Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2010

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 The Rambling Man 08:14, 30 June 2010 [1].

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because...it is hard to image that anything to do with the French Revolutionary Wars or the Napoleonic Wars would be under-represented in Wikipedia, but the War of the Second Coalition is. This list is my mite to addressing the omission. It meets the standards (as I understand them), has been through a peer review (archived), and ACR for Military History. There is of course the great debate on names of orders of battles: should they be "order of battle of blah blah" or "blah blah order of battle." The project has not reached any consensus on this, and I decided that blah blah order of battle sounded better for this, because the key point is not that it is an order of battle, but that it is the Army of the Danube (order of battle). There is an article that goes with it, and that article will be nominated for FA soon (next week). This is my first featured list nomination. Thanks for all constructive feedback! auntieruth (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to do some reviewing in the next few days, but I'll need to become familiar with the guidelines for featured lists first. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NativeForeigner, all review comments are welcomed. Order of battle at the Battle of San Domingo and Order of battle at the Battle of the Nile may be useful FL-class order of battle lists to compare to this one. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those, though, are both about battles- whereas this candidate is for an army- not sure we have a true analogue here. Dabomb's, though, are as close as any I believe exist. (This one is also on my list to review.) Courcelles (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been more specific; as Courcelles said, the scope is a bit different, but the general format is the same. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments This is a very good article, but I have a few questions before I can support the nomination:
  • Is the listing of members of the General Staff complete? It's slightly surprising that all the staff officers are notable
    • It is complete as far as I can determine from Jourdan's memoirs--these are the chief people involved in the staff. There were many others, of course. Many of the articles on the officers are stubs I created rather than make complicated footnotes. Ramsay Phipps considered this army one of the School for Marshals, in his history of the French Revolutionary Armies. I added a bit on that in the lead.
  • Is http://home.wanadoo.nl/g.vanuythoven/French%20OOB%20Danube%2003-1799.htm a reliable source? It certainly looks accurate and cites a suitable source, but my understanding is that wanadoo.nl is a webhost for self-publishers. I note that you cite the English-language version of the website's source (A Memoir of the operations of the army of the Danube under the command of General Jourdan, taken from the manuscripts of that officer) - does this verify the website?

the Kessinger-vanythoven material is very good. It is the electronic version of that which is available in Kessinger's analysis of the battle of Stockach. I cited it rather than the Kessinger's article because of its availability. Roland Kessinger is a well-known (although amateur) historian of the Second Coalition in southwestern Germany, and one of the few who has written about the Battle of Stockach of 1799. Unless otherwise stated, I've used material from his order of battle. auntieruth (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a print copy of the Jourdan memoir. It is available in full text on Googole books.

• • As a note, what appears to be the full text of that book is available on Google Books here Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Questions now answered Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Since I'm about to submit another order of battle for consideration here, I figured I should comment here.

• I realize that images might not be required for this sort of list, but there should room for small images (battle paintings or commander portraits, that sort of thing) next to the text blobs.

Since the tables broke up the text somewhat, I did not see the need for images. These seemed to distract from the basic information of the order of battle. This is not an order of battle about a specific battle, but rather a field army. I didn't want to focus on one battle or another.

Like I said, not a show-stopper, but I wanted to ask the question. Magic♪piano 21:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The formatting for the artillery park looks funny. Perhaps the personnel should just be another bullet item after the equipment?

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. auntieruth (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The indentation of the personnel was what bugged me; I've edited to show what I suggested, feel free to revert if you don't like it. Magic♪piano 14:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. :) auntieruth (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, this (without vetting the sources) looks pretty good to me. Magic♪piano 12:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support assuming resolution of other people's issues. Magic♪piano 21:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. done. (it was new since the article's nomination)

• Comments:
  • "Field army" could be wikilinked at first mention (in the lead) and in the infobox;
    • fixed
  • In the Citations and notes section, Citations # 40 and 41 appear to be the same and should therefore be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS (you've done this with others, e.g. # 37, etc.);
    • fixed
  • In the Citations and notes section, Citation # 3 (Databook) isn't in italics, although Citation # 4 is
    • fixed
  • In the Citations and notes section, Citation # 9, the page range (80-81) should have an endash per WP:DASH;
    • it is an en dash. It shows an as endash on my screen.
      • Dabomb hit it with a script in between my review and your reply. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Citations and notes section, with Citation # 27 the composition title isn't in italics, although similar ones (e.g. # 25 and 26) are;
    • fixed
  • In the Citations and notes section, Citation # 37, the year range (2001-2002) should have an endash;
    • fixed
  • In the Bibliography section the 2000 work by Digby Smith needs an ISBN, while those that are too old for ISBNs should probably have OCLC numbers. These can be found by searching for the title on Google books and clicking on the "Find in a library" link;
    • fixed, OCLC numbers etc. added to the bibliography
  • In the Bibliography section the titles should be capitalised per Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Composition titles (a couple of them aren't, for instance Gallagher, Jourdan, Shadwell, Thiers);
    • They are capitalized according to the Wordcat entry. auntieruth (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Worldcat doesn't follow the MOS when it comes to capitalisation. In my opinion we should follow Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Composition titles and make all the entries consistent. Currently some follow the MOS and some follow Worldcat. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Bibliography section the Blanning work should have the composition title in italics (The French Revolutionary Wars);
    • fixed
  • In the Bibliography some of the ISBNs have hyphens and others don't
    • fixed
  • an image might work in the infobox (this is just a suggestion). AustralianRupert (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have a fusilier or a map image of the convergence. would that do? thanks for your comments and review. auntieruth (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fusilier looks good to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kessnger, and Vanuythoven internet source in the Bibliography "Order of Battle, Army of the Danube" needs publisher and accessdate information (sorry I missed this one before). AustralianRupert (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all my concerns have been dealt with. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reason why you have the source in the table rather than as a normal {{cite book}} reference in the Sources section?
  • the models I followed in the Military History Project did it this way.
    • Okay, well it's not crucial to me, but I prefer to see normal referencing used. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • that would generate a reference on every line. This seems to be the model most of the MH project uses. auntieruth (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, that's not true. That's what general references are for. Everything else, however, seems fine, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2010 (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 The Rambling Man 08:14, 30 June 2010 [2].

Nominator(s): Decodet (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has the enough potential to become a FL based on my past nominations. I have spent months working on it and finding reliable references. It has been peer reviewed in the past and I had nominated it for FLC some months ago but it didn't get promoted because of the little amount of comments. All the sources are good in my opinion, as well the lead and image (with alt text included). Decodet (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support as I did the last time. Mm40 (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Quite a few of the UK chart sources could be replaced with this for the singles and albums which charted within the Top 75. Mister sparky (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about this site. Removed those physical references of some positions and switched for this one. Thanks! Decodet (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks complete and everything is cited.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2010 (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 The Rambling Man 08:14, 30 June 2010 [3].

Nominator(s): Mister sparky (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have done alot of work to this article recently improving content, sourcing, formatting etc and have had it peer reviewed and actioned any suggestions and I believe it's of a very high standard. Mister sparky (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I think the leading section should follow the chronological order. Currently their first album released in 1986 is discussed first, then their first singles beginning from 1984 are discussed. This is not very logical. Ruslik_Zero 16:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

switched around. Mister sparky (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many incomplete sentences have periods at the end like Music videos from the Very album.. Please, remove them. Ruslik_Zero 08:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removed from the video albums table. Mister sparky (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I can not find any more problems, so I support. Ruslik_Zero 16:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Great job! WereWolf (talk) 02:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2010 (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 The Rambling Man 08:14, 30 June 2010 [4].

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this is among the finest that WP has to offer in terms of All-America Teams. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mm40 (talk). Some quick points:

• Where is the list itself sourced to? Is there a general reference the lists all the players?
  • I have moved the external refs to inline in the columns of the table.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The "Notes" column in the first table can be taken out
  • Before doing so, I wanted feedback on three options of ways to use the column
    1. See 1991 College Baseball All-America Team where it is used for other years in which the player was an All-American, and major professional success
    2. See 2006 high school boys basketball All-Americans where additional columns describe the draft year.
    3. I could also use the column to highlight best player and/or individual awards included at {{College Football Awards}}.
    4. We could delete it.
  • I think whatever we do in this featured list will become standard for future College Football All-America lists going forward so we should figure out what is most encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure about uses in other articles (I don't care either way), but if the column is empty, there's no purpose in having it. Either put something in it or remove it. Mm40 (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• TSN, Pro Football Weekly, and Sports Illustrated should be italicized throughout the article
  • I italicized both full spellings and abbreviations of these three throughout (and College Football News).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• emdashes (—) for blank cells are generally centered
  • Is there a global table formatting command to do this or do I have to do it cell by cell?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll do this using AWB. Mm40 (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The title of reference 3 should be in quotes
  • I am using the same template as ref 2, but it doesn't seem to be working the same way.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I put in a query at the help desk.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those guys pointed me in the right direction and it is now fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Need in endash in reference 5
  • fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Copyright symbols in titles (reference 6) are discouraged (see here). Mm40 (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – After the resolution of the many comments above, I feel this has now reached FL-quality. A couple of reference formatting issues were left, but I polished them off myself to get this process moving. The one remaining issue I just noticed is that there is a small blank column between the first and second Academic All-America teams, but I have a feeling that is related to the request below, and will be taken care of when a plan is worked out. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment When the Consensus All-American list is updated on the NCAA page (last years list), how should that be incorporated here?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see two feasible options. The first is to add a column for the Consensus All-Americans, using the NCAA website as the source. However, this might make the table excessively wide; it's pushing towards the right edge of my widescreen monitor as is. With that in mind I would suggest highlighting the Consensus All-Americans with a color and symbol; the NCAA link can be incorporated as a general reference. If this is done, just make sure that the key is updated to show what the color and symbol mean. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Now concerned over the vast number of red links in the second table... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could nolink them or we could wait a year or two since some many of these guys are underclassmen who may become notable in the next few years.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well the strategy I would expect is that we link those that are notable now, whether they have an article or not, and nolink the rest. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • My thinking would be that this might be O.K., for the 2nd table, but the redlinks should remain for the first table I think. The two redlinks in the main table are a sophomore and a freshman. These guys are likely surefire notable people. I am going to spend a day or two looking more in depth at who the guys are in table to before agreeing to nolink them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are 15 underclassmen on the list of Academic All-Americans. Many of these may be notable in the coming years. Are you sure I should nolink these guys?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • If they are non-notable now, I see no reason to link them. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Support. WereWolf (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2010 (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 The Rambling Man 08:14, 30 June 2010 [5].

Nominator(s): Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This simple list is inspired by other lists of holders of political offices. Hopefully fairly straight-forward, if not, further improvements will be made. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What's the point of the disambiguating "{Norway)" at the end of the article title? I can't find any other Wikipedia article about a different Minister of Transport and Communications. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't me who named this article, but I presume idea is to create a consistency among the Norwegian minister articles, and most positions are internationally ambiguous, such as Minister of Health, Minister of Foreign Affairs etc. I have nothing against moving the article, though, I guess I just never though of it that way. Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually agree with disambiguating here. There are other titles (some redirects) with similar names. for example Minister of Transportation and Communications. There is also the potential for more similar names (see Ministry of Transport). As such, I believe having a title which lets you know which country for those that aren't familiar with the exact terminology is useful. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't worry about moving the article; I accept the explanations. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Looks good. But I have some questions. Why is the list goes from the oldest officeholder to the most recent. But the timeline is not. Also, are the Norwegian party names relevant? After all, this is English Wikipedia.—Chris!_c/t 21:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find a way to "turn around" the timeline, but I've moved around the table, although it perhaps now runs the "wrong way" now. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake. The guideline for this is quite explicit. Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Chronological ordering says Chronological lists, including all timelines and lists of works, should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order. Special cases which specifically require frequent daily additions, such as Deaths in 2009, may use reverse chronological order for temporary convenience, although these articles should revert to non-reverse order when the article has stabilized, such as Deaths in 2003. However I did some reading at mw:Extension:EasyTimeline/syntax#TimeAxis (mandatory) and putting in order:reverse does the trick. You'll need to re-flip that table though. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding that trick with the timeline. Makes the article a lot better, now that the table is back to normal. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oppose concerns resolved Sandman888 (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why timeline when it contains the exact same information?

Could you either not use colours in the list or perhaps use the same colours the timeline employs?

if you remove timeline, gallery cd be on the right, that'll IMO be a much better solution.

tenure: isn't there a template that give the number of days from X date to current date?

Lead cd be longer: why was the ministry created? Did it replace previous ministries?

The colors in the timeline and table can not be the same as the colors from the table are too faint for the timeline, and ones from the timeline are too bright for the table. Ruslik_Zero 18:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The timeline shows visually how long various officeholders held office, and doubles up to show the period the various parties held office. It allows the reader in seconds to deduce information about the officeholders that would take minutes to figure out by reading the table, and then trying to visualize in one's head. Concerning tenure, I cannot find a suitable way to get an output that would give a correctly sorted date (although the output itself is possible). Conserning the reasons for why the ministry was established, in Norway ministries are created and closed regularly. The ministry is unique in that it is, with only perhaps four exceptions, lived the entire post-WWII area without a change. Often there isn't a specific reason for a change, its just that the prime minister feels (s)he needs to rearrange the minister posts to handle things differently. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Couldn't this easily be merged and incorporated within Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications, which shd be named Ministry of Transport and Communications (Norway) ? I.e. a description of the Ministry and list of the ministers.
• If you can make it show the correct date, can't you just use an approx number in the sort-parameter? It will not need updating that often.
  • Sandman888 (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• No respond to above consideration for over a week, switched to oppose. Sandman888 (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, somehow missed your reply; I havn't been on Wikipedia much the last week. Incorporating this into the ministry article would be undue weight to spend up to a quarter of a full-length article of the ministry on just a list of people who had headed it. The position is clearly notable on its own. As this is doubles as the article on the minister, you would have to argue that the minister position is not notable enough for an article. The ministers are also members of the Council of State, position which in themselves would warrant mention in a list, although this is in practice done by placing them in portfolio lists such as this. Similar lists, such as United States Secretary of Transportation (with fewer ministers) has previously passed FL, and in my experience 27 people is far more than the common "minimum" entries for FL. As for the tenure, I've added the template, but the sort key will need to be manually updated as time passes. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dont see the potential in the Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications article to be much longer than it is now, so a list of ministers wouldn't be given undue weight. The article and list on the transportation department in the US cd IMO easily be merged into one article. Sandman888 (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no problem expanding the ministry article to full length. 64 years of history should be included, including policy changes, transfer of responsibilities between the state and lower levels of government, privatizations, regulations and nationalizations. The organizational section should include the structure, current political and administrative top executives; a full description (say a paragraph) of all subsidiaries, a detailed description of the ministries direct activities (such as granting concessions to for instance inter-county coach services), overall policy role and framework conditions regulated by the ministry, funding—both to the ministry itself and subsidiaries, and the financing model of various projects. So there is ample to expand the article with. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As Arsenikk said, the article on the ministry has potential to be expanded 10-20-fold. Geschichte (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good job on the tenure thing. Sandman888 (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I found no serious problems. Ruslik_Zero 18:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, though I share the same concern(s) regarding the timeline. The chart is detailed and effective, and I don't really agree on the necessity. Yes, it's simple, but it doesn't offer a lot of information compared to the chart, and the fact that some names are bunched up doesn't help matters. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Another "not keen" on the timeline, moreso because it fails WP:ACCESS, using just colour to denote political party.
• I'm a bit dim, what are "framework conditions"?
• I'd prefer to see the gallery down the side in place of the timeline.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I seem to be the only one that supports the timeline, I've removed it. I've converted the gallery to 100x100px images down the side, but it doesn't look as good as the gallery, which was why I instated the gallery in the first place. I found the term "framework conditions" in the dictionary, so it is a real term, although it is similar to policy, so I've removed it and kept policy, which strictly speaking covers the point. On a more general note, the color usage is very intuitive to Norwegians, making it easier for people familiar with Norwegian politics to get an overview. And yes, Norwegians use the English Wikipedia just as much as the Norwegian Wikipedia, simply because our project has so much higher quality and the domestic understanding of English is excellent. I therefore have no problems "optimizing" the articles for Norwegians, while of course keeping it fully understandable for people without the same background. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ACCESS is universal, not an anti-Norway thing! Colour usage needs to be "universal" and meet the accessibility guidelines. Galleries are always a bit incongruous for me, so I'm glad you've got rid of it. I didn't say "framework conditions" wasn't real, but as a native English speaker (being English) I have no idea what it means. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Is there any reason why the list says "1 years" instead of "1 year"? I mention it here instead of changing it on the page because I think I could be missing something. Apterygial 00:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reason, just a typo. Now fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mm40 (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2010 (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 The Rambling Man 08:14, 30 June 2010 [7].

Nominator(s): Truco ₅₀₃ 02:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am back, yes that's right Truco is back at FLC with his first list of 2010! And what way to do it then with the 2010 WWE Draft! I've worked on this article on and off for a few weeks, and I feel its now ready for FLC! Any comments of course will be addressed! Thanks again for any help! P.S. There might be one editor who has more edits on the article but that is because during the Draft itself, many users were constantly updating the tables, so I don't feel its necessary to contact them about this nomination when I revamped the entire article and added size to it. Also, stability shouldn't be an issue because this event was last month and all results and aftermath has been finalized.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People don't like my list, aw man :( Its that bad? Haha.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mm40 (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2010 (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 The Rambling Man 19:09, 28 June 2010 [8].

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 19:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and closely resembles other Grammy-related FL lists I have nominated previously (including the companion to this list, Grammy Award for Best Male Rock Vocal Performance). The list should be up to par as far as disambig. links, alternate text, formatting, sorting, etc. go. Any feedback would be appreciated, and thanks to all reviewers for taking the time to offer their comments! Another Believer _(Talk) 19:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

• According to its article, in 2005 Best Rock Vocal Performance, Solo was renamed to Best Solo Rock Vocal Performance.

  Updated lead to include alternate category title. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not everybody knows that "The Globe Sessions" and "Sheryl Crow and Friends: Live from Central Park" are albums.

  Should a change be made to the lead even though the titles are italics (as albums should be) and anyone could click on either title to confirm they are indeed albums? Personally, I think it is fairly obvious that the two titles are for albums, but I can try to make the lead clearer if needed. Thank you so much for taking time to review the list and offer feedback. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, changes should be made. Ruslik_Zero 16:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Not a problem. Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik_Zero 16:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I do not see any more problems, so I support. Ruslik_Zero 18:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, after reading through this I'm not seeing any issues with the list. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Another nice list – my concerns have been addressed. Good work! Jujutacular ^T · C 01:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Issues resolved, meets WP:WIAFL. Great work.--Truco ₅₀₃ 19:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Provisional support – Didn't notice any problems with the list myself; this can be considered a full support once Truco's comments are addressed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:19, 23 June 2010 (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 03:22, 23 June 2010 [9].

Nominator(s): Wizardman 15:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because there aren't enough first-round draft pick lists up right now. In an attempt to get a draft pick list featured topic down the road, I an nominating this because I feel it meets all FL criteria. That and it's draft season so working on the list got me excited to watch it tomorrow. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KV5

• "finished second in the MVP voting"
• Why one "right fielder" and several "outfielders"?
• Force sorting on the "no first-round pick" rows so that they don't sort as "n" in the name column. They should ideally end up at the bottom.
• I assume the blank cells will be filled in by the time this FLC concludes...?

And that's pretty much it. — KV5 • Talk • 17:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is tonight, so they will be filled in in roughly 6 hours. Doing the other points now. Other points fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support pending the conclusion of the first round of the 2010 draft. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 21:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Players updated. The Canadian threw me for a loop, I didn't know how to template that. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe just do it like the others; The {{city-state}} template will handle Langley, British Columbia, the same way as the U.S. states, and I don't think Canada is necessary in the table, as the article on Langley undoubtedly makes clear that it is in Canada. The header row doesn't say "city and state"; it says "Location", so I think that would be fine. — KV5 • Talk • 11:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentsSupport Would like to know if there is a script/easy way for capping comments Sandman888 (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• why is this amateur site a respectable source?

• Baseball-Reference has been determined reliable for nearly every piece of featured content in baseball. See this FA nomination for more information. — KV5 • Talk • 17:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything about BR in that FAC. Am I missing something? Sandman888 (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I just pulled that from Ealdgyth's FAC cheatsheet. The data on Baseball-Reference, however, comes from Retrosheet, another reliable site. Why, may I ask, do you say that the site is an "amateur site"? — KV5 • Talk • 18:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How odd. On this page it's quite clear that it's some guy uploading stuff. If retrosheet has the original info, why not use that then? Sandman888 (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing on either of the links you provided that implies or states that Baseball-Reference is "some guy uploading stuff". Here is the information on the parent company Sports Reference LLC, which establishes credentials in statistics for the website's executives. — KV5 • Talk • 19:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See here, where it's clear it's compiled by some guy called Sean Forman. I'm not sure how that's reliable. Anyone can say they have a Ph.D in math on their own homepage. Per WP:RS "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I don't see that's the case here. Sandman888 (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Baseball-Reference is a reliable third-party publication. Its director is a member of the Baseball Writers Association of America, the site itself is notable enough for its own Wikipedia article, its core data is drawn from SABR, its game data is drawn from Retrosheet, and the website has been cited as "a powerhouse in the baseball information world" by Sports Illustrated. — KV5 • Talk • 19:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sports illustrated link establishes WP:RS nicely. Sandman888 (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Cd you use another indicator then §? It's mildly confusing. ¤ perhaps.

• This follows the rest of the articles in this series; could you clarify why you think it's confusing? (I do think the § should be superscripted, though.) — KV5 • Talk • 17:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because § has a standardised meaning, especially in the context of numbers. It would make more sense to use a symbol devoid of meaning when you're using it to define something new. E.g. it would be an equally bad idea to use $. Sandman888 (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The symbol you suggest also has a defined meaning (it's the generic symbol for currency). Most symbols we use for indicators have a defined meaning outside of their context; however, that's why we have table keys. — KV5 • Talk • 18:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of course talking about a common understanding of the symbols, which is the logic used here. Better use the symbol with a less condensed meaning. Sandman888 (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not following you here. The section symbol wouldn't be used after a number anyway. I truly don't understand your concern. — KV5 • Talk • 19:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any other concerns besides the symbol? I don't really see a problem with it either, it helps for those who wouldn't be able to differentiate the colors used. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Notwithstanding the above. Thanks to KV for making the definitive RS argument for baseball-reference, and the symbol thing does seem a bit random. Couple tiny things.

• I would note, as I did on the Padres list, that one of those outfielders (Julio Borbon) was taken in center field for those who might not realize CF is an OF.
• 2 DAB links found by the tool.
• Although no longer required, alt text would be nice.

Good job though! Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; issues fixed. As for the symbols, I just use them since they've been commonplace throughout all the baseball lists. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh, good call, the source actually lists Borbon as an OF not a CF. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support –

• Little inconsistency in the lead, regarding "Rule 4 draft" and "Rule 4 Draft".
• De-capitalize Location in the table heading.
• External link section is currently empty. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All three issues fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:06, 17 June 2010 (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 23:41, 22 June 2010 [10].

Nominator(s): KV5 • Talk and Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The final piece in our joint little topic! KV5 • Talk and Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - complete and accurate, references etc., very well written. It's nice to see all this info in one place. Dincher (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - straightforward, succinct to the point...Modernist (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Ref #24 (Rules for Election) I can't seem to get working right. It goes to the baseball HOF, but not to any rules. They re-did their site so I'm sure the right link is somewhere; just fix that and I'll support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is done. — KV5 • Talk • 18:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Next stop is FTC (unless I haven't been following this right)! Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well done. Support. Courcelles (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2010 (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 23:41, 22 June 2010 [11].

Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list, I already have one list at FLC with all content-comments adressed, a question of title remains. Given that consensus of proper title is formed at an ad-hoc basis in the FLC proces, I'd like to nominate this list which follows the format of List of Ipswich Town F.C. players especially regarding the inclusion criteria (with some modifications, but the principle is the same). An RfC has begun on the WT:FOOTY#Name of football player lists page regarding proper naming. It was recently through peer review, all comments at previous FLC has been adressed. Sandman888 (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restarted previous version

I support it. --Jordiferrer (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments which will have to be brief, because I have no internet access for a couple of weeks after today so won't be able to address any matters arising. I'll have to leave it to the FL directors to decide whether anything mentioned here is actionable, and if it is, whether it's been actioned acceptably. Their decisions are fine by me.

• Perhaps restrict the hatnote to the players cat and the current squad, and link the legends list when you mention the inclusion criteria. And/or include it in a See also
  • Done. Not included in see also, as it is in template in button.
• Probably better to use the full names of pages in the hatnotes, so the reader knows what they're getting: i.e. for a list ... with a WP article see Category:FC Barcelona footballers, and for the current squad see FC Barcelona#Current squad
  • Done.
• The lead section prose could do with a copyedit
  • Tried CE.
• Thought Alcantara was the all-time top scorer, not "one of its"?
  • Done.
• Not convinced by the extra criteria. Not so much the "legendary" players: if you're only counting La Liga appearances at least it's the club website selecting the extras rather than the nominator. But on what basis are the record holders chosen? the Pedro Rodriguez scoring in six competitions in a season seems a bit trivial, for instance.
  • Criteria now limited to >99 games and legends. Sandman888 (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• There's something wrong with the note M in José Mari Bakero's row
  • Removed, was a leftover.
• Notes. Note G: lose the first "in all competitions"
  • Done
• Note F, H, maybe others: where someone was the first player to do something, you'd say was the first, not is
  • F, H fixed
• Note L: "guided" sounds like management rather than captaincy; perhaps just "captained"
  • captained it is
• Note Q: is there a more reliable source for the fee than goal.com?
  • Removed.

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Adressed above. Sandman888 (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This deserves proper scrutiny, although my initial reaction is that it's nearly there.

My only initial gripe is with the inclusion of Rodrigez and Ibrohimovic (and any others who only qualify through a club record that I've missed). From reading the (lengthy) discussion at WT:FOOTY I've come to the conclusion that the legends are acceptable. It's a clearly defined group, and it's possible to include all of them indiscriminately, which is one of my main concerns at FL. On the other hand, it's impossible to say that you have covered every single record. I don't have a problem with listing records as footnotes, but I don't think a record alone should qualify a player to be included. The players in question will still get the recognition they deserve here, and there is the chance that they'll reach 100 appearances or be recognised as legends in future, and qualify that way. I hope to give this a proper review, but given my (lack of a) recent contribution history I can't make any promises. Best of luck either way. WFCforLife (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have now made the inclusion criteria more strict, since this seems to be a trend toward community consensus. Only Legends and >99 games are now included. Sandman888 (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As pointed above, i feel that any list of the sort should only include players with 100 matches or more; however, the legend part is a little more "fuzzy", a good source for debate. For instance, Pedro Rodríguez, as of June 2010, only has 42 league games (12 goals), but if his career ended TODAY at the club, it would certainly (in my opinion) reach something nearing the legend status, due to his HUGE importance in 2009-10 (for example, i feel Kiko achieved legend status at Cádiz CF in spite of only playing three years at the club - less than 100 league games - as storyline demonstrates). I support it - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no problem with this and I think it's good stuff. I support it... La Fuzion (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Left most of my commentary before the restart, but do have one thing to add: reference 33 should have the publisher (AFP) spelled out like in the FIFA, UEFA and RSSSF citations. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Done Sandman888 (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstaining on the sourcing, support everything else. In light of the discrepancies I found in the first nomination, a reasonable sized random sample of statistics need to be checked against the sources, to ensure that they're accurate. Regrettably I don't have the time to do that at the moment. On all other criteria I feel that this is now FL quality. WFCforLife (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only official lfp stats are now used, so the mix-up from previously is well in the past. Sandman888 (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I still have some irks about this list (in my comments above), but they're personal preferences rather than outstanding issues, so I'll weakly support this. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:00, 22 June 2010 (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 23:41, 22 June 2010 [12].

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B-Ref has finally brought back their draft pick info to the draft pages (they were revamping them, adding WAR as a stat listed for example) so here's a return to one of those lists! Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]