Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2013

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 Hahc21 10:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Zia Khan 19:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on the list for a while and it also went through a PR. I don't know how it'll do at FLC but I feel that it meets the standards. as always, comments and suggestions from anyone are appreciated. Thanks, Zia Khan 19:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the comments I left at the peer review were sorted out. Regards..--Tomcat (7) 19:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support. Zia Khan 19:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: All the issues I raised were resolved; the article has been improved a lot and is of FL quality now, I think. Chamal ^T•C 03:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not going to support/oppose the candidate as I have limited knowledge on the topic. However, since all my comments have been addressed, I have no issues with the article. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• You could use "the" before Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee in the first paragraph.
• Same goes for the two Pakistan Muslim Leagues in the fourth paragraph.
• In ref 17, the parenthetical "newspaper" should be piped so the readers don't see it. They only need to see the newspaper itself (Dawn). Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed all! Zia Khan 00:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support pending the resolution of one last reply above. FINALLY, we're there, excellent work. I hope you'll incorporate the relevant points into the prime ministers article as well.—indopug (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Support! Zia Khan 11:55, 25 March 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it now meets the criteria to be considered as such. Overall, the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season was one of the most busy on record, with nineteen named storms. Despite the high number of systems, none of hurricane intensity or major hurricane intensity struck the United States. I hope you like this timeline as it took a lot of work! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Tropical cyclones of the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season" Template fails WP:ACCESS using colour only to display the hurricane strength.
  • Not sure what to do about this. Will bring up a discussion. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • After talking about this with other members of the project, we've decided no change is needed. For one, the letter of the storm (or number in the case of a tropical depression) is still given, and two, if you mouse-over the little square it gives you the rating without the need of seeing the color. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • As long as a screen reader can determine the difference, then no problem. Is that the case here? (Also, could you link me to the discussion please?) Also, I'm not sure you're getting the point, you have a yellow box with an A in it, and a key next to it with a yellow box with an unlinked "A2". So how does that help a screen reader or someone who can't determine the difference between the various shades of yellow used in the template? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It shouldn't matter. The template is used primarily to differentiate the storms within the season, not their intensities. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • But it is also used to depict their intensity. The template is inaccessible per WP:ACCESS. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I wouldn't quite say it's inaccessible. It's quite accessible for anyone, clearly differentiating by letter or number for the storms. The fact it also differentiates by color is additional, but secondary. IMHO, at least. Also, given the template is used throughout the project and not just this article, and we've never had a problem in hundreds of FA's, I don't think the discussion here is appropriate. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm afraid FAC tends to ignore the slightly more esoteric sections of the MOS like ACCESS. FLCs don't, so the discussion here is entirely appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Many timelines have also passed without any such discussion of a button bar. I think it's unfair to single out this nomination when this discussion affects hundreds of articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Times and standards change I'm afraid. Just because it wasn't spotted last time, it doesn't make it right. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing my point that I don't think here is the best place for this discussion, given that this could affect hundreds of articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but the comment still applies to this FLC. You said your project had decided it was fine, it isn't fine for FLCs I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Hurricanehink said, it affects the whole project, so this issue is pretty much inactionable for the time being. Were there any other comments that needed to be addressed? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's clearly actionable at any time, should people have the effort to do so. If that's not the case, that's a different matter. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've capped the concerns that were addressed. I need to leave this one open because nothing seems to be being done about it. A shame because FLC prides itself on a strong compliance with ACCESS, particularly when two people support despite the clear failure to meet one of the fundamental criteria for FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've yet to respond on the WPTC talk page about the matter, which is where the main discussion is taking place. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed your invitation... What is WPTC? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Tropical Cyclones (WPTC)...the talk page discussion. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that, cool. Yeah, I remember stumbling over that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to comment here on my talk page regarding the template. Colors without matching symbols are violations of WP:ACCESS, and I don't see how the template in use here can be considered anything other than a violation. I'm sorry to have to say that, but I don't believe that the list should be promoted with a known issue such as this. To me it is perfectly actionable, and something that has been mentioned at FLC many times before. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. According to WP:ACCESS, it is a violation that if a article or list using color the same information can be made via another method. The policy only lists an accessible symbol as an example, another option for instance is footnote labels. In this case, the information can be displayed just be scrolling up. Furthermore, the policy says regarding to color that "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information." YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is: The template is there for navigation. It should not be considered as part of the informational flow of the document. If we have no colors, then sighted people don't know the intensities, and blind people don't know the intensities. Note that the intensities is simply to make navigation simpler; this is not the only, nor is it remotely the primary, place that this information is contained. If we have colors, then sighted people can see the intensities, and blind people still don't know the intensities. As far as they are concerned, nothing is being lost. No data is being obscured; they have the same ability they had before there were colors to click through to the articles in question and find out the intensities. That a navigational template helps one class of people more than another is not a sign that the other is being harmed. Now, if that information were being portrayed in the list itself, or in the article, in a fashion that blind users could not access, THAT would be a major problem. But that's not the case here. This is a navigational aid that is more helpful to some users than others. (I mean, it also technically discriminates against people who don't know what the letters mean) The only legitimate complaint I could see is if the colors made it impossible for the colorblind to differentiate and read the letters. To quote Yellow Evan's citation of policy, "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information." The information in a navigational template can never be considered important, as it is a drastically reduced subset if the information available in the articles they link to. --Golbez (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Anyone bother to reply to this? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would be easier to just fix it, and enjoy the benefit being rolled out across all the articles where this is used. It's not up to us to decide what's "important" or not to those readers who depend on WP:ACCESS to make the most of the website. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about what is easiest. It is about what is right. It's easy to make an article without any sources, but is it the right thing to do? No. While you disagree with me on this, I don't think there is a need for such a change. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – content is satisfactory, sources done well, solid images. I don't think the button bar can be held against this particular article, so long as the TC project continues to try and solve that problem. I've discussed a couple issues with the nominator and he's addressed them sufficiently. Juliancolton (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. As much as I'm not a fan of timelines, I believe this does a great job conveying the season, so I'm happy to support it becoming a featured list. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The accessibility concerns raised by Rambling Man and Giants2008 have yet to be addressed, and it doesn't look like they will be any time soon. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 07:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldn't affect this nomination, since those templates are used on hundreds of articles, not specifically this one. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except the accessibility concern is bogus IMO per the above arguments. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I honestly think the access issue is BS; I don't see any problems with this timeline. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for terms like "BS", really. But thanks for your thorough review. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your welcome. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It's obvious this debate is going nowhere. You two (speaking to TheRamblingMan and Giants2008) believe the template fails WP:ACCESS; others believe there's nothing wrong with it. As a compromise, how about I just remove it from the timeline, and accompanying timelines, altogether? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it never occurred to me that the template should not be here. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suits me. Pity you can't just fix the template now you're aware of the issues. Hey ho. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can't "fix" it and keep it in its current tight format; you'd have to change it to a detailed list of storms. That might be preferable, but it's not an accessibility fix, it's a rewrite of the template. --Golbez (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure you can "fix it". But there's been ten times as much effort about challenging the opposes rather than looking for a solution. Shame. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unless you have a specific suggestion, then all I can come up with is a nasty little system of adding little symbols or numbers in each letter, and of course adding a detailed legend, and at that point it's ceased to be a neat little diagram and we might as well just replace it. Do you have a specific suggestion other than that? Because that cure is worse than the disease. --Golbez (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, I don't because I'm busy doing a lot of other things. The comment was made on 27 January so it's not like the nominator or the various associated projects haven't had time to seek out a reasonable solution. I'm not here to provide those solutions, just to highlight that there are problems versus our criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yet you're so sure a solution can be made that doesn't involve redoing the template's concept. --Golbez (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, I didn't say that, did I? I just said there's been six weeks pass, meanwhile all the project/contributors have done is whinge about it, not look for answers. Anyway, this conversation is going nowhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, the project has agreed that there isn't a need to change it. It's clearly accessible, since the primary use of the template is to differentiate the storms by the letter. We could just get rid of the colours if you want, it really doesn't matter. Anyone who is colourblind can tell that A is different from 2, which is different from B, and so on. I still am amazed how the template is not accessible. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The project is wrong. If colours can't be distinguished then the template is inaccessible. The only way to link storm "B" to "TS" is through the background colour and if someone can't tell the difference between light and dark blue then they can't determine that "B" is a "TS" can they? Anyway, the template has been removed, this conversation is pointless in this context unless the project can see the light. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<--There's no inherent need to link storm "B" to "TS" though. There is only one storm B, and the template links to it fine, regardless of colour. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• But this is what it looks like. We shouldn't have to rely on click-throughs. This isn't Google. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And A looks different from B, I don't get the issue. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you talking about? You have to link B to TS to know that B is a TS. The only way you can do that is through the colour of the background. That's not commensurate with WP:ACCESS. Is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • But whether it is a TS or a C2 doesn't matter much. The storms are named alphabetically. If you're in 2005 at Hurricane Wilma, you only need the K to know how to get to Katrina. The colour is just extra. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That said, you know 2005's K was Katrina, I know 2005's K was Katrina, but if someone didn't, how would they know from the template alone without mousing over the link? --Golbez (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • If they didn't know K was Katrina, then I don't think the category would help either. Sandy was well-known in 2012, but not because of its intensity. Ditto Allison in 2001. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then perhaps the template is deficient for reasons other than accessibility. This accessibility thing has been a red herring to the real problem that the template is inside baseball. --Golbez (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Agreed, which is why I have long disagreed with the objections over this FLC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • You misunderstand; the template may still be worthy of objection but not for accessibility issues. --Golbez (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, we were talking about the use of that particular template on this particular list. My comment stands: " The only way to link storm "B" to "TS" is through the background colour and if someone can't tell the difference between light and dark blue then they can't determine that "B" is a "TS" can they?". It may be that the use of this template on other articles is covered by the article, but it wasn't here. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • But the template is to link between storms, and they can very much do that without worrying about colours. As I said, the intensity and colouring is secondary. If they're looking for Bonnie, they click on the B. People don't usually know the differences in category. Alex is the A storm, regardless the colour and intensity. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Please see above, this isn't Google, we don't do "click-throughs" and each article should standalone. If the point of the template is to convey information pertaining to both the name and the strength of the storm, it should do so in a way that a colour-blind or otherwise access-challenged editor can appreciate. Without relying on a click. Obviously. Otherwise, why not just lose the colour of the boxes? Right now it's just prejudicing against those who can't determine between them. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • • I'm sorry to keep rambling on about this, but from your quote above "If the point of the template is to convey information pertaining to both the name and the strength of the storm". that information can be displayed by scrolling up which I think is an adequate example to "do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen". However, The Rambling Man, I agree that Hink's argument of clicking through would not constitute WP:ACCESS. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Don't be sorry, discussion is good. The point is that our users shouldn't have to scroll up to locate the information. A template like this which is widely used should be self-contained and useable to all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I don't see why scrolling up is an issue. In a properly done timeline, the information is already there once if not twice. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                            • As I said, the template should be self-contained and not rely on other parts of articles it may be used in. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. For what its worth, I find the WPTC's argument of "It's been done this way in hundreds of articles!" completely unconvincing. That doesn't matter. This isn't WPTC:FLC, this is WP:FLC. We have standards here. That you have your own standards doesn't mean FLC has to conform to them; it just means you won't get listed on FL if you don't follow them. So please stop giving that sob story; if the standards change (and hoo boy do they, always for the better) then you should match them, because usually the folks at FLC know what they're talking about. If one article is criticized for something in FLC that it wouldn't have been criticized for in 2008, that is a sign that it is time for YOUR standards to improve, not that FLC's standards have become too strict. It used to be that all articles had linked dates; we don't anymore. Things improve. That said, I don't find the argument that a purely navigational footer template needs to be purely accessible compelling. It is not important information. The only detriment I could think of is if it speaks poorly to screen readers, i.e. it doesn't properly communicate the links. I don't know if it does or not. If it does, then obviously it needs to be fixed, but so far as I can see no one has complained about that, they have simply complained about the use of color without a glyph key. Now, and WPTC should consider this, it might be better to replace it with a more detailed template - names, strengths, etc. - rather than the current, somewhat gimmicky color blocks. But as it currently is, I don't find it fails the accessibility guidelines, and thus cannot use it as a reason to oppose. --Golbez (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• So much anguish about a template. See my proposal at WT:WPTC#WP:Accessibility for an alternative template that hopefully satisfies the accessibility concerns. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:57, 21 March 2013 (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 10:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a good look at a very important subject for the Indonesia WikiProject. Indonesia's national heroes are an interesting bunch, although for the purposes of brevity the most "hooky" aspects of their lives aren't in this article. Did you know that Indonesian heroes...

• Promoted eating cats for better night vision?
• Asked for their heads to be cut off?
• Fought a guerrilla war with one lung?
• Starred in movies before becoming smugglers?
• Went to a girls' school despite being male?

There's another 151 more, just waiting for your review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Tomcat (7) 16:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query We seem to have the photos of a significant number of these heroes. Why not incorporate them into the table?—indopug (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Short answer? Page load times. Assuming we have free images for half of them, 78 images is going to take a lot of bandwidth for people on slower connections (and will make the page even longer than it is now). For something like List of prime ministers of Indonesia, it's doable, but for a list like this I'd rather not impose too much bandwidth consumption.

Also, although more personal, I think having half of them blank is not visually appealing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Another answer is that some photographs and depictions are a somewhat lacking in their original source and proof of first publication, which makes it difficult to ascertain their copyright status. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 20:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I should note, however, that I'm 100% certain that the images used here are PD or under a CC license (I got most of these myself, from PD newspapers or banknotes) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – meets all criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Hope you enjoyed the read! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all done, Indonesia Raya! ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 09:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - not finding anything worth opposing over; some redirects, but they all look plausible. The references in the lead paragraph ending in Proclamation of Indonesian Independence are out of order ([4][3][6]). But all in all, looks great. --PresN 20:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I got that one issue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – "National Hero of Indonesia is a the highest-level title awarded in Indonesia." Stray "a" in the first sentence. Can't believe four supporters missed this, but maybe they were looking elsewhere. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• D'oh. Four supporters and Microsoft Word's spellcheck. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The typo was not there when I reviewed it.--— Tomcat (7) 09:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Introduced here (after your review), which explains why Word missed it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2013 (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 10:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 18:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renominating this list after the previous nomination stalled due to lack of feedback and support votes. All comments were resolved and no-one opposed the previous nomination. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 18:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I do not see any issues with this article. Toa Nidhiki05 02:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Only nitpick, the full year should be used in ref # 83.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 22:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Well spotted! ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 07:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good. Reywas92^Talk 22:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose. List seems well referenced, fairly well written. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One comment just check for failures of WP:DASH, e.g. ref 137's title should have an en-dash not a hyphen in that year range. Otherwise good stuff! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for picking that up. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 18:02, 16 March 2013 (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 10:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked this one up based on the FL List of Grey's Anatomy cast members article. The information in the tables themselves are based on one of the annexes in the Nemecek general reference, which included a list of all guest characters in the show. This article includes any actors who appeared in the same role more than once - I have plans on a separate article of guest stars which includes those actors who appeared only once. Miyagawa (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose. Single image, fair use, looks acceptable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good all around. You have a couple of redirects that don't look intentional- Georgia Brown, Jonathan del Arco, Executive Producer, Paramount Studios, but nothing major. Also, consider archiving your online references with web.archive.org or webcitation.com, so that changes in the websites don't leave your statements unsupported. --PresN 19:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed the redirects. Miyagawa (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Generally looks good. A few comments on the lead... It would be interesting to discuss Patrick Stewart's casting as the captain; this received considerable discussion, as I recall. Would it be possible to discuss briefly a few more of the major recurring actors (I'm thinking mainly of Majel Barrett, John de Lancie, Colm Meaney, Whoopi Goldberg, who are probably more strongly associated with the series than Diana Muldaur)? Is it worth mentioning that some actors reprised their roles on DS9? In the lists, what is the ordering? The main cast could be credits order, though I thought McFadden went earlier, but I'm foxed on much of the recurring cast. Could the tables be made sortable, at least on the first two columns (though a case could be made for being able to sort on seasons too). Are all the red-linked actors notable? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It shouldn't be too hard to add more information, certainly the Stewart casting is interesting as Roddenberry wanted someone else originally but the other producers brought him around. Frakes was originally the second choice for Riker, but the first choice bombed in casting sessions, and so he got the job instead. I haven't got a great deal on Colm Meaney, and all of my John de Lancie casting information is already in the Encounter at Farpoint article. The Whoopi Goldberg one is good though because she literally asked for a part, so they wrote her one. I can certainly add a paragraph about the other major casting points. I've added sorting to the tables although I thought I'd best explain the order - basically the first appearance/majority is the initial order, so in this case, Gates McFadden fell down the list because she didn't appear in the second season. Otherwise, Denise Crosby moves much further up the list as does Wil Wheaton and the initial listing looks a bit messy. The second table's sort needs some explanation, as I've sorted some parts differently. So for instance Colm Meaney's character column sorts to "O'Brien, Miles" despite it having "Conn Ensign" listed first - as the role of O'Brien was the primary one. Also, Ro Laren is sorted to "Ro Laren" and not "Laren, Ro" as "Ro" is the family name (hence the episode title "Ensign Ro". I'll leave a note here when I've added the other casting information. Miyagawa (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know anything more about de Lancie's casting, though there might possibly be something in Roddenbury's authorised biography Star Trek Creator by David Alexander (which reportedly discusses that Q was named for a fan called Janet Quarton). Memory Alpha says he worked with Spiner on The Twilight Zone immediately before TNG, which might be worth following up.[6] Thanks for the sorting. It's probably better to custom sort to get Starring > Recurring > Guest > —. I take your point on the default position of McFadden, but then for consistency shouldn't the default order of the recurring/guest characters also be sorted on total number of appearances (eg Meaney should probably be second after Barrett)? I agree that the most logical route is to sort characters on family name of the most prominent part they played, so perhaps Suzie Plakson should sort under K'Ehleyr? (And weren't all of Meaney's appearances as O'Brien, even if the character wasn't named until later?) And on the O'Brien family, shouldn't Keiko be given her maiden name of Ishikawa too, as she appeared before her marriage? Espresso Addict (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll go through and get the Starring/Recurring/Guest sorting out correctly. I was wondering about Plakson as it was two appearences versus one. I'd say to leave Keiko as O'Brien rather than her maiden name as she's better known as that (and her wiki entry is under that too). As for Miles, well it's been a point of discussion ever since they did it, but I go with the view that he probably played at least two distinct characters due to the ranks. In "Encounter at Farpoint" he was an Ensign in the command branch, and then in "Lonely Among Us" he was a security officer in the security/operations branch. Then in series 2 he started appearing as a Transporter Chief (a non officer rank). O'Brien never mentioned on screen being an officer, and I'm sure in some DS9 episodes he made a point out of not being an officer. So while the two appearences in the first season could have technically been one character, O'Brien is a different character alltogether - although he was named "Transporter Chief" for the first half dozen or so appearences in the second season, but it's now taken as that actually being the O'Brien character. The wiki articles for the two season one episodes used to have him listed as O'Brien in them, but this was an error which I've since fixed as the official sources don't list him as being O'Brien until half way into the second season but also state that it was the earlier transporter chief being named. John de Lancie must have done an interview with StarTrek.com at some point, so I'll have a look there. I'm getting quite good at using archive.org to get all the removed information out of that site (having managed to pull production reports for several Enterprise episodes out of the archives). Actually, I've got a new source since I expanded Farpoint, so it might have information on de Lancie's audition process in there. I'll have a look tonight. Miyagawa (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keiko O'Brien née Ishikawa, perhaps? I think it's slightly important as she's portrayed as from a Japanese culture and it speaks to the international look of the casting. I'd never heard the fannish handwaving over O'Brien's rank before, but you might be right; he definitely makes a point of not being an officer more than once in DS9. In any case, going by what he's credited as is probably safest. Another thing (sorry to keep coming back!), why do the main cast not get rank, while the minors do? And is it inconsistent to list Federation rank and exclude titles such as Dr/Prof (eg Keiko, Leah Brahms & probably many others)? Espresso Addict (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Added the ranks as I know of them, and modified the Keiko listing to include her maiden name. Not sure if she actually was a Doctor in her field. I know she was a botanist, but I'm not sure if she was ever referred to as Dr. Ishikawa or Dr. O'Brien. Also ran through all the names to add those that had direct links and found a bunch I'd missed, which are now added. Miyagawa (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, and the starring/recurring/guest should now sort in the correct order. Thank goodness for find and replace functions! Miyagawa (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keiko's referred to as a professor in a DS9 episode, though I fear I can't remember which. Memory Alpha has her as a professor (under categories) but doesn't seem to cite which episode this is referenced to. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• An episode is good enough for me. Updated to Professor on the list. Miyagawa (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I've now expanded the article to include casting information for the main cast where there were some interesting points, and highlighted the major recurring cast members. Miyagawa (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Good work, thanks. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Excellent work. --Carioca (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2013 (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 10:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Till 04:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I feel that it meets the criteria. I completely revamped the article yesterday and wrote a new lead, and fixed the tables and sourcing. Till 04:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. High quality content and great use of citations and formatting and standardization in tabular fashion throughout. — Cirt (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks :) Till 01:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Naughty but Nice, Connor's fourth album, became her highest-charting to date;" – Use an "as of" or similar construct to avoid this version of the article becoming incorrect at some point in the future.
  • I have removed this in its entirety. Till 23:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "The singer's fifth studio album Soulicious was released in 2007" – Missing commas.
  • Added commas Till 23:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a stray hyphen in ref. 28.
  • Removed Till 23:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "GmbH" is not usually part of a company's name. In citations, it can be omitted, just like "Inc." or "LLC."
  • Removed Till 23:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is a bit dry, but I don't see much that could be done about it, and since I'm trying to be less of a nitpicker, I won't say anything more about the citations, supporting instead. Goodraise 14:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Till 23:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have copyedited bits of the article to avoid dryness. I hope the prose is a bit more enticing to read now Till 23:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, looks good now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks :) Till 06:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• "and nominated for 'Best National Single' at the 2002 ECHO Awards." Needs "was" before "nominated".
  • Done Till 06:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Lead image could use alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I know what that is, Till 06:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have a butchers at WP:ALT. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have added, 'A woman in a white shirt'. Till 23:38, 23 March 2013 (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 10:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it failed its first nomination due to lack of support, and I believe it's to the point that it can pass. This also happens to the last stage in the creation of a Maya Angelou FT. Her 85th birthday is April 4, so I'd like it to happen by then. Thanks for your consideration. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the first nomination was archived too early. Probably worth asking people to review that page. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 14:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In the notes column, descriptions should not end in period, unless they are complete sentences. Also why National Book Award nomination is not mentioned in the table? Ruslik_Zero 18:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed periods. I wasn't able to find a source that states the year of the nomination, so I removed it from the lead. (Lots of sources state that it happened, though, so it belongs in other articles that don't require a year.) Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support-- Astros4477 (Talk) 22:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support An excellent piece of work. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, my comments were addressed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment – Ref 17 has an excess quote mark after the publisher (New York Times) that needs removal. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Gamaliel (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it lists a substantial number of methods of camouflage, showing how each is applied in different contexts in zoological and military usage, with images and citations for each instance. The main camouflage article describes the theory of these methods but does not have space for so many images, nor for such a long list with its detailed classification of methods and contexts. The two articles together, however, provide encyclopedic coverage of the topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I didn't do a thorough review of the article yet, but the problem I had at first glance was that there are no explanations on the camouflage methods. The name and images are not always sufficient for a non-expert to understand what they are talking about. For example, I can't readily tell the difference between "aggressive mimicry" and "special aggressive resemblance". In fact, when looking at the examples for special aggressive resemblance, I get the feeling that this method is about concealing the danger you present (or trying to "look innocent") but the name suggests otherwise. If you could add another column to the table that gives a brief explanation on each method (especially since most of them don't have individual articles the reader could look at), that would be great. I'm not asking for lengthy and detailed explanations, but at least a line or two. This deals with camouflage methods after all and not only examples of camouflage, so I think as a stand-alone list it should be more self-explanatory. Chamal ^T•C 15:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, done. I wasn't sure that so much text was permitted in a list but have gladly supplied brief explanations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: No other issues from me. It's a bit different from most FLs, but I think it is of FL quality. Chamal ^T•C 02:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--Tomcat (7) 19:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - it's a pretty cool list, and I'm almost ready to support, except... what are the last three columns sorting on? I can't tell if it's actually sorting on the image's file name or what, but it doesn't seem helpful. --PresN 20:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - names placed before images to permit sorting on last 3 columns. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, flipped to Support. --PresN 04:35, 11 March 2013 (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 23:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With a career in acting that started at the age of six and ended with his death aged 73, Bernard Lee was a RADA-trained English actor who is probably best known for playing the role of M in the James Bond films. This record of his professional work has been split away from the main Lee article as it was out of place there and not a full reflection of his work. Aside from that, we are now nominating this for featured list status because we believe that it now satisfies the criteria. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Comprehensive, thorough, and expertly put together. I conducted a few copy edits and over linking issues in terms of linked common words such as "English" and "stage"; too small to list here so I just cracked on with it. Congratulations on yet another fine list on an overlooked and underrated actor. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose. On an unrelated note, I'd love to do something like this for Astaman or Rd Mochtar. Shame tracking anything that's not a film (including the character) would be next to impossible without digging into archives. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Excellent and fascinating. The lack of theatrical end dates is not a problem and I prefer the article acknowledge the absence as it now does. I'm sure some end dates will find their way into the article in short order. Considering how long ago these performances were I see no reason why this or the lack of a complete list of stage credits should bar an FL status. I don't like the title "selected stage credits". Perhaps you could find some way to acknowledge that this is the most comprehensive list of stage credits known to the editors and that there may be other stage appearances, otherwise readers may be left with the impression that you intentionally left out performances for whatever reason. Does the "role" column really need to be sortable? "M" and "Superintendent Meredith" are his only recurring roles. Perhaps add a note to the effect that Lee also played this other lesser well-known role (or perhaps not, probably not). Otherwise I got nothing out of that sortable list. I sometimes think people add sortable columns because they can, not because they need to. Title and year are all that need be made sortable. I think you should add his day of birth and death back into the article. Readers shouldn't have to click onto the main article to learn either; nor should they be left with the impression that the editors don't know the dates. I can forsee future editors putting those dates back into the article. My only other suggestion - and I'm willing to bend on this - is to change "suffering from stomach cancer" to "battling stomach cancer" though I'll defer to the majority opinion about that. I'll look through the lists for disambiguation errors. I've already spotted one: Danger Point. - Fantr (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is slight value for making the roles column sortable if for example readers just want to look at his Bond entries, so I'm happy to leave that to the nominator's discretion. Betty Logan (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, and especially for the additional theatre references you provided, which are now all added. I've dealt with the two tags you left on the page: both points have now been corrected. I would also prefer to see full dates of birth and death as I always maintain those datres refer to the individual actor, rather than the career, which is dealt with in the rest of the lead and article. Does anyone else have a view on this (I'm sure I've seen both formats in other lists). I agree with the "Selected" aspects of the stage section, and I've reduced the title to "Stage", which is more in line with the other sections. In terms of the sort, I've previously found it useful when looking for a particular character, (normally if someone has played one of the more notable roles), so I guess the added level of functionality doesn't hurt to be in place, even if it is only going to be used by a minority of readers. Thanks again for your comments and all your additional help on this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – It's another great job and there aren't really any "improvements" I can suggest. Just one thing caught my eye, the entry for Bons Baisers de Hong Kong (1975) has been tagged; technically a Featured list shouldn't really be tagged because it indicates unaddressed problems. If there are other sources giving contradictory accounts then it would be much better to just clarify the confusion with a note. Otherwise, it's a comprehensive, well sourced and nicely structured list and I support its promotion. Betty Logan (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC) EDIT: I see Fantr tagged that entry just before I read it so obviously it's not an oversight on your part. Betty Logan (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments and support, Betty—they are much appreciated! As I mention above, the tags are now gone, with the points being dealt with. Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2013 (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 23:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): Chamal ^T•C 02:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]