Knowledge (XXG)

< Knowledge (XXG):Featured list candidates‎ | Failed log

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:33, 31 August 2009 .

---

Nominator(s): Cannibaloki 18:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I think the list meet the criteria. Cannibaloki 18:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1. The General references don't show the lists info, as far as I see. Try to find a general reference.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

   The Allmusic link was fixed.--Cannibaloki 20:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

2. The Year should be the first column for consistency between all records discography lists.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

   No. See Knowledge (XXG):LOW#Discographies (I just did a small modification in the guideline).--Cannibaloki 20:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

   Huh? I don't see how this applies at all. MOS:DISCOG seems much more relevant, not to mention label discographies that have already been promoted to FL (such as Dischord Records discography). Drewcifer (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Agree with the above comments. The Allmusic link does tell us anything. Take a look at Load Records discography to see how to handle this type of reference (basically add instructions on how to find the info). Also, after a quick scan of the general reference that does work, this list doesn't seem to be complete. I found a number #106, and a release that are cataloged differently than what you've put ("Dommedagsnatt" is cataloged as "SUNNONELP", and "Genevive" is cataloged as "SUNN67CD"). What's up with that? Also, numbered columns, ie the year and Cat number, should be centered. Drewcifer (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Copied. Just two new releases already added to the list. SUNN67CD is the "Product ID" in the online store of Southern Lord Records. Why?--Cannibaloki 20:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Numbered-columns (year and catalog number) should be centered. Done--Cannibaloki 00:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure everything is cited appropriately. Just as a random test, I tried to confirm 100.777 from the two general sources provided, and I couldn't find it. Any idea where that source is? Drewcifer (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please ping me when these concerns are resolved, after which I will review. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I use discogs.com as an additional source? Not reliable but...--Cannibaloki 20:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Like you said, it's not reliable. So I'd go with no. Drewcifer (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I found other sources.--Cannibaloki 00:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Withdrawal, due the lack of reliable sources.--Cannibaloki 19:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:30, 25 August 2009 .

---

Nominator(s): ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ _¢ 20:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is completed in its entirety. If the redlinks need to be removed for a successful nomination, I will take care of that. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ _¢ 20:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - The types of road section has no references. Comments in the table also need references.—Chris! _ct 18:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Will add refs to the Types of Road section. Most of the comments are based on physical objects one can see driving down the road that label points. How would I go about referencing these real-life objects or distances? (It would be impossible to ever provide textual references outside of using a map and calculating) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ _¢ 20:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose/Suggest withdrawal There are too many fixes that need to be made before this list meets the current criteria. This page must have had at least Peer review before coming here.
  • How do you know that all roads together are 910.4 kilometres (565.7 mi)? I hope it's not WP:OR

By adding the lengths of the listed roads.

• • "The 49 numbered roadways..." Again, how do you know it's 49 and not 51 for example?

By examining the cities official map of numbered roads and counting.

• • What's "King's Highways"?

Got me on that one.

• • "167.1 kilometres (103.8 mi) of provincially maintained highway.." Where do you get that figure from?

Again, by adding the individual lengths which I can provide references for.

• • If Highway 46 is notable to have a separate page, then so do the other highways.

Seperate issues. Almost every other highway in Ontario does have an article.

• • This page states that Highway 46 is now known as Kawartha Lakes Road 46, yet the latter redirects to the Highway 46's page.

Highway 46 was a King's highway. It's notable enough to warrant its own article. Kawartha Lakes Road 46... not so much

• • Explain why the readers need to know that "Victoria County contained 3 secondary highways prior to 1998"

Because history is as important as the present.

My main suggestion is to go and ask for suggestions at Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Canada Roads and Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Highways. --Cheetah (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I didn't go for peer review first, didn't know that was a prerequisite ("Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review."). I have addressed many of your points as they aren't original research, merely calculations on official figures. I will take this to peer review though. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ _¢ 05:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A peer review is recommended, but not required. It's good practice to have editors who are not primary contributors to the article take a look beforehand. Often, they can spot things that are overlooked by the principle editor(s). If you do wish to submit this for peer review, this FLC should be withdrawn first. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator - see editing summary on FLC page history—Chris! _ct 18:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:50, 24 August 2009 .

---

Nominator(s): --Music26/11 14:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the FL criteria. All the concerns of the previous FLC have been taken care off and the article has been expanded a little further.--Music26/11 14:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Staxringold

• "The Bet" in the reception is a disambig link.

• Fixed.--Music26/11 19:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speaking of the reception section, seems a bit thin. Isn't the "Master of Domain" episode one of the most famous Seinfeld eps out there, along with The Soup Nazi? Are there no real reviews of eps out there?

• I'll search for some critical reviews.--Music26/11 19:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, I searched, but most reviewers combine season 1 with season 2, and usually review the show in general, maybe someone with access to LexisNexis or something like that can help, but I can't find anything useful.--Music26/11 20:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• David Fuchs (talk · contribs) has access to LexisNexis. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I could send him a message, but do you really think reviews are necessary, I mean look at Seinfeld (season 3), Lost (season 1), Lost (season 2); The Simpsons (season 1) doesn't even has sections.--Music26/11 10:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• All of those lists you named were promoted a year ago (or more). Our "best work" should be comprehensive. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've send him a message, though he said it could take while.--Music26/11 10:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• What's the status on this? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Still waiting.--Music26/11 22:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Alright. I'll take a look at the episode summaries tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Still no news from David, but I found some sources myself, its not alot, but I think it will do, what do you think?--Music26/11 12:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oh wait, why is there "Master of his Domain" stand up on the DVDs if it's a season 4 episode? Staxringold _talk 17:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Some of the extras have names, the commentaries, for instance, are called "yada, yada".--Music26/11 19:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Any data on viewership #s like Neilsen (sp?). Staxringold _talk 17:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'll add some.--Music26/11 19:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• The Nielsen Rating/Share of each episode is included on the DVD set, however, I can't add them to the table, because it is a special kind of table designed for Seinfeld lists and an extra aux can't be added. If anyone can change this I'll add the numbers.--Music26/11 16:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've added the Nielsen Ratings info.--Music26/11 14:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, the list meets all FL criteria with previous issues adressed.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Also, I noticed the expansion, and will review later today or tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Done.--Music26/11 17:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Sorry for delaying so much. I think it will be easier if I make edits myself, and post comments here when necessary.

• The alt text for the cover image is pretty good, but it omits information about the words at the top.

• I know, but how do you the describe the yellow sort of flat circle-like thing behind the word Seinfeld.--Music26/11 12:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• The background really isn't that important. I improved the alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Filming of the show moved from Desilu Cahuenga, in Hollywood, California, to CBS Studio Center, in Studio City, Los Angeles, California." So were these both filming locations, or was the Hollywood Studio for only the previous season?

• Only the first season was filmed at desilu cahuenga, I changed it a bit.--Music26/11 12:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Helen and Morty Seinfeld, who had previously appeared" Both of them, or just the latter?

• Both of them, should this be clearified?--Music26/11 12:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yep, I did this. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll get to the episode summaries tomorrow (promise!) Dabomb87 (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Cherones said that Padnick reacted relieved and they both discussed the problem with Charles" "reacted relieved" doesn't make sense. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• "Ironically, a woman at the party does to Jerry what George had planned to do" Vague. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• "They question her, and Elaine walks away and loses the wager." "They question her" sounds strange here. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• "George, who lacks pay phone etiquette, " What does the "pay phone" phrase mean here? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• What are the air dates and DVD release dates sourced to? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed all your comments.--Music26/11 11:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Amazon considered reliable for release dates? What makes ezDVD reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Frequently, when you try to find refs for DVD releases other than region 1, you'll get in trouble. The issue was briefly discussed during the House FAC (bottom of the page), in which Amazon.com and EzyDVD were doubtful refs.--Music26/11 23:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:50, 24 August 2009 .

---

Nominator(s): Abeer.ag (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is comprhensive, and meets WP:FLC. Abeer.ag (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, final comment is that the first paragraph in the lead is only two sentences, could u expand to three or four sentences for style purposes?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• There isn't any general content left to add (only test n odi specific). btw, just below this comnt an itch was noted, consecutive lines begin with "He, His". Hometech (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• Space needed after reference 5.
  • Done.
• Remove the spaces around the dash in the second paragraph.
  • Done.
• Many sentences start with "He" or "His". Is it possible to change a few to provide for a more engaging lead? Even using his last name would be better.
  • Hmm.. I tried to do it but failed miserably. Any suggestions?
    • Done Hometech (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Lots of whitespace between the second and third paragraphs.
  • How do I fix that?
    • Done Hometech (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Photo in the lead needs spaces after commas in the alt text, which also has a typo: "backgrounf."
  • Done
• Photo of Queens Park Oval: Comma after Port of Spain in caption. Alt text reads: "A stadium with a people playing...". Remove second "a".
  • Done
• What makes http://www.cricbuzz.com/ a reliable source?
  • Replaced
• Bullet needed before the external link. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Done

Thank you for your comments. Abeer.ag (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Much improved from the last such list submitted here.

• "but is yet to score a century in a Twenty20 international." Then why mention it?
  • There are three major formats in cricket: Test, ODI and T20.Just to be thorough, I mentioned it.
• "Out of these centuries" "out" is an unnecessary word.
  • Changed
• Can you put "Key" in bold?
  • Done
• "The innings in the Test match." No period at the end.
  • Changed
• "Remained not out." Remove period at the end.
  • Changed
• "The Queen's Park Oval in the Port of Spain where Sehwag made a century in the 2007 World Cup" Comma after "Spain".
  • Changed
• There's probably a good reason for this but why don't you list strike rate for Test?
  • SRs are somewhat irrelevant in Test, since matches last five days and the rate of scoring isn't that important.
• ODI centuries, No. 2 – Date should be September 22, 2002, not
  • Changed
• ODI centuries, No. 10 – strike rate should be 128.8, not 121.8
  • Changed
• List all strike rates with two decimal places. If it is rounded to the tenths place, add a trailing 0 to the end.
  • Done
• Is there a ref for footnote 7?
  • Ref 8.
    • It looks uncited as is, though. Suggest putting it in a separate section and inline citing it. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank You for your comments. Abeer.ag (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Wouldn't it be better to create a list of achievements by Virender Sehwag and have a section there for centuries? Something like a basketball-related List of career achievements by Kobe Bryant or a golf-related List of career achievements by Jack Nicklaus. I am sure there are other cricket records that Virender Sehwag is a part of. Why can't we put all records in one page?--Crzycheetah 03:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What other records are possible in cricket? Golf or baskt exampls are pointless. Hometech (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The only other significant achievements for batsman would be Man of the Match awards.. that list would be largely redundant, since most of his MoM awards would be in these games only. Abeer.ag (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of info in the "Achievements" section in his main article. It is usually discouraged to have lists in biographical articles, especially long tables; therefore, if a list of achievements by Virender Sehwag is created with all these centuries along with all that stuff in the Virender Sehwag#Achievements section, the main article will look a lot better.--Crzycheetah 16:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've incorporated mos of the things in the "Records" section. The awards and man of the series lists are definitely notable enough to be in the main article. Abeer.ag (talk) 07:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said they're not notable. I am saying those tables are long and make that article look like a list; thus, they should be split off. List of career achievements by Virender Sehwag can contain these tables along with the tables in the List of international cricket centuries by Virender Seehwag. --Crzycheetah 01:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Article looks good to me just a few minor quibbles with the references.

• On Ref 13 the publisher is stats.cricinfo.com yet plenty of other refs with the prefix stats.cricinfo.com simply use Cricinfo as publisher, be consistent.
  • Changed
• Ref 3 and ref 4 are similar but on 3 a mdash and colon are used, on 4 two ndashes, be consistent.
  • Umm.. I don't understand. Could you please make the change.
    • Done
• I realise it is the headings on the window but placing Cricinfo Statsguru in the middle of the reference title seems slightly odd. Cricinfo is already the publisher so does it need repeating. Take ref 6 as an example and I'd prefer to see a more logical order of 'Statsguru - Test matches - Batting record - Double centuries by Indian openers'.
  • Changed some- is this what you meant?
    • Partly. I'd prefer to see the Statsguru part at the start like ref 16.
• As you use the date format of 'Month Date, Year' repeating that for the references would be better than YY-MM-DD.
  • I believe there's a script that does this. Do you know where it is?
    • I don't know anything about scripts, sorry.
      • Fixed this. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• On the Ref 7 issue that Dabomb mentioned, is there even a need to mention Chappell and Samaraweera, if they were all level on two or three then I could understand it but Sehwag is ahead of them. You don't mention who's second in terms of fastest triple hundred so it seems slightly odd to have that ref.
  • It just seemed interesting...
    • Fair enough, I was just offering a solution to a outstanding issue which may be stopping Dabomb from supporting. --Jpeeling (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Nothing to do with refs but on the fourth image you use vs. which looks a bit amateurish to me, change to versus or against.
  • Done

--Jpeeling (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Abeer.ag (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:50, 24 August 2009 .

---

Nominator(s): Mario1987 13:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because i think it is featurable material Mario1987 13:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic, but by "projects" do you mean wind farms that are, well, "projected", that is to say ones that are under construction or are planned, or is this intended to include all wind farms in Romania. Whatever the definition it needs to be spelled out in the article. Boissière (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

By project I mean under construction or planned wind farms. Mario1987 20:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Image needs alternative text per WP:ALT. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

done Mario1987 19:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You didn't add alternative text, which is different from a image caption. Alternative text describes the image without naming the elements of it. See Knowledge (XXG):Alternative text for images#Examples for what I mean. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Is that better? Mario1987 09:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. This is what we need: ] at an altitude of {{convert|1200|m|ft|abb=yes}}]] Dabomb87 (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I put it like you said ^ but it doesn't change anything. It's exactly the same. Mario1987 16:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I get it now. Mario1987 16:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - the total rows don't sort correctly. Besides that, I don't understand why these rows are unnecessary.—Chris! _ct 02:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

1. I don't see why you didn't include already installed Wind farms. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
   • Because there aren't any wind farms only scattered wind turbines. Mario1987 17:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
     • 76 Mega Watts of Wind Turbines? And from "In 2009, Romania will add 1,200 MW " I understand that some of these should already be finished.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
       • Yes only wind turbines and all are espected to be completed by December 2009. Mario1987 09:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Could u change the title to List of wind farms in Romania? or Wind power in Romania?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
   • Because these are all projects. Mario1987 17:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
     • Being Projects the list would be very unstable because each month new farms are created and become actual farms and not projects anymore.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
       • Yes but I'm willing to modify the list each time something new appears. Mario1987 09:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Could u add information about the dates of proposed completion of these wind farms ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
   • Because many of these farms don't have a projected completion date only estimates. Mario1987 17:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
     • My main problem is that till the end of this year 1,200 MW of Wind Energy will be added to Romania. Which of these farms will manufacture this energy and would they be removed from this list because they aren't projects anymore?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
       • What do you suggest? Should I keep the completed wind farms in the table and mark them as complete? Mario1987 09:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• I don't like the article's beginning. "As of 2008" makes it sound like the article is out of date.
  • What should i replace it with? Mario1987 09:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Is "Local authorities" a company?
  • But if the investing body is the local or county council what should i put there? Mario1987 09:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Why are you using US$ as primary units? This is about Romanian wind farms.
  • Should i use the Romanian leu or the Euro? Mario1987 09:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• You link some companies but not others.
  • Some of the companies have an Wiki article and are linked and others don't. Should i link all of them or none? Mario1987 09:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• In the table, instead of putting "MW" after each number, you might make the header "Capacity (MW)" and remove "MW" from the individual values.
  • Done. Mario1987 09:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Why is there an empty row in the table?
  • Fixed that Mario1987 09:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• I suggest that you make the totals a separate table. Otherwise, when you sort the table, they get jumbled up with the rest of the rows.
  • Done. Mario1987 09:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Put em dashes in the blank cells. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good with regard to link status and citation formatting. I do not know Romanian and therefore could not evaluate the sources for reliability. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Note A native speaker has assured me that the sources are OK WRT reliability. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for now:

1. The authors seem not to understand the difference between watts and watt-hours. The phrase and a power-generating capacity of 23 terawatts is quite meaningless.
   • Fixed. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

     Not fixed. Power can not be measured in watt-hours. Ruslik_Zero 12:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

     • How about now? Mario1987 13:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
2. The second stage will be operational by 2010 and produce 252.5 MW. The second stage will never produce 252.5 MW, because it is just the installed capacity. By the same reason I do not like the following phrases: producing 2.5 MW each, one that will produce 700 MW, one that will produce 400 MW, that will have a combined power output of 600 MW, producing a nominal output of 700 MW, will consist of 100 wind turbines producing five MW each.
   • Fixed. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Ref 4 does not support the majority of claims made about Fântânele Wind Farm (139 2.5 MW turbines, blade diameter and height).
   • • Done. Mario1987
   • Fixed. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

     Not fixed. I do not see refs for height and blade diameter. Ruslik_Zero 12:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

     • Check ref 4. Mario1987 13:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
4. I can find nothing about Maranchon Wind Farm in the ref 5.
   • You don't even have to because it's in ref 6. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

     Not fixed. Ref 6 is empty. Ruslik_Zero 12:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

     • Done. Mario1987
5. The ref 8 does not support the claim that the wind potential of Dobruja is 10,000 MW.

   Fixed. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

6. The country's technical wind potential is between 3,000 MW and 9,000 MW. Can you explain the meaning of this sentence and how it relates to the previous sentence, where it is claimed that the wind potential of Romainia is 14,000 MW?
   • Total wind power capacity that can be assimilated by the national transport grid. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

     Not fixed. I do not see any changes. Ruslik_Zero 12:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

     • How about now? Mario1987 19:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
7. The sentence The Romanian company Blue Investment will invest US$84 million in a 35 MW wind farm in Baia, Tulcea County that will have 14 Nordex N90 turbines producing 2.5 MW each should be moved to the next paragraph.
   • Done. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
8. Can you provide some background information about Dobruja region? This region is not mentioned in the table and its relevance is not clear.
   • The Dobruja region is composed of Constanta and Tulcea counties. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

     Not fixed. No changes. Ruslik_Zero 12:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

     • If you look i added the two counties The Dobruja (Constanţa and Tulcea counties) region has the second-highest wind potential in Europe. Mario1987 09:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

9. Where in the ref 10 can I read that The Italian company Enel plans to build several wind farms with a total capacity of 1,400 MW ?
   • My mistake it is only 350 MW. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
10. Where in ref 13 can I read that which have plans to build wind farms that will have a combined power output of 600 MW with total investments of $800 million?
    • Tweaked that a bit and added new numbers. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

      I do not see 310 MW in refs. Ruslik_Zero 12:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

      • Ref 17 states that the Green Company will invest in three 70MW wind farms which equals 210MW. The second ref states that Electrica will invest in one 100MW wind farm. And 210+100=310 MW. Mario1987 13:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
11. In the table the Capacity should be changed to Installed capacity.

    Done. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

12. I do not have time to check all references but until they all are checked I will not support. For instance, I checked ref 17 and found that it does not contain any information about the size of investement (1400 million) or Blackstone.
    • No because it's in euro. One billion. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

      I meant that you should check all other refs and report results. Ruslik_Zero 12:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ruslik_Zero 08:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of references Nergaal (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Nergaal (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

what makes these reliable? http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:BaJbCWAAF4wJ:www.euractiv.ro/uniunea-europeana/articles%257CdisplayArticle/articleID_14619/Cel_mai_mare_parc_eolian_terestru_din_Europa_se_construieste_in_Dobrogea.html+139+turbine&cd=2&hl=ro&ct=clnk&gl=ro It's the only ref i could find about the height of the turbine and the diametre of the blades. Mario1987 21:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC) http://energieverde.wordpress.com/2007/12/17/mediafax-investitiile-in-energia-eoliana-raman-deocamdata-la-nivel-de-intentie/ Replaced. Mario1987 21:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.ziare.com/Energia_eoliana_in_Europa_de_cinci_ori_puterea_instalata_a_Romaniei-126745.html Couldn't find any other ref to support the figures from this ref. Mario1987 21:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.editiaspeciala.com/stiri/2008-02-13/Iberdrola-cumpara-centrale-eoliene-de-300-de-milioane-de-euro-43738.asp Replaced. Mario1987 21:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.ecomagazin.ro/green-energy-grup-300-milioane-de-euro-pentru-parcuri-eoliene/ Replaced. Mario1987 21:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.biodieselmagazin.ro/revista/studii/443/creste-numarul-investitiilor-centrale-eoliene Replaced. Mario1987 21:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.ziare.com/Peste_1_miliard_de_euro_vor_fi_investiti_de_Blackstone_intr_un_parc_eoli-358852.html Linked with the one below. Mario1987 21:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.ziarulring.ro/stiri/ne_facem_parc_eolian_in_marea_neagra.html Backed up by another ref. Mario1987 21:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC) http://energieverde.wordpress.com/2007/12/17/mediafax-investitiile-in-energia-eoliana-raman-deocamdata-la-nivel-de-intentie/ Replaced. Mario1987 21:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.9am.ro/stiri-revista-presei/Business/19661/Vintul-de-pe-Calimani-bate-pentru-buzunarele-nemtilor Replaced. Mario1987 21:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.bloombiz.ro/business/prima-centrala-eoliana-din-romania-in-caras-severin Can't find other ref. Mario1987 21:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.edch.ch/projects/descriptions.shtml Same as above. Mario1987 21:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.green-report.ro/revista-presei/curentul-cel-mai-mare-parc-eolian-din-tara-la-suceava Replaced. Mario1987 21:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.stirilocale.ro/Fonduri_germane_pentru_un_parc_eolian_IDN660974.html Backed up by another ref. Mario1987 21:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.cancan.ro/2007-06-13/Voiculescu-impanzeste-litoralul-cu-centrale-eoliene.html Replaced. :) Mario1987 21:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC) The problem is that most of these are borderline reliable. I strongly suggest backing up most of these references with a second one that at least mentions part of the referenced information. And btw, delete the cancan one! Also, you may want to add another column for the references themselves, on the lines of this list. Nergaal (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I have played a bit with the format; feel free to undo it if you think it was better before. Nergaal (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC) please replace http://energieverde.wordpress.com/2007/12/17/mediafax-investitiile-in-energia-eoliana-raman-deocamdata-la-nivel-de-intentie/ with the original: http://www.mediafax.ro/economic/investitiile-in-energia-eoliana-raman-deocamdata-la-nivel-de-intentie-2307782 Replaced. Mario1987 12:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC) replace: http://www.stirilocale.ro/Fonduri_germane_pentru_un_parc_eolian_IDN660974.html with http://ue.mae.ro/pdf/2009.05.04_highlights18.pdf Replaced. Mario1987 12:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC) move the references into a separate column such as in here. Done. Mario1987 12:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC) please tidy up the publishers entries. (i.e. "zf.ro => Ziarul Financiar) Nergaal (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Nergaal (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Done. Mario1987 12:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Not really: i.e. "ue.mae.ro" Done. Mario1987 20:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC) none of the references have authors listed, although about 2/3 should. Nergaal (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC) What do the other reviewers thing about this? Mario1987 20:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• OPPOSE I spent time on this list assuming that the nominator has done his job of putting adequate references for each of the numbers. But whan I went and checked each article I was shocked to find out that at the first couple of them at least one of the cost/capacity was missing, or even worse, wrong! I am not going to spend more time on this since wp:assume good faith doesn't seem to work here. Nergaal (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I removed the cost column but please show me a single ref that states the installed capacity wrong. Mario1987 19:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Valul lui Traian; (and I checked only the ones in consturction minus the money.ro refereces)

You're right on this one. Doesn't have any reference about the 10MW. I'll remove it from the list. Mario1987 09:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If I remember well, the ref actually said something like 30MW; could you actually check the ref first? Nergaal (talk) 02:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Liteni should probably be Liteni-Dolhasca;

Fixed that. Mario1987 09:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

1. are you sure that Blue Investment Baia and Blue Planet Baia aren't the same thing?

No it isn't. Blue Planet is a separate company that is part of the Blue Investment holding. Mario1987 09:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

1. the project name column falls into the wp:OR. Absolutely none of the refs I just checked gives names for the project; they might end up with these names, but since most of the names aren't referenced I suggest switching the column name to Localoties or something like this. Furthermore, you seem to have created 20+ stubs about the farms that uses article names that have no reference. I strongly suggest merging those stubs into the localities they refer to, since that way at least there is no citation problem (at least for those under 100 MW or so).

Yes but wind projects usually get their name from the location in which they are constructed so i can't agree with what you posted above. Mario1987 09:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion: this list is noway near FLing. Nergaal (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Ref 2 redirects to the main page of the site rather than going to the exact source page. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Mario1987 20:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, but I hope to be able to support it soon.
  • The text at the beginning of the article seems disjointed -- the logic of the sequence of topics is not completely clear.
  • Also, there are "language" problems in the text at the beginning of the article. It needs to be copy-edited to become native-speaker-quality English.
  • A particular issue in rewriting the text is to ensure that the article does not make Knowledge (XXG) into a crystal ball. In describing future projects, use language like "is planned to be" or "was scheduled to be", not "will".
  • I am troubled by the lack of sources for some facts in the table. This is a difficult type of list to assemble because there is no single convenient source for all of the information. Nevertheless, it cannot become a Featured List until all of the information is supported by cited sources. --Orlady (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:50, 24 August 2009 .

---

Nominator(s): Truco ₅₀₃ and --WillC 07:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Truco ₅₀₃ and myself are nominating this article for FLC after an extensive expansion from what it once was to what it is now. I feel it passes the criteria at the moment, as for him I don't know. He probably does but I would rather not speak for him. Any comments will be handled by either one of us.--WillC 07:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Disclaimer - I won't be on Wiki from 8/6-8/11.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I've read a lot (not all from what Knowledge (XXG) would label reliable sources, admittedly) about the way this title was treated, particularly during the 24/7 period. People seem to consider the title a bit of a joke, so I was thinking that covering that sort of reception might be appropriate. For example, one page 201 of The WrestleCrap Book of Lists!, it discussed Terri Runnels holding the belt. Some relevant passages include: "...the WWF Hardcore title was largely a joke throughout its brief history" and "...the Hardcore championship was so prestigious that it was being defended not only in the ring, but at other locations, such as airports, hotel rooms and the local Chuck E. Cheese." This editorial is also a good source covering this aspect of the title. I'm also confused as to why the title changes from the Hardcore Battle Royal aren't included. The title changed hands 10 or 11 times during the match, and each time, someone was announced as the new champion. I realize you're using wwe.com as the source, but I think this is at least worth noting (Solie's lists all of the title changes in the match; do you know if the Will & Duncan Wrestling Title Histories book does?). GaryColemanFan (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Well I would add the reception aspect to the article but I feel that is better fit in the main article. As for the hardcore battle royal, I don't have a source that says they were even considered champions in the first place. I would need something that says they were recognized first to even consider adding them. Only Solie includes them, but Solie includes alot of things this time. As for Wrestling Titles, it only goes to late 99.--WillC 10:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I was thinking, wasn't the hardcore battle royal just an early version of the Championship Scramble? If so, then maybe they were interim-champions and not actual champions.--WillC 10:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Agreed, it was a version of the Scramble and I remember watching that match and the commentators did state that the wrestler last holding the title would be the champion, nothing about the other wrestlers if they won the title during the match. In addition, I also feel that information about reception would be better off in the main article, maybe a note in this article, but further info should go in the main article.--Truco ₅₀₃ 15:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I forgot about the article splitting, so the reception is better in the other article. As for the Hardcore Battle Royal, they definitely made it clear that each of the falls during the match was a legitimate title change. From a video on YouTube whose title rhymes with "Trestlemania '00 - Hardcore Battle Royal 1/4", referee Tim White discussed the match beforehand with the participants: "...there could be as many belt changes as there might be within that time frame. It could be one, could be two, could be ten times." Announcer Jim Ross then clarified: "The title can changes hands any number of times, and whomever is the champion at the end of fifteen minutes leaves with the gold." After the first of many falls in the match, the ring announcer stated, "Here is the new Hardcore Champion: Tazz!" This is also supported by the writeup on WWE.com (): "WrestleMania 2000 saw the Hardcore Championship change hands 11 times, as a result of the unique stipulations of the 15-minute Hardcore Battle Royal. At the end of the match, Hardcore Holly was the champion." GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Okay, I'll add them in.--WillC 23:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
            • I found this article which says the exact rules of the match and is dated around the time of WrestleMania 2000, and it says that only who is champion at the end of the match is important.--WillC 23:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
              • That article confirms that each of the falls was a legitimate title change. Interestingly, it points out that this will make it difficult for people keeping title lists. I see that John Powell is as prophetic as ever. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess it is a matter of one's own opinion after they read it because "The match will go on for fifteen minutes and although anyone can be pinned for the title, it doesn't matter because whoever is still holding the belt at the end of time limit hangs is the official winner." says to be that the final person to get a pin will be the official champion after the 15 minutes.--WillC 01:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• The final person to get a pin will be the official champion at the end of the match, but everyone in between who gets a pin becomes champion. The "it doesn't matter" part would refer to the fact that being reigning champion is more important than being a former champion. However, I'm feeling like having a debate on the content is out of place on the FLC page. Perhaps this is better suited for the WT:PW page? GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that probably would be beter. I see them being interim champions, alot like the Scamable. Maybe WWE refs to the interim changes.--WillC 03:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Consensus seems to have been reached, which states that the reigns should be included in the table as unofficial reigns. They are included as such. However, because they are unofficial by this standard, they should not be counted in the "Reign" column, nor should they be included in the "List of combined reigns" table. At present, the article is factually inaccurate. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • As I said at WT:PW the section does not read "List of combined official reigns" nor does the column in the main table say "official reigns". We have several sources say they are official and then ones which say they aren't, so at the moment there is nothing inaccurate.--WillC 00:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • For one, Knowledge (XXG) is not censored or obligated to go by what WWE wants their title histories to read. The fact is that the championship reigns that occurred during the battle royal occurred nevertheless. Which makes them official reigns because the WWF did not specifically state during the battle royal that the reigns would not be official, it was only until the title was retired in 2002 that it was noted as such. Many of my lists had unofficial reigns or reigns that occurred but were not mentioned by the promotion, what I did was added the reign because it actually happened but I denoted that the promotion does not recognize it due to so and so. Same here. --Truco ₅₀₃ 01:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
      • As have I. With List of TNA X Division Champions I did the same as with here. If it happened and WWE recognized them for even a single second as champion, then the reign is official, even if the promotion does not ever again.--WillC 10:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
        • So, what was the purpose of the discussion at WT:PW if you are unwilling to go with the consensus? GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Those reigns are "unofficially" recognized by the promotion, but they actually did occur-> we aren't saying they are official or not, we are just counting the reigns as they happened, which is needed for sorting and stats purposes. It is denoted, or it should be, that those reigns aren't recognized by WWE but they did occur or that the "rules were unclear, so they are counted for sorting and statistics purposes only". This is what we do for other lists for unofficial reigns.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
            • The discussion was whether to add them or not, not how to add them. At the moment I see nothing wrong with the article in history stand-point. The reigns occurred so they should be counted. If not counted then what is the point of them being in?--WillC 16:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
              • I was asked to revisit this FLC and update my comments. Since nothing has changed, however, I continue to oppose. As shown in numerous precedents (Antonio Inoki#Early years and The Rockers#Tag team title controversy are good examples), the promotion controls the official title history (hence, Inoki is not recognized as a WWF Heavyweight Champion, and The Rockers are not recognized as WWF Tag Team Champions). This is not a case of censorship; it is simply a fact of life when it comes to a staged sport. Sources indicate the there were numerous "belt changes" at WrestleMania 2000, but they are not included in the official title history. They should be included because they show the transitions the belt took and consensus was to add them as unofficial reigns. To say that someone with an unofficial reign is a former champion, however, is inconsistent. The reigns should be listed as they are, but they should not be counted in the "Reign number" column, and they shouldn't be in the combined reigns table. Saying that they need to be counted (and that Knowledge (XXG) needs to give false information) so that a table will sort properly makes no sense. As far as "statistical purposes" go, I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. If the problem lies with the column title or the table's name, the title and/or name should be fixed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• We are based on facts, the facts on the reigns happened, they are, or have been, recognized by WWE, which makes them official. Tomorrow WWE could say Randy Orton was the first WWE Champion in 1899. Should we rewrite that entire article because that is what WWE recognizes? No, we note it, but do not list it as official because we know it never happened.--WillC 05:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Your example is ridiculous. Arguing by strawman doesn't prove anything other than an unwillingness to have a sensible discussion. But yes, there are examples in which wrestlers are said to have won titles that they simply didn't win. Countless titles have been introduced and/or have changed hands through "tournaments" that never existed. They are counted as legitimate title changes, because it is the promotion that controls the title history in a fictional sport. As another example, the Eastern Sports Association states that Jack and Jerry Brisco held the ESA International Tag Team Championship in 1976. The Brisco Brothers never wrestled together in ESA. Once again, though, it's counted as an official reign. At any rate, consensus was to include them as unofficial reigns. You have chosen to ignore the consensus. I oppose. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • You act as if a consensus at WT:PW is the final decision. No, they aren't. Again, they have been added as unofficial, but the columns do not read official reigns. There was no questions on how exactly they would be added. Just added as unofficial reigns.--WillC 01:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 03:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments – The 85th title reign is sorting as the final one in the table. Fixed.--WillC 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Note for entry 1: Change "becoming" to "who became", since it reads like McMahon became the first title-holder. Fixed.--WillC 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC) List of combined reigns: Wrestlers who held the belt less than a day are sorting after those whose reigns lasted a full day. I don't see the problem.--WillC 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Look at this way: which is more, 24 hours or one hour? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC) No, I don't see the problem in the sorting. Everything seems fine on my end.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC) OK, sorting fixed. The {{sort}} template is used far more than it needs to be, but no point in fixing what isn't broken. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC) The original problem is fixed, but now the sorting from highest to lowest is all over the place. It may need the template after all. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Fixed one; couldn't find anything else. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Not sure a See also link for hardcore wrestling is needed, seeing as one is included in the lead. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Fixed.--WillC 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Capping only, due to the discussion above on whether or not reigns should be included in certain tables. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Spell out WWE on its first appearance. That would result in The World Wrestling Entertainment Hardcore Championship, which in a way is still correct but the official name of the title was just the WWE Hardcore Championship.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC) "American-based" I think I've brought this up before. You can't have something based in "American". Try "U.S.-based" Fixed.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC) "a regulation where"-->a regulation stating that Fixed.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC) "the rule was deactivated in 2002" Never heard of a rule being "deactivated" before. Maybe "discontinued" or "removed"? Fixed.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC) "Ladder match" Why is this capitalized? It is a proper name.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC) It isn't in the main article. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC) I usually cap it because I believe it is a proper name. Not sure why it isn't in the main article.--WillC 23:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Its not a proper name, its a common match name. "Hell in a Cell" is proper name only used by WWE while "ladder match" is used by the entire pro wrestling industry.--Truco 503 00:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Okay, fixed--WillC 01:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC) "the Hardcore Championship soon-after was retired."-->the Hardcore Championship was retired shortly thereafter. Fixed.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC) "there were 221 reigns among 47 wrestlers"-->there were 221 reigns shared between 47 wrestlers Fixed.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC) "all of which occurred in Canada, England, Germany, Scotland, and the United States."-->all of whom won in Canada, England, Germany, Scotland, and the United States. Fixed.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC) "at 154 days with four reigns"-->at 154 days in 4 reigns Fixed.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC) "Due to the "24/7 rule", numerous wrestlers held the title less than one day, and due to the unknown exact time each wrestler held the title, each of their reigns are regarded as the shortest in the title's history."-->Due to the "24/7 rule", numerous wrestlers held the title less than one day, and because exact time at which each wrestler held the title is unknown, each of their reigns is regarded as the shortest in the title's history. Fixed.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC) "Names" table—naming the column "Years" is inaccurate, since those are full dates. Fixed.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC) "A 24/7 rule is applied to the championship, in which it can be won at anytime, anywhere as long as a referee is present."-->The 24/7 rule was applied to the championship; it could be won at anytime and anywhere as long as a referee was present. Fixed.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC) "The 24/7 rule is deactivated on August 19, " Change "is" to "was". Fixed.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Can you center the List of combined reigns table as you did in the main table? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Fixed.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC) The combined reign table sorting issue still needs to be worked out—see my comment above under Giants'. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Like above, I don't see the problem so I'm not sure how to fix something I can't see, sorry.--WillC 23:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look mostly good, though reviewers are invited to comment on the below. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• PWtorch and WrestleView have been identified as iffy before. I'll let other reviewers comment on this as well. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • PWTorch is backed up by plenty of other third party sites and James Caldwell and Wade Keller, the main journalist, have been involved in wrestling for several years. WrestleView is usually only supposed to be used for results and non-controversial material. It is safe to use in this instance I do believe.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Having reviewed all wrestling lists to come through FLC in the past 9 months, I'm aware of this. I'm just mentioning it so that other reviewers can comment on them too. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, the highs and the lows. The comment was mainly for future reviewers.--WillC 23:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Jpeeling (talk · contribs)

Oppose I've only checked about half the list thus far but there appears to be a mountain of discrepancies which need fixing, those I found so far: Sorry, I thought everything was correct before nominating. Such a long list, I must have lost track.--WillC 04:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC) William Regal has three reigns in first table, eight in second. Fixed.--WillC 04:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Al Snow has six reigns in first table, four in second. Fixed.--WillC 04:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Joey Abs has one reign in first table, two in second. Fixed.--WillC 04:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Christopher Nowinski has two reigns in first table, one in second. Fixed.--WillC 04:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC) The Big Show has three reigns in the first table, two in second, combined days doesn't tally either. I only found two reigns in the main table; reigns 72 and 76 are all I find. Days total is fixed.--WillC 04:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 182? --Jpeeling (talk) 09:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Fixed.--WillC 15:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Crash Holly's is sorted by both Crash and Holly, combined days don't tally either. Fixed. Totally my fault. I must have not been paying attention when I did that table.--WillC 04:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Pete Gas is sorted by both Pete and Gas. Fixed.--WillC 04:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Billy Gunn is sorted by both Billy and Gunn. Fixed. Still learning how to use the sort template. Just recently got it down. Should have fixed this list when I did.--WillC 04:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Bradshaw doesn't have a 13th reign but has two 9th reigns. Fixed. My error in my copying and pasting names over and over. Steven Richards goes up to 22 reigns but doesn't have an 18th. Fixed.--WillC 04:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Also the second table doesn't sort properly for either number of reigns or combined days. I would hope that once these have been fixed, similar checks could be made to make sure everything tallies. --Jpeeling (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. My errors, I must have not noticed. This list was so long and too so long to update, I got fed up with it. So I guess I didn't do one last check up before nominating. My bad, sorry.--WillC 04:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC) A few more fixes: Maven has three reigns on first table, one on the second. Fixed.--WillC 22:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Pat Patterson has one reign on first table, two on the second. Fixed.--WillC 22:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Steven Richards has 21 on first table, 22 on second. Fixed.--WillC 22:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Al Snow combined days don't tally. Fixed.--WillC 22:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Should the location of reign number 204 be Greensboro, North Carolina? No and Fixed.--WillC 22:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC) No and Fixed are mutually exclusive. I assume there was only one Raw event on July 29, 2002 so the venue for 204 should be Greensboro, North Carolina rather than Columbia, South Carolina? --Jpeeling (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I marked them all as fixed then went and did them all at once. I must have missed that one. I am now sure that it is fixed, since I just finished the edit.--WillC 23:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC) I've not seen the spelling of Pensilvania, on reign numbers 98, 209 and 210, before. Is there a reason why Pennsylvania isn't used. Typos, fixed.--WillC 22:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Other locations with spelling errors: Tennesee, Massechunets, Clorado. I'm not American so they may be a few more I haven't spotted. More typos, to be honest I suck at spelling state names to begin with; they are fixed.--WillC 22:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Also can the dates in the references be made easier to read and consistent with the rest of the article, i.e. August 25, 2002 rather than 2002-08-25. --Jpeeling (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Fixed ref date formatting. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC) One more fix: The note for reign 12 has "Smith awarded the title to Snow." Smith who? I presume Davey Boy Smith (The British Bulldog) but as that name isn't used in the article it wouldn't be clear to the reader. --Jpeeling (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC) I forgot to update that note apparently. Recently I found out that Davey Boy Smith actually won the title under his British Bulldog ring name, and I had the article using his real name. When I changed the names, I must have forgot to change the note as well. Fixed now.--WillC 21:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. --Jpeeling (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - There are a few errors that need to be addressed. Mshake3 (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Like what? Be exactly please.--WillC 06:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 17:52, 18 August 2009 .

---

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have fixed all the issues addressed in the previous submission and I think its good to go know. Kumioko (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

*"Austria-Hungary" Should be an en dash. Done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC) "More than 40 million casualties resulted, including approximately 20 million military and civilian deaths. More than 60 million European soldiers were mobilized" I think the order of the sentences should be switched, and perhaps change one of the "More than"s to "Over". Done. --Kumioko (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC) "for the movie Sergeant York" Movies are in italics. Done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC) "and Edward Rickenbacker, who became an American flying ace." Is there a link for "flying ace"? How is the term being used here (i.e. specific number of planes downed or just, "he was a good figher pilot")? An Ace is someone who downed at least 5 planes. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC) The alt text is present, thanks. You can omit details about the provenance of the image, such as "colorized" or "black-and-white" image. Done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I haven't the time or willpower to check all the notes, but please ensure the following: That only complete sentences have periods at the end. "Led his battalion in multiple attacks against the enemy and repeatedly risked his life to eliminate enemy soldiers, gun emplacements and a tank." is not a complete sentence and should not have a period. Another example: "Continued to fight although suffering from severe wounds." That anything copied verbatim has quotes around it. Whenever possible, try to paraphrase the citations. "During an attack by U-boats." from James J. Madison is not exactly helpful. "In broad daylight and under direct observation of the enemy he advanced to the crest of the hill, rescued 6 of his wounded comrades."-->In broad daylight and under direct observation of the enemy, he advanced to the crest of the hill and rescued 6 of his wounded comrades. Done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC) "of french colonials" "french" should be capitalized. Done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC) "but Sgt. Foster continued" Spell out "Sgt." in full. Done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC) "Upon hearing a call for help from an American tank which had become disabled 30 yards (27 m) from them" Are the metric conversions part of the quoted text? If not, they should be in square brackets: "...which had become disabled 30 yards from them" You link some locations, but not others. Done, sorta. I linked all the locations but it appears that some do not have articles so I need to go back through and remove some of the red links. --Kumioko (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Link depth charge. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Weak oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• The sorting of the location column is strange. For example, "on the French front" comes after "Off Pula, Austria-Hungary". You may need to use sortkeys with {{sort}}.
• Em dashes in the blank image captions cells.

Not sure what you mean here, are you talking about the column where the image is? If that is the case should I put the no image image rather than an endash in the middle of the cell? --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "cells". Dabomb87 (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• What makes http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/casualties.htm reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Surprisingly, Medal of Honor isn't linked at all in the prose; it should be linked the first time it is mentioned.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• "and Edward Rickenbacker, who became an American flying ace." - I think the inclusion of "American" is redundant as, considering the MoH is a US decoration, this is already assumed.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• As the United States did not officiall enter the war until 1917, I think this should be mentioned. If a person was reading the list at the moment, they might mistakenly assume the US joined the war straight away.

Done. I also made mention of some americans going to fight before the US actually declared war. --Kumioko (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Also, the dual MoH recipients of World War I should probably be mentioned in the prose.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endashes should be used between date ranges, rather than "to".

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to make mention of a couple things I will be doing to hopfully wrap this up. It will likely be end of the week before I get all this done.

• I am going to create articles for the recipients that don't have them yet as well as for a couple of the ships (Chestnut Hill) or other red links.
• I am going to remove some of the red links of some of the locations.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• I am going to go through each and every note to make sure that quotes are quoted or paraphrased and ensure there are periods (full stops for you brits :-)) were there should be and none where there shouldn't be. I think its good to go but I might have missed one here and there. --Kumioko (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, I also checked and fixed a ref and I checked the alt text and fixed woodfill. --Kumioko (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text is mostly present, but is missing for three images (see "alt text" button in toolbox at upper right of this review page). The alt text that is present is of low quality: every entry says "An image of a man in his military uniform" which conveys almost no useful information in this context. The alt text should say what's visually distinctive about each image. Eubulides (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If you could give me an example of a good one that would be appreciated. --Kumioko (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert in describing military uniforms, but for File:Johannes Anderson.jpg you might try something like "Head and shoulders of a clean-cut square-jawed young man in brown army uniform, U.S. Army World War I style with a campaign hat, in front of a U.S. flag". Perhaps an expert can make it briefer. Eubulides (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

As with the current descriptions several if not all could be described the same way or similar. This is the biggest problem with alt text, how to describe a picture in less than a thousand words and have it still be meaningful to the reader. This is especially problematic with lists like this with multiple portrait images. I am going to leave the alt text as is for now, but I am still open to changing it if someone has a good way of describing each one in a way that identifies them uniquely. --Kumioko (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If all the images look alike, then what's the point of including them at all? But they don't all look alike (obviously), and their differences can be described briefly. Putting the same alt text in all the images is worse than omitting the alt text entirely. Better would be to describe the first image in some detail (as I did above, for the 1st image), and then have the later images briefly describe what's different about them. Eubulides (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

To try to help out, I added alt text for the first few portaits. They don't look alike, and their alt text differed too. Please try to use this as a guide for the remaining portraits. Also, alt text is needed for the non-portrait images. Eubulides (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• There appears to be some inconsistency with regard dates over two days most are American style (e.g. September 26, 1918 – September 27, 1918 for Deming Bronson) and some are in British style (e.g. 2– 8 October 1918 for George G. McMurtry). Other British style ones are Samuel I. Parker and Charles W. Whittlesey, also the date for George S. Robb uses "and" instead of a dash, is this significant? --Jpeeling (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • Not sure why we wait three whole paras in the lead before we're told what the MOH is.

Just because it takes a while to explain WWI. I Can break it into a different section if you think that would be better. --Kumioko (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• • I'd unlink Canada and link U-boat.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Also not sure we need to link to "causality" in this article.

Done. I delinked it. --Kumioko (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• • "Within a month, much of Europe was in a state of open warfare with over 60 million European soldiers being mobilized, and more than 40 million casualties, including approximately 20 million deaths." - reading this a couple of times, it implies that there were 40 million casualties and 20 million deaths "within a month". Suggest a reword.
  • "to broker a peace." just reads a little odd to me, "a peace".
  • Format of dates in references should be consistent i.e. all human readable or all ISO.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• • "violation ... U.S. ideas of human rights." - another odd sentence. What, exactly, does "ideas of" mean here?
  • You quickly abbreviate United States to U.S. but then go back to using United States quite a bit...
  • "Due to the nature of this medal" - it's not the nature of the medal, it's the criteria associated with its award. Rephrase I think.
  • " the Medal of Honor was established, only 19 recipients have received the Medal of Honor twice" - MOH repeated, reads poorly.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• • "are copied in their entirety from the actual Medal of Honor citation" - is this okay, copyright-wise?

Yes, the citations are not subject to copyright as a work of the US Government. With that said I have shortened most of them so that the entire citation is not in it, they are just too long.--Kumioko (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• • "machinegun" or "machine-gun"?

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Check in the Notes for numbers below 10 which could be written in words per MOSNUM, e.g. "lead 3 other" - led three other...

Is this really appropriate if I am quoting something? --Kumioko (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• • "Near" or "near" in place of action.

Does this mean you want me to remove the word completely or choose one or the other?--Kumioko (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Should all the "near"s sort together? Probably better if they sorted by country or something rather than "near"...
  • USS Mowhawk appears to link to a dab page. I'd check the other ships if I were you.
  • What particular relevance do the two "unknown soldier" See also links have to this specific list?

They where awarded the Medal of Honor but because they are unknown I did not include them in the list. --Kumioko (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose On top of the problems listed above:
• Why are there some variations in the date format in the dates column

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• October 2, 1918 – October 8, 1918 for Holderman, should be October 2–8, 1918

Done. For consistency I made them all the full dates because some had different dates or spanned different months. --Kumioko (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think it would be better to say official MoH citation not actual MoH citation in the italics at the top of the table
• Inconsistencies in the location column: Why are some of the places linked and others not? e.g In the forest of Argonne, France and in the Boise de Belleau, France
  • The locations that can be linked are, all the rest don't have pages yet. --Kumioko (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • WP:REDLINK, how are you going to know when they are linked so that they can be turned blue? Redlinks aren't bad things, they show us gaps in knowledge. You might find as you go along that some of these places do have articles, they are just under slightly different spellings. Woody (talk) 12:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I linked all the locations and then went back and removed the redlinks for 2 reasons. 1 The new rule saying there can't be too many red links in the article and there were a lot of them and 2 I could not tell from the locations where they were. In some cases there were multiple locations in france with the name and it was impossible to identify them specificially without pointing it to a DAB page. --Kumioko (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I initially found that with the VC list but I went through to the unit page, found out where they were operating, then went through to the particular operations page to check and then checked a few sources and every time you could pinpoint the correct one. I don't think that the column should be inconsistent. Woody (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Also note that the inconsistency in capitalising "in"
  • Sorry I don't understand could you explain this? --Kumioko (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Some of the locations use "in" some use "In," note the capital "I". Woody (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• I also think that perhaps sort the "nears" according to the location
• Why has Latham got a huge citation compared to the others?
• Why do the citations differ at all? Some are short succinct versions, some are full quotes eg Sampler: His company having suffered severe casualties during an advance under machinegun fire, was finally stopped. Cpl. Sampler detected the position of the enemy machineguns on an elevation. Armed with German hand grenades, which he had picked up, he left the line and rushed forward in the face of heavy fire until he was near the hostile nest, where he grenaded the position. His third grenade landed among the enemy, killing 2, silencing the machineguns, and causing the surrender of 28 Germans, whom he sent to the rear as prisoners. As a result of his act the company was immediately enabled to resume the advance This could be reduced to Sampler detected a machine-gun position that was firing on his company, he grenaded the german position and caused the surrender of 28 germans.
• Why do some of the notes column list citations but others such as Talbot list what amounts to trivia.(First Marine aviator to receive the Medal of Honor.)
• I think you need some way of indicating the double recipients.
  • Any suggestions? --Kumioko (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Random symbol such as ‡, or use a footnote. I used {{ref label}} for the VC ones but then there are only three VC and Bar holders. Woody (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Is http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/casualties.htm reliable? Seems self-published to me

• So, quite a few issues for me. Regards, Woody (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 02:43, 12 August 2009 .

---

Nominator(s): Drdisque (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I nominated this list in December 2007. Back then it had numerous deficiencies and the FLC process helped me identify the deficiencies, not only with regards to the official criteria, but in more qualitative ways.

I currently feel that this list is written in consistent and neutral prose, is extremely well cited, is exhaustive and suffers from less recency bias as in the past (the recency bias that remains is largely due to older violent events not being well documented). It has clear criteria for inclusion and is covers a notable topic. -Drdisque (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggest withdrawal This list is quite interesting, but still has maintanence tags and inline citation requests. In addition, the lead is not long enough and has the non-engaging "This list of violent spectator incidents in sports includes" start (see recently promoted lists for examples of better and more engaging lists). Please resolve the maintanence tags before FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the maintenance tags as they're outdated (and one was incomplete and had no justification). In the whole list, there's 2 or 3 citation needed tags. They're both events that from a confluence of non-journalistic sources did indeed happen, I just can't find the journalistic source that backs it up as the events happened awhile ago. -Drdisque (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed tags are not acceptable as Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability is a part of Knowledge (XXG):Featured list criteria.—Chris! _ct 18:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've removed those few items. It does not substantially affect the quality of the list. Every item in the still very exhaustive list is now cited. -Drdisque (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Issues raised by User:Dabomb87 has not been addressed. Also references aren't formatted correctly and consistently.—Chris! _ct 23:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What issues have not been addressed? All citations meet the requirements of WP:CITE. Using the citation tool templates is optional per WP:CITE. What is not "correct"? It seems to me you fellows are picking nits with regards to things that are not official policy. -Drdisque (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The lead needs to be expanded, the start "This list of violent spectator incidents in sports includes" needs to be rewritten, web references are missing last access dates, others are missing publishers or web titles. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose now because nominator has made no attempt to fix the two major issues above beside comprehensiveness.—Chris! _ct 18:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment It's an interesting list, but as said before, the references is not to standard, for example:

• Ref #2 has no title, date and publisher.
• Ref #16 has no title.
• Ref #43, #46 has no date and publisher.
• Ref #12, #25, #39, #58, #59, #71 has no date.
• Most of the references does not have last access dates or "Retrieved on ..."

The references need to be improved in order to fulfil the FL criteria. Perhaps you want to apply Template:Cite web, Template:Cite book, or similar templates on the references. — Martin tamb (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I like the idea for the list, but I see alot of problems. Since the list is fairly large, I imagine these relatively small problems will present alot of work to address, but I hope someone is up to it.

• The list seems extremely North-American centric. Of all the entries of the list, after a quick scan I found 2 soccer games, one rugby match, one cricket match, and one Olympic match (this isn't a complete list of Non-North American sporting events included, but just the few that I found). Every other instance (and the VAST majority of the list) was either MLB, NFL, NHL, or NBA games. This is a huge problem, in my estimation, and I would oppose it's nomination on this fact alone.
• The dating format is wildly inconsistent. Some entries say "On May 15, 1912", some say "June 4", while still others start with prose then the date ("Bounty Bowl II, December 10"), and some avoid a date all together. My suggestion: we already know the year, so you can omit that. Every entry should have a month and day, probably in international format (day then month, rather than the American format, month then day). I would avoid any text until after the date, preferably incorporating it into the prose.
• In a similar vein, I think it would be helpful if immediately after the date, while still in a listy/data form (ie before the prose starts), one were to include the actual event, ie Super Bowl XXII.
• Also, most of the entries use a hyphen to split up the date and prose, a la "February 12 - In an NHL". A hyphen is not appropriate here; it should be an en-dash (–).
• To make the date stand out a bit, I'd recommend bolding the date.
• To make things clearer, this is basically what I recommend (minus the indent):

• 10 December – Bounty Bowl II. Fans of the Philadelphia...

• Publishers in the references should be wikilinked wherever appropriate. They should also be named after the publisher not neccessarily the source (the publisher isn't "ESPN.com", but "ESPN", for example).
• Citation #2 needs to be formatted correctly.
• Don't abbreviate publisher names unless that's the common form. So AP should probably be Associated Press. Though ESPN should stay ESPN.
• What makes letsrun.com a reliabls source?
• This list definitely needs to include {{Dynamic list}}.
• Avoid bolding the name of the list in the lead when the name of the list is a phrase, like in this case.

I haven't read through any of the prose yet, this is just what I found with a quick style-based scan of the list. Drewcifer (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - there's no images, some sections are wholly unreferenced, and there's some very dodgy prose like "The Los Angeles Dodgers gave out baseballs to paying customers as they entered the gates for a game against the St. Louis Cardinals. The Cardinals leading the game 2-1 as the Dodgers came to bat in the bottom of the 9th inning. The Dodgers had given away thousands of baseballs to fans coming to the game as a promotion." The main problem, however, is the disproportionate coverage. All the way up to 1992, there's only two incidents from outside the USA/Canada. Hooliganism was a huge problem at British football matches in the 1970s and 80s (and to a lesser extent in other European countries), with incidents regularly making the national news and even being discussed in Parliament (some incidents, such as the 1985 Kenilworth Road riot even have their own WP articles) yet the article makes no mention of this at all, which I would argue means that it fails criterion 3 (comprehensiveness). -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that the list is of incidents that involve fans and participants. Many football riots do not involve participants. -Drdisque (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Even so, there were a number of incidents in the 1970s and 80s which did involve fans and participants. For example, you note the Peterborough-Kingstonian "goalie felled by coin throwing" incident, yet don't note a similar incident involving Leicester City and Burton Albion in 1985. There was also a well-known incident in 1980 when a fan attacked Gordon Strachan. There are certainly more examples.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose and definite withdrawl. Dodgy formatting, referencing, and how can you ever really know it's complete? What is the standard for entry? For example, in 2009 there is a high school-based incident listed, do we really think we can source and list ALL high school incidents? Or even just for this year, does this guy count? Staxringold _talk 17:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• In the list's defense, a topic like this will never be complete, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a list about the topic. There are "incomplete" lists that have been promoted to FL, such as the List of Gay/Bisexual people lists. This is why I recommended the use of the {{Dynamic list}} template. That said, I stand by my oppose, and I'm not trying to negate yours. This list has alot of problems besides not being definitive. Drewcifer (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely. My point was it's not just incomplete, but it's not clear in what WAY it's incomplete. Are we trying to document HS events, or is that just a random one that slipped in? What about Little League explosions?

Someone else added that High School one. I left it because it was extensively covered by the American media. I debated whether it was worthy myself. I'm fine with withdrawing it now. I'm finally getting real feedback now. The first respondents only tried to wikilawyer me by stating that it didn't meet certain referencing criteria that don't actually exist. -Drdisque (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ultimately I just think the list needs some stringent rules set. For example, all the "Tallest building" lists have an in-article rule for what is necessary to qualify (400 foot example, 250 foot example). Or the list I just created and is up for DYK, has $30k as a set rule because that's what there's clear source material for (and will have a $50k+ career winners list later for the same reason). Is this only for professional leagues? What qualifies as violent? Etc, etc. Staxringold _talk 00:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:57, 11 August 2009 .

---

Nominator(s): Drewcifer (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've submitted a list to FLC, so here's goes nothing! Pretty straight-forward discography for a pretty cool group. Should be up to par with FLC criteria and MOS:DISCOG. Please let me know if you have any concerns or comments. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Image caption: "Massive Attack in Concert" Why is "Concert" capitalized? No need to link England. You link extended plays, but not albums, singles or compilations. "and was eventually certified Double Platinum" Word doesn't add much here. "UK Single Chart" I do believe it's the UK Singles Chart. "Massive Attack's most recent album, 100th Window was" Comma after "Window". "a compilation release collecting all of the group's singles and music videos." I think "collecting all" can be excised. "in 7 countries total" "7"-->7, and "total" is unnecessary. Why is "Eleven Promos" bolded? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Comment Image needs alternative text per WP:ALT. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I see. This is a new process to me, so let me know if the alt text I've added is sufficient. Drewcifer (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Looks great! Also, the BPI refs seem to have gone dead (check the toolbox). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Uh-oh. After some snooping around, I found this notice on the BPI website: "PLEASE NOTE: THE SEARCHABLE DATABASE IS TEMPORARILY INACCESSIBLE BUT WILL BE REINSTATED SOON - PLEASE BEAR WITH US" (). So could you bear with me as I bear with them? =) Drewcifer (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC) No problem. First Billboard, then this... Dabomb87 (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Billboard's always been a mess. I've never used that stupid site for anything. Though the BPI thing is a little worrying... Drewcifer (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and your support. Drewcifer (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good, the below notwithstanding. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Would be nice if you could find an alternative source to EveryHit, but I won't press the issue if you can't.
• Unlink the dates in the references. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• All fixed except the EveryHit thing. Can't find that particular morsel of data anywhere else. Is EveryHit not considered reliable anymore? (Like I said, I haven't done one of these in a while). Drewcifer (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• EveryHit isn't the most reliable of sources, but it's accepted if there's no good alternative. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well the thing is, I haven't found that little tidbit of information anywhere else (which is why its confined to a single cell). So in other words no reliable source states that fact. So if I were to remove it, it wouldn't be that big of a deal, since we're not sure if it's true or not. I guess it depends on how much we trust EveryHit. What do you think? Drewcifer (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's alright either way (editorial decision). Dabomb87 (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll leave it in then. I have on reason to distrust EveryHit. If at some point there's a consensus about EveryHit and it's deemed unreliable, then I'll just take it out at that point. Drewcifer (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Solution! I've dug around a little, and I found a chart listing for "Unfinished Sympathy" at Chart Stats! It was listed under "Massive" for some reason, see here (lists at #13). Dt SpeakToMe 20:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Better solution! From the official website. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Massiveattack.ie isn't the official website. Dt SpeakToMe 20:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And now I look terribly stupid. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it ;) Dt SpeakToMe 20:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The following was originally posted at User talk:Matthewedwards

Ah, ok. Everyhit.com. Yeah, the fact that you can't link to the results is a pain in the ass, but http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/, which releases the chart first per their agreement with the Official Charts Company links to the site.

Alternatively, there is the British Hit Singles & Albums and The Virgin Book of British Hit Singles which undoubtedly provide some of the best resources. http://www.theofficialcharts.com/links.php now gives only Radio 1 and The Sun as official chart licensees, but I remember when I lived in the UK that Heat, Broadcast, ChartsPlus, Music Week, and a few other newspapers such as the Monday edition of the Daily Mirror also listed the charts. I suppose at a stretch you could cite a weekly publication for each peak position. Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for the investigative work! I've replaced the reference. Drewcifer (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If I've read the above right and what you need is a reference from one of the British Hit Singles books for "Unfinished Sympathy"'s peak position, I can get that for you next time I'm on WP at home as opposed to at work. Prod me if I haven't done it in a couple of days. Oh, and for info, that single was indeed released under the name "Massive" as opposed to "Massive Attack", so ChartStats is correct there. It was because during the first Gulf War the BBC banned all songs with titles or artist names which evoked war, so they had to lose the word "Attack" or risk getting no airplay -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments/Oppose (for now) from Dt128 (talk · contribs)

• More comments from Dt128 (talk · contribs)

• No need to wikilink UK Singles Chart in the note following the extended plays section.
  • Why was this not done? Dt SpeakToMe 10:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed, and reworded a bit, since I realized it might be a little unclear why the note is there. Drewcifer (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I think this happened because extended plays are illegible for inclusion in the UK Albums Chart. Take a look at criteria 3.0 Dt SpeakToMe 10:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think I addressed all of your concerns. Let me know. Drewcifer (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • I believe I've fixed all of the things you've mentioned, except for the few that I've commented on above. Drewcifer (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• More comments from Dt128 (talk · contribs)
• Jason Ankeny is the author of "Massive Attack > Biography". Dt SpeakToMe 21:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Have Massive Attack not featured on any other album/release other than their own? Dt SpeakToMe 21:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• You're right, they've done alot of remixing and production work that I failed to think about/include. See below. Drewcifer (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Note Titles of web pages shouldn't be in all caps; convert them to title case. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Withdraw nomination Thanks for all of the help you guys, but I'm finally realizing I was a little hasty in bringing this to FLC. I've already fixed a bunch of things, but there's still alot more that I failed to notice until the helpful comments of all the reviewers. I'll definitely renominate the list soon, but I don't want to waste everyone's time while I figure this stuff out. Drewcifer (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 18:04, 8 August 2009 .

---

Nominator(s): 十八 01:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list for the third time because I believe all issues have been addressed since the last time it was at FLC, specifically, that it received a copyedit a couple months back, and I believe all the other criteria have already been satisfied since the last time. Hopefully, third time's the charm.--十八 01:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, I count 5 entries in the list, far from the guideline of 10 entries before the list can generally be considered for featured list. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but there is nothing at WP:FL? that states a list must have at least 10 entries before it can become an FL. Not to mention that this is a list of chapters, and there are 35 chapters plus a few extras.--十八 23:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The list does not have one entry per chapter, there are not 35 entries there are 5. The rule of thumb, a sort of unwritten guideline for FLC submissions is 10 or it's too short. It's mentioned in a couple of current reviews, check for yourself. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Unwritten guideline? Is this really the caliber that Knowledge (XXG) has fallen to these days? Honestly, if having 10 entries was so important, then why isn't it a written rule instead of an unwritten one? Why should it be unwritten anyway if misunderstandings like this are just going to serve to clog the candidates page? Why should it be unwritten when that only serves to get people's hopes up that any list of the upmost quality could become an FL? I swear.--十八 07:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Just like GAs and FAs do have to have a certain length so do FLs. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
          • GAs and FAs have no length requirement. FL doesn't have a hard requirement either, but per criterion 3b, lists submitted to FLC are those that could "not reasonably be included as part of a related article". I have always been wary of the ten-item limit, especially since it is "unwritten", but there you go. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
            • As a fourth(?) opinion, the project currently has two other lists at FL status that have less than 10 items: List of FLCL episodes and List of Yotsuba&! chapters. I see no reason why this list wouldn't qualify for FL. Arsonal (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- Why can't it be merged into the main article under the Manga section?--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The main article is already 50KB in length. I really don't think something of this size (~19KB) should be merged into that article. Therefore I do not believe this list could be "reasonably included" as per criteria 3b.--十八 23:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, but I wanna wait to see what other reviewers think. If people agree that it passes 3b, notify me please. I hope you understand.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I forgot that the only thing that would be merged would be the list itself, which I checked at 14KB, but still, the main article is long enough as it is.--十八 02:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
        • To be quite honest, I think adding the list itself there wouldn't hurt. But that's my opinion, I rather see what other reviewers think.--Truco ₅₀₃ 15:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
          • The list could be included in the main article a condensed version (e.g. including only the volume list but not the chapters or summary), but my third opinion thinks the separate article is necessary to better differentiate between the manga and anime if both have relatively the same level of notability and contain differences. Arsonal (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Two things first the main article has just been re-assessed as GA. Merge the list back there and i guess we will do re-assessment again with the funny possibility of the GA reviewer asking the list to be split back. Second there materials to develop the reception part of the main article even more so Juhachi's 50KB is an underestimation. I think the merged article would eventually hit the 70-80 KB where the WP:SIZE gets more ominous. --KrebMarkt 21:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Going through another GAR so soon just because a list is merged back is excessive and unnecessary, since the addition of a simple list wouldn't cause it to fail GA. I would not agree with merging it back, especially if what you say about exceeding 70KB is plausible.--十八 21:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Have you checked the main article talk page? There are translations of a full coverage from a French RS website waiting to be copy-edited, digested and integrated into the article. If used as full citation with quotes, it would require the original French text along to its English translation. I agree that an evil way to increase the article size but that MoS requirement. --KrebMarkt 21:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
      • The sheer size of that French coverage means all of it couldn't be added as that would add undue weight on a single source, and its not like the main article is lacking in reliable reception anyway. I realize that you personally translated it, and thank you for that, but as I said much of it would have to be left out or greatly summarized.--十八 21:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Weren't you the one complaining about the lack of translation :p Let's discuss in Kashimashi talk page --KrebMarkt 10:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Image needs alternative text. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Added.--十八 23:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments I may be mistaken, but I think this list will have the fewest number of volumes out of all manga FLs, if promoted. And by the way...why are all these manga lists called "list of *** chapters"? All of these lists provide info about volumes rather than chapters. There's no talk about chapter 12, for example, but there's a summary for volume 2. I mean other than the number and the name of these chapters, there's no more info about them. Where are the summaries for each chapter?
  I would also like to add that in order to support this list, I'd like to see opinions of a good copy-editor and an uninvolved member of the WikiProject Anime and manga.--Crzycheetah 06:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It's been a long, long standing convention to name such manga lists as "List of **** chapters", as chapters are the least common denominator with how manga are divided, similar to how TV shows are divided into episodes. The reason why the volumes are summarized instead of individual chapters is also a long standing convention, and when {{Graphic novel list}} was being developed, it was decided that it would be done this way. Now, if you're thinking that we should just change it to "List of **** volumes", we can't do that, as we already have other manga lists which just list the volumes, such as List of Naruto manga volumes.--十八 10:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment I think the prose is mostly good, and made a few copy-edits here and there. One sentence confused me, and needs recasting: "On the festival's last day, Hazumu tries to meet up with Yasuna and Tomari but keeps missing them." What does "miss" mean in this context? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• Ref 11 redirects, see the link checker. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Mainly due to concerns about length. I'm not just talking about the rule-of-thumb 10 entries thing, though I think that does still apply. My concern is it's mergability with the main article, and how the list would change if it was indeed merged. The bulk of this list seems to be plot summaries of each volume. If the list were merged into the main article, all of this would probably be covered within the Plot section, thus making the small list even smaller (ie more mergable). I also have some objections to some of the rest of the content used to fill out this list: chapter lists and cover character specifically. I think the chapter names is not unlike avoiding tracklistings in discographies: unnecessary detail that doesn't really have much relevance to the list as a whole. Or in other words, does the fact that chapter 4 of the first volume is named "Tomari, Confused!" have anything to do with anything? And the latter, the cover characters, just seems entirely trivial to me. I must admit I've always avoided reviewing manga FLCs, so for all I know chapter names and cover characters are a common addition to these lists, so I won't hold that particular part against this candidacy. But all of that combined makes me think that merging the list into the main article is clearly the better option here. Drewcifer (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Upon a little research of current FLs, this does seem to be the norm, so ignore the last bit about chapter names and cover characters. I have brought up the subject here though, if anyone would like to speak up about it. Drewcifer (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 02:20, 7 August 2009 .

---

Nominator(s): ≈ Chamal  +Under house arrest!+ 11:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I'm withdrawing this nom. I have done this in rather a hurry, and there seems to be a major error with the article. I cannot work on this right now, so I'll withdraw it now and come back when the article is fixed and ready for another try. Thanks to everyone who reviewed the article and helped improve it :) ≈ Chamal  01:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been working on this article for the past few days. Featured content are an extinct species at Wikiproject Sri Lanka so I thought it was about time it got another one. It was hard to find references -especially web based ones- about the subject (please remember that this is not a highly developed country we are talking about :)) Sources are very few even in the national library. But I have tried to find as many reliable sources as possible, and I think the sources given qualify as that. Anyway, I will make the best effort to address any issues raised here. ≈ Chamal  +Under house arrest!+ 11:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick question - What is the list sorted on? It doesn't seem to be in alphabetic order of district name which is what I was expecting. Boissière (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's sorted by Province. Think it'd be better to change it to alphabetical order of districts then? ≈ Chamal  01:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Basically yes. See similar featured lists such as List of counties in Texas, List of counties in New York or, nearer to Sri Lanka, List of districts of West Bengal. Boissière (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed - arranged by alphabetical order. ≈ Chamal  04:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I've had a longer look at the article and have made some more general comments below. Boissière (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Images need alternative text. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Images in the article already had alt text, and I've made them more descriptive now. However, there is one image in a template that doesn't have alt text, and I don't think the Template:politbox supports it. I'll check. ≈ Chamal  04:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed - I've added a new parameter to the template and alt text added. Hope it's ok now. ≈ Chamal  13:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately that didn't work; see the "alt text" button in the toolbox on this page. Looks like there's a typo in the template. More important, the alt text doesn't tell the non-expert visually impaired reader what each image looks like. For example, "Area map of Badulla District in the Uva Province of Sri Lanka" is a bit helpful, but unless you already know what the Uva Province is, you'll be out of luck. Since that image already appears in the Badulla row of the table, which already says that the Badulla district is in the Uva province, most of the alt text is redundant anyway. It might be better for the alt text to read something like "This district in east central Sri Lanka runs roughly north–south." That way, it'll be giving useful info, which is not mere repetition. There's a similar problem in the (non-working) alt text for the coat of arms. Eubulides (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Somebody had changed the template parameter. Fixed now. I'll get working on the article ASAP. Please give me a day or two; I'm a bit busy in real life now. ≈ Chamal  16:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the alt text for the maps and coat of arms. Hope it's improved now. Also, another user added some images to the article and I've organized these into a gallery. I thought a gallery could be included per WP:IG in this instance. Unfortunately the Template:Gallery does not support alt text so these images are without it. I have tried to add this to the template but it's hard without changing the way it is used (which is not practical considering the large number of pages it is used on). What would you suggest about this? ≈ Chamal  15:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The gallery doesn't satisfy the WP:IG criteria: it's just a random set of images as far as I can see. Better would be to add a column to the table, containing an example image from each district. It's OK to leave a lot of entries blank in that column. If a gallery is really required, please use a table to create it as per WP:PICTURE #Gallery of images; then you can add alt text for each image. Eubulides (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Another option, if a gallery is really required, is to use {{Image gallery}}, which I just now created. It's like {{Gallery}} but it does alt text. Eubulides (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the gallery. I didn't intend to include one in the first place anyway. ≈ Chamal  02:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Some more general comments

• I am a bit concerned about the Notable Attributes column. Whilst there is nothing wrong with the information that has been put here, there are no criteria listed as to what is a "notable" attribute. There is quite a range of different sorts of information in this column and a lot of them don't really have much to do with the districts has administrative entities. Another consequence of having this column is that in future people may be tempted to add what they consider "interesting" bits of information in there claiming they are notable attributes.
• The lead mostly describes the history of various sub-national administrative units over the years and I am not sure how relevant much of this information is to a list of the modern districts. I think that you could remove (but not lose - see below) much of paragraphs 2 and 3 and perhaps add some more info about present day districts - for example are they divided into further subdivisions?
• I was slightly surprised that there isn't an separate article about districts in Sri Lanka - are they run by an elected council? - what are their competencies? etc. Now I know that the presence or absence of such an article isn't directly relevant to this FLC but if you had one then you could put the history into that article. (Actually I have just noticed that the List of districts of Sri Lanka was originally Districts of Sri Lanka. Perhaps the latter should be made into a more general description of what a district actually is.)

Boissière (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

First point: I wasn't too sure about that column too. I've added the things that these districts are famous for in the country. I'll trim it a bit and remove the less significant stuff. ≈ Chamal  02:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As for the second and third points; there isn't much to say about the districts. They don't really have administrative powers; it's really the provinces and municipal councils etc (which are not directly under the districts) that have actual adminitrative powers. The District Secretariat has very limited powers. There is nothing much to include in an article really apart from the history. I don't think there'd be much point in keeping a separate article since it can have no more info that this :) The original article was a list too, and I just improved on it. It was User:Dabomb87 who renamed it per WP:LISTNAME (which I wasn't aware of) :P Anyway I will add some more info on the current structure and powers as you suggested. ≈ Chamal  02:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made a note about what is included in the notable attributes column and removed some info that was not very significant. Hope this helps to reduce the confusion. ≈ Chamal  15:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Added tasks of the district secretariat. Only stuff like coordinating are done at district level since as I've already mentioned, the actual administration is done at provincial and municipal level. ≈ Chamal  06:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What you have done does give more of a feel as to what a district actually "does". I suppose the only real remaining question that springs to mind is who appoints the District Secretariat? Are they appointed by the central government, by the provinces or perhaps nominated by the municipalities? As for the notable attributes column, I feel that it may still be a bit too wide ranging in its potential content, but we'll see what other reviewers think. Boissière (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed - Added the info. Do you have any suggestions about the notable attributes column? ≈ Chamal  08:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

* Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Fixed. ≈ Chamal  02:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) While the alt text issues are being worked out by Eubulides and Chamal (thanks to both!), I decided to list a few other things to work on. I ended up with this list below me, and that's without checking the references or going through the whole article. Please consider a peer review before submitting future nominations. "Districts are the second level administrative divisions of Sri Lanka, which are included in a province." This makes it sound as if this is the sole definition for "district", which it is not. Try "In Sri Lanka, districts are the second-level administrative divisions, and are included in a province." "Currently there are 25 districts organized into 9 provinces." "Currently" is a dated word. Two options: if the numbers are subject to change at frequent intervals, use an {{as of}} statement. If not, just remove "currently". "and is divided into a number of Divisional Secretary Divisions (commonly known as DS divisions) which are in turn subdivided into Grama Niladari Divisions."-->and is divided into Divisional Secretary Divisions (commonly known as DS divisions), which are in turn subdivided into Grama Niladari Divisions. "They are also responsible for implementing and monitoring development projects at district level and assisting lower level subdivisions in their activities. Revenue collection and coordination of elections in the district are also done by the District Secretariat."-->The District Secretariat is also responsible for implementing and monitoring development projects at the district level and assisting lower-level subdivisions in their activities, as well as revenue collection and coordination of elections in the district. "With time, the number of provinces increased but the second level administrative division continued to be the rata."-->Over time, the number of provinces increased, but the second-level administrative division was still the rata "have had a similar administrative structure to this with 4 provinces." "4"-->four "divided into 3 administrative divisions." "3"-->three "5 provinces were created, which eventually expanded into 9, and these were subdivided into 21 districts."-->Five provinces were created, later expanded into 9, and these were subdivided into 21 districts. "By 1955, the country had 22 districts and the district has become the main administrative unit." "has"-->had "The constitution of 1978 reintroduced the province as the main administrative unit created 24 districts in the country. "-->The constitution of 1978, which reintroduced the province as the main administrative unit, created 24 districts in the country. Conversions should be provided for the area. "The areas under the Ampara district (named Digamadulla in ancient records) had attained a high degree of agricultural development during the Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa kingdoms." Remove "had". "The ancient Anuradhapura Kingdom was centred around this area, and is now a UNESCO World Heritage Site." Spell out, link UNESCO, and add a parenthetical note of its abbreviation afterward. Also, "centred around" is unidiomatic; use "centred on" or "revolved around". The notes are inconsistent in the way they refer to the district they are referring to. For example, some notes simply repeat the name of the district, while others use "this" as a reference to the district (Badulla) Overlinking abounds: let's not link common terms such as rice, tea, vegetables, harbour, international airport, aluminium, iron, coconuts, unemployment and malnutrition. "Although the smallest district in the country, it is also the most highly populated"-->This is the smallest and most highly populated district in the country. "Gampaha was declared as a new" "The ancient Jaffna kingdom existed around this area" Like a circle? Sarcasm aside, the only area around this district is ocean. I think you mean "near". "The Kalutara district was divided into different sub divisions" Why is "sub divisions" two words here? It's one word everywhere else. "The Kingdom of Kandy was also centred around this area." "based in" makes more sense than "centred around". "is located in the Kegalle district" "It's soil is rich with" No apostrophe. "The Mannar district, mainly the area surrounding an ancient port named Mathota was used for international trading in ancient Sri Lanka." Comma after "Mathota" I'll stop there for now, and pick up from Matale later. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Do I fail... Since it was fairly short I didn't go for a peer review. My apologies about that, and thanks for your patience in reviewing the mess. Everything mentioned is fixed except for the conversions. Working on that now. ≈ Chamal  02:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Fixed. I'll clean up the rest of the article as well according to your suggestions. ≈ Chamal  02:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Noted, will finish review tomorrow or the day after. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC) "The Matale district contains a number of mineral deposists and also rich soil, making the area suitable for agriculture." Typo, and remove "also". "a number of" could be "several". "However, the aftermath of the rebellion has left the district poor and it now records the highest rates of unemployment and malnutrition."-->However, the district was left poor from the aftermath of the rebellion, and it has the highest rates of unemployment and malnutrition. "rainfal " Spelling error. "It contributes largely to the country's tea and vegetable production." Dabomb87 (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Fixed. ≈ Chamal  08:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC) "The ancient city of Sigiriya, which is a UNESCO World Heritage " "The Moneragala district was the focal point of the Uva Rebellion in 1818. However, the district was left poor from the aftermath of the rebellion, and it has the highest rates of unemployment and malnutrition." Remove "However", there's no real contradiction here. "It is a large contributor to the tea and vegetable production of the country." It's not clear what "it" was referring to. I suggest moving this sentence before "Pidurutalagala, the country's highest..." "The location where prince Vijaya" It says in the main article that he was a king... He was a prince when he arrived :) Anyway, fixed. "the first recorded ruler of the country, arrived from North India" Comma after here. "during the rainy seasons." Aren't these the monsoons? Well, it's pretty much rainy season about half of the year. I've added when it's most common, which is during the south west monsoon, as you said. "rebel LTTE controlled area and the Sri Lankan Government controlled area"-->rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam–controlled area and the Sri Lankan government–controlled area Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC) All fixed. ≈ Chamal  06:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral I'm awaiting other reviews. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• All newspapers, magazines and journals should be italicized. You can do this easily by changing publisher= to work= in the reference templates.
• Spell out UNESCO in the publishers.
• Ref 16, there should be a space after the comma.
• Ref 19, change pages= to page= in the template.
• Refs 5, 6, 35, 48, 52, 55, 58, 59 and the first general reference; add format=PDF to the template.
• Ref 61, Reuters is not a publication and should not be italicized. Change "work" to "publisher" in the template. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • All fixed I think I have fixed everything mentioned. ≈ Chamal  06:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• I have a serious problem with the notable attributes column as it is so subjective and varying. One describes why it was significant in terms of historical features, one the agro. output Frankly I would just remove it.
  • Fixed: That's the second time concerns have been raised about this column, so I have removed it according to both suggestions. ≈ Chamal  12:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Can we have a population density column? It would be informative, and easy to do.
  • Fixed: I didn't add this earlier because it would clutter up the page with the attributes column. ≈ Chamal  12:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Can you link Population density in the table header? Also use {{Pop density km2 to mi2}} to give us the unit as well as the conversion? So, for the first one you would use {{Pop density km2 to mi2|140|abbr=on|precision=0}} Woody (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• An established column? Reading the lead it seems they were all formed at different times or am I incorrect in my interpretation?
  • 21 formed in 1833 (as mentioned in lead), and four later. Do you think this should be added as a column (since most of it would read 1833), or shall I just mention the creation of the other four in the lead as well? ≈ Chamal  12:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I see you have worked this into the lead, it looks good. I do wonder though whether it should be in the table as well though. After all, the lead is meant to summarise and introduce the table and I think it would still be a useful thing to have in the table. Woody (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• So, a few concerns at the moment. Regards, Woody (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment
My understanding is that population density should be calculated by dividing population by area yet some of the figures in the population density column are well off, for example Mullaitivu should be 77 people per square km but is listed as 50. Even more bizarrely Vavuniya and Mannar are both 81 yet Mannar has a larger population and smaller area than Vavuniya. It would be worth checking some other sources, if possible, to found which source/data is unreliable. No original research states you aren't forbidden from routine calculations so I'd rather see some simple math used on reliable data instead of quoting some which isn't for the sake of having a reference. --Jpeeling (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Damn... you are right. Looks like I've done this in too much of a hurry. Population and population density are taken from the government's department of census and statistics, so they would be correct (if we assume they are incorrect, there's no point keeping the article at all :)) So area must be the erroneous column, which is taken from statoids (which claims to have taken it from government websites). I used it because I couldn't find this information on government sites. I'll have a look again. ≈ Chamal  01:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 20:48, 2 August 2009 .

---

Nominator(s): Jrcla2 16:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm nominating List of College of William & Mary alumni because it fulfills all FL criteria that I can see and has been peer-reviewed. The suggestions and necessary corrections have been fixed, and it now deserves to be a candidate for FL status. Jrcla2 16:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose - some opening thoughts... We don't start with "This list of" or "This is a list of " anymore - please see some recently promoted lists for some guidance and what to look for. Fixed, but I'm not sure if it's what you're looking for. Guidance on this would be appreciated. Images require WP:ALT text. Currently being worked on. Will add ALT text as I can in the next couple of days. Fixed. Ultimately, I decided it would be too much work and not worth the effort of incorporating pictures in this long list, except for the top few in the lead, and those have since been given alt text. Don't squash text between images per WP:MOS#Images. Fixed. References don't need to be sortable. List of Dartmouth College alumni has them sortable and that is a FL. Fixed. The Notability, Reference and Picture columns are now unsortable. Nor do images, unless you want to add a {{sort}} template. Fixed. Nor does notability - it's just free text. Again, Dartmouth alumni page has it. Fixed. "Year/Degree" but the year and degree in the tables aren't separated by a slash. Fixed. I removed the Degree portion of the column titles to avoid confusion. "(also listed elsewhere)" - you know where, be accurate. Currently being worked on. Hopefully will have this done within a day. Fixed. Provided name and link of where they are listed in other spots. Col widths should be the same from table to table. Will work on soon. Fixed. "college roommate of J.D." spell out the name. Fixed. For blank cells (i.e. image cells with no images), use a centered em-dash. Fixed. What makes infoplease.com a WP:RS? Will look for new sources. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC) All problems dealt with. Jrcla2 06:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Further oppose with further comments
  • What does 17?? mean? It needs a note.
    • Fixed.
  • I suspect that "Dropped out for military service" should sort in the early 1800s.
    • Fixed.
  • No need to link common terms, like France - think how would this benefit a reader of this list?
    • Currently working on. Fixed.
  • Why are abbreviations in bold in the lead and not in the tables? I'd unbold all instances, probably in accordance with MOSBOLD.
    • Fixed. Removed bold from lead.
  • Some entries in the Year column have additional information, different degrees for instance. Does that mean they received both the BA/BSc and the other degree, or just the one noted? It's unclear.
    • Fixed. There used to be a note in the lead, but then during a peer-review someone suggested I remove it, but I'll put it back. It reads "This list uses the following notation (In the event that multiple years are listed, the student attended William & Mary for both undergraduate and post-graduate degrees as specified):"
  • "148–year " shouldn't that just be a hyphen rather than an en-dash, per WP:DASH?
    • Fixed.
  • "U.S." or "U. S." - be consistent.
    • Fixed. There was only one instance of "U. S." but it's been corrected.
  • "mayor or Hampton, Virginia" should that be "Mayor of Hampton"?
    • Fixed.
  • "A Democratic member ..." just "Democratic member" to stay consistent with all other entries. Check 'em all.
    • Fixed. I went through every single notable and made sure none of their notability started with "A", "The", "An" etc. All are now consistent.
  • Not keen on small text. Why, for instance, does ref 9 need to use small text? Is it your choice or determined by a template?
    • Fixed. Removed small text from ref 9.
  • Ref 49 needs accessdate.
    • Fixed.
  • Ref 105 needs to use the same PDF code as ref 86.
    • Fixed.
  • I've been told many times, it's The New York Times...!
    • Fixed.
  • Why is "pro-football-reference.com" a "work" while "databaseFootball.com." is a publisher?
    • Fixed. I think I was in a hurry at the time I was filling out the football-reference one and accidentally placed at as a work.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed all comments from The Rambling Man. Jrcla2 01:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll be the judge of that, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I was referring to the ones in the list above, not necessarily all of your problems with it in general. Don't get defensive, it's hostile. Jrcla2 20:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
        • What I meant was that it should be up to me to decide that you've fixed everything to my satisfaction. Not defensive, just you don't need to tell me when you've fixed my comments, I'll let you know. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

More comments from The Rambling Man

• The images are still squashing text for me.
  • Fixed, although it's your resolution, which is probably really high. I don't know what else I can do at this point so if it's still squashing text for you but nobody else, it's not my fault.
• " is also the nation's oldest and most prestigious ..." oldest, sure, but just a single source to suggest it's the most prestigious - this is just someone's opinion.
  • Fixed.
• "the country's initial 10 " why not just "first ten"?
  • Response: Because then the sentence would read, "Four of the country's first ten presidents were educated there, including the first, George Washington (class of 1754)." It's incredibly redundant.
• It's not clear what the year after, for instance, George Washington means. I would guess it's the year they graduated? But to a non-expert it's not obvious, particularly when you refer to people in other contexts (e.g. the president).
  • Comment. I put "(class of 1754)" after Washington in the lead, so I am wondering if that's sufficient/acceptable notation for readers to safely assume that the years in parantheses are therefore graduation years?
• "over half a dozen " why not just state how many rather than being a touch sensationalist about it?
  • Response: Because this is an incomplete list. If I were to say that, for example, "William & Mary has graduated seven ambassadors" it sounds like a definite, finite number. I don't know if there have been more (very possible, to be honest) but since I can't find them online, I don't want to assume there are no more.
• MLS or Major League Soccer. Be consistent, or use Major League Soccer (MLS) the first time (in the lead) and then MLS thereafter.
  • Fixed.
• What's NASL?
  • Fixed (North American Soccer League, btw).
• "1968-1969" needs an en-dash, not a hyphen.
  • Fixed.
• Very very heavy dependency on the primary source, a lot of these could be referenced from third-party reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support -- I still feel there are issues with the article as stated below, but my comments were resolved.--Truco ₅₀₃ 19:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• No need to link United States.
  • Fixed.
• "and is one of only eight schools"
  • Fixed.
• "provide an Ivy League collegiate experience at a public school price." Per WP:PUNC, the quotation mark should be inside the period.
  • Fixed.
• "During and slightly after the" "slightly after" sounds strange; how about "shortly after"?
  • Fixed.
• "This explains the thirteen missing graduating classes" "thirteen"-->13 per WP:MOSNUM
  • Fixed.
• "while graduate degrees can be earned " "while"-->and
  • Fixed.
• "The College offers 36 undergraduate programs, 12 graduate and professional degree programs in business, education and law."-->The College offers 36 undergraduate programs as well as 12 graduate and professional degree programs in business, education and law.
  • Fixed.
• "including the very first"
  • Fixed.
• "In academia, the College is home to the co-founders of the" So it literally houses these people?
  • Fixed.
• "A number of William & Mary Tribe alumni"-->Several William & Mary Tribe alumni
  • Fixed.
• "have found success in professional sports"-->have succeeded in professional sports
  • Fixed.
• "Mike Tomlin (1995) is the current head coach of the NFL's Pittsburgh Steelers and became the youngest head coach in League history to win a Super Bowl at 36 years old."-->Mike Tomlin (1995), the current head coach of the National Football Leagues's Pittsburgh Steelers, became the youngest head coach in League history to win a Super Bowl, at 36 years old.
  • Fixed.
• "The NCAA college basketball " Spell out NCAA on this first appearance.
  • Fixed.
• "(In the event that multiple years are listed" Decapitalize the "In".
  • Fixed.
• For the notation explanations at the end of the lead, wouldn't it make sense to link the full term rather than the abbreviation?
  • Fixed.

Dabomb87 (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • All problems by Dabomb87 have been fixed.
      • Noted; more coming. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Notes from Bencherlite

A good list, that with a bit more work will become one of Knowledge (XXG)'s finest pieces of work, I'm sure. I have a number of points, some minor, some not, so mine is an oppose for now

• Two instances of "the The" or "the the"; change both to "the", per the next comment
  • Fixed.
• Unless "the" comes at the start of a sentence, it shouldn't be capitalised – see here for an example of W&M not capitalising "the" mid-sentence.
  • Fixed.
• My view (and others may differ) is that "the College" ought to be turned to "the college" throughout; I appreciate that W&M may refer to itself as "the College", but that doesn't mean that Knowledge (XXG) has to follow suit when talking about the institution in a general way.
  • Fixed.
• "This list includes those who have either attended or graduated from the The College of William & Mary as well as every commencement speaker from 1930 through 2009. For inclusion on this page, the notable person must have attended William & Mary for a minimum of two semesters, or the historical equivalent. Those who either transferred to another university, dropped out, or were fully educated at the College but were never conferred a degree are also included." Two points (a) Why two semesters? Is that your standard for inclusion, or the college's standard definition of what's needed to qualify as an alumnus? (b) This paragraph should be lower down in the lead section.
  • Fixed. (a) I removed that sentence entirely to avoid confusion. (b) Moved paragraph to just above notation at bottom of lead.
• Three names are referenced using NNDB which Knowledge (XXG):Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_26#NNDB this discussion at WP:RS would tend to suggest is not a reliable source. Can you find better sources?
  • Fixed.
• Ref 14 and all other references from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress: the surname should not be capitalised, even if the source capitalises it.
  • Fixed.
• Ref 11 – the website says "(c) 2008", so you should use "date=2008" in the citation template; and the same for all references where any indication of the date of the website page is given.
  • Will work on soon.Fixed. If any references are missing a date, it's because none was provided for that site and/or article. All of those that do contain copyright dates now have them.
• Ref 109 (Henry Lee IV) and ref 143 (William Gilham) – use {{cite book}}, not {{cite web}}, and use all the appropriate parameters
  • Fixed.
• What makes http://footballcardgallery.com a reliable source?
  • Fixed. All references directing to that website have been changed to RS.
• There are too many names without articles. WP:STAND says that "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Knowledge (XXG) articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future)." To be a properly-comprehensive list, these peoples should have articles written about them if they are notable in Knowledge (XXG) terms (as many would appear to be) or removed from the list if they are not notable in these terms.
  • Fixed, although I would like to point out that I have left a handful of athletes (specifically basketball players) who do not have their own pages on the list. Since they are relatively new professional basketball players (most graduated this century) there is still high potential for someone to come along and make their pages. I got rid of at least 75% of all people who didn't have their own pages off this list. Some of the "fictional people" will obviously never have their own page, but for the sake of that specific category, I don't think it's fair to say to remove them.
• Following on from this point, what efforts have been made to make this as comprehensive a list as possible? I'm not expecting everyone who ever attended the college who is "notable" to be included, but I'd like some idea of the research that you've done to find names for the list.
  • Response: A great number of them I incorporated via Category:College of William and Mary alumni (and its sub-categories). I also found a decent amount by using variations of keywords in Google, such as (but not limited to) "notable alumni", "William & Mary", "College of William and Mary", "famous alumnae" etc. I then checked Knowledge (XXG) to see if there were articles for them, and many times there were.
• The list of commencement speakers doesn't belong in this list, in my view. The list should be restricted to alumni (and that would allow the page to be renamed appropriately). Listing commencement speakers means that you list people with a purely trivial connection to the college e.g. Desmond Tutu. In any case, if the list stays (a) the list is in the wrong order (see this style guideline) (b) you ought not to be linking to another wiki for pre-1929 dates (c) there ought to be some link explaining what a commencement speaker is/does (I'm based in the UK and it means very little to me)
  • Fixed. Per the suggestion, I moved the commencement speakers back to W&M's central article. When the time (inevitably!) comes that this is a FL, we can move the page to read "List of College of William & Mary alumni" then.
    • If you want, we can move the article now, too. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment: I'm going to move the page to "List of College of William & Mary alumni". Consequently, I'm going to need to re-do all of the section redirects that are within the article itself. I'll begin work on that right now, so please don't mention that there are (at present) redirects in the article. It will be fixed soon enough. Fixed. Jrcla2 05:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• What does "L.H.D." mean for Robert Gates?
  • Fixed. That was a mistake on my behalf for putting that in there. I was quickly adding notable alumni toward the beginning of this process and put in an honorary degree for Gates, which is what L.H.D. is.
• Do you really mean "Never conferred a degree" for William Barton Rogers? Perhaps "Never obtained a degree" or "received" would be clearer, as "conferred" makes it sound as though he was conferring the degrees.
  • Fixed. Changed "conferred" to "received" in all instances.
• "The College of William & Mary was also home to alumnus Jon Stewart." Dabomb87 raised this point above about another sentence, so it ought to be fixed here too.
  • Fixed.
• "and George Wythe, the very first law professor in the United States." Dabomb87 raised this point above about another sentence, so it ought to be fixed here too.
  • Fixed.
• I regret your decision to remove images to avoid the requirement of alt-text. The list is duller as a result.
  • Response: As nice as it would have been to have all of those pictures, I was just not willing to have to write alt captions for hundreds of face portraits, most of which looked the same (paintings of middle-aged, white male faces wearing white wigs...how many ways could I possibly describe that?). As aesthetically disappointing as that decision was, it wasn't a back-breaker for FLC status. List of Dartmouth College alumni doesn't use pictures and thats's a FL.

That's all for now; I'll keep on reading and see whether anything else catches my eye. (Incidentally, I speak as a veteran of several featured alumni lists...) Bencherlite 13:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed all of the above-mentioned objections raised by Bencherlite. Jrcla2 20:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Just glanced at the sports part of the list, and I saw a few reference issues that I feel should be addressed.

• References 142 and 151 have no listed publishers.
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.thedraftreview.com/
    • How is this not a RS?
  • http://www.databasefootball.com/
    • How is this not a RS?
  • http://www.fanclub-teufelsrochen.de/roster.htm (This also lacks a publisher)
  • http://yanks-abroad.com/
  • http://www.campvarsityrunning.com/
  • http://www.findagrave.com/ Giants2008 (17–14) 22:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Note: It's usually the nominator's job to prove whether a reference is reliable or not. To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further information. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 20:48, 2 August 2009 .

---

Nominator(s): Sk8er5000 (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked tirelessly for the last few days, and believe this article is now compliant with all the Featured List Criteria. When I started working on this list, prose was virutally non exsistant, and the table formatting was as far from standard as possible. I worked on improving references, the prose, and all the table formatting. I now believe this list now meets the Criteria, and will review the nomination frequently. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"This list deals with albums that reached number one on the ARIA albums chart in 2008." This sentence is wholly unnecessary. Also, check the toolbox to your right; there's a disambiguation link to be fixed and several dead links (is the ARIA site down?). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed all. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice expansion. I made a few changes myself and have a few minor issues left, if you fix them I will support.

• Image caption "...and reached number two on the end of year albums chart". It sounds a bit strange, maybe "...and became the second most-popular album in Australia in 2008". Also could you link to List of Top 25 albums for 2008 in Australia?
• "This data are..." incorrect. Either "This data is..." or "These data are...", I would advice the first one.
• Remove the extra dot after ref .

That's it. Happy editing.--Music26/11 14:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Image needs alternative text. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Edited article per Music2611 and Dabomb87's suggestions. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 20:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Thanks for adding in alternative text. However, what you put in is inadequate. The purpose of alt text is to describe the image so that a reader who cannot see understand what's going on. You might describe her physical appearance, for example. Just saying "Pink" might make readers think of the color. "The highest-selling albums in Australia are ranked in the ARIA albums chart, which is published by the Australian Recording Industry Association. " "This data is compiled"-->This data are compiled "ARIA also issue "-->ARIA also issues "amongst"-->among "There were twenty-three albums that made number one in 2008."-->Twenty-three albums reached number one in 2008. "Only by the Night, by Kings of Leon, was the best selling album of 2008, however it only was at number one for four weeks in 2008 (It reached number one again in 2009 for another 12 weeks), making it the album with the longest stay at number one out of the albums that reached number one in 2008."-->Only by the Night, by Kings of Leon, was the best-selling album of 2008. It stayed at number one for four weeks in 2008 (it was number one in 2009 for 12 weeks), making it the longest-running album at number one in 2008. "Funhouse by Pink spent 9 weeks at number 1"-->Funhouse by Pink spent nine weeks at number one "second Australian number one album"-->second Australian number-one album The abbreviations used for the labels need to be explained. You need to make a key spelling out the abbreviations. Because the table is sortable, you have to link the albums, labels, and labels on every occurence. The "Weeks at number one (total)" column doesn't sort properly. You need to use a hidden sortkey with {{sort}}. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC) I have made all the spelling and grammer fixes suggested above. As far as the labels go, I will spell them out on the first usage as something like "AAA Records (AAA)", and only use the abbbrv later on. All the linked lines still appear on top when sorted, so that, AFAIK, should be OK. I have also put in a hidden sortkey. I will now alter the ALT text. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 04:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC) In regards to the acronyms, that's not what I meant. I think it will be best to either remove the column or add a key above the table that explains each acronym because if you link and spell out the label once you need to do it to all other ones because this a sortable table. I also recommend renaming the section List to something more relevant like Chart history. Finally, I still feel the lead could be expanded. Please consider referring to the U.S. list I mentioned above.--Truco 503 18:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC) I have removed the label column, rewritten the lead, and renamed that last section. I based the new lead off the US one, however there were no new records set in 08, thus the replacement of the last paragraph. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Looks a lot better. I have one concern left: "Apocalypso by The Presets spent one week atop the chart on April 21, and won the ARIA award for Album of the Year and Best Dance release, as well as the band winning the award for Best Group." Did the album's success led to the band's winning the Best Group award. Otherwise, it seems irrelevant. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Nope. Rm'd that part of the sentance. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. No issues left. Good work :) --Music26/11 16:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • A shame that physical media is a red link. Is there nothing you could link it to, or rephrase without linking and expanding to include compact disks, DVDs etc?
  • Seems a little odd to me to use the ARIA abbreviation before explaining what ARIA is.
  • Question : should end of year be hyphenated?
  • "number one" or "number-one".
    • Note: the hyphen usage depends on whether "number one" is used as a noun or an adjective. "Other albums with extended chart runs include Funhouse by Pink, which spent nine weeks at number one," but "number-one albums". I caught one unneeded hyphen, but everything else should be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Was Pink's run consecutive or non-consecutive? Who actually had the most consecutive weeks at the top?
  • "won the ARIA award for Album of the Year and Best Dance release" presumably these are separate awards, so it "won the ARIA awards for..."
  • The repeated use of "week" in the table is unnecessary given the column heading. And I would centrally align that column.
  • Sometimes there are multiple references so the column heading should be "Reference(s)".
  • Sortable table so relink things on every instance, such as Jack Johnson.
  • Presumably "Issue date" relates to the chart, not the album - I'd make that clear.
  • Is it "Australian Recording Industry Association Ltd" or just "Australian Recording Industry Association"? (see refs).
  • Is there a 2008 in music style category this could be added to?
• The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note, user is on an enforced wikibreak until September.

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