in the middle of a bunch of names that don't span all five columns like he does, might be mistaken for only appearing in the center film, namely Prisoner of Azkaban. I'd suggest reverting it to left align, so you see the first movie they appeared in and then follow their name all the way to the end of the cell, as opposed to finding two ends of the cell when the name is centered. Any other thoughts on this? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The last column(s) need to be filled in so that lines dividing rows appear all the way across the table. Otherwise, well done. Waitak11:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that, for example, the Bloody Baron's row doesn't stretch to the right of the table? That's explained in the lead: the character doesn't appear in the book, and thus "shouldn't" be cast in the film. A grey cell under Movie 5 shows that a character appears in the book but has not yet been cast in the film -- "not yet cast" status. See the difference? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a bit backwards, and therefore confusing. All the actors are listed in white boxes, while all the roles that don't exist in the earlier films have corresponding grey boxes. If a role has not yet been cast, shouldn't it also be in a white box? Eg. I'm looking at "Grey Lady" and "Moaning Myrtle" and there appears to be a white box connecting them under "Phoenix". I would be tempted read that as saying both roles exist and will be played by the same actor. Is that not what is intended?Gimmetrow00:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I suppose it is a bit backwards. Both the Grey Lady and Myrtle don't appear in "Phoenix" and their row doesn't stretch that far (you'll notice there is no line at the very right edge of the table in their row): they don't appear in the book, and thus shouldn't be cast in the film. The purpose of the grey boxes in the Phoenix column is to show you what characters appear in the book, have had an actor play them in previous films, but haven't yet been (re)cast for "Phoenix." However, I see how this can be confusing if you don't know it. :-) I'm changing it now so that all actors stretch to the right, and those who "should" be cast in "Phoenix" will display an "uncast" in the fifth box. If this isn't liked we can revert it. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I do see the difference now, but I don't think the way you chose to represent it before did it justice. What you've got now is better, but perhaps could be improved on a bit yet. One other possibility might be to use a different shade of gray, or a different color altogether to indicate that the role hasn't yet been cast? Encoding information in more than one mode (gray/white, empty/not empty, cast/not cast) is tricky for the user. Something like:
Okay, I see that. I've made the changes but just switched around what you said. I made dark gray not yet cast, since it would make sense to keep light gray the same throughout, which is not in the movie. I've also added some notes for characters confirmed not to return, but left those in dark gray. Just wondering if the lead fits okay with the changes I made. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list is a well archived record of all the professional seasons played by the Chicago Bears in their history. The list is detailed in giving the win-loss-tie record for each year including their playoff result for that year. I believe its a featured list. --Happyman2218:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence in the second paraghraph is way too long, split it to at least 2 more sentences and try to remove unnecessary commas.
Add a "work" field to the references with the website name.
Add the fact that they also hold the record for the most regular-season victories for a NFL franchise to the lead.
Remove the 6th and 7th notes as it should be mentioned in the lead rather than in the notes.
Should "standing" be capitalized? Also misses period at the end of the sentence.
Why is the linking to the seasons different in the 2005 and 2006 seasons? Just because an article is missing it doesn't mean it shouldn't be linked. Either change it or the rest of the table. Michaelas10(Talk)21:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Corrections:
Added the franchise victories to the lead and removed the 6th and 7th notes from the note section.
Uncapitalized the word "standing" and added a period at the end of the sentence.
Broke up the sentence in the second paragraph into more sentences.
Removed the linkages on the 2005 and 2006 seasons so they could reflect the other seasons in the list.
Oppose, per WP:WIAFL 1a - "A useful list must be composed of a large majority of links to existing articles (blue links)." As this is a list of Chicago Bear seasons, the majority of the links to individual Bear seasons (in the column marked "Team") must be blue. However, only five out of 80+ are blue - the rest are redlinks. Even if you include the links in the first column, it's still barely more than half - which is not the large majority required. :-( It's a shame, as this is a nicely formatted list, and certainly fulfills the rest of the requirements. Tompw (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, What if I were to remove all of the inactive links for the time being so all the red links are gone and then start adding them again when each of the individual season page is created? If I do that can I squeak by that set of requirements? --Happyman2204:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that list wouldn't really be "bringing together a group of related articles" (1a again)... could you at least create stub articles for the red-linked Bear seasons? (The information in the list would make a good starting point for a stub). I ended doing somtihng similar for List of Nova Scotia general elections to get that passed as FL. This nomination still has a week to run, so time is on your side. As I said, once this gets sorted, the list will have my full support. Tompw (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The list looks very good. Only problem ma be the redlinks in years, but not much yo can do abotu it. Unlink them for now and rlink them when the articles are made at a later date I'd say.
UpdateI have removed most of the red links on the team season list as of now, but i have added the 1920-1932 season which are just stubs right now. At the time of this writting I am about to start creating the 1993-2003 team seasons...I would like to anyone who reads this and has time if they could try to help out by making an of the other team seasons. --Happyman2219:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support it looks like you are making a good effort to make all the red links blue, it looks good enough for me. Some other things that bear mentioning though, that you may or may not want to change, is that there are several repeated wikilinks on the page. For instance, Opponents faced in playoffs are wikilinked multiple times. Repeated wikilinks aren't necessary unless they are in a new section, and I'm not sure you could call each season a different section in this case, hence repeating the wikilinks would be against the manual of style. Also, I'm a bit confused about the 1942 season. It says their record was 11-0-0 and yet they lost the NFL championship game? How is that possible? Either their record is wrong, or postseason records are not counted on the win/loss record for that season. If that is the case there should be something noting this. VegaDark09:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Improvements I have unwikilinked the articles that go to the same page, and I have added a disclaimer to the top so the list and the wins/loss records become more clear. --Happyman2216:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I had to puzzle a bit over the color coding of the "finish" column. I'm still not sure I really understand it. The repetition of year in the first two columns seemed odd. Perhaps the league season link could be replaced by a word? In the lead, if something "should be noted" it can usually just be stated without that introductory phrase. Compare:
It should be also noted that the postseason records are added to the regular season records...
Postseason records are added to the regular season records...
Support. Looks liek a great list. My only problem would be with all the redlinks under years, but that could be fixed. --Wizardman17:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's best work: Provides information in a format that cannot be found elsewhere on the internet.
Useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised:
Useful: Provides a summary of results of 426 provincial, territorial and federal elections since Confederation (or creation). The vast majority (396 out of 426 - 93%) of election links are bluelinks.
Comprehensive: Covers all general elections provincial, territorial and federal elections since Confederation (or creation).
Factually accurate: references given, neatly organised by area.
Stable: Will be only be updated (on average) every few months.
Well-organised: Easy to find any required information; split into 40-year sections.
Uncontroversial: no edit wars or disuptes
Standards / style manual: Layout is clear and concise as is reasonably possible.
Support. Incredible work. Complete, clear visual layout, parallel chronology of all elections. I already use it as a reference. dh ▪ 2¢ ▪ 10:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There are still a few red links, but this is a great summary list, complete, well organised, well referenced. Good work. --Qyd17:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was just there to make the federal "extra" seperate. It's not a big deal... if you thik it should go, change it. This is a wiki, after all :-) Tompw (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This list is useful, stable and uncontroversial. It is well referenced, and complete as far as the scope is defined. Self nomination. Resolute20:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Section headings should not be wikilinked per WP:HEAD. Consider moving the links in a short sentence between heading and table, with a short description and/or table summary. The bold title in the lead also shouldn't contain links. There are still a few red links, articles (at least stubs) should be created, or, if they are not notable, de-link. Otherwise comprehensive and well referenced. --Qyd22:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the links, and delinked ice hockey in the bold title. I've been working on the red links this weekend, and they all should be gone within a couple days. Thanks! Resolute00:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very well put together. I'd like this to stay up a couple extra days for the heopful 4th support vote though. --Wizardman18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nicely done. My only comment is to put something in the image caption about what colour dot is what, as it's rather hard to tell from the image. Tompw (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's best work: Provides information in a format that cannot be found elsewhere on the internet.
Useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised:
Useful: Summarises information on seats won and vote share from 38 elections, and allows visitors to easily compare results from successive general elections
Comprehensive: Covers every general election since Confederation
Factually accurate: verifiable via Elections Ontario
Stable: Will be only be updated every four years or so
Well-organised: Easy to find any required information
Uncontroversial: no edit wars or disuptes
Standards / style manual: Layout is clear and concise
Images: Sole image has approriate copyright status
Support. Yet another featured-quality elections list of yours. I have some minor suggestions, this is quite a short list so I'd expect it to be perfect:
Put the image at the beginning of the page to avoid having all the text surround him.
...Canadian province of Ontario 's unicameral legislative body... - Ontario's without the space. There is a similar mistake at the end of the sentence.
No period at the end of the second and third note, and at the end of the first paragraph.
Create articles for the missing parties to avoid red links.
Please split the reference by years. Put something like "1867-1902, 1905-1937.." underneath.
Missed one of the spaces... that's now done. With regard to "Conservative-Liberal"... I assume that this seperate from Conservative and Liberal parties, and thus linking to both would be misleading. Equal Rights Party done. Tompw (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked the single "Liberal" to make it similar to other times this kind of combination is made in the article, "Conservative-Equal Rights" for instance. Michaelas10(Talk)23:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've hcaged it back... the "Conservative-Equal Rights" was basically an offshoot of the Conservatives; but the Conservative-Liberal was not. Nor was it an offshoot of the Liberal party. Consequently, its been linked as Conservative-Liberal. Sorry for not realising sooner what you had meant. Tompw (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's best work: Provides information in a format that cannot be found elsewhere on the internet.
Useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised:
Useful: Summarises information on seats won and vote share from 37 elections, and allows visitors to easily compare results from successive general elections
Comprehensive: Covers every general election since Confederation
Factually accurate: reliable reference given
Stable: Will be only be updated every four years or so
Well-organised: Easy to find any required information
Uncontroversial: no edit wars or disuptes
Standards / style manual: Layout is clear and concise
Images: Sole image has approriate copyright status
Support. An excellent elections list which is up to the standards of many featured ones. Some suggestions:
The chart on the right shows the information graphically, with the most recent elections on the right. It shows that.. - Remove this self-reference to the chart, and instead explain the details shown normally.
Thank-you for your support and comments. In order:
I don't think "the chart on the right shows this information..." is a self-reference.... it would be a self-reference to say "the chart on the right-hand side of this article shows this information...". (Also, it wasn't a problem for List of Saskatchewan general elections and similar.)
Done.
Quite right! So right in fact, it was done before I even started... the material under "external links" *is* further reading, and is not there to confirm facts. The fact-confriming reference is under "reference".
This is still a self-reference, please refer to Wikipedia:Avoid self-references for more information. The list has other self-references, but this is a one that can be fixed more easily without removing any information.
Well I noted that the most of the external links just contain a part of the information on the table and don't give any prose for further reading. Moving them to the references section might backup the referencing better. Michaelas10(Talk)19:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point on the external links... sorry I didn't understand first time round. Anyway, offical sources have moved to references and the others removed, as they add nothing to the article. I've had a good read of the guidelines on avoiding self-references... the main point is that the article must still make sense if read on another webiste or in print. The crucial thing is that the image is part of the article; the text in the article discusses the image. In order to discuss the image, the text must refer to it, else it doesn't make sense. I'm rather puzzled here... how would you suggest that paragraph be phrased? Tompw (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand about the chart, I just felt it really bothers the general flowing of the text. I've also noted that if the text would not reference to it, the text would become a random group of facts so I guess it would be better if it remains unchanged. Michaelas10(Talk)20:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent): Re the above discussion: I think the flow would improve if the info about how to read the chart were moved to the image caption. The facts in the second paragraph are not irrevocably linked to the chart, and IMO can stand just fine on their own, with the chart still providing visual support. In any case, this does not seem like a self-reference issue exactly; more a matter of style. -- Visviva15:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think the chart might look neater if it started at the top of the article, rather than have text flow round above and below. Colin°Talk13:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nice list. My only problem is actually in the title. The list is really about the results of the quebec general elections. By having the title as such, it threw me off into thinking there'd be more information. Should the title be "Results of Quebec general elections" or "List of..." or something along those lines as opposed to what it is now? --Wizardman19:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self-norm. A list of active volcanoes in Indonesia, grouped by geographical regions. There are many red links at the moment, but I am trying to create stubs of those. I guess the list has conformed the WP:WIAFL. — Indon (reply) — 10:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Very complete, organized, and referenced list. I'd support but the large amount of red links really bothers me. The prose also needs some copyediting throughout. Suggestions for the lead (move cursor over underlines to see the comments):
This is a list of volcanoes in Indonesia, which most of them are active. The geography of Indonesia is dominated by volcanoes, that are formed due to the subduction zones between (the) Eurasian plate and (the) Indo-Australian plate. Volcanoes of Indonesia are (a) part of the Pacific Ring of Fire. Some of them are notable for their eruptions: Krakatoa in 1883,[1] Lake Toba for its supervolcano eruption,[2] and Mount Tambora in 1815 for the most violent eruption in (the) recorded history.[3]
The introduction states that most of the volcanoes are active - does this mean that the others are extinct? Other lists of volcanoes in countries inlcude extinct volcanoes. Is there a difference between "non active" (dormant?) volcanoes and extinct ones?
In the introduction I had to click on "BP" to find out what it meant, it may be best to replace with Before Present.
It would be nice if all of the tables had the same width.
I couldn't find any sources that indicate active/dormant status, even at the Smithsonian Institute's of Global Volcanism Program [1], which is the main source of this article. So the status between active and dormant cannot be assured of. Only the last eruption, which I have included in the table, can be used as an estimation of a volcanic activity.
Comment: I like the new eruptions table, however I find it a little hard to read. I'm color blind and the green colors are hard to distinguish between. Would it be possible to add an extra column with a numeric value for the VEI, and limit the color shading to this column only, thereby making the other columns easier to read without the colored background? (Caniago11:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
How about now? Is it still difficult to read? I used a very light colors as background, and VEI scale column is also given. — Indon (reply) — 12:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The prose in the list is still filled with awkward sentences and grammatical mistakes. It is preferable that someone with strategic distance will copyedit it, so you might as well contact an experienced copyeditor. Or would you like me to do it instead? Michaelas10(Talk)20:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
→ Reply: Oh yes, please! If you'd have time to fix the grammatical mistakes and also prose, then I'd very happy then. Thanks a lot. — Indon (reply) — 08:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would like to see in the lead the overall number of volcanos in Indonesia. Plus, the Geography of Indonesia article says that there is 400 volcanos including 100 active, does this list list them all? It's not clear if this is a list of all, major or active volcanoes. Anyway great list. CG20:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
→ Reply: Hmm.. I don't know from which source the Geography of Indonesia is, the article is totally unsourced. I took the main source from Global Volcanism Program. All of the item in the list are taken from the website, that I think the most reliable website for volcanology. — Indon (reply) — 07:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may be the most reliable source but it's not a complete one. I've gone through the website and there isn't a place where the criteria of listing are clearly defined. It is a great list but its scope is not well-defined. For someone doing a research should he consider that Indonesia has only 150 volcanoes? or that only 150 are active? or that only 150 are studied by the Global Volcanism Program? Unless the criteria for inclusion in this list are well-defined in the lead (take a look at List of dinosaurs at the "Scope" section) I vote Oppose. CG18:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your opposition, but I strongly believe that the source is the most reliable and the most complete list of volcanoes in Indonesia. Please see my update below. There are at least 150 volcanoes in Indonesia (some twin volcanoes or a closely-related volcanoes are combined into one name in the list, see the newly added Scope section). There are hundreds more non-volcanic mountains in Indonesia, for instance, Borneo, central Sulawesi and Papua islands are highly mountaneous, but the list only contains volcanoes (either active or thought-to-be non-active). The criteria of what volcano is, has been given in the article. — Indon (reply) — 22:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Indon good work with creating all the stub articles (disclaimer: I've created 2 of them). I was leaning toward supporting but can't at the moment due to the prose, I've given the article a light copyedit but more still needs to be done. Also there is a selected list of eruptions at the bottom of the list, what is the basis of selection? It might be worth stating that eruptions of 2 VEI or above in the last century are noted along with an example of each of the VEI scales (4, 5, 6, 7 & 8) before that. CheekyMonkey00:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
→ Reply: Still some red links to go. :-) Re prose, Michaelas10 has helped me and I'm going to ask other copyeditors around WP to help me. Honestly, I've still problem with the prose myself. :"> And the last selected eruptions, it was based on eruptions equal or above 3, except if scale 2 with some fatalities. I'm going to put some explanations about this selected filters. Thanks anyway. — Indon (reply) — 01:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that you don't have to fill in all the red links WP:WIAFL 1a. states that a list has "a large majority of links to existing articles" and I'd say you were close to that right now. This list is shaping up nicely and I'm very close to supporting. CheekyMonkey12:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
→Reply: Yes, I can't find any source, mentioning the fatalities. I know people died, because I experienced it myself (my parent's house was covered with ashes). The Galunggung article mentions 35 deaths but it is unsourced. I searched over the Volcanological Survey Indonesia website, but alas they don't mention it. So I left it empty, while looking any reliable sources. Thanks Michael. — Indon (reply) — 13:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I'd like to see the written parts of the article improved upon, mayb ehave the grammar police look at it a bit. The lists themselves look great though. I decided to lean support since it doesn't look like it'll pass anyway. --Wizardman19:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Major updates. It might be appropriate for the second nom., but since the current nomination is still running, then I give major updates since the first nom. based on the valuable comments from reviewers above.
All red links are now gone. I have created stubs for them.
The Major Eruptions section has been updated. I have added a new reliable source for fatalities from:
J.-C. Tanguy; Ch. Ribière; A. Scarth; W.S. Tjetjep (1998). "Victims from volcanic eruptions: a revised database". Bulletin of Volcanology. 60: 137–144. doi:10.1007/s004450050222.
Based on CG's comments above, I added a new section about Scope. The primary source of the list is taken from the Global Volcanism Program, but according to [5], the website is based on the book:
Tom Simkin; Lee Siebert (1994). Volcanoes of the World: A Regional Directory, Gazetteer, and Chronology of Volcanism During the Last 10,000 Years (2nd ed.). Geoscience Press. ISBN0945005121. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
It is the most reliable and the most complete reference for volcanoes, used as an important reference for volcanologists. The book was selected as the Best Reference Book of 1995 by the Geographical Information Society. Particularly for Indonesia, the book used the catalogue:
M. Neumann van Padang (1951). "Indonesia". Catalog of Active Volcanoes of the World and Solfatara Fields (1 ed.). Rome: IAVCEI. pp. 1–271.,
officially published by IAVCEI. As a completeness comparison,
The Volcanological Survey of Indonesia only lists around 60 volcanoes. [6]
The Volcano World only contains 51 volcanoes in Indonesia. [7]
USGS states that only 76 volcanoes in Indonesia with historical records. [8]
Encyclopaedia Britannica states 220 active volcanoes in Indonesia, but there is no list of the volcanoes. [9] I think if individual vents are counted as separate volcanoes, it might be that the list expands into 220 volcanoes. (I have explained this in the Scope section)
A bit of a depressing list. But after going through the GP Encyclopedia, I managed to find every driver and referenced it as well. Hopefully everyone else agrees with me.--SkullyCollinsEdits12:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...who have been killed while driving a Formula One car or who have died as a result of a crash while driving a Formula One car after 1950. - This is a list of people who have been killed while driving a Formula One car and who have been killed in a crash while driving a Formula One car? Doen't make much sense. You might also want to remove the "after 1950" in the end of the sentence as this covers all-time Formula One accidents.
Remove the link to "Formula One" from the name of the list, the link to "Formula One car" is enough.
Notes/references shouldn't be one space ahead of the text per WP:MOS.
Format the references section correctly using {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}.
...died in the accident after Pryce, who was unable to avoid him, collided with him at high speed. - Remove "who was unable to avoid him".
Bristow died on the 19th lap and Stacey died on the 24th lap after a bird flew into his face and so Stacey lost control of his car. - Replace "and so Stacey lost control of his car" with "which made him lose control over his car". You should explain why Bristow died as well. Michaelas10(Talk)15:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
