Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2008

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

The list was promoted 04:08, 31 January 2008.

It's been a while since my last edits, so feel free to pick it apart. Modeled after previous featured county lists. Geraldk (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like the county seat links to link to the proper political unit, instead of a disambiguation page. New York is notorious for that crap. :P I see at least Lockport, Schoharie, Riverhead, Owego, Lake George, and Lyons with brownlinks, but some of the bluelinks might be leading to larger disambig pages as well. --Golbez (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, or at least I'm pretty sure I got all of 'em. Geraldk (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shouldn't the "formed from" for Bronx simply say "Westchester County"? Also, the "one of the original 12" statements on 'formed from' are not all identical, some say the colony, some don't, etc. Finally, three of the boroughs have a county seat named, whereas the others just have the parenthetical. Are these neighborhoods/postal names? And why do the other two (Kings and New York) lack these? I think that's about it. --Golbez (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed em all. As to the last bit, it also disagreed with the lead, which said that New York City is considered to be the county seat of all five boroughs, so I just put NYC as the seat and kept the borough in parentheses. Geraldk (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Great. Support! --Golbez (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's good to see you back, Geraldk. Job well done!--Crzycheetah 23:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Bronx County was formed from New York County (not Westchester), and the western half anyway had been in New York County for forty years. Also, Bronx County was formed in 1914, not 1912 (only the law was passed in 1912).--Pharos (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch - both fixed now. Geraldk (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Looks good. I'd like it even better if the table of proposed counties included information about the date and status of the proposals. --Orlady (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Meets all the requirements. Good lead. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted 15:35, 30 January 2008.

This page is modelled after Vanier Cup, which is also an FL. This page doesn't have much of a history section because there is a main article for the Grey Cup. All concerns and comments are welcome and will be addressed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support looks good to me. I changed the % figures so that they were percentages rather than fractions of 1 (e.g. 33% rather than 0.33) and made one table sortable. Minor quibble: some of the dates have a comma between month and year, some don't - I suggest it's tidied up, one way or the other! Bencherlite^Talk 11:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why do I feel that by the title of this list I should be able to tell whether Warren Moon won five or six Grey Cups by looking at the article. Similar thing with Doug Flutie. Is there an MVP of the game chosen. If so, should it be listed?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were you perhaps looking for Grey Cup Most Valuable Player or Grey Cup Most Valuable Canadian, both of which already have links at the end of the lead? Bencherlite^Talk 21:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plus it's POV to list how many Cups certain players have won. What makes a player notable enough to be listed? And Bencherlite is correct, it is already linked. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It seems everything is there that needs to be.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I added a category, but other than that it looks good. Great work!
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted 04:31, 30 January 2008.

This article seems to meet the FL criteria. Certainly as good as, if not better than Grade I listed buildings in Bristol (in my humble opinion). I can't see any issues here. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. In addition to the above (almost half the links are red), the lead does not, in my opinion, adequately summarise the list (criteria 2a). Of nine place headings, only Manchester is mentioned; Oldham is mentioned, although it does not appear anywhere on the list. There is an enormous white space at the head of the page (see 1f). There are also a lot of embedded external links to map sources for national grid refs. These print out in full. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've expanded the lead a little to hopefully better summarise the list.
• Do you mean the white space created by the table of contents? Surely the toc is necessary for 1f), in that it makes the list "easy to navigate"? It can be hidden in any event. Is there an established convention that lists ought not to contain a toc?--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. No, I meant the white space to the left of the twelve images before the lead begins. This only seems to manifest itself in 800x600 pixel resolution (my work computer) though. 1024x768 looks fine. Chrisieboy (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, thanks. I'll see what can be about about that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Tested at 800x600 and should be OK at any scree resolution now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oldham appears in the lead to assert the distinction it has no Grade I listed buildings. Oldham won't have a section; the article is about Grade I listed buildings.... -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I note that all of Chrisieboy's concerns have been addressed, and that he was invited to confirm or deny that here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am sorry not to have replied sooner. This has certainly improved, although I note you have not addressed my comments on embedded external links. Are these really useful? They print out in full and somewhat spoil the layout. Chrisieboy (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your reply. I may be misunderstanding you here, but what do you mean by "print out in full"? Do you mean printed on paper? Or are you talking about the little external link icon? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, I mean when printed on paper. Chrisieboy (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, at last I understand. Is it a requirement for featured lists that they can be printed on paper? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I suppose the link to Google Maps etc. is worth it! I am now happy to lend my support. In my view this is a credit to all concerned. Chrisieboy (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose unnecessary use of colored headers, I'm dubious about the necessity of subdivision, and you have wrapped the entire article inside a table because you were unable to properly distribute the images throughout to avoid link bunching (I assume, the table is still preposterous). On the other end, I really like the lead. Circeus (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• When is there ever a necessary use of coloured headers? From a techinical perspective it is necessary to wrap the entire aticle inside a table to achieve the desired layout consistently at all screen resolutions, as the thumbnails occupy a fixed number of pixels. Is there some rule against using a screen resolution independent layout? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Might also be worth pointing out here that the entire article is not wrapped inside a table, only those parts of it where the intention is to safely and consistently display a ribbon of pictures down the right hand side of the screen. If safety and consistency are "preposterous", well, the lunatics really have taken over the asylum. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that pointing to relevant MOS pages would help here. Without them it's hard to decipher if these are personal preferences with which your opposing the article(!) -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The strong oppose doesn't seem to have a basis here. That the table is "preposterous" - what does this mean? How do we act upon this? When does a table become preposterous?... Also, "Dubious" subdivision? The division is clear; according to administrative areas. How does this harm the article? -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the tables make the list more navigable. Although tables have their problems, I cannot think of a better layout for this page myself. Awadewit | talk 05:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support - looks pretty good, but in addition to seconding concerns about the non-standard header colour, I've got a few suggestions.

1. Would an "architect" column be useful? See, for instance, listed buildings in Sheffield - in many other ways inferior, but the architect column adds useful additional information.

It's a not a bad idea, but there are many of the buildings for which the architect is unknow, ie: the medieval buildings. Nev1 (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why "In spite of Greater Manchester's Roman and medieval heritage, most of its listed buildings date from the Victorian and Edwardian periods"? It's not in spite of its Roman and mediaeval heritage, which is nothing out of the ordinary for a county, despite containing some superb Grade I buildings of these eras. The reason is simply that Manchester was a world-leading industrial city during the Victorian era.
2. For the introduction, is there anything interesting to say about any particular listings? I would expect that, for instance the listing of the railway bridge over the River Irwell would have attracted significant coverage, and perhaps some debate - perhaps also some of the listings from the 1970s.
3. Finally, on my rather low-resolution set-up, the fixed percentage width of the columns leads the grid reference external link icon to overlap the start of the ref(s) column. Could the grid ref column either be made a touch wider, or become a fixed width column, or have the column widths not set at all? Any of these should solve this glitch. Warofdreams talk 20:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the column widths weren't set at all, then the columns wouldn't line up between tables, just like the Sheffield list you pointed out, which would look kinda scruffy I think. The %age size of the grid ref column could probably be increased a fraction to solve the problem with low resolution screens though.

I don't understand your comment about "non-standard header colour". Can you point me towards the standard please?

If an architect column was introduced then it would have to be at the expense of one of the other columns, and it would frequently be empty, as Nev1 pointed out. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A wider column should solve the issue; incidentally, the column widths don't have to be set to line up the columns - see list of UK by-elections for an example.

• That article contains only one table though. This one has nine tables, one after the other. The only way to make the columns line up is to specify a column size. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True; there are some advantages to using a single table, but that would remove the possibility of making it sortable. Warofdreams talk 11:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:When to use tables suggests standardisation on class=wikitable wherever possible, and that class uses #f2f2f2 for its headers. Using a different colour implies that some additional information is being carried, as in (for example) the Template:S-start/doc series. Additionally, the darker the background colour, the more difficult it is for users with impaired sight to read the headers.

While I've not investigated, it would appear likely that architects could be identified for more than half the buildings listed. Is that enough to make it worthwhile? I don't know, it's an idea which could be discussed on the talk page. If it would prove informative, then some reformatting to widen the table would be a better option than removing any existing columns. Warofdreams talk 22:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, an update: the "in spite of" comment has been reworked and the column header colours and column widths have been addressed. The possibility of an architect column is under discussion, and its possible adoption is not a condition for my support - so I'm now happy to give that. I'm still hopeful that there may be some more information to add to the intro and if anyone could find a way of lining columns up while not having to use fixed widths, that'd be great. Warofdreams talk 11:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After this discussion, we decided to keep the percentage widths in the tables in Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft, which became a WP:FL. Awadewit | talk 05:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards support This article is most definitely useful, in the sense that it brings together a list of articles in a coherent and interesting way; it is comprehensive as far as I am aware; it cites each entry using standard citation styles (WP:CITE); it is uncontroversial and stable; and it is well-constructed. It also has appropriate images and adheres to the MOS. The only improvements I can see that could be made are in the lead:

• Although Greater Manchester has Roman and medieval heritage, most of its listed buildings date from the Victorian and Edwardian periods, and in particular the time of the Industrial Revolution. - Why mention the Roman and medieval heritage if the buildings from that period are not significant for this list?
• Greater Manchester has been described as "one of the classic areas of industrial and urban growth in Britain, the result of a combination of forces that came together in the 18th and 19th centuries: a phenomenal rise in population, the appearance of the specialist industrial town, a transport revolution, and weak local lordship" - Could we say described by who? Scholars, I hope?

This already has a reference to bolster it (a book published by the Association for Industrial Archaeology), is it necessary to mention who said it in the text? Nev1 (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds a good idea to me; it makes quite a difference that this is from an authoritative source on the subject, rather than being the opinion of an individual or a municipal publication. Warofdreams talk 18:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The Grade I listed buildings in each borough are shown separately. - "shown" or "listed"?
• Manchester, the world's first industrialised city[6] and "the best Victorian city in England" - What does this quote really mean?
• Could the editors highlight a few of the most interesting buildings in the lead?

• This is an excellent addition - very interesting facts! Awadewit | talk 01:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have confidence that I will be able to support this list after a few clarifications and expansions are made to the lead. Awadewit | talk 05:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some good suggestions, for which thanks. I think that they're all dealt with now apart from bolstering the reference you mentioned, which I'll leave for Nev1 to deal with. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted the sentence to make it clear that it's scholarly etc, I think it's enough, but please see for yourself. Nev1 (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is, and I am happy to support this article now. Thanks for implementing the changes so swiftly! Awadewit | talk 01:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and Questions Support I think this is a useful way of bringing together these buildings, and I will probably be able to support soon, but a couple of comments and questions:

• I would agree with a couple of minor comments about the lead (eg I can't see the point of the Roman mention)
• The display is fine on my screen at various resolutions
• I'm not very familiar with the area but the ability to sort by location doesn't really help me to envisage which buildings are close to each other - but the grid refs do - deep breath - would a map showing the location of the buildings be possible?
• I'm not sure what the date of listing adds - these are often an accident of history & depend on whether the building was included in Pevsners books which were used as the original text for many of the listings.

I agree, it may be a bit of a hassle to remove the column and ensure all the tables stay the right size, but I don't think the date listed column is necessary. Nev1 (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any ideas what to replace it with, if it were to be done? It gives us some extra space that we may as well use. The architect has previously been suggested. Nev1 (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I find the difference & distinction between Manchester & Greater Manchester a little confusing & may need further guidance - related to this I note this list has template {{Greater Manchester}} while Architecture of Manchester has {{Manchester}} & I wonder why?

I'm sure most of these are because of my ignorance about the area rather than any conflicts with MOS etc & can easily be resolved & then I would be able to support (& I may change Grade I listed buildings in Bristol to follow this example once resolved).— Rod ^talk 09:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful feedback. The column for date of listing has been changed to architect, in line with a prevous suggestion, and the lead reworked to (hopefully) take care of Awadewit's concerns. The map will have to be a longer term project though I'm afraid. The Manchester/Greater Manchester distinction is potentially confusing, I agree, because the county has the same name as the city, but the city is just one of the boroughs within the county of Greater Manchester. Somewhat similar to London and the City of London. Any suggestions you have to make the difference clearer would be gratefully received. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done to the team for responding to comments. I've now changed my comment to support. I think my confusion was not helped by travelling to a meeting which the agenda said was in Machester to arrive to be told by locals in no uncertain terms that we were in the City of Salford not Manchester. I won't make that mistake again.— Rod ^talk 08:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be allowed to summarise the position so far, it appears that this list has 4 supporters (5 if the nominator is included) and 2 opposers. The opposition appears to hinge around two outstanding points:

• Using tables to format the layout is "preposterous".
• The standard referencing system makes navigating the list difficult.

I think it is clear that both of those objections are without merit. So in lieu of any further actionable objections, is it not time now to close this nomination? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I changed my previous vote to neutral, since I realize that it may be a matter of taste. BUT, right now, I notice that the notes in the references are not sourced. For example, the "A tower was added to the building in 1995" statement is unsourced. How can one be sure that it was added in 1995 and not in some other year? There are no general references to check, so statements like that are left unsourced. I counted 5 unsourced statements. --Crzycheetah 07:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references column provides all the information given in the table and the notes on a building. If this is not sufficient, could you please suggest a way of integrating the notes and the references. Nev1 (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The note at #11, "Sometimes known as OSGB36...", is well sourced with 2 references. I'd like to see the same way of referencing at notes #15, 31, 42, 44, and 68.--Crzycheetah 22:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that shouldn't be too hard, apart from #15, it's just a matter of duplicating sources. The complicated part is #15, the note saying this building was listed after 2001. Would it be enough to double up with the IoE ref or would it need the other ref giving it's current status? I still think this is too much hassle as the ref column covers everything, ie: those links are the source for the name, when it was completed, the architect, where it is, and any notes. Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the refs for "Parish Church of St Peter" (#16 and 17) and none of them prove that it was upgraded to Grade I after February 2001, as the #15 note states. --Crzycheetah 00:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's elementry, my dear Crzycheetah.You are correct the sources do not explicitly state that the buildings have been upgrade, howver throughsimple deduction it can be proven. Our starting point is ref #16, from the Image of England website, accurate as of February 2001, claiming the church is II*. This is juxtaposed by ref #17, dating from late 2007 and published by Bolton MBC - a fairly reliable source. At first glance these sources may appear to contradict each other as the source from Bolton MBC claims the church is Grade I. Almost but not quite: in the intervening period, the church must have been upgraded. And so the case is proven and this is repeated for all the other buildings upgraded since 2001.

It is unlikely that a source can be unearthed for each building explicitly stating that it has been upgraded since 2001. So, what do you suggest should be done? I think the current system works fine. Nev1 (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying it's elementary, yet it took you one paragraph to explain. I think note #15 should be expanded to point out that it's an assumption due to contradicting information from two reliable sources. --Crzycheetah 01:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, a whole paragraph, and yet you still failed to understand. The information is not contradictory, and there are no assumptions being made. The Images of England site quite clearly states that information listed there has not been updated since 2001. The Bolton MBC site quite clearly states that St Peters is Grade I listed as at 2007. What's the assumption? In what way is the information contradictory? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually notice that it's hard for you to understand what assumption means! I see one reference that states it's grade I, then there's another reference that states it's grade II. I hope you understand that those refs contradict each other. Nowhere it states that those buildings were upgraded, so you are making an assumption that it actually was upgraded based on those contradictory reports. By saying that "one site was not updated since 2001; thus,the information stated there is not true anymore" is an assumption.--Crzycheetah 05:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise. I don't agree with your reasoning, but I ought not to have made the personal remark that I did. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the note, please see if it meets your requirements. Nev1 (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nev1. It wasn't difficult, was it? As soon as you provide references along with the other 4 notes I previously mentioned, I'll remove my objection. I also just re-read that you said it wouldn't be hard to do, so, good luck!--Crzycheetah 21:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about that, done. Nev1 (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Thanks for your "good-faith effort".--Crzycheetah 22:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted 04:31, 30 January 2008.

I believe this list meets featured list criteria because it is well-referenced, accurate, and has a strong lead before the list. I have worked on this list extensively, and it is among the first of its kind in the college ranks. It has absolutely no red links, and the prose reads well in my opinion. I hope you all agree with me. Thanks for any and all comments in advance. CrdHwk (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – So no one wants to review this list? I've already made a request for participation at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football (no, I did not ask for support votes, I asked for general participation) and I think I might have to do that again. I know this is still technically day one (or almost day two) but I would really like some feedback on this. I'm not going to let this sit here and die without getting any votes (support or oppose). I'm trying to exercise extreme patience here but this is my first shot at featured for anything so I'm a little anxious to see how it fairs. CrdHwk (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — I've got a few recommendations, but they're nothing that would keep me from supporting this.

• More citations in the lede prose might be a good idea.
• Rather than blank spaces, how about putting "Independent" or "No Conference" for the years that it wasn't in a conference?
• What does WIUFA stand for? It's mentioned in the footnote, but it'd be a good idea to put that information in the lede so a reader doesn't have to scroll all the way down.
• Excellent, excellent use of color. It really helps with the readability.

Overall, this is a fantastic list, and definitely worthy of featured list status. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. --Golbez (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - nice comprehensive list. AUTiger » talk 06:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted 18:52, 29 January 2008.

I ran across this article while working on another project, and I was very favorably impressed. I believe it meets all FLC criteria. It is inherently a list, but the content is presented in an article-like format. It includes abundant related detail and good illustrations. Most impressively, I think that a reader of this article would come away impressed with the encyclopedic value of a list of city nicknames (notably, not all readers of List of city nicknames in the United States have had that kind of positive impression). --Orlady (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's kind of small, and it's not really a list is it? Plus the lead is way too short. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it doesn't look like a typical list. However, its subject is a collection of discrete items (isn't that what a list is?). Also, if you start at List of city nicknames in the United States (clearly a list) and drill down through List of city nicknames in Texas (another obvious list) to Nicknames of Houston, you will recognize that this article is fundamentally a list, but one that has been so effectively embellished with annotations that it does not look like a typical list.
I also agree that the article is short, but I was not aware that featured lists need to be long. Rather, they need to be comprehensive. This article is longer than several featured lists, including List of Canadian provinces and territories by population, List of counties in Connecticut, List of counties in Hawaii, List of counties in Nevada, List of counties in Rhode Island, List of counties in Wyoming, List of colleges and universities in Vermont, and List of Encyclicals of Pope John Paul II.
--Orlady (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The lead is much to short. Also, an external links section of some type would be helpful. Drewcifer (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response The lead has been expanded.--Orlady (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good. I'd still recommend an external links section, though. Drewcifer (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of links did you have in mind? Geraldk (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, maybe an official city website, or an official tourism site or something? Drewcifer (talk) 05:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evb-wiki added them in. Geraldk (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good! Drewcifer (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Whilst I agree that comprehensiveness and not length is the aim, we do need a big enough WP:LEAD that provides an adequate summary of the contents. I would say that two paragraphs should be enough. So oppose for now. Woody (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response The lead has been expanded.--Orlady (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It now consists of three sentences. Read WP:LEAD and then look at some good examples, such as List of counties in Vermont. It needs a substantial couple of paragraphs. Woody (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the lead somewhat, and dropped the last sentence of the lead (...nicknames include...) because I didn't think it was necessary. Hope you don't mind, Orlady. Geraldk (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Far be it from me to object! This list is mainly the work of Evb-wiki. --Orlady (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. The article arose out of a debate about the inclusion of nicknames in the main Houston article and was proposed and engineered by User:Postoak. I merely helped. I did hold the line on the necessity of encyclopedic context, so as not to create a bare list, but I am certainly not the primary editor. Postoak put in a lot of effort finding both sources and context. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ps - It has been much improved, since this proposal, and mainly by the work of others. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good, though perhaps have an image in the lead; Image:Houston Skyline.jpg looks good. Either way, has been improved enough for me to support. Woody (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image added. Geraldk (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Serious citation issues - I've added fact tags where I think they're appropriate. In some cases, I think the tagged statements might be able to be covered by existing references, even references earlier in the paragraph, but a reference covering multiple consecutive sentences in a paragraph should come at the end of the last sentence it covers. Geraldk (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Citations have been added. All statements in article now appear to be sourced. --Orlady (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of current status: 3 support (Orlady as nominator, Drewcifer and Woody). No opposition. --Orlady (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks quite impressive. I'd suggest formatting the sources into two columns, though. In fact, I'll be WP:BOLD and do it myself. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted 00:39, 29 January 2008.

In the grand tradition of (most recently) List of Governors of Wisconsin, another governor list. Exhaustively cited, I think, and while it doesn't have all the new features of the Wisconsin list, I'll begrudgingly add them if so asked! --Golbez (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment White space alert! The Edward M. McCook's image creates huge white space in the Governors of the State of Colorado section. If you could find pictures of all Governors of the Territory of Colorado and added them in the table, that would be great. Otherwise, I'd suggest you to remove the aforementioned image.--Crzycheetah 06:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • IE fails yet again, I hadn't noticed this problem because I only use Firefox. I've moved all the images to the top heading, that solved the problem, what do you think? --Golbez (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's fine now. More comments:
      1. See also section contains redundant links, must go.
         • Normally I would agree, but since Governor of Colorado is kind of a hidden link in the header, I saw no harm in relinking it below. I did remove the Lt Gov link.--Golbez (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
           • The other 2 links (law & history) are in the {{colorado}} template, as well. Is it really necessary to have them in the see also section? Just asking.--Crzycheetah 20:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
             • In that case, no, I'd mostly ignored the existence of that template. Removing them. --Golbez (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      2. Living former governors section needs to be updated to January 2008.
         • Done. --Golbez (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      3. General references should be formatted properly (publisher, access-date).
         • Done. --Golbez (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      4. I'd like to see the terms instead of the notes.
         • Damn you, Wisconsin! *shakes fist* That will take some time. --Golbez (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
           • Done; and in the process, found a major error in the intro that took over an hour of Googling to fix. :( oh well. WISCONSIIIIN~! --Golbez (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
             • Gotta love Wisconsin! If Wisconsin weren't created, then that major error would still be here! I don't even want to imagine the consequences.--Crzycheetah 20:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
               • Hmph. And yes, I found another obscure error on the Alabama list just now while switching it to Terms format. --Golbez (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      --Crzycheetah 21:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well done! --Crzycheetah 21:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support After looking through it, I found only two very minor things: is the word "only" necessary in note #8? It makes more sense to me either without it, or changed to "not appointed until". Also, in note #10, is the comma after "office" necessary? In earlier times, I might have made a comment about the stand-alone years in the Territorial Governors table, but, after what I went through trying to find dates like that for the Wisconsin Governors list, I'm quite willing to believe that they can't be found. And speaking of the Wisconsin Governors list .... glad it helped you find an error ;P —Salmar ^(talk) 02:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both fixed. And yeah, for some reason it is completely impossible, at least with the sources available to me and my google fu, to find some territorial dates. --Golbez (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems normal now that featured tables with 2 or more entries are made sortable by column. So the tables here should be made sortable. Hmains (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impossible to do because of the Lt. Governor column having half-row entries. The sorting would break. --Golbez (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Well done. Geraldk (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted 00:39, 29 January 2008.

This page was originally split from the Bibliography section of the featured article candidate William Gibson, and has undergone a lot of work in the past few days to become, in my humble opinion, the most comprehensive, best-illustrated and well-referenced resource on the topic online. Any and all opinions and recommendations are welcome, but bear in mind this is my first aspirational featured list and it might take a little time to familiarise myself with the process. Skomorokh ^incite 04:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objections then? Skomorokh ^incite 23:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The Victor Tsoi reference link is broken. --Orlady (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for catching that. Skomorokh ^incite 16:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Seems wonderfully complete, plus the prose is well-written and gives a good introduction/summary. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - though the sections for uncollected short fiction, articles, forewards, introductions, and afterwords, and miscellaneous are visually choppy and difficult to differentiate at first glance. Perhaps using dashes like in List of works by William Monahan would help fix that. Geraldk (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I think this makes it easier to read, but I was not sure where to use the dashes exactly - I put them in the sections you mentioned, but do they belong elsewhere as well , for consistency's sake? Skomorokh ^confer 13:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with having it only in those sections, but other editors may have an opinion... Geraldk (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great images, great lead, well-written, good references, overall good job, only thing that could be fixed is what Geraldk said, but I still support.
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted 00:39, 29 January 2008.

I'm nominating this because I think it is of a sufficient quality to be a featured list, and I think it is of a better quality than the list of serials that passed FLC last month. While the list does not use cite.php, it still uses an acceptable method of citing. Will ^(talk) 00:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The lead is kind of short, and some of the statements need sources, ie. "A third submission was similarly rejected as Ian and Barbara were due to leave, and the script was dropped.". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing.... I've rewrote the {{cn}} statement, and tried to extend the lede into another paragraph explaining the various reasons. Pointers on what needs to be sourced would be nice. Will ^(talk) 00:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shada wasn't really unmade, it was unfinshed. Buc (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Shada does fall under the list's scope, though - "never fully produced". Will ^(talk) 05:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Overall looks pretty good. A few suggestions:
  • The lead is too short, given the amount of content the rest of the list has. One thing the article is missing is a bit of contextualization, ie and explanation of the show itself. For instance, many of the sections are named "1st Doctor" "2nd Doctor" etc. What does that mean? As someone ignorant to the show in general, I'm not sure what that means. Explaining stuff like that in the lead would help expand the lead a bit, as well as contextualize the list the follows.
    • I'll work on contextualising the Doctors soon (as in tonight, or tommorow morning). I've had a go at the lede. Will ^(talk) 19:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few external links would be nice.
    • Added one. Will ^(talk) 19:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you (or more importantly the sources provided) define "which were seriously considered for production"? Please explain/expand upon in the lead.
• And that's pretty much it. Everything else looks good. Drewcifer (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Shannon Sullivan, the main source, highlights them as green and defines them as "those which the production office had every intention of making, but which ultimately -- for a variety of reasons -- they never did." Will ^(talk) 03:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good, and my concerns have been addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could you have a paragraph in the lead to expand a little bit on the regenerations bit. I understand it, I watch the programme, but I don't think a noobie would. Only a sentence or two to explain the section headings. Also, could we not have the projected season dates included as well? Or is that only speculation? Woody (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This has been up for 25 days now, is there active editing or conversation here? If not, then I am going to close this nom as failed. Its been up for long enough.
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  List noms do not get failed due to lack of interest in the candidacy. Will ^(talk) 00:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes they do. If they've been around more than a month, then they get closed as a fail and relisted. A fresh nom usually gets more attention than a month old one. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  What I was asking was whether or not comments are still being addresses, not if there is a lack of interest in the nom. Inactivity by the nominator is basis for failing. That was my question, and by responding you have basically answered it, cheers!
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - great list, but there are some sourcing issues. I went through and placed fact tags in places where I noticed them, though I may have missed some and some of them may be covered by sources used earlier in their paragraphs. Geraldk (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, they almost all were; so I've removed the tags for now. I'll work through them tomorrow if I get time to add duplicate references as required; if I find any that aren't duplicates I'll add the tag back in. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I think that's done. There were two or three new refs needed, but I've been able to find sources for them. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Geraldk (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support (belatedly) - an interesting, informative and well-researched piece. Bencherlite^Talk 23:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted 22:06, 25 January 2008.

previous FLC (11:12, 14 December 2007)

Hello all, relaunching the bid to push this list to featured status. We've just had a very successful and thorough peer review which I hope has covered most bases and alleviated most of the concerns from the previous somewhat acrimonious (and failed) FLC. Don't hold back, don't hesitate to comment, I believe we're as close as possible (with some minor tweaks perhaps) to getting this (at last) to FL. Thanks in advance for your time and energy. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As a reviewer of the article in both the previous FLC and the PR, I can say that this list has improved dramatically. It has gone through a thorough fact-check and copyedit. I believe it now meets all the featured list criteria and so, I support. Woody (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support having taken part in 2 or else 3 peer reviews, and commented on the previous FLC, I now think everything is finally in order and looking pretty stable. It abides by several other football seasons articles. It's fully referenced, has a fairly relevant image and everything has been checked. Peanut4 (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I'm not happy with the splitting of the "Europe/Other" column into two sub-columns, but that's by the by. The list seems to pass the FL criteria regardless of that, so you have my support. – PeeJay 23:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment, thanks Peejay. I think you're right, it was one of those subjective decisions and there are pro's and con's. The good news is that it's still the same info and presented, in my opinion, a little bit less garishly. However, to each their own. Thanks again for taking the time. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Don't mention it, TRM. Just glad to be a part of the process. – PeeJay 23:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all my concerns reasonably addressed in the Peer Review. --Dweller (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I commented at the previous FLC and was an active participant at the recent PR; I did some work on the article but was not a major editor. The list has improved significantly since its first FLC and in my view now satisfies the FL criteria. It follows the format of previously successful football seasons FLs, and is now stable and fully referenced. There are two points in the lead section which you might consider (and I might have thought of at the PR). Struway2 (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does The Football League need to capitalise "The"? I know that's their official title at the moment, but we're referring to 1920.
    • I'm not sure. Research I've done says The Football League was founded in 1888 and even the official site states "...and thus the seeds of The Football League were sown..." with regard to its conception... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the third para, the ICFC Trophy playoff game appears as once in the list of what Leeds have been runners-up in and how often. As this was a one-off game to decide who kept the trophy once the competition was superseded, it only happened once, so (to me at least) it reads a bit oddly. Maybe if it was turned round to read The club have also been runners-up five times in the League Championship, three times in the FA Cup, once each in the League Cup, the Charity Shield, the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, the Cup Winners' Cup and the European Cup, and lost the play-off for the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup Trophy. it'd look less uncomfortable.
    • Agreed. I've reworded per your suggestion. Thanks for all your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you don't mind, the wrong instance of the ICFC is now wikilinked in that sentence. Worse, it looks like tautology. Can I suggest replacing "the play-off" with "a special play-off". It would be even better if those words were linked to an appropriate bit of another article that explained what happened. --Dweller (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seems to link to the right article to me...? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The link is on the second instance of the name in the same sentence. --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I see it, the link is to article Inter-Cities Fairs Cup Trophy Play-Off, which does describe what the playoff was for. Is that not right? Struway2 (talk) 11:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The first instance isn't the play-off, it's the ICFC itself which is linked to a couple of sentences earlier... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • OK it was me (caffeine currently flowing). Duh. Could you apply that wikilink to the "special" wording I suggested to avoid giving the impression this idiot got? :-) --Dweller (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (←) Not overkeen on "special", a bit peacock for me. But "one-off play-off" sounds weird too... any other suggestions? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about the descriptive "the playoff to keep the Inter-City Fairs Cup Trophy"? --Dweller (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine, I've implemented as you suggested Dweller, cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sounds fine, but does the "to keep" bit need linking? Peanut4 (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair point, just "the playoff" wikilinked now. Hope that pleases all parties! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with the one microscopic quibble that I don't think "Trophy" should have a capital letter in the sentence discussed at such great length just above this comment, as it's not a proper noun. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. I'm not sure play off should be capped in the table for this entry either. Peanut4 (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're both probably right. It followed the capitalisation of the Wiki article, which is also probably wrong. Struway2 (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guessed so which is wasn't WP:BOLD enough to change it! Peanut4 (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted 22:06, 25 January 2008.

Support, I created this list with List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks as a guide to "excellence". It has everything needed to make it a great list and I feel it meets the criteria. Although I used a controversial website for the transactions it was only source I could find to use. At any rate I feel this list meets all criteria and deserves FL status. Thanks for any support given! HoosierState^Talk 23:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support looks good and well done with the footnotes. I like the Manning/Freeney pictures too. Great work. IndyColtsfan2008 (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: This user registered the day he commented.
• Support I was all prepared to come in here and bash the list for having Bob Sanders listed as a 1st round draft pick, but even that's been fixed already. Love it! -- JT^Holla! 04:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Position and college should also be green when it a number one pick. Buc (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, I didn't do that because none of the other FL like this had that but if you think I should then okay. HoosierState^Talk 20:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All of my suggestions (on the talk page) were fixed. The list looks great, good work!
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose n-c-systems is not a reliable source. This website is run by an enthusiast, who may be making everything up. There is no reason to believe that the information available at that website is correct.--Crzycheetah 22:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, Okay I made a sacrifice for the sake of the nomination. I used Pro Football Draft History so that the trades would be better referenced however the notes aren't as detailed as I would have liked. I feel I have fixed the issue of the oppose. HoosierState^Talk 23:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already talked about this with Gonzofan and I told him that it is near impossible to find anything else to use. Most other FL of this type use N-C systems as their references so either those need to be de-FL or the FLC need to be promoted. I looked everywhere possible to find a better source but it just doesn't exist. Point me to something better and I'm more than willing to make the changes. By the way isn't This website is run by an enthusiast, who may be making everything up. just speculation? HoosierState^Talk 22:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I am striking out my oppose. It's better to have less details with reliable source, than more details with unreliable source. I am actually very surprised to see that there are very few sources for the NFL transactions. I thought NFL being the #1 league in the U.S. would have more active reporters than NBA, for instance.--Crzycheetah 00:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted 22:06, 25 January 2008.

This list and all its sub-lists contain all the known recipients of the Knight’s Cross. For the higher grades the list are sorted in chronological order and for its sub-lists they are sorted alphabetically. I am interested to know what might be missing to qualify them for a featured list rating. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The expansion of the leads and the expanding of the subsections look good. I would expand on what enactments are in the sub-section text. That word will not be common to most readers. Other than that, I think I can support. Woody (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments - a good list, clearly lots of work. A few suggestions / questions before I can support.
  • Can we have a few wikilinks for Luftwaffe, etc in the tables? Do any of the ranks have articles? Done
  • Any thoughts on making the tables sortable? (The date and notes sections can be left unsortable, since the tables are in chronological order and the notes don't need sorting) Done
  • What do the * before some names in the "Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords" section mean?
• Bencherlite^Talk 09:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments Posthumous receipt is denoted by an asterisk. This is stated at the top of the list. I will look into the other comments. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, missed that! Bencherlite^Talk 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for those improvements. One more thing (and sorry for not asking earlier) - what's the source for the "last living and still living" sections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bencherlite (talk • contribs) 21:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. This was added by other Wikipedian editors. I will remove this and leave a note on the talk page. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Fine. Support, can't see any other issues. Bencherlite^Talk 14:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The lead should explain that the listings for Knight's Cross and Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves are divided into separate pages. Right now, the lead claims that the nominated article is a 'complete list', which is inaccurate. Geraldk (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)  Done[reply]

Support Geraldk (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted 08:15, 25 January 2008.

I've been working on this list and believe that it now meets all of the Featured List Criteria. It is comprehensive, easy to understand, illustrated with revelent and diverse pictures, and based upon the other bird FLs, especially the recently passed list for Massachusetts, which I used as the base for this article when writing it. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: meets the criteria, has a good lead, and is well-illustrated. My only question is whether there is a way to keep the images from overlapping the bar at the end of each section. Other than that, it looks great! Cheers, heyjude. 00:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The overlap of the images bothers me too; however, they are all thumb size per MOS and the only way to eliminate the gap is either to cut the pictures (no) or to expand the intro on each family. I may fiddle a bit with some expansion of the family descriptions to eliminate the overflow. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Well done. Don't worry about the overlap - the only way I've ever dealt with that is by writing more, which isn't always productive. Geraldk (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great list! Drewcifer (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support (although IMO the image of the cardinal in the lead section is unnecessarily large). --Orlady (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I made the cardinal pic smaller- is it better now? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks! --Orlady (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted 08:15, 25 January 2008.

Ok, this is quite experimental as I have never nominated anything for FLC before and no orders of battle appear to have passed FLC (or even been nominated for all I know). This article is a companion to Glorious First of June and contains the names of ships and captains engaged during the actions preceeding the battle and the battle itself. Casualty figures are also included where possible. As discussed in the introduction, patchy record keeping at the time has resulted in holes in our present day knowledge which are represented as clearly as possible in the table. One thing I was not able to clearly determine from the criteria was whether it is an essential requirement for all red links to be blue for FLC. I am steadily and slowly turning as many as possible blue in a process which will continue for the next couple of months (and some articles may not be created, I am still collating information on these people to see if they pass notability. If they do not, then the red link will become black text). If the listed names must be blue or black for the list to pass then I will take on board any other comments made and withdraw the nomination until such time as I can resubmit it. Either way, thanks for reading.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks interesting for a start, and by joves, we need new types of lists (episodes, discogs and certain sport lists have quickly dominated FLC because they get standardized easily)! My major concern is not with commanders, as I consider the ships are the ones who needs to be blue-linked, and at first glance I'm finding a definite imbalance and lack on the French half of the list. Otherwise, it looks fairly good (but I'm not engaging myself more than that: my current lack of a computer makes these hard to give suit).Circeus (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I presume that someone has been on a french ship creation drive because it seems balanced to me. I think the list lloks good, is informative and tells readers all you need to know. I can't see any problems with this. (And I agree with Circeus that we need some new lists around here). Woody (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very interesting and well-presented. Good work (and also agree it makes a change!). Bencherlite^Talk 09:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks great, I liked the idea of this list, it wasnt just the regulars we get here. GOod work!
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and well done on such a massive list. It would be great in future to get some articles going on some fo the red-linked captains, but that seems like a long-term task. Geraldk (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the British, its a task well underway, I have created about 15 in the last three months and will get around to most of the rest in the next two. The French captains are much harder since many of their first names are not recorded, but maybe at some point some may be created. Thanks for your comments.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, unusual list, well-referenced, well-formatted, well-contextualized, good job. --Golbez (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted 08:15, 25 January 2008.

After a fair amount of work on the list, I believe it to be ready for scrutiny! The article is stylistically similar to Dischord Records discography, a similar list recently granted FLC status. As always, any comments and suggestions are welcome. Drewcifer (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Although, I would like to know why you put the colon before the table. It intends te table a bit, is there a particular reason?--Crzycheetah 06:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just like the way it looks is all. Pretty stupid/minor stuff, I just think it looks better. Thanks for the support! Drewcifer (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just checked the new tool at the top(dead links checker) and it shows that links to 02909.com aren't working.--Crzycheetah 08:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine now. I think it was just down for a little bit or something. Drewcifer (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - well done. Geraldk (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks great although I would love to see some kind of a photo, but it is by no means a deal-breaker. Good work on the discography!
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted 00:26, 24 January 2008.

This list is in the style of FLs List of islands of Scotland and List of Orkney islands and I believe meets the relevant criteria. Unlike the Orkney archipelago there are a very large number of small skerries and offshore islands, which resulted in a rather complex listing process. As noted on the Talk page, "if anyone should imagine that this large collection of islands is over-doing things and that many of them are surely mere rocks a passer-by might hardly notice, they could visit some of the photograph collections available e.g. Dore Holm or Moo Stack. If some of these spectacular but unheralded islets were in the southern half of the UK, or even anywhere near the more populous regions of Scotland, they might well be national landmarks". Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 11:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "There are three islands joined to the Shetland Mainland by bridges, East Burra, West Burra, Trondra, and Muckle Roe." There are four islands named. --Golbez (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you spotted the deliberate mistake. There was some discussion a while back about whether 'Burra' was one or two islands. I will of course amend. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 20:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Done.[reply]

• Support; I'd love for there to be a map of all the named islands and islets, but that would be a rather large undertaking that isn't needed for a featured list. :) --Golbez (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. The map image only shows the larger islands (except Fair Isle to the south). I have a 1:100,000 map (roughly 1 x 0.5 metres in size) but it only registers up to about 50% of the smaller ones. They are all visible via the online Ordnance Survey system at 1:25,000 and I've added that as a general reference. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 09:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support; as nominator. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 20:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- seems to meet the criteria --Orlady (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support subject to clarification as to whether the text in the lead given footnote no.1 is a quotation or not – the use of 'these inverted commas' around the definition makes it look as though it is, but the footnote text makes me think that it isn't. Bencherlite^Talk 09:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your support, and you ask an intriguing question. You are quite correct that it is not a quote - in the sense of being something said off-wiki. I have had a look at WP:MOS and I am not sure of the correct procedure. I removed the single quote marks and inserted a colon but that didn't look right so I removed the latter as well. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 21:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the point. (When is an island not an island? People in Wales have been asking that recently!) Bencherlite^Talk 21:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wales may gain one, but meanwhile, on the other side of the world... [1]. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Spectacular article. It might (and I say might intentionally) make sense to mention St. Ninian's Isle in the discussion of the definition of an island, since it is the only exception to the rule included in the list. Geraldk (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, I will look at this. At least it is an easy-to-explain oddity, unlike say Eileanan Iasgaich - is this one island or several? Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Another well-written Scottish islands article. Lurker (said · done) 15:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted 00:26, 24 January 2008.

• previous FAC

This article was recommended to FLC after a discussion at WT:FAC here. Anyhow, I feel I have addressed the concerns of the previous nomination, and that the article satisfies the featured list criteria. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a question, how can this be a GA-Class article and then go to WP:FLC? The criteria for GA-Class says that lists cannot be GA's. So this article was reviewed as an article and now is a list? It doesnt change my Support for this list but I was a bit curious because I think we really need to keep a tight definition of what is a list and what isn't a list. Good work though!
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, per this discussion at WT:FAC, pseudo-lists like this should be considered lists, not articles. Beforehand, they were considered articles, so acquiring GA status was appropriate. As far as I can tell from this point, any character list trying to acquire GA status should be denied and the nominator asked to try for featured list status here. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Gotcha, thanks for explaining. Good luck!
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Looks good, but a few things I noticed:
  • The lead doesn't summarize the whole article (WP:Lead), in fact, it's almost completely in-universe.
  • The External links should be bulleted not numbered.
  • Doesn't the Japanese text thingie usually come in the beggining, not the end?
  • The first setnence should have some sort of bolded title thingie. Not sure what to link to, but something like "The Following is a list of characters ....."
  • Only wikilink a publisher value in an in-line citation the first time it's used. IGN, Gamespy, and Gamespot, and RPGGamer are linked multiple times.
  • The second two "See alsos" are pretty redundant.Drewcifer (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - fixes made. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good! Although the multiple wikilinks in the citations still needs to be addressed. That's fairly minor though. Great work! Drewcifer (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There are some unreferenced statements, specifically under the listings for Mina Hakuba, Julius Belmont, Hammer, Celia Fortner, and Dmitrii Blinov. I don't feel like every sentence needs to be referenced, but there should at least be a citation at the end of the paragraphs that's inclusive of the information covered in the paragraph. Geraldk (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • References added. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Question - why is it some of the character have Japanese names in parentheses and some don't? Geraldk (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Added. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted 00:28, 23 January 2008.

After a fair amount of work, I believe this list to be up to FL quality. Any comments and suggestions are welcome. Drewcifer (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good to me and seems to be up to par with other discographies. Good work!
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I made a minor edit removing bolded lines from the table. By the way, you have a knack finding "unpopular" artists.--Crzycheetah 02:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think? =) Drewcifer (talk) 05:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Geraldk (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and close. Woody (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted 23:37, 21 January 2008.

Self Nomination. I believe this list meets all criteria for a Featured list and is up-to-par with other Featured lists (see Green Bay Packers seasons and Chicago Bears seasons). It is also well referenced and detailed. Although I believe this list meets all the criteria, any comments or suggestions are very welcome. Thanks. Jwalte04 (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I have a couple of small suggestions though:

• Could you add (1) at the end of the Skins Championships, so it would look like Won NFL Championship (1), Won NFL Championship (2) and so on?

• •  Done

• Footnotes #11, #13, #15, #17 and #19 all use "end" twice really close to each other and it sounds weird. I think if you changed the second "end" to "finished" it would sound better.

• •  Done

• Can you italicize all the 2008 row?

• •  Done

• Can you add -- to the blank cells in the 2008 season?

• •  Done

All of these are minor issues, but good work! The list looks great!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the suggestions! Jwalte04 (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, though in the last two paragraphs of the lead you don't need to repeat the same footnote in consecutive sentences - you can just have it at the end of the paragraph. Geraldk (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks great. Drewcifer (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted 23:37, 21 January 2008.

I published this list a week ago, and I believe it is FL material; I based it off of List of Florida hurricanes (pre-1900) and List of North Carolina hurricanes (1980-present). Regarding a potential objection of the lack of a top-right aligned image, I'm working on getting an image there, which should be there well before this nomination is complete. I'll be happy to address any comments. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I see nothing wrong. Juliancolton (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm very close to supporting this. Looking over it, though, almost all of the statements are in the present tense, but I noticed a few that were written in past tense. It just doesn't look right to have 3-4 in past tense. For example, September 5, 1797 (which is also written in a confusing manner...the ships were lost by the storm? Perhaps during a storm?).I'll check back in a day or so to see if this has been resolved.GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I got them. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This article is useful, easy to understand, and well formatted. I can't find any MOS problems. Good job. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks solid, excellent work! A few suggestions though: any word on a possible top image? Not the end of the world, but it would be nice. Also, an external links section would be helpful as well. Drewcifer (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user I contacted is having problems with his computer. Once that is fine, he'll use his tropical cyclone map-making program to create a map for the page. Also, I did not put in an external links section, as any relevant links to this article are already used as sources (and I was told that external links aren't really needed if they're already used as a source). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted 23:37, 21 January 2008.

I am nominating this discography because I feel it meets the correct criteria. The list may look small, but there are no demos, b-sides, or anything else worth mentioning in the list.

Thank you,

Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 01:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not a fan of this format of discography. Every FL discog uses a table format, and in my own opinion for good reason. I'd recommend taking a cue from any of those lists, and converting the info into tables. Some other less pressing issues I see:
Support, all of my concerns have been addressed. Great job! Drewcifer (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure about stating the producers of each album: I'm just not sure how relevant it is to a discography. I'm not sure if any other FL discogs supply that information though, so I could be wrong.
• With only 7 in-line citations, I'm not sure if the 2-column {{reflist}} template is neccessary.
• Surely Godsmack releases have charted in more charts/countries? Citing only the Billboard 200 seems somewhat incomplete.
• The release dates should be spelled out rather than numerical.
• I'd like to see a little bit of historical info about the band in the lead. Nothing major, but some very basic facts (who what where when, etc) would help contextualize the discography below.
• The Miscellany section seems odd. Although there's only one demo, ep, and compilation respectively, I'd recommend giving each there own section. "Miscellany" is just too vague.
• The notes at the end of the singles section shouldn't be bullet-pointed.
• I don't think music videos and DVD releases should be lumped together in the same section.
• Billboard should be linked in citation #4. And don't 4 and 6 come from the same source? But the publisher value is different.

Hopefully the above seems doable. If so, I'd be happy to support. Drewcifer (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking a million times better! There's just a few more, fairly minor things I notice:

• Each major release (except singles of course) should give information such as the label, as well as any note-worthy facts like debut album, greatest hits compilation, etc.
• The certification stats should use "×" not an x.
• The video section should also be in a table. And is "Video albums" really the correct term?
• For consistency sake, the abbreviations of countries should follow the ones already used in other discographies. ie U.S. rather than USA, SWI rather than Swi, etc. Not only does that make things more consistent, but it also means you don't need the explanation of the abbreviations, as you do in the beggining of the studio albums section.
• For tables where certifications and/or charts don't apply, a column isn't neccessary. ie. the certifications column of compilations and demos and the charts column for demos.
• You should take out citations #8. Not only is MVDbase not a WP:reliable source, but you don't really need to reference music videos.
• Also, for the compliations table, since there's only one chart, you don't really need the Chart Peak Positions/U.S. double row thingie. Just have one that says "Billboard 200 peak" or something like that.Drewcifer (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better. A few more very minor things:

• The certifications columns are all very inconsistent. Under studio albums it says "Certifications" then "US", both linked. Then in Extended plays it says "Certifications" then "USA", neither linked. Then in DVD releases it just says RIAA Certification. What I would recommend is this: since albums and eps only have RIAA certifications, the dual row thing isn't necessary. Then I would have them all say RIAA cert., with only the first (Studio albums) wiki-linked.
• Only the first instance of publisher values need to be wikilinked. So, #7, #8, #9, and #10 shouldn't have Billboard.com linked, only #4.
• For smack this, the em-dash in the cert column isn't necessary. Just leave it blank.
• I still don't think the explanation of the abbreviations of countries in studio albums is neccessary, since all the abbreviations are wikilinked.
• The country abbreviations in the Extended plays are inconsistent with the others.
• Lastly, all the dashes in the titles of the sources should be changed to em-dashes.Drewcifer (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you for the review, this is my first FL. I have FAs but no FLs. Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 23:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. There's just one last thing, which I really should have noticed earlier. All the dashes you use in the chart columns, reference titles, etc, are —, when they should be –. At the bottom of the edit page, in the big box with all the symbols, right after "Insert:" there are two dashes. Both are different than the standard "-" you get from your keyboard, however, – looks exactly like - in the editing window. So everything should be the middle dash, –, not the long dash — or the short dash -. I know this sounds minor, but every other discog uses the middle dash. If you can take care of that, then I'll be happy to (finally) give my support. Drewcifer (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 21:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment About the infobox, "Extended plays" directs to "singles" and "singles" directs to "music video's". It looks nice but it doesn't work properly. Baldrick90 (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 02:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: hard link to the previous format, at the time of nomination. --kingboyk (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: "To date Godsmack has sold over 12 million albums in the United States, and an additional 1 million worldwide, bringing their total sales to 13 million copies sold worldwide." Where the hell is this stated in this interview you added as reference? Gocsa (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue, but it was removed. Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 21:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Tending toward a support, but:

• I see what Drewcifer said about the dashes, but Nine Inch Nails discography, Nirvana discography, Powderfinger discography etc have longer dashes (em-dashes) so I think you should go with those.
• I think the history section can be increased in line with the examples i gave you.
• Include a tab of the no of different releases like those discogs. (The template thingy under the main picture)
• I really don't like "RIAA cert." ... U.S. certifications or Certifications with U.S. under it should be better. (Again I see Drew's comment but I'm not a fan of abbreviations)
• "US" should really be "U.S." everywhere.
• Delink RIAA and billboard in the DVD section.
• As opposed to the current format, could you make it like Nirvana where for every album, the label info, catalogue no and formats are given?
• How come no b-sides? All singles have b-sides that need to be listed in a table.
• How are "sold over 12 millions albums" backed by the cites?

indopug (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I am going to reply to evert one of those in order:

• Now I don't know what to do with the dashes, because I have two different ways to do them. Please make up my mind, I don't know which dash to use.
• I'll work on that for you.
• Dido ↑
• I have two different users commenting on that one too, I don't know what to do with the certifiactions
• I'll take care of that.
• Dido ↑
• How do I know the catalouge number? Once I know wht to do with the dashes and certifications I will do this one.
• They have no b-sides, I checked a million times. If they did, I would buy the singles.
• I have no clue what is up with the sales thing, but I'll fix it.

As soon as you reply you can consider it done. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 07:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Frustrating getting a million different opinions, huh? =) Indopug is right, I was mistaken about the dashes thing. They should be the long ones after all: my mistake. The other suggestions he made also seem fine, even the one's that partly contradict my previous suggestions. They're fairly minor things anyways, so I'm willing to chalk that up to a difference in opinion. Anyways, good luck with getting it featured. Sorry if I've made it more difficult then it should be. Drewcifer (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll get to work on all of it in just a little bit. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 19:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is  Done, but I don't know how to get the cataloage number. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 21:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Performed at copy-edit [2] and removed the unreliable Sing365 ref. "Godsmack is the only band ever to have 14 singles debuting in the top ten on the Billboard charts." - where did you get that from? They have only 4 #1 singles in all! How was stewart replaced twice (once by d'arco and once by larkin)? Are you sure they didn't chart in the UK? So their singles contained just one song (no b-sides)? just check on AMG to confirm. Great job, by the way, these minor glitches (which I know you'll fix) won't be enough to stop me from giving my full support :) indopug (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just check AMG or your CDs if the catalogue no is on them, else, forget about it. indopug (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ce, I suck at those, lol. I just removed the 14 singles sentance, I cant' find a reliable source for it. I got rid of the D'Arco mention, because he is not notable for the discography, he played live with the a couple of times. Sorry, no B-sides, just album cuts. :P I got cat numbers though. All done. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 01:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good. --Crzycheetah 21:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are four supports, and zero objections after over ten days. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 22:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted 08:28, 21 January 2008.

This is a list of episodes of the FLCL original video animation series. I believe it qualifies under the featured list criteria, as well as satisfying project-specific criteria such as WP:FICT. It is of similar or better status than similar anime episode lists such as List of Myself ; Yourself episodes, List of Fate/stay night episodes, and List of Devil May Cry episodes. The episode summaries are not excessive in length, and other relevant information is covered. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, good summaries, good introduction, and well sourced. Only minor note is I don't see a general source for the English titles? Amazing job getting that pulled together in such awesome shape so fast! Collectonian (talk) 08:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Added a source. It's a flash tab on the page, so there's no link to copy from, but it's there. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahh...I hate it when they do sites like that. *doh* Collectonian (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nice summaries. Episodes are very confusing, but the summaries are easy to understand Rezumop (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks great. And I agree with Rezumop above, the summaries actually make sense! Drewcifer (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 06:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted 15:46, 20 January 2008.

Self-nom. This list is of similar format to previously featured lists of football club players. It has had a peer review which unfortunately didn't attract a great deal of comment. I believe it satisfies the featured list criteria and would appreciate your views. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry for missing the PR. It looks pretty good and I'll give a full review later but one thing that does spring out, is that I'd like to see a note on why those with less than 100 appearances are included, e.g. Eddy Stanley the first on the list. Peanut4 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the first few players in the list come under the category "Some players who have played fewer matches are also listed; this category comprises players from the club's early days, when they played fewer matches in a season ..." as mentioned in the opening paragraph. Those early players listed each played many more than 100 first-team games for the club, but before 1889, there was no league football and the only national competition was the FA Cup, so it wasn't possible for players to fulfil the basic criterion of 100 or more first-team matches in national and international competition. For instance, Stanley was in the club's first team for ten years, but they didn't play league football until his last season before retirement.

Would you advise adding a note along the lines of the italicised sentence above? Struway2 (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think each player with less than 100 games would benefit from a note. It isn't currently clear which are on for breaking records or other reasons cited. I like the notes for Morris, Charsley and Abbott and they help to annotate the list. I just feel they should also be included for the rest with less than 100 games - only another three that I can count. Peanut4 (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes added – what d'you reckon? Struway2 (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I'll take a look at the rest later but that was probably the most necessary addition I'd spotted. Peanut4 (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cracking list with plenty of good references and notes.

My only final comment would be whether it is necessary to bold nationalities to show players capped while at the club. Any player who was capped while at Birmingham has a figure in the caps column anyway so I don't think the bolding is necessary. Peanut4 (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't necessary but I think it is helpful. The reasoning being, if the reader wants to know who was capped while at the club, the bolding lets them do so by looking down only the one column rather than two at once. Or if they're looking to see if a specific player was capped, he's easier to pick out if his name is bolded. Thanks for your suggestions and support. Struway2 (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I'll try that again, with brain connected this time. No idea why I was thinking of name rather than nationality.

An early version didn't have number of caps at all, and the nationality was bolded as the only indication of a capped player. When I added number of caps in a separate column, the bolding remained. I'd agree it isn't now necessary, but still think it's better with than without, though would remove if there was a general view against it. As I said before, thanks for your suggestions and support. Struway2 (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - my comments at the PR were mainly dealt with and now all <100 appearance players have good explanatory footnotes justifying their inclusion I'm more than happy to offer my support. Great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your comments at PR and for your support. Struway2 (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Begrudgingly, this Villa fan will support this. Couldn't see any problems, though I amended the image per WP:MOS#IMAGES. (Had to do something ;)!! Great work, well done. Woody (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for fixing the image and for your support Struway2 (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dweller

Sorry I missed the PR. Been neglecting football recently, in favour of cricket. I'm doing a mild copy-edit; feel free to disagree with any of my changes. I'll list anything I think may be contentious or more major here:

• "less closely followed" I know what you mean, but it's ugly English. Can it just be disposed of? The reader can do the maths for himself.

I'll post here when I'm done. It will probably be after the weekend - hope that's OK. --Dweller (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I'm done surprisingly quickly. As I'll be off-wiki pretty soon, I'm happy to support on the assumption that the above will be dealt with. --Dweller (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for copyedit, couldn't disagree with any of your changes and have removed "less closely", and thanks for support. Struway2 (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted 02:23, 19 January 2008.

I am nominating this list as I believe it meets all of the featured list requirements. The information is well sourced, it covers the episodes of the series in a usable format with succinct, but thorough episode summaries and related information on episode production and availability. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with reservations Everyting looks very good, but the episode summaries for the first two seasons are all very short. I'd like them a little longer. Also be sure that evrything is original and not taken form one of the many other online summaries. Great overall. Reywas92^Talk 02:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've redone the first series episode summaries. Can you take a look and let me know if those are better? If so, I'll do series two and fix up series 3 the same way.AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good, though it is shorter than other summaries, but it's fine. Full support once series 2 is done. Reywas92^Talk 23:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Series 2 summaries done. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree with the reservation above, as that makes the article look imbalanced. Also, it would help to very shortly introduce each character when he is first mentioned in the list. There are a couple of <ref>s before punctuation, when per MOS they come after, and there are some oversight punctuation mistakes in the intro. "As the show is UK based, seasons here" sounds non-neutral. I haven't read through the episode summaries, as I hope for a little expansion. The DVD section is lacking references completely. Good job otherwise. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll work on those other eissues today. For the UK paragraph, any suggestions for working it? It was put in because of issues with US editors changing the various Meerkat Manor articles to use US terms instead of the appropriate UK ones, even though the MOS says that being a UK show, we should use UK. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How about, "As the show is UK-based, seasons in this article are referred to as series" or "As the show is UK-based, this article refers to seasons as series". – sgeureka ^t•c 18:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I think I've fixed all of the issues except the episode summaries (working on). I've removed the Region 4 information as I could not find any confirmation for the existence of Region 4 DVDs from any of Australia's largest DVD sites nor the Australian Meerkat Manor site. It looks like an anon user had added it over a year ago back when the article was a single article, but they left no edit summary about a source. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Reywas92 above. One or two sentences more for each summary in Season 2, and this list has my definative support. Good (and fast) job on the short introduction of each character. I'll probably copyedit the list later because I kind of have to admit to be interested in the "plot" now. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've finished up the series 2 summaries, and went in an wikified some of the meerkat names as well now that the character list has been reformatted to allow for it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Looks good, but I have one suggestion and one question. First, the DVD tables would look better if the discs columns were center aligned. Second, why do some of the sources specify that they're in English? I think that's generally assumed unless otherwise. Drewcifer (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed the disc columns. For the sources...good question. Left overs from when I was first getting the hang of the cite tags is all I can think. I've cleared them all out now. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks great. Drewcifer (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I have no further improvement suggestions, the samples I read sound good, the layout is good, and the sourcing is fine. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted 02:23, 19 January 2008.

This is a list of episodes of the Night Wizard: The Animation anime. I believe it qualifies under the featured list criteria, as well as satisfying project-specific criteria such as WP:FICT. It is of similar or better status than similar anime episode lists such as List of Gunslinger Girl episodes, List of Kaze no Stigma episodes, and List of Tsukihime, Lunar Legend episodes. The episode summaries are not excessive in length, and other relevant information is covered. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Support, is there a source for the series being based on the game? Is a DVD with only one episode really a compilation? While it might seem obvious, it would probably be good to first mention that Geneon holds the region 1 license before noting they are releasing it to DVD (and to specify those are Region 1 DVDs, since English language releases can also include Region 2 and Region 4). :) Collectonian (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The anime being based on the game is always inferred, and I don't believe it's been necessary to source the statement. I don't know whether a one-episode DVD is a compilation or not. I adjusted to a more neutral one though. And I've mentioned that the DVDs are released in Japan, which is sufficient for your last concern. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 20:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, good change, because I thought they were Region 1 DVDs. :) Collectonian (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (edit conflict). The OOU information seems complete, and while I haven't seen the show, the episode summaries also appear to be comprehensibly written. I notice that the series hasn't been licensed in the US, if/when it is some information about that should be added, but for now, I don't see any issues. Good work. --tjstrf talk 20:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks solid to me. Drewcifer (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted 22:34, 17 January 2008.

Instead of a sports or media related FLC, this time I've got a music related one. There are a few drawbacks to it though. There is a lot of ugly whitespace in the table in the performers section, but it can't be helped. There are over 80 bands in that section so listing the performers in the way I did in the "Early influences" section isn't an option. If anyone has any good suggestions for that, I would gladly try to incorporate it. I decided to mention that the Hall of Fame has received a lot of criticism becuase much of this criticism relates to the inductees and I felt it was worth mentioning here. The final drawback is a lack of images of the inductees, but I had some good reasons. Many of the images of artists performing are not very good, plus there was no room in the performers section, and I couldn't find any free ones for those in any of the other sections. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as I think it looks very good and seems very well sourced; I did find an obvious typo in the lead, so please give it a thorough copyedit. I don't think individually citing the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's website for each performer is really necessary. They could all link to the same footnote. Regarding the white space, I'd suggest using a conditional template parameter like I did at list of Caribbean drums for the empty columns for the "see other entry" rows, so that the empty row is a little off-color and has a dash in it or something like that. Tuf-Kat (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the citations, they are only used for bands because citations are needed for which members were inducted. As for the list of Caribbean drums, that looks really good, but I don't know if it would work here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In general, looks pretty good. I do have a few suggestions though.

• The year column is a little off-kilter: center aligning everything would make it look much better.
• Any direct quotations (mostly quotes describing what each type of induction is) should be cited.  Done
• Since there's 100 in-line citations, I'd recommend putting it all into two or maybe three columns.  Done
• There's alot of cases of more than one citation for the same source. i.e. multiple instances for The Doors, Lynard Skynard, etc.  Done
• "List" in the first sentence shouldn't be capitalized.  Done
• "Starting in 1986" is redundant since we already know the HOF was started in 1986.  Done
• "a lot of criticism" is POV. Who's to say it's alot? I'd say just take out the word.  Done
• The multiple inductees table might benefit from a "Number of inductions" column or something like that.Drewcifer (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not entirely sure about that, because only Eric Clapton has been inducted more than twice, and this is mentioned in the opening paragraph of that section. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 06:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, ignore that last bullet point. Drewcifer (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well organized, well cited, well done. I have only two questions: For the inductees not in the main list (i.e. non-performers), would it be possible to put those lists into multiple columns to eliminate white space? If this isn't possible for dynamic lists, then ignore this idea, but I'd like to see the article be a bit shorter top-to-bottom and not have so much blank space. Second, would it be possible to get a couple more free use images? As Clapton is the only three-time inductee (one of my favorite music trivia facts), how about a picture of him somewhere? Or do we have any images of the actual walls that list / have the signatures of the inductees? In any case, this is definitely of featured quality. -- Mike (Kicking222) 20:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try to add a few images, but like I said, there aren't many free images of the non-performers, and it doesn't make sense to include images of performers in other sections, but I'll add one of Clapton to the multiple inductee section. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Clapton one is not just appropriate, but definitely makes, at the very least, that section look a lot better. -- Mike (Kicking222) 05:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, but do you think I should add images of performer inductees into the non-performer sections? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT Can you link the text a little more.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any examples or suggestions? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems a phrase like this: "influential artists, producers, and others that have in some major way influenced the music industry" should have some links for example.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • CommentIs this being addressed?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• OBJECT Lack of responsiveness to issues raised.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see how well you checked to see if your concerns have been addressed. Several links were been added to the lead since you brought up your concern, with the most recent being five days ago. Pardon me if I didn't provide an up to the minute update on this page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you seriously objecting because this page has not been constantly updated? Oh, and capital letters denotes shouting Tony. Woody (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My objection remains for lack of linking of important terms. Words like "Music", "record" and "Genre" should be linked in an article like this. The word "museum" would be well placed in the first sentence and linked. Also, given the procedural controversies terms like "criteria", "committee", "candidate", "induction", "vote", etc. might be linked. I only object because this was not addressed in response to a mere comment. I fail to understand the need for Scorpions sarcasm to this request as if it is a request made out of some sort of idolatry of bluelinks. This article is not properly wikified to represent the best of WP and fails as a FL until these types of issues are addressed. I should not have to run through an article this short and name every word that should be linked. It should be obvious that for an article like this certain words must be linked.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is short Tony, then it should be no bother to see if your objections have been fixed. We are not wikitionary Tony, and wikilink vote would be as much worth as wikilinking "the". As wikipedia does not provide dictionary definitions, it would have to be interwiki bluelinks anyway. Woody (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have nothing against interwiki links in articles, but do not know the preferred policy. "Voting" clearly has an article. The second list above was for the editors discretion. The first list with "music" and such needed definite action.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just think it's a silly thing to oppose over, because I linked to everything you had previously suggested and figured your concern was addressed. If you had noticed any other words that need linking, you could have done it yourself. I've linked to some of the words, but I think adding links to "criteria" doesn't apply here because linking to that article would not provide any more information that would necessarily relate to this article. Same with committee, candidate, induction and vote. However, I have added links to music and record. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • At this point you have linked the important previously unlinked terms ("music", "record" and "genre") and given thought to others. This is what I had hoped for with my original comment. I have now withdrawn my objection.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• In the Year column could you mention each year only once and thicken the horizontal border between different years? I think it'll be better then because it'll compartmentalise the inductees of different years. indopug (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But then the table would be unsortable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm... But does it need to be sortable? I find the sorting of the inducted members column to completely pointless; it depends on which order those names are written for a particular entry and as such cannot be useful in any way. As for sorting of the bands, is that really necessary? What purpose could it achieve? If the reader is looking for an entry, he could use the search function in his browser. indopug (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not everyone knows how to search a page though, you have to remember that. Just becausse it seems pointless to you, it doesn't mean that others won't find it useful. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Whilst I would have liked more images, I understand and accept your reasoning. The images that are supplied do add to the list. Other than that, seems good. Woody (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said, I could add images of Performers to the other sections. Would you like me to try that? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say add one to each performer section, as long as they are of fairly good quality, like the Clapton one. As I said, it is not a disqualifier for me. I think excessive images can ruin the flow of the page, it is about balance. Woody (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I've added some images of various inductees to the appropriate sections. The Sidemen and lifetime achievement sections still have none. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No more needed, it is perfectly adequate. I wouldn't have expected any in the other sections. Looks good. Woody (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks great. Although, as I mentioned above, center aligning the Year column would make it look much better. Everything else looks good though. Drewcifer (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted 05:32, 13 January 2008.

Self-nom. Recently totally revamped the article to conform with the other ice hockey Featured Lists, Colorado Avalanche, Calgary Flames, and New Jersey Devils, as part of the goal of WP:HOCKEY to get all team player lists to FL status. List is stable, accurate, clear images, and the like. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support looks great, nice pictures too! CameronCrazie56 (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, though it would be nice to eliminate the red links for missing players. Resolute 22:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started to fix all that up, though it will take a bit of time to get pages created for all the players. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that is finished. All redlinks are now gone, replaced by crude stubs at its worst. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support - Looks good, but to get it more in line with Colorado and New Jersey's lists, the current players should be in bold, with the line "Debuted during the 2007-08 NHL season, currently in progress" used. Also, I'm noting several discrepancies between the FLs. I will bring this up with WP:ICEHOCKY to smooth out the minor differences. Other than that, it looks fantastic, kudos. Anthony Hit me up... 23:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]