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 Matthewedwards 06:02, 31 July 2009 .

---

Nominator(s): Felipe Menegaz 03:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has a complete content and is an unprecedented list. Felipe Menegaz 03:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Is this a list? There are several tables, but there are not sets of listed items. I think this is an article. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There are not sets of listed items? Felipe Menegaz 14:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think what DB87 means is that the focus of the information presented in this piece is in the prose, not in the tables. The tables are summaries, but they are not the main/sole method of information presentation. I gave the article a quick look, and I concur. This is an article with embedded lists, not a list in itself. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, now I understand. Well, it was to be a list. The paragraphs were added to complement the tables and provide, to the reader, information about the reason for low or high evaluation. Should I remove the prose to form an Stand-alone list? Regards; Felipe Menegaz 01:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I say no, because, as you said, the prose provides information to readers.—Chris! _ct 19:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this should be at GAN or even FAC. –Juliancolton |  23:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose even for a FAC. The article digresses waaay too much into the other bids, and imo fails to emphasize the points of the actual bid. Nergaal (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not know if this article is good enough to become a FAC. I think that the prose should be removed, and all tables must be merged into one major and complete table. Focusing only on the application of Rio de Janeiro. Information provided before by the prose can be found in the articles Infrastructure of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics, Finance of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics and Politics of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics, which will be elaborated later. This will make a list... Regards; Felipe Menegaz 17:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Felipe Menegaz 18:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose -- I don't know but I see this more of an "article" than a "list".--Truco ₅₀₃ 19:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How? This "article" just display a list of scores. Felipe Menegaz 19:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Mainly because this type of list does not fall under the definition of a "list"--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If 2008 Summer Olympics medal table is a Featured list, Evaluation of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics should be a Featured list also; is the same type of list. Felipe Menegaz 16:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. Thats about the medal count, a summary (stand alone) type of list.--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment I asked the good people at GAN about whether this is a list or an article. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment The way information should be organized in Knowledge (XXG) is to maximize value for the reader and certainly not in order to jump through hoops in content review/recognition processes. This same article could be copied and pasted with virtually identical content in order to serve as "Evaluation of SomeOtherPlace bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics" ... we'd end up with many articles that basically convey exactly the same information. This would be a nightmare for readers to navigate. Please stop and think about all of the information Knowledge (XXG) provides on 2016 bid evaluations, and how that content should be organized across articles. Don't think about "which content evaluation process will give us the nicest result, and therefore how should we target this article at reviewers", think about where readers will expect to go in order to find certain information, what information they would like to see presented at each location, and how it would most usefully be presented (too many tables makes for poor reading, but some information is best presented in tables, for instance). Bear in mind the need to avoid redundancy between articles. Readers will certainly benefit from editors thinking holistically rather than focussing purely on getting one specific article through a content recognition process. TheGrappler (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

After comments by User:TheGrappler, I propose move the name from Evaluation of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics to Evaluation of the bids for the 2016 Summer Olympics, making it available for all bids. Felipe Menegaz 01:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose – To begin with, I don't understand why pertinent background information was removed to force this page into a list format. The table is going to confuse anyone unfamiliar with the IOC bid process; items such as IBC/MPC and Sports concept & legacy beg for further explanation. If it works better as a regular article, present it that way and go for GA in the future, not FLC. The writing needs work before that point, however. In the lead, I see "to assist the IOC Executive Board in determine which of the seven Applicant cities". (use "determined") and "where these refer to Summer Olympics' planning" (add "the" before Summer), to name a couple examples. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been closed as a failed nomination, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 06:02, 31 July 2009 .

---

Nominator(s): 03md 10:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has undergone a peer review and I feel that, with a few improvements, it could be promoted to FL. Thanks. 03md 10:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Oppose

I changed my !vote to oppose because of the citation need tag. Also, one image is missing caption.—Chris! _ct 01:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Check the toolbox, there is a dab link and a couple of dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

*For future reference, don't use wikilinks in alt text. Also, avoid referring to a person by name since a person who can't see wouldn't be able to verify this or draw any conclusions from the name. For example, in this article, instead of "Tennis player Pete Sampras holds...", you would use "A tennis player holds..." (I already fixed this, but keep in mind for future reference) "has changed several times over the years." Changed "Currently it is calculated by totalling the points from the 13 mandatory tennis events (4 Grand Slams and 9 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 tournaments) and the player's best five results from all eligible ATP World Tour 500 series tournaments. " Comma after "Currently" and remove "all". Done "Tennis Masters Cup" Link? Done "can add the points won there."-->can include points won there. Done "Since the Association of Tennis Professionals began producing computerized rankings in 1973" I think "using" is better than "producing". Changed "Pete Sampras holds the record for most weeks (286) as top ranked male player while Roger Federer holds the record for the most consecutive weeks (237) as the top-ranked male or female player." For the first phrase, you only tell us the record for men, while in the second, you tell us the record for men and women. Why the inconsistency? Changed "Only two players have reached the World Number 1 ranking without having won a Grand Slam tournament." Done "Czech player Ivan Lendl achieved the feat in February 1983, not winning his first Grand Slam until the 1984 French Open having lost out in the 1981 final. " Trivial info. Removed the trivia "youngest ever number one" Done "He also won the Wimbledon singles title in 2002." Not important. Removed "Jimmy Connors holds the male record for longest period of time between first attaining the #1 ranking and last holding it: 8 years and 11 months between July 29, 1974 and July 3, 1983." Not sure what this referring to. Is "male" necessary? After all, this is the ATP, so what else could we be referring to? Changed "Marcelo Rios"-->Marcelo Ríos Done "Ilie Nastase"-->Ilie Năstase Done "As of July 20, 2009." But today is July 18! Also, no period at the end, and this should probably be moved up above the table. "during the calendar year." "calendar", as opposed to what? Changed

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Glad to see a tennis list over here, but issues need to be worked out.

• "The Number 1 ranked player" In the article's title, you use a lowercase "number". Then it's "World Number 1". Later on in the article, I see "Number-1". Any reason for the inconsistencies?
  • Made consistent as "number 1". Please let me know if I have missed any.
• "He won his first Grand Slam title at the 2001 U.S. Open and won the Masters Cup at the end of the year and replaced Gustavo Kuerten at the top of the rankings."-->He won his first Grand Slam title at the 2001 U.S. Open and won the Masters Cup at the end of the year, replacing Gustavo Kuerten at the top of the rankings. what date did he reach the top?
• "Andre Agassi, in contrast, is the oldest ever number one, " "in contrast" is unnecessary, remove "ever".

Dabomb87 (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• What makes http://www.all-about-tennis.com/jimmy-connors.html reliable?
• Likewise http://www.tennistours.com/event_pages/nasdaq100/history.asp?
  • These are probably not reliable - removed
• Ref 2 and 13, the publishers should not be in italics.
  • Done
• Ref 6, add "The" to "Washington Post" and newspaper names should be in italics.
  • Dabomb87 (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • Do I need to add some more references now? Thanks for all your comments. 03md 11:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 19:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 22:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments – "Currently, it is calculated by totalling the points from the 13 mandatory tennis events...". The use of "tennis" is quite redundant here. What other sports would they be playing? Done "Players who qualify for the year-end Tennis Masters Cup can include points won there." The sentence makes it sound optional, when the source indicates otherwise. Clarified sentence There's no need for two ATP links in the lead. Anyone interested will have already clicked on the first link. Removed wikilink "reaching the top ranking when 20 years, 268 days old." It doesn't read that well. Try "reaching the top ranking at the age of 20 years, 268 days" or similar. Another sentence later needs a similar fix. Done The Agassi sentence at the end of the lead could use a similar edit to this one. Giants2008 (17–14) 15:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Done Could link the 2001 U.S. Open. and that year's Tennis Masters Cup. Done Weeks at number 1: "with Roger Federer leading the way on 237 weeks." This type of sentence has an awkward structure; the best way to fix it is to have a semi-colon lead into it, followed by "Roger Federer leads the way...". Done A few cites are needed for facts in the captions. Borg's 11 Grand Slams, Safin and Safina's family ties, and Rios being the only No. 1 without a Grand Slam all could use references. All referenced - let me know about any other things that need cites. A couple of formatting tweaks are needed for the new cites. The spacing is incorrect for the Borg ref; move it back to only have a space afterward. Also, reference 11 goes to Yahoo! Sports, not ESPN. Giants2008 (17–14) 15:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Fixed the links and spacing I see "number 1" and "Number 1" in various spots. Please make it consistent throughout. There's also "U.S. Open" in the lead and "US Open" in a note. Done Images by the side of the tables need alt text. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Done All complete 03md 19:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • "... is the player who over the immediate cumulative 52 weeks has gathered ..." -> " ... is the player, who over the immediate cumulative 52 weeks, has gathered ..."
    • Done
  • "It is calculated by totalling..." timeframe (i.e. As of ...) since you've said it's changed a few times.
    • Done
  • "Players who qualify for the year-end Tennis Masters Cup include points won there." - no, the player's don't include points, their ranking includes the points.
    • Done
  • "Since the Association of Tennis Professionals..." already abbreviated it so use ATP here.
    • Done
  • "computerized rankings" - what happened before then? Non-computerized? It's unclear from this sentence. I guess they've always been computerized based on the table, so perhaps introduce that concept a little earlier on in the lead.
    • Reworded the sentence and added "computerized" earlier in lead section
  • "20 years, 268 days." vs "33 years, 4 months, 9 days old" - consistent age format please.
    • Made the date format consistent
  • Not clear (to me) what "Position in historical rankings" means.
    • I'm not quite sure how to explain. I basically mean that Ilie Nastase was the first unique number 1, therefore is (1), while Nadal was the 24th different player since the beginning of the ranking system (24).
  • "top rank" or "top-rank"
    • I have left all cases as "top rank" (without dash) - I'm not quite sure.
  • The very last table (I think) is not required. That information is already in the preceding table.
    • Removed unnecessary table
  • Note A is unreferenced. It makes a number of claims so cites please.
    • Referenced Nadal's inactivity.
  • Although not mandated, I see it as preferable to have reference date formats in the same style as the article date formats, so mdy. Right now your refs use dmy.
    • Done, I think. 03md 22:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Is there any reason this is "number 1" rather than "number-one"? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• • I was following the format of the article's title. 03md 15:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Couldn't the somewhat intrusive and big "Country" row in the first table just be the flag? If they're all coded the same the sorting should work, though I guess they might not be alphabetical. I dunno, it just seems like a very awkward table where you see country name before the athlete from that country. Staxringold _talk 03:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I will wait for the views of other editors before changing it. 03md 15:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I sort of agree with User:Staxringold. What about using the abbrevations instead of the full names ( ROU instead of  Romania) ? --Don Lope (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from Don Lope (talk · contribs)

• "although it has always been computerized." → Perhaps it's just me but that bit seems awkward here. Perhaps the mention of computerized rankings (vs. non-computerized rankings) should come in the first paragraph.

• Moved sentence - hope it's ok

• The whole second paragraph describes the way rankings were calculated in 2008, not 2009. And the "Tennis Masters Cup" is now called "ATP World Tour Finals".

• Done I think

• "Since the ATP began a ranking system for the first time in August 1973". The precise date of the rankings' inception could be mentioned. I think all the text about the rankings' history should come earlier, maybe in the first paragraph, with a bit about how rankings were made before the ATP computerized system, and a link to the World number one male tennis player rankings article.

• Done

• "He won his first Grand Slam title at the 2001 US Open and won the Masters Cup at the end of the year, replacing Gustavo Kuerten at the top of the rankings on 27 November 2001." → Is it necessary to mention the highlights of Hewitt's 2001 season in this article ?

• Removed

• User:The Rambling Man mentioned in the List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions's review that there might be a guideline against using flags w/o country names. You should use the Flagathlete template, as well as the Sortname one ({{flagathlete|{{sortname|Pete|Sampras}}|USA}} →  Pete Sampras (USA)).
• "Pete Sampras holds the record for the total number of weeks at number 1 with 286 weeks, indicated in the table on the left. The table on the right shows the figures for the most consecutive weeks that players have spent on top of the world rankings; Roger Federer leads the way on 237 weeks." → Is it necessary to repeat records that are already in the list's lead, in the first table, in the "Weeks at number 1" tables, and in the captions ? (it's a genuine question, not sarcasm)

• I have trimmed the section to leave only the important points which aren't already covered.

--Don Lope (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for all your comments Don Lope. I have answered most of them and raised a couple of points. 03md 13:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've put the resolved comments under a header to make room on the page. I'll come back later with answers to your points, and further comments. --Don Lope (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been closed as a failed nomination, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 06:02, 31 July 2009 .

---

Nominator(s): Anhamirak 16:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I have checked the article and I feel that it meet FLC criteria. Also I have made sure that the issues put up in my previous FLCs are addressed. Anhamirak 16:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Images need alternative text per criterion 5b. Also, image captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods at the end. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Done Added alternative text. --Anhamirak 13:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Each formation/dissipation needs a location.done –Juliancolton |  20:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• The problems begin in the first sentence:
  • "The 1977 Pacific hurricane season has" "had", as the season is not ongoing. done
  • "producing 17 tropical depressions; only eight of which became tropical storms or hurricanes." Comparable quantities should be formatted the same (17 and 8 or seventeen and eight). The semicolon use is wrong; use a comma instead. Remove "only". done
• "The timeline also includes information which was not" "which"-->that done
• "September was the most active month, producing only three named storm storms" Remove "only". done
• "of which one was Hurricane Florence, the strongest of the season." Awkward. Try "including Hurricane Florence, the strongest of the season" done
• "Tropical Depression Seventeen, the last storm of the year" Comma after here. done
• "Starting in the 1978 season, the naming lists included male names as well as female names." Remove "as female names", you've already told us this. done
• As Julian said, please provide locations. Giving only the date and name of storm is vague and not as helpful as other TC timelines. done
• "Timeline of Events"-->Timeline of storms done
• UTC should be linked, too. done Dabomb87 (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Working on it (Anhamirak) --67.87.69.243 (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Will do the locations now.--67.87.69.243 (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Meets Criteria. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home :::I will finish the locations later today when I can get back on my desktop. --Anhamirak 14:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC) OK. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

I finally finished the locations. --Anhamirak 19:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose
• The season officially started on May 15, 1977 in the eastern Pacific, designated as the area east of 140°W, and on June 1, 1977 in the central Pacific, which is between the International Date Line and 140°W, and lasted until November 30, 1977. - Very choppy, almost unreadable. done
• This timeline documents all the storm formations, strengthening, weakening, landfalls, extratropical transitions, as well as dissipation - Why plural "formations" and "landfalls", but singular "strengthening", "weakening", and "dissipation"? **see below**
• The timeline also includes information that was not operationally released, meaning that information from post-storm reviews by the National Hurricane Center, such as information on a storm that was not operationally warned on, have been included. - Several issues with this sentence. First, it's not that the information was not operationally released; the information was simply not known at the time, so that statement is misleading. Second, "information ... have been included"? Finally, this sentence is rather long and unwieldy. done
• . June, July, and August each had one named storm form during the month. - "each had one name storm form" is poorly worded. done
• September was the most active month, producing three named storm storms, including Hurricane Florence, the strongest of the season. - Unnecessarily choppy. done
• This season was the last to use the old naming lists that only had female names. Starting in the 1978 season, the naming lists began to include male names. - Needs a source. done
• "Tracking map" → "Track map" in the image captions. done
• Alt text needs work; for example, "Monochrome infrared satellite photo of Tropical Storm Ava" is useless to the visually impaired who use screen readers. Alt text should describe only what can be seen from the image itself; in this case, 99% of readers wouldn't know what a monochrome infrared satellite or Tropical Storm Ava is. done
• The 1977 Pacific hurricane season begins. - The entire Pacific, or just the eastern Pacific? Needs clarification. done
• Tropical Depression Three dissipates just 2 miles from where it formed while 352 miles (565 km) west of the Honduras–Nicaragua border. - 2 miles needs a metric conversion. done
• Tropical Depression Four strengthens into a tropical storm and is named Bernice while reaching its peak intensity of 40 mph (65 km/h). - This would be better I think: "Tropical Depression Four strengthens into a tropical storm and is named Bernice; simultaneously, it reaches its peak intensity of 40 mph (65 km/h)." done
• Tropical Depression Claudia dissipates 1385 miles (2230 km) west of Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. - Needs a source. done
• Why is Cabo San Lucas, Mexico linked a million times? done
• Atlantic Tropical Depression Anita (formerly Hurricane Anita) moves into the Pacific Ocean and is re-designated as Tropical Depression Eleven. - Unnecessarily complex. Try this: "Former Hurricane Anita in the Atlantic moves into the Pacific Ocean and is re-designated as Tropical Depression Eleven." done
• Tropical Depression Twelve strengthens into a tropical storm and is named Emily while reaching its peak intensity of 40 mph (65 km/h). - Same thing as above. done
• Hurricane Florence strengthens into a category 2 hurricane and reaches its peak intensity of 105 mph (170 km/h). - "Category" should be capitalized. done
• Tropical Storm Heather strengthens into the fourth—and final—hurricane of the season. - No need for dashes. done
• The 1977 Pacific and Central hurricane seasons end. - Eh? This is inaccurate, not to mention misleading. "The 1997 eastern and central Pacific hurricane seasons end". done

–Juliancolton |  20:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC) :Comment- What do you mean by 1997 eastern and central pacific hurricane seasons end? --Anhamirak 20:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, isn't strengthening and weakening plural as well as singular? --Anhamirak 21:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely sure; perhaps you could ask Tony1 (talk · contribs)? Also, alt text still needs significant work throughout. For help with that, you'd want to consult with Eubulides (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton |  22:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Alt text still needs work. Please describe only what information you can obtain by looking at the image itself. What colors do the Saffir Simpson Hurricane Scale use? 99% of readers wouldn't know that. –Juliancolton |  16:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Juliancolton asked me to take a look at the alt text. It's weak, as it mostly duplicates the captions, and it gives information that is not immediately verifiable by a non-expert who can see only the image. Please read WP:ALT #Difference from captions and WP:ALT #What not to specify. Then please reword the alt text. The following phrases are OK: "Satellite image", "storm", "Map of the path", "Much of the Baja Peninsula is obscured by the storm". Please remove all phrases not on that list, and then add other wording that would be appropriate. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Make the lead image bigger, up to 300px per the WP:MOS#Images. Right now it's imperceptible. done
    • Where did the caption go? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "The season officially started on May 15, 1977 ..." then "It began in the Central Pacific Ocean on June 1, 1977...", then "The first storm of the season, Tropical Storm Ava, formed off the southwest coast of Mexico on May 26" very, very confusing. done
  • Consistency with full stops is required, e.g. May 26 has different usages. done
  • "dissipates just 2 miles " remove "just". done
  • Ref 1 needs an en-dash. done
• The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Question- What do you mean when you saw consistency with May 26? --Anhamirak 16:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • On May 26, first sentence has no full stop, second sentence does. Check others. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Found and corrected all of the sentences w/out a period. --Anhamirak 17:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been closed as a failed nomination, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 06:02, 31 July 2009 .

---

Nominators: Cyclonebiskit (talk) and Jason Rees (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets all FL criteria. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Disclosure - Im a particpant in the Amazing Race Knowledge (XXG). Jason Rees (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comment A couple of the images need alternative text per criterion 5b. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Doing –Juliancolton |  17:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC) done where it's feasible. It's surprisingly hard to describe satellite images ("A big, spinny thing over water. The clouds are white."?) –Juliancolton |  17:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks JC Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Yes, I was mostly referring to the track maps. :) Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The first sentence conflicts with the main article, which claims that the season was average. Fixed the main article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC) "led to the season starting"-->led to the season's starting Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC) "information which was not operationally released"-->information that was not operationally released Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC) "This season had 14 tropical depressions of which only seven intensified into tropical storms" Comma after "depressions", remove "only", and make the numbers either both words or both numerals. Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC) "an average season has ten tropical storms" Is there a source for this? Sourced Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC) The usage of all three em dashes is awkward. I'd recommend putting some material in parentheses or perhaps a footnote. Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC) "spent 14.5 days as a tropical storm" So, exactly 14 days and 12 hours? Specified it was roughly that length Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Not a big concern, but it would be nice if the inline citations were in numerical order (example: Tropical Depression Five tracks over the southern Cape Verde Islands with winds of 35 mph (55 km/h).). I know there's a script for this, but I can't recall which one. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) Might be my bad grammar or a Br/AmEng thing but shouldn't led to the season's starting on May 25 be "led to the season starting..." Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC) No, the use of the possessive is correct grammar. I changed it back. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Should of the seasons storms be "of the season's storms" Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Three fatalities occurred, I'm guessing in the Dom. Rep. because you open with the United States recorded no hurricane-related fatalities but you should clarify if this is the case. Clarified Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Isn't the timeline usually linked to the individual hurricane/storms (à la Timeline of the 1982 Atlantic hurricane season) Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Timeline should use ndashes for wind speed ranges too. Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Timeline seems to have a something after "209" and before "km/h" which shouldn't be there. Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose/More Comments

I was about to support and then thought I should just randomly check facts were verifiable. The first think I checked wasn't correct which concerned me, and digging deeper I found more problems.

• Three fatalities occurred in the Dominican Republic due to the storm and damages amounted to $80.3 million. Okay unrelated to the verifiability this sounds like all the monetary damage was only in the Dominican Republic.
• Checking refs on the above statement, says it caused estimated $30m in Dom. Rep., and initial estimate of $35m in Bermuda, with no mention of the 15.3m difference. on p946 says damages were over $75m of which estimates as high as $25m in Dom. Rep. and upto $50m in Bermuda, so where you get $80.3m from seems like complete synthesis. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't make any numbers up, I chose the most commonly used ones in reports, $50 million in Bermuda, $30 million in the Dom. Rep. and $300,000 in the Lesser Antilles. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• You provide 2 references, so it can't be the most commonly used, as neither have coinciding figures. Also I can't find that $300k for Lesser Antilles in either ref. If you are taking the highest estimates, that is fine but I think you should say so. e.g. "and damages estimated as high as $whatever. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• The ref you added says "For Hurricane Emily, the amount was $191,000", also where do you get your 2009 conversion from. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• The article Hurricane Emily (1987). The infobox automatically converts the damage from the year of occurrence to the latest year. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• You can't just reference other wiki articles, I'm looking for the references for that figure. And as for the 2009 value in USD, it is calculated by the use of {{US Inflation}} within {{Infobox Hurricane}} but the inflation template hasn't been updated since 2008! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ive updated the template to 2009 figures and referenced the inflation calculator in the timeline Jason Rees (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• The citations values still only give $80.191m at most, so you still have a discrepancy, if this is changed please also update the 2009 value. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Not really, it gives $80.291 million, since the two Lesser Antilles sources are for separate islands. I just rounded it up to $80.3 so it's easier on the eyes. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't really understand led to the season's starting on May 25, you have said that the season starts on June 1, and the annual season summary (ref 1), makes no mention of TD1, making me think that the season didn't start early and it was just an off-season storm.

• The depression marked the beginning of the season, a few days before the official start. Also, unless the depression caused significant damage (like Fourteen) it's not included in the annual summary. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks for explaining. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• I was a bit confused by ref 2 as the text didn't mention ten tropical storms, however I guess you are getting your average from this, because reading up on it, I gather that tropical storms are when names are first assigned to systems, hence "named systems" curve being about 10. If this is the case I recommend directly referencing the gif.

• If you look right below the image you're talking about there is a table with the average number of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, gotcha, I had misunderstood that table. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Where on earth do you get location names from? The 24 May storm is only sourced by lots of numbers (ref 4). I'm struggling to see how you get times, locations, distances from these numbers.

• Once you have latitude and longitude stats, the distance in relation to other locations is easy to calculate. –Juliancolton |  17:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• I now think I understand the times. I'm guessing the four unheaded column blocks are 0000, 0600, 1200, 1800 in the day. But I'm still interested to know how and when you choose to insert locations (is it just what is near the coords), and (I might be being thick), but I'd have thought the distance calculations involve spherical coordinates which doesn't sound easy to me. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• I used the nearest locations to the respective coordinates using Google Earth. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Okay I'm getting the prelim reports to work, but I can't get the ftp one to work. For example I was trying to check 8:00 pm AST (0000 UTC August 14) – Tropical Depression Four forms about 840 mi (1,350 km) east-southeast of Barbados. The coordinates 155 540 from that ftp source seem to put me north-east of Barbados, or am I misunderstanding those coords. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• 150 540 = 15.0N 54.0W, that gives you a location east-southeast of Barbados. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've done this on Google Earth and it puts me ENE of Bermuda with a completely different distance figure. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Try looking at the line above that one, the coordinate you're talking about is on the second line for the depression's track. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Okay the coord above that (140 540) gives your direction of ESE, but I get it to be almost half the distance away from Barbados. Also wouldn't that be at a different time or do the ftp columns not correspond with UTC times? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• They're in UTC format but in the timeline I used local time zones also, if UTC goes into the next day, I put that date in the same parenthesis as the UTC time. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• No I meant the column/row combination of the coordinate you directed me to doesn't seem to coincide with the time you list in the timeline. There is also still the difference in our calculations for distance (and not a minor difference). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• This concern follows through to other systems, which seem to have a similar data file. Most of them are backed up with a second ref (in the case of TD2 ref 8). This gives the times, but are you working out locations from coordinates and are you roughly approximating winds speed from knots, e.g. 40 kt -> 46.03 mph ~ 45 mph and 25 kt -> 28.76 mph ~ 30 mph. Also how are you knowing when they "make landfall", estimating from co-ords again?

• I'm not sure what you mean here. Winds, coordinates, and landfall times are all covered in the preliminary reports such as the one you linked to. –Juliancolton |  17:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry if I'm misunderstanding here. Winds: are approximations from converting knots into mph & km? The point about landfall times, is that all times are given in 6 hr intervals. Do you look at the co-ords for each time and see which is the first set of co-ords to be over land. Also, couldn't these storm have hit land, for example, five-and-a-half hours (i.e. <6) before a storm's first lot of co-ords are over land? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Surprisingly enough, many of the landfalls were at the six hour points, for storms that didn't make landfall at that mark and were not included in the MWR, I put exact time unknown. As for the wind speeds, it's knots converted to mph to the nearest five, same for km/h. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I realise quite a few of hurricane timelines have got through before, but this is the first one I've reviewed and I consider all these things as legitimate (possibly serious) concerns. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If it has any bearing to this discussion, the National Hurricane Center also rounds to the nearest 5 unit (mph, or km/h) as evidenced by this: --Anhamirak 00:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

All RSMCs and TCWCs do that btw.Jason Rees (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm now off wiki so I won't be able to stike any outstanding comments I have. I trust that the FL directors/delegate will consider my remaining concerns, check if they have been resolved and in-/exclude as appropriate when the candidacy is closed. Sorry for the inconvenience and good luck, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm afraid the use of (current) reference 7 is very troubling. It means absolutely nothing to just about anyone, I would imagine. The references we use, along with supporting text if needed, should be able to be accessible to the general public and right now, that swathe of numbers is anything but. Is there a way in which alternative references (which are human-readable) could be used, or is there any kind of explanation that could be offered as to how someone with zero understanding (e.g. me) of this reference can go from those numbers to, say, "Tropical Depression One passes over the Berry Islands with winds of 35 mph (55 km/h)."? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no alternative reference for Tropical Depressions as they are never included in the Best Track folder of the season produced by the RSMC/TCWC's. But i have found a guide to hurdat here but i think its better if i explain it in my own words.

We will use Tropical Depression 14 Tracks as an Example

11530 TD - Strength on SSHS

11540 10/31/1987 M= 5 7 SNBR= 184 XING=0 - Card number, Date of formation, the number of days the storm was above Tropical Disturbance strength for.

                         0000UTC            0600UTC             1200UTC           1800UTC 

Card No. Date. LONG(N) LAT(W) Wind

11550 10/31* 0 0 0 0*0 0 0 0*0 0 0 0*165 775 30 0*

11560 11/ 1* 175 785 30 0*184 793 30 0*195 799 30 0*201 803 30 0*

11570 11/ 2* 203 805 25 0*207 808 25 0*211 811 25 0*214 814 25 0*

11580 11/ 3* 223 818 25 0*232 822 25 0*240 829 25 0*249 836 25 0*

11590 11/ 4* 257 839 25 0*267 835 25 0*275 830 20 0*285 820 20 0*

11600 TD

The winds are in knots - I hope this helps. Jason Rees (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It makes a little more sense now, but as you can see, this source will need explanation to a non-expert otherwise, in my opinion, it isn't really a useful source. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If i remember correctly there was some talk about making an article on Hurdat a while back, i dont know what happened to it though.Jason Rees (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the reference needs to be explained as it's simplest form is used in the article. We've never had an issue with using HURDAT before, this is the same format but a different file, it has depressions instead of named storms. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As Rambo's Revenge pointed out above, sure several of these lists have gone by with similar references, but it was down to his diligence that we've uncovered a reference that is effectively meaningless to 99.999% of our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What does the readers understanding of a reference have to do with the actual article? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability is one of Knowledge (XXG)'s core policies. If the vast majority of readers cannot understand the information and thus verify that the information is correct, what use is the reference? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite so. And what would be the point of a reference that no-one could understand, especially one which is used to derive other information using undefined techniques? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Because otherwise we could not be comprenshive and cover all the depressions - I dont know if there is a way of citing that guide to Hurdat, which is located on their website.Jason Rees (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is we're not comprehensive, even now, as it's impossible to determine how you get from that swathe of numbers to "Tropical Depression One passes over the Berry Islands with winds of 35 mph (55 km/h)". The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes we are because we type the position into Google earth or watever and that tells us weather its passed over the Berry Islands. Jason Rees (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Obviously, this requires a WikiProject-wide discussion. One idea is to create a reader-friendly guide to the source, much as Template:Railway line legend is used for railway line diagrams. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont know how we would go about doing that though.Jason Rees (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents on the whole "source is too complicated" issue. I personally think you're way off here, we strive to make the wikipedia articles accessible, not something you need to be an expert to understand. But the same cannot be said about the sources, if there is the need for an "expert source" that may be hard to understand for people in general well that's unfortunate for the people reading the article but I don't see it as something to be held against the article. Next we'll be saying that printed sources are unacceptable because the reader cannot immediately verify content themselves. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. The printed source is still accessible somewhere. And the printed source should immediately be able to verify the claim in the article. In this case we have absolutely NO way of getting from that swathe of numbers to "Tropical Depression One passes over the Berry Islands with winds of 35 mph (55 km/h)". It is impossible for anyone other than the author of the list to verify the claims using this reference. That makes the claims unverifiable. Which means I believe the reference is inappropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, there is nothing wrong with printed sources. Many times, they are more reliable than web sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There is someone working on an article all about hurdat and i believe his intention is too put a guide in with it. Also we can go from that swathe of numbers to saying that "Tropical Depression One passes over the Berry Islands with winds of 35 mph (55 km/h)" by plotting the postion on a map. and converting the knots to MPH/K/MHJason Rees (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can do that because you know exactly what you're doing. How does an average reader verify what you're claiming? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

By plotting the postion on a map - or using the guide thats provided by NOAA or even the trackmap that was made using the data for the season article. Jason Rees (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not being clear. From this timeline list, and that reference, how does a reader know how to get from your list of numbers to a location and a windspeed on a map? Is it explained within this list exactly how to do this? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Im sure most readers are intellegent enough to say oh thats a location thats a date etc if theyre not then they can use the guide thats located on the same website.Jason Rees (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're assuming far too much. I looked at that list of numbers, saw no sign of any guidance whatsoever, and no indication of what consitituted a location, a windspeed, etc. It simply is not accessible to a regular reader and as far as I'm concerned, impossible to verify the information you've derived from it without extensive notes. Perhaps one solution is to cite each set of relevant numbers, then explain in each citation what they mean and how they relate to your derived text. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There is , which serves as a viewer of HURDAT data, but it doesn't produce referenceable URLs, so I'm not sure what to do about that one. Titoxd 20:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- I'm trying to decipher the main concern here, as I see Rambo's comments were resolved IMO about the sourcing and now its about a key explaining some of the terms, or what am I missing?--Truco ₅₀₃ 15:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- How about we use easy HURDAT for the Atlantic? See here: --Anhamirak 17:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

We cant it doesnt include depressions.Jason Rees (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm really surprised that HURDAT or HURDAT-like references has never come up before during FAC. The reviewer is right...unless there's a guide, the layperson won't know how to interpret it. How many articles do we have which source HURDAT at FA status? Dozens? I agree that the creation of the HURDAT article would explain away the issue. Who's writing it, out of curiosity? And if this is needed to get this article to FA, it should be posted as a wikipedia article NOW if it's in a sandbox, regardless of its class. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Its Seddon whos working on it - I will see if i can get in contact with him somehow. Jason Rees (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I managed to contact him and he agreed to its publication and so ive added a guide and published it Jason Rees (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment I know that I said otherwise, but as the guidelines on alt text have developed, it turns out we need alt text for every image. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - "Category One" should be "Category 1". Same goes for "Category Two", etc. –Juliancolton |  01:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Done Jason Rees (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been closed as a failed nomination, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 The Rambling Man 17:40, 30 July 2009 .

---

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all criteria of a featured list. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per 3a of the criteria. More info for the players is needed. The table looks very thin at the moment. Research a little more on the players.--Crzycheetah 06:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • What kind of info? Position? (Keeping in mind that minor league players usually move around instead of sticking to one spot like the majors.) I can't think of anyother info that wouldn't seem extraneous or trivial. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- I'm gonna have to agree with Crzy. The list doesn't really say much about the roster itself. Why no info about their positions? Any relevant notes? Etc. I think a great way to format this would be like it is in the Worcester Worcesters all-time roster FLC.--Truco ₅₀₃ 19:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. I was thinking of exactly the list Truco mentioned, the Worcester Worcesters. They existed for basically the same length of time, and did so a century ago, yet that list has positions, notes for every player, and 63 refs to the 9 for this list. Staxringold _talk 20:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for providing an example of additional information. I'll get right on it. -NatureBoyMD (talk)
    • Comment - may I suggest you withdraw the nomination until you're ready to renominate it? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Request for withdrawl - As nominator, I request the withdrawl of this nomination to give me adequate time to improve the list. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 30 July 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 The Rambling Man 17:23, 25 July 2009 .

---

Nominator(s): 03md 10:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...it has already received a Peer Review which I have responded to and corrected queries. I want to take this list to FLC as the first of a set (including Popstars, X Factor and Pop Idol releases). Thanks. 03md 10:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment A couple of the images need alternative text per criterion 5b. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Note to reviewers I can see alot of these types of lists going through WP:FLC in the future, please take the time to review it properly and reach consensus. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Several prose issues, but I'm opposing mainly for verification reasons and because I'm unsure if ChartStats is reliable.

• "The show was produced for the BBC in a reality television format and aimed to find a new musical artist." What do you mean by "aimed to find a new musical artist"? How does one define a "new musical artist"?
  • Reworded
• "The winners of the show, David Sneddon and Alex Parks, were both awarded music"
  • Changed
• "three top 20 hits"-->three top-20 hits
  • Done
• "a number of the other contestants"-->several other contestants
  • Done
• "Malachi and Alistair Griffin both released self-penned songs in 2003 but both were subsequently dropped from their record labels." Remove both "both"s :)
  • Done
• "James Fox was also chosen as the United Kingdom's representative for the the 2004 Eurovision Song Contest, where he performed "Hold Onto Our Love". The song charted at number 13 on the UK Singles Chart in April 2003 and Fox scored 29 points for his Eurovision performance."-->James Fox was chosen as the United Kingdom's representative for the the 2004 Eurovision Song Contest; he sang "Hold Onto Our Love", which charted at number 13 on the UK Singles Chart in April 2003, and received 29 points for his performance.
  • Done
• "has been by far the most successful"
  • Done
• "which charted number two"-->which charted at number two (what chart?)
  • Clarified the chart
• "nine further top 40 hit singles"-->nine more top-40 hit singles
  • Done
• "including six which charted in the top 10."-->including six that charted in the top 10.
  • Done
• "He has also released four studio albums, with the most successful, "The Truth About Love", charting at number three on the UK Albums Chart in 2006."-->He has released four studio albums; The Truth About Love is the most successful, charting at number three on the UK Albums Chart in 2006.
  • Done
• "19 singles reached the top twenty and of those, 12 were top ten hits. "-->Of the 19 singles that reached the top twenty, 12 were top-ten hits.
  • Done
• "Lemar is the only artist that it is still active on the charts." Use "who", not "that", for people. What do you meen by active?
  • Clarified my expression
• Image caption: "Lemar, who finished third in the first series of Fame Academy, has had ten top 40 singles."-->Lemar, who finished third in the first series of Fame Academy, has had ten top-40 singles.
  • Done
• Note B needs an inline citation; I couldn't find a general reference that verified it.
  • Done
• "He released a single "Higher" in 2008." Couldn't find this in the general ref. Please make sure that anything that isn't backed up by a general ref is backed up via inline citation.
  • Done

Dabomb87 (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• The general references need to be formatted (publisher, accessdate)
  • I'm not quite sure how to format a general reference when it is not an inline citation
    • Same as always, but don't put <ref> tags around it. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• The Guardian should be in italics (ref 8)
  • Done
• What makes the following sources reliable?
  • http://www.tourdates.co.uk/news/3237-uk-charts-michael-jackson-goes-top-in-scandal-hit-week
    • Changed to a BBC reference
  • And, the backbreaker: http://www.chartstats.com/songinfo.php?id=30551, although I'm willing to back off if there's truly no alternative. Could http://www.theofficialcharts.com/ be used?
  • No, it only lists complete chart entries back until 2005. top40 charts is not reliable and there are no other reliable alternatives.
    • Sure there are. There's Guinness Book of British Hit Singles & Albums, The Virgin Book of British Hit Singles, Music Week, and ChartsPlus. TOC also license a number of daily newspapers to publish the Top 40 on a Monday morning. Doesn't NME do them too? You could also use {{cite episode}} for Top of the Pops and the Top 40 radio show on BBC Radio 1.

Matthewedwards :  Chat  09:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your comments. 03md 20:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I might need a little bit of help with sourcing all the songs then. The suggested books can be used as general references but unfortunately I'm not sure of page numbers. 03md 16:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
      • My oppose stands until the sourcing issues are resolved. If you cannot get your hands on the books/magazines soon, I suggest that this list is withdrawn so that can be done without any worry about finishing fast. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:58, 24 July 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 The Rambling Man 17:23, 25 July 2009 .

---

Nominator(s): Alex Douglas (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the featured list criteria. Please note that Young Divas has only charted in Australia. I'm willing to address all concerns and will check this candidacy several times a day. The music video director's name(s) have not been found in reliable sources. They are not on the liner notes to the singles or any of her subsequent releases. Unless, consensus has changed, a previous precedent made in the successful featured list candidacy of Paul Kelly discography and upheld recently in the successful featured list candidacy of Paulini Curuenavuli discography stands that a list can become featured, if it does not contain the music video director's name(s) for up to two music videos, by using a footnote stating that the "Director name for these music videos has not been found in reliable sources." The most recent reliable sources have been referenced in regard to members working on upcoming solo studio albums. The only source that cites that DeAraugo is working on her second studio album is a YouTube video. The only source that cites that Williams is working on her debut studio album is used. I ask you to consider, all of the above, before reviewing this discography. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment A couple of the images need alternative text per criterion 5b. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There is only one image in the article. To my knowledge, no other discography has alternative text on the image placed within the infobox. I would be more than happy to include alternative text, however, ("The Young Divas' 2006 line-up, from right to left: Kate DeAraugo, Ricki-Lee Coulter, Emily Williams and Paulini Curuenavuli performing live." for example) but I cannot find a way to include it in the image, perhaps because of the limitations of Template:Infobox artist discography. Please help me sort this out. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, alt text has always been in the FL criteria, but nobody ever paid attention to it until recently. The infobox has been updated to support alt text, see Template:Infobox artist discography. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I always knew alt text was part of the criteria, but I couldn't include it until today when Template:Infobox artist discography was updated to include the field. I have happily added alt text to the image, which reads "The Young Divas' 2006 line-up, from right to left: Kate DeAraugo, Ricki-Lee Coulter, Emily Williams and Paulini Curuenavuli performing live." Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have changed alt text to the image, it now reads "Color photograph of four women standing upright, with the rightmost woman singing into a microphone. In the background children wearing santa hats back-up the woman's singing." I hope this is more appropriate? Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.Truco ₅₀₃ 19:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Weak Oppose A decently constructed list, but I have some issues with it. Namely, it's size is borderline, I think. Technically there are 12 distinct items, but 4 of those are music videos, which are basically just repackaging of the singles. It's no coincidence that the singles table has the exact same four items as the music videos table. So, what we really have here is 8 items, below the rule-of-thumb 10. Granted, the total is based on how you look at it, whether you count the music videos or not, but it is definitely borderline. Such a small list could easily be merged into the main Young Divas page, especially since the massive lead would no longer be necessary. And since it seems the group is currently on hiatus, it doesn't look like the list is going to grow anytime soon.

• • I count the music videos, you do not. It's a difference of views and so I cannot resolve this issue, for a difference of views in editors creates consensus. Alex Douglas (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, though look at it this way: the whole point of a list on Knowledge (XXG) is to provide an organized list of links to other articles, ie, the items of the list, so that the viewer can view these items within context of each other (in the list), and find out more if they want (via the link). Music videos do no have their own pages, they are usually relegated to a section of the single page. Thus, they are a product of the single, and not really an item in and of themselves. Like has already been said, it's a matter of perspective, but this seems to fail the basic functionality of a list. Drewcifer (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I understand your reasoning, but I do not agree with it. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, the lead is huge, especially compared to the small list following it. I could see such a huge lead fitting the Metallica discog or something like that, but 6 paragraphs for a group that has released two albums within a year's time is overkill.

• • Agreed. I have removed two paragraphs that refer to the member's solo releases. Alex Douglas (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Definitely better. Drewcifer (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Beyond that, I also have an issue with the un-sourced music video directors. Previous examples of FLCs getting by or not (see WP:WAX), that does not make a set-in-stone rule/allowance that all other FL candidates can also get away with. A true consensus would be something that is, say, brought up at MOS:DISCOG and discussed amongst the greater DISCOG community, rather than isolated to a few FLCs, which may or may not get everyone's attention. (I was absent from both of those FLCs, for example, and I surely would have contested such omissions). Unsourced information is still unsourced information.

• • I assume this is in regard to 3(a) of the FL criteria.. hmm how would you suggest that I practically find references to the music video director(s) name? Alex Douglas (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm not sure if I have any fool-proof solutions for you. A suggestion would be to find out the director's name even if via a unreliable source. Just to get a lead. Then search for that name, say the director's website or even the production company. May or may not work, but it's worth a shot. It's got to be out there somewhere. Drewcifer (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Have you considered emailing a reliable website that might have this information? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I have not been able to find out the director's name even if via a unreliable source. I have emailed Sony BMG numerous times in the last few weeks and am yet without response. I will attempt phone calling them now. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
          • I have just called Sony BMG now, on the weekend, outside business hours, I will need to wait until Monday to call them back in operating hours. I would like to request that this candidacy remains "open" atleast until I can get into contact with Sony BMG to find the name(s) of the music video director(s), and try to find out if the Young Divas have made other appearances or released any other music, promotionally or otherwise for inclusion in the discography, as this will increase the size of the list, hopefully resolving length objections, aswell. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have some other smaller content/style issues, but I'll wait on those until the above is resolved/adressed.Drewcifer (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Thankyou very much for your concerns, please get back to me. Alex Douglas (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Regarding the alt text, just putting the names isn't sufficient. Readers wouldn't be able to identify the people by name alone. Physical descriptions would go a long way. It's harder than it looks!
  • I have changed the alt text to the image, it now reads "Color photograph of four women standing upright, with the rightmost woman singing into a microphone. In the background children wearing santa hats back-up the woman's singing." I hope this is more appropriate? I think I need some help. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• "The album failed to achieve the commercial success of their first album, despite peaking at number 10 and receiving gold certification."-->Despite its peaking at number 10 and receiving gold certification, the album failed to achieve the commercial success of their first album
  • Fixed. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• "concentrate on their respective solo careers." "respective" is redundant, I think.
  • Fixed. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• What makes http://www.bandit.fm/poparazzi/youngdivas a reliable source?
  • This source is the official website of Sony BMG, a major record label. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• The Herald Sun-->Herald Sun Dabomb87 (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose since the list is extremely short. I strongly suggest merging this with the band's article which is really short anyways. Nergaal (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Thankyou for expressing your opinion. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I have just called Sony BMG to try to find out if the Young Divas have made other appearances or released any other music, promotionally or otherwise for inclusion in the discography, as this will increase the size of the list, hopefully resolving your objection. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 07:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose fails the 3b criterion. This page is not long enough to be a stand-alone list.--Crzycheetah 23:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose

• Having seen the dismissive way comments about the size are dealt with I must however still make a comment about the size of this, feel free to address it or not like before.. First of all 10 is a "guideline", it does not mean "ding! 10 it meets the requirement", it means generally "don't even think about it before there are 10 items in the list". This is very short, it's a list of lists really, lists with a maximum of 4 entries, a list of 4 lists.
• Put the abbriviation ARIA after Australian Recording Industry Association, makes it clear what the table refers to.
• The lists are so short they're not even sortable, makes you wonder.

• I'm sorry but it's just really not long enough IMO to fullfill the criteria. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:06, 23 July 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 08:08, 18 July 2009 .

---

Nominator(s): Matthew Riva (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a great page and I think that it could be on featured list. Matthew Riva (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from Truco (talk · contribs)

General

• Dabs check out fine
• There is one dead external link.
• All punctuation should come before the references not after it.

Lead

• "A Beautiful Lie", the fourth single from the second album, was nominated for "Best Video" at the Kerrang! Awards and wins for "Video Star" at the MTV Asia Awards, "Playlist Generation" at the TRL Awardsand at the MTV Europe Music Awards, and it received the "MTV Gold Video Plays Award" from MTV International. -- 1)and wins for--what does this mean? Are you trying to say and won? 2)There should be a space between ref 2 and the word and
• 30 Seconds to Mars' songs and albums have received recognition at the Kerrang! Awards, the MTV Europe Music Awards, the MTV Australia Awards, the MTV Video Music Awards, the Fuse Awards and other many. -- 1)Overlink of Kerrang! Awards and MTV Europe Music Awards 2)Its not proper to state the MTV awards as the , remove all the the's, plus the one the at the beginning covers the rest. 3)other many -> many others.
• I would word that their single "The Kill" is one of their most successful ones, as it garnered a lot of recognition.
• Be consistent, use either from the or at the when referring to the awarding body.
• The lead should state the overall number of awards.
• There is a lot of overlinking, go through the prose and unlink articles that have already been linked once.

List

• It proposes the 30 Seconds to Mars among the best rock artists. -- HuH?
• The Fuse Fangoria Chainsaw awards should state why they are given.
• They wins for "Fuse Best of 2007" -- Is they wins a English variant? In addition, this should be consistent with the other wording as in "they won so and so out of so and so nominations.
• The Hollywood Life's Breakthrough of the Year Awards they recognizes the most beloved people of Hollywood. In 2006 Jared Leto wins for "Crossover Artist" . 1)Remove the they 2)Comm after 2006
• I'm not gonna review each section, but at a glance the list needs a lot of work. Each section prose should have an explanation as to why the awards are given. The following sentence should state how many awards they have won from their amount of nominations. See WP:FL#Awards and nominations for FL examples.

Poll

• Why is this section called Poll?

References

• Link all publishers that have articles, such as KROQ
• Ref 16 is lacking a publisher.
• There is an inconsistency with the date formatting, use one date format.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:08, 8 July 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 08:08, 18 July 2009 .

---

Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Another medal from moi. Disclaimer: this is being submitted as part of the Amazing Race. Ironholds (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • References: refs 3, 5, and 8 have issues, and as for the bullet pointed "specific" references after 15, I'm not sure what's going on there at all...! The last 8 "specific" references appear to be general (because they're not specifically used anywhere in the list?). You also need to watch out for pp. (single page number) and also different date formats there in the refs. And all web links should have accessdates (e.g. ref 11)
    • Fixed problems with the bullets. Not sure about your pp point - do you mean it should or should not be used for single page numbers? Dates should have been standardised, weblinks have accessdates. Ironholds (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah, often people use pages= instead of page= for a single page reference. The former gives you pp. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Ahh, gotcha. Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Where is the lecture given?
    • No idea, sorry :(. None of the sources I can find give a location. Ironholds (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
      • From the first page of a Google search: This indicates it is delivered to the Royal Society, and then at a second venue of the lecturers choosing. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I would have thought we should be using Brit-Eng on this, so honour, not honor, etc.
    • Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Tessier-Lavigne is not linked in the lead but is linked in the table.
    • Links in the table are mandatory, but I felt that adding a redlink to the lead made it needlessly ugly. If you disagree, I'll change it. Ironholds (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I would make sure the lecturer's name col doesn't wrap around otherwise it could look as if there's more than one lecturer for a given year.
    • Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Um, no it hasn't been. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
        • It has in my screen. Obviously it'll be different in different resolutions. What sizing are you using? Ironholds (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
          • 1400x1050. I assume that this is the fix you attempted. I think removing forced widths and using {{Nowrap}} should work. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

General

• Dabs, external links check out fine.

Lead

• In 1971 the lecture was given by two individuals (David Hunter Hubel and Torsten Nils Wiesel) on the same topic, with the title "The function and architecture of the visual cortex". -- Comma after 1971

• Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• I know you said that you can't find in sources where these are held, but it really leaves a gap in this list because it leaves the reader in confusion because we don't where its held. There has to be some source out there, hopefully?

• As you will know by now from previous submissions, information on the Royal Society medals/awards/lectures is very hard to come by, with the official pages serving as the only decent source. As of yet I've been unable to find anything reliable elsewhere. Ironholds (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hm, someone found some below...--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm guessing those sources below don't have locations, correct?--Truco ₅₀₃ 15:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Why are quotation marks and italics being used for the titles, is that how the Royal Society officially titles the titles?

• Just something I saw in other lists. Really they're the titles of essays and academic works, since the things were published, so they should be italicised in the same way that book titles would be. Quotation marks are commonly used in many lists like this, several of which you signed off on. Ironholds (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• It was just a question, no need for the hostility.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I apologise - I honestly didn't intend for it to come out in a hostile manner. Ironholds (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

References

• The link to the Royal Society should be in the general ref instead of the specific one.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Done.

Oppose from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

• I'm sure you can find missing references if I could find them easily on Google you haven't looked hard enough. 19351950, 1986 all found within a minute of searching makes me think every one could have refs.
  • Actually on further investigation I think it might be possible to use the JSTOR front page of every lecture 19321935193819831986 - I think searching this with Ferrier Lecture and clicking on "Electronic Refereed Journal Article (HTML)" will give you most if not all.
    • P.S. I have access to JSTOR; if you need anything, holler. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• The lead seems a bit short, I suggest adding
  • How the winner is selected? Also is this based on set criterion?
    • No idea. I know they're selected by the B-sides awards committee, but not if there are set criterion or what those criterion might be. Ironholds (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Additionally this also states that the 1950 lecture was delivered to the Royal Society at Burlington House, Piccadilly, London, on Wednesday June 29 at 4.30 p.m. 2007 was also in June but 2004 was delivered in November, 1986 delivered in April in London. All the JSOR links I gave, and the other ones you can find will give places and dates. This leads me to two questions:
  1. Is the lecture always delivered first in London (where Royal Society is based), I suspect it is, can you ref this.
  2. What is the timeline. When is the winner announced? Dates of lectures seem to vary from April to November, has a lecture ever been delivered the following year, for example.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• No idea as to the answer to the second question. I would say that they're probably all given at the RS headquarters (headquarters in 1950 was burlington house, headquarters currently is Carlton House, so on) but I can't find a ref specifically saying that. Really any conclusions drawn would be synthy OR. Ironholds (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  Okay but there are things you could add to the lead if you look. For example the lecture open to the public,, actually on further investigation Royal Society Publishing allows you to read the full content of some of the lectures here. This should give more information about times/places and if you can find this for every lecture then it is no longer OR. :) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment per the discussion at Knowledge (XXG):Featured list candidates/Rumford Prize/archive1, this list may be excessively using copyrighted text. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually in this case I disagree with you. The "copyrighted text" you speak of are the titles of the lecture publications, and these are fact. Well almost (because I found one I think is wrong). According to the 1938 lecture itself the title was The Localization of Activity in the Brain not "Some problems of localization in the central nervous system". The others need checking. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Nevertheless Ironholds, this is something you need to address in your Royal Society medal lists. Also, why are only the first words of the lecture names capitalized? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Because they were capitalised on the RS website - we've done this discussion to death on other list FLs. Why do I have to address this? You address problems, and I'm not seeing one. If there's no problem with this list there shouldn't be any problem with the others. US copyright law allows the fair use of quotations if they're used to aid the understanding of the article and don't comprise a substantial portion of the work. Now, these are being used to aid understanding, are in quotation marks and are fully attributed. The same is true on all my lists. So where is the problem, exactly? Ironholds (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I agree with Dabomb here. We have the official lecture typescripts on JSTOR and the Royal Society's page. It seems commons sense that the official typescript is right, as the RS will just be copying that, hence you'd put "The Actions of Parasympathetic and Sympathetic Nerves in Human Micturition, Erection and Seminal Emission, and their Restoration in Paraplegic Patients by Implanted Electrical Stimulators" instead of The actions of parasympathetic and sympathetic nerves in human micturition, erection and seminal emission, and their restoration in paraplegic patients by implanted electrical stimulators per it's typescript. As for the copyright, Dabomb has retracted his comment on this FL, however other medal lists may have a problem because, for example, in Gabor Medal the quotations do make up a substantial portion of the work. He's just giving you a heads up that the copyright discussions will be worth keeping an eye on. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment to all points raised above: I'll be dealing with them this evening. Sorry for the delay, I've been having some RL problems that have somewhat cut into my time. Ironholds (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment just to remind us all, we need to consider Knowledge (XXG):ACCESS#Resolution, which says we should consider 800px width as being the lowest supported resolution. In other words, if the list looks okay at 800x600, you're in the clear... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 8 July 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 08:08, 18 July 2009 .

---

Nominator(s): Mm40 (talk), Blackwatch21

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. The lead (and rest of the article) was modeled off of List of Philadelphia Phillies managers, a FL. I am leaving on Wednesday, and Juliancolton has agreed to deal with any issues that come up after I leave. Mm40 (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Uhh... Shouldn't User:Blackwatch21 also get the nomination credit? From the article history, it looks obvious that he is the initial contributor. -- ] 02:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• I wrote the lead and added the general managers section, but I suppose you're right, I'll notify him and add him as a nominator. Mm40 (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support-Looks great, and has suitable references. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

*"a season where"-->a season in which Done. JamieS93 21:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC) "Five managers have taken the Mets to the postseason, with Davey Johnson and Bobby Valentine both leading the team to two playoff appearances"-->Five managers have taken the Mets to the postseason; Davey Johnson and Bobby Valentine have led the team to two playoff appearances each I agree. Changed to suggested wording. JamieS93 23:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC) "Mets managers to win a World Series" The article on ] concerns the pitcher, not the manager. Delinked. JamieS93 21:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC) "The longest-tenured general manager is Frank Cashen, with 11 years of service (1980–1990) to the team as the general manager."-->The longest-tenured general manager is Frank Cashen, who was the general manager of the team for 11 years (1980–1990). Reworded. JamieS93 21:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC) "The manager with the highest winning percentage over a full season or more was Johnson, whose .588 winning percentage gives him a 595–417 record, which is first on the all-time wins list for Mets managers"-->The manager with the highest winning percentage over a full season or more was Johnson; his .588 winning percentage gives him a 595–417 record, which is first on the all-time wins list for Mets managers Yes, less run-on, done. JamieS93 23:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC) "Johnson also managed to most games" Delete "also", and I don't think "to" is the word you're looking for. Done. JamieS93 23:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC) In the key, there is no explanation for "W", "L", or "PA". Dabomb87 (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC) I added explanations for "W" and "L", but I'm honestly not sure what "PA" means in the context of post-season playing. JamieS93 21:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Looking at the Phillies list, I'd say "playoff appearances". Dabomb87 (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Ah, thank you. Done. JamieS93 23:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "In contrast, the general manager controls player transactions" I'm not really seeing the contrast.
• "with 1,003 games of service over eight seasons "-->with 1,003 games of service over 8 seasons

• To my understanding, all numbers under 10 should be spelled out (similar to "seven" and "five" in the article, etc.), so I would disagree on that point. JamieS93 23:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• From MOSNUM: "omparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Alt text should be added to the images. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• What makes http://www.ultimatemets.com/awards.php reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn't look like that source is particularly reliable, but given the uncontroversial nature of the information, I think it should be fine. –Juliancolton |  21:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• We should use reliable sources whenever possible.

• Replaced with a New York Times ref; there are several NYT sources available. JamieS93 20:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/051221gmround.html reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's part of the fairly major baseball magazine Baseball America. I'd say that's reliable. JamieS93 20:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments –
• "his .588 winning percentage gives him a 595–417 record". Would have thought it would be the other way around.
• In the table, the colors only need to be used in the manager column; using them in all columns is a bit much.
• Speaking of colors, George Weiss is a Hall of Famer and should be indicated as such. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:22, 8 July 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 08:08, 18 July 2009 .

---

Nominator(s): ResMar 19:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meats the criteria. ResMar 19:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It certainly seems to "meat" criteria... hehe. Anyway, Resident Mario is leaving for vacation today, so I'll be taking this over until he is back, unless it is promoted/archived before then. ceranthor 19:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm back. It's 11:34 here so I can't take this on today, but thanks for it Cer. I owe you one. ResMar 03:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 21:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- On my screen resolution, which is pretty wide, the images run past the section in which the table is in, but others say it doesn't, so it may just be mines. Other than that, previous issues resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 14:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I checked the previous version (with the extra photos) and it looked fine at 1024x768 but three photos were stacked far beyond the last section at 1440x900. If the photos must go I suggest trading some of the current photos with a more recent recipient or two, just to even things out. Currently, the last photo is of the 1976 recipient.

Right, well, it's supposed to match up with the recepient's column in the table on the side. That is, John Hare's photo matches John hare's entry. ResMar 22:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, I was just suggesting you exchange a few older recipients with a few recent ones for a little balance. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 14:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not a big fan of the sort feature, in order to get it to work properly, sometimes you have to make cosmetic or other concessions. I think it would look better with each name within its own row, followed by hometowns in their own row, and having a single row for the year. We need some sort of separator between the names and hometowns in years when there was more than one recipient, it would look better.

I think I've arrived at a decent comprimise. How do you deal with having to write the same reason, for example, 4 times? ResMar 14:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You could've used a multiple rowspan, but I think I have found a solution. Horizontal rules do not interfere with the sort feature and it still separates the multiple entries and makes it look nice and neat. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 16:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Very nice! Works well. ResMar 17:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why are the current recipients "hometowns" listed as "Stanford University" and "Nuclear Threat Initiative"?

For the 2008 awards, it tells not of their hometown but of their afflications. What should the header be changed to?

I suggest a little research into the hometowns of the recipients. Otherwise, if this info in unavailable, then I would suggest a note of some kind indicating an affiliation with these institutions. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm, looking into their bios these towns seem to be where they worked/lived when they recieved the award; so it might change after. I decided to change "Hometown" to "Location" and add a note saying that this is their afflication. I think location embodies the universities as well, though not the Nuclear Threat Initiative. ResMar 14:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• "See also" sections are for related links which are not currently present within the article. From what I see, all of these links are already present, I suggest you delete this section.

Issue resolved. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

--ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 22:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• As far as the gaps are concerned, I assumed the gaps were due to a lack of breakthroughs during those years. Also I have found this book, page 217-218, which seems to almost support my suspicion. It says "Though the prize was founded in 1796, it was not until forty three years after that the Academy, in 1839, found anyone who was in its judgment worthy of the award." Which also seems to contradict the introduction which states it was founded in 1839. Your source says it was "established" in 1839, but then it goes on to say that the fund was "created" in 1796. So I'm not sure what the big difference is. It also says the prize was founded with $5,000 not $1,000, and I am unable to locate the source of your statement. The citation given has no mention of $1,000. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 16:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

AWESOME!! ResMar 16:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I am proven my comical ineptitude to find stuff. I really should learn how to use Gbooks. Anyway, 1,000 was certainly a typo.ResMar 16:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support All my concerns have been addressed. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 03:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. It would be interesting if you could add some explanation on why there are gaps in the award (especially between 1996 and 2008). Eklipse (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It would, wouldn't it? I wonder too. Alas, there's nothing the light of solid resourses on the award on the net; all the information I have is the paragraph describing it on the Academy page. ResMar 13:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

ErgoSum's found the answer; see above. ResMar 18:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Other than the interesting find by ErgoSum (ResMar, read over the article before you send it to FAC/FLC), this meets the FL criteria. Good work. ceranthor 01:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "given by the" I prefer "awarded by"

Fixed. ResMar 21:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Because the prize is awarded by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, all of the recipients are American, except for one" Do you mean to say that the Academy specifically looks out for American recipients?

Yes. It is the American academy, after all. ResMar 21:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please check your logical quotation; "for their efforts to reduce the global threat of nuclear weapons." should

not have the period before the quotes.

Fixed. ResMar 21:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• None of the quotes in the "Rationale" column should have periods at the end because they are not complete sentences. Same with the image captions.

Uh, none of the images have periods. ResMar 21:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No, but one of the rationales did, incorrectly, which I corrected. ceranthor 19:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• The last external link doesn't seem to be especially relevant. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I decided to remove the section altogethor, as the same links appear under "General" in the references section. ResMar 21:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Plagiarism concern:
  • Article:"The endowment was created by a bequest of US$5000 to the Academy from Benjamin Thompson, or "Count Rumford", in 1796."
  • Source:"The endowment was created by a bequest to the Academy from Benjamin Thompson, Count Rumford, in 1796." Dabomb87 (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed. ResMar 01:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

All of your concerns have been fixed. ceranthor 19:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support – (iMatthew • talk) at 02:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• I'm getting into these prize lists and it's great that we're developing a set of non-forked featured lists. So, to my comments.
• I think that, since so many of the recipients have free use images, we should consider adding a column to the table with their image embedded, rather than the few you've selected which run down the right-hand side. It's a bit more work but the list would really benefit from it (in my opinion).

Actually I perfer the current format. That would make the table a lot longer and squeeze the table cells way longer then they aught to be. ResMar 18:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• "...is one of the oldest and most prestigious scientific prizes ..." is there any evidence to support these claims?

Well, its age for starters - 1798 was a long, LONG time back, and at the time America was a "new" country of only 20+ years. ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand it's one of the oldest, but what makes it prestigious? What benefit does it bestow on its recipients for instance? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

A gold and silver medal and bragging rights :) ResMar 13:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• 5000 ->5,000

Done. ResMar 18:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is an Awards infobox - consider its use along with Thompson's image within.

Is this a requirement? Rumford Medal, for instance, has none (soory for overusing that example). ResMar 18:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not requirement, just a suggestion for a more comprehensive and visually appealing list. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• "wasn't given " was not, "couldn't find " could not, avoid contractions.

Done. ResMar 18:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• "43 year later" redundant.

Fixed. ResMar 18:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Another 23 years - A further 23...

Done. ResMar 18:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• "30,000 dollars" -> $30,000.

Fixed. ResMar 18:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• signifigant->significant.

Fixed. ResMar 18:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• "The prize recognizes contributions by scientists to the fields of heat and light" and then "recognizes a signifigant acheivement to the fields of heat and light" - repetitive.

Well, this is really what happens when I modify the lead to include more information; in this case, when the award is given and why it is so sporatic. Fixed, hopefully. ResMar 18:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• "a total of " redundant.

Can you explain what you mean? It's only used once.ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The words "a total of" are redundant in the sentence. You can remove them and the meaning will remain exactly the same. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 13:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• "has won both the Rumford Prize and the related Rumford Medal, both in 1886" both, both - repetitive, and perhaps tell us what he won it for here?

Camerawork. ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Because the prize is awarded by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, all of the recipients are American," can you cite this causal relationship between an American Academy and the winners? For instance, BAFTA is a British Academy but regularly awards non-British actors.

Yes, I beleive so. That's understandable, but look at the statistics; only one award was awarded to a non-USA resident, and even then they were from neighboring Canada. When Count Rumford awarded the grant for the prize, he simotaneously gave a second grant to the Royal Academy, which awards an award of the same specifications on an international level. (see Rumford Medal) ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You need to cite this. You're saying that the reason all recipients (bar one) are US because the prize is given by a US organisation. I think this needs proof. I can see the recipients are, indeed, mainly from the US, but it could be because that's where most of the work in this area of science is conducted. Alternatively, you can remove this sentence which I believe is really just original research. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This is from one of the PDFs dabomb sent me:

Fellows of the Royal Society may, however, not be aware that Count Rumford made at the same time an identical gift of $5ooo to the Honorable John Adams, President of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, to be devoted in the same manner to the authors of discoverie's in any part of the Continent of America, or in any of the American islands . . .

I will add it to the article shortly. ResMar 13:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 14:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent use of markup to keep sorting working with those vertical spanned rows!

Thanks. ErgoSum found a nice way to do it :) ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• What does Location mean in the table? Where the prize was given? Where the scientists worked?

it waqs originally Hometown, but concerns were raised about how in the last row, it easn't their hometown but their place of work/association. ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You need to make it clear somewhere in this list where that "Location" is referring to. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. ceranthor 20:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• "List of recipients " and "List of prizes given by the academy " in general refs not needed.

What makes you say that? The table originally had a notes column, but it used almost exclusively one ref, so it was recommended to me to move it under a "General" subheading in the Refs, and later to remove the column altogethor. ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The references are fine, it's the italicised text afterwards which is not required. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed. ResMar 14:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Several of the issues require information I don't have. There's next-to-nothing by way of information on the prize on the web, and I don't have access to print material (if there is any). So I am unable to address them. ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have JSTOR access. Is there anything in particular that you are looking for? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. 22, No. 3 (January 1969), pp. 8–9, it was the oldest science prize in America. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, lemmi see; information on the founding of the prize, why Samuel Pierpont Langley got both the prize and the Rumford Medal in the same year, why the Canadian John Stanley Plaskett got an award that is typically American...ResMar 19:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I sent you an email; can you email me back so that I can email you material? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 20:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I ran this article through AWB and there where no suggested edits.
• There appear to be a couple of DAB pages for John Hare and Tuscan
• There are a couple of references that I recommend be moved up to the notes section. They are refs 4, 5 and 6.
• The references look good although 1 requires registration so most users will not be able to access it. Not sure if this is ok from a verfication point of view but wanted to mention it anyway.--Kumioko (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

• is one of the oldest and most prestigious scientific prizes in the United States. - "most prestigious" needs a citation.
• "authors of discoverie's in any part of the Continent of America, or in any of the American islands.", this needs a citation. If it is JSTOR, then put a citation directly after the quote, then reuse the citation again at the end of the sentence(s) being cited.
• by which time the grant had increased to $30,000., that was in 1862. Is the grants still 5k or has it increased to match inflation and other factors?
• In the lead Previous prizewinners include Thomas Alva Edison, for all the reasons that follow for the different winners are direct quotations and copies of the table quotations. If they are there they should have quotation marks, however I believe that you are really pushing your luck here. I think this list is on very shakey copyright grounds. Knowledge (XXG):Non-free content#Text says "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited", and would say this list does extensively use quotations.
• Where is note ?
• in fact I have a much more general concern about copyright infringement (see here). Basically for each entry you've copied from the Rumford page, e.g.

  1915

  Charles Greeley Abbot, Washington, DC, for his research on solar radiation.

  then just put | in between things to give

  1915||Charles Greeley Abbot||Washington, DC||for his research on solar radiation.

  Then wikilinked some terms and added a sortname coding. Basically you have copied the "creative presentation of text" and that is also copyrighted by the American Academy. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  This is a serious issue that affects more than a few FLs. I've contacted Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), one of the authors of the plagiarism dispatch for the Signpost, to provide guidance. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  My opinion here is that the chronological list of award recipients is not a problem, as this is straightforward fact. I do think that the quotation of text exceeds both WP:NFC and fair use, as it is extensively taking from the website. I acknowledge that it would be a right pain in the neck to use original language for the rationales, but I think we must. For example, perhaps the rationale of John Ericsson (1862) might be altered to read: "Although he was honored generally for improving heat management, Ericsson's 1858 developments to the caloric engine were specifically singled out." The real pain comes in with individuals live Carl Barus (1900). "for his research in heat." And that means what, exactly? I'd recommend rewriting what you can and saving the quotes for non-informative text like that. Alternatively, rather than quoting or using full statements, might you simplify the final column to something like "area of research"? Then for John Ericsson you might say Heat management (specifically, his 1858 developments to the caloric engine). Then for somebody vague like Carl Barus, you could give the one word note: Heat. --Moonriddengirl 18:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  Given that this may have wider implications than this single list, I believe I'll seek additional feedback at WT:NFC and a copyright page or two. --Moonriddengirl 18:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  This is a tough one. First, you can't copyright facts, so such-and-such winning of so-and-so in year YYYY is both factual and necessary. So the question is down to the reasoning and this is where I think that the language has to be changed - that rationale for the winner is the creative part of the Acadamy's input to this, and restating out of the web page is excessive. Now, for 90% of those, they could simply fixed by citing just the field of work, eg for the 1996 award, just say "cosmic microwaves" with appropriate linkage; for more complex ones, just put in lists (eg 1973: "symmetry in polyatomic molecules, microwave spectroscopy") That's the easiest way to avoid the issue while still keeping key information in the list. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  I think that's a fair compromise to get on with things. In the meantime, it's still a useful exercise to determine a guideline on what constitutes too much direct quotation. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  I'd suggest that when the quote is the actual citation for the award, that should be considered factual. Secondly, it is (probably) too short an element of text to be considered a substantial taking. The "original work" in this case (I think) is each individual citation, taken separately; rather than any subsequent compilation of them (unless it appears that we have selected from the original citations in the same way as the compilation).

So, I don't see a need for any changes. Jheald (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If the text being pulled was only being used to describe the honor of the award for one of the winners on their article page, sure, it's likely short enough that a cite avoids any issue. Using them all is a problem. As there's a way to replace the potentially-creative reasoning for granting the award with free use text (simply citing the field(s) it was won for, and not the whole quote) it avoids any possible copyright issues. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're seeing my point. If those are simply the original citations, we're making a lot of small quotations from different original works, not an extended quotation from one work.

Secondly, IMO the formal citation should be seen as part of the facts of the award, which I think we should be at liberty to report verbatim, as facts. Jheald (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the individual statements of reason are likely compiled from other source documents that the awards body generated when granting the award, and their list is only a summation of those. However, our WP article only cites one additional source in addition to the list in the body of the list (that for the most recent award); if it instead cited each individual document, I'd be less concerned because as it is, it smells and acts like a copyright issue. But this is centered around the question of whether the reasoning that the award was given is a non-copyrightable fact or not (if its the former, then there's no question that the table, overall, is not copyrightable like a phone book, and inclusion in the list article here is fine). My concern is that those statements of reason are opinions of why this person was recognized, and thus, even if they are short snippets, are still copyrighted. This is certain far from outright copyright violations, but it is not in the clear. Which is why a cautious approach, including only the fields that were listed for the reasoning of each award, is a safer option than wholesale copyright. But again, I point out that if each of the quotes in the table as they are now were actually sourced to the documents that announced the winner, I'd see less a problem with that. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

<unquote>
I know I'm going with the minority here, but I do not think this is not a copyright infringment. The descriptions given are the original citations given by the Academy. Although I can certainly modify it to the fields of work, it wouldn't be the same. To Masem, this article has gone through so many changes and shifts, but at the point of nomination it did in fact have a citation for each year, person, and date, in a Notes column. It was seen as too bulky, so the notes was removed and replaced with a single citation under General. Then the column itself was removed as it seemed too big for the few scattered notes within.

This kind of sucks to tell you the truth, I started this as a side project playing second fiddle to Loihi, but it's made the bottom of the list...my first FLC made the bottom of the list...now that's an acomplishment. ResMar 03:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• "There is no implication of literary merit, but the work must be of a minimum length. This means that single words or a single sentence do not have copyright (for advertising - words, logos and sentences are ‘trademarked’). Also individual facts do not get copyright, e.g. address details, telephone numbers. This is a common sense approach in that although individual facts do not acquire copyright, collections of such facts do acquire protection".

• "Copyright protection under the copyright code (title 17, section 102, U. S. Code) extends only to “original works of authorship.” The statute states clearly that ideas and concepts cannot be protected by copyright. To be protected by copyright, a work must contain at least a certain minimum amount of authorship in the form of original literary, musical, pictorial, or graphic expression. Names, titles, and other short phrases do not meet these requirements."

It would seem the US and the UK have differing opinions on this, I dunno, I'm no copyright lawyer. But I have serious doubts about any "infringement" upon copyrighted material. This is a collection of facts, and no real authorship went into the original list. Having said that, I do believe the proposed changes would actually improve the article, so I can't say I'm against them. I think a less vague explanation of why these people received the medal would be an improvement. Although I'm not sure "Towards his concern" is better than what was there before. I also think anything would be better than reading "For his" ninety times. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 04:29, 11 July 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 19:06, 11 July 2009 .

---

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all the criteria. Kumioko (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Weak oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Normally I wouldn't say this, but I think there should be a link to World War I.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "World War I (the First World War, the Great War), was a global military conflict from 1914 to 1918, centered in Europe." I'd recommend using the wording from the main article, with a few amendments: "World War I (also known as the First World War and the Great War) was a global military conflict that embroiled most of the world's great powers, assembled in two opposing alliances: the Entente and the Central Powers." If necessary, you can borrow the references from the main article too.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Over 40 million casualties"-->More than 40 million casualties

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Over 60 million"-->More than 60 million

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'd recommend moving the second and third sentences to the end of the first paragraph.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States" Missing period after this.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "frequently it is presented posthumously"-->it is frequently presented posthumously

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "One hundred twenty four men"-->One hundred twenty-four men

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "who later became the basis for a movie by the same name" Ref?

Done. I reworded this a little so Let me know if I still need a ref. --Kumioko (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "and Edward Rickenbacker who became a famous flying ace. " I think a reference is needed for this, and comma after "Rickenbacker".

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "and was the first Marine aviator to received the Medal of Honor."-->and was the first Marine aviator to receive the Medal of Honor.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "When all the officers with his platoon had become casualties" Don't mince words. Were they killed?

Done. This was a quote from the citation. I clarified it. --Kumioko (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• "beyond our lines, under constant machinegun fire, and rescued 2 wounded officers." Who is "our"? Per MOS we shouldn't use first-person language (we, our, us etc.)

This was a quote from the citation.--Kumioko (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• The notes need to be proofread. I'll see if I can come by later this week and clean it up, but am not making promises. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• http://www.jimmyatkinson.com/papers/versaillestreaty.html deadlinks, and what makes it reliable?

Done. I replaced this with another ref. --Kumioko (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/casualties.htm and http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/F/firstworldwar/index.html reliable? Considering the info being sourced, it shouldn't be hard to find high-quality sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. I replaced this with another ref. --Kumioko (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the items you mentioned above I fixed several other things, added images and cleaned up some notes. Please feel free to goo back through and or proofread the notes. --Kumioko (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the quoted material in my comments above, please remember to put anything directly taken from the source in quotes. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The first one mentioned, ref 2, is still present. By the site editors own admission "it is not recommended that this site be used for academic reference purposes" however there is a lot of listed sources. I think this source is borderline, what about you Dabomb? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

• Can you fix the image in the Infobox as it is not aligning to the centre properly and I think it looks really unprofessional.

Done. not sure I see what you are seeing but I measured it and it was a little off center to the left so I made a change that brought the image to center. --Kumioko (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• The quote "conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States" ref 1 mentions gallantry etc. Quotes need cites.
• One hundred twenty-four men were awarded the Medal of Honor for their actions in World War I, I know it is following MOSNUM by not starting sentences with numbers but actually a reword would be better. e.g. "The Medal of Honor was awarded to 124 men ..."
• Try and integrate "Thirty-three of the awards were posthumous." into the previous sentence for 2 reasons, one to avoid spelling out 33, and because it is a comparable quantity so should be consistent with the others.
• american flying ace -> American

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Concerns in notes, now I won't pretend to have looked at them all but here are 3 examples I did look at and comments on them:
  • John H. Balch: Risked his own life to provide medical care to soldiers and Marines wounded in fighting, a good paraphrasing of the source
  • Harold L. Turner: After his platoon had started the attack Cpl. Turner assisted in organizing a platoon consisting of the battalion scouts, runners, and a detachment of Signal Corps. As second in command of this platoon he fearlessly led them forward through heavy enemy fire, continually encouraging the men. Later he encountered deadly machinegun fire which reduced the strength of his command to but 4 men, and these were obliged to take shelter. The enemy machinegun emplacement, 25 yards (23 m) distant, kept up a continual fire from 4 machineguns. After the fire had shifted momentarily, Cpl. Turner rushed forward with fixed bayonet and charged the position alone capturing the strong point with a complement of 50 Germans and 1 machineguns. This has no quotation marks and is copied verbatum from this. This is highly concerning and above all else copyright violation.
  • William B. Turner: "ed a small group of men to the attack, under terrific artillery and machinegun fire, after they had become separated from the rest of the company in the darkness. Single-handed he rushed an enemy machinegun which had suddenly opened fire on his group and killed the crew with his pistol. He then pressed forward to another machinegun post 25 yards (23 m) away and had killed 1 gunner himself by the time the remainder of his detachment arrived and put the gun out of action. With the utmost bravery he continued to lead his men over 3 lines of hostile trenches, cleaning up each one as they advanced, regardless of the fact that he had been wounded 3 times, and killed several of the enemy in hand-to-hand encounters. After his pistol ammunition was exhausted, this gallant officer seized the rifle of a dead soldier, bayoneted several members of a machinegun crew, and shot the other. Upon reaching the fourth-line trench, which was his objective, 1st Lt. Turner captured it with the 9 men remaining in his group and resisted a hostile counterattack until he was finally surrounded and killed." Similar to the above in copying this verbatum, but in using quotations it does not give the impression that it is your work. However is the whole quote really needed, could it not paraphrased.

Summarising, you need to be very careful of copyright violations. Many of the notes can be paraphrased and unnecessary taking of text as wrote from here does not constitute fair use.

As far as the issue of being a copyright violation thats a non issue here because they are the actual Medal of Honor citations which is a freedom of information act and is fair use. But I agree that they should be paraphrased or in quotes if it cannot be easily paraphrased. I thought I took care of them but I will go back through again and look at them again starting with the ones you identified. --Kumioko (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure the Freedom of Information Act does not by itself guarantee that the works of the government are public domain. It gives people the right to know what information is in government files, but it does not imply that any government work can be used by anybody without permission. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I made some changes to the citations as work fields were being confused with title fields and I standardised date format.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose until alternative text for images is added. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand could you give me an example of an article that has it? --Kumioko (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Priestley. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this a new requirement, knowone has ever mentioned this before? I have not done this to ANY of the other MOH lists that have been approved nor have I seen it in any that I have reviewed recently.--Kumioko (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I know. See this discussion. That the images in this list don't even have captions make alt text necessary, I think. Sorry for bringing this up now. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 10 July 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 19:06, 11 July 2009 .

---

Nominator(s): ErgoSum•talk•trib 05:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is as comprehensive as its gonna get. I have been heavily editing the list for the past month or so, and all the definitions are referenced. ErgoSum•talk•trib 05:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - the lead is too short IMO. Perhaps adding a paragraph about the background of some of those trucking terms. (also not sure if this violates 3b as merging this with Trucking industry in the United States is doable in my opinion)—Chris! _ct 20:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I was apprehensive about the intro as well, but there isn't much that can be said about it. Its a glossary of terms, what else needs to be said? The "history" of these terms is nonexistent. Most of these terms are self explanatory, "motor carrier" or "fifth wheel". Other terms are also self explanatory but documentation of their development is nonexistent due to their obvious nature, "glad hands" are a reference to the way they couple together like a pair of hands during a handshake, "lowboy" is pretty obvious but who knows where the "boy" came from, as is "portable parking lot". I will keep searching and see if I can dig up anything but I'm skeptical.

Are there any other featured glossaries that I can draw examples from? Also, this was originally part of Trucking industry in the United States, but was split due to length, and the split was also recommended by other users. Do you really think it can be added back? TIITUS is still being expanded, and it is already long as it is. Adding the glossary would make the article well over 70kb, which is not unheard of, but I think the glossary deserves its own article. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 22:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying absolutely that you have to merge with Trucking industry in the United States or this fails the criteria, but I am posting these questions here for others to think about since the length of the lead and whether this warrants a stand-alone list are both parts of the FL criteria.—Chris! _ct 23:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, I understand. This is my first attempt at a featured list, so I'm not exactly an expert... but I saw no mention of introduction length in the FL criteria. I realize the intro is sparse, I don't disagree with that assessment. However, given the nature of the subject matter (this being a glossary), I wasn't sure if the introduction should include anything more than an explanation of the content. I do however think this warrants a stand-alone list, as per WP:SIZERULE. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Knowledge (XXG):Featured list criteria does have something on introduction length. 2 says that lists need to have "an engaging lead that introduces the subject." 5 requires lists to conform with the MOS. Knowledge (XXG):Lead section, which is a part of the MOS, has a section on length.—Chris! _ct 00:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (glossaries) "If the glossary would be 25 terms or more, it is probably better to create a stand-alone glossary list article." I counted 87 terms. It also says "For a glossary list article that consists of a simple lead and a glossary, the form Glossary of subject terms is preferred... For an article that mostly consists of a glossary list but has well-developed material on the history and use of the terminology, or other such information (several paragraphs worth), the form Subject terms is preferred". I can expand the intro, but it will just be a summary of the terms, as history is not covered in the article. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, not sure if I agree with you entirely because the lead is too short according to my experience reviewing FLs. But there is no point for the two of us to debate this since it is not up to me or you to make the final decision. :) I am going to let others weight in on the lead issue before !voting. Though, I am now convinced that this should be a stand-alone list. Good work on the list, though.—Chris! _ct 23:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm quickly glancing over this an one thing strikes me as very strange for a vocabulary-centered article: Why isn't is in alphabetical order? Circeus (talk) 05:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I could quickly change it, I just never got around to it. Should I get rid of the sections? I could alphabetize the whole list, and have each alternate/slang version with its own entry directing it to the standard term. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind the sections. It's really just the random order that seems weird. Circeus (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well it wasn't really random for me, as I suppose I organized it in the manner that pleased me most (from most commonly used to rarely used terms). But it is all alphabetized now, and I changed the links to use the {{main}} template, cuz thats what WP:Manual of Style (glossaries) said to do. But as it turns out, it is only a working draft so I'm not sure there is much precedence for the styling of glossaries. Although I think it looks better. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 02:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Jargon used within the trucking industry in the United States" "within" could simply be "in".
• "terms which describe"-->terms that describe
• Sentence fragments should not have periods at the end.
• "utilizing"-->using (shorter is sweeter)
• "A method of shifting gears which optimizes"-->A method of shifting gears that optimizes
• "A method of inventory control where warehousing"-->A method of inventory control in which warehousing Dabomb87 (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Done, done, and done. I assumed that all the definitions should have periods at the end, but if you could tell me which ones or just delete the offending periods that would be fine with me, as I'm not sure which ones are too long to be considered fragments. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 02:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's more of a grammar thing than length, really (any phrase without a subject and a verb, simply put). I'll fix it myself.

Sources

• Journals, newspapers and magazines should be in italics. I fixed The New York Times and Modern Tire Dealer Magazine, but there may be more.
• What makes the following sites reliable?
  • http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/private-carrier.html
  • http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tandem?o=100074
  • http://www.worldtraderef.com/WTR_site/Truck_Trailers/Guide_to_Truck_Trailers.asp
  • http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/18729188_1.html Dabomb87 (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• This one is run by a bunch of companies, see here. It seems legitimate enough.
• This site gives sources, and offers numerous different definitions. It is one of the best dictionaries I have seen on the web, and if you know of a better site then feel free to substitute another.
  • I assume you're referring to dictionary.reference.com. I've asked Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) about it, as she's the source guru at FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• This is a magazine see here. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 00:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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