Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2011

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 Dabomb87 23:51, 27 January 2011 [1].

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 18:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all FL criteria and closely resembles the other Grammy-related lists that I have promoted to FL status. Thanks, reviewers! Another Believer _(Talk) 18:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Dab/EL check - There is a dab link and two dead links in the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No disambig links. Working on replacing dead links... Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced dead links. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All my queries have been addressed. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per normal, a great list, a really enthusiastic nominator prepared to listen to advice and act on criticism. Exactly the stuff we want at FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your kind words. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since it is a sortable table, "Mind Control – Acoustic" ought to be linked somewhere, even if that's a redlink at the moment. Courcelles 21:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that details about the album could/would be merged with the existing Mind Control article. Any opposition to linking to the existing article? Should someone choose to create a separate article for the acoustic album in the future, they could certainly update the list. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to that, though my curiosity would like to know how an acoustic version of a prior winning album was able to be 51% new and win the award again... but I might be going into stuff that sources just didn't care about there. Courcelles 21:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in the sense that the tracks are new recordings, not necessarily of original material. I imagine there are other award-winning albums out there consisting of cover songs that have been newly-recorded. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:54, 27 January 2011 (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 Dabomb87 23:51, 27 January 2011 [2].

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it's a complete list which I believe meets the requirements. Miyagawa (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can't you just list states that have state dog? I don't think it is visually appealing to have a large number of "none" on the list.—Chris!_c/t 21:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, happy to - I'll make the edit now. Miyagawa (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I am comfortable to support. I read the list several times and can't found any issues.—Chris!_c/t 03:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion and comments the table is a little bit odd. My suggestion, moving the columns in that order:Dog breed, image, state, since, refs. I wonder why there are no names for the dogs. Why is "beagle" not capitalized?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right about Beagle - I've fixed it. Miyagawa (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• "Eleven states of the United States have designation an as an official state dog breed." The struck words need to be removed for the sentence to work grammatically.
• Remove first word from "and with it becoming law in 2010."? That reads awkwardly when combined with the rest of the sentence.
• The comma after Georgia State Senate should probably be a semi-colon. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed those points as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment - I think the map in the lead image needs a tweak: Wisconsin (which has a state dog) is not highlighted while Minnesota (which doesn't) is. They're right next to each other, so I'm sure this was just an accident... Dana boomer (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's what I get for being a Brit and not being 100% on my state geography. Although my wife is from Wisconsin and she'd batter me if she thought I'd mixed her state up with Minnesota... fixed now anyway. :S Managed to make the border lines between states stronger in this version as well, so it's a general improvement. Miyagawa (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Having another section/table with proposed/suggested/related breed for other states would probably improve the list. Nergaal (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Just thinking, but if the list of proposed breeds are restricted to only those which have been defeated in the various state senates/houses (rather than those which may be suggested by newspaper columnists) it'll prevent it from becoming a random list with additional entries being added on a miscellaneous basis. I'll put a table up under that criteria in the next 24hrs.   Miyagawa    talk   12:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Just realised I hadn't left a note to say that'd been done.   Miyagawa    talk   12:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support always nice to see these kinds of lists here, and this is no exception. Good job, well done (apart from the new signature...!) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Switched the sig back to the old one - the review page for Cocker Spaniel at FA Nom looks like a complete mess because of all the black boxes! Miyagawa (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2011 (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 Dabomb87 23:51, 27 January 2011 [3].

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this is the next in a series of lists of redundant churches under the care of the Churches Conservation Trust, following the recently promoted List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the English Midlands and List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England. The first two paragraphs in the lead are identical to those in the other lists. The third paragraph and the rest of the text has been copyedited. The format is the same as that used in the English Midlands list. All the churches in the list are linked to articles; all the photographs have alt text.Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the third paragraph you refer to Yorkshire as a county. Yorkshire is not a current county and it would be better to refer to the individual current counties of the East Riding of Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire. Keith D (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice point, thanks. Done (except for the East Riding, where there are no churches preserved by the CCT).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - Note A most notably needs a reference. Afro (Talk) 13:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hassocks5489 Support Another good-looking list in this series. Here are some initial comments; I will check ALT text etc. when I get home from work...

Lead

• Everything fine here.

Individual churches

• St Michael's Church, Cowthorpe: a link to Easter sepulchre would be good.

• Linked

• St Werburgh's Old Church, Warburton: doubled surviving.

• Corrected

• St Martin's Church, Allerton Mauleverer: two of which are of members of the Mauleverer family is a bit awkward, although grammatically correct. Perhaps two of which represent...?

• I agree. Done

• Becconsall Old Church: a new church was opened with the same dedication, but the blurb doesn't say what this dedication was.

• Dedication to All Saints added

References

• As you only have one Pevsner book dated 2002 in the bibliography, you can reformat the date from 2002b to 2002. This may also fix the problem with the Harvnb link on ref [101]; when I click on it, it doesn't take me to the Bibliography section. (All other Harvnb links work.)

• "b"s deleted. The Harvnb link failed to work because of a space after "Pevsner", which has also been deleted.

• Refs [1], [2] and [3]: for consistency, replace . Retrieved with , retrieved.

• This was a problem arising from the use of the "cite web" template. Sorted by changing to "citation" template, which has made it consistent.

External links and dablinks

• No problems here. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for spotting those wrinkles; all sorted now, I think.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a problem... sorry! I've just cross-checked against the CCT list [4], which like this list has 49; unfortunately it's a slightly different 49. For some unaccountable reason, they have forgotten to include St Andrew's Church, Shotley in the listing (although it does exist on the website); you have correctly picked it up, and that's fine. There is a 50th church, though: St James's, Toxteth (listed here). I see from the article that the church has recently come back into use with an Anglican congregation; nevertheless it does still seem to be in the CCT's care, assuming that webpage is correct. If this has changed, and the CCT no longer look after it, a note "C" in the Notes section explaining the situation would be needed.

All coordinates and sorting are fine, by the way, and I will correct one or two ALT text typos. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Although it re-opened for regular worship in May 2010, it is still vested in the CCT, according to their latest Annual Review (of which I have a copy). So I've added it, upped the total to 50, and, as it is rather unusual in this respect, I've added a sentence at the end of the lead. (As a matter of complete irrelevance, I happen to pass this church every time I go into Liverpool.) --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just one small inconsistency now; sources I've found (mainly through Googling the architect's name, and also this CCT document which appears to be hosted on somebody's self-published website) identify him as Cuthbert Bisbrowne. This name also appears in the article. I didn't just go in and change it in case Pollard & Pevsner name him as Charles. I've seen a few architect name inconsistencies in the Sussex volume! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's Cuthbert. I blame a minor virus infection for mis-typing it. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear—get better soon! Everything now looks in order, and I have marked as Support. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I've moved St Mary's Church, Lead, to St Mary's Chapel, Lead, reflecting the weight of opinion that this has always been a chapel rather than a church.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I tweaked one hyphen to an en-dash in a reference, but that was all I could find to do! Good work, once again. Bencherlite^Talk 12:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is an interesting, comprehensive and well-illustrated list with enough information on each church to whet the appetite to visit the article for each individual church. (It also contains one of my favourite churches:-))--J3Mrs (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2011 (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 Dabomb87 23:51, 27 January 2011 [5].

Nominator(s):Arctic Night and Courcelles 11:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't done one of these in a while, hope to get back into the swing of it with the new year. This is Arctic Night's first swing at FLC, after earning more DYK credits than I can count. This is 1948- the first Olympics of any kind since the 1936 Berlin Games, enjoy and comment. Courcelles 11:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick Comment Just found this one: Martin Lundström during the Men's 18km event. Lundström went on to win the gold medal in this event.]] two brackets too much.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness me, how'd that happen? That text is supposed to be the image caption. Fixed now, thanks. Courcelles 11:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• Remove "to" from "but would not to make another appearance until 2002 in Salt Lake City."
• Decapitalize first word in "Winter pentathlon".
• No need for two National Olympic Committee links in the lead. You also have two links to an article on figure skating at the Games that year, which is probably one too many.
• The second general reference could use a date of access. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All taken care of, thanks. Courcelles 23:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• After a quick look, Barbara-Ann Scott, Nils Karlsson, and Erika Mahringer could have their images added also. Nergaal (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, going through things, File:Barbara Ann Scott portrait 1946.jpg needs to be deleted Commonsside, as it is not PD in the USA, so can only really be used under a claim of fair-use, which can't be made here. File:Erika Mahringer Are1954.jpg is very questionable- the uploader took the picture 56 years ago, really? (NB:This uploader has uploaded quite a few questionable pictures) And Nils Karlsson is another cross-country skier, and there is no logical place to insert another picture of one of those, the cross-country section already has a picture. Courcelles 18:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Notable absences from the 1948 Winter Olympics were defeated Axis Powers members Germany and Japan, who were not even invited in light of the recently-concluded World War II. Why? They were not invited only because of WWII? Maybe you could include more information about this. And a source would be fine. All in all a great list.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can dig anything up, but what I've read in general terms, not in specifics about the Olympics, was that neither Germany or Occupied Japan were considered "nations" until 1949 (FRG) or 1951 (JPN), and therefore, weren't typically invited to anything that would be treating them as such. I've seen articles discussing the awarding of the 1948 Summer Games to London (in 1946) that simply said the IOC would have to decide to invite the defeated powers, and then in 1947, well, see for yourself at [6]. And even that is discussing London, with the Winter games not even meriting a mention. I'll rework this a bit, but from my reading, I don't think there's much more to say here than already is. Courcelles 11:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, not much wrong here. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 10:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great list on to aspire to. KnowIG (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2011 (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 Dabomb87 22:38, 19 January 2011 [7].

Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets the criteria and covers the subject of shooting thalers thoroughly. This article was previously nominated, but I asked that it be withdrawn temporarily so some changes could be made to the format. The changes are discussed in detail on the talk page, but to sum it up, the lists were made more accessible for non-sighted users who must use programs to read aloud what is written on the page.-RHM22 (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support like I did before. But now it's much better!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!-RHM22 (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support great. And double-great you took some good advice from JohnFromPinckney (along with a few assists!) and came back with an even better list than the one you first nominated. Excellent. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The assistance and suggestions receieved from JohnFromPinckney cannot be overstated. His excellent suggestions have signifigantly improved the article.-RHM22 (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support –

• In the history section, I see mentions of "legal fineness" and "legal finess". Are these correct, or is there a typo in one of them?
• The bibliography should be in alphabetical order, by author. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nice catches! It looks like I could use more "finesse" in my spelling! They should both be "fineness". I never knew that about the bibliography. Both have now been fixed.-RHM22 (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2011 (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 Dabomb87 22:38, 19 January 2011 [8].

Nominator(s): Xwomanizerx (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria and, although shorter and less elaborate, resembles List of unreleased Michael Jackson material. Thanks, Xwomanizerx (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good to me now. Jujutacular ^talk 21:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments - You define some items with multiple symbols this conflicts with whats presented in the key. Abroad, Downtown, Guilty, My Big Secret, Take the Bait, Welcome to Me and Wonderland have a symbol yet no colour, once again conflicts with the key. "Several Spears's songs have been leaked..." I'm sure it should be "Several of Spears' songs". Afro (Talk) 11:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In the Michael Jackson list the first category only has a key. Should I add a colour?

• You define it with a colour in the key it only makes sense to add the colour in the cell. Ref 28 has no publisher. Afro (Talk) 10:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Added a colour and the publisher.

• Support - I'll support I have no issues with the list at its current state. Afro (Talk) 14:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this list should have for each song a mention of when the song was originally composed, or at least some estimate. Nergaal (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• An estimate? Without sources?

• All the information provided should be sourced. Right now, some of those songs have nothing provided about them other than a name. I don't think a list of names without any context provided about the entries should be featured. Nergaal (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, some of the songs have little information, but this is clearly because they're unreleased and therefore are rarely discussed by Spears or the producers. I actually think the list looks good even with the writers only. And also, less than half of the songs don't have any information on the notes box. Xwomanizerx (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is 17 with notes, 17 without any. Nergaal (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• MJ's list also has many boxes empty, but of course he has more coverage because of his longetivity and recognition. Xwomanizerx (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great list! Future lists should use this as a guide. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

REplace the normal dasehs in the reference titles and the article, with en-dases, whereever applicable. Also, regarding the picture, since it is not an infobox image, you need to have a pic of Brit which looks towards the article, not away from it. And I do agree with Nergaal that some sort of info needs to be there for those songs with just a name. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• All done.

Support Great work, can surely be a template for any new "Unreleased song" lists. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support The list now looks good. Novice7 | Talk 16:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

• Missing "were" in "or confirmed by Spears herself."?

• Done.

• The references at the bottom should be in alphabetical order (by author).

• Done.

Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The list looks much better than the last time I took a look at it. A couple of issues though: I would prefer unknown to be in italics and/or small font; and Failed to make Britney[ sounds awkward. I would prefer to rephrase these to sould more natural, and to give (in paranthesis) the year such albums were released (this would give an idea when was the song composed). Nergaal (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. The unknown writers are done in italics, let me know if you want them to be in small font.

• Support all the major comments I had have been resolved. Nergaal (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support yes I see no issues.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:12, 11 January 2011 (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 Dabomb87 22:38, 19 January 2011 [9].

Nominator(s): PresN 23:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, back again, with the 10th of 14 lists. We're done with all the written works, the magazines, and editors, so now we jump over to Dramatic Presentation- comprising movies, tv shows/episodes, and on rare occasion plays, albums or audiobooks. This list follows the same format of my previous Hugo Award FLs- like editors, it was split into long and short form (in 2003) but I've chosen to keep them together in this article. It's a bit long, but that is primarily because the WSFF records the directors, screenplay writers, story writers, and original work writers as the people responsible for the work, so the rows get fat at times. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 23:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dab/EL check - There are no dead external links but there are three dab links on the page. GamerPro64 (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, could have sworn that I got them all. Fixed. --PresN 18:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Courcelles 19:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why do you write "(no award)" and then add a key, that says the same? Isn't that a little bit curious?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need to designate what was the winner for that year- for the normal years I do it with a star/blue background, but with the (no award) years it's a plus and a gray background. Without them, there's not obvious clue that (no award) was the winner- if you read the text you know it must be, but just looking at the table it's not so obvious without a marking. --PresN 22:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I would do that either italicize the "no award", so that everyone knows that it is not the winner, or just put this key. Anyway, I support this huge list, because I couldn't see any issius.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:33, 14 January 2011 (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 Dabomb87 22:38, 19 January 2011 [10].

Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 14:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that this is a second open nomination for me; however, my current nomination has four supports, one oppose which consensus has determined is invalid, and no unaddressed comments. Third list in a series of 21. Cheers to all reviewers. — KV5 • Talk • 14:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• Grammar glitch in "allowing no runs in in three innings pitched."
• The blue color needs an accompanying symbol, just like the pink one has. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the grammar glitch is. Can you explain? As for the ACCESS concern: the text is already italicized. — KV5 • Talk • 01:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"allowing no runs in in three innings pitched" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok, I'm not stupid then, just blind. Lol. Done. — KV5 • Talk • 11:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unfortunately, JAWS (one of the popular screen readers) doesn't read out the daggers by default. See Resolved comments from The Rambling Man in WP:Featured list candidates/List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: swords)/archive1 and this diff for a previous discussion on this problem when attempting to accommodate visually impaired viewers. Also, I'm by no means certain that all screen readers discriminate effectively between italic and normal text – WP:COLOR suggests italics, but that section is aimed at problems with colour-blindness. For what it's worth, the daggers don't render properly on Lynx, a text-only browser either. I don't think this is a problem sufficient to merit an oppose, but it is always best practice from an accessibility viewpoint to use standard ASCII characters wherever possible as keys for the extra information. --RexxS (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since nearly every baseball featured list contains the dagger as the method of denoting members of the Hall of Fame, I think it's a better option to find a way to make the daggers be read instead of changing all of those lists for an accessibility concern. Is there a way to put, for example, hidden alt text on the dagger that screen readers can read but which won't disrupt the rest of the list? — KV5 • Talk • 11:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your last question has been asked before and I'll try to find the discussion, but I'm fairly certain that the conclusion was that there is no way when using wiki-software to add hidden text for screen readers to anything other than images. I'm sorry to disagree, but if we're going to take accessibility seriously, then the better option is to avoid using non-ASCII text in any of the baseball articles. There's nothing about baseball that inherently requires such characters (compared with Japanese articles occasionally needing Japanese script, for example). --RexxS (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with taking accessibility seriously, but there is such a thing as overkill. There are so many changes that we're all being asked to make suddenly in the name of accessibility and frankly, I find it prohibitive to the general purpose here: building an encyclopedia. — KV5 • Talk • 17:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that meeting the challenges of making our content accessible to all will require significant changes to much of what we have taken for granted. That's the reason why I made a comment, rather than oppose: I don't want to see meeting WP:ACCESS as a hurdle to FLC. Improving the accessibility of Wikipedia won't be done overnight, but there are certain practices that we can adopt to advance that goal, and this issue is one of them. I only wish to see best practice encouraged, not mandated. I hope you would agree that it would be sad to put the effort into building a free encyclopedia, only to find we have inadvertently excluded a significant minority of viewers from benefiting from it. --RexxS (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I hope you would agree that it would be sad to put the effort into building a free encyclopedia, only to find we have inadvertently excluded a significant minority of viewers from benefiting from it." - and that being said, what, then, becomes of the free encyclopedia if its editors are driven away by increasing requirements, drowning under what feels like bureaucracy? — KV5 • Talk • 18:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't claim that improving accessibility is an easy task, because it's not intuitive for the majority that do not have disabilities. The trick is to encourage editors to become aware of how the choices they make affect accessibility, then it becomes less of a burden. The MOS is massive, and is still not comprehensive, yet WP:ACCESS is only a small part of the bureaucracy that some feel it imposes. Even so, this is a collaborative project and it's not necessary for every editor to take on board all the policies and guidelines that Wikipedia has. Eventually I expect that our best articles will improve incrementally to broaden their accessibility, and that will make it easier for other editors to emulate them in that respect. Since our conversation has moved somewhat off-topic from this specific review, would you agree that we should move it to its associated talk page, as I'm uncomfortable with potentially prejudicing this candidature by a more general discussion? --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the size and utility of Wikipedia vs the usage of JAWS (for instance), is there not an argument to ask JAWS to change rather than Wikipedia? It's becoming clear that it's not really a shortcoming of Wikipedia, but a shortcoming of some other software which sounds as if it hasn't been updated for some time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it's not just Wikipedia, but every website that uses non-ascii characters in this way, so you're quite right, the shortcoming is in the software. JAWS does get major new versions about every twelve months, but users may find the cost of regular upgrades rather expensive, and many different versions are likely to be still in current use – for example, Graham87 doesn't use the latest version (12), if I recall correctly. Eventually the problem will disappear as the software is updated, but in the meantime, I'd still ask if there's a good reason for using symbols such as '†', '‡', etc. in a key, rather than '+', '&', etc., when we know that the former will cause problems for some viewers? --RexxS (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps not for baseball lists, but for an absolute fact (and for the last 100 or so years) cricket has used the dagger to represent the wicketkeeper and the * to represent the captain. This predates screen-reading software and should never change for it. In fact Dagger (typography) makes for interesting reading, in that it is evident that screen-reading software really is at fault here, since this kind of icon has been used for several hundred years, in fields such as chess, biology, chemistry and military history. I would hate to think we'll re-write history for screen-reading software which is poorly written. It may not be that baseball has a history of using it, but since you've raised the point, I wonder what the best solution is for those kind of lists that have used the dagger for centuries? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem obviously arose when ascii text was invented, and standardised to a mere 95 characters, necessarily omitting numerous less common symbols. I'd recommend that we automatically accept the use of any given symbol where its usage is traditional or common in the sources. Anyone using a screen reader on any website related to cricket would be expecting a dagger and could switch to character-by-character readout to identify the wicket-keeper for example (JAWS works in this way, just not when reading continuous text). As I said above, we don't want to create hurdles in the FLC process, and I accept KV5's point that many baseball articles use the dagger consistently does have weight. For the moment, though, I still think it's valid to ask a nominator why a particular non-ascii character was preferred to a more accessible one. --RexxS (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so JAWS can do a character-by-character readout in any case? If so then why is it a problem to use daggers on baseball lists? I know you don't wish to create obstacles here at FLC, and most FLCers will happily accommodate ACCESS requirements but it seems that right now we're making a patchwork quilt of solutions which is a poor solution to any problem. It's 2011, screen readers should be able to cope with more than a 95-character set. Is there a list of "accessible characters" we can refer to (is it ISO/IEC 8859-1)? Are we working to meet the requirements of JAWS or is there a broader set of readers we need to satisfy to meet access requirements? Switching out daggers for something else on baseball lists shouldn't be a major issue but we need to make sure we're getting it right when we do change it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC) I've had a quick look at the MOS which states plainly:[reply]

Do not use Unicode characters as icons, use an icon with alt text instead. For example, a character like "→" can not be reproduced into useful text by a screen reader, and will usually be read as a question mark.

So I suppose we could use an "dagger icon" with alt text, to comply with the MOS? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I finally found the debate I was thinking about: It's at WT:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Archive 11#Non standard ASCII. It concerned the use of ♠♣♥♦ and all the same considerations apply. The conclusion was that an icon with alt text was the best solution. For ease of editing I'd suggest making a template such as {{dagger}} with default alt text and the ability to have customisable alt text as an optional parameter (e.g. "dagger" by default, but |alt=wicketkeeper would read "wicketkeeper"). Templates aren't my forte, but I could see if one of Jack Merridew's talk page watchers can knock one up. --RexxS (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea, at the very least for the dagger, since it's prolific use is above and beyond the simplistic approach of screen readers. We shouldn't prejudice against 99.95% of our readers because JAWS can't handle a dagger. I also think some additional info at WP:ACCESS that's clear and obvious wouldn't go amiss. We've gone to some lengths at FLC to ensure we never use just colour to represent a particular property of something, but now it seems we need to ensure we use a suitable "icon"/character too. It's not a huge deal, but if we can see clear guidance, then so much the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps the template may not be necessary after all, although a template would be more convenient. How does this look ? and this ? They both have alt text relevant to this article, which would be read out by a screen reader. I'll add this issue to my ever-growing list of clarifications needed at MOS. Thanks, TRM, --RexxS (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They look fine, but they need to be easy to use, and your suggestion of a template is the best way forward. If we could find even just half a dozen characters that would be acceptable to screen-readers, acceptable to FLC and usable to regular readers, even if we have to template the lot of them for consistency, so be it. Sounds like a plan? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, KV5, this template has been created for us (at {{dagger}}) – any chance you'd be prepared to give it a go? All you should have to do is search-and-replace the current dagger for the template. The default alt text (hopefully "dagger") should cover RexxS's concerns over naughty characters. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's any easier, there's a template {{†}} which does the same job as it's a redirect to {{dagger}}. There's now also a template {{‡}} which redirects to {{double-dagger}}, if you wanted to complete the job. (I still wouldn't insist on this as a necessity, just a small but helpful improvement). --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have been away and missed out on this whole discussion. I will implement the templates tomorrow evening in this list and, if they work, I will make the changes throughout the entire series. As a sidenote: any chance the dagger image could be an SVG instead of PNG? Seems kind of fuzzy to me even at a medium resolution. I have Inkscape but have failed every time I try to make a proper SVG, so this is just a suggestion. — KV5 • Talk • 03:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't note it. This has been done for some time. Still wondering about the SVG tho. — KV5 • Talk • 01:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The png's will always be fuzzy to some extent, purely because of the problem of small size and anti-aliasing against a transparent background. I made svg's originally, and following comments at Template talk:Dagger, I uploaded them to commons. Here's one of the svg's at the same size: – as you can see, the wiki-software doesn't render some svg's as they show up in Inkscape (cf. File:Dagger-200.png). The beauty of using the template in articles is that if someone creates a better image, then substituting it into the template will update it everywhere. Perhaps someone with better graphics skills than I can produce a more acceptable image? --RexxS (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The SVG looks loads better to me. I personally think that would be fine, and an improvement. — KV5 • Talk • 02:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can't actually see the SVG, because the wiki-software rescales it and delivers a non-optimised PNG to your browser. I've made and uploaded two more PNG versions that have no anti-aliasing, to remove the fuzziness. You may have to use ctrl-+ (zoom) to see the differences. They look like this: and – are these more like what you want? --RexxS (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are perfect. I would be perfectly content with them. — KV5 • Talk • 23:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just noticed, no Phillies template you can use at the end of these lists?

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Template question was one that I puzzled over. We do have {{Philadelphia Phillies}}, but these articles aren't linked from that navbox. That template is on the main article, so readers can navigate back to the original to move from article to article. I didn't see any added utility to having a navbox just for this set of articles when the TOC already does exactly the same thing. Do you think it would be appropriate to add the sublists to the main Phillies template? We haggle over these things all the time at WT:MLB and the discussions can either be very productive or degenerate into a whole lot of nothing. — KV5 • Talk • 03:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks to me like it'd be a reasonable addition to the template but that's a little out of the remit of the FLC process, so it'd be down to you (and your MLB colleagues) to decide really.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well we have a long time until these are all done. I'll raise the question at WT:MLB when I have a spare moment and we can see what develops. — KV5 • Talk • 18:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed we do.

• I asked at WT:MLB and response was minimal (namely only one user with whom, for the record, I always disagree about the usage of navboxes and who said that I should leave the team navbox out). — KV5 • Talk • 01:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support can't find anything else to quibble over. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nothing to complain about. Courcelles 03:05, 12 January 2011 (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 Dabomb87 22:38, 19 January 2011 [11].

Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another list in the series of National Treasures of Japan lists. This is the complement to List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: swords). See Lists of National Treasures of Japan (all except for "writing") for other featured lists of the series. bamse (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - In Statistics the one table's header is not center aligned? "...stirrups or armour.[79][82][81][83]" "...decorated with a variety of methods.[79][84][85]" "...small boxes or writing cases.[83][79][86]" "...decorating lacquerware.[91][90]" Refs should appear alphabetically. "(秋草文壺 akikusamontsubo?)[15]new line[16]" "hichijō shinō kesa?)[128][129]new line[130]" remove the line, didn't know how to phrase this. "Kamakura period, August, 1301" comma not needed for the date. Most of the notes need to begin with a capital letter and end with a full stop. I take it Note 9 is the poem, it needs to be referenced. Afro (Talk) 06:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. I believe I fixed all of these issues. bamse (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 19-21 are dead. Ref 95, 109, 133, 134 need a format parameter. Ref 45, 60, 61, 70, 78, 95, 96, 110, 163, 167, 169, 170 need a language parameter. Ref 1 could do without the use of the search tags. Error in Retrieval date for Ref 52. Ref 47 is an image and doesn't verify what's cited. Also question regarding the use of Google books, I notice you use the .pl wouldn't it be better to use .com where applicable? Afro (Talk) 10:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 19-21 are impossible to directly link to since they are subpages of some javascript database. How shall I deal with them? Just link the top (database search) page or do something else with them? As for .pl vs. .com, I don't see a problem with it (but would change if necessary). In any case the google book links are only for convenience as the references are sufficiently specified by title, author, isbn, etc. I'll fix the other problems in the course of today. bamse (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added format parameters to all four references, added language parameters to most of the references ("Emuseum" pages are multi-language, English included, so I guess I don't need a language parameter for them), removed search tags from ref 1, fixed date in ref 52 and removed ref 47. Only open issues (for which I wait for your feedback) are the "dead" javascript refs 19-21 and the .com vs. .pl question. bamse (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd mention that the Emuseum refs are in more than 1 language personally. Although it's a minor issue itsthe English Wikipedia not the Polish Wikipedia and if the info links are available in English I don't see why the .com can't be displayed over .pl. I'll have a look over the links and get back to you on the Java issue. Afro (Talk) 14:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I changed .pl to .com and added "language = Japanese, Chinese, Korean, English, French" to the (archived) Emuseum refs. The links to the non-archived (new) Emuseum refs are in English only. bamse (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the links of refs 19-21 to the start page of the respective database/collection. Please let me know if that is sufficient. bamse (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be able to verify the links you'll need to instruct the user on where they can find the information, also the links need a new retrieval date now. Afro (Talk) 05:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How shall I instruct the user? I'll fix the retrieval date. bamse (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd instruct the user by telling them which menu they can find the item and what page to go to. Afro (Talk) 21:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I specified the way I use to get to the respective item. It is not a unique way to get to the reference and refs 19, 21 could also be obtained with a keyword search; ref 20 could also be obtained with an advanced search (instead of simple search) for instance. Also fixed the access dates of these references. bamse (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 22, 26, 27, 129 doesn't have a retrieval date. Afro (Talk) 14:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

22, 27 and 129 are books and as such don't need a retrieval date as far as I understand. (The google books url is just there for convenience. The reference is to the respective book itself and not to google books.) 26 already has a retrieval date. bamse (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You use {{Cite book}} which says "accessdate: Should be used when url field is used." Afro (Talk) 13:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. I remembered (apparently wrongly) reading that it was possible to cite a book and to provide a google books url for convenience (i.e. without accessdate). Added accessdates to refs 22, 27 and 129. bamse (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'll support as I have no issues with the article. Afro (Talk) 21:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tenmei (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments:
  • The first image used in the list is described as "Detail of the Tamamushi Shrine". Is this a detail of the shrine itself or a detail of something on the shrine? I think the wording could be a little more clear on exactly what the detail is of.
    • I added a little more detail. Better now? bamse (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the first map image, there are "a", "b", and "c" locations listed in the legend, but no "c" is on the map.
    • Fixed. The "c" in the legend was not necessary. bamse (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Japan subsection of the Treasures section, there is no "Image" column. One should probably be added in case images of those items become available (and to be consistent with the table below it).
    • See comment below. bamse (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are seven entries without remarks scattered throughout the tables. Can you add some descriptive remarks to these?
    • Added remarks to them. bamse (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also no Image column in the Armour section, the Harnesses, or the Mikoshi section. One should probably be added for each of these as well.
    • See comment below. bamse (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Those are my main concerns. The list looks really good. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I fixed the first and second issue and will see what I can do about the remarks. Not sure yet whether I can find something interesting to all seven though. As for the missing image column, I am reluctant to add an empty column as it is wasted space in my opinion. Of course as images become available I will add them to the list and if necessary add an image column. However, finding wikipedia-usable pictures is not easy as these objects are located in museums, are rarely displayed and photography restrictions often apply. Basically the only source of images are old (70+ years or so) books. ReijiYamashina is doing a great job uploading images of national treasure to commons and basically the only regular uploader of NT images at the moment. As you can see, it will take some time before all NT will have their picture. As a side note, the tables in this list also differ in the existence or absence of an "Artist" column because only for some types of craft objects the artist is known. It is very unlikely that the artists for say the two mikoshi NT will ever be known, so adding an empty "Artist" column for consistency does not make sense to me. bamse (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the first two issues. I can understand about the artist column, but it's quite possible images will be located at some point for every item on the list (even if just a scan from a very old book). Having a blank spot already there for the image will help in easing future upkeep, especially for those who may not be familiar with the intricacies of wikitables. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not really convinced about the empty image columns, so I asked here for comments. BTW, I already added a couple of more entries in the Remarks column as you suggested. Will try to have remarks for all entries by the end of this day. bamse (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever works on the columns. I really disagree on the image columns as (to me) it throws of the balance of the tables as a whole. Despite strongly disagreeing on this, I support promotion of this list. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:54, 19 January 2011 (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 Dabomb87 22:38, 19 January 2011 [12].

Nominator(s): RexxS (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because, as a scuba diver, I feel it meets a need for information, and is also useful for navigation (per WP:LISTPURP). It is somewhat unusual in being a compendium of five lists, but Wikipedia has no other single page that presents the commonest signs and symptoms of diving disorders, which I have categorised by the causal disorder. This is my first FLC nomination, so I am a little unsure of how well it will meet the criteria, but I am available to respond to criticisms on a daily basis. I have participated in discussions on FLC recently, so I have attempted to ensure that the lists meet standards of accessibility and usability, where appropriate. RexxS (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 01:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: In the section "Oxygen toxicity", the table of the case series symptoms does not help readers understand how likely or significant those symptoms are. The table should be removed. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Axl. I'm willing to be corrected, but I don't believe anyone knows how likely any particular symptom is - and surely all observed symptoms are significant? Donald's work is still the best experimental evidence we have. Anyway, I've made an alternative formulation of the data at Talk:List of signs and symptoms of diving disorders. Would that table (with a more detailed introduction) be more acceptable? --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list of symptoms for "Arterial gas embolism" shows the frequency of symptoms nicely. If you tell me that the frequency of symptoms for "Oxygen toxicity" is not available, I'll take your word for it. [You are Wikipedia's expert on oxygen toxicity ;-) ] In my opinion, "lip-twitching" (observed at 13 minutes, 14 minutes, etc.) is less significant than "convulsed", but that may be original research. The tables that you added to the talk page are a little better because they give the reader a vague idea of frequency. It would be better to have the symptoms ordered by the frequency rather than the earliest appearance of the symptom (thus lip-twitching, convulsion, nausea, vertigo, etc.). A third column indicating the total number of observed events would also be helpful (thus lip-twitching 18, convulsion 5, etc.). I'm unsure of the difference between "blubbering of the lips" and "lip-twitching", but I don't suppose that Donald clarified that. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The disorders apart from oxygen toxicity, are either common (like narcosis), or have longer-term sequelae (like DCS/AGE), so in many ways are more amenable to study, either as experiments or by collection of reported incidents. With oxygen toxicity, the really significant effect is the convulsion (as you say), which can end in drowning - anything short of that is unlikely to get much mention in an incident report. The other setting for CNS oxygen toxicity is, of course, in a recompression chamber, and many of the symptoms Donald's observed are reported there. Unfortunately, Donald showed early on that the onset of oxygen toxicity is quite different "in the dry" from underwater, so it becomes difficult to try to extrapolate from reports of symptoms during HBOT to the diving scenario. The best we can probably say is that "these are the sort of symptoms that are associated with oxygen toxicity; their onset is unpredictable; and we don't really know how high partial pressures of oxygen will affect any individual." Not terribly helpful, I'm afraid. On the other hand, we can say "Donald observed symptom X on Y occasions, during a particular series of experiments." In fact, you always make me think of better ways of looking at information (for which I'm grateful). I'll put together another table showing the relative frequency observed by Donald, and see if other columns like "earliest onset"/"latest onset" would fit in. The onset of toxicity is actually very interesting as it shows that some individuals succumbed in a few minutes, while others withstood the same conditions for well over an hour. That's the reason why we use such very conservative limits on ppO2 breathed - we don't know who the outliers are, nor what a "safe limit for 99.99% of the population" would be. Anyway, I'll also see if I can dig up some of the data from when the US Navy tried screening their divers - they eventually gave up because the screening provided to be of practically no predictive value. FWIW, Lip-twitching is far less significant than convulsion in its likely outcomes - and that needs no OR; but perversely, lip-twitching is probably the most 'characteristic' symptom short of convulsion, and it is significant because any other disorder is so unlikely to cause it that it confirms the diagnosis for all practical purposes. --RexxS (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Perversely, lip-twitching is significant because any other disorder is so unlikely to cause it that it confirms the diagnosis for all practical purposes." Okay, I take your point. (I approach symptoms from a different point of view.) I'll have a look at your revised table. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The points you make are sufficiently compelling for me to replace the previous table with a summary one, showing relative frequency as well as earliest and latest times of onset – thank you. I've included the latter two columns because the really key problem of oxygen toxicity is the massive variability in time to onset, which makes it so unpredictable. Divers are taught to scrupulously limit their ppO2 to 1.4 bar, even though some individuals may tolerate more than twice that for hours. I've provided a version of the new table with centred numbers and plain row headers at Talk:List of signs and symptoms of diving disorders. All of the tables are equally accessible, but any views on the best visual presentation would be most welcome. --RexxS (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The new table is much better. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Has Arsenikk been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm always uneasy asking folks to invest more of their time, but I've "pinged" him now. Merry Bishmas and Happy New Year! --RexxS (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good work, different from our regular stuff, a welcome change. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Meets FL standards. I did make one small fix a few days ago, but that was all I could find at the time, and there haven't been any more edits since then. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 11 January 2011 (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 Dabomb87 22:38, 19 January 2011 [13].

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the critera to be recognized as a Featured List. NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Two more things: One, does this really need to be split into four tables? Two, many of the names have been wisely blacklinked but there's still a few redlinks, but they all appear to be for people who went on to the MLB, so that makes sense, it makes sense they'd have articles some day, whereas the blacklinks are much less likely. So no complaint on that one, just more of a statement of acknowledgment. But still, #1! --Golbez (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have combined them into one. It was split into four tables to ease load times during editing. Of course there shouldn't be a need to edit the table extensively as no one will be added. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh, I've been there. Support. There's a lot of empty space on the right but I'm not sure I want to say "add a few dozen more pictures". Certainly not going to cut off support for it. --Golbez (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I think this is a nice list, and I like the many old photos of the players. The one thing I will say is that the MLB affiliations part is a bit of an odd fit with the rest of that paragraph. Not too sure what can be done about it, though. Maybe move it to the next paragraph? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the suggestion. I started a new paragraph with the affiliation part. NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments:
  • The lead seems to jump right in, without having that original introduction sentence. I'd tweak wording, something like "The Nashville Vols were a minor league franchise that played in Nashville..."
  • "All minor league teams are affiliated with a Major League Baseball team." not true actually; it wasn't until about the 60s that all minor league teams became part of major league farm systems. Reword.

Only issues I have; fix and I'll support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I made some changes. How does it look now? NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, looks good now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a quick revisit and nothing more to fix. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2011 (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 Dabomb87 00:09, 11 January 2011 [14].

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 19:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and closely resembles the other Grammy-related lists with FL status, including Grammy Award for Best Female Rock Vocal Performance and Grammy Award for Best Male Rock Vocal Performance. I realize second FL nominations are discouraged, but the other Grammy list is co-nominated and I am trying to squeeze in my last Grammy lists that I believe meet FL criteria before the New Year begins. Thanks to reviewers for your feedback! --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I can't really see anything I could beef. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Courcelles 02:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Went through the list and found no issues to report. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:08, 9 January 2011 (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 Dabomb87 00:09, 11 January 2011 [15].

Nominator(s): Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This list presents the 14 companies that have operated the various tramway and metro lines in Oslo. With a complicated history of the operators, I hope this list helps make it easy for readers to get an overview of the field. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]