Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2009

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [1].

I'm working on this list quite a time, and finally this discography is ready to receive your comments and suggestions. Thanks in advance! Cannibaloki 03:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Comment Cannibaloki, I have been impressed with your ability to bring discographies to quality standards. However, the fact that English is not your native language (please don't take offense) has a negative effect on the prose. I am not going to tell you to withdraw, but in the future, please consider getting a native speaker to copy-edit before FLC. A couple examples before I sign off:

• "Following the same blueprint, Come Clarity (2006), topped the Finnish and Swedish charts, and reached the number 2 on the Billboard Top Independent Album" The second comma is not necessary, and neither is the article "the" before "number 2".
  • Done.
• "The album was backed by the single "Come Clarity", that even released in a limited edition, reached the number 52 in their home country." Not a grammatical sentence.
  • Hmm...
• "Their newest full-length" "full-length" what? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their newest full-length album..."

I don't have time to do a full review, I have many other things to do. Ask User:Indopug to copy-edit the lead. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I copyedited the lead a little bit, so now I'm happy to support. Great work! Drewcifer (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [2].

I believe this list meets the Featured List criteria, consistent with List of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day starting pitchers, List of San Francisco Giants Opening Day starting pitchers and others. Rlendog (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KV5

*The dates that are linked at the end of the lead should be linked to the appropriate World Series since that is what is being discussed; no other dates in the lead are linked, and should stay that way at this time.

• I'm not on board with splitting this list into two lists, because it may fail Cr.3; however, the Giants' list is the same way, and the scope is defined, so I won't pitch a fit about it.

Hope this helps. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you for your comments. I fixed the World Series Links. Rlendog (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support from KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [3].

Another episode list. The last FL needed for my Seasons of Bleach FT. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - issues were fixed to meet the FL Criteria.--TRUCO 14:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good Dabomb87 (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think that's it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes http://cal.syoboi.jp/tid/491/subtitle a reliable source?
• The second general ref needs its page title to be converted to sentence case; per MOS, web page titles should not be in all caps. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Switched up the refs. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Though it's news to me that 1024x768 is a "pretty small" resolution. :) -- Goodraise (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [5].

I am nominating this article for FL status as I feel it meets all the criteria. Feel free to agree/disagree/send cakes :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - issues resolved to meet the Featured list criteria.--TRUCO 15:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ´Support all my points addressed, coolio. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JKbb02bg6zYC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=%22fa+amateur+cup%22&source=web&ots=pHEX_y3tcP&sig=MRflCJ0gM55jaW_nGD8kp1bMpN4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result does not show the results. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it need to? That source is only being used to reference two sentences within the "history" section, both of which it does show quite clearly...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me. The link did not work when I posted this comment; however, it seems to have fixed itself, so everything is fine :) Dabomb87 (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops - apologies for the confusion! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [6].

I think this discography about the Australian singer is comprehensive and well referenced. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - problems fixed to meet the Featured list criteria.--TRUCO 22:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "went platinum five times."-->certified platinum five times.
• The rest of the prose in the lead looks good, but can you summarize other aspects of the discography as well (singles, EPs, music videos)? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• Refs 26 and 27 need format=PDF added to their citation templates. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I fixed everything. I have added more info about her singles to the lead. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice work. I can happily support. My only comment (a very minor one), is that in the charts the United States is abbreviated as "US", but in the certifications column(s) it's abbreviated as "U.S.". Great job! Drewcifer (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. Thanks! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [7].

Modelled after the recently promoted List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing. All concerns will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent list! I'm very happy to see you continuing to work on Olympics articles. Just why do so many gray cells need to be in the Medals by year category; can't we just leave out the years it wasn't contested? Also, why is the Medals by nation table listed here but not List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing? Reywas92^Talk 19:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to the first comment, I will probably eventually reformat it eventually, in response to the second, I was going to move it but I forgot. Done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

• The first Winter Olympics, held in 1924, included nordic skiing and alpine skiing was added in 1936, but the first official freestyle skiing events were not held until the 1992 Winter Olympics in Albertville, France. - I would change the "was" to , which was (notice the addition of the comma). I would also split this sentence since it has a lot of punctuation.
  • Done, and the sentence was split too.
• Table check out fine, but I would add more to the prose, like a more thorough summary of the lists, like who was the first/last in each category, or more about the other medalists, not just the gold ones.--Truco 00:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll see what I can do. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • When this is done, I can support.--TRUCO 02:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 6, add format=PDF to the citation template.
  • Done.
• Ref 7 has a retrieval date but is not a web reference. Maybe you meant to put the publication date? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the publication date is in there, it just didn't have date=. Aren't all sources supposed to have a retrievel date? Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, only web citations need last access dates (for the purpose of fixing dead links). Dabomb87 (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • I´d like to see a caption for the lead image.
    • It wouldn't add anything, it would just be "a pictogram depicting Freestyle skiing"
  • "Freestyle skiing is an Olympic sport that is contested at the Winter Olympic Games." Now, Freestyle skiing is more than an Olympic sport, it isn´t necessarily competed for in the Olympics. Perhaps just drop the first "Olympic"?
    • Well, Olympic sports is an article, but Done.
  • "The first Winter Olympics, held in 1924, included nordic skiing, and alpine skiing was added in 1936, but the first official freestyle skiing events were not held until the 1992 Winter Olympics in Albertville, France" call me fussy but this sentence is a little clunky. It has, after all, five commas, so perhaps consider splitting it a bit so there aren´t so many clauses?
    • Done.
  • "...are not considered official..." is there a citation for this?
    • It's mentioned in the IOC ref provided.
  • " Yelizaveta Kozhevnikova, who won a medal when she was 18, is the youngest to have won a medal in ..." - "...won a medal..." x 2 in one sentence makes it dull prose here.
    • Fixed.
  • "44 medals (18 of each color) " perhaps my maths isn´t working at altitude but 18 of each color would make 54 wouldn´t it?
    • Yeah, you're correct.
  • "As of the 2006 Winter Olympics, 44 medals (18 of each color) have been awarded since 1992..." that´s two timeframes, are both necessary?
    • Done.
  • "...at every Olympics that freestyle skiing has been held at...." poor English, perhaps "..at every Olympics in which freestyle skiing has been held."?
    • Done.
  • I think it´s worth a footnote explaining Yelizaveta Kozhevnikova´s dual nationality.
    • I don't know about that one.
  • "bolded numbers " I´d prefer "Numbers in bold..."
  • In Specific references, you link BBC Sports and CBC Sports but not International Olympic Committee. Any reason why?
    • Because the IOC is already linked in the article.
• Hope those comments are of use. Take it easy. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing: merge the columns for 24-88 in the medals per year table like you did in List of Olympic medalists in short track speed skating. Reywas92^Talk 16:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [8].

Previous FLC (16:02, 24 August 2008)

This is one I did not do the majority of the work on, it was mostly done by Le comte de monte christo. However, he disappeared during the nomination and has not been seen since. I actually thought that this one had passed, but it was failed due to some minor issues that were not addressed due to his disappearance. So, I have fixed those concerns (and some other things) and am willing to address all conerns (just in case somebody thinks I am only doing this for the WikiCup, I will not include this list in my submissions). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It's a little boring but I see nothing that should be improved. Reywas92^Talk 19:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is "The 2008 Summer Olympics were held" grammatically correct? I am not saying it is wrong, but for some reason, it doesn't sound right to me.—Chris! _ct 19:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "The 2008 Summer Olympic Games were held" to circumvent that problem. —kurykh 05:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--Truco 03:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [9].

Just written, theme is pretty rare, but hey, I like it. It should meet all-criteria and is probably exempt from the 10-item rule, as shown in previous FLCs of this kind. Again, open to all comments.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 03:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just of note, I did some copyediting. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Unlink the accessdates in {{cite map}}.
• The citation date format for ref 9 is different from the others; add format=PDF to the cite template. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done except for the unlinking. That happens to be a problem in Template:Cite map, I can't figure its code out to fix it.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 11:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would fix this myself, except I am not an admin. Go to the edit screen of the template. You will see code like the below. Remove the brackets in red.

{{ #if: {{{accessdate|}}} | Retrieved on <font color=red>[[</font>{{{accessdate}}}<font color=red>]]</font>. | {{ #if: {{{accessyear|}}} | Retrieved {{ #if: {{{accessmonth|}}} | on <font color=red>[[</font>{{{accessmonth}}} {{{accessyear}}}<font color=red>]]</font>. | during <font color=red>[[</font>{{{accessyear}}}<font color=red>]]</font>.

Dabomb87 (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 23:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - issues resolved to meet the Featured list criteria.--TRUCO 15:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [10].

This list has been comprehensively referenced and I believe is now ready for promotion. As per the vexed issue of sortability, that has been debated and the final conclusion appears to be that there is little practicality in creating a list 25 fields wide and 5 fields long. Please see Ling.Nut's prototype and Nergaal's test for an idea of what a sortable list would look like, and keep in mind that any future list would likely be wider than either of them. Serendi^podous 18:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I forgot; User:Ruslik0, User:Nergaal and User:Dojarca all made indispensable contributions to this list, so I would like them listed as conominators. Thanks. Serendi^podous 02:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent list! I like sortability, but this is still great and less cluttered without. My only concerns are:
  • A thorough but short meaning of hydrostatic equilibrium should be given in the lead rather than just a link, especially if it's in the title.
  • The See also section belongs before the references, though I would delete the whole thing; the links are already in the article.
  • I'm not sure what you mean by (unless otherwise cited) in the refs; I don't see anything cited otherwise elsewhere. Reywas92^Talk 02:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The citation for this list is very complicated, and actually operates in two dimensions. :-) For instance, the main citation above the name for each planet gives the planet's axial tilt, but the main citation above the name for each satellite (except the Moon) does not. However, the citation for the axial tilts of all the moons is given in the Moon-Axial tilt reference along the side. Also, sometimes an accurate value for a moon's axial tilt is known (see Ganymede) and in that case the citation overrides the "blanket citation". I hope that made sense. Serendi^podous 02:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Can't see any problem. Though I fix some links in the lead for you.—Chris! _ct 06:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The citation dates are inconsistent, some use ISO format and others use day-month year format.
• Ref 29 needs format=PDF added to it.
• Web titles in all caps should be converted to sentence case (ref 63).
• Many refs are missing publisher info: Refs 53–61 and 6–15 as examples.
• Authors need to be listed consistently; some are listed "first name last name" and others are listed "last, first". Dabomb87 (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've sorted most of your issues, but for some reason a number of citations, though their dates are written in IPO, appear as day/month on the screen. Serendi^podous 18:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I will sort those out manually. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is general problem of all Cite XXX templates. They do not use consistent format of dates. Ruslik (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The list is well written and is scientifically sound. All information is supported by reliable sources. This list is the key list for the Solar System Project and its promotion to FL status is long overdue. (Disclosure: I participated in writing this list, but my involvement was only minor). Ruslik (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sweet support nicely put together, comprehensive and pretty! (Disclaimer: I also contributed to the list although I would say in a relatively minor amount.) Nergaal (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all: a new large KBO has just been announced, and it has had to be inserted into the lower table. It will be a short while before all the necessary calculations are completed. Serendi^podous 15:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issue resolved. Serendi^podous 18:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose - very nice indeed... but...
  • IAU should be placed in parentheses after the first use of the expanded version to avoid ambiguity.
  • Call me picky but I think "However, many other objects in the Solar System, including the Sun itself, 19 known natural satellites, and potentially scores of minor planets, are also massive enough to have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium." needs citation, in particular a quote like "potentially scores of...."
  • Why abbreviate temperature to temp. where nothing else is abbreviated?
  • Surface area for the Sun says [[km2]]:E[f] - I assume that should be a proper wikilink?
  • Photospheric composition is a list of element abbreviations which is not obvious to a non expert. Consider linking, e.g. Fe to Iron, etc...
  • Galactic Center or Galactic center? Be consistent.
  • Remove the space after the asterisk in the second table, to be consistent with the use of the dagger in the same table.
  • Maybe worth clarifying that most of the round satellites don´t have astronomical symbols.

Issues resolved. Serendi^podous 00:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • All rotation periods appear to be (sync) - what does this mean and if they are all that way, is it worth just making a general note to that effect (and explaining what it means for a non-expert)?

Only the moons are sync, and it is explained; the first "(sync)" has a footnote after it.Serendi^podous 00:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Wrong note. Subbed. Serendi^podous 13:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Perhaps it´s just IE7 but the notes don´t seem to work for me. I can´t find a [n] or a [bb] for example. The links (I think) work but it´s odd that I can´t see those footnotes in the list at the bottom.

They work for me. Serendi^podous 00:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • What does " (unless otherwise cited) " mean in your references? Is it a get-out clause in case the reference retrieval dates change? And any reason why some references have this caveat and others don´t, even when they´re from the same source?

Basically, "unless otherwise cited" means that the note holds for the entire line or column unless another citation says otherwise. It saves me having to cite every single field individually. Serendi^podous 00:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added a note explaining what it means. Serendi^podous 13:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

issue solved 100%. Nergaal (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• These are minor points but there are quite a few of them. Should these be addressed and I don´t get a chance to get back online, I´m happy for the FL directors to overlook my minor oppose. Good work. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [11].

I am nominating this article for Featured List status as I feel it meets all the criteria, I hope you feel the same way :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - issues resolved to meet the Featured list criteria.--TRUCO 15:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The UK Singles Chart is a record chart compiled by The Official UK Charts Company (OCC) on behalf of the British record industry. The chart week runs from Sunday to Saturday, and the new chart is first revealed each Sunday on BBC Radio 1." In the 1990s, it was compiled by CIN, and I think for a couple of years, the chart was revealed on Radio 1 on Wednesday lunchtimes. Also, only the Top 40 is revealed first on Radio 1, not the entire top 200
  • Changed
    • Also, for info, page 8 of the 2005 edition of British Hit Singles states that the change from the chart being revealed on a Tuesday to it being revealed at Sunday teatime occurred in October 1987, so it doesn't affect this list...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Before the advent of music downloads, the chart was based entirely on sales of physical singles from retail outlets." -- does this even apply to 1990s singles?
  • Changed
• "Unlike in the United States, airplay statistics are not used in compiling the official UK Singles Chart." -- Remove the ref to US; it distracts from the UK-ness of the subject, and why pick only the US as an example?
  • Changed
• There are 69 Redirects in this article; fix those that can be.. For those that can't/shouldn't (such as S Club 7/S Club), don't bother
  • All replaced
• Why is the appearance on "Perfect Day" not counted in the By Artist section?
  • My thinking was because none of the artists received label credit on the single, which was billed only as by "various artists". I've now added them in, which takes Bono into the table separate from the rest of U2 - does this look odd at all.....?
• Question to source reviewers: the Sunday Mirror is a tabloid - is this a Reliable source?
  • Replaced

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheers for your comments -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• One nagging problem - can you create the redlinks? I mean, if they've had number-one hits they must be notable... Garden :  Chat  23:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although it's not a requirement that a FL have no redlinsk whatsoever, I've created articles on the four redlinked songs. The one redlinked artist was due to a typo..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, good enough for me now. I fixed the list so that there isn't as much wrapping, and it's a support from me now. Good job! Garden :  Chat  21:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [12].

I am listing this for FLC because I feel it meets the criteria. Peer reviewed. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--Truco 15:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the support. --Efe (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{review me}
  • To be consistent with other FLs, can you changed the article name to List of Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States). Please and thank you! -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{review me} 06:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, thank you for the comment. This had to be a massive change. Lists included in List of number-one hits (United States) do not start with "list". Better consult with Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Charts. --Efe (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Eee...ahh...I'll contact them ASAP. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{review me} 06:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the support. --Efe (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs 4 and 65 have different retrieval date formats from the rest; make them all consistent.

• Ref 65 have been fixed. For ref 4, I am using {{cite web}}, the rest {{cite news}}. I believe that's the reason why its inconsistent. --Efe (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I will fix that one manually. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It can't be fixed unless we change {{cite web}}. --Efe (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I fixed it. Ever since they unlinked the dates (thank goodness!), you can use whatever format you want. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I didn't know how to fix it myself. --Efe (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 22, add format=PDF. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Added. --Efe (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The name of this article seems odd to me. Why not just "Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008" (are there other Hot 100s?). Also, shouldn't Billboard be at the start of the title? indopug (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this is a general comment. I suggest you post a comment here Indopug. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The lead isn't written brilliantly, some of it is a real mouth full, so to speak.

• There are inconsistencies with the usage of United States/US.

• I am using United States as a noun and US as an adjective. --Efe (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is UK chart info relevant to this article?

• Which line? --Efe (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You got it :D — R² 05:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is Grammy info relevant? They have nothing to do with sales (or so we are lead to believe), and they are technically an international award (or so we are lead to believe).

• Removed Grammy. I was carried out. Some FLs do include it. But as you have said, it has nothing to do with the chart performance. --Efe (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Will add more if I see it. — R² 03:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comments Realist. --Efe (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Did a bit of work on the lead. Very good. — R² 05:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the support. --Efe (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [13].

previous FLC (10:21, 31 July 2008)

Meh, thought about this after the last FLC and realized that it's not really trivial if the Academy is going out of their way to record an official list of occurrences of this stuff. If someone disagrees, that's for AfD and not for FLC. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concern

• Whilst I believe the list meets criteria 1–7, that last FLC was withdrawn due to a concern about the lists notability. You state that establishing notability is something for AfD, however as nothing has changed since the last FLC to establish the notability of the list. It needs to be determined if the list is indeed notable because that is part of WP:WIAFL – "meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content". This includes WP:N, and if this needs an AfD that should be done before an FLC. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's been specifically (and emphatically) declared in the past that featured review processes are not AfD. Take the article to AfD if there is a notability concern (and FYI, the application of NOTE to lists is up in the air. 99% of lists on real world content are kept unless they fail some other policy in any case). — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 11:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I never said that featured review processes were AfD. I said that if notablilty was questionable that an AfD should take place before an FLC. For now I'll wait to see what other reviewers think about this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call me lax, but I consider an article notable when its topic is covered by multiple third-party reliable sources, as our policies say. This article meets that criteria; therefore, it can and should exist and this FLC should go on. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree anything "covered by multiple third-party reliable sources" is notable. However the only sources that cover the topic—"nominated for two Academy Awards in the same year"—are effectively self-published by Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. WP:RS notes that "if the information is worth reporting, an independent source is likely to have done so". I am of no doubt that actors nominated for Academy Awards is a notable subject, however I question if the notablility of being "nominated for two Academy Awards in the same year" has been established in any independent reliable sources. I only brought this up as Crzycheetah brought it up at the previous FLC, and he/she not is currently active. If no-one else has a problem with this, I will not oppose on it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For all practical purposes, 99% of lists that cover real-world content are kept in practically all circumstances at AfD unless they fail say WP:NOT#INFO (hopelessly artificial grouping, too broad of a grouping, excessive data, etc.), WP:NOT#DIRECTORY (phone numbers, streets, etc.), or similar. NOTE is rarely applied in practice to lists in this case. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the actual list, it is very good. The only comment there I have is should "none have two Academy" -> none have won? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think that's it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Content looks good and I can't fault it on any of the criteria. Seems fairly solid. PC78 (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 22:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Per criterion 3 the list needs to either be defined in name and scope to limit it just to actors nominated for more than one acting award or it needs to be expanded to include actors who have been nominated in non-acting categories, such as Warren Beatty (nominated for Best Actor and Best Director for Reds and technically also for Best Picture as the producer) and Kevin Costner (nominated in all the same categories for Dances with Wolves, winner for Director and Picture). Otto4711 (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Added a note to the lead. The official Academy list is just for Academy Awards in acting categories. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [14].

Another episode list. Co-nom with Collectonian. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think that's it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.TRUCO 22:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [15].

I have added a lead, section leads, links, and references to this list, and I hope that it can become featured. All 50 states have tables like this but this is the first to be expanded. I would like to note that, after receiving comments on the Peer Review, this list does not go in-depth enough to include information such as partial terms and reasons; this list is too long and that info goes on the subarticle List of United States Senators from Indiana. I will address all concerns. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 22:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I never thought of these ever getting to featured quality (I made most of them, then regrettably abandoned them some years ago), but you've done a great job with this. A few comments:
  1. Some of these lists have gone to having a separate table for each apportionment; i.e. "19xx-19xx: 4 seats" "19xx-19xx: 5 seats", etc, which eliminates the huge table and gives a little more context; it also has the benefit of not having congressmen constantly shifting seats in a growing or shrinking state. Has that been considered for this one? I'm not sure if I'm wanting it, per se, but I'd like to mention it. It does have its merits, but having the huge table has its merits as well.
  2. The governor lists have gone from having the whole cell colored to just a tiny cell; however, for a large list like these, I can definitely see why it's better to have the whole cell. Cuts down on clutter, and allows for a very quick visual aid of which party was in control at which time.
  3. The delegate table sticks out. These are still members of the House of Representatives, and served for specific congresses; it should use the same format as the congressman table.
  4. I almost want to say "There's room here for a notes, i.e. people who died in office, resignations, etc.", but the article is not about the people, it's about the delegations. (Which does bring me back to point 1, which could make it easier to figure out who is in what delegation) A properly done list of representatives could fill that hole.
• So in the end I guess I have no real complaints, just a few process questions. Except for the delegate table. That needs fixing. --Golbez (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Golbez! For 1, I have seen that type as on other lists as well, and I agree with what you said, though I didn't consider it because it's a lot more work, and I think that with an intro to reapportionment one table with blank columns is enough. I will work on a delegate table, though that creates more vertical length. I would like to create a list of representatives at some point, but with 313 of them I'm a bit apprehensive. Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 01:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A list would best be done by district, I think; that way it becomes very easy to indicate which ones were moved during reapportionment. --Golbez (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean, but that's a later story. I converted the territorial delegate list into a table like the others, though I can't get the table syntax to work right. Can you get it to show that Parke and Thomas each served for half of the 10th Congress? Reywas92^Talk 01:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, tables don't want to display complex rowspans like this. I don't know of any way to really get past it. :( --Golbez (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I mean by that, in the list of reps, do it by district; i.e. "here is a chart of people who served in district 1", etc. It's better than an alphabetical list, IMO. --Golbez (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the charts and the pictures are way too big especially the map of the Indiana districts next to the lead. It would look nicer if the pictures and even the charts were smaller. It is too big.    World   ^tcs 22:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a second look, the charts are fine, but I still think the pictures are way too big. Also, is the key supposed to have its own section and be located at the bottom of the page?    World   ^tcs 22:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard not to force a certain size of images. They should be the default size of 250px (I think) or whatever is set in your preferences. The tables list all members from Indiana; they should not be too big. Yes, I believe the key normally has its own section at the bottom, where it is not distracting. To Golbez, now I see what you mean, though there's always sortable lists that can combine everyone! Reywas92^Talk 23:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sortable lists would make it difficult to show who was shifted between congresses; and if people want a purely alphabetical list, that's what categories are for. But this is an entirely other topic. :) --Golbez (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Done, though I think the key is a little distracting at the top. Thanks for your comments! Reywas92^Talk 01:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that John H. Baker links to a disambiguation page. There does not seem to be an article, so you may need to unlink, redlink or write a stub article for him. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. It was John Harris Baker, which is hidden in the dab. Reywas92^Talk 02:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, I support for featured status. I see nothing else in need of improvemnet. Great Work!    World   ^tcs 18:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yah, 1 thing I forgot to mention. Most articles (I think 99%) of articles have a bolded word or phrase showing the articles main idea within the intro. Is this required for lists?    World   ^tcs 18:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. It would be akin to starting an article on Mexico with "This is an article about Mexico." --Golbez (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have moved away from that boring verbatim repetition of the title. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about just bolding the title, lists have different guidelines from articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [16].

I am nominating this List because I think this List satisfies FL criteria. Thanks, Kensplanet^T_C 09:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent list. Most of my concerns have been addressed in the PR. "India consisted of regions referred to as British India that were directly administered by the British, and other regions, the Princely States, that were ruled by Indian rulers" should be rephrased/clarified. Reywas92^Talk 03:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure, it's confusing. I think it's very clear. Can you suggest anything.