Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2007

I went through this list and feels that it meets the criteria. Warhol13 21:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very nice. :-) My only concern is the large gap between the lead and the table, due to the {{SCOTUS}} nav-box on the right. I suggest something like a gallery of current members. Tompw (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah I thought the same thing. I was trying to put the {{SCOTUS}} horizontally at the bottom, but I couldn't figure it out. Is there anybody more experienced with the technical aspects of the wikipedia who could do something like that? Warhol13 14:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way to do that without creating a new template, so I created {{SCOTUS horizontal}} and added it at the bottom. Tompw (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I notice some lists are set up so the reader can can self-sort by column. This might be useful for the 'State of birth' and 'Appointed by' columns. Hmains 19:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Because the "Term of service" cell spans three columns, class=wikitable sortable (the usual way of doing that) won't work. Tompw (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm concerned about this sentence: "Persons such as Robert H. Harrison or Edwin Stanton, who were appointed to the court but never served, are not listed." Are they the only people who didn't serve? Please elaborate on this. If this is already fixed, then I would support.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerns dealt with - Support --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 00:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I added a timeline a few days ago, but I got an error for the justices before 1800. I put those on the talk page. Could someone with more techniocal knowledge re-add them? Thank you. --Donar Reiskoffer 13:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - would it be prudent to add the chief justice terms to the timeline? Like, color the bars differently when they are chief? --Golbez 23:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: does the key for the timeline say "justice"? (It doesn't display properly in my browser so it's difficult to read.) If so, I would change it to "tenure", or something like that. I also second Golbez's suggestion above. -- bcasterline • talk 05:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two things 1. If you read the Date Format for the EasyTimeline, it says that dd/mm/yyyy and mm/dd/yyyy are only supported to 1800. If we want to go before that we need to go to years. Argh. It looks like I may need to submit a bug report in order to get this fixed. 2. In regards to "justice" being hard to read, thats another bug problem. I cannot fix that. Do you have any suggestions to make it either to read? In conclusion, basically the two problems with the graph are bug problems that I am having a tough time controlling. We should take away this graph until the major problem is fixed with the code. Either way, what are your guys thoughts on promoting it without the graph. Considering that List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada doesn't have a graph I say we still promote. I will then fix the graph as soon as I am able. Warhol13 02:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support — If Now that the timeline is fixed (the letters overlap at the bottom) – Zntrip 02:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was another code problem, but I took out the words that were over it. The timeline is as good as it can be right now, I believe, given the code. Warhol13 18:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete list of episodes for the television show The Unit. I am submitting this list to be a featured list because I think it is:

• Absolutely complete
• Very clear and well laid out
• Is referenced
• All the images have been tagged appropriately

-- Underneath-it-All 02:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Oppose' - The summaries should definetly be expanded - some of them provide very vague details about what happens in the episode. 2-3 lines, as per several other featured episode lists such as The Sopranos and Avatar: The Last Airbender, should suffice. Important information regarding events in the episode should be included with an appropriate spoiler tag (see WP:SPOIL) at the top of the list. The level of detail in each summary is currently inconsistent; for instance "The team is pushed to their mental and physical limits during SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance Escape) training" - how are they pushed to their limits in the episode? Are there any other important moments in the episode that crop up during this training? Qjuad 12:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added spoiler tags and have expanded each episode summary. I think that they now fully explain what is going on in each episode. -- Underneath-it-All 18:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Much improved. Qjuad 20:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The content note backlink does not work.Circeus 17:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed this. It is now just a regular note. -- Underneath-it-All 18:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Object The fair use rationales do not explain why the particular screenshot is being used for the particular episode. It is also quite obvious that they copy-pasted from another image. No free image of this actress on a picture that only contains men. Jay32183 01:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated all the fair use rationales. They now all explain why the certain picture is being used to represent each episode. -- Underneath-it-All 02:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I drop my objection. Any chance of writers and/or directors being added to the list? I noticed the indivdual episode pages do list them. Jay32183 02:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Gogo Dodo 08:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support good work now. Jay32183 17:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support since, as Jay just mentioned, there are no credits to writers and directors. The WP:LOE guidelines are not yet written and stated, but for now the guideline is to simply follow the example of other featured lists. List of The Sopranos episodes, for example, has such credits. It also has a Season table with DVD info and color coding per season—and those are things that should be incorporated herein, along with said credits. Cliff smith 02:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I based the episode list after the format used for the Stargate SG-1 episode list and Avatar: The Last Airbender episode list, both of which are featured. Also there are a couple featured episode lists that do not contain directors or writers such as: List of The Simpsons episodes and List of Dad's Army episodes. -- Underneath-it-All 04:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. Well, that aside, the DVD info and color coding still need to be added. Cliff smith 20:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the DVD and colour coding to the list. -- Underneath-it-All 19:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! The colors should probably be similar to the DVD art, but it's good. Nice work. Cliff smith 01:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new use of episode list template here is very good; the writing/directing credits are also very good.
I change my vote to a full Support because of this. This is a job well done. Cliff smith 17:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pennsylvania state parks is a complete list of all current 120 state parks in Pennsylvania, and has three shorter lists of all known former parks and other names for these parks. It has had a peer review, which is here, that found no major problems. The suggestions for improvement have all been addressed and we believe the list meets the requirements for featured list candidates. This article follows the model of List of areas in the National Park System of the United States, which is a featured list.

The article was previously 96 kb with 120 more references (one for each park) as inline citations, but now is 68 kb and uses one reference for the 120 current parks (the official list of them, plus the other references). The other larger version is saved in User space if needed. Since the tables are 95% of the possible width, there is not room for pictures in them. We have instead used galleries to show thumbnail images of 20 parks (in five groups of four each) throughout the article, plus one panorama. This is a self-nomination in that we are the three editors who have worked the most on this list and the park articles themselves. Thanks in advance for all input, Dincher, VerruckteDan, and Ruhrfisch 00:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent work :-) I think you made the right descision in not having images for every single park. I like how you have images between the sections instead. Tompw (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your support - unfortunately only about a fourth of the articles have images that were taken in the park, which was another factor in our decision. Ruhrfisch 11:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks great! See below for my nitpicks. Nationalparks 14:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpick: Two nitpicky things-- 1) Please make sure that with the former parks and other former parks (which have the same columns) that the column widths are forced to be the same. 2) The quote (last line of the lead-in) should say Dan Cupper of Pennsylvania Heritage Magazine says... Nationalparks 14:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thanks for your support, Nationalparks and Underneath-it-All. As to the nitpicks: 1) Just to make sure, I think you mean that the last three tables ("Other names of current parks", "Former parks" and "Other names of former parks") should all have the same column widths, as all are 5 columns wide? Is that right? Also (semi-unrelated question), is there any reason not to make the tables 100% wide (as I was going to use % to set the column widths, so I could change them all from 95% to 100% total width if that is OK)? 2) Cupper wrote both the book (ref 3) and the magazine article (ref 2), which is a very condensed version of the book (I cited both as the article is free and online). The quote is in both. Would According to Dan Cupper, "Pennsylvania is the thirty third largest state, but ...^[2][3] or As Dan Cupper writes, "Pennsylvania is the thirty third...^[2][3] be OK (specify the author, but not either source)? Thanks again, Ruhrfisch 15:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Yes I would like According to Dan Cupper. The tables as a whole are all the same width, but the columns within them are not consistent from table to table (in the last three tables, which each have 5 columns). Nationalparks 19:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, the changes you requested have been made (plus a few minor copyedits). I appreciate the input,Ruhrfisch 21:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to fix it and got beat to the punch. Thanks for the support and ideas. Dincher 21:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Good list with lots of references. Great work! -- Underneath-it-All 15:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, a beautiful list. PhoenixTwo 04:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well done: comprehensive and effectively organized. Difficult to criticize. -- bcasterline • talk 05:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very good indeed. I suggest removing the spaces between the notes, otherwise they all seem like stubby paragraphs. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 20:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, thanks for all the support. The use and format of the notes is based on featured articles that use them, such as El Greco and Demosthenes, which include spaces between the notes. If you insist we will take the spaces out, but I think that it looks very crowded without them (tried it in preview). Ruhrfisch 00:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not currently sure. Since there is no guidelines for notes formatting, I've seen articles go either way. I guess this is just a visual preference — to make the notes appear constantly to the references. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 16:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I took the spaces out for now. Any comments on the change and preferred version (with spaces or without) are welcome. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see little difference in appearance. Both ways are fine in my opinion. Dincher 04:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support — A beautiful page. – Zntrip 02:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A definite support. - Qjuad 09:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list is just as good as Swedish football champions, which also is a featured list. kalaha 20:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The list part is fine, but the prose needs citations for the format changes. Oldelpaso 20:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information on the format is taken from the listed entries in the "External links" section, and referencing the changes would mean several refs to the same sources. Changing the "External links" header to "Sources" would indicate that the links are the grounds of the article, and I think that would be the most "clean" solution. What do you think about that? Poulsen 11:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • With several paragraphs of prose I think inline citations are a must, even if they would be multiple references to the same two sources. Using <ref name="some name here"/> allows multiple citations of the same source in a neat manner. Oldelpaso 19:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will begin making inline citations - if you have the time, it would be nice if you would insert {{cn}} tags to make it clear exactly what to source. Poulsen 08:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support, they've all been dealt with now. Oldelpaso 19:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Too many red links; several players and even a team. Punkmorten 07:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If creating 30 or so stubs will make this list featured, then I'll go ahead and make them. Poulsen 11:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I would like to point out, that the mentioned Swedish football champions has a few red-linked clubs as well - even the 1925 winners Brynäs IF Fotboll. Poulsen 15:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - this is fine now (although it would be nice for all those Danish football seasons to have articles). -- ALoan (Talk) 18:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose too many unnecessary abbreviations (AB, BK, B1903, B 93...). And why does B 1901 redirects to a club that was founded in 1994?Circeus 01:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least some of the abbreviations are the traditional way of refering to these clubs (fx. AB, KB, B 19xx). To avoid any mistakes, I have now enforced the most recent use of the Danish FA[1], to ensure a standard.

Lolland-Falster Alliancen is ultimately a merger of B 1901 and B 1921. This is now mentioned in the LFA article. Poulsen 13:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make the article any less jargonistic. Swedish football champions at least uses titles that are minimally more explicit (e.g. usually the title of the article). Circeus 23:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite follow you. In your initial post you say there are too many abbreviations. I then remove those abbreviations that an authoritative source deems unnecessary. You then promote the standard of the Swedish equivalent, which fx uses abbreviations like IF, FF and BK, and short names like AIK and GAIS - much in the same tradition as what was (and still is) in the Danish football champions article. The only way it makes sense to me is if you are against club abbreviations (KB, AB .. - though not in the Swedish champions article), but for pre- and suffixes (BK, IF, FF ..). Is that the case? Poulsen 00:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the objection is the use of abreviations for club names, not associated prefixes/suffixes. I suggest the following changes:

• KB to Kjøbenhavns Boldklub
• AB to Akademisk Boldklub
• B93 to Boldklubben 1893
• AGF to Aarhus Gymnastik Forening

That should remove any confusing abbreviations for club names. Tompw (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is - the long names are seldomly, if ever, used in the Danish press, by the Danish FA, or by the clubs themselves. Naming their respective articles that way is almost purely a Wikipedia phenomenon, and should not be taken as gospel on how to refer to these clubs. Please consult the Danish FA link already provided for the way to refer to these clubs; a way repeated by both nationwide Danish media; Danmarks Radio (1st division, 2nd division) and TV 2 (Denmark) (1st Division, 2nd Division). Also, I can not see any arguments, except convenience, that longer names should prevail. And how is AGF in any way different from fore example AIK? Poulsen 13:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the abreviations are confusing for those not familiar with the subject. (Also, AIK isn't mentioned in the article). Tompw (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Danish football champions article, KB and AB are written and noted as Kjøbenhavns Boldklub and Akademisk Boldklub in the introductory prose parts of the article. There should be no confusion on the part of fx. KB being Kjøbenhavns Boldklub, if you read the entire article. AIK is mentioned in the Swedish article, which has been referred to many times in this discussion as a comparable article, due to its similar content and Featured List status. Poulsen 16:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I have been a main contributor to the list, but would like to state that, especially after the different objections have been dealt with in a standardizing matter, I think the article is fit to be featured. Poulsen 09:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - as kalaha said, it's just as good as the Swedish list, despite the redlinks, which the Swedish one contains as well. A very well constructed list. к1иg---f1$н---£я5ω1fт 14:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put together by Miskwito. Informative, well-sourced, &c. &c. --Ptcamn 12:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice. A couple of comments: the lead section is rather short: would it be possible to add some sort of summary (something like "The names of the U.S. states are derived from a variety of languages. The origins of some of the names are uncertain, but at least x are derived from Spanish, y from Latin, and z from native American languages. N states are named after people, m after flowers." (or animals or whatever)) Secondly, are the "Word of origin" column in IPA? I think some of them need IPA templates to avoid boxes for some browsers - I have added them to the two (Arizona, Hawaii) that were problematic for me, but there many be others for other people. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of them aren't written in the IPA, but in whatever the general transliteration of that language into Latin seems to be. In most cases, anyway. But, for example, the writing systems for O'odham and Hawaiian use 'unusual' characters that might be hard to display. --Miskwito 20:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I tried writing a lead, more or less directly following your suggested model. Thoughts?
    • Support now - I have tweaked the lead a little, and a few loose ends are mentioned below, but this is good enough for me. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well informative, well presented, and well cited. My only recommendation is I would like to see those maps in SVG. Its just a preference of mine so I still support it regardless. See WP:GL if you need help with the conversion.↔NMajdan•talk 17:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Refs need formatting. See {{cite web}}. Jay32183 19:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a note that I didn't "put together" the list. I just cited everything, and fixed some of the etymologies that were wrong or incomplete. In any case, I vote weak oppose for right now, because there's still some work that could be done with the page. The maps are out of date, for one thing, and I wasn't aware of the {{cite web}} template, so as Jay32183 pointed out, the citations are apparently incorrectly formatted? I also was planning on double-checking some of the etymologies with some experts. And yeah, the lead could be improved as well. --Miskwito 20:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually, from what I can see, the {{cite web}} template is not required, is it? To quote from WP:CITET: "The use of Citation templates is not required by WP:CITE and is neither encouraged nor discouraged by any other Wikipedia citation guidelines. They may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with the other editors on the article. Some editors find them helpful, while other editors find them annoying[...]" --Miskwito 17:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Formatting is still terribly inconsistent. Note that almost none of them have access dates,for example. Cite web has the advantage of standardizing references easily across articles. Circeus 19:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note that I've made a new map (Image:US_State_Name_Etymologies.png), one that's up-to-date (and a bit more specific), to the article --Miskwito 00:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, now that the map is up-to-date and stuff. Note that I've been a major contributor to the article for the last several weeks. The citation style for the references certainly can be improved, though... --Miskwito 00:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose References need to be properly formatted. The "meaning and notes" columns needs check for punctuation (some have ending periods, but most don't), and the topic can and should be bolded in the lead. Unsourced statement under the Arizona notes. Circeus 19:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I converted all the online references I could to {{cite web}}, and went through the page's history to find out what dates I first cited each website, and thus added the access dates to all the sites. The etymology for "Arizona" has also been updated/changed. --Miskwito 20:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks all fine tome now. I especially like the maps. Circeus 21:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Informative, well-presented. Looks accurate and well-sourced as well. Dewrad 21:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support per Dewrad. I like how many sources there are; it looks very good. Cliff smith 01:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I really like this lisa. Very informative. Sotakeit 17:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a continuation (and an improvement) on the 2005 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings article which is also a Featured List. This article shows the dynamics in ratings throughout a the 2006 college football season. It has been checked for accuracy; it is informative and well sourced.↔NMajdan•talk 18:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - great list. Solid criteria. Complete, accurate, and well-sourced. Note: I have made small contributions to the lead and some wikilinking. Johntex\^talk 19:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Overall this is an excellent list, and somewhat an improvement over the previous. I can recommend some fixes:
  • The first sentence doesn't really explain the article's subject, instead it should be: 2006 NCAA Division I-BS (Bowl Subdivision) football rankings is...
  • All sentences which begin with "that", "this", "it" should be merged with the previous (e.g. and is.., which is..).
    • I fixed all but one, because I couldn't figure out how to also include it with the previous sentence that also used a that/this/it. --MECU≈talk 01:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sports" doesn't need to be linked.
  • As the 2006 football season progressed, rankings are updated weekly - Grammar.
  • The legend/indicators need to precede the list, preferably on the right of the lead in this case.
    • How does it look now?↔NMajdan•talk
  • External links shouldn't appear within the article's context. Instead, move the Michigan blog link to an external links section. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • mgoblog is already in the citation, so I just removed the external jump.↔NMajdan•talk
  • I've made a few formatting changes to the article. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your comments, I have made some of the changes you requested and will make the others as soon as I can, unless somebody beats me to it.↔NMajdan•talk 22:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it stretches the page, dunno if that counts but can it be remedied? --Howard the Duck 17:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is built in; we prefer it that way. Trying to get such a wide table onto a normal screen would make it look much worse, in my opinion. I've seen that table conformed to a 1024x768 monitor (which I use) and it was not pretty. I would be very much against any suggestion to limiting this to screen width.↔NMajdan•talk 18:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was going to say to divide it into monthly sections but you wouldn't see Florida's from #7 to #1 that dramtically. 02:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional support - The last 3 weeks of the USA Today poll and the BlogPoll don't have teams' records listed, that needs to be added like all the previous weeks have. VegaDark 21:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.↔NMajdan•talk 14:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support though I am one of the major contributors to this list, it doesn't seem that I am precluded from supporting since the nomination also counts as a support and that user is also a major contributor. If I am wrong, please forgive me and simply ignore my support and let me know nicely how wrong I am. --MECU≈talk 22:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After creating this article about a week ago, I believe it adheres to the featured list criteria. I created it because I was surprised no other article existed, and I think it's an interesting subject. Therefore, it's useful. After some thorough searches, I believe it is comprehensive. It is well-sourced and factually accurate, with cite web sourcing for every statement. There is no controversy or edit warring, and I believe it's well constructed. I believe it follows the manual of style; if it does not I will correct any issues. Finally, there are two images related to the article. Unfortunately, there's no usable images of the actual snow in Florida, but if I find a public domain one I will add it. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - there seem to be an awful lot of mentions of Jacksonville. Is snow more common there than elsewhere in Florida or is it an artefact of the references used? I'm happy to accept your reassurance that you've identified all the available sources, but a little concerned that it's giving a misleading picture simply these sources are themselves not comprehensive. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would you recommend? I've done a thorough google search. The reason Jacksonville has so many references is for the early time period of the article, the only location where records exist is in Jacksonville. Surely, other snow has occurred prior to the first listed event, and most likely other snow events occurred in between. That is why I refer it as known snow events. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll be happy to support if the above is added to the article intro - something to make it explicit that the early years will necessarily be incomplete, that Jacksonville was the only location where accurate records were kept, and if possible a date after which we can be reasonably confident that all instances of snow throughout the state have been recorded. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Got it. Unfortunately, I have no idea of such a date. There were likely times when remote places reported snow, but an official office didn't record it. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's fine - your latest additions are enough to allow me to support. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. - As rated by Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology that this article is currently in start class. Also, I do not think it is necessary to put snow dates for each states. What's next? Texas? --CSI or CIS 22:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the start class designation. I don't think any other state will ever get their own page for snow dates. Florida snowfall is a very rare event, as demonstrated in the article. All other states have too much snowfall for such an article. Can you provide anything actionable for your opposition? Hurricanehink (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was the one who listed the article as start class, mainly because I only glanced at it briefly and was eager to get it onto the assessment list. I saw that it was full of lists, which is not desirable for an article, but obviously if Snow in Florida is being categorized as a list rather than an article, then there is no problem. IMHO, it is at least B-class (well-referenced, well-written, appropriate images), but I am not familiar enough with the featured-list criteria to oppose or support. -Runningonbrains 17:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You could rename the list List of snow events in Florida in order for the title to be more descriptive. CG 19:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The reason I named it as such was because there was also an article Snow in Australia, and another user suggested I name it Snow in Florida. However, I'd be content with renaming it. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wouldn't use Snow in Australia as an example of much - it is an unreferenced short stub based on one (new) editor's observations with rather vague statements which are likely all true but not comprehensive. It will probably be merged to Geography in Australia in the near future (I found this page by following "What links here" from that page). --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • True, but this article does more than just list them. It also explains how and when it occurs in the lede. I would rather wait until after the FL run is over, to avoid any confusion, before making the move. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Alright, I did it anyway. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ref 4 concerns February but is used for January events, etc. Can you review your links? I am concerned about the ascertainment bias in having Jacksonville as the only decent source of weather reports for much of the time. Ref 1 largely concerns "Jacksonville and vicinity" yet not all entries are clear as to their extent (e.g. 4/5 Feb 1875). There's a gap between 1996 and 2003 – I can't find a source to say is officially empty. Source 9 only mentions "east central Florida". There are other gaps too that are worrying (the 20s, 40s and 60s). Relying on newspaper articles isn't as good as met office reports. Why should we think the Today in Florida History site is comprehensive? Colin°^Talk 23:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, not sure what happened with the ref, but I fixed it. Jacksonville is the only decent source of weather reports that made a weather climatology page for a large time period (that I've found, at least). This source, the National Climatic Data Center, shows that no snow events reported between 1996 and 2003. You can access it, if you want, by clicking on Florida, specifying the time periods, and specifying the type of event (snow and ice or temperature extremes). I searched through all of them, and only two (1996 and 2003) mentioned any snow. The Today in Florida History site might not be comprehensive, but it's the only place I could find the information. In the perfect world, there would be official information on the subject with plenty of statistics, but unfortunately, it is not perfect, and the article deals with the known snow events. If other snow events occurred in those time periods, or if there is a site out there providing the info, I do not know, but I did a thorough google search and I believe it is comprehensive enough. Should I put {{Dynamic list}} on the top of the page? I'm not sure about your qualm about source 9, either. It is the Melbourne, Florida National Weather Service site reporting on the snow flurries in 2003. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, It's hink's writing.Mitchazenia 23:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - looks good, but I'd agree with a move to List of snow events in Florida or something along those lines, to be consistent with other lists. --Coredesat 00:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - but a couple of minor comments: please can you add metric equivalents to the few remaining imperial units without, and I think "&minus;" or "−" should be used for the minus sigh, rather than a hyphen. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, got it. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Meets criteria. Interesting and cool.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myself and others have done significant work to gather basic information about each of Kentucky's 120 counties into an easily-accessible format. Acdixon 15:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think this list is fundamentally sound, but needs a few things sorting out:
  • Lead: Needs to start with a sentence introducing and explaining the article. Something like "This is a list of the one hundred and twenty counties in the U.S. state of Kentucky. Despite being the 37th largest in area, Kentucky has the third highest number of counties in the U.S. behind Texas..."
    • I hope you don't mind, but I've added your lead sentence verbatim. Acdixon 15:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the comment about the main reference in the lead to the references section.
    • Done. Acdixon 15:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move county name to far left column edit: I've changed {{county5}} to do this... it's only used in this list.
  • Get rid of the first two rows of the table (we know its Kentucky) edit: I did this when I changedthe table to fit the above
  • For the etymology, give the dates that someone held a public office - e.g. "John Adair, Governor of Kentucky (1820-1824)". For more generic posts (like for Ballard county), give the dates of the person's life.
    • I have begun this process, putting the dates after the name if they are life dates and after the title if they are service dates. Let me know if you feel there is a better way to do this. Acdixon 16:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Breathitt County: Wikilink "Governor of Kentucky"
    • Done. Acdixon 15:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cumberland and Ohio counties: Do the rivers start in them, or do they just past through?
    • The Cumberland River flows through the county; the Ohio River was once the northern border of the county. I have made the text more explicit. Acdixon 17:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only link things the first time ("Lieutenant Governor of Kentucky" is wikilinked twice)
    • Done.
  • A sentence about the FIPS County Code would be useful. Also, I feel "Census data for each county is available by selecting the FIPS code for the county" should be re-phrased (one doesn't select links)... something more like "The FIPS code for each county links to XXXX".
    • Done. I was trying to avoid the word "click" with reference to the links, since users with mobility impairments may use the keyboard to access links instead of the mouse. Your version appropriately avoids this term as well, so I have used it. Acdixon 16:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list is generally fine (I love the maps) - it just needs a bit of final polishing before it can become a FL. Tompw (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose You have two competing image styles that look clunkily different once thumbinized.Circeus 01:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because some are PNG, and some are the more eifficient SVG format. I think SVG versions of the PNGs exsist in most or all cases, and should be chnaged accordingly. Tompw (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chanegd them all myself... took about two minutes. Tompw (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support now the above issues have been addressed. Tompw (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• supportCirceus 23:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The county after Johnson County in the list does not have a name in the first column. Also the date for Muhlenberg County does not link properly, seemingly because it has a references next to it. Tried to fix it but couldn't work out how to do it. Other than these it looks good. - Suicidalhamster 16:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Previous issues have been dealt with. - Suicidalhamster 17:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - well done. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support. Great list. Try to get all other "list of counties in ..." lists to FL status. CG 20:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - good work; the maps are especially impressive --Miskwito 23:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous FAC Nominating after massive changes made after feedback since last FAC, but many changes completed fairly late and was failed. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 15:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments? RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 17:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A big improvement. The "Christmas Night with the Stars Inserts" could do with inline citations and also an explanation as to what it is. In the lead, paragraph 3 could be stuck on the end of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 stuck on the end of paragraph 4. The words "lost episodes" in paragraph 2 could be linked to Dad's Army missing episodes and the "See also" section removed per MOS as those links are already covered. The link to the radio episodes is handled by the navigation footer, but I think using the words "most episodes" to link to the radio list is a bit subtle. Would it be better to link from "adapted for radio"? Your "References" should be "Footnotes" and your "Sources" should be "References". The website reference should be fully cited e.g. with {{cite web}}. I don't see why the "Dad's Army" navigation footer needs to split out all the sections of this list (e.g. Series 1, etc) since they aren't separate articles. I think it would be better to say "The first two series were in black and white." in the lead, rather than have that detail scattered. Paragraph 2 is a bit confusing: it says none of series two was filmed then gives examples of three filmed episodes. Perhaps the discussion of lost episodes should be simplified. Colin°^Talk 21:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Edits made exc. the Christmas Night with the Stars, because I can't find a citation for that. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 22:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Croft isn't cited anywhere. Why is that?--Rmky87 04:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have any of his books, so cant use them for inline cites. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 15:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - looks good, but you need a "References" section. It would be nice to expand the explanation of the "Christmas Night with the Stars Inserts" - what are they, and each currently has only a single line. If you have not used Croft, you should move it to a "Further reading". -- ALoan (Talk) 18:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The references section was requested to be renamed to footnotes above, so I did that, and I'll alter the book headings now. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 18:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, sorry - was it? When did we decide we needed "sources" rather than "References"? WP:WIAFL still asks for a "References" section. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited to show you what I meant. Is that better? Colin - does that conflict with you wanted? -- ALoan (Talk)

• Support Those section-heading edits are exactly what was needed. I'm going to break with tradition and support an episode-list since this one is so well sourced and is an example of an encyclopaedic TV list that doesn't need screenshots to work well. Colin°^Talk 19:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh good - Support too :) -- ALoan (Talk) 21:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks fine now the above issues have been addressed. Tompw (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per minimalistic use of fair use images ;) Renata 00:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak oppose Currently, all our featured lists of episodes use the {{episode list}} format (two exceptions. Simpsons because of sheer size, and Stargate SG-1 who use a table, but not the template). Is there a particular reason not to use that common and relatively standard format? Circeus 19:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - using that template would change nothing about the article - its neatly presented as it is, and there is no need to do extra work putting the same information in a new template. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 00:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination — This is a well-defined list with each entry having a reference. I believe it meets all the requirements of the featured lists criteria—I've been the only contributor for past two months. (The Detection section is intended only to serve as a very brief overview for the reader, but the topic could certainly be expanded into an article. See also ISM.) I'll try to address any issues that arise; unless the number of red links becomes a point of dispute, in which case I'll have to beg off. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I decided not to oppose as the issues I have are mainly presentational:

• The long table of contents looks slightly awkward to me, perhaps an expanded lead and/or a picture will help balance out the top of the page.
  • I simplified the ToC by moving the section names into the table headers. Not sure if that's the best approach, but it seemed to do the job. — RJH (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• More picures down the rhs would be nice (similar to the layout of List of dinosaurs).
  • A bunch of chemical images were added along the right margin. — RJH (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I know it's stated in the intro, but I'm always uncomfortable when I see a blank space in a field, as with the Ions column, as it simply looks like it could be missing information. Perhaps a dash (as used in some instances in the molecule column) would be better?
  • Okay, a plethora of dashes were inserted. — RJH (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be nice if the table widths are standardised.
  • I used fixed "em" widths for the column headers. It seemed to help, although the tables are much wider now. — RJH (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I personally don't have a problem with the number of red links, but I'm aware that I'm more forgiving on this than the majority of other FLC reviewers.

-- CheekyMonkey 14:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Not much I can do about the red links for the moment. Hopefully they'll be filled in at a later date by some chemistry experts. If that is the only reason this fails I can live with it. :-) — RJH (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Thanks, I think the list looks a lot better. The lead looks a little short, but as you say it's a well defined list and I think the 2 sentences are suffient. CheekyMonkey 00:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it also be possible to list the abundance of some of the more common molecules and elements? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the abundance of molecules varies quite a bit depending on the conditions. Abundance of elements probably deserves its own article and would be out of scope here. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - well done! -- ALoan (Talk) 18:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on people! Why so little support? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Artaxiad 12:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very nice!! --Donar Reiskoffer 15:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am renominating this list after significant changes resulting from FLC nomination1 and review of the Featured list criteria. TonyTheTiger 21:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on my talk page, I have received a comment on the new image format as a result of following the Featured list criteria suggestion for captioning. I am not familiar enough with the code to change the format, but I am willing to revert to uncaptioned images. I see there are featured lists with uncaptioned images such as List of French monarchs, List of Portuguese monarchs, & List of Prime Ministers of Canada. However, each of these lists has unambiguous images. In this list captions are more integral, because several list elements have multiple subjects. TonyTheTiger 22:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts were that maybe a layout closer to that of List of basil cultivars, with less images outside the table, might be preferable. Since it's unlikely (and actually, I don't believe it's something to strive for) we can put illustrations for all the recordings, it would make the table simpler, and also the page shorter, since the image wouldn't stretch the page, I still think the text could use improvements too, and I'm going to look at it ASAP.Circeus 19:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking the list in a good direction. Thanks for your assistance. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 08:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed one big no-no: Never use other articles as actual sources. These bits need to be sourced independently or set back to the "official" years. I'll do the last section (and a final check for consistency and stuff) at a later time.Circeus 09:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I will watch that internal sourcing. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 13:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to finish the conversion following your lead. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Circeus 22:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Underneath-it-All 14:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. 1ne 00:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. fantastically interesting. W guice 12:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the work was done by user:SP-KP. The list follows the same format as the Avon, Cleveland and Somerset lists. - Suicidalhamster 00:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Just wikilink OSGB36 (in one of the references). Good work. Tompw (talk) 11:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - very thorough, impressive work --Miskwito 08:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – one question though, as there are no sites beginning with "Z," would that section still be called "T – Z" or would you rename it "T – Y"? Otherwise very comprehensive. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I hadn't actually noticed that there were not any sites beginning with Z. Personally I don't mind whether the section is "T - Z" or "T - Y". Did you have a preference as to naming the section? Looking at the Somerset list it seems that the last section follows the same idea as this list. Thanks - Suicidalhamster 17:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Looks good! -- Underneath-it-All 02:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]