Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2009

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 00:35, 30 May 2009 [1].

Nominator(s): WillC 08:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I'm working on title histories that are long enough to become FLs. Taken from the PWG World Championship that will be expanded in the future, once a free-use image is gotten of the title. Passes all the criteria in my mind. I followed my other recent FLs. Mainly the most recent two: List of ROH World Champions and List of ROH World Tag Team Champions (mostly the first one). Also, yes the event titles are correct. Bad Ass Mother 3000 - Stage 2, Free Admission (Just Kidding), Zombies (Shouldn't Run), etc are the real event titles. Now "N/A" is not an event title, though is very likely. The owners of PWG have interesting senses of humors. For future reference, I will also be nominating the PWG World Tag Team Championship list in the future once I've completed work on it and if this one passes.WillC 08:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I'm convinced that the primary sources are the best avaliable in this situation, and the Solie ref is probably good enough as a secondary source anyway. Everything else looks up to scratch. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Using "Pro Wrestling Guerrilla" and "Pro Wrestling Guerrilla.com." is redundant, delete the italicized work. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.--WillC 03:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Previous issues resolved; article now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 20:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - just a stylistic thing, though, I'd suggest at least centering the locations. It's a little incongruous having those left-aligned while all the data around them are centered. I think the event and notes columns are fine the way they are. Geraldk (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support and done.--WillC 16:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 00:35, 30 May 2009 [2].

Nominator(s): ---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I will be travelling from Wednesday through Saturday and will have limited internet access. If there are any open issues at that time, I will try to address them when I return. I ask that this not be closed as a failure if on Saturday if there are open issues.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the latest contribution from WP:Poker. It is the results of the 2007 WSOPE, I believe that it is in shape to pass an FLC. If not, let me know what needs to be done.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Looks like a nice little list. Cleaned up the new additions to the lead to fix a couple grammar things. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to put "Official Results" in the WSOPE sources.
  • Changed---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Spell out WSOPE in the references. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just got back from vacation and will try to resolve this tonight or tomorrow.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Previous issues resolved; article now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 20:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 00:35, 30 May 2009 [3].

Nominator(s): Dan arndt (talk), Shaidar cuebiyar (talk)

We are nominating this as a featured list because we believe it fulfils all the FL criteria, it has just undergone a peer review and all suggested changes have been completed and the peer review is now archived. Any critical comments will be addressed promptly and hopefully consensus will see this discography promoted.Dan arndt (talk), Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• Looks good! Just a few nit picky things...
• What makes howlspace.com.au a reliable source?

• Consider the publisher, Ed Nimmervoll, his article (and its references) makes it clear that he is a respected authority on Australian rock/pop music (he's been a music journo since 1967) and that his site, HowlSpace, is reliable. Many of the articles on HowlSpace are expanded from his Allmusic contributions. See his autobio.

• Maybe add the catalog numbers for The Crawl Video File and More Wharf: Their Greatest Hits

• Catalogue number for The Crawl Video File has not been found in a reliable source, it was issued in 1985 and not re-issued. Its existence can be verified by Salisbury Library catalogue sponsored by South Australian government. Catalogue number for More Wharf (EMI release) has been supplied.

• In the "Extended Plays" section "album details" should be "EP details"

• Done — Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than a catalogue number for the 1985 video release, The Crawl Video File, I believe I have addressed all your concerns.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes http://musicbrainz.org/artist/c42c550c-ceab-4739-bf83-7c5d63e27dc5.html reliable?

• Cited by the BBC see Ashley Highfield speech where he describes BBC using MusicBrainz as a resource for their website.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Likewise http://hem.passagen.se/honga/database/a/australiancrawl.html?

• See the Australian Government sponsored site, Australian rock music, which lists Australian Rock Database as a resource for information on its Music industry.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 5, no need to list "msn" as the work.

• Done — Dan arndt (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87 (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Truco (talk · contribs)

General comment

• For my lead review, you will see "which chart" (or something along those lines) because I don't know if that one albums chart you mentioned applies to all those chartings of their albums.

Comment — All but one of the Chart positions described in the Lead are from the Australian Kent Music Report either for albums or singles charts as applicable. The current Kent ref#6 has a Note to the effect that Kent's charts were used in Australia from 1970 until ARIA established their own charts in mid-1988. The exception in the Lead is mention of Sirocco End of Year Chart position which has its own separate ref #7. AusCharts at ref #15 are supplied by ARIA, it has a Note which indicates that it applies to non-charting of some releases in tables (not mentioned in Lead) from mid-1988 onwards. Rather than repeatedly mention the Kent Music Report I felt one mention with a link would be acceptable.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC) If preferable, I could add Kent Music Report before each mention of albums charts or singles charts rather than just the first time they're mentioned.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you can do is add singles chart and albums charts to some of the mentions, because some have it as reached number four but it doesn't say on which chart. Also, make note on the first mention of the Kent Music Report singles chart, because you only mention the albums chart on its first mention.--Truco 20:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — You make two points here:

1. Added on the albums charts to the relevant mentions of chart positions in the Lead.
2. Phrase which achieved number one on the Kent Music Report singles chart is already in the article when referring to the Semantics EP charting there. Other than "Reckless", which is dealt with separately, I don't think there are any other singles charting in the Lead.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. I will support once my other comments below are resolved.--Truco 02:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• '...which peaked at number four on the Australian Kent Music Report album charts and remained in the charts for an unbroken 101 weeks from 1981 to 1982.' --> ...which peaked at number four on the Australian Kent Music Report album charts and remained on the charts for 101 consecutive weeks from 1981 to 1982.

• Done —Dan arndt (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 'The band's second album, Sirocco, was released in 1981 and achieved number one on the albums charts.' -- Which album's chart?
• Done — Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Bill McDonough left before they recorded their extended play, Semantics in 1983,[3][6] which achieved number one on the Kent Music Report singles chart.' -- Comma after the name of the EP.

• Done —Dan arndt (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Bill McDonough was replaced on drums, temporarily by Graham Bidstrup and more permanently by John Watson.' -- Remove the 'more'

• Done —Dan arndt (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Semantics contained the track "Reckless (Don't Be So)", which some sources list as a number one-single.' -- What type of sources?

Comment — The sources are the refs. Ref#4 is an allmusic review by Tomas Mureika. Ref#8 is the liner notes for The Final Wave written by Ed St John, then CEO of EMI Australia (their record label). So I've gone with some music industry sources Hopefully this is suitable?Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you not be more specific in the prose though? Like state what type of sources? ie. charts, internet--Truco 20:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Ah! Sorry, I misunderstood the nature of your query. I've now revised the sentence to end with: which is described as a number one-single in Music Australia's profile on James Reyne

I have added a new reference to handle this statement: the point being made is that numerous reliable sources attribute the status of Number 1 to "Reckless" as a single since it was the most played track from the Semantics EP which charted at Number 1 on the singles charts. Australia had no separate EP chart. Some EPs charted on the albums chart. I've also changed Note 2 text content slightly and included this additional reference. Obviously this will alter the reference order given elsewhere in my comments.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 'The live mini-album Phalanx was a stop-gap measure between studio albums; nevertheless, it reached number four during December 1983.' -- Reached four on which chart?
• Done — Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 'The band signed with Geffen Records for international release of their material.' -- This was when?

Comment — Added In early 1984, the ... to clarify when.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 'In 1984, the band released the best of their early material as a compilation titled Crawl File,[4] which peaked at number two.' -- Peaked at # 2 on which chart?
• Done — Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Tracks from these sessions were re-mastered and released on Lost & Found in 1996 as by 'Members of Australian Crawl'.' --> Tracks from these sessions were re-mastered and released on Lost & Found in 1996, credited under the 'Members of Australian Crawl' name.

• Done —Dan arndt (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Meanwhile, remaining Australian Crawl members had recorded their fourth studio album, Between a Rock and a Hard Place, which was released in 1985 and achieved number 11.' -- Which chart?
• 'The live album, The Final Wave recorded their last performance on 27 January 1986;[1] it was released in October and peaked at number 16.' -- 1)Comma after the name of the album

• Done—Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 2)Which chart?

added on the albums chart.

• What verifies the existence of "Santa Claus is Back in Town" and "Two Hearts", since they did not chart. If its the general references, then disregard this comment.

Are listed in general references

• "Santa Claus is Back in Town" specific reference provided - Done —Dan arndt (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Video albums

• What verifies the existence of these albums? If its the general references, then disregard this comment.--

• Done —Dan arndt (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truco 22:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done — I believe we've covered all of your points.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 00:35, 30 May 2009 [4].

Nominator(s): ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs}

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the featured list criteria. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 19:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Just a few comments on the games section:

1) I guess not, the original creator of the article based it on List of Castlevania media, which does have some country specifications.

2) This is for showing the different country releases, again based on List of Castlevania media which has a few multiple systems entries.

3/4) I know it seems weird, but the current listing is a compromise between the editors of the list. We couldn't agree to list the games by system/canon/type/etc. until we eventually settled on this. Series creator Hideo Kojima has been vocal about the NES version (which was changed significantly) and doesn't consider it to be a Metal Gear game, so we agreed that having them separated works well. Also, Snakes Revenge was developed after the NES version, while MG2: Solid Snake was developed following the MSX2 version. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 18:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Im still not a fan of the countries after the system release. The information like that would be served better in the notes or the main article for the game, Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake, gets first released once for the playstation 2 in 2005. I dont think the system release is meant to be overly detailed. Salavat (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I removed the 'adjacent' year releases, but left up some of the further apart years (Metal Gear mobile phone 2004 and 2008), Family Computer/NES release countries, and releases only in one region. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 03:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kool much less excessive, my comments seem to have been ressolved however i wont support until someone else ways in with a review on the rest of the article. Salavat (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Alright after Dambomb's review and sticking to my word i believe i can confidently give my support to this article. Salavat (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Previous issues resolved; article now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 20:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 00:35, 30 May 2009 [5].

Nominator(s): —Chris! _ct 19:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first nom in May. I worked on this for almost a year and I now felt it fulfills the criteria. Note: one of the references used (VegasInsider.com) is not a reliable source. But since the information can also be verified by the list itself. I don't think this is going to be an issue. —Chris! _ct 19:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think more information can be added if necessary (such as dates and venues).—Chris! _ct 19:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started adding this. Will definitely finished later.—Chris! _ct 00:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done—Chris! _ct 19:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support The prose needed an overhaul for grammar and clarity, but I went ahead and copy-edited the lead myself.

• I would remove the unreliable source about the 20 game sevens—that's not info that is likely to be challenged; rather, it's a summary of the verified list.

I removed the ref.—Chris! _ct 21:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There needs to be a key for the "All-time standings" table.

No need after I spelled them out.

• In the "Playoff round" column, wouldn't it make more sense to link to the name of the playoff round rather than the playoffs article for that year? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. If it links to the name of the playoff round, then where should the link to the playoffs article goes.—Chris! _ct 22:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I understand what's going on now. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes http://www.hickoksports.com/history/nba196768.shtml reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See User:Zagalejo's comment below. He explained why it is a RS. Also the statement that used that ref is supported by others as well, so it shouldn't be a problem.—Chris! _ct 23:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I'm ready now that the referencing issue is taken care of. Hickok Sports.com doesn't strike me as the most reliable website, but I can't see the year a playoff round switched to best-of-seven being too controversial. Looks much better than when I reviewed it originally. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really does pisses me off when I don't want any notice about the FLCs I have commented on, but ehh... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 21:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Previous issues resolved; article now meets WP:WIAFL. In response to the infobox, I recommend speaking with the respective project about converting that infobox to a navigational template that goes at the end of each article.--Truco 20:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I agree with Truco about the infobox. As to images, why not just use images of one or two of the arenas? The image doesn't have to be from the event itself, as for example images of some of the athletes in List of winners of the Boston Marathon are not from the Boston Marathon itself. Geraldk (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - the images work well. Well done.

I really think this list suffers from not having any images. First, for the lead, why not use something from the Boston Celtics? I am not a Celtics fan, but they have the the most game sevens of any team, they have the most game sevens in the championship game, they have the third highest win percentage, the second highest win percentage of any team with more than one game seven. Coach Auerbach would also be a great option as he was involved with most of those games sevens in some form or another. As for the rest of the article, you could do something like what I did with the WSOP main event champions perhaps use the team logos? Without images, this page just doesn't strike me as being among the best.

I also disagree with you about making the first table sortable. I think having it sortable would be nice. People sometimes get wierd bugs up their butts and may want to see which stadiums had the most game sevens? What round did the events occur? For example, I just noted above that the Celtics had won the most game sevens during the Championship game... do you know how much easier it would have been for me to make that statement if the list were sortable by playoff round?------I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: two images added. Infobox converted to navbox—Chris! _ct 22:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment that was just recently brought to my attention, Table entries are another exception; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own. In other words, everytime Boston Celtics are used in a table, they should be linked.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are now two NBA Playoffs navboxes...

Template:NBApostseason and Template:National Basketball Association Playoffs

Everything fixed (sortability, links as well as redundant templates)—Chris! _ct 23:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice quick job.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be possible that the venue column be moved right before the refs? We do that setup elsewhere, and the scores and teams appear last in the rows when they should be either the first or in the middle. –Howard the Duck 06:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that no one gets confused, what order, from left to right, do you want the columns to be? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current order is OK except that the venues have to be right before the refs. –Howard the Duck 06:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support The list/article is already in good shape before my comments, my comments above is just to improve it a little bit more. Thanks for the response and really sorry if some of my comments isn't clear and create some confusion. Anyway, great job on the list. Martin tamb (talk) 02:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:28, 23 May 2009 [8].

Nominator(s): GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets all of the criteria. The prose gives relevant information about the hall, and all information in the table is sourced to reliable references. This list mirrors the format of other Featured Lists, such as NWA Hall of Fame. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--WillC 01:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• "The Hall of Fame was created to honor the role St. Louis played in helping establish professional wrestling in North America." Should probably be "helping to establish".
• "along with surprise inductee Larry Matysik." I don't like how his entire name is repeated in the lead. Took me a while to think of a good alternate: "along with Matysik, a surprise inductee." Also, this sentence has three variations of "inducted". To reduce repetition, how about changing one to "enshrined".
• This one is purely optional, but you may want to consider moving full citations for books used multiple times to the general references. Then, the citations could be short-form, with just author and page number. Not something I'd ever withhold support over, though.
• The St. Louis Post-Dispatch general reference is a dead link. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I made all of these changes (I think I did the reference formatting thing properly, although I'm not sure that the General References are in the proper order now...it seemed awkward to split up the books, but it might be necessary to keep it in alphabetical order...I'm just not sure which is considered more important). I replaced the dead link with the St. Louis Wrestling Hall of Fame's official MySpace page, which I hope is considered reliable. It's main purpose is as a source for the inductees and the years of their inductions, so the Hall of Fame itself seems like a good source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure how reliable an official MySpace page will be considered, because an unofficial one would probably be considered unreliable. Is the same information included in the other official site? If so, I'm not sure a second link is needed at all. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, as is the case with many websites, the creators of the official site appear to have abandoned the page in favor of a MySpace page. It is, however, an official MySpace site operated by the creators of the Hall of Fame. It is used only as a source for the list of wrestlers inducted in 2008; it is not, however, used as a source for any information about their careers. I believe that the official MySpace page of a Hall of Fame should be considered reliable as a source for the list of inductees. After all, who knows the list of inductees better than the owners of the Hall of Fame? I have double-checked the list against lists posted by other websites (credited to Wrestling Observer Newsletter, which, as noted below, is a reliable source but unfortunately charges for the newsletter and does not provide free access to archived stories); the list (as seen here matches the list on the MySpace page). GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support – Basically I echo Dabomb below. The core of the list is FL-worthy, but the MySpace reference is a cause for concern. Any chance for a reliable non-MySpace source? An archived story that isn't free to access, or a print source, would be just fine for use in a featured piece of content. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support, issues resolved, but I'm still a bit wary about the MySpace source. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• What makes http://www.f4wonline.com/content/view/6935/124/ reliable?
  • Seems to meet WP:SPS. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm also wary about the MySpace page.
• New York Times-->The New York Times Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have addressed everything in your "Comments" section as well as The New York Times concern. Please see above for my comments on the MySpace page. As for Figure Four Wrestling, the Figure Four Wrestling/Wrestling Observer Newsletter site is run by Dave Meltzer and Bryan Alvarez, both of whom are acknowledged as experts in their field. Alvarez is co-author of The Death of WCW, published by ECW Press, and has been quoted in several other wrestling books (including Hardcore History: The Extremely Unauthorized Story of the ECW, published by Sports Publishing LLC, and The Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame: The Heels, published by ECW Press). Meltzer has also written books (Tributes: Remembering Some of the World's Greatest Wrestlers, published by Winding Stair Press, and Tributes II: Remembering More of the Worlds Greatest Wrestlers, published by Sports Publishing LLC, Top 100 Pro Wrestlers of All Time, published by Stewart House). He is quoted in many books and documentaries (Hitman Hart: Wrestling with Shadows and Beyond the Mat, as well as Mysteries of Wrestling, published by ECW Press; Ric Flair's autobiography, To Be the Man; Mick Foley's autobiography; and countless others). Alvarez has been running Figure Four since 1995, and in 2008, he merged the magazine with Meltzer's Wrestling Observer, which has been around since 1987. If you need any more information to verify their reliability, just ask (or do a search for their names, which should turn up many hits). I hope this helps. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Figure Four should be OK, but I will leave MySpace unstruck for other reviewers to evaluate. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:28, 23 May 2009 [9].

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 07:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating List of Grade I listed buildings in Taunton Deane as a featured list because I feel it meets all the FL criteria with suitable references and supporting pictures. It follows the format of the recently promoted List of Grade I listed buildings in West Somerset. — Rod ^talk 07:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on the prose—Rodw writes nicely. Great pics (I didn't check their status, and I presume it's OK). Just a small point: I'd be inclined to make the pop. and area figures less precise. In six months' time, the pop of 100,300 might well be 101,050. And fractions of a square km seem too fiddly for the clutter. I'd just round to thousands of people and whole sq. km or m. But it's no big deal. Comma after "House", end of lead. Comma after "periods" in Note 1. The longer the sentence, the fewer the existing commas, and the more formal the register, the more likely an optional comma is used (that's my opinion only). No. 18 could have a little stub written to remove the onlly red in that neat table, but you don't have to, of course. Tony (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Thanks for the comments - all grammar advice acted on. I will do a stub for 18 Fore St, but it's the building with the least available in terms of sources.— Rod ^talk 17:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Now Support. Another list of exceptional quality by Rodw, it's great to see how carefully you're covering all the county. Before supporting, I'd only like you to clarify me a small detail: English Heritage speaks of 5 Grade I listed buildings in Taunton; instead, No 18, Fore Street, Taunton is qualified as Grade II*[10]. Have you got another source which puts it differently? And if yes, why do you feel it's more reliable than IoE or Listed Buildings Online?--Aldux (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Thank you for your comments. In the process of checking the accuracy of this list I contacted Taunton Deane Councils Building Conservation Officer who is involved in any planning applications which affect listed buildings. He kindly gave me an updated list. No 18, Fore Street, Taunton was upgraded to I in 1982 but the Images of England (IoE) site has it wrongly classified. I have added a note explaining and a reference to the entry for the building on the Somerset Historic Environment Record (SHER) which has this correctly. I have kept the IoE reference as this includes a picture which the SHER one does not. In the course of this helpful email discussion we also found that Cutley Farmhouse in Kingston St Mary is listed on IoE as Grade I when in fact it is Grade II. The councils Building Conservation Officer has promised to pass on this error to English Heritage. I hope this answers your query if not I can forward the list sent by the council as an email.— Rod ^talk 14:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, the awnser is more than OK, and I've already had to note for myself that the IoE gradings are occasionally sloppy.--Aldux (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:28, 23 May 2009 [11].

Nominator(s): BomBom (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is now up to the standards. The layout is based on that of other Academy-Award FLs, so there shouldn't be much controversy. All objections will of course be promptly addressed. Regards. BomBom (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Unfortunately these may seem like cookie-cutter topics, but this list is clearly well-developed and stand-alone. This is clearly comprable to the other submission FLs, and it is very interesting and well-referenced. I have no concerns. Reywas92^Talk 21:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Mind explaining why you created {{Academy Award nominee/meta/color}}, {{Academy Award submission/meta/color}}, and {{Academy Award winner/meta/color}}? The change in the article added 2kb of text, and {{nom}} seemed to be working just fine. First, the template titles are unnecessarily long. It could just be "Academy Award nomination color" or even "Oscar nom color". Those could have been combined or even added to the Nom template, so you could just write "nom|Won" or so that "Oscar color|Nominated" would automatically be green and "Oscar color|Won" would be gold. Otherwise, I would suggest including "align=center" within the template, as Nom did. Reywas92^Talk 23:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I removed the color templates. They are still at an early development stage, and weren't designed for this article anyway but for an experiment being carried out on my sandbox. They shouldn't have been used in the first place. Regards. --BomBom (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine, sorry if I was being overcritical. WP's coloring everywhere does need to be standardized somehow, though. Reywas92^Talk 20:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes http://www.german-films.de/app/filmarchive/oscar_features.php reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. All of your comments have been taken into account. As for the source, it is pretty clear from the article itself who German Films is. German Films Service + Marketing GmbH, which was known as the Export-Union of German Cinema until 2004, is an umbrella association that organizes each year the committee and procedures that select Germany's submission to the Academy Awards. The article thus couldn't use a more official source. --BomBom (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I have a tendency to be over-critical of sources. I always question them to be on the safe side. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good enough to me. Good job!--Crzycheetah 06:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - You make a specific unreferenced statement in the lead, "West Germany and East Germany were formally reunited on 3 October 1990." Geraldk (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I added a reference. I didn't think it necessary given that the date of reunification is a widely-known, undisputed fact. --BomBom (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Yes, well, I'm anal retentive. Great work, btw. Really a well done list. Geraldk (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:28, 23 May 2009 [12].

Nominator(s): Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this list and believe that it meets all of the Featured List Criteria. It is comprehensive, easy to understand, illustrated with revelent and diverse pictures, and based upon the other bird FLs, especially the list for North Carolina, which I used as the base for this article when writing it. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know this isn't very constructive and I'll try to think of what it is that makes me say this, but I don't like it. The one thing that jumps out is that within each order there is no apparent order to the specific birds---eg it is not alphabetical and I don't see another organizational method. I also think it would help to have tables... especailly with the bigger lists.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The birds are in Taxonomic sequence. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is required/expected, but I personally would like to see some of these lists in sortable tables. EG let the user sort based on Taxonomic sequence, alphabetical by common name, alphabetical by scientific name. I think that might be the problem that I'm having with the list is that as a person not familiar with "taxonomic sequences" the list doesn't look clean.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the value of the list alphabetical? In the ornithological world, all lists are done in taxonomic sequence. As most viewers looking up this page would have some familiarity with taxonomic sequence (be they birdwatcher or scientist), it would be the expected order. As it is in taxonomic sequence, the genera are already grouped together, so an individual looking up a specific species by scientific name should know the family, leading them to the correct subheading. Or, if they are like me and lazy, they could simply search the page with the ctrl f function. Likewise, an individual with a casual interest wondering if Blue Jays were found in Maryland could simply search for the term instead of setting the page in a new mode and then browsing down the alphabetical order (I'm guessing this is how EG would work- I'm not sure what it is and a brief search on Wikipedia didn't turn it up. What is EG?). Basically, I do not see what real advantage having the list in three different formats would be when I am unaware of a cataloging list anywhere that is in any format other than taxonomic.

In terms of it not looking neat and individuals not knowing what taxonomic sequence is, it is neat by the taxonomic standards and the lede to the list mentions that it is in this order, though not as outright clearly as it probably could. I'm about to rewrite the lede to rebuild the fourth wall, so I'll make it a bit clearer and maybe a bit earlier. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the more that I think about it the more *I* think it should be a sortable box format. Take a look at this. Here you can sort the table based upon the champion's name, how much money they won, what year they won it, total winnings, the number of bracelets, etc. By putting it into a sortable box, you would allow people to look up things based upon taxinomic sequence, alphabetical, scientific name, status (extinct, rare, etc.) Wikipedia articles should be accessible to more than just ornothologist, it should be accessible to as wide an audience as possible. That being said, you never know how people are going to want to look up the information. Taxonomic sequence may be good for you, but for 99% of the people who come to WP, they would not know how to use it. As for CTRL-F, yes that is an option, but not (IMO) for a FL. As for EG---Eg is a common acronymn for "That is"/"for example" and is used when giving an example.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, do I feel stupid. I assumed EG was the name of the program. Anyways, from a technical standpoint, how would the sortable boxes work with the family descriptions when the list is in taxonomic order? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The list of poker players has a different structure to the this list of birds. I do not think that this birds list will benefit from being in one large sortable table, because it is also listed in families. A separate list could have a "flat list" format which could be put in a table, which could be sortable, but I think that sort-ability is not applicable to this list here. There is nothing wrong with a flat-list in a table, but it is a different list to the one in question here. I think that the structure of the list divided into families as in the current list in question is fine. There may be a case for re-organisation of the birds within a family, perhaps alphabetical, or perhaps a sortable table for each family, sortable for common name and binomial name. However, I do not think that the list should fail FA because it does not have any tables. Snowman (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally would prefer a different format, but looking at the conventions used in other FL's of this type, I won't insist on it. Weak support---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This list of Maryland birds is a comprehensive listing of all the bird species recorded from the U.S. state of Maryland." Featured lists don't start like this anymore (i.e. "This list..."). See recently promoted FLs for an example of more engaging starts. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at some recent FLs (and realizing that the title of the list need not appear in the list) I've rewritten the first two paragraphs to rebuild the fourth wall and hopefully make it more engaging. Does the rewrite work? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• Is this:
  • a list of all birds from Maryland (ie, species' origins are Maryland, but can be found elsewhere)
  • a list of all birds native to Maryland (ie species' origins are Maryland, and can only be found in Maryland)
  • a list of all birds found in Maryland (ie, species' origins are from anywhere)

This is a list of all birds recorded in Maryland, or have sighted in the state and are believed to be of wild origin. I'll put that in the lede. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a bit unsettled by the generalisation of the title. It should be more specific.
• Title isn't gramatically correct either. It should be List of x of/in/from y, not [[List of y''s x]].

I'm not a big fan of the title layout either, but this is the standard for bird lists of states. However, for lists outside the country it is List of birds of Maryland in layout. Would moving it to this title fix this and the above bullet point? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. As I'm sure you know, WP:OSE isn't an excuse, and if this is renamed it could become the perfect catalyst for renaming all the other poorly named taxonomy lists. I'll leave it in your capable hands to come up with the correct name, but something concrete like "List of (all) birds found in Maryland", perhaps? Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point with the OSE was that if this list changes, then the rest of the lists should change as well. If you don't mind, I'm going to bring the renaming up at WP:Bird and see what format they think is the most accurate and, though I don't recall it, at somepoint there probably was a discussion with the simplistic, ungrammatical form being decided as the way to go. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is/will be here. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page to List of birds of Maryland as it seems to be getting the most support. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As Dabomb says, don't start with "this is a list" or "this is a comprehensive list"; we know it's a list from the title, we know it's comprehensive from it's FL-star (should it get one). As a comparison, Dog doesn't begin, "this is a comprehensive article about dogs".

Rewritten. Could you look at the new opening to see how well it flows? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "U.S. state" = "United States state" -- odd, no? Please don't use abbreviations on their first use. Use the full term and but the abbr. in parentheses

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "This list is", "This list is" - page is self-referencial, which makes for uncomfortable reading

Rewritten. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• AOU who?

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "See Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy for an alternative phylogenetic arrangement based on DNA-DNA hybridization." We have links so you don't have to say "See so-and-so for such and such." That may be necessary in a paper encylopedia, but not here

Good point. Fixed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:ACCESS, wikilinks should not appear in headings when there is unlinked text also. It messes up screen-readers for the blind. Perhaps write a short paragraph at the beginning of each section using the links instead, explaining what these birds are?

I've started going through it, the rest will come later. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• {{reflist}} should only be used for a minimum of 10-15 references, and a 2-col reflist for approx 25-30. is the way to go here

Check. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How come the other 3 references are not used in-line?

One was bumped to inline, one was a repeat of the original inline, and one would have been used by the Maryland Records Committee but wasn't used by the article, so removed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There's 1 EL being used as a reference. One or the other, please

What is wrong with having a specific subpage that is only the list being the reference and having the mother website, which includes a lot of information about Maryland birds and birding, being in the ELs? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just seems superfluous to me Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There's quite a few redirects and 2 dablinks which need fixing.

I've started going through the redirects, the rest will come later. Is there a tool to find the dablinks? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The toolbox at the top of this FLC nomination has the link you need. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this one is fixed. I went through all the species names and undid the redirects that I thought were superfluous. However, Americans and Brits share several species of birds and delight in calling them different names. Wikipedia tends to side with the Brits in this, but to Americans, the people likely to be using this list, a diver would not be recognizeable as a loon, so the American name is present and redirected to Wikipedia's official article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please find someone to perform an image review. User:Rambo's Revenge might be willing.

I'll ask. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now, but it's enough to get started on. Regards Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Part I

• File:Woodduck95.jpg, needs a source to confirm PD status.

This blog uses it and calls it USFWS PD, but the author could have easily been trusting Commons. Another picture from what looks to be the same photoshoot is here. However, I cannot find the same picture on the fws website. Should I upload and change the picture to the one on the second link? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure how important this is, but File:Northern Shoveller (Male) I IMG 0956.jpg has a tag to remove (possibly crop out?) the watermark.

Not sure what to do here. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how important it is. But you could always crop the file below to remove that name stamp. Then just upload the cropped version as a new version of the file. That would solve things. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Podilymbus-podiceps-001.jpg is missing the original upload history. It needs finding or alternatively (and probably much more easily) ask User:Mdf to verify if s/he took the photo.

I'm not the only one that uses s/he! Yay! Anyways, about midway down the page in the file history comment it says "Photograph''': Mdf first upload in en wikipedia on 21:02, 27 May 2005 by Mdf * '''Licence''': {{GFDL}})" Also, MDF has the picture on their userpage. Should I still ask s/he, or is that enough? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot, I had overlooked that and the image being on MDF's page. It's good enough for me, I'll just go tidy the information. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Puffinus_griseus.png - original upload log is not recorded very well on Commons. It would be nice to look at the deletion log to determine who the original uploader on en.wiki was.

• Original uploader was C00ch (talk · contribs · count) Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I'm satisfied C00ch is Thomas Mattern, However (per tip 8) it needs its original (now deleted) file history to be copied across. Any chance you can do that Matt, as I can't see it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've completed this one, as I now can see it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Brown pelican - natures pics.jpg, uploader in good standing so AGF. However, couldn't find image at website linked. Description page mentions correspondance with website owner, OTRS might be helpful here.

I am almost certain that it is the picture here, only it has been flipped and the colors were changed. The photographers release everything here. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think you're right, I'll add that info in a bit. Should be fine once that is done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Similarly for File:Turkey vulture profile.jpg, it would be nice to check who was the original uploader.

• Original uploader was Phyzome (talk · contribs · count). Seems he transferred it to Commons and had someone delete the local version. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Same as other case: needs original history copying over. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Have copied over original history. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• File:RT hawks.jpg. Uploaded to Commons, but the source notes that the image is copyright of Thomas O'Neil (the given author). User:Tgo2002 uploaded a number of images from that site, but hasn't explicitly stated that he is the author. As the website still considers it copyright I think this might be a possible copyvio.

Hmph. And TGo2002 hasn't edited since 2005. Would the next step be to email the site owner and ask him if he uploaded the pictures? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that would be a good move. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Peregrine falcon x.jpg - "for personal use", Wikipedia requires commercial use. Also, would "Pennsylvania Game Commission" really be considered as "United States Federal Government"?

I know nothing of copyright laws, so your call. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The PipingPlover file was deleted because the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission wasn't federal government. I think Pennsylvania Game Commission would be the same and would suggest removing this image.

• File:PipingPlover23.jpg, source needs updating to this, but anyway I don't think Nebraska Game and Parks Commission counts as a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee. The USFWS states that content is not on their site is not necessarily PD.
  • After further discussion on Commons this has been listed as a deleted. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may take me quite a long time to get through these, so if someone wishes to help/continue please feel free. In general, some images need to have the better information, less generic PD tags etc. I have found, and added info. for some images (e.g. this one). However, it takes time. So if you have time and can fix some of these things it would be a great help. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting this. I'll do what I can, but images aren't my speciality (I've always trusted Commons too). Is there a tutorial or something out there so that I can learn how to do an image review? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to put down some of my own thoughts here, but another user has since pointed me to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches, which is a much more complete document about the use of images. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Tony1

• Sparrow, too many corrections to the prose have been required to have nominated this one. It's not fair to other nominations to have reviewing resources sucked in like this. Please fix before nomination next time.
• Opening sentence: "States" "state". What is wrong with "In the US state of Maryland, 435 bird species have been recorded."? These "one-step" links—where an item is linked that is so broad as to be of questionable utility to the reader, and as well is linked in the more specific article adjacent—dilute the links at the very opening and make the sentence half blue. Tony (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are too many copyediting problems to have brought this up for FL. I copied the family paragraphs from the other US state bird FLs and assumed that they were fine as they had been approved several times before. I should have read through them and checked them myself before nominating this list. On the bright side, once this FLC is concluded, I'll copy the corrected paragraphs into the bird featured lists to fix the errors. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Looks good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support an impressive amount of work addressing the FL concerns, which themselves were pretty impressive in their scope and detail. One comment, though it doesn't stand in the way of FL for me: in the lead and as a notation after some species you use the term extirpated. While I like my articles to have lots of SAT words, extirpate is a particularly rare word. So, for the benefit of the readership:

1. If it's a technical term used by the birding community, I'd suggest mentioning somewhere exactly what it means.

2. If it isn't, I'd suggest either doing the above or using a more common word such as 'eradicated' or 'exterminated'. Geraldk (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider "extirpate" to be an overly complex word, but I would suggest providing a wiktionary link. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's complex. I'm saying it's not a very common word. And, especially if it is a technical term, Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions applies. Geraldk (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 19:42, 19 May 2009 [13].

Nominator(s): -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs), G.A.S^talk

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it fully meets the featured list criteria. Modeled after the first anime/manga featured characters list, List of Naruto characters, this list has gone through a multitude of merging, rewriting, sourcing, peer reviews (both through PR and specifically requesting comments from experienced FL writers), and copy editing. It is comprehensive in that it covers all major characters from the manga series, as well as its anime adaptation, while not bloating the list with minor characters. It is well structured and follows all applicable Manuals of Style, including two carefully selected non-free images to illustrate the series protagonists and to illustrate a particular character design. Both images have appropriate FURs. It is also very stable, with only minor issues with vandalism cropping up now and then. I have added G.A.S as a nominator as we worked together to do much of the work on this article (as well as the TMM articles as a whole) and he performed all of the copy editing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty well-written—AnmaFinotera has done well. But I've read only down to the end of the first section, and others may find little refinements to be made.

• "in order to"—one word would do!
• "lighter and more colorful feel", or a comma: "lighter, more colorful feel".
• "cute appearance". "Cute" could mean at least two different things; because the word has become kind of unstable (and is it cross-culturally the same?), you might consider using a synonym (I really don't know which meaning is intended).
• "girl-animal combinations"—I'd use an en dash, but it's no big deal. And I'd use "among", not the old-fashioned "amongst". [these ones: personal prefs only].Tony (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]