Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2006

Similar to List of North American birds, List of Florida birds, etc. I have been working in this list for some time with the help of User:KimvdLinde and I believe this is ready for featured lists status. This list has a peer review which may be found here. Joelito (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - A couple of things. The Clements book referred to in the taxonomy section does not appear in references, I would have thought this is necessary. Secondly is there a specific order the bird species are listed within the different sections? If not, is there a suitable taxonomic order or should they be alphabetical? Finally it is not exceptionally clear (for people with no prior knowledge) that not all species fall into one of the groupings highlighted (Accidental, Endemic etc.) unless they add up the percentages. Could a sentence be added along the lines that birds not in one of the groups are resident of Puerto Rica for atleast some of the year etc. This last point may be nitpicking, people may understand it with no problem. - Suicidalhamster 18:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not use the Clements's book directly. I used a website (first reference) that followed Clements's taxonomy.
• Birds are listed in the taxonomic order used by Clements.
• I will consider adding either a note or a sentence regarding your last comment. Joelito (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Doesn't meet 2c 2 - "Accurate". The WP:LEAD needs to be expanded and references need to be improved. --Ardenn 19:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ardenn if you had at least read the criteria for FLC and not opposed in bad faith to my recent oppose of your feature article candidate Ice Storm of 1998 you would have noticed that 2c is a terminology used in FAC. Criteria in feature lists do not have letters. :) Joelito (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My thinking your lead isn't long enough, and asking for references to be improved is bad faith? Tisk, tisk. You appear to be an admin, you should know to assume good faith. Ardenn 19:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So please explain where do you think references are needed? And what more do you think I can include in the lead? Also remeber that the criteria for Featured lists is different from featured articles.Take a look at the lead and refernces of other Featured Lists.Joelito (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the lead is too short, it's only a paragraph, and citing sources for the various birds. Now that I look at it closer, your wikified headers violate the manual of style as well. Ardenn 19:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I will remove the wikified headers. Joelito (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have removed the wikilinks. As for your original complaint, Accuracy, could you point put where it is not accurate and needs additional referencing? Joelito (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, Great article. Tony the Marine 21:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great article, and thanks for answering my queries above. - Suicidalhamster 23:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, now up to par. Phoenix2 15:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks good. VegaDark 18:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to List of Oh My Goddess episodes, I feel the article now qualifies to be a featured list. --Cat out 20:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks quite fine to me. It basically uses the same format as AMG. --Tone 21:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Same stuff as with Fullmetal Alchemist episodes: lead is too short, references are cited as external links, and DVD covers (IMHO) are not suitable for this kind of list. Renata 05:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  A featured list, List of Oh My Goddess episodes, uses dvd covers. Has somewhat the same lead lenght (I copy pasted and modified AMG text). Referances were also cited like external links... --Cat out 09:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  There is always WP:FLRC... The standards are simply going up. Renata 09:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  See my argument at FMA featured list page. --Cat out 10:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Higher standars = better quality, I have no problem there, if you take a look at List of Oh My Goddess episodes, I have updated the referance section using the template you have suggested me use for the current feature list candidates. I actualy like it and wish you told me about it earlier. :) --Cat out 11:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with a small caveat. While the images are great presentation, and in my eyes have fair use justification, the text might have a formatting issue. Is the japanese in unicode? I'm not sure if I'm missing a font or what, but I only see about half the japanese glyphs. -M^ask 05:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Might be a codec issue. I'll check with others. --Cat out 16:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The kanji are in unicode, so it must be a problem on your end. I can view them in both Windows XP and Mac OS X without difficulty. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, very nicely done. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I recently starting working on these Tri Nations articles, and I feel this one is complete and is of FL standard. Thanks Cvene64 12:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now - I believe {{Tri Nations Aggregate}} is not necessary and should be subst'ed. The lead is too short. The History and format sections are too short. Either expand or delete (after transfering to Tri Nations Series). Otherwise, good list. Renata 05:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the template is not needed, as it is only used in this article, I have pasted the text in the article, the template can now be deleted. I have merged format and lead, as format relates to the article and should have probably been at the top originally. I have expanded history a little ->a few details about NZ/back-to-back titles and so on. Thanks for your comments. Is there anything else that can be done to get this to FL standard? Cvene64 05:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I followed your example and merged the history to the intro. At least now intro is of decent length :) Renata 19:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Tri Nations Aggregate}} IS used in another article — the All Blacks article — and potential could be included in the Wallabies and Springboks articles too.--GringoInChile 11:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a decent list. Renata 19:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That looks a lot better. Thanks. 00:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support. The list doesn't mention how the points are awarded an table points calculated. If its too much for this article, just give wikilinks and you will get my support. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the second paragraph to explain the difference between For/Against points (the in-game score) and the table points (4 points for a win etc). I think I have fixed it up, but let me know if there is anything else that can be done to improve it. Cheers. 12:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well then. Now it would be Support. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Cvene64 03:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support But dont delete the {{Tri Nations Aggregate}} template. --GringoInChile 11:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments - Pretty good, but: the table is rather wide - can some pixels be saved, for example in the headings, to make it a bit narrower? There is also a bit of repetition in the headings ("Games x" "Games y" "Games z") that could be removed with some colspans. Could some visual interest be added (e.g. competition logo; flagicons for the teams/ countries?)? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The headings/repetition has been fixed (with the help of Aloan). National flags have been used for the winners in the first table and the competition logo has been put in. Cvene64 00:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete list of episodes for the TV show Stargate SG-1, the longest running scifi show in US history. Because of that, I want to make this point right now: yes, the article is long!. We discussed splitting it, but came to these conclusions:

• That would disrupt the list and make it inconvenient for a reader trying to find an episode.
• Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which is why this kind of list works well.
• Most of the apparent article size (in KB) comes from the multitudinous table code, not from the content.

So I am submitting this list to be a featured list because I think it is:

• Absolutely complete
• Very clear and well laid out
• Is referenced, has small episode summaries for each episode (and the individual episode articles have references too)
• Is well illustrated
• Provides a spoiler, image-free version of itself at a subpage for reader convenience

On the point of the illustration. In the past people have complained that the images are being used inappropriately, however this is a misconception easy to make if you're not a watcher of Stargate. The pictures are not used for decoration; on the contrary they have been selected (and appropriately Fair-use tagged, see WP:FAIR) because they encapsulate the episode they correspond to particularly well. Hence they add to the list's informative power significantly.

I humbly submit this list to be featured. -- Alfakim --  talk  08:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: self-nomination. -- Alfakim --  talk  08:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Picture problems now sorted out -- Alfakim --  talk  14:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - pictures. You cannot use fair use pictures for decoration which pretty much what is done here. And in any event you need fair use rationalles to use a fair use picture anywhere for any reason in WP. Sorry, awesome list, but... Renata 13:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might I point to the last paragraph of my submission above. The pictures are not decoration, although it's easy to construe as such. The rationale is that they are particularly illustrative of their corresponding episode, and add to the informative content - not only do they remind a reader of that episode (by depicting something unique to it), they also provide an illustration of the mini-synopsis that goes with the list-item. Furthermore - they are the same as the images used in the actual articles, hence the correspondence is natural, and their use in the articles is certainly fair-use as a low-res pic for illustrative purposes (like any TV mag). See other featured tv lists. -- Alfakim --  talk  15:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle the picture use is no different to at here, just that to an outside viewer its not as obvious that the pics are more than decorative (because you dont know the episodes).
    • If you look at the pictures linked from the featured List of South Park episodes, you will see that each of them has a fair use rationale for their use on the list - see, for example, Image:Ep 113 cartmangangster.gif. My view would be that these pictures would be acceptable if they had a similar fair use rationale. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That seems to deprecate the use of the "TV Screenshot" licensing category. By placing the screenshots into the TV screenshot licensing category isnt it implicit that we believe they are not breaching copyright and are fair use for illustration? Also, if we really must provide such explicit rationale, can it not just be said in one place rather than at every single one of the 194 images? (considering in every case it's "picture illustrates the episode very well") -- Alfakim --  talk  19:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here's the reason it's not deprecating the "TV screenshot" category: fair use is completely different to the use of licensed images in Wikipedia precisely because the image is not licensed suitably for general use in Wikipedia and the only type of use that would avoid copyright infringement is one that is compatible with the rationales given at Wikipedia:Fair use. We are on the face of it commiting a copyright infringement unless we can show that we aren't, and that goes for every single page that makes use of that image. I can use a PD picture as often as I like in as many pages as I like, because that image is inherently free for use in Wikipedia articles; the only restrictions on where and how the image is used are basically editorial (E.g. is it appropriate/informative/relevant?). If I use a fair use image, the restriction on its use on any given page is not only editorial but also legal - we have no right to use an image in a way that breaches copyright. Using a fair use only image in a completely irrelevant page would clearly be a breach of copyright but at any rate editorial restrictions would prevent it any way (just as we wouldn't add a completely irrelevant PD image to a page). This leads many people to confuse the two types of restrictions. However, it may be considered editorially desirable to use an image decoratively - this is often the case in a list that needs livening up. If an image is PD then there is no problem here, so long as there is editorial consensus its use is appropriate. However, if an image is fair use only, then this use is legally impossible - decoration is not an instance fair use. So while the PD image can be used anywhere we like, and no particular legal rationale needs to be given for any individual use, a fair use image can only be used in instances where fair use applies, which means its use in one page may be fair use and its use in another page may not be fair use. This means that its fair use character needs to be justified in each instance that it used. In turn, this requires an individual and specific rationale given on the image page for each and every use. The fact that a screenshot hits all the conditions on the screenshot template doesn't guarantee that it's fair use, it merely indicates that it is a copyright image of a certain type, which may be "fairly used" on some Wikipedia articles. This is why the category itself is not deprecated: its purpose is to say "here are a bunch of copyright images which may potentially be fairly used in articles - someone needs to keep an eye on them to make sure they aren't being used in a way that violates copyright" not so say "these images are copyright, but feel free to use them anyway, their only screenshots". TheGrappler 19:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object until (1) image copyright sorted out. In addition to previously noted concerns, the use of images for Series 10 is certainly decorative and that at the very least needs to stop. Unsure about the rest of the images. (2) References need sorting out properly. Why not pay a visit to WP:CITE to find out how to do it "properly"?1 TheGrappler 19:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay I couldnt be bothered to read that huge rant up there, I was already persuaded we need to sort out the images. What's wrong with the references?-- Alfakim --  talk  21:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Stong Support I have been waiting for this to become featured for a long time. One of the greatest pages on all of WP. Tobyk777 01:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong object until the issues with the images are sorted out. Please read the Fair Use Policy. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-vote recinded. Issues about image fair use conceded, will resubmit when this is sorted out. -- Alfakim --  talk  17:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Resupport: self-noming again - I added rationales to all the pictures. Work in progress to make the rationales more detailed but I think they currently suffice; further work will be an extra. -- Alfakim --  talk  20:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Stong Support [moved from above section so in context:] I have been waiting for this to become featured for a long time. One of the greatest pages on all of WP. Tobyk777 01:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, many of the plot summaries from Season 10 are identical to those at GateWorld.net. Many of the plot summaries are simple and could use a more descriptive exansion (to at least two sentences — almost every episode has a main plot and a sub-plot/side-story) while strategically hitting key words of elements (technology, ship names, special characters, ie. naqahdah, Thor) used in each episode (to allow for easy searching using Edit->Find in the browser). While there is no original research in this article, one of the references, "Wikipedia users who've watched the episodes themselves", does not conform to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Peer Review 18:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned the point of the copies to the listmakers. However, they didn't think it was a copyright infirngment since the site was linked to. However, I think we should modfiy them to make ourselvevs unqiue. It is treu that a primary ref is wikipedia users who have watched the episodes. Whether it's proper or not, its a ref. Tobyk777 00:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last time, we didnt have the "Wikipedia users whove watched the episodes", we were told we needed it. Anyway i'll remove it. As for season 10, it hasn't aired yet, so we cant add anymore information than that: that's all that's known (refs in the actual articles).-- Alfakim --  talk  01:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The references are fine as I am able to find all the information in this page in them. The official site (MGM's StargateSG1.com) gives the official title sequence and episode number, GateWorld.net gives air dates and both give plot outlines of each episode. There are quite detailed episode summaries at each of Season 10's articles (see Flesh and Blood (Stargate SG-1) for example) so an original plot outline can be written from them (remember to use careful, strategic wording). The See Also section is unnecessary as the SG-1 and Atlantis links (and its episodes) are in the Topics in Stargate template below and the DVD link is prominently linked in the intro. I'm ok with the images but continue to work on finding ones that better fit the plot outline. For example, what is the image for episode Need (205) supposed to be illustrating. A better summary of what the screenshot is showing would be useful at the actual image page too (those image pages are often neglected). Also the intro could use some improvements (the second paragraph is gold, but avoid "is considered..." in the opening sentence and addressing the reader with "anyone wishing for a...". Peer Review 05:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. the Need image illustrates the mining ship/thing, the sort of central location for the episode and the first time we'd ever seen such a thing. could be better, yes, although what's needed really is just more of an explicit rationale at the individual image page. I'm in the process of making all the rationales more detailed, but it's going to take me a long time. however, I dont see why that should hinder the article, considering they've all been fair use tagged now with an explicit rationale (its just an extra that i go and make the rationale even more explicit), so i think the image problem is solved. As for the Season 10 episode summaries, I'm not entirely sure we want to be any more revealing than that - considering the plot outlines at gateworld aren't 100% official and could change. -- Alfakim --  talk  08:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - you cite references in an improper manner. Please use {{cite web}}. Renata 04:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Converted citations as appropriate. -- Alfakim --  talk  08:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, references are still not cited properly. They are still cited as simple external links. Second, please do not strike/remove comments by others unless they specifically ask you to. Renata 14:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't remove it. Striking is quite standard practise actually. Go look at FAC debates - you strike when someone has made a small point that you've addressed. And I don't see what you mean. I have used your requested citation template - what is a "proper" citation? -- Alfakim --  talk  23:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Finally worked it out and converted to {{cite web}}. -- Alfakim --  talk  23:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support now, after rationales were written. May I also ask you not to refactor the nomination page to avoid confusion. Thanks. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken. -- Alfakim --  talk  14:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I know you'll hate me... but the pics also need sources... Where did you get them from? I just noticed it now. Also, you missed one pic while adding fair use rationales (Image:Stargatesg1season3dvd.jpg). Renata 05:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's on that pic too now. Tobyk777 06:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah yes I missed that one - solved. As for the sources.. uh... you could have mentioned it before. I'll add them now.-- Alfakim --  talk  08:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Source information fully added. -- Alfakim --  talk  09:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support enough torture ;) Renata 09:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • lol... your points were valid though of course, so thanks for pointing them out, and i'm glad i could bring this up to your support. -- Alfakim --  talk  10:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If-this-doesn't-pass-I'll-shoot-myself-with-a-Zat Support how can you not, its so pretty... American Patriot 1776 13:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This list always was my standard for episode lists, so I'm happy to support. Staxringold 14:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Perfectly fixed, it should be used as an example for featured lists of that kind. --Tone 15:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well laid-out, and the image thing is totally within copyright bounds.--Zxcvbnm 21:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is mostly the work of User:Raven4x4x, and is the first-class cricket equivalent of List of Test cricket triple centuries. I've been looking at this on and off for a couple of months, but can't think of anything to add. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support; I've done a bit of copyediting, but I can't think of anything to add either. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment cannot support because references are cited in an improper manner. Please use {{cite web}}. Renata 13:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not aware that {{cite web}} was a requirement. I have added retrieval dates, if that is what you want. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's ok now. Renata 05:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: depending on the reader's date preferences, the format the dates are given in could be problematic, reading e.g. "18, 19, February 20" or "18, 19, 2/20" instead of the intended "18, 19, 20 February". I suggest that dates should be delinked? TheGrappler 20:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, but I'm not aware of a neat way around this - either the dates are left unwikified, or the dates will looks wrong for anyone with the one date preference or the other (the article currently prefers the UK date - DD Month - over the US - Month DD; at least the default with no date preference still looks correct). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing wrong with not wikifying the dates! The only reason to wikify the date is so that it can appear in the user preference date format, but in this instance that would be a disadvantage. I think it would be fine to leave it in DD Month format; even if it looks a little odd to an American, it's not ambiguous like "DD/MM" vs "MM/DD" is. TheGrappler 19:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine - I have boldly dewikified them -- ALoan (Talk) 19:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - {{ref}} is depreciated. Please use cite.php for notes. Right now there are 20 notes in the tables and only 10 notes in the footnote. Renata 05:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good spot. Fixed. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Renata 18:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks good. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good job by the editors, nice, complete and informative. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the One-day International cricket equivalent of Test cricket hat-tricks. Not originally my work, but I have expanded it considerably. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment cannot support because references are cited in an improper manner. Please use {{cite web}}. Renata 13:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not aware that {{cite web}} was a requirement. I have added "Retrived" dates, if that is what you are asking for. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cite web is not a requirement. It is a nice shortcut. I fixed them myself, do you see the difference? Renata 05:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. Well, it is different, but, for example, you have removed the links to Cricinfo and Howstat, and I am not convinced that Howstat is a "work". But I am not so exercised as to bother changing it back. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, links are unfortunate, but Howstad is a work (website) published by Howstad Ltd. (or something like this) I just did not add the publisher 'cause it's the same in essence. Renata 16:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support after fixing references. Renata 05:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A better description of what the implications and occurrences of a ODI hat trick in the intro would benefit the article. For example, it began in 1971 but is the ODI an annual tournament or a year round competition? Its been done 20 times, but how many ODI games have there been: hundreds or thousands (5 games a year or 162 games a year)? I got what the role of the bowler is in the intro but also mention what the "Dismissal" people do. In the table headers "No" should be "No.", "At" could be replaced with "Cricket Ground" or "Venue" or "Location". Disambiguate SCG. Please clarify reasoning behind the external links and notes in the "No" column (I'm ok with it but it is an unorthodox format). Why not split that column into a "No." for the occurrence number (unwikified number centered in the cell), and a "ODI #" for the specific game with the external link to those box scores. The References could be better formatted per Renta above. Peer Review 20:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your insightful comments - I hope I have dealt with them.

• The "dismissals" column sets out the three batsmen who were dismissed, and how their wickets were taken (I'm sorry - cricket has a rather dense jargon - see List of cricket terms!- but I have added in some extra explanatory text - I guess I should also revise the lead section of Test cricket hat-tricks for the non-cricket afdficionado?).
• I have replaced "No" with № - is that better?
• I think "At" is a more succinct word for "Ground", "Venue" or "Location".
• I have disambiguated SCG to Sydney Cricket Ground.
• The idea of ODI number is a good one - implemented. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and Comment - I found the second sentence was not that clear first time I read it, especially what "in the following 25 years" was reffering to. Maybe a re-arrangement or splitting of the sentence is necessary. However not enough to opose. Suicidalhamster 18:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comment - better? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes much better, Thanks - Suicidalhamster 09:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong object - the notes information contains information that needs a reference itself (e.g. Zimbabwe's score now being 3rd lowest), which is also subject to change when the main list won't be. I can see that this article is likely to be updated if another hat trick is taken, but I'm not convinced that if another side get bowled out for 35, then there will be a rapid reaction to change that to "4th lowest". I suggest at least using an "as of" WP:AO. There is a lot of information, both in the introduction and the notes, that is not referenced at all - not a case merely of no inline references, but the references provided simply give lists of bowler, match, location, dismissals and how out, with howstat verifying none taken on debut and cricinfo verifying that Javed was the youngest. All other information is unreferenced. Some could be worked out from other references (e.g. Brandes being the oldest, though this would entail linking to a bunch of biographies as references and asserting that once ages at time of hat trick are calculated, Brandes is oldest) but there is still a lot of information missing crucial references. As for hunting down references, I am virtually certain that the original author has made use of information from a cricinfo article, quite possibly in the "Ask Steven" section (which often contains the kind of "trivia" given here) but don't know quite which one. Until the information given here can be sourced and verified, then it falls short of featured list standards. TheGrappler 22:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, what can I say - I keep the lists I am interested in up to date and accurate, as far as I can. List of Test cricket records changes regularly, but keeps pretty well updated, for example. I see what you mean about "now" - I have changed to an "as of", with a link to an external list of the lowest ODI scores (also in List of One-day International cricket records). The information in "Notable ODI hat-tricks" and "Notes" is taken from all sorts of sources - some are self-evident from the list itself (e.g. number of hat-tricks) or by comparison with other Wikipedia articles (Saqlain is the only spinner). It is (relatively) easy to work out were the "oldest" and "youngest" players from the date of the hat-trick and each player's birthdate. You could say that this is original research; on the other hand, arithmetic is just arithemtic. The "notes" are pretty much all taken from the facts in the scorecards, which are linked in the "ODI №" column. I could add 20 scorecards and a bunch of other things as references, if you like, but I don't think it is necessary. If you feel so strongly about it, I suggest you object to List of first-class cricket quadruple centuries above, and FARC Test cricket hat-tricks and List of Test cricket triple centuries. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's true that arithmetic is just arithmetic: though part of me thinks that at least somewhere the figures where the arithmetic comes from perhaps ought to be referenced, it's not obvious that it's necessary. It's the other stuff that I am basing my objection upon: as you put it I could add 20 scorecards and a bunch of other things as references, if you like, but I don't think it is necessary. Why is it not necessary to cite sources for non-trivial facts? Surely these should always be referenced, especially in featured content? TheGrappler 16:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I have added some inline links for the notes on best ODI bowling figures and worst innings score in the notes. As I said, the main other reference is the scorecards from the relevant matches - there is a link to each one already, and I would rather not list them all again. I would be very happy if you can suggest a neat way to add them as references without adding a list of 20 scorecards. The article is going to start to look like a patchwork quilt of footnotes if you are going to require me to provide a reference for the flag of each Test-playing nation, the definition of a hat-trick, the date of the first ODI... -- ALoan (Talk) 16:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please don't get me wrong, I appreciate there is a particular problem with lists in that notes to lists may need references themselves, hence providing producing something of a patchwork as you suggest. Of course there is no need to give a reference for a national flag! But I hope you can see that it is not trivial (in the way that "oldest"/"youngest" statistics may be) to simply state that "Zimbabwe were dismissed for 38, then the lowest score recorded in an ODI" and that this is now the third lowest total? That is a verifiable fact not present on any of the other references and that requires a citation. There now is one, which is great. What is really good is that the reference page will probably get updated if that fact changes, so any keen reference-checker on Wikipedia will be able to see that Wikipedia needs updating. Perhaps the only outstanding uncited claims are those referring to test hat-tricks in the "notable" section: I can imagine those claims getting out of date too; if there were a reference that backed the claim up and even may be updated before Wikipedia, then that would be good. I can understand not wanting to link to the scorecards again, I don't have a problem with not referencing "Vaas also took the wicket of Dion Ebrahim with the first ball of the innings" for instance. I just hope you can understand why a claim like "In all, Vaas took 8-19, the first and only time a bowler has taken 8 wickets in an ODI" is different in that it needs a citation? In a top class article (and a featured list should be one), ideally the "References" section should contain citations for all of the information in the article, anything else may be verifiable but is currently unverified. I have added a link to deal with the test hat-tricks and am now confident every major fact is independently supported by a site accessible from the page, so am prepared to support. Other people may want to complain about the formatting of the inline links, though. TheGrappler 17:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving nomination for an extra day to gather more votes. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While bumping my way around Wikipedia, I found this list. It meets all of the criteria. My only edit to this list was to tweak the lead and remove links from section headings, as this is mostly the work of Stilltim. It should be a featured list. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - a nice find. My only caveat is that a slightly longer lead section would be nice. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Just a few things: Is it possible to change the party colours scheme to one with more contrast? In a TFT screen some colours look the same (that depends on the viewing angle, of course). If the colours have an explanation and are used like that in other articles, just keep it. Second, the first table has the same kind of information as the others, so, I think it would be better if it had the same size. Apart from these things, the list is good. Afonso Silva 13:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The colour scheme used here is used in other governor lists. Please clarify your second point in more detail. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first table is slightly narrower than all the other tables which appear to all be the same size. Not sure how that wikitable works, can we use em: to set the table width still? Rmhermen 02:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the width, the first table should have the same width of the remaining, I think it is aesthetically better. About the colors, leave it like that, but in a low contrast screen some of them look very similar. Afonso Silva 13:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted the widths to 90% in each table. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I will support as soon as there is a nice lead. Renata 13:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added another two sentences. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support since Stilltim exoanded the lead. Renata 04:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tobyk777 01:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. My only gripe is it says the current governor left office on Jan. 20, 2009. While that may be when the next governor is set to be sworn in, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The current governor could resign or otherwise leave their post earlier than planned. I'd change it to say incumbant and add when the next swear-in date is as a note at the bottom. VegaDark 04:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I modified as proposed in this good suggestion. stilltim 10:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Looks good now. Could use a mention in the lead about the difference in President/Governor. Rmhermen 23:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • enhanced as suggested...hope its not too much for a list? stilltim 11:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. —Nightstallion (?) 10:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 2006 NFL Draft recently concluded and this page had hundreds of edits to it during its course. Now that the constant editing has died down I think this would make a great FL. I took a look at 2005 NFL Draft, a featured list, and this is comparable if not better. The red links are to players who were drafted low and aren't guaranteed to make the team, and will most likely be made if they do so. I can't think of anything major that would improve this list. VegaDark 19:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I have no reason to object this nomination, but I would like to see it formatted like the already featured 2005 NFL Draft. The TOC is different, the "Pick #" is centered in one and not in the other and one has statistics of the players positions in the lead an the other has not. Of course this is just a personal suggestion. Anyway, the list is good. Afonso Silva 10:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I'm still deciding which version of the pick distribution is best to use, but I changed the TOC and pick #'s to be the same for each. VegaDark 20:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to go with the 2005 pick distribution format. I thought it was better to have it at the start of the article and not in a long list format, but a side by side format. VegaDark 20:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - you are citing notes wonderfully. However, your real references (i.e. where you got the list from) is left to stand as external links. Please fix, nice shortcut is to use {{cite web}}. Renata 13:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - most of the current "references" should be the Notes section. Rmhermen 20:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear things up, I hadn't made any edits to this article prior to nomination. I just noticed it and thought it would make a good FA. As for the references, I switched things up a bit to make more sense. VegaDark 04:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - good enough. Renata 16:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Despite working on this article, I feel that this is good enough for a featured list. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 19:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a resubmission. The previous nomination is at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of largest suspension bridges/archive1. I have tried to address the previous concerns. Almost all photos have been sourced (still working on tracking down a few, if these are a problem, I will just remove them and replace them with a link to an external photo). None of the bridges listed have red links. Several new photos have been added. All ranks now link to external references. Most are the homepages of the bridges. Bridges without homepages link to either structurae.de or bridgemeister.com. Most bridges missing photos on Wikipedia have links to external photos. Note that it is customary to call bridges with the longest main span the "largest" bridge.-- Samuel Wantman 08:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Greatly improved. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 11:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Why a list of the top 105? Why not 104 or 106? Seems kind of arbitrary. Pepsidrinka 08:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the original references for this list had 100 bridges listed. Several more have been added mostly because they were finished recently, and there was one or two that were found to be missing from the original sources. I just discovered another one, completed in 2000, so now there are 106. So I have accurate information for the top 109 bridges. I considered stopping at 100, but 101 is historically significant; 104 is the largest of its type; 105 had a picture; and both 105 and 106 already had small articles written about them. I will probably add the three more bridges that I have information about, eventually. I hope the list gets longer. I would like it to have every bridge larger than the Union Bridge with a central span of 137 meters. So there is no magic number. Do you think there should be? -- Samuel Wantman 09:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that a list of the top 100 would be best, unless the Union Bridge you mentioned is some sort of standard when it comes to bridges. Pepsidrinka 04:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 100 seems just as arbitrary as 106 or 109 or 200 or 500. Why not include any information that is correct and verifiable? -- Samuel Wantman 01:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think we need to limit it to 100. Eventually the list will grow when new bridges are built, I don't think we need to drop the lowest ones off when that happens. (Do giant bridges ever get destroyed?, would they still be on the list?) Rmhermen 20:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There are a few bridges that have collapsed or been replaced including a few that at one time were the largest spans in the world. They are not on this list, but I hope to add these to a new section. I'm also considering adding a list of notable bridges that have shorter spans, and other record holding bridges (there is some discussion about this on the talk page). -- Samuel Wantman 02:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - persitent :) Renata 20:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, looks good. VegaDark 05:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - looks excellent, very informative. Suicidalhamster 15:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tobyk777 01:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination. I believe it is qualified to be as such. It is stable, useful, comprehensive, accurate, well-constructed (I hope so), uncontroversial, uses the standards set by the style manual, and the images are in the public domain. - Howard the Duck | talk, 05:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. One comment - your notes could use the <ref> style. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. - Howard the Duck | talk, 04:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good work. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 20:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Pls follow up and see Aguinaldo article, it sez January 1, 1899 Aguinaldo was named president (list marks January 23, republic day). He was also dictator-president even before then I believe. Once clarified, support. Good work. :) --Noypi380 16:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Clarified on both articles. Howard the Duck | talk, 23:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, great! It's perfect! C'mon people just write support and sign already. This is a "sureball" for a featured list. :) --Noypi380 12:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-Add two pogi points to Howard the Duck for his List of Presidents! Keep up the good work!----Jondel 13:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support definitely, although I think we should replace the current list on the President of the Philippines page with this new list, if it hasn't been done. --Akira123323 15:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks great. Circa 1900 00:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - It meets the criteria. I just don't like the size of Ferdinand Marcos's row, but apparently, there isn't much we can do about it. Afonso Silva 17:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - actually, I'm thinking of adding Marcos a new picture, the one when he's old already, to compensate the size of his row. I can't find public domain images. --Howard the Duck | talk, 00:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMHO, I think only the official presidential portraits should be used, well that's what I think at the moment. :) --Noypi380 12:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I know think everyone must have only one portrait. No favoritism hehehe --Howard the Duck | talk, 13:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Two things though. First, why does "First Republic" pipe-link to the article on the Philippine-American war? And secondly, could you add a legend/key for the party colors, sort of like 2006 NFL Draft (towards the bottom under Round 7), so that the colors actually mean more than they currently do (though the placement should be above the table, not below it like the draft page has it). And a comment. Perhaps you should consider moving the images to Commons, because as far as I saw, some of them were, while others weren't. They are all PD; it should be a smooth transition. Pepsidrinka 08:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Partially done. legend key added. Good idea, thanks. :) --Noypi380 12:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Partially done. The legend key that is. Also made a separate row for colors, since Marcos had two parties. The First Republic links to the Philippine American War for much of the time of the First Republic was spent on the war. --Howard the Duck | talk, 13:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a suggestion; Presidents of the United States has each row colored, whereas, this list just has that bit at the beginning of the row. Perhaps using the style used in the Presidents of the United States would be better. The only hesistation would be if it makes it too dark. Pepsidrinka 04:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom is better, where only one row is colored. Also, Marcos is a problem, he has two parties. Also, political parties in the Philippines is a lot different from the parties in the West. --Howard the Duck | talk, 13:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]