Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2011

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:15, 23 March 2011 [6].

Nominator(s): Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This list is inspired by the similar FLs for 2008 and 2010 Olympics, although it is slightly modified to give a more comprehensive coverage. Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there should be a section on the Olympic village. Nergaal (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea. Give me a day or so to create an article about the Olympic village, and I'll see if it is appropriate to paste some information into the article or not. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My apologies for that taking so long time, I seem to have gotten distracted by something else on WP and suddenly time flew. Anyway, I've created the article Lillehammer Olympic Village (which covers both of them) and added three sentences on the issue in the lead. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the village article should be merged into this list. It should definitely be included here, and I am not sure it is notable enough to deserve a separate article. Nergaal (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you want the information from that article pasted in here, with the level of detail in the subarticle? Also, there is more to be said about the village, there was a certain amount of public debate about the localization of it, and also there could be said more about the post-used (it did after all turn into a small subdivision), so I am comfortable with keeping the subarticle. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not really. What I think is appropriate is to have a short section on it that contains the essential information about the village. Nergaal (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've copyedited a bit, and there is now one paragraph on non-competition venues in the lead, plus half a paragraph in the "post-Olympic" section. Technical details are available in the list. Any more information on this, and it would be undue weight. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments - Refs 40-51 have no publisher. Ref 40, 42, 43, 50 need a format parameter. The Bibliographies need format parameters. "Håkon Hall and Gjørvik played host to the World Women's Handball Championship in 1999[50]," Ref should be after the punctuation mark. Afro (Talk) 12:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 41–50 have an author and publisher which is the same, so it seems unnecessary to duplicate the information (they are all from the official sites of the mentioned organizations). Otherwise fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll Support my issues were only minor and they seem to of been fixed. Afro (Talk) 15:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• The last sentence of the lead is a bit like a run-on for my tastes. Could the walking distance from train stations be made into a small sentence of its own?
• Post-Olympic use: Double word in "Only part of the athlete accomodation was was built for permanent use". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments. Both have been fix. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support after my silly gaffe was pointed out. Courcelles 13:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my issues all resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Have Nergaal and Afkatk been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know why there isn't a section on the village yet. Nergaal (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Another great list! :p --TIAYN (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 03:24, 19 March 2011 [7].

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidental good timing with the Athletics' manager list below! So close to finishing this topic. One question for the reviewers: How much (if at all) should I add a mention of Moneyball to this article? Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As should not be surprising, with 29 of 31 lists written, the formula is pretty well down. Courcelles 03:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support all my minor issues dealt with with alacrity, most appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• Comma would be nice after "They also drafted Ariel Prieto in 1995".
• "Two Athletics' first-round picks have won championships with the franchise." Nope. That number is at least three. Walt Weiss was on the A's 1989 team, and his Baseball-Reference page clearly indicates that he played in the World Series against the Giants. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed! Good catch, I swear I scan through every pick-page for players drafted before a given WS win for a franchise, I must've missed him. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 03:24, 19 March 2011 [8].

Nominator(s): TCO (talk), NYMFan69-86 (talk)

State reptiles are frequent subjects for young schoolchildren and provide an easy, friendly way to get into studying biology. But the prompt for doing this article was actually the incomprehension of non-Americans when hearing about state reptiles in FAC for Painted turtle. I hope this article explains what the heck a state reptile is and just shows some fun, quirky Americana.

We have gotten a little help from heavies in the list world on formatting, but appreciate your continued kind instruction and help to make this thing front page material. This is our first visit to FLC, but we are already eying another "prize": Subspecies of Galápagos tortoise.

Note: There is a potential usage problem with the Alabama red-bellied turtle image. Have filed an FFD to try to resolve that and send out emails asking for a donation. Fixed. Got permission for the original image. Uploading OTRS and proper copyright holder to Commons.

TCO (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The title should be List of U.S. state reptiles consistent with all other state symbol lists and most FLs in general; WP:article titles generally should not be plural. Reywas92^Talk 13:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, thanks Reywas92!TCO (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 'List of' name is not good for several reasons, it's overly long, it's not a list and it's not a list of U.S state reptiles. U.S. state dog breeds was changed to drop the list of after discussion and passed as a featured list with that naming. The above poster(User:Reywas92) moved that article recently(since it passed as FL), with a 'minor' edit. Marking the move as 'minor' edit hides it from watch lists - from those who discussed it as the FL review - as such the action is distruptive. The name of an article is a rather major change. I moved U.S. state dog breeds back to the agreed name. U.S. state reptiles should also be used. It's okay being consistant, but not consistantly incorrect. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you please change ours back as well? I can see a lot of different sides to this and hope I don't get an object over something as silly as a name war. But since different people feel differently, rather do what makes the article writers happy. I don't like "List of" unless clearly needed since it makes the title longer, there is no separate article to differentiate from (and note that we never say "Articl of"!), the content to me includes a list as well as exploration of the topic, other sites on the web cover this topic without "List of" type titles. Keep the plural as well. This is different from horse (concept) being singular. We are talking about a set small class in number. It's the same as "Single-term presidents of the United States". You can leave that plural as it describes a specific group. Also as far as consistency, only one other state symbol list has been an FL (dog breeds) and it was without List of.TCO (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Returned to U.S. state reptiles. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - references should be after the punctuation marks in the notes. Is an image needed in biology? also on this point there might be too many pictures in the top half of the article, I understand the table but the pictures in history and biology make the article seem flooded with images, it might be a good idea to remove one of the images and reduce the size of the rest. The Lead may not adequately summarize the article may be a good idea to expand upon it. Afro (Talk) 23:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the punctuation
  • Reduced size of all three images.
  • I moving the biology image to the lead. Think number of images in text is needed for some break from all my numerical analytics...and content has grown a little again.
  • Lead expanded.TCO (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will have limited ability to respond to further comments until Tuesday (on travel).TCO (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Started a page for state bats (it was a redlink for our article).TCO (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have a few comments:

Lede:

• "As with other state symbols, states show their pride via the "Whereases" of designating statutes. " I think I know what you mean here. Thousands wouldn't. I would say "legislatures" rather than Whereases.

Cut.TCO (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Schoolchildren often start the campaigns to name state reptiles". I'd strike the "the".

Done.

• " Six states chose species named after the state.". Lose the second state. Perhaps "named after it"

Done.

Government aspects

• Perhaps "governmental aspects"?

Done.

• Does the flowery language bit need citation? Also, usually joint resolutions have numbers, or else put a date of passage.

That was my generalization in the sneaky guise of a topic sentence. I think it's justified, but if it made you pause, will make others. Cut comment and reader can draw his own inferences. For the JRS, I put the number back (we had it before, but I had cut it thinking the reference sufficed).

• On the "resolution", I'd add that it does not require the governor's signature

Done.

• West Virginia: You need the name of the town. Maybe it is the same as the school, but that isn't obvious.

I added it in brackets with a link. Interesting article actually. I could also do a note or even just use ellipses to eliminate the town digression.

• "While ..." rephrase so as not to use word "While".

Cut.

• Virginia and other states: You should provide pipes to the article on the individual houses of the legislature, for example Virginia House of Delegates.

I piped PA houses. For VA, had already rewritten to cut some of the discussion of the failure in General Assembly (was very similar story to PA just opposite houses and my cute little comments about NC rivalry give enough VA copy already. I was tempted to try to sneak in the Virginia Republicans for Reptiles but its not an RS and I already have enough cute little finds.

• " Virginia has had two unsuccessful legislative attempts to elevate the eastern box turtle." Perhaps reverse it "Proponents of the eastern box turtle have seen two attempts to elevate it in Virginia fail."

Done.

• "Official state reptiles are used for education." Perhaps "Designation of state reptiles is used in the education process". And perhaps if you can justify it, add "and to interest children in state geography and/or politics", only if a ref says that. Frankly, I'd rewrite this section, saying something like "State officials, most often the secretary of state, use webpages and coloring books to reach out to children. In Missouri, the incumbent, Robin Carnahan, uses the coloring book to great future voters."

It's more than just the designation. They use them for all kinds of crap. Basic geography. Logic games. Report writing. I don't remember doing any of that stuff when I was in school, but just Google it. It's all the rage. Heck, that makes me feel good that we have a decent page with all the wikilinks to our articles for teachers and kids to look stuff up. We're better than Netstate or the like, although it's good to know there is alternate content out there too. I rewrote the section a little, and backed up the comment about lesson plans with some refs, but it may still not be there. Please feel free to rewrite if you want, cut Robin's quote, etc. I don't like starting a section with a nominalization though ("designation").

• TCU: That story is long enough you should probably name the guy. And watch your word choice when you are casting around to avoid a repetition!

Added and (WTF) red-linked him. I'm not sure what boner I pulled, but thanks I guess you caught one.

Biology

• "wide-ranged" Surely "wide-ranging"?

I mean the species's range covers a lot of the USA. The individual animals don't really travel far (nothing like a wolf or the like). They are slow and have little legs. Although they move if a water body dries up and sometimes in search of food or the males for females or females to nest (but a couple miles or so). But I cut the whole term.

That's it. A nice effort.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I agree with all your comments and will fix. Also, saw you put in several upgrades. TCO (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it takes less effort to fix something in an article than to point it out to the nominator, I would rather just fix it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Please have another look. And feel free to mess with the Use section and make it better please.TCO (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems to meet the FL criteria. There is a prose glitch now and then, it wouldn't hurt to have someone outside read it over for a final check. I'd add a year to the state resolution you cite in the box.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added year to Vermont ref and quotebox.TCO (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A few small points to address:

• The eastern box turtle image is the only one with head to the right. It would be nicer flipped.

• facing left now.TCO (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Many of these are protected or endangered, it'd be nice to identify them in the table.

• I have added the content.TCO|TCO]] (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In citations:

• The lede is not exempt from wp:V. It should have supporting citations.

• If this is relating to your comments on summary form ledes ([9], I disagree with you on what is best for the article. General practice and even FA preference is not to have duplicated reference marks for executive summary style leads (provided content is backed up elsewhere in article). This is also how I write content off-wiki. While I respect your right to argue your view in the policy discussions, would ask that you give my article an oppose or support without respect to this issue. I find discussions going back to at least 2006 on this topic, one with Malleus against the notes and SV for them.

Thank you for drawing my attention to the open-ended state of that discussion, I thought it was resolved. It won't impact my position re this article. Still, I would urge caution. Summary style or executive style ledes that omit explicit citations are vulnerable to wp:SYNTH creeping in. Thus it is especially important to check that each assertion in the lede is also seen elsewhere in the article and cited there. Have you done that?00:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It's all summary content, not intro. At one time there was intro content, but when that existed, it HAD cites. And when it moved to body, the cites went with it.TCO (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs 59, 67 should follow the form of the other cites to that book (Shearer 1994)

• Done.TCO (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears that NSTATE LLC owns Netstate.com - while convenient it is not clear to me whether it's [stable and wp:RS. In any case, I'd suggest adding archiveurl and archivedate to the {{cite web}} instances to back up the "as of" statements. The internet archive seems to have content for that site, though of course it embargoes it for a few months.

• Archived.TCO (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice change of pace. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, 'dog. Will get to these later tonight (too nice a day for indoors now) and either make the change or note the comment.TCO (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have adressed all your comments, now. TCO (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support promotion. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dianna's comments

* I had a bunch of copy edits to suggest but just did them myself. Not sure what this is (possibly a typo?): Gopherus (gopher tortoises). Note the last two letters are italicised; I am not sure what is intended here.

I redid this sentence, also included a link to Gopherus.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went back to unitalicized gopher tortoises. (the last two letters was a remnant of something previous, NA now) Am concerned to start hyperlinking in there as it quickly becomes all blue.TCO (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Shearer and Shearer just appear out of the blue. Please add a phrase telling us something about who they are or what publication you are talking about.

"In their almanac"

*Book titles need to be capitalised.

The Shearer book citations under "Citations?" A few of them need to be condensed also...I'm on it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further inspection, they didn't need to be condensed. I did fix the capitalization on two though (reference numbers 54 and 67), were these the only two?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever we do, need to stack hands and be consistent. I was taught last FA, to go sentence case. There are also web page and article titles to consider. I know the web page titles are not consistent now.TCO (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Book titles need to be capitalised per Chicago and our own MoS but not all of our articles do that; even some of the feature articles do not do it. Chicago also calls for web page titles and article titles to be capitalised headline style but right now no one seems to be enforcing it. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*State birds needs disambiguation.

Fixed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*http://myfwc.com/newsroom/08/statewide/News_08_X_SeaTurtleSymbol.htm is a dead link. It is listed in two different ways, at Cite #11 and #51. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darnit. It was there. I will reference the bill itself as far as the animal naming (that should be stable). In terms of that quote, that has to go (FWC only maintains last 2 years of press releases). Will look for another state to make this point (what the students do). Grr.  :( Makes me wonder how the heck we should cite things in general (never site press releases, archive stuff (and does it really stay archived)?TCO (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame to lose that content. It was there only a couple of weeks ago. Maybe you can get it back? Regardless, I support promotion of the article. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nbbd.com/godo/cns/seaturtles/floridasymbol.html this time I've archive it here. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the content back in (clarified a little the placement and purpose) and added Sunny's "save". Still need a little more Sunny help as it is not "taking" for the webcite.TCO (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the saltwater reptile itself (not the quote), I changed to ref to be to the statute itself (not a press release). I also added enough content (bill number and year) so that even if web location goes back, the cite itself has validity (I think this is how to handle this issue).TCO (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• "and discuss how widespread the animal is in the state or how needing of preservation." Feels like "it is" is begging to be put at the end.

Done.TCO (talk)

• The Justification section is pretty much entirely a bunck of quotes. Is there anything else that can be done with it, like using a bit of paraphrasing? It seems a little plain and ordinary for a piece of featured content. There are several other quotes in the next couple sections, come to think of it. Seven quotes in eight (not large) paragraphs is a lot.

Giants, I just cut two quotes (WV school and Robin Carnahan). For the Justification section, I need the quotes, it's the only way to convey the info without me starting to opine (RSes don't step back and analyze it well). However, I formatted it into bullets (since it's choppy anyhow) and also moved it down a section, so people get some normal prose first. It's improved, now.TCO (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but I'm not a fan of the bolding that's been inserted. It doesn't strike me as necessary to have it, and I don't think the MoS supports it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Legislation: Why is the bracketed town name in quotation marks? This is also in note 12.

I cut that sentence for other reasons. Quotes are used when referring to an article as document (rather than to the concept itself and happening to wikilink). Same as referring to a story or a song.TCO (talk)

Anyhow, I got that whole long sentence with the WV quote.TCO (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Geography: "From the twenty-four of the contiguous states roughly south of the Mason-Dixon line. only five lacked a state reptile." En dash needed for the hyphen in "Mason-Dixon link", and "lacked" should be "lack" (this is meant to be in present terms, correct?).

Fixed tense. Added en-dash (had to pipe the article, our article uses the hyphen).TCO (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes http://www.collegefootballhistory.com (reference 27) a reliable source? It's also missing a publisher from the citation. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bad ref, agreed. I have found, I think the source, which is CBSSports.com. But it's part of a service they have where they run a bunch of sales outlets and general info and tickets and such. But it is run by a news outlet. Here's the link (http://www.umterps.com/trads/md-m-fb-mas.html) which if you click on about us, takes you to (http://collegenetwork.cbssports.com/school-bio/cbsc-about.html). I'd like to link here as this story is the more engaging version. But let me know if it passes muster. If not, I can go to this link (http://www.umd.edu/testudo.html) which is from the school itself. I just have to cut some of the engaging comments about the enemy animal mascots and the like in my text.TCO (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the college's official athletics website. That's fine in terms of reliability, although I'm not sure CBSSports.com should be considered the true publisher since it's a different website. Perhaps add info on the college to the cite? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just butting in, I don't think that's an RS, it looks more like a link farm to me. Suggest checking the individual schools' actual web sites (not the links from that page).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you might want to be a little more specific about "south of the Mason-Dixon line" Keep in mind that New Jersey lies in part south of the Line.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I had the "roughly" caveat in text. But I've expanded on it via a note. Cool now? I used states that actually have state reptiles as I think that is more meaningful in this article, than discussing the geography in terms of NJ and DE (a northern and southern state, each with a little extension across the line), but neither of which have a state reptile.TCO (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Giants. Will either fix or respond. TCO (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. The website is run by CBSSports. They have some sort of business relationship to act as a storefront or the like, but I think this is more honest, to show them as the publisher (it's not UMD.edu, but a .com domain and when you follow the about us, find that this CBSSports entity (owned by CBS) is running the service.

I see. In that case, why not include both in the reference? That way, we're giving CBS Sports proper credit while not confusing the reader into thinking that they're about to go on the actual CBS Sports site (not just a site run by them). One of the entities could be the work and the other the publisher. Just a thought. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, man. I'm going to leave as is. There is the url and then the publisher indicatin the commercial entity behind the content. I think this is actually more conservative to list it as this .com provider, than asserting it is the university when it is not.TCO (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Here is the guidance on bulleted lists. This is also, not just me finding some obscure MOS, but how I would write off-wiki. That said, if it reeeeely bugs you, I give permission for you to change it to drop the bolds. I do think bulleting helps as the quotes are choppy anyhow, so would keep that. Think it deals with your issue of finding it hard to read a bunch of quotes in a row and sort of formalizes them. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists).

The bolding is now gone and I struck out the related comments above. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. How about an up or down thumb? We've been here since the 23rd. This is the content I can bring to users. TCO (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image Comments

• Been through and checked all the images, all seems to be ok and licensing is in order. However a few loose ends could do with tidying up to ensure everything is covered.

• In regards to the college image File:Another stat reptile collage.jpg, it has black borders on its right and bottom sides which need to be continued all the way around or removed, either way to tidy up this image that heads the article (I don't mind doing this just decide whether you want the borders in or out).
• Also all images contributing to the college have been linked too and it's good practice to link all images used back to the college. 1 of the 4 images do this but File:Garter snake close up northern ontario canada mirror image.jpg, File:Gopherus polyphemus Tomfriedel.jpg and File:Collared Lizard 1.jpg should do also.

• The license of File:Alabama red-bellied turtle US FWS cropped.jpg needs to be looked at, as its currently not displaying correctly.

Apart from those few things, all seems good to me, can't seem to find anything of concern and I believe it would make a worthy addition to FL once everything is sorted. If I had to nitpick, there is one tiny thing, nothing major but there is one red link Addison Clark Jr.. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 23:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix the image issues and insert in article. I will probably live with the redlink. The FA crew are OK with those. I started a list on state bats, so that should keep TRM and the listers happy. For AC, I would really need an article on his dad first. Actually, I will probably get around to it...the redlink motivates me. TCO (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. Regards, Fallschirmjäger ✉ 18:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, FS! P.s. I did start a page on AC Sr., who was more notable than AC Jr. No immediate intentions to start an article on AC Jr. Don't care if we leave the redlink or eliminate it. (Don't think the FA delegates care either.) TCO (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The red link in itself is not a problem. If half the list was red links it would be, but one red link in an article filled with blue isn't a failure of any criteria. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look over the page, and I haven't noticed any scientific mistakes. A few bits in the Conservation section need citations, but that should be pretty straightforward, and I've tagged those. Mokele (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. cites added.TCO (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mokele.  :-)

Now that's taken care of, I Support this page as a featured list. Mokele (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the IUCN ratings, I had a hard time understanding this sentence: "There, the loggerhead sea turtle is only considered threatened." What is "there" referring to? bibliomaniac15 22:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded to clarify.TCO (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - This article has seriously raised the bar on research, image presentation and what can be written in a Featured List of a state symbol. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 10:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Per SunCreator. Meets all criteria comfortably, written to a high standard of a neutral tone. Lead section introduces the subject consistently and is enticing. Signifcantly well researched and supported, content is comprehensive. Attractive visual appeal and well presented. Certainly a worthy addition to FL in my books. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 11:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I am intrigued that there's been no discussion on the underrepresentation of snakes, but if it isn't in sources it ain't there. Nice list. I did a bit of a copyedit. Nothing else jumps out at me as needing improving. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't talk about it, but they do talk about the turtle fascination. Kids just love them, want to have them as pets, etc. Was doing some research on commercial raising of turtles, and there was the comment "give a kid a choice between a turtle and a lizard, and the turtle will win every time". And I think snake would be the same. Turtles would be even more popular if the USA allowed hatchling pets (forbidden since 1975 for public health reasons). But still, kids dig them.

On the snakes, rattlesnakes are an American sort of icon and were even a Revolutionary War symbol ("Don't tread on me") and two states do use a form of rattlesnake. None of the sources said anything about current fear/hatred of snakes (look at Harry Potter, darned parseltongue), but I'm sure we could speculate that there are some people not too crazy about snakes, and there is the Biblical archetype. But other than Shearer and one overall article, there is not much at the overview level, anyway. This article was built up mostly from the state by state examples.

The animal that NYM and I think is really missing is the gila monster.TCO (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually there is one thing - I'd link species the first mention they appear in the body of the text. Painted turtle is linked yet most others aren't. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Had them linked for a while, but de-linked because Biology was hard to read with all the blue, along with how dry that section is anyhow. There was also the issue that there is a table of links at the bottom. But let's try it out. There's a lot more text now ahead of Bio mentioning species so maybe it works now.TCO (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Very well done. Good job. --Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Moral Support - as I was peripherally involved in some of the technical aspects of the article. I can say that in my humble opinion, the article meets all the needs of accessibility (apart from the lack of a table caption - but I wouldn't insist on one where the table immediately follows a section header). The article is also very usable, particularly the ability to sort the table in meaningful ways. I'm pleased to say that the visual appeal does not seem (to my eyes) to be in any way compromised by the adaptations made to meet WP:ACCESS, and I would be delighted if the consensus here was that this is one of Wikipedia's best works. Well done. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Sort? The article looks fascinating, and I'll be back after a proper read, but Rex's remark about the sortable table kind of hit me in the eye. Are idjits like me supposed to figger out for themselves how to sort it? Or are there some instructions hidden somewhere, that I don't see? Or is it so obvious everybody knows except me? Please add instructions for sorting, preferably not just in edit mode (remember the idjits).) Bishonen | talk 00:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Never mind, I found the little clickers. Maybe the other idjits will, too. Bishonen | talk 00:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You must be feeling a little D-fish like. Well...at least the reptiles are a step towards evolution into man.  ;) (Just kidding, don't bite me Hammer.) Umm...if you know a concise way to solve this problem, just insert it in the article.TCO (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh.. bigger clickers? Half a foot or so? Bishonen | talk 00:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Eight inches work?TCO (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 03:24, 19 March 2011 [10].

Nominator(s): Blackjacks101 (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel this list meets the FL Criteria. This is my first major expansion of an article and I have formatted it to make it similar to the other FL Grammy Lists made predominantly by User:Another Believer.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Glad to see other contributors taking stabs at Grammy lists! This should certainly help to speed up the process with getting all categories up to good/FL status. I see no problems with references, ref formatting, or disambig links.

• See my recent edit regarding sorting. Sorting capability needs to be incorporated into the entire "Performing artists" and "Work" columns.

• Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I will let other reviewers determine if having multiple flags of the same country within the same cell (for example, four American flags for Christina Aguilera, Mya, Lil Kim and Pink) is necessary, and if country flags are preferred in general.

• Waiting for consensus --Blackjacks101 (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Each category is different based on its history, but I feel like this lead is a little short. There may not be much to expand, but I would make sure there are no sources indicating why the category was started.

• Can't find anything, but will keep looking.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that at least one more image could be added to the right-hand column, if possible. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Discussed Below Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any major gripes about the list, but I will wait for other reviewers to examine the list before offering support. Keep up the great work! --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start working on it ASAP =D--Blackjacks101 (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting looks good. Don't add additional images if the column starts running into the sections below--there is room for another pictures on my screen, but I realize we don't all see the same display. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support the promotion of this list, regardless of whether or not the paragraph I added about Natalie and Nat King Cole and the five artists with more than one nomination within the same year is kept. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Reviewers, would it be worth including this link in the external links section? For some Grammy lists I added official YouTube links to award-winning music videos, but I was never sure if adding a link to tagged videos on the Grammy site was helpful/appropriate or not. Feedback would be appreciated for this list and others. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed duplicate flags within the same cell. In my opinion, only one American flag is required if both performing artists are American. This can be discussed and reverted if consensus prefers multiple flags of the same country within the same cell. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The Chieftains needs to use {{sortname}}

• Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, based on what AnotherBeliever said, I don't think that groups should be sorted. Is that ok or would you like me to keep?--Blackjacks101 (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• When things are sorted alphabetically, words like 'the' and 'a' are ignored. So please adjust it. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a better image of Santana (or of another artist to replace it)

• Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure how relevant the Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs) link is, seeing as the Grammys are awarded "without regard to album sales or chart position."

• Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like some other opinions with regards to whether or not to redlink the unlinked songs.

• Or to link them to the album the track appears on? --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• K, we will see with the discussion--Blackjacks101 (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am with Another Believer; if the songs don't have articles, a link to its album appearance instead would be better (the reader wants to know more about the song, and the album's entry seems to be very informative in a few cases; better than a red link, I surmise).-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Kk will do!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Linking the award-winning songs is more important than linking the nominated songs. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• K I linked all of the non-linked songs to their suitable albums..yet some don't have album or articles to link to so I couldn't do some--Blackjacks101 (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I would prefer that you link directly to all winning songs, with either redlinks or redirects. Do not redlink nominated songs, though. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• K I will leave it as it is for now, since so far most want it linked to the album--Blackjacks101 (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]