Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2008

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 User:Matthewedwards 21:59, 30 September 2008 [1].

I and WP:LGBT have completed working on "R" in the list of LGB people. There should not be any LGB person with a Wikipedia article whose surname begins with R that isn't on here, though of course articles are being added all the time. References have been provided for every entry, and images are all CC or GFDL. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• No spaces between citations and what they're citing per WP:CITE

Fixed.

Including col headings... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.

• Thumbs should have upright per WP:MOS#Images

I have no idea what this does. Is it required? What is it for? MOS:Images doesn't say.

Well that section of MOS keeps changing! Anyway, in general the upright modifier is used for portrait images and, if they look okay with forcing the size, no "px" parameter should be used. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand, but I've added the "upright". There were no px parameters.

• Dates don't sort correctly.

I'm not responsible for how the sort code works. :) It *does* sort living people by birthyear, and following those, dead people by birthyear. Should I try using {{sort}} for the living people? Or remove the "b."?

I know you're not 100% to blame for this, ;), but right now it needs fixing. The birth years should sort regardless of dead or alive. I would get rid of the b. Oh, and the Dates heading is a little odd. Lifetime would be more appropriate... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the {{sort}}, but now it's going to be *very* confusing for newbies to add entries. But it sorts correctly.

• Not sure of the benefit of making Profession sortable - it's free text.
• Refs 5&6 are footnotes rather than references.
• I'm sure Ealdgyth will be along soon but in the meantime, make sure all web refs have accessdate - e.g. ref 13.

Fixed.

• Be consistent with linking - ref 55 has a wikilinked accessdate while refs 54 and 56 don't.

I can't - well, some of the refs are made using {{citation}} and some with {{cite web}}. Those aren't consistent. I can convert all the refs to one citation template, but is that necessary?

WP:CITET and WP:CITE say not to mix the two different citation template styles because they are rendered in different formats. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh <sigh> - why can't Wikipedia come up with a standard? :) I've fixed these to all be {{citation}}. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 82 has a bare URL...

Fixed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Any chance you can start the list without "This is a partial list of..."? FAs don't start with "This is an article about..." so we're trying to avoid FLs doing that too. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but I have no idea how to reword that. Any suggestions? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe just moving the first para to become the last para of the lead and discuss sexuality in general as the opening sentence. Also, remove the spaces between the ? and [5]... If you feel it's going to be difficult for newbies to add entries, have you considered adding a hidden comment in the list? Just an idea... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support—I wonder whether it's reasonable to reduce the size of the O'Reilly pic, which impinges on the table and breaks up the nice line of the pics. No big deal, though. I agree with TRM that a more engaging opening could be thought of. Tony (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. The "upright" parameter (see above) wasn't added to Rangayan, Reilly, or Ronson since those pics are square. Now, as you say, those overlap the table and I see the others have been shrunk quite a bit. The Rambling Man, is that parameter required? Because I'd rather have the pictures at the slightly larger size than they are now. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's little wonder this part of the MOS seems to change subtly every time I look at it. In my (humblest of humble) opinion, I'd force the landscape images to upright as well. The key thing is that, once being represented at this size, are the images still useful? If so then great, if not then (according to MOS) you'll be entitled to force them. In which case, we may end up back where we started, in which case I'm sorry for wasting our time! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the "upright" to the last three. IMO, the images are too small like that, but what do others think? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.glbtq.com/
  • http://www.notesfromhollywood.com/
  • http://andrejkoymasky.com/liv.html
  • http://www.nndb.com/
  • http://www.pridesource.com/index.shtml
  • http://otakuworld.com/
  • http://www.historicalnovelsociety.org/solander%20files/glimpse_of_a_strong_greek_light_.htm
  • http://www.overblow.com/?
  • http://www.gay.com/home.jsf
  • http://gender.eserver.org/rosenfels/HPCP.htm
  • http://www.broadwayworld.com/
• Current ref 45 (Vivinetto, Gina "Have a Gay ...) lacks a publisher.
• Some of your website references lack last access dates (current refs 58, )
• http://www.gcn.ie/content/templates/culture.aspx?articleid=665&zoneid=5 deadlinks
• http://www.nlgja.org/halloffame/marlon_riggs.htm deadlinks
• Current ref 99 (Homosexualtiy the ..) is lacking a publisher.
• Current ref 114 (Broadway Book of the Month..) is lacking a publisher
• Current ref 121 (http://aubonsketch.ifrance.com/ruquier.htm) Should note that it's in French.
• Same for current ref 122, which should note its in German.
• http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/03/032405canSenate.htm deadlinks
• http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/riding/007/#pegnorman deadlinks
• http://empressoftheworld.com/faq/ redirects

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ealdgyth. I've made the publisher, accessdate, and deadlink changes. I've removed references (and even a couple improperly sourced entries) from NotesFromHollywood.com, AndrejKoymasky.com, NNDB, HistoricalNovelSociety.org, Gender.eserver.org, and BroadwayWorld.com. For the others:

• glbtq.com is professionally written and edited
• PrideSource is an award-winning weekly newspaper with a 15-member full-time staff
• OtakuWorld - doesn't need to be WP:RS. The reference is for Jennifer Diane Reitz - that's her own webside with a bio about herself.
• The Overblow article was originally printed in BackToTheRoots.be, a Belgian magazine. I don't know the WP:RSness of that magazine, but since the article is an interview with and about the musician himself, the reference is good.
• Gay.com (owned by PlanetOut.com is a professionally run news organization.

If you have any questions about those last five, let me know, but I'm reasonably sure they either pass WP:RS or don't really need to. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status on the links? Ealdgyth, have they been resolved appropriately? Gary King (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 20:56, 30 September 2008 [2].

Based upon List of Seattle Mariners Opening Day starting pitchers, a FL, RyRy (talk · contribs), Rlendog (talk · contribs) and I wish to co-nominate this article for FL. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

conoms: RyRy (talk); Rlendog (talk)

• Comment MoSDASH issues in the lead image caption. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed --Admrboltz (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - As someone who's worked on other articles of this type, I am impressed by the multiple reference (which all seem fairly reliabe), and the detailed introduction. Very good article! --Mr.crabby (Talk) 03:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great work, well done NapHit (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Current ref 2 (Box Score...) is lacking a publisher.

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Fixed --Admrboltz (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great work!--LAAFan^sign _review 01:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think the image needs to be addressed. The caption needs another comma before "being." But the image itself is throwing me off. There isn't a single photo out there of a Mets opening day starter in a Mets uniform? The photo will throw people off because it says "Mets opening day starters" but the image we're using is of him as a Brave. Additionally, I'm not so sure about its free use. Essentially, the photo is a screenshot of the scoreboard which seems like it would be fair use since what's displayed on the screen is the Braves' work. I think a more definite free use image should be used (there are free images of Pedro and Johan on their articles). Metros (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done -- The image has been removed. Rlendog (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -my concerns now dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 20:56, 30 September 2008 [3].

Gary King (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Whole first para is fascinating but it's all about their discog, not their awards. Considering they've got 31 awards per this list, the lead should be much better focused.
• Funny, never struck me before but "Overall, Aerosmith has received 31 awards from 62 nominations." is a load of old bollocks presumably since Aerosmith have been nominated for hundreds of awards, right? Did we ever strike hard and say what is the strict criteria for inclusion here? All these award FLCs seem to have arbitrary inclusion tactics employed... Gary, I trust you, what do you think?

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like to focus on their discography to give a background of when they released albums, what albums they released, etc. And then in the second paragraph, talk about some of the awards there. If an award has an article then I consider it notable. I think I've got all of the awards presented by notable awards ceremonies listed here, but if you can point me to some more then I'll be glad to check them out. I don't think Aerosmith received as many awards from smaller awards ceremonies, because back in their day, there weren't as many. Nowadays, every major music magazine publication seems to have their own awards to hand out. Gary King (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The Academy Award nomination wasn't for Aerosmith. It is a songwriters award, and Diane Warren wrote that song, Aerosmith performed the track on the ceremony, but the nominee was Diane.
• for the rest of the list, congratulations, very good job. Jaespinoza (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, corrected Gary King (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as long as the years are centrally aligned NapHit (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Gary King (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 22 September 2008 (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 User:Gimmetrow 22:57, 30 September 2008 [4].

"Muse" is treated as plural per British convention. Nominated by User:Andre666 and Gary King (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Meets the FL Criteria.--S_RX 13:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great work NapHit (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The first time I did the alignment it was wonky; it should be good now though. Gary King (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources don't appear to really verify the stuff that it is supposed to be verifying. For example, sources #20 and #21 support Muse winning best live act in 2006, and 2007, but none of the other Q nominations or awards. naerii 22:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources #18 and #19 only verify the 2008 NME awards and nominations, and none of the other NME stuff. The title for #18 is misleading as it links to the 2008 rewards and Muse didn't win Best British band in 2008. I think this article has issues from when I gutted it of the unreliable musewiki sources that appear to not have been replaced. Source #17 only verifies the 2007 mtvU awards, not the 2005. The same with #16; it only verifies the 2007 MTV Europe awards, and no others. I don't know if this is considered a big deal, but I feel like if we're sourcing the awards at all, it should be done properly. I'm kind of surprised people above are supporting without checking the sources properly ("sources look okay"?); I guess it means that it's an insignificant issue? I would go through the rest but I'm tired right now and I don't know if this is even worth pointing out. naerii 22:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Naerii, please have another look now :) Gary King (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I know I am co-promoter of this, but I need to point a couple things out which I cannot find.

• Lack of references
  • "Best British Newcomer" nomination at the 2001 BRITs;
  • "Best British Band" nominations at the 2003 Kerrang!s;
  • "Best Live Act" win at the 2006 Kerrang!s; and
  • "Best Act in the World Today" nomination at the 2008 Qs.

That is all :) Andre666 (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching those; I added references for 2001 BRIT Awards and 2003 Kerrang! Awards; the rest already have references. Some of the references cover more than one award (for instance, one says something along the lines of "Muse, who won X award last year"). Gary King (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's cool, nice one! You can do one of those resolved comments collapsed tables if you like. Andre666 (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2008 (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 User:Gimmetrow 22:57, 30 September 2008 [5].

Gary King (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - unbelievable, I can't find any flaws and meets the FL Criteria.--S_RX 13:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Band has been nominated for Q Award, Radio Music Award (not sure if they won, or not), and a Meteor Music Award (not sure if they won this either). LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Added Gary King (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support my issues dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the title refer to what the award is made of, or the band? :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Finally, an "awards" page that I can support. Great job, though I'd remove the second link to MTV Video Music Awards in the lead.--Crzycheetah 02:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Gary King (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 01:14, 29 September 2008 [6].

Created as a jumping off point, as there are a large number of notable people who have been either Senior or Second Wrangler. The list is complete with all records from the University archives. Mrh30 (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It seems to satisfy all the necessary criteria: the prose is grammatically correct, it has an informative introductory section, it's comprehensive, well-structured, complies with the Manual of Style, it's visually clear and makes appropriate use of portraits and other pictures, and it's not under dispute. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay. Can't check links as the link checker tool is down. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cmments

• Put the table in its own section  Done
• {{clear}} the first image so that it doesn't squeeze the table to the left

This surely isn't a problem once the section heading is added? Mrh30 (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support

• I think the lead is still a little weak for a list of such magnitude.

I've expanded it further, giving some more justification for the significance of the list, and the people in it. Is it heading the right way? Mrh30 (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like any more? I'm just wary of it becomming waffly and overlapping with Wrangler (University of Cambridge). Mrh30 (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine now in my opinion. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Some captions link the Wrangler, some don't - be consistent. Done
• Don't like in-line links as you have for footnotes 8, 11 and 15 - any chance you could reformat them per {{cite web}} or similar?

They're already using cite web. I'm not clear what you would like changed about them. Do you just want me to put a few more details into the template (accessdate etc)? Mrh30 (talk) 08:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be preferable. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)  Done[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 01:14, 29 September 2008 [7].

"The Neptunes" is treated as plural in this article. Gary King (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals.

Otherwise sources look okay. Can't check links as the link checker tool is down. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Gary King (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Unbelievable, again, I can't find any flaws and meets the FL Criteria.--S_RX 13:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - issues dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry Gary, but I'm going to have to bring up the title again. I feel it could be confused for being similar to Jupiter Awards, Saturn Awards, and The Mercury Award or Mercury Prize. List of Saturn Awards, for example, would be a list of the types of Award they give out. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  ✔ Gary King (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 01:14, 29 September 2008 [8].

Cannibaloki 16:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

• Lead section
  • Do not link "American"
  • "a extended play" -> "an extended play" or "one extended play"
    •  Not done "a extended play" is a advice of The Rambling Man
      • I don't think so. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • At Opeth FLC you said: "The "one video" in the lead - is this a video album per the infobox?" Cannibaloki 18:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, well "a video album" because the word after the indefinite article (the "a") starts with a consonant (the "v" of video) and in this case it should be "an extended play" because the word after the indefinite article starts with a vowel (the "e" of extended) - does that make sense? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ahhh, okay teacher! Cannibaloki 15:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Cannibaloki 20:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which sold 10,000 copies" needs a credible reference
  • "was successful in the United States." also needs a reference, e.g. a chart position ref.
    • I removed this information, because there are no sources.
  • "After an internal crisis, the band moved on from Roadrunner and signed a new deal with Ferret Music." needs a reference
  • The types of release (i.e. studio albums, extended plays...) could be linked, though I'm not sure if this is essential
  • The picture in the infobox should be of the whole band
    •  Not done This information is new to me! There are NO rules about the images, since it is related to band.
• Studio albums
  • The Norway chart position column needs a reference; find it at norwegian-charts.com
  • Catalog numbers should ideally be small; use <small></small> tags
    • Only ideally, just because I implemented this way of use them. (← hehehe) Cannibaloki 16:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that the list is looking good; the references are mainly reliable and credible, and this seems set out nicely. If you want me to make the changes instead of making you do them all, I would be happy to help. Andre666 (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your comments are (in my opinion) optionals, but I used many of them. Cannibaloki 16:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - my comments have been resolved to meet the FL Criteria.S_RX 20:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support When are you goin to nominate the Iron Maiden discography and Megadeth discography? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose

• Caption doesn't need the full stop.
  •  Done removed (don't was me that added!)
• Add (EP) after "Extended Play".
  •  Done Hmm.
• "the band released their next album The Impossibility of Reason, the album peaked at" - "...Reason and peaked..."?
  •  Done reworded
• "...issued in 2005, and peaked at number 74..." - "2005 which peaked..."
  •  Done reworded
• "After an internal crisis" - explain please.
  •  Done I think, but maybe needs grammar cleanup
• "the original drummer Andols Herrick joined" - "Andols Herrick rejoined..."
  •  Done reworded for a better way...
• "making their best ever" - "the band's highest chart position..."
  •  Done reworded ("...their best ever..." ←hehehe) Cannibaloki 17:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 01:14, 29 September 2008 [9].

What's another sports list, eh? Based loosely on List of Vancouver Canucks head coaches, which is a current FL, I believe this list is at the same level. I look forward to all feedback. Resolute 01:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - comments resolved to meet FL Criteria.--S_RX 02:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well done on the FLC. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 17:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I think its a well done list. Don't necessarily agree with K. Annoyomous24 in that the Key should be changed, I actually think the key on the other feature list should be changed to this one as WP:HOCKEY discussed awhile ago that we wanted to have W-L % in the tables for coaches. I think the See Also section is needed, however only for the top two links. -Djsasso (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great list, well done NapHit (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:14, 29 September 2008 [10].

I based the format of the article off of List of Seattle Mariners Opening Day starting pitchers which has FL status. All references are reliable, and featured list criteria appears to be meet. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 00:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - comments resolved to meet FL Criteria.--S_RX 02:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great work, well done NapHit (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support - minor points

• "has only had to play " -> has only played?

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "When they are the away team" -> As the away team?

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• " Opening Day losing streak for starting pitchers was the three losses that came on Opening Day " no need to repeat Opening Day in my opinion - "...that came in ..."

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Avoid small font in the (2) etc.

Done, although I personally think the smaller font looks better. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this discussion, I have changed font size back to small. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 01:14, 29 September 2008 [11].

I am submiting this list because I feel is ready to achieve FL status. Jaespinoza (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment, Dabomb87 (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC) I noticed that you've been hyphenating "number one" wrongly sometimes. The phrase only needs to be hyphenated when it's used as a double adjective, not when used as a noun ("List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2002", but "Spanish singer-songwriter Enrique Iglesias peaked at number one for the fifth time on this chart"). If you need help with this, leave a note here; I'll be watching this page. The article is otherwise good. I did make some small fixes. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Would you help me with that? Jaespinoza (talk) 04:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done on all Top Latin Albums articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support plus...

• Move image to the very top and expand - WP:MOS#Images says you can go up to around 300px if required.
• "...is a chart that features ..." -> link the "chart" to "record chart"; you could even call it a record chart.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • DONE! Jaespinoza (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 01:14, 29 September 2008 [12].

I based the format of the article off of List of Seattle Mariners Opening Day starting pitchers which has FL status. All references are reliable, and featured list criteria appears to be meet. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support - It looks great and identical to the Seattle Mariners' one, but this one is more short and sort does not meet CR4, but in a way it does since it is listing over 10 items.--S_RX 23:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great work, well done NapHit (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Prose needs some work.
  • "on two Opening Days.[1] Those four are" → "on two Opening Days:[1] "

Dome --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • "all of the other games" → "the other games"

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest unlinking the years in the lead as it is not immediately obvious that they link to season articles; they can be continued to be linked in the table, however, as it is more apparent.

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The entire lead is cited using only one reference; the same reference does not need to appear at the end of nearly every sentence. I suggest just using it once at the end of every paragraph.

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support as long as the following points are corrected...

• "...pitcher to ever start ..." -> "pitcher ever to start..."

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Except for " I'd prefer "With the exception of..."

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "... once in 1993 and mlby|1994..." - missing a some template braces here.

Corrected --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't use small fonts.

I'm sorry to ask aout this again, but do you want me to make the references larger? --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm talking about the repeat appearances (2) etc in the table. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this discussion, the text should be left as it is. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:14, 29 September 2008 [13].

Gary King (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support from SRX - after a minor flaw I pointed out, the list meets the FL Criteria.--S_RX 14:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Hmm, this is borderline on title really - 9 juno awards only, all other noms failed... perhaps this should be time to consider "nominations and awards" otherwise you should rename it List of Feist Juno awards as the failed noms don't really match the title?
• " Bobby Dazzler" - worth clarifying if this is a record label or an individual.
• "...Juno Awards. There, she received..." - not keen on starting with "There..." with respect to the awards...
• "She has also received four nominations from the Grammy Awards, including Best Pop Vocal Album for The Reminder and Best New Artist in 2008, but has yet to win a Grammy Award." - ok so you probably want to refocus the sentence on the Grammys but repeating "Grammy Award" in this sentence reads awkwardly.
• Juno Single of the year is overlinked.
• Can you clarify how dose.ca is WP:RS please?

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, borderline title I suppose but it's still accurate. "Awards" is a superset of "Juno Awards" so it should be okay, I think. I figured Dose might get questioned; anyways, it's a Canadian music magazine; Dose (magazine). Gary King (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you object to moving it "..nominations and awards"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Gary King (talk) 19:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Third bullet: Cr. 6.

• We're told she's Canadian at the opening. Why then "in her native Canada"?
• "Also" is getting a work-out here. The second one could go.
• I find the fragmented structure hard to take. Can't all be conflated into the one table, since there's a column for the award. The single-sentence lead for each mini-table would be better in the opening lead. Tony (talk) 08:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done. I removed the second "also". This list format is like the other awards lists that have been promoted before, so I think a larger discussion is needed before I will change it. Gary King (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments *About the Grammy Awards. She was nominated for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance with 1,2,3,4 not as Feist.

• On the first paragraph (lead section) this sentence is "All four albums were released with the Arts & Crafts record label" is used twice very close to each other, a rewrite should work there.
• For the rest of the list, very good job, Jaespinoza (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done Gary King (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - currently I would oppose on not being comprehensive.

• Feist has won the Shortlist Music Prize. [14]
• Also had a MVPA Award nomination (possibly win). [15]
• And INDIES Awards (Independent Music Awards). wins noms
• You Forgot It in People and Broken Social Scene are included as a Juno wins, but they are really awards for Broken Social Scene not Feist. I personally don't think you can include them. As it would be like listing Take That awards within a Robbie Williams awards page. Not to mention that there are other Broken Social Scene nominations (2 Juno, 1 Polaris) not mentioned on this list.
• four nominations from the Grammy Awards - the nominations are from National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, probably you want something like "She recieved four Grammy Award nominations"
• Ref 9 has no publisher

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done. I've added Shortlist, but not the MVPA and Indies (which I had before) because they aren't notable enough to have their own article, so I chose not to include them. I was wondering whether to include Broken Social Scene awards or not; you're right, so I have removed them. Reference 9 has a publisher but it's italicized because it's a magazine. Gary King (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - following on from what Rambo's Revenge is saying, the criteria for award/nomination inclusion in this list, per Cr 3? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The title should be "List of awards won by Feist"; "List of Feist awards and nominations", to me, sounds like it's awards given out by Feist. However, this does present my minor, nascent crusade with an interesting question - should it be "List of awards and nominations awarded to Feist" or something like that? Sigh. --Golbez (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eek. We have both. [16] - actually, we have "List of <Group or Person> awards" and we have "List of awards and nominations received by <Group or Person>". Personally, the latter makes more sense, but that's just my opinion. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SatyrTN comments

• "Inside and Out" in the "Juno Awards" section is whacked.
• Otherwise, looks good. I Support this FLC. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Feist is a Juno Award-winning Canadian singer-songwriter from Amherst, Nova Scotia." What makes the Juno Award more important than any other she has won?
• "Feist has received 8 awards from 18 nominations." MOS:NUM on numbers under 10
• Could you rename it in line with other award and nomination lists?

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juno is a Canadian award, and she is Canadian. Plus, it's either that or the Shortlist Music Prize, which I wouldn't consider as popular. The rest are done. Gary King (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 01:14, 29 September 2008 [17].

I am nominating this list for featured list status, as I belive that after an engaging peer review, this list meets all the criteria necessary to be a featured list. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jameboy (talk · contribs)

• Minor grammatical point - the Vardon, Morris and Taylor captions are all missing a comma after the word "who".

Done

• The list of winners in the main article (The_Open_Championship#Winners) includes the amount of prize money collected by the winner. Could that not be included here?

No because it's original research, and there are no references which support this

How about this? [18] --Jameboy (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can probably tell I'm reluctant to add the prize money, especially since the other two lists; List of Masters Tournament champions, List of U.S. Open (golf) champions don't have it, and I'm not sure it's necessary, the main aspects of the list are the champion, score, and the course, which are all included, and I'm not sure prize money comes into this it just seems a bit trivial NapHit (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a very general sense, I agree with you that sporting prize money is fairly trivial and not always worth recording. However, given that (for example) the European Order of Merit is decided by total prize money won, it would seem to me that prize money is very important to golf and therefore worth including here. I'm not really a golf fan (I'll watch The Open but that's about it) so forgive me if this perception is wrong. --Jameboy (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm still not convinced, yes there is a European order of merit, but the person who wins that generally wins the most competitions therefore winning the most money is not that important in a sense, especially when talking about majors as to win a major is considered to be the best thing a golfer can achieve in their lifetime, unless your Tiger Woods, also there is no prize money info available for the other majors and I believe the lists should be consistent if they are going to be a featured topic, therefore including prize money on one list would be inappropriate NapHit (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• He is Pádraig Harrington in the image caption, but Padraig Harrington in the table. Be consistent.

Done

--Jameboy (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, I've addressed them all NapHit (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the main article list (The_Open_Championship#Winners, soon to be replaced by this list, I presume) there are footnotes for those golfers who became naturalised citizens of the United States. Could you include those here? --Jameboy (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://golfmajorchampionships.com/
  • http://www.antiquegolfscotland.com/antiquegolf/history.php3?itemid=69

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've removed the golfmajorchampionship ref, and replaced the antiqe golf scotland one, with an official site ref instead. NapHit (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Willie Park, Snr.'s article mentions a championship belt - was this awarded more than once? was it awarded together with the Claret Jug or instead of it?

The championship belt is mentioned in the lead NapHit (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Lehman's not English.
• The notes aren't referenced?

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, they've been addressed NapHit (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing : is it "Snr", "Sr", "Snr." or "Sr."? Same for Jr. At least be consistent with the same person. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rectified this NapHit (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just move the Multiple champions section into the table. For example, Tiger Wood's last championship should look like this, "Tiger Woods (3)". If done that, I'll Support. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 04:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not, I think the table looks cluttered like that, and prefer the multiple champions table which is clear and easy to read, and it also saves users moving up and down the list to find when so and so won there second tournament. NapHit (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May you please explain to me why it would look cluttered. You can also save more time than the Mulpitle champions by just sorting their names. Just please do this for a better WP:FL? criteria #4, Structure. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 04:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is easier for the reader if it is in one table as the information is to hand, and they don't have to go searching up nd down the table, also I've made the table sortable as I think that was what you were suggesting above NapHit (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever than, I'll Support. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 01:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SatyrTN comments

• The sortability of the "Course" makes sense to me. The sortability of the "Location" less so. A suggestion is to use the {{sort}} function to sort that column by country & city, rather than sorting as free text.
• Does the second column need a header? And I don't know MOS:FLAG, but that column may be in violation.
• See if there are more pictures? Having them on the side there is wonderful, but having them run out (when you're scrolling down) is disappointing :)

I conditionally support this FLC. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done everything you requested except for more pictures, which I think are unnecessary as there are more than enough pictures already, and I think they should only be within the champions header, Cheers NapHit (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 07:51, 26 September 2008 [19].

I based the format of the article off of List of Seattle Mariners Opening Day starting pitchers which has FL status. All references are reliable, and featured list criteria appears to be meet. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Tie in baseball? It's interesting and needs to be explained better given that there is no such page here at Wikipedia.

Changed link, I'll try to figure out why that game was a tie --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update:I've found a source explaining the tie and have included a brief description and reference in the lead. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 00:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Currently, the table covers the left side of the images because these images are too big. I am leaning towards opposing because of this problem.

Really? I'm not having that problem on my cumputer. Maybe someone who is can help me out a correct the sizes, because I'd just be guessing what the correct size would be. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • You were forcing a 200px image size to all images.--Crzycheetah 04:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A huge over-reliance on one source. How many times did you cite that Baseball-reference page? 60? Try finding some other websites if possible.

I'll try to find alternative sources to include --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Crzycheetah 18:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great work, well done NapHit (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support - can we avoid use of small fonts in the table? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an official policy on the matter? The small font was removed from List of Florida Marlins Opening Day starting pitchers, but personally I think it is more visually appealing when it is smaller. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to weight up pure aesthetics versus accessibility. Some may find smaller fonts harder to read. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started a thread about this this at WP:ACCESS a few weeks ago. The thread is here. It was merged with this one, which is a few months older. The answer, in short, was "resize your screen". I doubt this is what you're looking for, TRM, and neither was I. :( Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - looks good to me, well written, well referenced and no obvious mistakes. If I find anything I'll add it (or just go ahead and fix it).   jj137 (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 07:51, 26 September 2008 [20].

I based the format of the article off of List of Seattle Mariners Opening Day starting pitchers which has FL status. All references are reliable, and featured list criteria appears to be meet. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• All scores need the en dash.

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Only should be as late as possible in the clause: "No decisions are only awarded to the starting pitcher if the game is won or lost after the starting pitcher has left the game."—after "lost". I'd put "No decisions" in quotes, since it won't be familiar as a compound term to non-experts.

Done and done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Opening Day starts"—"opening-day starts", et al.

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• MOS breach: "wasn't".

Changed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "was still" Tony (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great work, well done NapHit (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support - can we avoid use of small font in the table? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this discussion, it should probably be kept. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]