Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 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 Dabomb87 21:50, 31 October 2009 [1].

Nominator(s): WFCforLife (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have based this list on similar Featured lists, such as List of Ipswich Town F.C. Players of the Year, and believe it meets the criteria. All feedback appreciated. WFCforLife (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Why are the seasons written in a weird 19xx-19yy format, which is never used in football reporting?
  • Fixed. WFCforLife (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Should "End of Season Awards Dinner" really have all those capital letters?
  • Edited to reflect source. WFCforLife (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• No need for capital M on Mechanism in heading
  • Fixed. WFCforLife (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Some of the lines in the table have no refs - what is sourcing these winners?
  • Reference 2 in the column sources all of the winners except for Tommy Smith in 2009. I've referenced all those in the Hall of Fame and with international caps, plus a couple of others where there is reason to do so, for instance the 1984 F.A. Cup final and those who have made international appearances for youth, B and C teams. WFCforLife (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "International appearances correct as of 04 October 2009." - just write 4 October, not 04
  • FixedWFCforLife (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• On my screen the photo of Tommy Mooney has pushed the "by nationality" table down and left a huge whitespace on the left
  • I noticed that while I was fixing the other issues. The best alternative will be to find a third picture, and have one picture next to each of the two tables. I'll dig for a free one and update when I've done it. WFCforLife (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See below. WFCforLife (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note 10: "Rankin is the first player to win the award twice. " - this is surely obvious from the table and doesn't need restating in the notes
• Note 17: "Rostron became the first player to win the award in consecutive seasons." - as above
• Note 25: "Coton is the only player to have won the award for a third time. " - and again
• Note 33: "Chamberlain is currently goalkeeping coach at the club." - is this really relevant?
• Note 34: ".....He has also played in a first class cricket match, where he bowled out England batsman Graeme Fowler." - of no relevance whatsoever to this list, no reason for this trivia factoid to be here
• Note 41: "....His goalkeeping coach at Manchester United was former winner Tony Coton." - not really relevant, again this is just trivia
  • All fixed except for Chamberlain, who follows the precident set for Norwich. I'm happy to remove it if the consensus is that I should do so. WFCforLife (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've now removed the Chamberlain footnote. When I separated the footnotes and references it did indeed seem out of place compared to the other notes. WFCforLife (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've now added a free image of Ben Foster, and reorganised the tables. I'm happy to remove the Chamberlain footnote if you feel it is highly irrelevant, or there are further objections. My rationale is that being the current goalkeeping coach at a club with a history of giving the award to goalkeepers is of sufficient relevance. WFCforLife (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt text could do with a bit of work - players' names should not be mentioned, and you should not include wording such as "he is wearing Watford's goalkeeping kit". I would suggest that the three alts should be something like "A man wearing a yellow football shirt and shorts, standing on the playing pitch", "A man in a jacket and tie outside a football stadium", and "A man in a grey football shirt and goalkeeping gloves standing in front of a goal", or similar -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, why are the footnotes in such tiny text? I can hardly read them...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text is done. As for the footnotes, is the current format better? I'm not sure if this is personal preference or a valid point, but I felt they didn't look right at 100% font size. WFCforLife (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks much better now. Text smaller than 100% size is discouraged as it causes accessibility issues, being very hard for some readers with less than perfect vision to read. I am now happy to support providing that you fix the two refs on the last line of the table, which should be in numerical order -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. WFCforLife (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume I've missed it, but where's the cite for each of the winners? I can't see it. One of the Watford books I have lists the top 3 from the first award through to 2001, and I imagine one could find the positioning for later awards online. I don't know whether that would be an interesting addition to the list or whether it would mean it lost its focus. Opinions invited. Otherwise, all seems good. Nice work! HornetMike (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its at the top of the column labelled notes. The more I think about it the more I think about moving it somewhere more prominent, but I'm not sure where to put it. The only thing I'm certain of is that this wasn't the right way to do reference them. As for the top three, I don't know whether it's an interesting addition or needless detail, but for the majority of the awards I've seen covered online there's no mention of second and third. Example. There could possibly be a mention on the likes of BSaD or GloryHorns, but would they count as reliable sources? WFCforLife (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Took a while to reach a point where I have no more comments, but we're there now. I'm confident that the list meets FL standards now. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Images: Licensing looks fine and alt text is provided. Goodraise 19:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Sources: No concerns about the sources (added a few publishers while I was checking them). Goodraise 04:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)

• When I clicked on [A], I expected an explanation as to what "Level" meant.
• The first [B] doesn't lead to the correct note.
• The notes should be ordered in number of appearance. (Meaning [D] shouldn't appear before [C].)

Goodraise 04:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take them in order:

• As a starting point, the unedited footnote is used in other featured lists, for instance here, here and here. I've amended it in a way that should hopefully help.
• I'm not sure if I accidentally fixed it, but it seems fine to me. WFCforLife (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Resolved.

WFCforLife (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote could be used in a thousand featured lists, that wouldn't make me the least bit more likely to accept it. As for your change, you've simply gone into more detail, explaining what the individual levels are. The link provided at the end of the footnote does that just fine. What I'd like to see is a preceding statement that explains what these levels are in general, because that's the question a reader who is unfamiliar with English football (like me) will ask themself. Anyways, I've tried to do it myself. Goodraise 13:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your edit is an improvement, as it has removed the needless waffle that was already there. I'm a bit unsure as to whether you're still requesting a preceeding statement, and if so why my previous addition wouldn't suffice. You seem to be asking for an explanation of what the levels represent, and I feel that I gave an exhaustive explanation. WFCforLife (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original footnote left me confused after the first reading. Since we seem to agree on the current version, I have nothing left that would keep me from supporting. Goodraise 11:57, 27 October 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 Dabomb87 16:02, 31 October 2009 [2].

Nominator(s): -SpacemanSpiff 06:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it passes the criteria. The list provides a detailed view of women cricketers who have played at the highest international level (Test cricket) representing India. It is comprehensive and is current as of today. The list is likely to expand at the rate of about five players per two/three years. The lead provides an introduction to Test cricket and women's cricket, sufficient to provide context to a lay reader. There are two tables included, one table with important stats for all players and another detailing the captains' performance over the years. I will be happy to address comments/questions/suggestions promptly. -SpacemanSpiff 06:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Surely number of 50's is notable? Aaroncrick (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I was in two minds about this. Most other Test lists (men's and women's) don't carry either 100s or 50s, in this case I figured having just 100s is sufficient. If a change to include 50s is recommended, I can get it done pretty quickly, no additional referencing required, and it's easy to add.-SpacemanSpiff 14:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the volume of scoring for women is a lot lower than for men. So a 50 for women might be quite something. I saw a total of 10 100s in 34 Tests. 0.3 tons per Test is very low, for a men's game often two per team per game, or more. A lot of ODI scores in the recent WC in Australia were about 180-220 on smaller grounds like North Sydney Oval and Bankstown Oval even though in state List-A matches, a par-score for these grounds is usually 280-310. There was a game in late-2001 at Bankstown when NSW made 390 odd and Tas made about 340. Haddin and M Waugh both made centuries for NSW. Tas made 340 even against McGrath and B Lee IIRC YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Added a column for 50s. It is interesting, there are a few with multiple scores. -SpacemanSpiff 01:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't understand why the table split in the middle. Ease of reference or some other reason? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears easier to figure out which column is what with the additional title bar at that point - the extra bar ensures that when someone looks at any of the 71 entries, there's a title bar in view on screen. That doesn't interfere with the sorting etc, so the table is only visually split.-SpacemanSpiff 14:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Third paragraph is unreadable. "20 out of 34 Tests", "fourth in the list but fewer Tests than all but one" and "entered the list of top-30 players" and the like.

• Done Cleaned this up, let me know if there are any other problems.

• "The team is selected by a panel of former cricketers who have played at least 25 games at the first-class level or above. " - how do they define first class experience for women selectors ?

• Done I've linked to the First-class cricket article; explanation on the criteria is included there.

• "The panel is made up of five members, the chairperson and four other members, one member from each of the five zonal divisions in domestic cricket". From the source - "Women's selection committee: Anju Jain (chairman), Poornima Rao, Mithu Mukherjee, Vrinda Bhagat, Sandhya Agarwal, Niranjan Shah ". I count six there including Shah. Are you sure that you are not talking about men's cricket in the line quoted from the article ?

• Response The selection panel was initially formed as per the Cricinfo reference (ref 8), however it was (very soon) changed to the men's team model, and the Hindu reference (ref 9) I've used against that statement shows the Zonal split with Agarwal (Chairperson - Central), Gandhi (North), Rao (South), Mukherjee (East), Bhagat (West).

• Before Raj, Agarwal was a record holder too. 59.92.22.173 (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done I made this change before reading this comment, as it was connected to the readability issue.

Thanks for the feedback/changes, let me know if there are other concerns. -SpacemanSpiff 18:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• In the key, the separating dashes should be endashes rather than hyphens.
• Also in the key, link the "not out" in * - Batsman remained not out
• The coloured heading to the Bowling section is way too dark, making the writing hard to read and the sort buttons invisible for some of us with non-standard colour vision (or using monochrome displays). See WP:Colours#Using colours in articles.
  • Done. Sorry about that, I was trying a bit too hard to use shades of the colours of the bat/ball/field without impacting readability, but I guess it didn't work. I've switched to standard Wikimedia background colours (in use on en.wiki and commons home pages). I checked both times using the AccessColor tool, but did not get any errors. Please let me know if this continues to be a problem.
• Link Balls to Delivery (cricket) rather than Cricket ball. The non-cricketing reader knows what a ball is, but they won't know that Balls refers to the number of times the bowler has bowled one.
• And Stumpings would be better linked to the relevant section of the article: Stump (cricket)#Manner of dismissing a batsman cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All Done. Thanks for the feedback, let me know if there are other concerns. -SpacemanSpiff 17:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Since the infobox that was in this article was intended for the India national women's cricket team article, I have removed it from this one. No need for duplicate infoboxes, after all :) – PeeJay 22:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Could we have an explanation why some players may have bowled more deliveries than listed there? Maybe a small note? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 10:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I would agree that this needs a note. Also, I don't like the fact the dashes sort ahead of the best averages, i.e. if you sort up to down then down to up, you never see the best figures, just the worst ones or a dash indicating no average... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done - Added note for the inefficiency in the official recording of deliveries.
    • That is a problem with the dash in sortable tables. Apparently it was discussed at this FLC too and sorting function was removed from that list before promotion. It also causes some issues in another. In this particular list, on the third and fourth sort you get the correct order with the dashes at the bottom. An alternative would be to use a hidden sort key, but that would mean that the dash will always be the lowest or the highest. I've tried help and general sources for this, and can't find any other option. Let me know what you think. -SpacemanSpiff 19:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Looks good. Nice work. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• "until 1973 when the Women's Cricket Association of India was formed. and the Indian women's cricket team played their first Test match in 1976, against the West Indies." Remove "and" and capitalize first "the" in the second of these two sentences.
• A link to the Indian women's cricket team is only needed once. The one leading off the second paragraph is unnecessary and can be removed.
• Comma after "India have played a total of 34 Tests".
• "They first won a Test in in Patna...".
• Comma after Sudha Shah in third paragraph. Also one needed after Mithali Raj.
• The names in the table are sorting by first name. Is this the intention? Most lists sort by last name.
  • This is the intention. Reasoning is detailed above in response to The Rambling Man (resolved comments section).
• Reference 3 should have the page number appear as p. and not pp. This is easy enough to do; just change the pages= parameter of the cite template to page=.
• References 6 and 9 should not have their publishers in italics, since neither Rediff nor Cricinfo is a printed publication.
• Reference 13 gives the publisher as Cricinfo.com, whereas all other uses of the site here are given as Cricinfo. It would be best to change this for consistency. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done everything above (except sortnames bit). -SpacemanSpiff 22:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Good work. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:52, 30 October 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 Dabomb87 16:02, 31 October 2009 [3].

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it to be complete and comprehensive. The list is quite long which I understand could be a blocking issue for FLC. If indeed this list gets promoted to FLC special thanks goes to User:Jim Sweeney who created most of the people referenced on this list. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentsSupport: Impressive list!

  1. Possibly a stupid question: The list of "Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross" has no number column. Why?

  To my knowledge the German's never had a coherent numbering paradigm for the lowest grade of Knight's Cross. Only for the Oak Leaves, Swords or Diamonds did they introduce a formal numbering scheme. Very occasionally you come across a nomination or recommendation number for an individual, but this has nothing to do with a sequential numbering scheme. I therefore sorted the lowest list alphabetically. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  OK. bamse (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  2. Could the "SS-" in the "rank" column be dropped since it seems that everybody was in the SS?

  No, because occasionally you will also find the Waffen- prefix MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  OK. At least one of the "Waffen-..." needs a hyphen. bamse (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  done thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  3. Could you make the "unit" and "date" columns sortable?

  "date" yes, "unit" not sure if this makes sense MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for making it date-sortable. For the "unit" column, I'd suggest to decide on certain categories, e.g., "Panzer-Division"/"Panzergrenadier"/"Kavallerie-Brigade"/... (not sure what would be a good choice as I don't know much about the subject). Then you could add hidden sort keys to the table with the chosen categories.bamse (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  done see my comments below MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  4. Possibly the first of the external links reading "Lexion der Wehrmacht" (three times) needs to be fixed.

  done MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. bamse (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  5. The lead reads smoother without the sentence: "Recipients are grouped by grades of the Knight's Cross." Maybe you could move it to the end of the lead section.

  done good point MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. bamse (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bamse (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Indeed, good list. What I miss are birth and death dates. Now a death date is only with some entries placed in the notes section. Garion96 (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I followed the same layout as some of the other military award lists that already achieved FLC status; see List of foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross or List of First World War Victoria Cross recipients. They don't list the birth date either. I only listed the death date if it was somehow linked (killed in action, died of wounds, suicide, execution) to action in WW2. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - the list is impressive, but insanely long. As a primary editor, why did you choose to keep the lists in a single article rather than splitting them into subgroups? Geraldk (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Good question, actually this is the kind of feedback I am seeking and I am open for ideas. I am unsure how to approach this. Would splitting this into two sections of A-M and M-Z make sense? What do I do with the higher grades? Do I keep them separately? If you have suggestions I gladly incorporate them. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm undecided. I'd like to see what other reviewers say. I really think you could do it either way (one unified article or separate articles), but the length of the table for the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross makes it difficult to navigate, and there may be some value in splitting it. You set up a conflict, though, between navigability and the value of having a unified list. I do think, though, that both the unit and notes columns should be sortable, the former so readers can identify units from which more than one person received awards, the latter to allow a reader to sort those who were killed in action or were awarded higher levels of the cross. Geraldk (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments on sorting: I introduced a sorting scheme by unit for the 3 higher grades of the KC. Please visit what I have done. The underlying sort key is the respective SS division, corps or army. If this is what you believe is required please let me know and I will apply this to the lowest grade as well.MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I made it sortable as requested. However if the article needs to split up for size reasons than do note that coherent sorting will not be possible anymore. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments regarding size: How about breaking the lower grade of the KC recipients (alphabetical sublist) into two list List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS: A-M and List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS: N-Z. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have that concern about splitting the list too. It may be that the only sensible way to deal with it would be to make the regular Knights Cross recipients of the Waffen SS a separate article and have an article of just the Knight's Cross plus other stuff. Geraldk (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Is the size issue the only "major" issue? Just to make sure that I'm not missing anything else. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well size here is a big issue. Please split Oak Leaves from Iron Cross (Iron Cross is the main list anyway).--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also have very few images, eventhough there are more available like: Herbert Otto Gille, August Dieckmann, Hermann Prieß, Hans Dorr, Fritz von Scholz, Felix Steiner, Paul Hausser and many more....--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    These images have questionable copy right status. What I mean is that I have seen other images of the same copy right status being rejected before. I therefore want to refrain using them here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • They're PD in the US and are therefore allowed on Wikipedia. I don't see the questionabilty of that. Please add these images since they are relevant to this list. Don't add the ones that are Fair use...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I moved the Oak Leaves Swords and Diamonds section to List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords or Diamonds recipients of the Waffen-SS. I hope this fully addresses the length issue. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I think it's fine now. Better than fine, actually. Incredibly thorough. The notes section is longer and more detailed than some articles I've written. Well done. Geraldk (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Images: Licensing seems fine and alt text is provided. Goodraise 12:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Sources: No concerns. Goodraise 12:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I'm sorry. This is an impressive list, but it's simply too long. I suggest splitting it into three parts. Goodraise 12:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. The length recommendations in the MoS exist largely to ensure ease of accessibility by readers, under the assumption that articles that take longer than about 20 minutes to read are less accessible. First, unlike dense text in an article of this length, information in a list format like this is inherently more organized and remains relatively easy to access despite its length. Second, the series of lists on the Knight's Cross is already splintered into a ton of articles, and further splintering this on some arbitrary alphabetical split will actually make the information less accessible to readers. A reader who looks at this list will most likely be interested in Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen SS, not just the ones between A and M, and to access the full amount of information they want to, they will have to jump back and forth between two articles. Thus, while your opposition seems to be based on the letter of the law, I believe that it violates the spirit. Geraldk (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You're forgetting the issue of page loading time. Not all our readers use computers powered by multicore processors with broadband internet connections. Anyway, if you believe my position is in line with the letter but not the spirit of the guideline, then why don't you hop over to Wikipedia:Article size and change it? Goodraise 21:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I'm not forgetting page loading time, what I'm saying is there is no perfect solution here, but I think we should err on the side of not splintering articles too much. And I do think Wikipedia:Article size applies quite well in most cases and does not currently require changing, but there is a reason it is a guideline, as you say, rather than a rule. Geraldk (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The featured list criteria demand that featured lists "compl[y] with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages." This page doesn't do that, therefore I can't support. Sorry. Goodraise 22:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And the very top of the page you keep citing says the following: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." You're really not willing to consider the possibility that the article size guideline can be flexible? Geraldk (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, we're not disagreeing on whether guidelines are flexible. They are. We're disagreeing on how flexible this one is. When I take the guideline status, the vague wording, and mix in a bit of ignore all rules, then I still come to the conclusion that a 170 KB list is too large. Goodraise 00:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, that's fair. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Geraldk (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note taken, since two reviewers approve while one opposes I'll wait before splitting up the article until more reviewers have commented on the topic. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that arbitrarily splitting articles and lists only disconveniences the reader by spreading the same related information across multiple pages. This makes it impossible to accurately see all list members at once and renders the sort feature completely useless. Also, with the sortability of the Unit column, aren't List of Knight's Cross recipients 1st SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler, List of Knight's Cross recipients 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich, List of Knight's Cross recipients 3rd SS Panzer Division Totenkopf, etc. redundant? Hardly anything needs to be done to merge and redirect them. Reywas92^Talk 00:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Reywas that there is no need to split the list. List of Chicago Blackhawks players and List of Detroit Red Wings players are two 800+-item FLs that I can think of off the top of my head; the latter would probably be larger in bytes than this list if the many notes weren't included here. I always lean in favor of having a comprehensive list whenever possible, and don't think the size is quite at the overwhelming point where a split would be justified. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should clarify that I have no opinion on whether the list should be split. All I'm saying is that, in my opinion, the list violates Wikipedia:Article size. Goodraise 02:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for the few with very slow browsers it may take a little while to load, but it's not in violation otherwise. Most of WP:SIZE refers to readability: No one wants to read a novel. But this page is a list with very little readable prose, so size limitations don't apply the same way. And remember, most of the list's size is from the wikimarkup for the table that doesn't show up on the page. It could be cut by 20% by just removing all the spaces and templates that make up the table, without making any visible difference. Reywas92^Talk 03:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Reywas92's comments.—NMajdan•talk 13:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm extremely reluctant to attempt to review this list, but am here because opinions have been requested. While I think accessibility is something that is rightly being debated very seriously, we have to weigh up the benefits of splitting against the drawbacks. I don't see how a split could be carried out in a way that doesn't detract from the usefulness of the list. There will be load-time issues, but I'd rather wait twice as long for something comprehensive than wait quite a long time in the first place only to find that I'm going to need to wait that time again to load the other page, wait even longer to sort both lists, and then have to manually cross-check them. WFCforLife (talk) 14:16, 30 October 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 Dabomb87 16:02, 31 October 2009 [4].

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After some heavy re-working it finally matches the proper style of other featured TV season lists, in particular the other two FL 30 Rock seasons. Have reworked this list to save the Featured Topic from removal. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• 1. The image in the cast section isn't beneficial. An image of the whole cast would be better if not then none. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, done. I figured it was good. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 2. Some episodes summaries are one or two lines. Please expand to at least three to four.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Will do. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 3. A production section should be available. Read Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates#Supernatural_.28season_1.29--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 4. A DVD release section should also be there.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Leaning support. I'm now in a similar boat to Goodraise, I have looked through this list fairly thoroughly and all my issues have been addressed, but I would be much more comfortable if an external copyediter/reviewer (who is much more prose competent than I) giving this a look. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ottava for giving the prose a look, I'm much more comfortable in fully supporting now. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That page is not a true dab, actually. It describes jury duty AND dabs to Jury Duty movies. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But why do readers need to know about the movies? Dabomb87 (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Mkay. The information there is relevant, but I'll pipe (and link the first instance) to jury selection. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the link checker, there are 16 dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, like was mentioned above NBC Universal Media Village updated their site on October 9th and it killed all the old links. I couldn't find the stories when I last looked, I'm working on it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Sorry this has taken so long guys, real world stuff. Anyways, would you accept The Futon Critic as an alternate host of the press releases? This, for example, replaces the cite about "upscale" viewers. It's a direct quotation of the press releases, is that acceptable? Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally have no problem with The Futon Critic if it is used for direct press releases, and have used it in a couple of lists I got to FL. This particular press release doesn't actually give a specific viewing figure though, it just says the average for the first 16 episodes. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Perfect! If it's been used in FLs before I'll get right on it. That was a bad test case I found quickly last night, I'll re-cite with the exact press releases tonight. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I struck my oppose for now. Will give a new vote after I give the article another review pass. Goodraise 18:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources seem fine. Licensing and alt text of images are acceptable. As a whole, the list seems to meet the criteria. However, that I've found so many issues (see my hidden comments), while prose isn't exactly my speciality, leaves me concerned that the list may not meet criteria 1. I would cautiously support this nomination, if it wasn't for that last unresolved comment of mine. Goodraise 16:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC) but I'd really like to hear the opinion of someone better with prose. Goodraise 18:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I have made some changes to the list based on my experiences, although I hope I haven't created any conflicts with the requests of others. Here are some things you could consider:

• The lead should summmarise the entire article; however, it seems to mainly concern the awards. I think the awards should only have a small mention, rather than an entire paragraph. I'll be happy to rewrite the lead if need be.

• Any help you could provide would be appreciated. What would you add, some basic plot summary? Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I rewrote some of the lead, but the second paragraph is slim. I haven't seen this season yet, so yeah, I would suggest adding some basic plot summary. Maybe mention the main storylines running throughout the season of several characters. That should be enough. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 00:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A production section is not needed, in case you were wondering.
• I dislike the image of Fey in the crew section as it forces the blank space. That same image of Fey is also plastered on practically every 30 Rock article on Wikipedia. I suggest removing it, and changing things up a bit by adding an image of Salma Hayek or Alan Alda, or any other actor; just anyone who is recognised by this season.

• I had this Hayek image in the cast section originally but it was removed per eailer comments. If you think it works better I'll replace the Fey with it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. I think it looks much better. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 00:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what the other reviewers have said, but I dislike the DVD table, and its position. You could convert all the info to prose, like I did here, and then put it into a distribution section with the international airing.

• Fine with me, I just did it to meet the style of The O.C. (season 1). Either way is fine w/ me. Staxringold _talk^contribs

That's all for now, actally I might fix the last point myself. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 14:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, is there a problem with adding "universal acclaim"? The ref itself mentions it, so there's no violation of NPOV. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 01:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed it as it seemed fluffy. I love the show, so I'm amenable to leaving it since it's sourced but *shrug*. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's important because it gives context. For all the reader knows, a score of 84% could be common. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 03:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, go for it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose. I don't see any glaring issues, and I do not know much of the FL requirements to support on the rest. I was asked to look through the grammar. It was mechanical but fine (the lengthy lists of names makes it mechanical). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. All my comments were addressed and I can't fault anything else. Nice job. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:21, 28 October 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 The Rambling Man 17:31, 29 October 2009 [5].

Nominator(s): Eddie6705 (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because i feel it is of the standard to be featured. A peer review in February was very helpful and all suggestions were implemented, (nothing much as changed since then). Any comments will be appreciated and hopefully rectified. Eddie6705 (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why aren't all the Oxford United F.C. players on the list? This article should be named to List of Oxford United F.C. players with 100 or more appearances if you only include those players. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Colin's comments and Scorpion's closing comments at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Arsenal F.C. players/archive1, I don't think there is a requirement for the title to explicitly reflect the inclusion criteria. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Struway, this is kind of like those "Tallest building" lists, where the level for inclusion is within the article. Though at the same time there are lists like the "MLB Players with 100 triples" where it's explicitly in the title. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - all of my concerns are now addressed. Geraldk (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please add images of the players at the side of the list. (not all just the best images of the best players we have)--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diaa im working on that now. Eddie6705 (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the link checker, there is one dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the dead link. Eddie6705 (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment image of Big Ron has no alt text -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added alt text, although as i am not really familiar with it, i hope it is alright. Are there are other points you need looking at? Eddie6705 (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a gander later. The alt text issue just happened to jump out at me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – List appears to meet FL criteria now. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Query - you state that "Ron Atkinson made 560 appearances, including 125 matches in the Southern League while Oxford were playing as amateurs", yet his career started in 1959 and elsewhere you state that the club turned professional in 1949, so there is a contradiction there.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, i haven't explained it like i thought it in my head :S Basically i'm trying to get across that Shuker played his legue games in the league, whereas Atkinson played some in the southern league, although i'm struggling to put that into words.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddie6705 (talk 15:53, 19 October 2009

Now the article says that Oxford turned pro in both 1949 and 1962! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Eddie6705 (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – My comments were all addressed and the list seems to meet FL standards now. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - think everything looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 21 October 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 The Rambling Man 17:31, 29 October 2009 [6].

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 23:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I have revamped it to a comprehensive list that I believe meets the FL criteria. The list is structured in a similar fashion to List of Kylie Minogue concert tours. Pyrrhus16 23:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt text checks out. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]