Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2008

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:19, 28 July 2008 [7].

This is a co-nomination with Gary King (talk · contribs). We believe it meets all criteria. As always, comments will be addressed. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 03:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I like to support. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Bold the topic that appears in the first sentence. See WP:BOLDTITLE.
• Wikilink the album names that appears in the lead (paragraph 2, sentence 1 & 3).

-- Reorion (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked the albums. WP:BOLDTITLE also says to not bold the lead when there are links, which there are and we would rather keep. Gary King (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have striked out that comment. Reorion (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support- meets the FL criteria, it is comprehensible and the list is understandable with no flaws. My comments that I would have addressed have been brought up by Gary.--S_RX 18:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Linkin-park-lyrics.com is not a reliable source; the popstarsplus.com link is a Wikipedia mirror. Rateyourmusic is not reliable either as it is "an international metadata database where musical albums, EPs, singles, videos and bootlegs (collectively referred to as "releases") are added, rated, and reviewed by users." Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I have removed all of those references because the information is backed by other references. Gary King (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "This is a list of awards ..." zzzz - articles don't start with "This is an article about..." so why should lists? I'd try to be more imaginative. Something along the lines of "Linkin Park are a Grammy award and multiple MTV award winning band from..." or similar?
  • "...in 2006. [7]" remove the space.
  • I find the first paragraph a bit choppy - can you improve the flow of the short sentences by merging?
  • "...band would then win ..." why not just "band won"? And if you're linking MTV awards, why not the Grammy?
  • " After Meteora success" - "the success of Meteora" or "Meteora's success" surely?
  • "In 2004, the band worked with Jay-Z to produce a album, entitled Collision Course. A single from the album "Numb/Encore" won a Grammy Award. " can you merge these two short and clunky sentences?
  • Same idea for the last two sentences of the lead.
  • Ref 9 can have an author and date added.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done. I copyedited the lead a bit further, however, because I realize it could have been better, so please take another look. Gary King (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 15:34, 28 July 2008 [8].

I'm nominating this discography because I believe it to be well referenced and complete. It covers all of the official releases from British girl group Sugababes. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Dammit! I wanted this one! :) Guess I'll have to do Girls Aloud instead! :)
• Everything looks good, except there are two entries (that I know of) missing from the Miscellaneous section:
  • The group performed a cover of Hard-Fi's "Living for the Weekend" at BBC Radio 1's Live Lounge. It later appeared on the compilation Radio 1's Live Lounge.
  • In 2002, they performed Adamski's "Killer", which appeared on War Child presents 1 Love, a charity album from War Child.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. And good luck with the Girls Aloud discography! :) -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: How about an extra column in "Music videos" to let us know which album each track is from? Also, why so many references for the directors? You use ref #31 like a dozen times – I'd recommend just moving it up to the column header to tidy the display up a little. Seegoon (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great work. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 49 looks a bit odd - a date after the accessdate? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Ref 17 is not specific, it's general. It goes to the homepage. And I'm aware it's because the URL is hard to access but I'm afraid that doesn't really cut it for me.
  • Same for ref 3 and ref 26.
  • Perhaps this is something for WP:DISCOGS to discuss.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support Very solid work! Two complaints: I'd like to see links to Music recording sales certification and List of music recording sales certifications (perhaps a la Garbage discography) in the first table. Second, the NZ and SWE columns in the Compilation albums table aren't neccessary. Drewcifer (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - since they were missed last time, here they are again...
  • Last ref has an extra date field.
  • Refs 5, 16, 25, 36 and 42 are not specific - they do not provide the required citations.
    • And ref 3 Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about taking so long. I was trying to figure out what to do with these citations. I have used these sources before in other featured discographies. If I do what Drewcifer did with the Garbage discography will that be sufficient? -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would cover it - but make sure your instructions are specific to each site i.e. what to enter in which box. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELNO #9 says to "avoid links to the results pages of search engines", so why is it okay in a reference? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, fair enough Matthew, that's a reasonable extension to that guideline. Perhaps these discogs need to look again because they all use this method of reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have found other reliable sources and have used them to replace the more general references that were included before. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support I made some changes in relation to the table's layout, according to the resolution of my monitor that is 1024x768, then, if the nominator agree with my amendments... Cannibaloki 17:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good work. Cannibaloki 18:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix TRM's references concerns, and then I will consider giving my support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - I have the same concerna s Cannibaloki, why is a "-" denotes releases that did not char, if they all did chart. Also, fix TRM's references.--S_RX 15:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Why not just put "UK sales" in the album table, put the reference in the header, and remove "UK:" from each entry. Same could be done for Certifications. Change it to "UK certifications", and remove "UK:" from each entry.
• Why is there a Other singles section? Merge it into the main singles table. I'm guessing it's because they are collaborations, but other discogs don't do it this way.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The Band Aid link is not specific (currently [42]) - fix this and the list will be promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support as I won't be around tomorrow. My concerns have been addressed so when Ref 42 is fixed, assume that this has my full support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Fixed it. Cannibaloki 14:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 09:21, 28 July 2008 [9].

This is based off of List of The Killers awards, a featured list promoted a few weeks ago. Gary King (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Got the feeling this a little light. The lead could be expanded at the very least.
  • "...and has sold over 320,000 copies in the United States and over..." 2 x and in a single sentence becomes, for me, a little hard work.
  • Question really, is "favourable" Canadian English (i.e. with the u which US English omits but which Brit Eng mandates?)
  • "Arcade Fire has received five nominations...." maybe "...but no awards" or something, since this list is called "list of Arcade Fire awards"..
  • Consider making the columns in each table the same % width so they look similar throughout the list. Especially as Juno Awards year column is masssssive.
  • "Arcade Fire has won five awards from 20 nominations." - not according to your infobox...
  • Expand the caption to say where and why as the info seems to be available in the Commons description.
  • Maybe worth clarifying that Grammys are US since you've said BRITs are British.
  • I'd prefer to see ref's ordered numerically unless there's a really good reason not to.
  • How is this a WP:RS?
  • Your EL's have a Polish fansite and a forum, are these quality links we need at FL?
  • Pity the Arcade Fire template doesn't link to this list?
• The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done. "Favourable" is Canadian. Columns in each table are same size, at least for me. They all use the exact same code to create them. The reference in question is reliable because several reliable news sources have used it in the past, including:

• "In tune with the GRAMMYS". Star Tribune. 2006-02-08.
• "Online Service Helps Bands Create Tours". Post-Standard. 2005-10-05.
• "Web Sightings". Ocala Star-Banner. 2000-06-04.
• "Grammy Odds & Ends". Dayton Daily News. 2004-02-08.

Gary King (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cols are still mega-screwed for me in Safari under Mac OS X. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now. Gary King (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Support Is "Rock on the Net" reliable?--Crzycheetah 01:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I explained it's reliability above, to TRM. Gary King (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you substitute that source to a more well-known publisher anyway? I can't verify any of your examples listed above, plus that site looks like a fan-site. I don't think it's hard to find another site.--Crzycheetah 01:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Gary King (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 07:07, 28 July 2008 [10].

I believe this is FLC quality. Gary King (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a problem with the right hand side template - the link to the band at the top is emboldened when it shouldn't be, and makes the first non-bold link to the band extraneous.
• The lead is not particularly interesting. The "first band to win both "Best New Band" and "Best British Band" in the same night" is a real engaging point though - perhaps insert a couple more things with that sort of weight? WilliamH (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your edit, but I don't think it is necessary. The bold formatting at the top of the infobox is standard from what I can see – examples include List of 50 Cent awards, List of Kanye West awards, and List of The Killers awards. Also, bold text in the lead is no longer a requirement, and I have chosen not to do it because I would like to link the first mention of Arctic Monkeys; both methods cannot be used together on the same terms, per WP:BOLDTITLE. I have also expanded the lead and would appreciate comments on that. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, Gary - it's not finished. I believe I added loads to this ages ago and meant to add more, but sort of left it drift in the public domain for others to add to. Others have done a fine job - but I don't believe it covers all awards the band have been nominated for. Sorry. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Oh, poo. Perhaps I should have scrolled down before I wrote that :) Well, obviously, I'll have to support having put in a lot of work to this. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm? Which awards did you not spot when you wrote that? :) Gary King (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Musicslut.blogspot is not a reliable source. Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah yes; removed because the information is backed in the other seven references. Gary King (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe this reference was for "Favourite Worst Nightmare - Best International Album", since this is not mentioned in the other references. I can't find it in the other refs; this one information doesn't seem to be backed by the other refs. (Note: I have to go now, I'll check back in some hours.)Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I added an NME reference for all the 2008 awards from NME. Gary King (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • What is the point of your image caption? I suppose it differentiates the image from Antarctic Monkeys, right?! :p
  • "The band achieved their success" - I think it's worth clarifying that their initial popularity came that way - after they "sold out" (i.e. went mainstream) their success was down to massive sales, downloads etc.
  • "début" is english now so you can ditch the accent.
  • " Their début album " maybe "Their first album..." so to avoid repeating debut?
  • BRIT or Brit Award?
  • "Their début album Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not, released on January 23, 2006, was at the time the fastest-selling début album in British music history, beating Oasis' Definitely Maybe. It remains the fastest-selling début album for a group." - where's the reference for this?
  • Overlinking of Brit Awards (at least three times in the second para of the lead alone).
  • You could add a summary of their achievements as the last part of the lead?
  • "was first introduced in 1955" - citation?
  • Expand the Nominated work col a bit - avoid the wrap around.
  • Can you make the cols the same width from table to table?
  • "won one award from one nomination." - boring.
  • "[25][25][26][27]" - [25] x 2, how extreme!
  • piping {{reflist}} with 3 will annoy browsers. stick with two.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done. I don't get the "Expand the Nominated work col"; it looks okay to me? Same with the col widths; they look the same to me. The reflist is not piped to 3 columns; it changes columns depending on your browser size. Shrink your browser and it will have two columns. Gary King (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLUG and MUSO tables are odd on my browser (Safari under Mac OS X) so you tell me where I'm going wrong! reflist does change as you said so no worries there. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made the tables fixed widths. Looks fine in Safari now. Gary King (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Saw only one mistake when I first checked it out and now it's all fixed. Red157(talk • contribs) 10:20, 23 July 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 06:47, 28 July 2008 [11].

previous FLC (06:38, 14 July 2008)

I am nominating this article with Milk's Favorite Cookie to be promoted to a featured list candidate because I think it is very deserving to become a featured list. Annoyomous24 23:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Issues raised in the previous FLC have not been addressed.--Crzycheetah 22:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done with everything. Except: I didn't fix the redirects per this. I also didn't limit the colors to the player names. Looking at the 30+ head coaches lists, it would just be odd for this one to stick out. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects should be fixed per the link you provided. Read the second bullet in the "exceptions".--Crzycheetah 22:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. I only found two. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK! As for the coloring, of course, I meant all head coach lists, not just this one. There's just too much color in these head coach lists.--Crzycheetah 00:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "in their team history" should be "in its team history" as the history is for the franchise

DONE!

• for "an Original Six team," perhaps explain in a single phrase what that means? Perhaps something like "the original teams of the NHL"

Gary King (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do your second bullet because it is originally called the Original Six. Annoyomous24 23:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentSupport It would be a good idea to include Stanley Cups won in the awards section. After all, winning the Cup is the best a coach can do, even better than winning the Adams Award. DONE! Kaiser matias (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good, but it would probably be better to rephrase winning the Cup to reflect the name, perhaps something like "Won Stanley Cup (year)" seeing how referring to the Stanley Cup usually involves the actual name of the title, not simply stating a champtionship won. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DONE! –– K. Annoyomous24 21:27, 24 July 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 06:47, 28 July 2008 [12].

I am nominating with Chrishomingtang this article because we believe this is featured list material. Annoyomous24 21:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Many of the statements in the lead are not sourced with a ref.

I will do that.—Chris! _ct 00:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add several refs.—Chris! _ct 05:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I suggest stating how the recipient of the award is determined.

Already did.Oh, I am looking at another page. Not done yet.—Chris! _ct 00:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done.—Chris! _ct 05:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I also suggest stating the amount of different players that have received the awards.

I will add that.—Chris! _ct 00:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • In the notes section, Because Tim Duncan is a United States citizen by birth, as are all natives of the U.S. Virgin Islands, he was able to played for the U.S. internationally., why is "played" in past tense?

Fixed.—Chris! _ct 00:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S_RX 23:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - my comments have been addressed.S_RX 15:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Not keen on "PLAYER (X)" why not "Name (X)"? DONE!
  • Why not make the table sortable? DONE!
  • "until a smaller trophy was introduced in 2005." needs reference.

Got it—Chris! _ct 19:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Not keen on "(naturalized U.S. citizen since 1993)" - why not flow it in the prose rather than crowbar in a statement in parentheses? DONE!
• The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The award was decided by a panel of 9 media members," -- "was" or "is"? If it's "was", then where is the bit about how it's decided now?

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 10:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "In at least one NBA Finals" this is too vague. Can it be tied down to a specific number?

I don't know how to find the exact number but I wrote "some" instead of "at least one". -- K. Annoyomous24 10:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I noticed the statement has two references. What do those say, because "some" is just as vague unfortunately. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference is the most recent one, which doesn't have fan balloting. The second one which it the 2007 one does. So I really don't know. -- K. Annoyomous24 17:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it back to "at least one" because that is the only fact we know based on the references. I know it is vague but at least it is better than "some" and is verifiable.—Chris! _ct 17:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to see the image of the trophy moved to the lede section

We can't do that as the NBA Awards template has to be the most uprighted thing on the article. -- K. Annoyomous24 10:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. You could position it to the left, if it doesn't squash the text too much. I guess it's not a big deal. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really do think it will squash it. I'll try it right now but I don't think it'll work. If it doesn't work, I won't reply. -- K. Annoyomous24 17:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, I feel that the picture looks sort of bad. Lets just see what others think. -- K. Annoyomous24 17:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks bad, too.—Chris! _ct 17:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too! :P Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks poor but since it exists, it must be used here really. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it back! -- K. Annoyomous24 18:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there anything for an EL section?

There is none. -- K. Annoyomous24 10:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is the [edit] tab for the Winners section?

To be honest, I don't know. -- K. Annoyomous24 10:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the position of the template prevents the [edit] tab from appearing. That is my guess.—Chris! _ct 17:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is the contents table?

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 10:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have, I think. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:48, 26 July 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 06:47, 28 July 2008 [13].

Another first-round picks list. Any questions/suggestions/comments will be answered.--Crzycheetah 01:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nice work. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

• Comments
  • Make Marino's picture bigger if the image supports it - the WP:MOS#Images suggests a minimum of 300px for lead image.
  • "based in the Miami, Florida" lose the the.
  • "In the NFL Draft, each NFL franchise annually seeks " what about "In the annual NFL Draft, each franchise seeks"?
  • "Enshrined in" sounds a little terminal, why not "Admitted to..."?

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • The first 3 points are done, though the lead image could stay as is. The MOS does not suggest a minimum of 300px, it just allows the lead image to be up to 300px. What it suggests though is not to use fixed image sizes.
    • As for the enshrined, the whole process is called enshrinement, the members of hall of fame are called enshrinees, so the verb would be "to enshrine". I believe it would be very beneficial to non-experts to know that whenever players get admitted to the Pro Hall of Fame, they get enshrined.--Crzycheetah 02:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, you're right, the MOS has changed. It used to say "It is recommended that lead images not be smaller than 300px" so thanks for updating me on that. Secondly, enshrine to a non-expert means to be enclosed in a shrine - that is not happening to these players. Even Wiktionary doesn't have the definition you're using. That's all I'm saying, this means something very different to non-experts and should be explained, or linked or rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • With all due respect to Wiktionary's contributors, I trust Merriam Webster's Dictionary more and can provide this link that proves the relation between the word enshrine and Hall of Fame. Also, you can take a look at the official website of the Pro football hall of Fame here and see that they use the word enshrinement for the whole process. I agree that more explanation is needed, but not in this page.--Crzycheetah 07:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments- great list. However, I have a few questions/concerns.
  • Why is Miami written like Miami (FL) and not just Miami?
  • Why is USC in an acronym and not just called "South Carolina"?

S_RX 15:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Mostly per WP:COMMONNAME. Miami (FL) is written like this because there is another school that is known as Miami (OH). As for USC, it's more common to refer to it as USC than any other way. You can even see that the main page is called USC Trojans football.--Crzycheetah 17:49, 27 July 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 09:11, 26 July 2008 [14].

previous FLC (06:38, 14 July 2008)

I am renominating this article for featured list status because no one supported or opposed for this article and I hope for more comments. Annoyomous24 20:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "Starting 2005–06 season," isn't correct English, perhaps "Starting in the ..." DONE!
  • Quinn's second term isn't reflected in the Vancouver Canucks Head Coaches template. DONE!
  • Don't know why the note under the table has to be small. DONE!
• The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The Vancouver Canucks are a professional ice hockey team based in Vancouver, British Columbia. The team is a member of the Northwest Division in the Western Conference of the National Hockey League (NHL). They play at the 18,630-capacity General Motors Place. The Canucks joined the NHL in 1970 as an expansion team along with the Buffalo Sabres. " four sentences that don't really flow well together. (They all begin with "The", "They", which causes lots of breaks when reading)
• Please add references to the lead's first paragraph. There are a lot of facts there that should be referenced.

Gary King (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DONE ALL!

• Comment
  • "2006–Present" in the Alain Vigneault row should be "2006–present"

DONE! –.– K. Annoyomous24 00:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • "Hockey=Fans.com" in reference #3 should be "Hockey-Fans.com"

DONE! –.– K. Annoyomous24 00:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Is www.hockey-fans.com a reliable source? I am not saying it is not, but just making sure.

I think so. –.– K. Annoyomous24 00:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

—Chris! _ct 00:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support Like Crzycheetah said, it would be good to replace www.hockey-fans.com with a better one. But otherwise great list.—Chris! _ct 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support —Chris! _ct 05:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support The Hockey-Fans.com should be substituted because they state that "the information contained here is provided as is, with no warranties and may not be complete or correct." Also, the image caption says that Crawford was a head coach from 1998 while the table states from 1999.--Crzycheetah 01:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DONE! –.– K. Annoyomous24 02:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The list looks great. I'm a disappointed in the lead section though. The first paragraph focuses too much on the general Canucks organization. I would like to see some narrative of coaching changes over time. I can do some work on this. -maclean 02:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a possible expansion to the lead in my sandbox here [15] It only goes back as far as 1996, though. What do people think? --maclean 05:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well referenced with a good size lead. I would support. -Djsasso (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - Not bad, but the prose could use a little polishing.
  • "The 18,630-capacity General Motors Place is where they play their home games." Howabout, "The Canucks currently play home games at the General Motors Place"? We're talking about coaches, we don't need to bee too specific about their arena.
  • "...head coaches in the Canucks franchise history" - "...in Canucks' franchise.."
  • "as an expansion team along with the" - "as and expansion team[comma] along..."
  • Move "Alain Vigneault is currently the head coach of the Canucks.[4]" to the end of the second paragraph. Keep history in 1st para, coaches in the 2nd.
  • The list itself looks good. Almost there. Blackngold29 04:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all of your requests. -- K. Annoyomous24 05:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Blackngold29 05:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Everything looks alright. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:36, 26 July 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 09:11, 26 July 2008 [16].

Self nom. I along with Raime (talk · contribs) and Remember (talk · contribs) expanded this list and a lot of hard work has went into it to meet the FL criteria, any concerns will be addressed.--S_RX 02:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Don't think that lead image is truely the "skyline" of Washington D.C.
    • I changed the caption.--S_RX 13:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "high rise" or "high-rise"?
    • "high-rise", fixed those instances.
  • Basilica caption is complete sentence so needs a period.
    •  Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is the National Cathedral the second-largest or second-tallest? --Dem393 (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: "tallest", I reworded that.S_RX 19:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Good job! --Dem393 (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: It is still wrong, I think. It may be the second tallest cathedral, but not the second tallest church; the National Shrine, also on this list, is taller, so the National Cathedral can't be any higher than #3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.217.49 (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Actually the National Shrine is a basilica, which differs from the church. There is a difference, so the National Shrine is (I think the biggest basilica in the U.S), while the Cathedral is the biggest church.S_RX 22:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The National Cathedral is the second-largest church (not tallest) in the United States, after the St. John's in NYC. At least, that's what the source says. The Washington Basilica is the largest Catholic church in the country, and the tallest occupied building in Washington. -epicAdam (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct you are. Thank you for fixing that.--S_RX 21:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Article is well-written, complete, adequately sourced, and has some lovely pictures (I especially like the 19th century poster). The only minor issue I have with the article is that the general reference, "High-rise buildings in Washington", could be listed instead under External links. Other than that small issue, I believe this list should be promoted. -epicAdam (talk) 05:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent, again. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:21, 26 July 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 04:02, 26 July 2008 [17].

I am nominating this article for featured list status because I believe it is complete and referenced and meets all the criteria of a featured list. This is modeled after another featured list, List of East Carolina Pirates in the NFL Draft. Reorion (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I've done a peer review for it, and as those items have been resolved, I feel it's among the best lists on Wikipedia at the present time. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Lists should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order.--Crzycheetah 06:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doing. Reorion (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Converted table to earliest-to-latest chronological order. Reorion (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't expect it to be done this quick. I'll review the list later.--Crzycheetah 23:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "latest NFL Draft" - put a timeframe on it.
    • Done. Reorion (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:COLOR says not to use color alone to identify a particular attribute. You need to use an asterisk, dagger or similar with the colour.
    • Done. Reorion (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my screen there's plenty of space down the right hand side of the table for some more images.
    • Added some pictures, will look around on Flickr for some more CC-BY and CC-BY-SA of drafted players. Reorion (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a position key should be supplied for non-experts.
    • Done. Reorion (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1948 reference cell is missing on my browser.
    • Done. Reorion (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A large number of the players don't have articles, why not?
    • Will start making stub articles on first/second rounders and those who made an impact with their NFL teams. Reorion (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I tend to discourage overlinking, when listing out Pro Bowls etc, I think it's worth linking them each time because I don't want to have to go off and find the first instance which is linked.
    • Done. Reorion (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the superscripted NFL and AFL explained anywhere?
    • Second paragraph now explains the two separate draft from 1960–1966 and the common draft 1967–1969. Footnotes in the table denotes what the superscripted AFL/NFL are. Reorion (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is DraftHistory.com. a work while HogNation.net. a publisher?
    • Done. Reorion (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please avoid using the done and notdone templates. Just a comment is fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will do. Reorion (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Players aren't robots or things: "who", not "that".
  • Done. Reorion (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comma before "but".
  • Done. Reorion (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Drafted" twice in two phrases; possible to change one?
  • Done. Reorion (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Six players were selected from the 2008 NFL Draft with the highest selection being running back Darren McFadden,...". This is not good prose. Try "Six players were selected from the 2008 NFL Draft; the highest selection was running back Darren McFadden,..."
  • Done. Reorion (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• A tendency to write over-long sentences; the last one in Para 2 makes my head spin—and the content is beyond me. Who's the readership here?
  • Will work on shortening the sentences. Reorion (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't know if the current version is any better but it is more clear than before. Reorion (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Dashes centred in the Notes column, please. Don't we have a rule about this? If not, we should. They look like funny little spikes at the moment.
  • Done. Reorion (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Captions: when they're just nominal groups, no dot at the end. See MOS on captions.
  • Done. Reorion (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Excellent colour scheme in table (pastels); it's rather vertical, like a skyscraper, because you're squeezing pics in at the right. Guess it doesn't matter. TONY (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added pictures based from the third comment from The Rambling Man. Reorion (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think the table's columns need to have a flexible width. The Notes and References columns are needlessly huge on my screen because I'm at 1440x900, widescreen format. It looks pretty bad. I suggest just using a fixed width on all the columns, or even better, no set width at all. Gary King (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain this? (by the way, I accidentally deleted something from the table that had made the reference columns look huge as everything go shifted over one in one of the rows). --Reorion (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks better now Gary King (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nicely referenced and equally impressive as the East Carolina list. Nice job man! Geologik (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Looks good. Even though it isn't as good as the East Carolina list:). PGPirate 00:19, 22 July 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 04:02, 26 July 2008 [18].

Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Chicago and List of tallest buildings in New York City. There are some minor differences that result from this list not being of a city in the United States, such as the use of metres before feet, but overall the list is very similar to the previously nominated American ones and List of tallest buildings in Dubai. I have been working with three other editors, Hydrogen Iodide, HongQiGong and Leitmanp, to bring this list up to FL standards, and I think it is finally there. We believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai•me 16:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In "Under construction" and "Approved," don't mention floor counts in the asterisk note since it's unnecessary. All of the table rows already have floor counts.--Dem393 (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, removed "floor counts". Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab} 00:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Support Great list! --Dem393 (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support- a great tallest building list, agree with Raime's comments on being comprehensive and well sourced. I see no flaws.--S_RX 23:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Seems a shame that the name col is so squashed that virtually names go onto two, three or maybe four rows. I understand one or two of the notes are lengthy, but I'm sure you could expand the names column, reduce the notes col width and end up with a shorter, more aesthetically pleasing table?
  • International Commerce Center image caption is fragment so remove the full stop.
  • "220-222 Tai Kok Tsui Road 2" - should that hyphen be an en-dash?
  • "102 How Ming Street 2" appears in both Proposed and Approved tables.
  • Timeline table, height col doesn't sort correctly. Nor does address.
  • Are "Queen's Road" and "Queens Road" the same?
• The Rambling Man (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Fixed it. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab} 23:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Got one suggestion. I think you should replace the lead image with because it is a featured image and it look much better.—Chris! _ct 20:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done replaced the lead image. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab} 22:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very good.—Chris! _ct 00:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, it seems like there are no more issues with the list. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab} 17:18, 19 July 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 06:56, 24 July 2008 [19].

I am nominating this article with Chrishomingtang because we think this article does deserve to be promoted into a featured list. Annoyomous24 20:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I would add Category:National Basketball Association coaches, though.--Crzycheetah 19:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok—Chris! _ct 19:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "top coach" not really - the coach who was voted as the best (or something similar).

Will change it once I thought of something better.—Chris! _ct 18:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • "legendary head coach" - legendary = peacock term.

Fixed—Chris! _ct 18:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • "1964–65 season, won the Coach of the Year Award that year." - that season perhaps? You've mentioned two years - 1964 and 1965.

Fixed—Chris! _ct 18:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Consider an image for the lead, e.g. Pat Riley or similar, as he's won it three times? The Phil Jackson image is weak so you could lose it and make some space for the lead image.

Removed the Phil Jackson image. I don't like the Pat Riley image because it is too blurry. I will see what I can do.—Chris! _ct 18:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Mike D'Antoni is the only winner to have a dual citizenship from the United States and Italy. - Is such a specific detail really worth mentioning?

Removed.—Chris! _ct 06:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Zagalejo^^^ 06:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Shouldn't the nationality column be to the right of the coaches' names? Zagalejo^^^ 06:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fine to have nationality column left of the name. All the award pages are like this. I don't think this is an issue.—Chris! _ct 06:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any advantage to having it that way? The coach's name is definitely more important than the coach's nationality, so it should be the first thing people see when reading from left to right. Zagalejo^^^ 06:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I will have to modify all the award pages.—Chris! _ct 18:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help you out. Zagalejo^^^ 19:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for your help.—Chris! _ct 19:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm leaning toward support, although the article still looks a little bare-bones to me, with that big white space left of the pictures. Would it be possible to add win-loss records? Zagalejo^^^ 19:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good idea. But I will need some help, though.—Chris! _ct 19:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to pitch in later tonight. Zagalejo^^^ 19:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Annoyomous24 21:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Do you think we need refs for those? The information is only one click away from this page, so we could probably do without the refs, but I'm wondering what others think. Zagalejo^^^ 23:49, 15 July 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 06:56, 24 July 2008 [20].

Self-nom, I feel this article meets the FL criteria, though, concerns will be addressed.--S_RX 03:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "the main event of each event." reads clumsily.
    •  Done--S_RX 15:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The In Your House event was titled..." this sentence seems to lose its way. Perhaps split in half at the "which took place.."?
    •  Done--S_RX 15:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we abbreviate pay-per-view (e.g. to PPV?) it's used lots.
    •  Done--S_RX 15:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like the main events being {{small}}. You can narrow the other cols and use the space gained in this col.
    •  Done--S_RX 15:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does (c) mean?
    • (c) = Champion. -- iMatthew _T.C. 15:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Add this explanation to the article then please. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]