Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2007

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Juhachi 11:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list is well sourced and is modelled after the lists of WWE and Intercontinental champions, both of which are FLs.

• Support as Nominator -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, anything other than wwe.com in terms of references? -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 04:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A link to the title histories site is included, but there was really no need for other sources. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just curious; the information is of course verifiable by the one source, but two sources is always better than one. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 16:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have added a source from a different website. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 20:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. In all fairness, I don't think secondary sources are entirely necessary in a list like this; who better than the WWE to catalog who its champions are? All the other WWE featured lists reference almost exclusively the WWE title history page. Anthony Hit me up... 14:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well the problem is with the older titles, such as the WWE championship and the Intercontinental championship in which there are, in their older days, many title reigns that the WWE refuses to acknowledge - the most famous of these being Antonio Inoki's reign as WWE champion which still "officially" never happened. With the advent of the internet however this has become a moot issue and title changes of this sort have to be acknowledged due to how quickly information spreads i.e. Mickie James winning and losing the WWE Woman's Title in a single night in Italy during a house show due to an accident in the finish. –– Lid^(Talk) 16:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This article is comparable to other Wrestling lists. However, as Phoenix2 noted, "2 sources r better than one". In the same spirit, 3 is better than 2, and 4 is better than 3. Surely there are more than just 2 websites that confirm this info.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Todd661 (talk • contribs)

There are plenty of websites, but few of them are reliable. For example, OnlineWorldofWrestling, a "reliable source" per Wikipedia's standards has a list that is filled with glaring mistakes. So, there may be only two, but both are accurate. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Juhachi 01:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follows the same vein as the WWE and Intercontinental lists; in-depth, well-referenced and a descriptive lead. MarcK 22:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, well-referenced...looks good. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 01:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well sourced, well organized. Great job. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. All the WWE title history articles should be featured, since the WWE website has an extensive title history for every belt. Anthony Hit me up... 14:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks great. Buc 17:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 14 days, 7 support, 1 oppose. Promote.

Initial thoughts: The information available on the 2007 NFL Draft page is very comprehensive and I believe that all the effort made by various people needs to be recognized by this page being recognized as FLC. I hope their efforts are recognized by this wikipage making it to the Featured List. Support as nominator (Personally, i made just one major edit). Kalyan 16:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, looks to me to be as well done as the 2006 draft. --Phoenix 19:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, simply because I contributed somewhat to it and would like to see something I worked on get recognized. -- FPAtl (holla, holla, holla) 22:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - But I noticed that the 2006 draft has a "Miscellany", "Notes", "See also", and "External links" headers, which this page currently does not. As some notes look to be in the "references" section, it will be a good idea to create a seperate header for the notes. VegaDark (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this article, all info related to notes, miscellany have been merged. i think we can leave it that way. I added "External links" section. in 2006, there was a list of draft eligible people maintained. however it does not exists for 2007 and hence i have not added the "see also" section. Kalyan 12:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This nomination is premature, as there are still some inconsistencies in the "Notes" section, especially where we indicate what traded selections were used to select (<team> traded their <number>-round selection [<number>st overall, used to select <player>) to <team> in exchange for ...]. Furthermore, we haven't yet integrated nor linked List of 2007 NFL Combine invitees to this article, or yet decided what we are going to use the information for. Also, this article is meticulously referenced except for "Notable undrafted players," which doesn't give rhyme or reason why any are listed or not listed. References haven't been recently accessed and may be out-of-date and in need of an update.
  A featured article (or list) is supposed to be "our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation." While I agree with the latter portion of this quote, I feel that the former portion has not been satisfied. I know that many people will probably say just fix it, but I have exams this week so I won't be able to improve the article until next weekend. As soon as the items I mentioned have been fixed, I will be more than happy to co-nominate this article for featured list status, being one of the main contributors to this article, especially in the areas of citing sources and trying to exemplify Wikipedia's best work. I hope my call for action will be answered by others who have worked on this article. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 20:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ian - (1) I went thru the entire list and ensured <team> traded their <number>-round selection [<number>st overall, used to select <player>) to <team> in exchange for ... is filled for all notes. My source of info is NFL.com 2007 Trades.
(2) I checked all references in the notes (1-55) and they work fine.
(3)With respect to Notable undrafted players, i have made a mod to the section to reference the players invited to the combine but went un-drafted. I guess, players who didn't receive invites to the combine and missed being drafted need not feature under 'Notable' section. I have already synced the data for QB and RB. The rest of the cats remain. In case you need any more data to change a vote, please let me know. Kalyan 20:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Shouldn't have the "Notable undrafted players" section. Too debatable.-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bole2 (talk • contribs)

Check 2006 NFL Draft. The article is a FL article and has the section "Notable undrafted players". Let me know what you want to do about it. Kalyan 18:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For that specific section, I would recommend finding an article from a reliable source with a title like "Draft Surprises," where they would list those undrafted players which came as a surprise (personally, I think Jared Zabransky was a notable player not drafted, given that he will be on the cover of NCAA Football 08 and that he essentially led his team to victory in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl). I'm sure some article says this, and a source could be listed. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, I don't think one should oppose on such grounds; if it's that much of a problem it can be removed. --Phoenix 03:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can be, but it has not as of yet or even addressed/fixed in the article. Until then, this user may oppose for such a reason. The candidacy may fail if "objections are not resolved." If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this list, the section in question is quite large so I'm apprehensive about removing it until the nomination here is complete. It's such a grey area this, and several lists have failed for sections that include questionable content. -- Phoenix2 05:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like some resolution on the "undrafted players" section. Previous drafts like 2006 NFL Draft have the information and have been nominated and accepted for FL candidature. Hence, using the same path - i think we can make a decision to keep the section. If required, we can term the section "Undrafted players" and can add a sentence that states that the list is partial. pls let me know. Kalyan 18:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't like the idea of "notable undrafted players" section -- this may be better added later in this season. But, I really don't think that the section is a good idea. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ian':Hi, i have commented out the "Noted undrafted players" section with an explanation that it will be bought back in Aug/Sep once we know which of these players make the final roster for their teams. Please ensure that you take this input for making a decision on the FLC of this article. Kalyan 07:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In the "Notable undrafted players" section for Jerry Ball, it says "broke Jerry Rice's D1-AA touchdown record" so shoulnd't there be a reference for that. Gman124 21:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • now Support. Gman124 19:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• OpposeSupport I think this is too early and it still has debatable content. I personally don't understand the purpose for the generic positions of offensive lineman, defensive lineman, and kick returner, when on NFL.com it lists specific positions for those players and the Wikipedia entries for those players list specific positions. Also the "Notable Undrafted Players" section needs to be settled.Professor Davies 19:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Hi., i have removed the disamb and moved them to the groups suggested in NFL.com. With respect to notable undrafted players, we can defer the decision based on the collection decision. can you please revisit your ranking? Kalyan 20:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "Notable Undrafted Players" section in any order, if not then alphabetize it. I also suggest that you put in a category about first round controversies with many sources talking about things that surprised every one for example, you can talk about how Brady Quinn dropped so far, the Packers drafted a defensive player, and how Greg Olsen was passed by Carolina, Green Bay, and other teams that needed tight ends. After that and possible editing of the lead paragraph (according to WP:Lead), I think it is worthy of being a featured article. Professor Davies 20:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I shall add a statement about Brady Quinn in the lead para and try and link it to a couple of articles. However, for the rest that you put forward: Greg Olsen passed by Carolina and GBP picking defense, these were predictions of some analysts and might not be termed as 'surprises'. With regard to lead para, please refer to 2006 NFL Draft. I think a short lead is justified that this is a LIST of all players selected and can be kept to within a para. Kalyan 09:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated, i added a para on Brady Quinn in the lead section. Please revise your rating of the article FLC based on this information. Kalyan 08:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my vote to a support, I had seen the 2006 NFL Draft and had thought that was a little weak for a featured list but now I believe this is even better than that list so I think this is definitely worthy of being a featured list. Professor Davies 19:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Is there a need for the redlinked notable undrafted players? I highly doubt it... but otherwise it's good.--Wizardman 15:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 1 oppose, though it was dealt with. Promote. Juhachi 22:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've given this list a thorough overhaul and think it is up to the same high standard as List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region, itself a featured list. Seaserpent85 20:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I see now that the Paris list got through in March of last year with only two references, surely there's more sources than that citing the heights of these buildlings and it wouldn't succeed now. In any event, the London list looks good even with five, and I'll likely support. -- Phoenix2 05:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I have a good amount of confidence in any list citing Emporis as a resource. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 02:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I am wondering though why the Paris list contains all buildings over 90m and this London list only has buildings over 100m. CheekyMonkey 22:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the Paris list, they seem to have decided to include the 100 tallest high-rises as a round number. There are fewer taller buildings in London (The 100th tallest is only 70m tall) so the list only includes buildings 100m and above as the unofficial accepted limit for skyscrapers. Hope that clears things up! Seaserpent85 22:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, well organized, good references. Resolute 23:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support.

1. Parts of the lead need to be rephrased to avoid statements that will date quickly.

Done. Seaserpent85 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. The last paragraph in the lead contains peacock terms: "London goes through a high-rise boom" and "transform the London skyline". Unless you are quoting someone (worth quoting) who said this, then you need to be a bit more neutral.

Done - all such terms removed. Seaserpent85 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. You shouldn't say "Buildings that are currently under construction will be added as and when they are completed." as this is a self-reference and an instruction to editors that should be on the talk page. Simply define what your inclusion/exclusion criteria are.

Done - first sentence already states it is a list of completed buildings os sentence in question removed. Seaserpent85 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. The lead for the "Future high-rise buildings" has weasel words and inappropriate tone. Have a look at the Guide to writing better articles for some advice on tone. The statement "The table below shows all future buildings above 150m in height" cannot be true.

Done. Seaserpent85 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Unfortunately, ref 4 (SkyscraperCity) is a forum and not a suitable reliable source. Can you find another source for this section?

Not done - Unable to find another source that is as up to date. Sentence removed. Seaserpent85 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Review your external links against the external links guidelines. For example, the forums and petition are not suitable. Any links already used as references should not be repeated.

Done. Seaserpent85 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I've nominated the Paris list as a featured list removal candidate. Perhaps you can help bring this up to standard? I don't want to see it removed, but people look to Featured material as an example, so it needs to be a good example. Colin°^Talk 13:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at the Paris list - as far as I can see the main problem there is the lack of sources. Seaserpent85 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - this article seems to me to meet the criteria of comprehensiveness, stability, style and correct images. --Fritzpoll 20:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - What is the logic behind the "Other structures" section? Buc 08:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The "logic "behind it is that it lists all uninhabitable structures over 100m, which would otherwise be left out of the main list. Seaserpent85 10:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Are they the tallest in london? Buc 17:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something here. Surely it's obvious that in an article named 'the tallest buildings and structures in London' is going to list the tallest structures in London? Care to elaborate what you mean? Seaserpent85 17:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Are they the tallest in London or are the buildings in the list before that the tallest in London? Buc 16:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a list of the tallest buildings in London and the second is a list of the tallest structures in London. I'm still unsure as to what you're trying to get at though - are you genuinely confused by there being list of tallest structures or is there something I'm missing here? Seaserpent85 18:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the diffrence between buildings and structures? Buc 19:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's already explained in the article - it states "A structure differs from a high-rise by its lack of floors and habitability". To be honest, your questioning isn't very productive here - this is supposed to be somewhere where fixable issues are brought up. If you're trying to prove a point that there's something missing, then say it, otherwise it's just not helping. Seaserpent85 16:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No just puzzled Buc 08:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Oppose Please either remove the red links, or if they are notable, create an article on them. See WP:WIAFL 1.a.1. .....Todd^#661 13:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've removed them but I'd juat like to point out that plenty of other FLs feature redlinks, surely it encourages people to make the articles? Seaserpent85 14:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A small number of redlinks are quite acceptable. The list only had four. It would be great if articles were created for them and I hate to see redlinks turned black in an attempt to disguise a lack of links (which isn't the case here, but happens). I'd only support removing links if you were absolutely sure the buildings/structures were non-notable — they would be deleted if created. Removing links is not the wiki way. Colin°^Talk 15:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Juhachi 04:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination. Diff. I think this meets he criteria and is as good as other sport related Featured lists I have seen.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 01:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent work, however, a couple of questions:

1. How come you didnt use the full standard stat set for goaltenders - ie include losses, ties, SOLs?
2. I am sure the red linked players will be a concern for some.
3. Perhaps you could add a couple pictures of some of the Avs more notable players - Roy, Sakic, etc?

At any rate, I am inclined to Support this list as present. Resolute 02:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support quite a nice list. A Comment would be to include some way to represent players who were with the Nordiques and Avalanche, perhaps? Regardless, good work all around. Kaiser matias 06:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'll try to search for some pictures to use. I didn't use the full standard set for goalies because I was not 100% sure I could found that information for every goalie and because I'd have to have several columns and some of them empty, due to the facts that those rules changed in time. I think wins is the most important stat and that's what I put. Thanks--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 10:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've found 7 pictures to use, most of them of former Avalanche players. I searched on flickr and wikimedia commons, and even uploaded a picture image:Chris Drury.jpg there. If any of you knows where to find more or has them, help out. Thanks.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 10:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, good work. --Phoenix 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, nice list, however I'd prefer the highlighted blue to be lighter. --Krm500 00:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 16:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seems a bit strange in an article about Avalanche players to have images of them not in Avalanche uniforms. Buc 17:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's either that or nothing. Unless you have some good and free to use pictures of Avalanche players in Avalanche uniforms, this is the best we can get.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 17:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with nothing? Buc 07:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When it didn't have photos, people asked to put some. Not that it has, "What's wrong with nothing?". (I'm saying this with a smile) I understand your point, but I don't really see there's anything wrong with them wearing other teams equipment: they are professional players and it's better to have people see them that nothing at all. At least for me. I'd leave it as it is unless we get more Avalanche fotos or more people say to take them out. If I didn't live around 8000 km away from Denver, I'd take some photos of them just for this article. :P--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 13:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have some low quality images of some of the Avalanche, mostly from weird angles. I've been delaying uploading them, but if you want to use them, I will go ahead and do it. Kaiser matias 20:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you can see the players well, that'd be good.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 13:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced. Images in the players own articles maybe but not in a list which merely mentions them. Also why some players but not others? Buc 18:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't seem like a problem when List of dinosaurs was promoted. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sweden international footballers/archive1 was also promoted with pictures of only a few players, and with one in a uniform which is not of the Swedish national team (although they weren't there when it was promoted). I'm not sure of what you're not convinced of. Still, you can take them off if you want to. Just don't force me to do something I don't agree with, specially if does not stop the article from becoming an FL or collides with an important policy here. Cheers--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 19:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it would stop it from becoming a FL overwise I would have opposed. Buc 08:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 15:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Serte. Having images of the players doesn't do anything to damage the article; they only enhance it. And certain players are shown based on what is available. We can't just take any image that we want, so we have to use what we have. Kaiser matias 04:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I was working on a list of New Jersey Devils players on my sandbox with a different format, but if this passes, I'll change my formatting to match yours, since it's better anyway. Good job, lots of pictures. My only comment would be perhaps an inline citation to the individual stats of each player; even though it would make the list a little longer, it would help to avoid having to look through the external link to find each player. Otherwise, I support it. Anthony Hit me up... 14:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Juhachi 04:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self nomination, I believe this list meets the criteria. The list is based on the layouts of the featured lists of american football teams seasons. --Krm500 01:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support complete and well layed out. Resolute 02:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I see no problems. --Phoenix 02:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why do some seasons have mutiple leagues? Buc 07:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ice hockey in Sweden is based on promotion and relegation. Today teams are promoted or relegated when the season is over, in Kvalserien. But the format of how the process is done has been changed many times. For example, as you can see some years the team has played in multiple tiers. This is due to that some years, the bottom two teams were relegated to Allsvenskan after 22 rounds. Allsvenskan was at this time a continuation series. Two teams were promoted to Elitserien every year, the winner of the Allsvenskan playoffs and the winner of Kvalserien. --Krm500 10:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This needs to be explained in the article. Buc 15:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. --Krm500 00:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok support then. Buc 17:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good layout and easy to find all the information about each season. Kaiser matias 17:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very good and professional layout, well-sourced. --Carioca 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support though I have a little question that the article may need to clean up, either as a footnote or in the lead. Some seasons it appears that the post-season utilized a knockout tournament; other seasons it appears to be a round-robin tournament, and still other years it appears to have consisted of a single championship game. I am not sure of the history of these different formats; if they are league dependant or not, though in some cases the same league seems to use different methods. I am only inferring what I can figure out from the format of the table, so perhaps some additional info may be needed. Overall though, this is a perfectly fine article, and well within established limits of an FL of this type.
  • Yes the league format and the playoff format has been changed many times for some reason, I'll see if I can find a good source with an explanation of this and add it to the article. --Krm500 22:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added a footnote that explains the playoff format in Division 1. --Krm500 23:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. The page at WP:FLC says to count the original nomination as a support vote, so that makes it 4 support, thus the decision was to Promote. Juhachi 23:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self nom. Modeled on current FL. Has refs. Well set out. Buc 22:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There is both an extra column and extra row in the table, creating small slivers on the left and bottom sides, respectively. Probably just an accidental pipe sitting somewhere. `--Phoenix (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed Buc 08:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I'm assuming the lead doesn't equal that for the Cleveland list because the team hasn't been in existance for as long and there isn't as much to say. --Phoenix (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This list still needs three more Support votes to pass. Please if you feel this is worthy of being a FL show support. Buc 05:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support: Article looks good but i think we can have a few changes to make it complete.

1) I think it will be great to add wikipages for the 2 first round picks - Snell and McRae. Please add wikipages for the same.

2) Wherever the first round pick was traded, please provide info of the trade in the box rather along with a link.

3) Minor format issue, #1 picks - have the entire row in the same background color. Other than these 3, i think the article is good to go. Kalyan 08:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) This is more to do with the Snell and McRae articles.

2) Why? It would look like this:

I don't think that would look as good.

3) Done

Buc 09:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about?

Kalyan 12:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still think it looks ugly and what's the point anyway? Buc 17:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is ok to go with the earlier format. i was just making a suggestion. i don't think either formats are any different. made my support unqualified. time to move it to FL. Kalyan 12:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well designed list, organized, references, lead is well done.--十八 23:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Juhachi 23:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self nom. Complete within its defined scope, referenced, stable. Article format has been based around List of ice hockey teams in Alberta, which is a current Featured List. Resolute 00:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How difficult is it to create a map image such as that on the Alberta list? --Phoenix (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me, with no skills whatsoever? Difficult. For the Alberta one, I borrowed from a good image in the commons and moved some dots. Nothing suitable exists for a map of Saskatchewan. Resolute 05:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, just curious. Support anyway, it looks good. The last sentence of the lead, below the AAA level should probably have a link to said division so people know what it is. --Phoenix (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well written, and just as good as the Alberta article, which is already a Featured List. Kaiser matias 01:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's a well written list and deserves FL status. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per above comments. --十八 23:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 18 days, 5 support, 1 oppose. The one oppose given is technically invalid for this nomination, and consensus shows the invalidity of the opposition. The user who opposed refused to comment further, thus the decision was to Promote. Juhachi 22:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found this list about a month ago in relatively good condition. I have added references, expanded the lead and done a little bit of formatting. Now I wish to see how it measures up! Todd661 09:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Should "Leaders" be small-case. NO it should be a BIG CASE. "l" in the title? Daniel Bryant 02:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC) PAGE MOVED Todd661 06:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got a bunch of redirects now though, make sure none are doubles. --Phoenix (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Response None of the pages are double redirects, however pretty much every wikilink to the page is a redirect. That is not a big issue, but I will get around to changing that eventually. Todd661 22:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Todd undid that move. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • see explanation below. Todd661 09:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The men for which there is no image is a slight eyesore. Looks like the Joseph Cook image is public domain, I'm sure that can go in. --Phoenix (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Response The reason there are boxes without a photo in them is either because they were Opposition Leader more than once - in Joseph Cooks situation, 3 times - and so I have only put their photo in their first term. Or if there is no image for that particular person on Wikipedia - in Gough Whitlam's and Simon Crean's situation. Todd661 22:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood, thanks. I'm just wondering now if the names for which there are no photos would be better off colspan'd across the two columns, just to take away that space. --Phoenix (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not exactly sure what you mean by colspan'd, if you could show me what you mean, or be bold? Todd661 12:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll go ahead and do it in a couple hours here, see what you think. --Phoenix (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disregard that, I think it's alright how it is. See Help:Table to find out more about colspan. In any event, my next little problem was going to be the lead (I'm not just following the leader here); Jayron has that covered below. --Phoenix (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Fixes needed:
  • Lead is inadequate. As someone who is unfamiliar with the intricacies of Australia's brand of parliamentary rule, the lead is confusing and needs some expansion. How is the Opposition leader chosen? Is it always the 2nd place party? It would appear that Australia is not de-facto 2-party system like the U.S. or U.K., as the current P.M. serves at the head of a coalition and not a single party. Would it be possible for an Opposition leader to be chosen by coalition; say theoretically if the 3rd and 4th place parties could outnumber the 2nd place, or is it always the 2nd place party? Plus, it needs some copyediting in places. The last sentance is particularly clunky, in need of some commas or a rewrite or something. Fixed...

**The a, b, and c notes are hard to follow. I would like to see them all in the same place, so one could track, say, ALL of the Opp. Leaders who were previously or would later be PM. As it stands now, I understand what you are trying to do, but it is hard to parse the information out as it is. Maybe placing all notes on the name???objection removed on this issue

• That's it. The list looks great the way it is otherwise. Fix those issues and I will grant my support.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I have attempted to write a bit about the role of opposition in Australian Parliament, tell me what you think, however I am no good at spelling grammer and would appreciate it if someone could give it a readover. In response to your comments about the notes, I had it the way you suggested earlier (see here but I feel that it is in a more appropriate place now. I hope you will not oppose the article being featured for this reason alone. Todd661 08:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notes issue was a small one. If consensus of other editors had earlier placed them where they are now, I will not oppose promotion on that issue. WRT the lead, it is MUCH improved, and I appreciate the additions; it is now much clearer what an Opposition is vis-a-vis the Westminster system. Two small things:

::::*In the first paragraph of the lead, the word "minority" is used, but this is ambiguous without context. Is Australia a de-facto two-party system, as in the U.S. and U.K., or are there multiple minority parties, any one of whom could produce the Opposition Leader? Please clarify that if you could.fixed ::::*In the second paragraph (the new addition) the capitalization is inconsistent. In the American English, the word "government" is never capitalized; I know that in Commonwealth English, it is capitalized if it is used to refer to the ruling party in Parliament and not capitalized if used in a generic sense. It appears that the word is being used in this paragraph to refer to the majority parliamentary party, and so therefore should probably be capitalized consistently, as is Opposition. It should probably either be Government/Opposition or government/opposition. The way it is done now, it looks inconsistent.fixed --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list is MUCH improving... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DONE Todd661 08:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this list makes inappropriate use of copyright images.--cj | talk 12:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Which images are in question so one doesn't have to look through all of them. --Phoenix (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Presuming the licensing details are correct, the following are in copyright:

  • Image:Arthurfadden.jpg
  • Image:RobertMenziesPEO.jpg
  • Image:BillySnedden.jpg
  • Image:Malcolm.fraser.jpg
  • Image:BillHayden.jpg
  • Image:Bob.hawke.jpg
  • Image:Hewson.jpg

  I would suggest simply removing all the images from the table. They're not needed for a featured list: see List of Canadian Leaders of the Opposition. Actually, I think this article should also be renamed per that more felicitous example. --cj | talk 01:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Lovely, someone who's actually willing to work on the list can go ahead and do that. --Phoenix (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I have removed the images that were used inappropriately. I agree that it isn't necessary for the article to have images at all, however I think that if they can be used, it is worthwhile to put them in. Todd661 08:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the inconsistent approach leaves the table looking ugly and peculiar. If you can't use all images, don't use any.--cj | talk 13:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the men for which there is no photograph, how do you feel about colspanning the name across the photograph column. I had suggested it earlier. --Phoenix (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it leave the table ugly and perculiar at all. But if you think it does, delete them. Todd661 08:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think that eventually we will have free images that we will be able to use for all the pollies where there photo is unavailable. I think this is the best page to organise that information. My personal opinion is that we leave the space there so that it is easy to upload a new picture. Todd661 11:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there is a photo of Bob Menzies that is out of copyright? Anything taken before 1965 is Public Domain in Australia. JRG 02:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not on Wikipedia, and I am hopeless at the whole copyright thing so I'll leave that to someone else. Todd661 08:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a typo on JRG's part, but it ought to be clarified that only photographs taken before 1955 are in the public domain. See copyright expiration in Australia. As for pictures of Ming, the NLA has done a wonderful job digitising their collections, and has a wealth of images of him.--cj | talk 15:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose - the lead is much better than it was a couple of days ago, but I still think it could be better and lengthened a bit. Could we add the time when the opposition Leader's chair was once taken by an independent, after the Whitlam dismissal, when the Labor Party refused to turn up for the opening of Parliament, and Senator Brian Harradine sat in the opposition leader's chair instead (I remember reading that at an exhibition at Old Parliament House). This sort of information would be useful if it could be found... JRG 02:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is the right place for this sort of information. The article is a list of Opposition leaders and Brian Harradine was never opposition leader. I disagree also that the lead needs to be expanded further. It gives an overview of (A) what the list is about, (B) the role of opposition, and its leader, in Aussie politics & (C) a short summary of the current opposition party/leader. Todd661 08:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Todd here. As a list, the introduction is probably too general/long as it is. Perhaps a section in Opposition (Australia)] (or even a Leader of the Opposition (Australia) article) could be created for more in-depth coverage.--cj | talk 15:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - it's much improved since I made that comment. Although the lead could be a little better, it's better than a lot of other Featured Lists on Wikipedia and deserves promotion, and I don't know what I would include in the lead to improve it. Support. JRG 03:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All of the fixes I thought were needed have been done. I made a small gramaritical change myself to the lead, I hope you don't mind. I second the above sentiment by Todd661 and feel that the lead is now adequate. To expand on what he said, the lead is supposed to summarize the article, not bring up every trivial issue dealing with the historical peculiarities of the Opposition in the history of Australia. The particular event described by JRG certainly belongs in a wikipedia article somewhere, but this one ain't it. As a list of people, the lead now summarizes it perfectly. Full support. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Appears thorough, factually accurate, well written. I don't like that not every member has a photo. One suggestion I can offer is to remove all of the images from the chart itself, and post selected photos of the first, current and famous former leaders along the right side of the article. Resolute 00:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This is what I meant to say above. Certainly, the article should have images, and they can be displayed as Resolute has suggested. But it looks poorly to set a standard of having an image for each leader when such a standard cannot be met.--cj | talk 15:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we are setting a standard that we cannot meet at this point in time. However, eventually, I have no doubt that Wikipedia will be able to secure a free image and I see no problem in advertising the fact that we need more images for this article. Todd661 08:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you're submitting it to this process as a polished, or stable, work. I don't think it you can have it both ways.--cj | talk 12:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list is polished, and 3 people above you agree with me. On your assertion that by adding pictures after is is featured, it would become unstable - I disagree. Criteria 1e in WP:WIAFL says that improvements do not apply. Todd661 21:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think cj has a point, but I don't think it matters either way - I'm happy with or without pictures, like Daniel below. JRG 13:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, and I appreciate that opinions about the images presently differ, but either way (I don't mind which, and have no real preference for either) I still feel it's a FL. Daniel Bryant 10:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)`[reply]
• Oppose. Maybe I'm clueless about Australian politics, but why isn't this located at: List of Australian Opposition leaders or List of leaders of the Australian Opposition? "Leaders" should definitely not be capitalized and the word Australian is modifying the wrong noun. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not know how to answer this question. However I can say that the majority of Australian media use a capital L. In addition the Featured Canadian version of this page uses a capital L. Todd661 09:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The position "Leader of the Opposition" is official and is thus capitalised; whether the capitalisation is applied to the pluralised form is a matter of personal preference. In regards to the concern about nouns, I somewhat agree, but would suggest that the only other appropriate title would be List of Leaders of the Opposition (Australia), as anything else would be inaccurate.--cj | talk 09:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, the Opposition is not referred to as the Australian Opposition it is more often referred to as the Opposition. This article is about the leader of this party, and therefore becomes the Leader of the Opposition. This article is about the Australian Leaders of the Opposition - hence the current title. Todd661 09:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a Commonwealth English vs. American English issue, and the usage appears consistant with local usage. Thus, this objection isn't really actionable. There is nothing here to fix that would necessitate an objection. Plus, this issue has been hammered out above. See the initial comments to this thread. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The thing is that I didn't see "Leader of the Opposition" as a job title. I saw "Opposition" as a political side and thought it needed modifying to be more specific about which country this Opposition was in (as most countries have an Opposition), hence my naming suggestions. I'm still not supporting though, as I believe a list of politicians should contain their birth and death dates and be sortable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being sortable is not a requirement of a Featured List (see here; and the death and birth dates are all covered in the article. It's not necessary to list them in the article as it's not directly relevant to their occupation. This list meets the Featured List Criteria and personal feelings should have nothing to do with it, unless they go towards declining for a reason to do with the article's status according to the criteria. JRG 13:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may have nothing to do with their occupation but it's basic biographical information and thus important. Including it makes it possible to sort people by age and longevity without exhaustive searches through all the articles or using a separate list. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is still NOT a reason to oppose a FA nomination. JRG 13:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MacGyverMagic has ignored requests for further review of these comments. Consensus is that the birth and death dates are not necessary for this article. The reason that I have not made the list sortable, is because of problems with the dates. Todd661 07:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Currently fails criterian 3: none of the images (save for the one in the lead) have "alt" text included. I'm not asking for thumbnails; just add it in so it appears as: [[Image:Person.jpg|100px|insert alt text here]]. This can simply be the name of the person in the photo.--十八 09:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Alternative text added. Todd661 11:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I too agree that the birth and death dates are unnecessary and are technically out of the scope of the article. I would say that birth/death dates would be considered additional information that does not necessarily have to be there, thus I do beleive that MGM's oppose is invalid. I'll give this list my support.--十八 22:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Juhachi 05:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list is descriptive, fully sourced and meets the FL criteria, as well as the standards set by the featured List of WWE Champions. MarcK 10:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was going to support, but I have two minor concerns.

1. Could the notes about when the title was vacated be modelled after the List of WWE Champions?
2. There are no sources in the lead. There should be at least one. Normally the lead not being perfectly sourced wouldn't matter to me, but since this is a list, the lead should be fully sourced.

Other than that, great job on the list, well sourced (for the list portion) and once those two concerns have been addressed, I'll support this page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y Both problems fixed. MarcK 01:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Then I Support this article. Good job! -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Are three columns necessary for the references, I would think two is fine. --Phoenix (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been fixed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, support now. --Phoenix (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• support Wow! ref in 3 figuers. Don't see that for lists very often. Buc 15:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh, they're all from the same website. "Wwe.com" as the sole reference would have effectively conveyed the same thing, but we all would have opposed on the grounds of no references. --Phoenix (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppport --十八 05:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 7 support, 0 oppose. Promote. MarcK 15:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another list of birds based on the featured list of Puerto Rican birds, I believe this should be up to featured standard.  LaNicoya  •TALK• 01:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, only a week old? My goodness, superb. --Phoenix (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Birds seem to be getting a lot of attention recently...amazing how the first edit was 70K worth of information.--十八 07:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ornithologists Rule! Seriously, its like every week a great bird list shows up here, and they are always up to the greatest quality. Congrats and good job!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is amazing work and that too in so little time. DSachan 19:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Out of all those pictures, I can't see the pictures of Magnificent Frigatebird, Glossy Ibis, and Mourning Dove. I used both of my browsers (IE and Firefox) and I got the same result. Any ideas why? --Crzycheetah 21:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not too sure. I just checked the page in both Firefox and I.E. and the Mourning dove picture and Frigatebird are right in place. Maybe if you try it again and make sure the page completely loads you might get different results.  LaNicoya  •TALK• 21:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my Antivirus apparently thinks that those three images are harming my computer and it just blocks them. Anyway, I support.--Crzycheetah 22:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but I have to ask. Can you give laymen like me any indication to prove it's complete? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The list is taken from Clements' checklist (5th edition), so is complete (according to that source), at least until the 6th edition comes out. Yomangani^talk 16:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 6 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Juhachi 02:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list follows the other featured draft lists, like 2003 NFL Draft, and 2006 NFL Draft, and I believe it is comprehensive and everything has been cited. Support as nominator. Gman124 18:27

• Comment: Ah, someone's pickign up where I left off, good. I'd liek to see the linking fo the colleges and positions fixed. Right now they're all linked in the first round and none are afterwards. I can do that later if needed though.--Wizardman 18:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the college and position names should only be linked first time they appear, but i'll link the colleges that haven't been linked yet. Gman124 18:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. Thing is they aren't linked the first time. Plus there are some where the colege is linked twice in the first round. It's no biggie though, I'll support upon that being taken care of.--Wizardman 18:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed Link for all universities. They all now link only once, the first the they appear. Gman124 20:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also fixed the position links. Gman124 21:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright, support.--Wizardman 02:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Seeing howing the 2007 NFL Draft just recently took place, the standard, in my opinion, has been raised significantly for these draft articles to reach FL status. Every single trade in the recent draft is referenced, which it should be. I'd like to see that kind of treatment given to this article as well before I can support. Pepsidrinka 21:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there are references for all the trades, so what else does it need? Could you be more specific? Gman124 22:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No there aren't references for all the trades. Merely a footnote next to a pick doesn't mean it is properly referenced. Clicking on the references merely brings up a page with that rounds picks, which is essentially what is provided on our article page. However, it does not explain the details of the trade. Who was trades for who? What was traded for what? If the Dolphins' 2nd round pick came from the 49ers, what are the details of that trade? Click the links in the 2007 draft article to get a sense of what I mean. Pepsidrinka 00:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I made references like 2007 NFL Draft, but there are still some references left, and I am having a hard time finding all of them, so I need help finding the rest of the references. Gman124 01:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks good, in terms of references. I do have a couple more comments. The links to the schools should link to the football program whenever possible. Florida should link to Florida Gators football and not University of Florida or Florida Gators. If a school doesn't have a football article, link to its athelitcs article. If that too doesn't exist, it should link to the main university/college page. Also, the players column should utilize the span tags to enable sorting by last name. Sorting by first name is kind of useless. I've done the first round. Pepsidrinka 02:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, a couple more things. There should be no inconsistency with regards to positions. Either it should be "Defensive end" or "Defensive End", not both. Also, "Tight end" and "wide receiver", etc, should be in the same format. A could of the other featured drafts also list the full team name in latter rounds, instead of just the city name. Makes it look better, IMO. Though there should be some discussion on which to utilize. Pepsidrinka 02:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have fixed the university links, now they go straight to their football programs, that is if they have a page on their football program. Gman124 20:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Used <span> tags to alphabetize all the players names by laset names. Gman124 22:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fixed player position names. Gman124 22:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Put whole team names for all rounds. Gman124 23:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Everything looks good. Support. Pepsidrinka 16:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, only needs a few more references in my opinion, and I'm confident they'll be found. --Phoenix (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have fixed all the references and made them have same format as 2007 NFL Draft. Gman124 02:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the update. --Phoenix (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I chose a random featured draft (2005) and compared it to this, and I found a couple things that need to be changed (in several cases, it is better in 2001, but either way they need to match for consistancy). First, compensatory selections are represented in a different color in this draft vs. 2005, all drafts should be the same in this regard. Also, the legend explaining what the colors represent is not in the same order on each draft (pro bowlers are listed first in 2001 and second in 2005). The number column is centered in the 2005 draft page, in 2001 it is not. 2001 is sortable, and 2005 is not. There is a note explaining every pick trade in the 2001 draft, and there isn't in 2005. No note about Mr. Irrelevant in either draft, but I recall 2006 and 2007 drafts having such a note. 2005 has a "notable undrafted players" section, 2001 does not. The list of players by position count at the top of each is in a different order. All the issues I have mentioned should be uniform accross all drafts. Another thing I will note is that someone unfamiliar with football may think that being highlighted as a pro bowler means they went to the pro bowl that year, which is certainly not the case. We may want to add a note on each draft page clarifying that it means they went to the pro bowl any time in their career. VegaDark 08:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • fixed compensatory selections and made them have same color as all the rest of the featured draft lists, also fixed the order of the legend. and made 2005 sortable, and added about Mr. Irrelevant. Gman124 17:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • also centred the numbers column in 2001 draft. Gman124 18:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • also added a note about pro bowlers. Gman124 18:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, looks good enough to support. It would be nice to have a "notable undrafted players" section, though, and us in the NFL Wikiproject should look at all the featured drafts and make sure they are all identical format-wise. VegaDark 19:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Does pro bowler mean the following season or ever? Some of the ref are footnotes, that needs to be made clear. Overwise it's fine I'll be happy to show support once you fix these two things. Buc 21:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pro-Bowler has a note next to it and that explains that the player went to pro bowl at any time in his carrer and moved footnotes under notes section. Gman124 21:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I think the article meets FL criteria. There are a few additions required, but otherwise the article looks great. Kalyan 08:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Juhachi 01:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This lists all the matches played by the 1888-1889 New Zealand Native football team - a team that toured Australia, the British Isles, and New Zealand and played 107 rugby matches (an enormous number). I believe this list meets all the criteria for a featured list. Thanks. - Shudda ^talk 07:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - A fine article. I would of expected a mistake in article of that lenght (no offense) but failed to find one.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 09:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a list, and as a result there is little prose. One hardly finds errors in the writing. --Phoenix (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support One small fixes needed, but it should be easy to do, and not worth witholding support for them, since I have confidence it can be fixed easily. In the notes section to start the article, set aside Manningham with commas. It should read: At least one club, Manningham, has since converted to Association Football. But this is a great, well written list. Good job.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, have fixed that. - Shudda ^talk 02:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, interesting to see something from so long ago. --Phoenix (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- based on the history of New Zealand rugby dating back to the 19th century and well referenced and written..I Support--Cometstyles 10:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)..[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 8 support, 0 oppose. Other comments. Promote. Juhachi 10:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As part of a project to improve the Simpsons articles about season 8, I hereby nominate the season list. I will try and take care of any objections that might come. --Maitch 16:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You really started this at an interesting time. See this discussion on the Administrator's noticeboard. I would remove the screenshots. Garion96 (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? They all have fair use rationale. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it looks like all fair use images on episode lists are going. Gran² 21:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a major dicussion currently taking place at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, and the consensus there appears to be that using a copyright image for evry single item on the list is "excessive" as per point #3 at WP:FAIR. Further, every time a list comes up here with a copyright image for every single item on the list, someone will object per WP:WIAFL point #3, stating the images do not have accepatble copyright status. The closing editor cannot then promote, due to lack of consensus (which is required). There hasn't been a single episode list with screenshots for every episode promoted in the last month.
        Now, that is directed at episode lists in general. With regard to this specific list: get rid of the screenshots, and I'll support. The list is nicely done, has good supplementry info, a decent lead, and references. (It would better to format your references using {{cite web}}). Tompw (talk) (review) 21:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have been reading a lot about this issue and couldn't find a clear consensus, so I decided to use the standard template for episode list ({{episode list}}). If there is a clear consensus for removing the images, you can do it by removing the screenshot parameter in this template. --Maitch 22:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, you can't just kill the image parameter because it will change the number of columns and thus break the table formatting and headings. Otherwise that already would have been done. There are few issues on Wikipedia that impact a large number of pages which can be decided with consensus in the 100% case. --Gmaxwell 16:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • OK, the vastamount of discussion could be read either way. Sorry, I didn't get that one quite right. However, my point that the fact there is a screenshot for every episode will prevent this episode getting promoted. :-( On the template front... I wouldn't remove the image parameter, because it is possible that there are episode lists which use free use images. Tompw (talk) (review) 22:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, and the list already uses {{cite web}}. --Maitch 22:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was thinking of "Season 8 at The Simpsons.com ", which is under "External Links"... it should really be under "References" (and hence formatted with {{cite web}}), as it seems to be being used as one. Tompw (talk) (review) 22:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Violates Wikipedia's WP:NONFREE policy. Fair use cannot be legitimately claimed for the use of screenshots in an episode listing format. --Cyde Weys 22:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you entirely ignore all of the discussion above? Sure, you can oppose on those grounds, but it sounds pretty worthless. --Phoenix (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discussion above is wrong. They do not have a proper understanding of WP:NONFREE and under which situations fair use exemptions are allowed (image galleries are not one of them). --Cyde Weys 02:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's tons of arguments on various fronts around Wikipedia both for and against it; your comment seemed oblivious to all of them. --Phoenix (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Look lets just remove the images. I am completely against this new idea, but if there is consensus then we have to abide by it. This should pass FLC a lot quicker if we don't have images. Gran² 05:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agreed. I like the images on the page, but Maitch has worked to hard for it not to be promoted over something like images. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • So be it, support. The objection which sparked this discussion has now been rendered useless. --Phoenix (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose with screenshots & Support without screenshots. --Ali'i 15:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose with screenshots & Support without screenshots. I think the non-free DVD box image at the top reasonable given the amount of text there and the fact that the DVD set is discussed. I think the references are good... I hope we stop featuring unreferenced lists. ... although can someone with "The Simpsons: A Complete Guide to our Favorite Family." verify that we're not a word for word reproduction of the book? --Gmaxwell 15:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Update. Images are now removed by popular demand. --Maitch 15:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing to Support following removal of screenshots. It's a very nicely-put together list. It would just be a shame to have it sullied with a bunch of non-free screenshots, thus making it un-redistributable, un-free, and rather useless for reusers. --Cyde Weys 16:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Maitch has done a great job with this page, although the desriptions are a tad longer than I might prefer, but its fine. Also, I am curious as to why the references for each episode are from a book, as opposed to an easily verifiable online source like the official website. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Books are just as good as websites, and in some cases better. While some online references could be useful for some people, they are not required, nor should they be. Stand up for Books! 18:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I realize that in many cases it is better to go with books over websites, but I think in this case it would be best to go with the official site. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well the official site is in the external links, and can easily be moved to the references, meaning that we are using it as well as the book. Gran² 19:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Either way, it's nice to see something that actually has references. Heck, the more the merrier. --Ali'i 19:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Books are usually a more solid source than web sites, because the content on a web site can be changed, moved or deleted. In this case I think the official guide book beats the official web site. Additionally, the book mentions more guest stars than the web site. --Maitch 20:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great job. Gran² 17:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is one of the best sourced episode lists I've ever seen. Jay32183 03:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Gran and Jay; a FL without question. Cliff smith 01:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 20 days, 5 support, 1 oppose. Promote. Wizardman 17:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on this list the last two days using the 2003 NFL Draft featured list as a guide. I think this list can be featured, too. I provided the trade notes for round 1 only because I thought that round 2's trades were not as necessary. If there are any concerns, I would be glad to address them. Thank you. --Crzycheetah 05:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixes needed before I will support:
  • Expand lead to more resemble the NFL article. This lead does not summarize the draft, nor does it give an adequate introduction as to what a draft is, or how the NBA draft works. It doesn't even mention the mechanisms of the Lottery, the specifics of this year's lottery, or of the role trading plays. A sentance or two would go a LONG way here.

    I believe that NBA Draft article should say how the NBA draft works and NBA Draft Lottery should talk about mechanisms of the Lottery. I have added info about 2003 NBA Draft Lottery, though. I am confused on what you meant by saying "role trading plays". Did you mean, "why players get traded"?

  • Column heading "College/Club Team" is inaccurate. The top pick did not go to College and did not play on a club team. Maybe "Prior Team" or "School/Club Team" would be more appropriate.

    I changed it to "School/Club Team".

  • Michael Petrius lists the nation he played in, but not the league, unlike players from the Adriatic League. Why not?

    If you click on the country's link, it will take you to their basketball league's article. For instance, if you click on France next to Pietrus' club, it will take you to Ligue Nationale de Basketball. It goes for all international teams. Adriatic league is for former Yugoslavian clubs only. Serbian, Croatian clubs play in two leagues:their national league and adriatic league).

  • Same for Carlos Delfino, and several other players.

    See above.

  • In references section, consider expanding to a more standard Bibliographic format like MLA or APA format, especially as you are seeking featured status. A simple external link is probably inadequate. Consider using {{cite web}}. It isn't necessary in any way to use that, but the references as they are now are inadequate; they don't inlude publication information, accessdates, etc. Also, why are the External Links not part of references? They appear to have the same sort of information, why the distinction?

    Since it wasn't a footnote, I didn't even think about {{cite web}}. :) I formatted using cite web, now. I put those external links because I didn't want to have only one external website(NBA.com) in the article, even though I used only NBA.com as a source.

• That's it. Good luck, and I will check back on this later! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. This list is going to improve a lot when your concerns are addressed fully. --Crzycheetah 19:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lead looks MUCH better. I copyedited it a bit myself to remove a run-on sentance that was hard to follow. Everything looks like it was addressed. Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support.--Crzycheetah 02:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This nomination blurs the distinction between list and article. Is this really a list? True that parts of it are presented in a list format, but the topic itself "the 2003 NBA Draft" is a historical event. And even if it could be considered a list as a whole, the only thing separating it from the original source are the footnotes indicating which draft picks were traded. But I guess if it's eligible, it's eligible. One thing that does concern me in terms of the "list" being "well-constructed" and "easy to navigate" (see Wikipedia:Featured list criteria) is the deliberate de-linking of the team articles in the rows for second-round picks. If I was using Wikipedia to study on "second-round picks in various drafts" or whatever, I would not want to have to scroll up to the first round to access the team articles. For ease of navigation, the contents of each table cell should be wikified. — CharlotteWebb 08:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your comments. First, as I said before, I was using NFL Draft's featured list as a guide; therefore, I assumed that if NFL's Draft is a list, then so is NBA's Draft. If we really think about it, the most important information in this article is the list of drafted players. I noticed that NFL's list had their team links delinked, so I just (yes, you guessed it) followed. It really doesn't matter to me wheether there are links in round 2 or not. Let's just wait and see if anyone else has a comment about it. I don't mind your linking all teams.--Crzycheetah 02:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, the logo you uploaded... you need to add a detailed rationale explaining why you feel it is permitted under fair use policy. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. — CharlotteWebb 09:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I have put fair use rationale, please check it. Thanks for catching that, by the way. --Crzycheetah 02:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support it's my first time voting on a featured list, so I'm not perfectly familiar with the criteria. However, I did take a look at the NHL list you said you modelled after, and well, the similarities are there. Chensiyuan 00:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the support. I hope that by the end of this nomination this list is going to be better than the NFL's list. I actually think that it already is better. :) --Crzycheetah 02:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: From WP:WIAFL, a featured list should be comprehensive. So with that in mind, I think that the trade information from the 2nd round should be included and all other pertinent information. On a side note, I feel like somewhat of a hypocrite as I have nominated NFL lists in the past and supported NFL lists in the past and have not held them to the same standard, but in all honesty, those lists too should have ALL trade information included in the respective draft lists. So for the time being, I cannot support. Pepsidrinka 20:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I have started adding trade notes for Round 2, probably will finish in a day or two.--Crzycheetah 22:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object for now. The trade information is good, but none of it is referenced. See the 2007 NFL Draft for what I mean. Pepsidrinka 23:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I gave the players profiles page on NBA.com as a reference. If you think that it needs inline citations, too, then please check the one I just did for the #2 pick. Is that what you are looking for?--Crzycheetah 01:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. I did a few, the first 2 in the first round and a couple in the second round. I used my access to LexisNexis to find the sources, but I'm sure you can find reputable sources on the web, from either newspaper archives, espn, cbs sportsline, sports illustraded, etc. One of the ones I did was from epsn.com, so if you don't have access to lexis, that's the way to go. I'll try to do some more later when I get a chance. Pepsidrinka 14:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It says "In the draft, National Basketball Association (NBA) teams take turns selecting amateur college basketball players and other first-time eligible players, such as players from high schools and non-North American leagues." Since this is no longer true it should be made clear that in the draft rules used at the time high shool players were eligible. Like "In the drafts before the one year rule (or whatever it's called)..." Also change it to past tense since what you're discussing is no longer curent (teams took...). Quadzilla99 00:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I changed it to "in this draft" to imply the 2003 NBA draft, not NBA draft in general. I don't think the rule needs to be mentioned in this article because it didn't affect this draft. I changed take->took, too. --Crzycheetah 08:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not sold on this line: "The 2003 Draft is known for having one of the most talented draft pools in recent draft history, with five all-star caliber players as well as many starting players." All-star caliber is a vague descriptor. Why not just say, "Five players from the 2003 NBA Draft have become All-Stars," or something like that? Zagalejo 08:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I changed that sentence. How is it now?--Crzycheetah 01:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think it looks a little better as two sentences, but overall, it works for me. Is there a specific reason why we don't list the five All-Stars within the body of the article? It's not that big an issue; I'm just curious. Zagalejo 16:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that it would clutter the lead. --Crzycheetah 18:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, good for me. --Phoenix (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks!--Crzycheetah 18:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support looks good and I think all the references are there, don't really see anything wrong. Gman124 02:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 13 days, five support, zero opposes, one neutral. Promote. Daniel Bryant 04:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First nomination

Okay, so the last time this page was nominated, the problems that came up were all dealt with: the lead was expanded, and it was copyedited. Based on the fact that it satisfies the criterian, I believe this list should become featured.

Support Per nomination. --十八 22:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC) {{spoiler}}[reply]

• Support I can support this list. Jay32183 18:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, along with a couple of minor comments:-
  • "On October 27 2006, an OVA episode was released [...] staff that produced the television series produced the OVA as well. This episode is set four months after the events of the anime series during the Christmas season" — can I suggest that you de-abbreviate the first "OVA" (and therefore link it properly, without a redirect), as to avoid abbreviations which haven't been used prior in the text? That, or add the full link so it reads "OVA"; either would be perfectly acceptable.Y Done
  • "This article contains the episode listing for all the animation produced for Kashimashi" — it should probably read "This is a list of episodes for all...", or similar, which is slightly less self-referential; regardless, it isn't an article, but a list, so the second word probably needs changing. Y Done
  • "The staff that produced the television series produced the OVA as well" — probably a little too informal, and doesn't seem to flow well in my opinion. Maybe "The staff that produced the television series also produced the OVA" might be better, but this is my interpretation of that sentence, so feel free to ignore this point totally. Y Done
  • "The main plot in the anime is the drama that relates from the three female main characters of Hazumu Osaragi, Yasuna Kamiizumi, and Tomari Kurusu, and their romantic struggles in a love triangle" — some linking would go well in this, I reckon - love triangle, romantic, and plot are three, possibly. Y Done (I do not believe plot and romance need linking as they are common terms) --十八 08:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during the Christmas season" — possibly as above, for Christmas season; need to remember not everyone celebrates/knows about Christmas. Y Done

Otherwise, a fantastic list. Daniel Bryant 08:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose it has screenshots. JuJube 07:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, there is nothing in the FL criteria that says a list can fail to become a Featured List on the sole basis that the list has screenshots. Your objection has little weight behind it.--十八 07:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm aware of the trifecta of South Park/Avatar/OMG having screenshots and all that. I disagree with them, too. WP:FUC, criteria 3, makes it clear to me that long lists of screenshots are Bad (tm). Numerous anime screenshots have already been deleted (Sailor Moon, Eyeshield 21 and Naruto, for example) and there's no reason for this to be any different. JuJube 07:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Criteria 3 states: It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text and acceptable copyright status. These images are appropriate as this is an episode list and are helpful in identification of the many episodes. Isn't it at least an acceptable copyright to include them per the fair use rationales the images have been given?--十八 07:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Actually, it says "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). This includes the original in the Image: namespace. Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately." I'm of the opinion that more than four screenshots in an article is too much. JuJube 07:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Hold on a second; shouldn't that line taken from WP:FUC be more appropraite for articles instead of lists. Is this not why we have a separate process and separate criteria for Featured Articles and Featured Lists? Besides, all the screenshots in this list are of low resolution. The last line says to not use multiple images if one will serve the purpose adequately, but since we are talking about an episode list here, should there not be more images to serve the purpose more adequately?--十八 07:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment I'm trying to have some on-point discussion about this issue in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Screenshots redux. From what I'm being told, there isn't really wiggle room here. Low resolution screenshots are fine as long as they're minimal. 50+ isn't minimal. JuJube 08:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment Okay, but who ever said this list had 50+? It has 13 last I checked.--十八 08:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I know, but until the debate is resolved one way or the other, I don't think episode lists with screenshots should be featured. Absent any authoritative final statement on the issue, that's how I feel. JuJube 08:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, with comment. Now satisfies the criteria for a featured list. Two comments here:
  • "Tomari later thinks she sees Yasuna and Hazumu kissing at the train station, and later that night, Tomari does in fact kiss Hazumu. " Is this correct? If it is, I would enforce it with a contrasting word like "Tomari actually kisses Hazumu instead". Y Done
  • What is the "end state" here? That Hazumu has a romantic relationship with both Tomari and Yasuna? --GunnarRene 09:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Y Done and clarified[reply]
    • Reply In episode 10, Hazumu is holding Yasuna after a panic attack at the train station and Tomari arrives and thinks she sees them kissing; this later gives her the courage to kiss Hazumu later that night on the pretense that Yasuna already violated their agreement at the end of episode 9; Tomari says this herself at the beginning of episode 11. The end state is a bit complicated, but not terribly so. At the end of episode 12, Hazumu gets with Yasuna; at the end of the OVA, Hazumu gets with Tomari after Yasuna wanted to be single from now on.--十八 09:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Fails featured list criteria #3. Also, I'm not sure that the referencing is done well enough to qualify this as "one of the best lists on Wikipedia". --Ali'i 16:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Images have been removed from Template:Japanese episode list so this list cannot fail criteria 3 anymore. And what is exactly wrong with the references given?--十八 22:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have liked to see some of the references (the three external links at the bottom) incorporated into each episode block, but I won't oppose because of this alone. It's a nice little list. I'll remain Neutral for now. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Be that as it may, it's not common to see the episodes references in the list itself. I was patterning this list off of List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes and List of Oh My Goddess episodes btw and they have all the references at the bottom. Many recent FLs at least I have seen do this and do not have in-line references.--十八 20:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you were to use inline citations, it looks like it would just be in the heading of the original airdate column, because they all use the same source. Jay32183 21:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing to Support since the screenshots are gone. The list is well done. JuJube 03:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 13 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Juhachi 22:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list includes all buildings in the City of Bristol which are listed by English Heritage as Grade I, supported by suitable references, photographs etc. — Rod ^talk 21:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose References in a reference section, not bloating the table. Your "notes" and "alternate names" columns are only taking unnecessary space too. I'm not even sure a table is necessary. Overall... the page looks horrible and verge on the illegible. A far cry from our "finest work." Circeus 01:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I have moved the references as suggested. The notes and alternative names provide additional information, which I feel would be useful to readers of the page.— Rod ^talk 09:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then at least merge notes and alternate names. Consider also placing the references in the last section. And replace these "&" with "and" (unless it's part of the official name.) Circeus 14:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on WP:WIAFL 1f "Well-constructed". Either put alternative names in the same cell as the "proper" ones; or add them as notes. A column with just five entires does not coutn as good layout. Also, fix the column widths.. "Built" can be smaller, allowing "Name" to wide enough to avoid linewrapping. Put the grid references in a seperate column. Tompw (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response THanks for the comments - I've put alternative names under names, removed the notes column, and moved the grid ref into a separate column & moved the references to the final column on the right.— Rod ^talk 20:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support much better :-) Tompw (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• An extra suggestion, because I wouldn't oppose over it: Move the images outside the table (cf. Chicago Landmark). They won't all fit, but then since they all have articles, people can always go to the specific page for images, and you can select the best of them, and even keep one for the leaqd. The page definitely looks far better now, btw. The only thing I'd ask before supporting might be that links like College Green, Bristol become College Green. After all, where else but in Bristol would they be? Circeus 21:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I've piped the names to reduce Bristol appearing in place names (except where part of official title) & moved the images out of the table keeping the best.— Rod ^talk 21:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Just fix that "Queen Sqaure" and it's good to go for me ;-) Great work and responsiveness. Circeus 22:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - Thanks Typo fixed.— Rod ^talk 07:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - From my reading of this, particularly note B, it sounds as if this is actually based on 2001 data. Can you point to any source confirming that no other buildings have received Grade 1 listing since that date (and preferably, include that source in the list somewhere)? If you can then I'm happy to support.--OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response English Heritage do not make any more recent listing available - you can get an individual buildings listing (on payment of a significant fee & several weeks delay) however the most up to date list is held by Bristol City Council (dated 15th August 2003) and available here (pdf), all of which are included in the list.— Rod ^talk 15:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That really ought to be included as a reference - maybe to the first line of the intro? Conditional on that, I will support. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response - I've added a line about the role of the city council & added the ref.— Rod ^talk 11:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It looks vastly better since the suggestions made here were effected. William Avery 21:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Very nice. It is confusing that your table has 32 entries, yet the lead claims there are 50 listed buildings. The last paragraph of the lead should perhaps give some examples of an "other structure" (e.g. the railings). Have you considered enumerating the individual "listed buildings" rather than grouping them based on the Wikipedia article. For example, having separate entries for the Exchange, its railings and the "Nails". Alternatively, list the grouped buildings within the first cell. Also, the ref you give (above) "Grade I Listed Buildings in Bristol (15 August 2003)" has 51 entries. Finally, where does the grid reference information come from? Colin°^Talk 19:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Colin thanks for your comments. I have put another sentance into the lead explaining that some of the listed articles contain more than one listed structure. I don't think it would be suitable to have several different articles where the buildings are closely linked eg Portland Square where the vast majority of the information is common as they were all built by the same people at the same time etc. I had miscounted it is 51 entries - thanks for spotting that. The grid references came from Streetmap.— Rod ^talk 19:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I wasn't suggesting separate articles, just some way of detailing the separately listed structures, within this list. Colin°^Talk 20:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Juhachi 22:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the Puerto Rican birds featured list, I think this should be to the same standard as the other featured bird lists. If anybody can find a free image of the Cuban Trogon to stick at the top it would be appreciated (little buggers keep flying off). Yomangani^talk 00:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great job Yomangani. Very well formatted, seems complete. If you hadnt nominated it, I would have. Once again, excellent work. —ÅñôñÿMôús _{Dîššíd3nt} 01:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Zleitzen^(talk) 01:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, looks good. -Phoenix 15:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support excellent work. The Rambling Man 09:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, most certainly. Well done! Meets everything I can see in the criteria. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 11:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Juhachi 22:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having already undergone a brief peer review, this is pretty much a self-nom. The structure of this article is heavily based on three existing featured lists, those of the football champions of Denmark, Sweden and England. There are some dandy photos of the teams from "way back when" and I believe the article currently has the qualities of a featured list. I look forward to hearing the opinion of the community! The Rambling Man 16:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A well-constructed article which seems to meet all the necessary requirements, nice one! Just one slight copy-editing issue - I don't believe there should be a comma in the parenthetical comment "(each team played the other eight, twice)" ChrisTheDude 07:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I've removed the text in parentheses because the information is given further into the article. I don't like text in parentheses in any case! The Rambling Man 07:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Well-written, concise, useful, nicely illustrated. --Dweller 08:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Just as good, or if not better, than those other featured lists you mentioned. I'm wandering about one thing though, couldn't you get the info for the top scorers for the earlier seasons? Mattythewhite 18:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I'd love to do that, but as yet I am unable to find citeable records of the capocannonieri for the early days... I'll keep trying but, in the meantime, no dice I'm afraid. Thanks for your support! The Rambling Man 18:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment, the rows that say "Postponed due to xxx War" would probably look better with a colspan acros the whole table. Not sure, though, it just seems logical to me, -Phoenix 22:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)< [reply]

I'll go ahead and do this myself. -Phoenix 02:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)  Done y'all, yeahh baby. Support, by the way. -Phoenix 02:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Phoenix, thanks for doing that, I had tried to do it myself curiously but succeeded in wrecking the table completely, so thanks for teaching me a lesson in colspans! The Rambling Man 07:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix needed I copyedited the lead myself, being bold, where the language was unnecessarily obfuscatory. I think it reads clearer now. However, the lead itself needs to be expanded to comply with WP:LEAD. The lead should probably be expanded to include a brief introduction to the history of the championship, maybe a sentance or two. (The history section mentions the founding of Serie A; perhaps some attention in the lead to this event). Also, it would be nice if the lead mentioned superlative cases, such as which team has won the most titles. Once fixed, I will lend my support. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I've expanded the lead a bit further, three paragraphs seems to fit the bill with WP:LEAD, I've added the inaugural winners, the current holders and the record holders, and noted when the tournament became Serie A/B. I hope this is sufficient to gain your support, but if not, please let me know what I can further do to improve the article. Thanks! The Rambling Man 07:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, although would it be possible to add some more references to the prose (especially some of the stats)? Daniel Bryant 09:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   DoneI've added a whole bunch of references now so hopefully your support is even stronger! The Rambling Man 11:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep :) Daniel Bryant 07:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Lead looks much better. I made a few more changes to it myself to clean up the language and make it more clear. I hope you don't mind. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Juhachi 22:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list meets all featured criteria. It's stable, accurate, well formated, and draws together info in a list format. Adding area and pop. makes it very useful. The format is roughly based on List of counties in Kentucky. I have an inquiry into the user who did that clickable map, and am hoping to get one for this page. Joe I 03:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very impressive :-) Tompw (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as somone mentioned, I think I see a featured topic coming with these. -Phoenix 22:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but comment - Texas has so many counties, and they are so small in relation to the size of the state, that most of the locator maps are virtually worthless, a couple of red pixels. I know you probably didn't make the maps, but a longer-term project might be to replace these zoomed-in regional maps, with a wider view in an inset. --Golbez 13:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Users can always click on the image to get a large (screen-width) version. Tompw (talk) (review) 15:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did have the pics at 75px cause they are alittle large, but upped it to 100px. If you think I need to enlarge them alittle more, that's fine, but it'll only make the list longer. Joe I 03:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Fix needed: While normally, a lead does not need inline references, this is only because facts and superlative claims made in the lead are usually referenced elsewhere in the article. In this list, however, several assertions about the organization, history, and power of the counties and their governments are made, with no clear reference as to where this information comes from. The second and third paragraphs, for example, make claims about how much power counties have vis-a-vis the incorporated cities, and on the adminsitration of said counties. No clear reference is given to confirm where this information comes from. Fix this and I will support this list. Overall, it is very good. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • El Done-o Joe I 05:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, though I caught one other thing. The lead uses the word municipality in two different definitions; in the first case it seems to refer to the "county-equivalent" used under Spanish rule, and in the second it seems to refer to modern incorporated cities/towns. Without context for each usage, it is unclear that these two terms refer to different concepts. All told, though, this list deserves FL status. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed the second one to cities and towns. Joe I 05:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Very nice list. – Zntrip 03:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Juhachi 21:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After working on this for a good little bit, I believe the list adheres to the featured list criteria, and so I'm nominating it. It is useful (for anyone looking for a list of Florida hurricanes, specifically), comprehensive (after looking thoroughly for any other possible storms, I believe the list is almost entirely comprehensive), factually accurate (no citations needed), stable (I am the only editor), uncontroversial (it's only about hurricanes) and well-constructed (it is based on the format of several other featured tropical cyclone lists). It has a consise lead, proper headings (I hope), and a decent table of contents. Lastly, it has some images, all of which are in the public domain due to being a work of the U.S. government. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Although it does concern me that 13 of the systems have "impact unknown" (which could violate the comprehensive portion of the criteria), for many of those depressions it would be extrememly difficult to find any information. It's going to be a while before the TC rainfall project gets to those depressions. I can quickly fix Gerda now, which will bring the unknown impact number down to 12. It otherwise fits the featured criteria well. Thegreatdr 20:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, great work as usual. -Phoenix 22:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Phoenix; very well-referenced, nice layout, a job well done. Cliff smith 00:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good work. Tompw (talk) (review) 10:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the date restriction seems rather arbitrary - it would seem better to have a list of (say) all recorded Florida hurricanes, or all Florida hurricanes in the 20th century. Ben Finn 12:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if you looked through the article, but this is because there are too many hurricanes in Florida. There is one pre-1900, 1900-1949, this one, 1975-1999, and List of Florida hurricanes which is ultimately going to represent an overall look at Florida hurricanes. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 18 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Tompw (talk) (review) 13:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a particularly interesting & unusual list, to the extent that it has already been cited by the New York Times and Daily Telegraph. It also appears to be by far the most comprehensive list of premature obituaries in existence (others being limited to a handful of entries). It is a self-nomination (I am the main contributor to the list).

I am re-submitting this list because it failed Featured List status last time (in February - see archive) merely due to 'lack of interest' - various people commented on it and all suggested changes were made, but not enough people came back to provide Support votes before the time limit was reached.

Since the last submission several more entries have been added, e.g. for Japanese soldiers presumed dead after World War II. Ben Finn 11:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While some of the non-notable people might have notable or interesting pre-deaths, I suggest that Mr Hopkins is notable only to his family and the journalists at the rather non-notable Brentwood Gazette. Colin°^Talk 12:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anything in a list needs to be notable in its own right, does it? As long as the list itself is. Many Wikipedia lists are full of entries which are individually un-notable; take for example the 1876 entry in the featured List of Prince Edward Island general elections (post-Confederation). Ben Finn 14:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Prince Edward list is meets criteria 1.a.3 since it is a finite list that would be incomplete without those. They are also red-links so hopefully someday someone will write something. The best (featured) lists do contain notable entries. See criteria 1a and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). You may consider the entries to be either the actual premature obituaries or the people themselves. We generally don't mention ordinary folk on Wikipedia. The only defence I can think of for this list is that premature obituaries are probably quite rare. A correction in a local newspaper of a mistake that paper itself made, isn't a notable event IMO (see also Richard Paul Smith). An premature obituary in a national newspaper or international journal is a bigger issue and IMO would qualify (see Harry S. Weed). However, the fact that they achieved such an obituary implies that they possibly deserve a Wikipedia article and so should be made a link, even if it would currently be red. Colin°^Talk 15:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rarity of premature obituaries arguably makes any occurrence of them notable (regardless of whether the publication or the person are notable; notable events don't have to involve notable people/publications). For assuming this list contains a fair proportion of all premature obituaries in modern times, there have been no more than one or two hundred of them. Consider, for comparison, List of snow events in Florida - light snow flurries in Jacksonville in 1855 are not notable except for their rarity.

The rarity argument is reasonable. I'm still uncomfortable with Mr Hopkins – we don't know is first name and can't be 100% sure that is his surname. We only know he's Martine Hopkins' dad, whoever she is. Colin°^Talk 16:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's not ideal, but given that this is the only information readily available at the moment I think it's better to leave it in than remove the entry entirely. There is an outside possibility more information may turn up later. Even with some of the well-known cases(e.g. Alfred Nobel, Bertrand Russell) the full facts are far from clear. Ben Finn 16:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the last FLC round I removed redlinks from those people who did not seem notable other than for their involvement in a premature obituary (i.e. had little chance of a separate article about them appearing). I agree Harry S Weed does seem somewhat notable in his own right as an inventor, so I'll redlink him. Ben Finn 15:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Oh boy, casting my first !vote for a featured list candidate. An excellent and completely sourced list, though I think the Mr. Hopkins entry should probably be removed. Also, the "sample" at the top confused me and seems unnecessary, is it a common thing? It threw me off at first, and on my screen at least the main table of contents is off the screen because of it and the cause section. Atropos 09:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sample is not necessary, it's there more as an introduction to draw people's attention to some of the more familiar/interesting cases. It could be cut I suppose - anyone else have views on this, or on Mr Hopkins? (Re Mr Hopkins, I maintain the view that even though it is short on detail and isn't an interesting case, it clearly happened, is sourced, and is a premature obituary, so it has every right to be in a list of same! And for the sake of completeness, should be included.) Ben Finn 10:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection I agree, the intro is rather long, so I've cut the sample bullets down to a single sentence. Ben Finn 12:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am slightly concerned about the sourcing for some of this. For instance, Anthony John Allen's entry lists Beachy Head as "Britain's most popular suicide spot", however the source provided says "Britain's most notorious suicide spot", there is a big difference between the most popular and the most notorious.

OK I will correct this.

The "Causes" section doesn't have any sources listed. Was this info simply compiled after looking through the list? Some editors with a strict interpretation of WP:NOR might consider that original research if that is the case. While the entries may reveal the reasons for individual cases, calling those "common" causes for a premature obituary seems to be OR.

Yes, it was compiled after looking through the list. This was discussed in the previous FLC attempt as a result of which I altered the wording to try to make it clear that it was no more than a summary of the list. (The consensus then appeared to be that it was OK to have such information as introductory material, but that the percentages which it then had should be removed.) I'll think about how else to express the 'common causes' bit, but this is difficult to re-word. Perhaps you can suggest an alternative wording? Now re-worded. Ben Finn 12:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing I find odd is the listing of the people's professions after some of the names, but not all. For instance, James Earl Jones has "(Voice of Darth Vader)" after his name (He is an actor who has had many roles besides this, and it is probably inappropriate for this to be his descriptor, it should probably simply say "actor") while other people such as Bob Hope don't have any profession descriptor after their name.

This is intentional. All entries, including Bob Hope, do include profession/description of the person concerned (I went through a while back to ensure this), but not necessarily in brackets at the start. It makes for smoother and less rigid reading if it can conveniently be included in the first line or two instead, e.g.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge: in 1816 the writer heard his name mentioned in a hotel by a man reading out a newspaper report of a coroner's inquest.

rather than the clumsier:

Samuel Taylor Coleridge (writer): in 1816 he heard his name mentioned in a hotel by a man reading out a newspaper report of a coroner's inquest.

However, not all entries can be conveniently put in the former format, as it depends on what the opening sentence says; and I think having some variety in this is harmless. Re James Earl Jones, where someone is particularly famous for one thing (e.g. film), I have generally given that as it helps readers identify the person. Many people cannot place who James Earl Jones is by name, and saying he is an 'actor' does not help much; however saying he was the voice of Darth Vader identifies him clearly. Though note that in this particular case it describes him both as 'voice of Darth Vader' and as 'the actor', thus covering both bases. Though perhaps you can suggest an alternative wording? Ben Finn 11:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support when these issues have been addressed. VegaDark 08:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do we have a reliable source saying he is best known for being the voice of Darth Vader? I consider the original Star Wars films the best films ever made, and even I associate James Earl Jones much more with Field of Dreams rather than the voice of Darth Vader. To use that as his descriptor with the justification that that is what he is best known for is an opinion, unless sourced. VegaDark 04:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't say he's best known for being the voice of Darth Vader - it just says '(voice of Darth Vader)'. Though far more people have seen Star Wars than Field of Dreams (see e.g. IMDB). Sure, it could just say 'actor' I suppose... Ben Finn 13:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it just to say 'actor' (though I don't think this is an improvement myself!) Ben Finn 13:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support I do think there are still some minor issues with this article, but this is good enough to become featured. May want to make articles for the 14 redlinks, time-permitting. VegaDark 08:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nom. Any other votes or comments? Ben Finn 19:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tompw (talk) (review) 12:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]