Knowledge (XXG)

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 User:Scorpion0422 20:56, 28 October 2008 .

previous FLC (20:26, 11 October 2008)

Immediate renomination because I feel that reviewers' concerns were all addressed in the previous FLC, and I don't see why this list shouldn't be promoted.

Comment You may feel that reviewers' concerns were met, but either they didn't revisit to offer further feedback on it, or they didn't indicate any support of promotion. I can only go by community consensus, and in this case I couldn't see that any consensus had been reached. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Pages of note

• Link checker tool
• Translation of sources provided by Google Translate - I know Google Translate isn't fully accurate, but it suffices as a third-party translator. A particular reviewer wanted a third-party translator, that reviewer got a third-party translator.

Pandacomics (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NONENG: "Where editors use a non-English source to support material that is likely to be challenged, or translate any direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original, non-English text in a footnote or in the article, so that those readers who understand the foreign language can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Knowledge (XXG) editors."

It is no good providing a table of links to Google Translate in a subpage of a FLC. The translations themselves have to be on the article so that all readers can immediately verify for themselves what is being presented to them as fact. Additionally, says "Even today's most sophisticated software, however, doesn't approach the fluency of a native speaker or possess the skill of a professional translator. Automatic translation is very difficult, as the meaning of words depends on the context in which they're used. While we are working on the problem, it may be some time before anyone can offer human quality translations." so even they can't guarantee the accuracy of their translations, and you also said you know it isn't fully accurate. Any translation should be done by a human or other "reliable source", not a robot that may not be accurate. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You say you want a translation, so I will give you translations. Except, if I write them down, you're still not going to promote it on the grounds that the translations are mine. So I'd use Google Translate translations to show you that my translations weren't erroneous. But then, you're going to say that even those translators aren't reliable because it's done by a robot. Pardon my urgency in stating this question, but, honestly, what the hell do you want? Pandacomics (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. I say Google's translations aren't reliable because both you and Google say they may not be. A human who is fluent in Chinese, or one who is close to it and uses Google to back them up would be okay. Again, I quote "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Knowledge (XXG) editors." As long as the translations appear on the actual article, I have no problem with the translator being a Wikipedian if nothing else is available. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment List should probably be renamed to List of awards and nominations received by S.H.E. Gary King (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah....I'm getting to it. Pandacomics (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)  Done Pandacomics (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 19:31, 28 October 2008 .

I am nominating this List for FL status. It is comprehensive, interesting, researched and clearly covers its subject area. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• change the "This is a list of colleges and universities in the state of Maryland." to something more interesting and less generic "This is a list of"
• "accredited, degree-granting," – "accredited, degree-granting,"?
• "of Maryland. For" – link Maryland?
• References need to be formatted per WP:CITE/ES to include at least publisher and access dates

Gary King (talk) 09:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - even though I live in Maryland :(

• This is a list of colleges and universities in the state of Maryland. - FL's are discouraged to start with "This is a list of ___" Better stated as "The U.S. state of Maryland has (# of overall colleges), (# of public colleges and # of private ones).
• For the purpose of this list, colleges and universities are defined as accredited, degree-granting, postsecondary institutions. - this should be added as a footnote or somewhere in a key.
• The state's public universities are part of the University System of Maryland, with the exception of St. Mary's College and Morgan State University, which are public but are not part of the university system. - comma before "but"
• The oldest school in the state is St. John's College, formerly King William School, founded in 1696, well before the American Revolution, and the third oldest college and/or university in the United States of America. - no need for "well" in "well before" "before" will work. IMO, no need for "of America."
• Francis Scott Key, author of the Star Spangled Banner, is an alumnus of St. Johns. - wouldn't it be "alumni"?
• The newest is University of Maryland, Hagerstown, founded in 2008. - newest what?

Need to be more elaborate.

• Enrollment ranges from small, liberal arts colleges with low numbers of students to the flagship state school, the University of Maryland, College Park, which serves well over 38,000 students, and the even larger University of Maryland University College with an enrollment of distance learning and traditional students that exceeds 50,000. - needs major rewording and grammar correction, I can't even follow what is being stated here, needs a full stop somewhere to split these.
• As of 2005, approximately 310,689 students (undergraduate, graduate, & professional) were enrolled at Maryland universities and colleges. - how about As of 2005, approximately 310,689 (undergraduate, graduate and professional) students were enrolled in Maryland universities and colleges.
• The number content in the tables need to be in a {{sort}} template.
• The references should be in a "References column" not a "notes" column.
• Is the enrollment up to date? It needs to be stated somewhere as of what year the information is form.
• The "n/a" should be in caps, "N/A"S_RX 14:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback.

• The descriptor for the list in question is substanially identical to that of List of colleges and universities in Vermont and List of colleges and universities in New Hampshire, both of which have attained FL status.

• "Alumni" is the male plural, while "alumnus" is the male singular. When referring to a sole graduate, the term is either "alumnus" for males, or "alumna" for females. Many avoid this by using the term "alum".

• I will attempt to remedy the other points noted.Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Quick comments: There's an ampersand in the main text. (See MoS). There's a redundant "the state of". Tony (talk) 02:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose References 30–69 are primarily bare, and need to be formatted correctly. –Juliancolton 16:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• References Fixed I have fixed the references, formatting them correctly. Given this, I would ask for a reconsideration. thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 19:31, 28 October 2008 .

The article lists all the New York Mets managers starting in 1962 when the franchise began. I believe that this list meets the FL criteria.--BlackWatch21 02:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose – lead is entirely unsourced. Current references need to provide a publisher and an access date; see {{cite web}} for more details. — sephiroth bcr 03:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Source statements that need sourcing in the lead, including "Their nicknames included The Amazin' Mets, The Amazins, and The Metropolitans." Format the references per WP:CITE/ES. Gary King (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I sourced the lead and perfected the {{cite web}}. I think everything is alright now. BW21.--BlackWatch21 20:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• Concealed year-links in the table: how will readers know that they're not just trivial year-page links? Can you at least put a note in the key that they lead to year in ...? Tony (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comments Sources look good. –Juliancolton 16:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • This list is modeled off of List of New York Jets head coaches which is a FL and after reviewing their FL request the the trivial year page link didn't seem to be a problem but I'll look into it. BW21.--BlackWatch21 19:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Killervogel5

• Still many uncited statements in the lead.
• Change "Reference" column in the table to "Ref" to save space.
• Jerry Manuel is the current manager, hence the title of the list. Image captions should be changed; there is a difference in baseball between coaching and managing. Also, captions should be reformatted so they don't look like comma splices.
• No playoff records at all? Totally unacceptable. See List of Philadelphia Phillies managers rather than a football list.
• Writing Hall of Fame and color coding it and having in the key... very redundant. Remove from the awards section; this is better used for Manager of the Year, etc.
• "7th game"->"seventh game"
• The lead seems like it's missing a paragraph of... well, I don't know what. Just seems quite short.
• Games coached should be changed to games managed; likewise "GC" to "GM".
• Websites are not publishers. Change baseballhalloffame.org to National Baseball Hall of Fame, baseball-reference.com to Baseball Reference or Sports Reference, LLC (latter preferred) as publishers, and etc. the whole way down.
• If you are going to use the Mets navbox, then the link to the managers article needs to come directly here without a redirect. That's the point of the navbox.

Currently, I strongly oppose this list, and that's not the Phillies fan talking.

Oppose from Killervogel5

• Comment - I think that critical information in any manager list is World Championships, League Pennants and playoff appearances. I think this information ought to be incorporated to get to FL class, either for columns to list (or at least count) such items, or at least for that information to be included in the comments column. Rlendog (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 15:52, 25 October 2008 .

The list contains important information and is very pleasing esthetically. It might suffer improvement if in addition the list would be sorted by author. Tusbra (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• There is no lead
• Sections should be level 2 (==)
• Some items do not have references

Gary King (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick-fail This article needs significant work. It does not have a lead and is little more than a list of links. The list does not follow style guidelines (i.e. headings, en dashes in year ranges) and has a dearth of references. The references that are present need to be formatted. Sorry to be blunt, but this list is nowhere near Featured standards. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Quick-Fail -
  • No lead per WP:LEDE.
  • No sections.
  • References are not in {{cite}} template.
  • Many red links.
  • Not everything is not verified with a reliable source.--S_RX 15:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose All references need to be formatted correctly. –Juliancolton 15:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Quick-fail, please. Premature nomination shouldn't be bloating our list of nominations. Appears to be a wishlist of new articles—see the plethora of ungainly red links. Tony (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 15:52, 25 October 2008 .

This list lists the New York State Symbols    Juthani1    00:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose< for now. The lead needs to be substantially expanded with general information. A brief history and overview of the state would be nice, as well. –Juliancolton 00:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Question: As a comparison, what do you think of List of South Carolina state symbols? Is there another good list of this type that could be used as a model?--otherlleft (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Answer':' There is also, List of Indiana state symbols
    • None of the current lists have a solid lead. Give me a few minutes, and I'll try to help out with this one. –Juliancolton 16:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Please see my comment here for an explanation for why I reverted a few edits    Juthani1    20:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I replied at your talk page. I'm afraid I'm going to have to change my vote to Oppose, as the lead is once again too short. I, do, however, fail to see why you removed the addition of that link in the See also section. Cheers, –Juliancolton 20:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Expand lead per WP:LEAD
• Format references per WP:CITE/ES – some are missing publishers, and the "in English" specification is unnecessary

Gary King (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Lead
  • Well practically there is none, does not meet WP:LEDE.
• Tables/Lists
  • Why are the "type" of symbols bolded? No reason for emphasis.
    • I have removed the bolding    Juthani1    21:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The images clutters the table, they should be removed and about 2 or 3 should be added on the outside of the table, see List of tallest buildings in Washington, D.C.
    • Compromise- So that all the pics are still included, I made the pics bigger so that they would all fit without the clustered look    Juthani1    21:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I like this compromise - unlike a list of buildings, it's particularly useful to have all the images here.--otherlleft (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • No key, some of the content, like the italics under the name have no explanation.
    • Italics are for real name or the scientific name. The above name is the more common name for the species. They are only for the scientific names    Juthani1    21:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• References
  • The citation templates need to be updated also.S_RX 20:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    • What needs to be updated?    Juthani1    21:06, 16 October 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 15:52, 25 October 2008 .

previous FLC

I nominated this four months ago. It was archived even with two supports and no opposes. Anyways, I have cleaned it up further, and it should be good to go once more! Gary King (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Ref 23 is missing a publication date.
• "Wilfrid Laurier University is a public university located in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, and founded in 1911 as the Evangelical Lutheran Seminary of Canada and later Waterloo Lutheran University." Was founded.
• "The university has had nine chancellors including the incumbent John A. Pollack, who has served in this position since March 31, 2008. Wilfrid Laurier University has had seven presidents including the incumbent Max Blouw, who has served in this position since 2007." Commas before "including" (both times). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

All done. I think you mean commas before "including". Gary King (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• On my browser, there's a large white space between the "This is a dynamic list" and the table. Perhaps move the template above the sub-heading? (Update: I'll check appearance on my work browser tomorrow)
• Image sizes shouldn't generally be specified. (Update: I'll check appearance on my work browser tomorrow; on my home computer, the specified images are looking tiny)
• "Known for" shouldn't be a sortable column.
• Having both "#" and "Term" as sortable in the Chancellors / Presidents tables is redundant. Well, if you insist...
• Wikilinks to Chancellor and President – are these the best available links, or would Chancellor (education) and University president be better?
• More fundamentally, I think this article fails the FL criteria on comprehensiveness:
  • Why isn't there an article on John Pollack?
  • Why aren't there articles on five three of the presidents?
  • When were the undergraduates / graduates there? What did they study? See e.g. List of Dartmouth College alumni or List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford for what can be done.
    • Update: Thanks for adding the "discipline column in, but (a) what is "General" in this context? and (b) why have two names got dashes? Bencherlite 22:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • What efforts have been made to make this as comprehensive a list of notable faculty and alumni as possible? What sources have been consulted to try and find names to add to the list? Just looking at Category:Wilfrid Laurier University alumni, what about David Black (football player), Ken Evraire, Paul James (soccer), Dave Knechtel, Peter Mackie (soccer), and Chuck McMann?

I know that education-related lists are difficult to make comprehensive – see the way I tried to demonstrate comprehensiveness on a previous nomination – but I'm having difficulty accepting, at present, that so few people from this university are notable in almost 100 years of history. Bencherlite 18:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I moved the dynamic list. The image size is set so that the image doesn't move on top of the table. I'll leave both "#" and "Term" sortable since it's more useful to have both sortable than one not sortable. Is it required for articles on every one of the chancellors and presidents to exist? Regarding the table, information isn't usually easily available about when the students were there. I've added in what their discipline was. To find these names, I've mostly scoured Knowledge (XXG) for biographies that have graduated from the school, as only people that already have an article should be included since they are already notable. I've added some more people to the list; it will never be completely comprehensive. Gary King (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Simply relying on existing Knowledge (XXG) articles isn't enough to show "comprehensiveness" for me, I'm afraid. The missing chancellors and presidents are clear examples of articles that should exist. People can be notable without having an article on Knowledge (XXG), and lists of this sort need to set out as full a list of notable people associated with the university as possible. Unlike other FLCs that we could mention, this means that much more preparatory legwork is required, since the missing articles need to be written about WLU people to start with (by you and / or others) to get a fuller list. Bencherlite 21:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Compared to Jesus College, Oxford, I don't think there are comprehensive lists of alumni of the school available for me to access for this, though. Gary King (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, find the names yourself, then ;-) ! The Jesus College website list of alumni is quite short. So, to get around that, I've been (a) working through biographical dictionaries (such as the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and the Dictionary of Welsh Biography), (b) searching online newspaper archives for obituaries or mentions of people that ought to have an article about them, and (c) reading the published histories of the college and the college's own publications; on Knowledge (XXG), I've been checking (d) "What links here" for articles that haven't been properly categorized, plus of course (e) the alumni category. Whilst Jesus College is over 400 years old, it doesn't have that many students (at present, not more than about 500 at any one time, and much, much fewer than that in the past). The Jesus College list isn't complete, but it's comprehensive. In contrast, we have just 22 notable former students in the 100-year history of WLU, with a current student population of 12,000? I'm sure that there are Canadian reference works and newspapers that can be checked for more names. What about (d)? And you hadn't even done (e) until I pointed it out! Are you really saying that this is a comprehensive list? Bencherlite 22:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll do d) now. I did do e), at least when I first submitted the list for FLC a few months ago. I hadn't done it since then; the new names had the category added to them after the last FLC. Gary King (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I spent a few hours looking for more names and have added them. Gary King (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a mild improvement. However, I note that, instead of creating further articles on Laurier people, or attempting to explain why this is a comprehensive list anyway, you've chosen to create other, easier, lists to get to FL status and given up on this one. My oppose stands. Bencherlite 22:43, 22 October 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 15:52, 25 October 2008 .

For the contest, but I've been working on this one a while. So, someone finally told me that #tag has been updated so that you CAN nest refs. So I had a happy happy happy time this weekend, finally able to create a clean article without using letters. (You can see why it mattered; there are more than 26 each of notes and cites!) The only thing I'm concerned about at this moment is the paragraph explaining the history of the land; I'm not sure anymore if I should go all the way back, or just go as far back as the last whole entity that contained the territory, which in this case would be 1863, New Mexico Territory. After all, before then, the identity of the land had nothing to do with Arizona Territory. So I'm thinking about removing the "see the list of governors of Sonora and Alta California", and some of the detail of how the land came to be, especially since the list of Sonora governors doesn't go nearly far enough back. But beyond this, I think it's featurable. --Golbez (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

• En dashes wherever needed, per WP:DASH, such as "Goff pp. 76-77"
• Consistency; "McClintock p.346" should be "McClintock p. 346"

Gary King (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Done. --Golbez (talk) 06:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://jeff.scott.tripod.com/Murphy.html
    • See below.
  • http://books.google.com/books?lr=&ei=TRPvSPjXCIqEywTKmbDYBg&client=firefox-a&id=QG5VAAAAMAAJ&q=%22April%2C+1892%2C+and+at+that+time+he+resigned+as+Governor%22&pgis=1 (A self-publishedg genealogy book)
    • Ooh, you're good. I'm glad to see people are checking refs. :) That he resigned is not in dispute; that he did it in April is not in dispute; that he did it to attend to family business is not in dispute. This was, however, the only Google Books snippet I could find that includes all three in the single snippet. I'll see if my source for Goff's book can offer more detail, so I can switch this to a Goff cite.
  • http://members.tripod.com/~azrebel/page15.html
    • This was the last remaining 'lay' cite, and I'm now browsing google books for an acceptable replacement.
• Should probably put the Jeffrey Scott ref to "Scott, Jeffrey" to fit the rest of the refs
  • That was an error; I meant to link to Jeff Scott's page, not to the specific Murphy page. As to what makes it a reliable source, I suppose I should move him to external links. He sources from the same books I am, but with the advantage of actually being able to read them, rather than snippets from Google Books. He also has more biographical detail. The facts seem to check out, so I'm confident in recommending him for further reading (though I deliberately didn't use him as a source, since I went for the primary works).
• Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals in refs even when they are in all capitals in the original
  • Fair enough.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Golbez (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've fixed all of the above, and redid the Confederate section with all new sources. --Golbez (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Seems a little anomalous to link "veto bills" and not "convene the legislature" - be judicious in your linkage.
  • Mmm, good scrutinizing. I've delinked all of the things in the lede that aren't specific to Arizona or knowing what it is. Let me know if I delinked too much.
• years. - remove that space.
  • Done.
• " i`nstead" - what's this?
  • No clue. :P Fixed.
• First half of the lead is cited, second half is uncited. Be consistent.
  • The fourth graf is cited by the table, which is cited by the references, whereas the first three are best specifically citable through constitutions and such. I don't need a source to say that X had the longest, or Y had the shortest, terms, as that's easily gleaned from the sourced table. However, it would be good to find one that confirms it's the only state where a woman has succeeded a woman; fortunately, the NGA says that, so I'll add a ref to that. Let me know if you think anything else in that last graf needs citing.
• You could make the table sortable. And not sure why the hash column is required, but not too fussed about that.
  • No, I couldn't; the ... oh, wait, there's no Lieutenant Governor column in this one. In that case, I suppose I could. As for the hash column, I find it useful since Napolitano is officially referred to as the 21st governor, and it's nice to show how they get to that number. (Such a problem is why I haven't been able to do Virginia yet; no one seems to know which governors count).
  • Done making all tables sortable. --Golbez (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• "See the list of Governors of New Mexico Territory for the period before Arizona Territory was formed." - make this a See also, don't include in the prose.
  • Done. I've put it after the graf; does it have to go before?
• "from April 2–5, " - grim. Can we use prose instead? Like "between April 2 and April 5.." or similar?
  • Done.
• "of 33° 40' N." - explain - non-experts won't have a clue.
  • Any ideas? If it were just 33° then I could say "33rd parallel north" but they had to go and include minutes.
• "The territory ceased to exist with the fall of the Confederacy in April 1865." citation?
  • None, really, except the fall of the confederacy itself. Easier to just remove that line, since for all intents and purposes, the territory ceased to exist in 1862.
• WP:COLOR suggests that you ought not use just color to define a particular property.
  • This is the fourth or so time this has been brought up on my FLCs. It is NOT just color; there is TEXT there. Republican. Democrat. If I didn't have that column, then yes, I would need some kind of symbol to delineate which is which for those who cannot see the color. But I do have that column. I apologize for getting a bit angry here, but after explaining this several times it's getting old.
    • mea culpa - feel free to be angry with me. I apologise for blindly pursuing MOS without actually thinking straight. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• Spanish-American probably needs just a hyphen, not an en-dash?
  • I used en-dashes when the articles did; in this case, both Mexican-American War and Spanish-American War articles use the en-dash in their titles.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments, I've been hoping for deep scrutiny like this. :) --Golbez (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments by SatyrTN

• (ec) There's too much text. You have four paragraphs in the lede, plus another one in the section section, plus another one to describe the Territory, plus another three to describe the Confederacy. Trim as much as you can out of that - people can follow wikilinks if they want more.
  • Each graf, in order:
    • Two sentences to describe the office.
    • A paragraph describing length of term.
    • A paragraph describing succession.
    • A paragraph describing specific notables.
    • A graf concisely explaining the evolution of the territory; I'm open to trimming this, though. Originally, I included all past governors here; see governors of Sonora, of Alta California, etc. I decided it was best to just limit it to the last common ancestor, which in this case is New Mexico territory.
    • A tiny graf giving context to the formation and life of the territory itself.
    • A tiny graf explaining the first governor.
    • Confederacy:
      • One graf to explain the first governor of the provisional territory.
      • One short graf to explain how the provisional territory became a confederate territory.
      • One graf explaining the second governor. I'm not sure if there's any trimmable fat in this section.
    • A tiny sentence saying when the state was admitted, to give some prose at the top of the table.
  • What do you suggest be trimmed? I see all of this as being necessary to understanding how and why certain people become governor.

I think I see what's going on. You've basically combined an article (Governor of Arizona) with a list (List of Governors of Arizona). In my opinion, much of the prose you have here should go in the article, leaving the list to be just that - a list. See, as an example, Governor of California and List of Governors of California (an FL). I do see that there are other List of Governors similar to this one, even ones that have made it to FL status. But, in my opinion, this is a mashup of a list and an article and isn't FL status.

No, I didn't. An article on the governor of Arizona would include information on its history and trends, on the powers of the office, on how they have changed over time. All this article does is handle how you become governor, for how long, and how you are succeeded; in other words, how you transition from one governor to the next, which are important aspects for this list.

• I was surprised not to see the Arizona flag anywhere.
  • Seems superfluous; where would you suggest it be? At the top?
    • Yes - Napolitano may not be Governor in 2011, but Arizona will still be a state.
• First table:
  • Sortability for "Name", "Took office", "Left office", and "Appointed by".
    • Already done.
  • The first column "#" is redundant to the "Took office" column.
    • In this case, I suppose you're right. Done.
  • Left justify "Name" and "Appointed by". You could also left justify the dates, but that doesn't matter much.
    • Done. I much prefer centered, and other people I've talked to agree. --Golbez (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• Second table:
  • Sortability for "Name", "Took office", and "Left office".
    • Already done.
  • The first column "#" is redundant to the "Took office" column.
    • In this case, no it's not. I find it useful since Napolitano is officially referred to as the 21st governor, and it's nice to show how they get to that number. (Such a problem is why I haven't been able to do Virginia yet; no one seems to know which governors count).
  • Left justify "Name". You could also left justify the dates, but that doesn't matter much.
    • Done. I much prefer centered, and other people I've talked to agree. --Golbez (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• Suggestion: Move the images down so they start right above the first table? They don't need to be to the right of the "Governors" and "Governors of Arizona Territory" text, and having them next to the table is good. If you move the images down, and move J. Napolitano down, they should just fill the space to the right of the tables.
  • I can't control how large people's screens or windows are, so I gave up trying to "fill the space". I'd rather there be too few images than too many. And since Napolitano is the current governor, why not? (Note that if we had images for all governors, they'd all go in the table and I probably WOULD put the flag on the top. But we don't. So they can't.)
• I'm not fond of the "Other high offices held" and "Living former governors", especially coming as they do after the Notes section. It may just be me, but "Notes" in wikipedia are one of the last things on the page, so seeing any content after that bugs me. Plus those two seem tacked on and unnecessary.
  • The notes are specific to the governor tables; nothing after them has notes. I found other offices held useful mainly due to the New York list, since it includes lots of presidents; I figured, if they can have it, so can everyone. It's interesting to see who else was a governor or what not. I'm open to nuking living former governors altogether, but ten lists and no one's made a strong argument for it.
• Oppose without some major work. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments, though I disagree it needs "major" work. --Golbez (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You've done quite a bit of work on it already, what with reworking tables and such. That to me qualifies as "major" :) I'm still opposed to this being promoted, due almost entirely to my belief that this is a mashup of a list and an article. You've done good work on it, and consensus may go your way, but that's my gut feeling :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to the mashup issue. It's a list with all the prose needed to explain how the things in the list transition from one to the next. An article on the office might include these but it would also include lots of information not included here. --Golbez (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Quick comment "The territory was to exist until such time as an official territory were created, but the U.S. Congress rejected calls for a territory at that time." 'Territory' is very repetitive, and the sentence as a whole reads funny. Could use a rewrite. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I've done a try. --Golbez (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I've undone the left-justification, the list looks much better, IMO and some others' opinions, centered. --Golbez (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've tried a new color system, looks much better. --Golbez (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per some of the above. My biggest problem is the use of fractions in the Terms column of the table. You can't really say that one governor served half a term and another a third of a term. I see the value of listing terms served, but fractions do not work. Reywas92 15:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • They aren't to be taken literally (and there is a note saying just that), they simply show when a term was shared among governors. It's a better solution, I think, than extending a column between governors, as that would have more readability issues. As for "per some of the above", since most of the above has been dealt with, can you please be specific? --Golbez (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 15:52, 25 October 2008 .

My first entry as part of the FL contest. I'm taking a somewhat odd approach to the lead, as it's an overview of the team's history, rather than the usual statistical information. Thanks for the comments, –Juliancolton 21:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose
  • Couldn't you just put American football instead of football?
    • Done. –Juliancolton 13:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You linked American football twice.
    • Fixed. –Juliancolton 13:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "1936 in Cleveland, Ohio." -> "1936, locating in Cleveland, Ohio."
    • I disagree. That makes it terribly clunky. –Juliancolton 13:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I just feel like the sentence is a little bit non-copyedited. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 18:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "Georgia Frontiere died January 18, 2008 after a 28 year ownership commencing in 1979. Ownership of the team passed to her son Dale "Chip" Rosenbloom and daughter Lucia Rodriguez. Chip Rosenbloom was named the new Rams majority owner." Does this really need to be in the article?
    • Nope, removed. –Juliancolton 13:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You didn't even talk about the coaches in the prose.
    • There's no need. The information about the coaches is in the table, and rambling about them in the lead would be redundant and rather useless. –Juliancolton 13:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
      • But the information in the prose leads to the table itself. I truely recommend you talk about the frst and current coach at least. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 18:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Alright, I added a couple sentences. –Juliancolton 18:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The "Number of coaches" should be sorted correctly so that any coach who has two or more separate terms as head coach is only counted once.
  • "Coached" -> "coached".
    • Done. –Juliancolton 13:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Couldn't you denote which coaches have spent their entire NFl coachng career with the Rams?
    • I'll look into it. –Juliancolton 13:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you link the awards?
    • Done. –Juliancolton 13:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you upright the pictures?
    • Done. –Juliancolton 13:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you follow the order of references like the one on List of Los Angeles Lakers head coaches?
    • Why? –Juliancolton 13:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
      • It will make the references look more neater. Was just a suggestion. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 18:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Why are there no references for Damon Wetzel, Joe Vitt, and Jim Haslett?
    •  Done –Juliancolton 13:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You should tell the readers that these statistics are as of the end of the 2007 NFL season.
  • Could you make this table sortable like the one on List of Toronto Blue Jays managers?
  • "Awards" -> "Achievements".
    • Done. –Juliancolton 13:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You should've peer reviewed this article first before you nominate it. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 03:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have time. The featured list contest gave me a little over a week to get the article finished and to FLC.

• One more comment
  • "St. Louis Rams American football franchise." -> "St. Louis Rams, an American football franchise."

Comments

• Date autoformatting now deprecated; please see MOSNUM.
• "The team then became known as the Los Angeles Rams after the club moved to Los Angeles, California in 1946"—Spot the redundant word. And why suddenly draw a distinction between team and club? Cumbersome sentence.
• "Following the 1979 season, the Rams moved south to the suburbs in nearby Orange County, playing their home games at Anaheim Stadium in Anaheim for fifteen seasons (1980–94), keeping the Los Angeles name." We trip over ourselves reading this snake. "Following"—"After"?
• I have no objection if you head the last column "Ref." to save space, and loosen the squash in the middle. Tony (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Got everything; thanks for the helpful comments. –Juliancolton 13:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes http://www.databasefootball.com/index.htm a reliable source?
  • Nothing, really. As far as I can tell, that site doesn't have an "About" page or anything. I stuck with that source because the information isn't of a terribly controversial nature, and because it's used in several FLs. I can easily change to another source if needed, though. –Juliancolton 13:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 4 is lacking a publisher
  • • Done. –Juliancolton 13:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Is is the Official Site of the St Louis Rams or the St Louis Rams? Pick one way to describe it and be consistent.
  • Fixed. –Juliancolton 13:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• 1980–94 vs 2006–2008 - I'd go for consistent range formats.
• Is note A your opinion or official? if (a) then remove, if (b) then cite.
• Move Allen's picture into Coaches section - my browser has a big gap before the Coaches section.
• I would right-align the numeric columns.
• Where are the "...of the Year" awards cited?
• What references your notes?

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Done with everything except for your 5th point, which I'll work shortly. Thanks for the comments, –Juliancolton 23:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from SatyrTN

• Need a link to National Football League Coach of the Year Award somewhere.
• Could you change the formula (down in the Notes section) to us "½" instead of the way you have it? Should tighten that up a bit.
• I don't know exactly how to change it, but having George Allen's picture where it is causes a lot of whitespace. Maybe move it down to be in the "Coaches" section instead of the "Key" section?
• Looks good, otherwise.
• Conditional Support -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

All done. –Juliancolton 23:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I have to repeat some of the comments already mentioned
  • The "As of..." note is really needed
  • All other similar lists denote coaches who spent their coaching career with one team. This list shouldn't be different.
  • I can't confirm some of the awards; references must be added.
  • What happened in 1943? Why no one coached the team? An explanation should be added to the lead.
  • Maybe it's a temporary thing, but I can't open footballresearch.com
  • The format of the retrieval dates should be consistent.

--Crzycheetah 03:00, 21 October 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 15:52, 25 October 2008 .

This list is part of the FLC Contest. I think it fulfills the featured list criteria.—Chris! _ct 20:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - concerns have been addressed to meet WP:WIAFL.--S_RX 01:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2008/080331xb.htm deadlinks

Fixed —Chris! _ct 22:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Acquisition is linked on its second use, not first. Fixed
• Not sure of the "HP specializes in building a wide variety of technology-related products "... reads like an advert. Removed
• Overlinked US$ in the lead (three times?) Fixed
• And printer. Removed
• Why right align the value when you don't use zeros? No point in trying to numerically align them when you use billion and million etc. Fixed
• Is it US$ or USD? Fixed
• merger links to the same aritcle as acquisition. Removed
• The 'hash' col doesn't need to be there does it? Date order fulfills identical functionality.

The column shows how many acquisitions.

Removed

• Why two rows unreferenced? Fixed

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments by SatyrTN

• The lede is a bit long and, agreeing with The Rambling Man, that "HP specializes..." sentence reads like an advert. I would take that sentence out, and the last sentence of the lede, which smacks of WP:SYNTH (though may be perfectly sourceable). Removed
• The sentence SRX changed above would make sense if it read "Each acquisition was for the respective company in its entirety..." Removed
• MOS:FLAG would seem to indicate that the country names are sufficient for this table and the full flag is not needed. Removed
• As per above, the "#" column is redundant to the Date column.

The column shows how many acquisitions.

Actually, the column shows the order of acquisitions, not the number. In a sortable table, that information is duplicated in the very next column, the date. So it's redundant.

Removed

• As mentioned above, I'm a tad worried at the lack of reference for two entries. Fixed

• Conditional Oppose, but will revisit. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Support: I'd still like it better if that first column were removed. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Quite a number of problems.

• The NYSE code is not relevant. Removed
• "headquartered" is a horrible word.

Any suggestion

• "Today, HP has become". See WP:DATED. Try "As of 2008, HP is". Fixed
• "serving more than one billion customers in 170 countries on six continents" is pure marketing bullshit. Removed
  • Easy dude. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• Arguably "HP specializes" and "a wide variety of" contradict each other. HP is not a specialist manufacturer. Removed
• Some repetition in the list of products. Blades are servers are computers, as are PDAs. A switch is a networking product. "Storage" goes to a dab link, and is too general a term. Removed
• "Since its founding in 1939" repeats. Removed
• "Hewlett-Packard has made a total of 69 acquisitions" is completely OR and wrong. According to official site it has made 38 major acquisitions/mergers since 2000 (this list has 50 since 2000) and the unofficial alumni site lists over 150 in total.

Yes, it is wrong but not really OR. I will add a note about this

• "In its first 19 years of existence, HP did not acquired a company" is redundant, given the next sentence. Removed
• "During the 1980s and early 1990s, HP began" You can't "begin" to do something over a two decade period. It started acquiring computer companies in 1989, beginning with Apollo Computer. The value of the deal isn't particularly important, and is repeated in the table.
• It isn't clear why Convex Computer is mentioned in the lead.

It is a large computer firm HP acquired

• In the Compaq deal, comma before "when". Fixed
• "From 2005 to 2008, HP purchased 14 software companies, the largest of which was" appears to be OR, as is the final paragraph.

I disagree. This is based on the table. Final sentence partially removed

• "The acquisition doubled the size of HP’s software business." Need to state "size" is in annual revenue (not e.g., sales units or profit). Added
• "The acquisition date listed is the date of the agreement between HP and the subject of the acquisition" this is a get-out IMO and not always correct. The first four have sources that list the actual acquisition date. You don't know when the announcement was. Avantek's source talks about a "recent purchase". Colorado Memory Systems's source is for the date of the actual acquisition. Metrix Network Systems's source only mentions a "tentative agreement". The Comdisco announcement was July 16 but it cleared a review in August 6, which is the date in the list. VoodoPC was announced on Sep 28 but completed on Oct 31, which is the date in the list. There's probably more but I only looked at a sample. Dealt with
• The Value is usually the value at the time of the announcement, and this should be noted. The value when the actual acquisition took place may be different and depend on the share prices. I don't think you need explain why the value is in US dollars. Fixed
• "If the value of an acquisition is not listed, then it is undisclosed." Comments on a similar list indicate that if the company has shareholders, the value will be disclosed. For example, gives a little detail on the Tower pricing, but you can't work out the total value. It is disclosed, but you'll have to work harder to find out the actual amount. Dealt with
• Two of the list elements are unsourced. Fixed
• The dates are inconsistently formatted. Log out to see a mix of US dates and ISO format. This affects both publication date and access date columns. You should be able to use the new parameters to the cite templates to make it consistently US format, and there is no longer any requirement to autoformat or wikilink dates. I will remove them, just need some more time.—Chris! _ct 06:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Each acquisition has for the respective company in its entirety, unless otherwise specified. " Should that be "is for". Where has it been "otherwise specified"? Fixed

Colin° 20:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest "headquartered" be replaced by "based", or "with headquarters". Wrt both OR issues, if you've counted the table rows (or subsets of the table rows), and the table is collated from multiple sources, then you fail WP:SYNTH. If there was a single authoritative source for all HP acquisitions, then counting the rows would be reasonable summary information, and if the one source categorised the acquisitions (like this does) then you could use those categories to say e.g., it had made X software acquisitions since YYYY. But doing this from your own collated data or your own categorisations is OR and it appears the numbers are also wrong. The statement "and shifted its attention toward computer manufacturing" appears to be your (or someone's, not the sources) own interpretation of the primary data. This isn't allowed -- you need to find e.g., a business magazine that highlighted 1989 as the point when HP shifted its attention towards computer manufacturing.

I see you've appended "unless the exact acquisition date is known" to the acquisition date explanation. Well there are several dates that are present in the sources, not just two: the date of the announcement, the date it clears some regulatory review, the date of the acquisition and the date of the newspaper article. You can't say "is known" because the reader will think "is known at all", not "is known by Chris". The actual date of the acquisition can probably be found in a more specialist computer business journal, or in some public record that a good library might be able to help you with, and will certainly be mentioned in HPs annual report for that year. If this is too hard to achieve, then you could consider having separate announcement and acquisition date columns, and fill in what you can. Then we need to decide if that is comprehensive enough for an FA. The bigger problem at the moment is the concern that the list is only half as long as it should be. Colin° 13:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I can count the numbers of acquisition from here, but this source inflates the total acquisitions by including firms that are acquired by companies eventually acquired by HP. Since I am not an expert on this, I have to ask. Do I have to include those companies as well? As for the date issue, I will sort it out in two different date columns.—Chris! _ct 19:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't spot that subtlety in the hpalumni page. I agree that indirect acquisitions don't count, but that's just my opinion. Looking closer, there's other problems with that source. It mentions when the percentage-stake has changed but I'm not sure what counts as an an acquisition in that regard. Do you have to buy the whole thing? It also mentions buying such things as the "Sara Lee Europe IT Department" which sounds more like Sara Lee outsourced their IT to HP. And "Data Systems (from Union Carbide)" sounds like they bought a division. Is that an acquisition? Ultimately, it is just a volunteer-produced list so not the most reliable of sources. Hmm. Colin° 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is not the best but it is the best one out there that listed all acquisitions. As for the dates, I've fixed them, so please take a look. BTW, (answering one of your concerns above) I don't think the statement "if the company has shareholders, the value will be disclosed" is true at all. Take Tower Software for example, this source explicitly says "HP didn't say how much the acquisition worth" even though Tower has shareholders.—Chris! _ct 21:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing the shares were privately traded (with Tower owning most of Tower Software and being a privately held business) so no stock exchange was involved. There are sources saying the Tower deal was for an "undisclosed" amount. It is tricky to prove a negative if you just can't find the information. Colin° 21:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then should I keep the following sentence "If the value of an acquisition is not listed, then it is undisclosed" or rewrite it so that it reflects what's going on?—Chris! _ct 22:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent). The new source (alacrastore) currently lists 116 acquisitions since 1986, not its founding as stated in the article. In addition, I don't see anything in that source to indicate these are indirect acquisitions as stated in the article. The brief summary of each news item in the alacrastore source indicates whether the acquisition was for an undisclosed amount or for a value -- but you have to pay to see what the value was. So, for example, Tower's amount was disclosed. The lead remains almost completely original research and even if the 116 figure was accurate, it would need an "As of XXX" prefix as it is likely to become inaccurate in a few weeks. Aside from whether the table has all the entries, the value and date columns aren't comprehensive, though probably could become so if an editor had access to a paid financial service. I suspect that providing a comprehensive and detailed list of acquisitions for a company like HP is beyond the means of amateur WP editors. Colin° 21:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The brief summary on each acquisition do provide enough information without having to pay subscription. For example, on this Tower acquisition page, the abstract shows us the values. And also the alacrastore provides a timeline about hp acquisitions free. (you have to look at each acquisition page in order to see whether they are indirect acquisitions) So there should be enough info to make a list. As for the lead, I am still working on it.—Chris! _ct 23:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

There must be more that I missed. Gary King (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. This makes me wonder: how do you know all these companies? Do you go to a specific website or something?—Chris! _ct 04:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You've added a lot more now. It looks much better. Gary King (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

To reviewers: I have addressed most of them. I will addressed the rest of them tomorrow. Thanks—Chris! _ct 04:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

To reviewers: I have addressed most if not every concerns. The date issue is dealt with. As for the acquisitions, I have a new source that has a timeline about HP acquisitions and make sure that this time I did not miss any of them.—Chris! _ct 06:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've perfected the list and I believe it now fulfills the FL criteria. Thanks—Chris! _ct 01:40, 25 October 2008 (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 Scorpion 18:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe this list holds a lengthy and accurate coverage of The Living End's discography, and adheres with Knowledge (XXG)'s rules for FLC nomination. If you do deny, please provide some points to improve the list. kiac (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, based on prose Comments

Let me know my talk page when these are done. Gary King (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Replies; kiac (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Videos → Video albums

 Done

• Why are there missing video directors?

Not available anywhere i am able to find, looked long and hard. I have seen other FLs without all, it seems un-important. Especially considering the next point.

• MVDBase.com isn't considered a reliable source

Another issue i am unable to solve. There's no other reference, do i remove the director from the list (when it seems they are all factual) or what?

Have any of their music videos been released on a DVD and/or enhanced CD single? The liner notes usually contain director information -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There are over 90 articles on wikipedia that use mvdbase.com as a reference, mostly discography articles. In particular, List of U2 awards, Red Hot Chili Peppers discography, Powderfinger discography, Hilary Duff discography, Metallica discography, Soundgarden discography, Delta Goodrem discography and Paul Kelly discography all of which are FL class. I therefore don't see the problem in using it as a reference.

So i'll take that comment as more notable/reliable than the previous one which had no evidence or proof, re-adding MVD base.

• Incorporate "—" into the table

Do you mean the director table?

Sorry for not being clear. I meant the albums and singles tables. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Why are the certifications in such a small font?

 Done Looked fine in my resolution, didn't notice.

• Listing the singles in the albums section and then in their own section is redundant

 Done I meant to remove this, just copying how some other featureds had it.

• Maybe add catalog numbers for the albums and video albums?

Do you know where i can get these? I have looked, but can't find.

I have found them at websites such as Eil.com and Discogs.com. These sites are good for basic release information such as catalog numbers, release formats, etc. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

-- Underneath-it-All (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Replies; kiac (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Replies; kiac (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose mainly by the poor layout, I suggest that you take a look in The Mars Volta discography for some ideas. This list is also a lack of references to music videos section, and several redundancies. Cannibaloki 23:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose? I don't see grounds for that, but your opinion is yours. Fixed the layout, made it look as close as i could to the Mars Volta discog. Working on the Music Videos! No one happens to own this From Here on In: The DVD 1997-2004 do they? Where are these redundancies? kiac (talk) 10:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never reviewed a Featurd list before, i've gone around a checked other Featured Lists and i see a number of problems, you can fix these problems by checking how other Featurd Lists look like, i think. --Russian Airplay (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• The following are suggestions only:

Could you use Discography The Living End for all Australian charting singles and albums? A similar Discography The Living End is possible for NZ charting singles and albums.

If mvd.base is allowed (see discussions above) why not use Artist search "The Living End"? Or doesn't it cover all the mvd.base refs in your list?

I have no opposition if you don't use these, I just think they're more efficient.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done the discography ones, good suggestion. I'll leave the mvdbase ones for now because i'm not entirely sure where they stand. kiac (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Matthewedwards 03:15, 20 October 2008 .

This list appears to cover all of the main points and the main aspects of the FL critera. ISD (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment the few sources there are seem to be ok. –Juliancolton 21:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I've copyedited the lead for you, ISD. Yet I'm not quite sure if it's that ready—it seems a little short compared to what I've come across, including my own work on the Bellflower Bunnies lists. Perhaps more production details &c. may be necessary? See if you can attempt it by following the examples at WP:FL#Media (under Episodes). Wishing you the best of luck! --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose—Cr. 6. What is normally beautiful Japanese script is turned into ugly clutter in this context. Why is it used on the English WP? There is a Japanese WP. I'd like to know whom it's helping.Tony (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Response to Opposition - Several manga/anime featured lists contain Japanese text. See List of FLCL episodes, List of Claymore episodes and List of Gunslinger Girl episodes. ISD (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Tony, no one is going to honor this oppose until you actually go and talk about it at WT:ANIME. — sephiroth bcr 06:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose – summaries are extremely short. Flesh them out a bit. Include the romanji for the episode titles as well. For the general references, use {{cite web}}. Cut all the external links unless they are official sites. Any dates on the DVDs (i.e. DVDs were released between date X and date Y)? — sephiroth bcr 06:04, 16 October 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 03:15, 20 October 2008 .

I have recently re-written this list and split it from the main David Bowie article. I think the article could be good enough to be a Featured List. --JD554 (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.everyhit.com/index.html

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• I did struggle with that one. I have a source here which is far more reliable, unfortunately it doesn't give the year he won it. Everyhit seemed to be the best of a bad lot that included the year. Would the yearless source be preferred? --JD554 (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That I can't answer for you. Anything in a printed source? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Not that I have access to, so I've used a combination of the two which hopefully will suffice. --JD554 (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - fails Cr 1, 2, and 5

• This is a list of awards and nominations received by David Bowie, the British musician and actor. - FL's are discouraged to begin with "This is a list of ___" Could be Davide Bowie is a British musician and actor.
• This is a list of awards and nominations received by David Bowie, the British musician and actor. He began his singing career under the name David Bowie in 1966 and won his first award in 1969 when he won an Ivor Novello Award for the song "Space Oddity". - makes no sense saying "began under the name David Bowie" since you didn't say his real name (David Jones) earlier.
• He did not receive any more music awards or nominations until the early 1980s. He has since won many awards for his music, including two BRIT Awards, two Grammy Awards and three MTV Video Music Awards. - to weasley, you need to be more specific.
• He has also had a long and innovative presence on the Internet which led to his being awarded a lifetime achievement Webby Award in 2007. - there has to be more to it than just being an internet personality.
• This list is not like other awards/noms lists, see List of awards and nominations received by Paul Kelly (a recent promoted FL).--S_RX 01:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've made changes which I hope address your concerns. --JD554 (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Before I re-review the list again, listing every album/work is a big no-no, clutters the lead.--S_RX 21:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought and I thought it looked ugly. I was going by the example you provided above. So which should it be? --JD554 (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have to say for what work he was nominated for, it helps the reader understand and it will increase the size of the lead and follow other FL's.--S_RX 13:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Based on the above comments and specifically because every single item is listed in the lead. It looks really, really bad; I can't fathom why it was decided to do that. Gary King (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I decided to do it because that's how it was in the example given by SrX above. I've removed the lists and agree that it looks an awful lot better. --JD554 (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 03:15, 20 October 2008 .

Inspired by FL:List of Castlevania titles, I completely remade the list from it's pitiful former state. G.A.S of the WikiProject Anime and manga suggested, after I requested a reassessment, to nominate the list as featured candidate. It is my first nomination. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried to do this, but came to realize, that Harvest Moon and SmackDown are series of rather similar games as well as being primarily video games series. The One Piece video game series on the other hand is only the third leg of the franchise. (First being the manga, second the anime.) The series' success is mostly based on the success of the anime and manga, which (as opposed to HM and SD) are also the only things all the series' games have in common. But that is a statement, which is hard to source and therefore borders to original research. To the point: seeing "addition of reception of series and popularity prose similar to List of Harvest Moon titles and List of WWE SmackDown video game titles" as being impossible, instead I added some more other reception prose. That, in combination with this explaination, is hopefully enough. -- Goodraise (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.cheatcc.com/index.html
  • http://www.videogametalk.com/
    • Cheat Code Central and DVD Talk intuitively seem like reliable sources to me, given the topic of the list. As far as I can tell, in Knowledge (XXG):Reliable source examples they are both rather in the middle, neither being ruled out, nor supported. DVD Talk is mentioned in a Washington Post and a Star Tribune article, CCC in a New York Times essay. So at least they are not completely unknown.
• Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals even when the original is.
  • Changed the ones with only roman letters. Should I change titles like "ONEPIECE　グラバト! RUSH" too?

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Not that I was not able to evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

-- Goodraise (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Why the ISO dates in the table? Tony (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • FL:List of Castlevania titles uses them where possible. Should another format be used? -- Goodraise (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • They should probably be written out to improve readability, and also to reduce confusion. By the way, there is nothing stopping you from changing the dates in the List of Castlevania titles as well. Since February (the list's promotion), style guidelines and general consensus over dates have changed dramatically. As an aside, date linking is deprecated by the MOS. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Done. (Though I left List of Castlevania titles alone for now.) -- Goodraise (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

-- Goodraise (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

-- Goodraise (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 03:15, 20 October 2008 .

previous FLC (09:21, 25 August 2008)

Is this list ready to be featured? Nergaal (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.officetally.com/
  • http://www.celebrityspider.com/
  • http://tvbythenumbers.com/
• Current ref 29 (CBS and ABC...) says the publisher is ZapToIt but it links to a page on Office Tally. I think you got a link mixed up somewhere.
• Pick either last name first or first name first on your references and stick with it. Right now you have authors in both formats.

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• what do you think of the new links? Nergaal (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• repetitive wording in "who are both executive producers on both versions"
• "with Feig and Whittingham both directing multiple episodes." both isn't needed here
• "ten of which... four of which"
• remove the "the" at "returned on the February 11,"

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• How's now? Nergaal (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 02:57, 20 October 2008 .

previous FLC (16:14, 8 May 2008)

• Previous peer reviews: 1st (March/April), 2nd (May/June), 3rd (September/October)

In the words of Violette Bellflower/Pirouette Passiflore:

And, after long weeks and months of figuring it out, here I am, about to start what could possibly be my first (and maybe only) featured or good topic. I'm 96% sure that everything has been addressed from the PRs and last FLC.

To borrow a little something from Reginald Lewis: "Why should Simpsons freaks and anime geeks have all the fun?" Well, I'm finally about to take you all on.

Now, give me a triple crown... --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 14:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I was not able to evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Especially in the case of season 2, the order of the broadcast episodes differs drastically from the official sequence provided by Institut National de l'Audiovisuel (INA) and AnimezVous.com. - Why not just say The order of the broadcast episodes for season 2 differ from the official sequence provided by Instit National de I'Audiovisuel (INA) and NimezVous.com. (It gets rid of "especially" and "drastically" as those are in a way WP:POV.
• Not that it is against policy, but IMO is against Cr 1 + 5: the style of how the dates are written are different throughout, they should all be consistent. (I.G. 2002 December and December 2002)
• So there was no English title for episode #8? If not, can a note be given as to why?
• Why doesn't season three have the source for material column, just curious.--S_RX 13:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

• Merge some of the paragraphs in the lead; too many small ones.
• "Series overview" – "Overview"
• "Only in Germany have titles been given for all 52 episodes" – "Have titles been given for all 52 episodes in Germany only" – please try to keep sentences passive when possible.
• "Especially in the case of season 2, the order of the broadcast episodes differs drastically from the official sequence provided by Institut National de l'Audiovisuel (INA) and AnimezVous.com." – convert into active voice
• "Series overview" – the paragraphs can be merged together (in a logical manner) also

Gary King (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 15:40, 15 October 2008 .

I think this list meets the FL criteria, has images, sources, etc. DeFaultRyan (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - {{fact}} tags abundant, not a significant contributer to the article). Once cite tags are gone, I will conom. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Speedily closed The abundant fact tags are an automatic quick fail. Please go to peer review first next time. -- Scorpion 15:39, 15 October 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 21:54, 13 October 2008 .

I think this list meets all of the criteria and is ready to be featured. I will, of course, try to fix any issues raised here, if any exist. Garden. 21:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Leads of lists shouldn't start with "This is a list of the largest cities in the European Union by population within city limits."
• Try to give more detail on the actual topic in the first paragraph.
• Say a little bit about the cities with the highest population e.g. London, Berlin
• I'm sure you already know but quite a lot of the external links are dead.
• Per Knowledge (XXG):Embedded citations it'd be better to have the references as inline citations instead of embedded links, so it can display the publisher, accessdate etc.

Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• There's no animation in the lead image, but it's advertised as such. Perhaps SVGs can animate, but the thumbnail generated is not an SVG. --Golbez (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed; should have been a .gif. Garden. 22:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• As mentioned above, you need to not imbed the citations in the list like you have, because if it's being used as a reference, it needs publisher, title and last access date at the least, and if it's not being used as a reference, it belongs in the external links section.
• Please check your links with the link checker tool. Lots and lots of dead ones.

Otherwise sources look okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

• Move the "official" links to a separate "Notes" column.
• I also fear the reliability of a lot of those sources.

Gary King (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, phew, I did a few things to the list. I've unlinked the dates in the table, changed the bold to asterisks since asterisks is more visible on different platforms, removed the periods from the ranks in the table, moved references to their own column, added multiple columns to the references, and converted the references from bare links to formatted links. Of course, some are still dead or not formatted, but it's much better than it was earlier :) Gary King (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I don't think that the paragraph about candidate countries is particularly relevant to a list of current cities. I am not really sure that the graphic showing EU history is particularly relevant either though I don't have particularly strong feelings about that. As someone else said you definitely need some prose about cities in the lead.
• "Cities marked with * are capital cities of their administrative countries". Administrative countries doesn't sound right to me. How about "Cities marked with * are member state capital cities"?
• General comment - I can't help feeling that this whole list is a bit misleading in a way. I can see that one is trying to do avoid the debate about what parts of an extended urban area make up a "city" and what is that area's population but people potentially going to be confused by the figures and positions. For example it is usually accepted that London and Paris are roughly similar in terms of population and that both places are much larger than Madrid or Rome. However this table has Paris in only 5th place. Another example is Manchester whose urban area is roughly comparable in population to that of Birmingham (and we won't get into the debate about which city is really second in England) but here comes below Bradford.

Boissière (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 03:30, 13 October 2008 .

It has a solid, well-referenced lead section. The lead is the most comprehensive of the NFL Expansion Draft lists. The list is complete, easy to navigate, and looks good.--2008Olympian _chitchat 08:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • PLEASE NOTE: I changed the lead to comply with MOS that title of article be the subject of the first sentence.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat 04:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRX

Comments

• The image positioning is terrible IMO. Remove the logo for the NFL WikiProject and replace it's positioning with the official logo of the Expansion Draft and make it a thumbnail with a caption, looks better in that way IMO.

 Done--2008Olympian _chitchat 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• The Houston Texans picked from lists of unprotected players from existing franchises. - what does unprotected mean?

 Done Changed word to "listed."--2008Olympian _chitchat 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Since this was the first expansion draft after the advent of the salary cap, unlike in previous expansion drafts, teams left many quality players on the list who has large contracts. - has --> had

 Done--2008Olympian _chitchat 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• They could not expose players who went on injured reserve during the 2001 summer's training camp and their list could include only one player with more than 10 years' experience. - they could not expose them? What do you mean by this?

 Done Replaced with "could not list players" to keep uniform with explanation of process.--2008Olympian _chitchat 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• The Texans assumed the contracts of the players they selected, including all the future prorations of their signing bonuses and any guarantees or other terms. - prorations is not a dictionary word.

 Done Changed to "portion," but see dictionary definition of Proration.--2008Olympian _chitchat 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• If the Texans cut a selection and he re-signed with his old team, the existing team re-assumed the signing bonus proration. - proration?

 Done Changed to "portion," but see dictionary definition of Proration.--2008Olympian _chitchat 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• The prose in the lead is really confusing, it does not explain terms and the purpose of the draft expansion really well.

 Done Fleshed out the intro.--2008Olympian _chitchat 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am going to have to object this list because their is no reason explained as to why the Texans were having this draft or why they became established.

 Done Fleshed out the intro.--2008Olympian _chitchat 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC) --S_RX 00:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• That selection was provided by the 2002 National Football League Expansion Draft, held on February 18, 2002 NFL. - typo in pipelink
  • The link of the year 2002 is to the page for the 2002 NFL Season, distinct from the 2002 NFL Draft link. --2008Olympian _chitchat 02:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Fixed pipelink.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat 22:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• overlink of 2002 NFL Draft, only link once in the same section (the lead)
  • The link of the year 2002 is to the page for the 2002 NFL Season, distinct from the 2002 NFL Draft link. --2008Olympian _chitchat 02:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Removed extra link.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat 22:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Each NFL team exposed five players, and the Texans were required to claim either 30 players or $26 million in contracts (38% of the 2002 salary cap). - again with the word expose.

 Done Missed that one, it is changed to "listed." --2008Olympian _chitchat 02:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think salary cap should be explained in some short way because it is jargon and linking it is no help as the definition is non comprehensible to one who is not aware of football jargon

 Done I added a short explanation and changed the link to point to the NFL section of the main salary cap article.--2008Olympian _chitchat 02:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• What is verifying the list? No references to reliable sources.--S_RX 23:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Added seven links to reliable sources that give the full list, two of which also later serve as sources for the salary-cap hits of each player. Two are also links to youtube videos of the actual draft.--2008Olympian _chitchat 02:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Further comments

• You still link 2002 NFL draft twice in the lead, one is a regular while the other is a pipelink.

 Done Ok, now I see it. The second one removed.--2008Olympian _chitchat 05:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• I find the youtube videos irrelevant, and clutters the flow of the lead with 6 refs verifying one sentence.

 Done I moved the youtube videos to another sentence. I included them, see the article in LonlyGirl for an example of using youtube videos as references. It is useful for readers to actually be able to watch the draft itself on video. You can't get a better reference than seeing it live with your own eyes. We use pictures, etc all the time.--2008Olympian _chitchat 05:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • They would be better as External links as videos shouldn't be used to verify things unless they are minor.--S_RX 14:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Ok, they are moved to an External Links section and not used as specific references other than two instances: that the draft was broadcast on ESPN (I can't find any other direct support for that statement), and that there were 25 Pro Bowl players among the initial list (that was said on the video but not in any other reference).--2008Olympian _chitchat 22:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Is there not a general reference that verifies the table itself?--S_RX 02:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, all of those that links in the lead section. Do you want them linked in the table headers or the section title? I put them in the header for now. --2008Olympian _chitchat 05:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Per MOS, references shouldn't be in the header: you need to either insert a row and place the references there like in the 2008 WWE Draft list, or split the references column into specific and general columns, and list them in the general column.--S_RX 14:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Split the references into General and Specific sections as done in 2001 NFL Draft. Doing them like 2008 WWE Draft screws up the table's sortability. --2008Olympian _chitchat 22:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I don't really like tables that are forced to take up the entire page when they don't have to. It leaves a lot of ugly whitespace. Could you just let the table have it's natural widths? -- Scorpion 00:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done But do look at the featured lists 2001 NFL Draft and 2007 NFL Draft--2008Olympian _chitchat 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I hate to oppose anything. I usually just don't support. But this just isn't up to par. The wiki project NFL logo looks like what it is a cheap ripoff. It's not really needed either. Surely there is more to it (the list) than this. Did you take it to Peer Review? Dincher (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Logo removed. And this is the complete expansion draft for that year. --2008Olympian _chitchat 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • Still oppose the lead could be expanded more. Perhaps mention that David Carr was the first draft choice of the standard draft. References for the chose players previous team would be good too. Dincher (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm open to other suggestions to expand the lead that have to do with the expansion draft. I can't find any other information about that draft that is not included. I think that who the picks were in the 2002 NFL Draft belong in that article. And as for references for the chosen players previous team, every noted player is wikilinked to that player's page, where their playing history is listed, and it mentions that they were selected in the expansion draft.--2008Olympian _chitchat 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done I have expanded the lead somewhat more, just not in the two ways previously suggested, mostly I have added references.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat 22:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Oppose

• Is the image used really public domain? The logo looks an awful lot like the official Houston Texans logo.

 Done I changed it to a logo with a valid fair use rationale. --2008Olympian _chitchat 05:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Unlink years in the lead even if they link to season pages; most readers won't get that they link to specific season pages. They are fine in the table, however.

 Not done This is common practice across all Project NFL pages, not just this one.--2008Olympian _chitchat 07:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Remove the leading zeroes in the Pick column
  • Without the leading zeros, the sort function will sort the picks 1-10-11-12-...2-20-21-22-...3-30-31-etc.--2008Olympian _chitchat 07:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Use {{nts}}. Gary King (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Ok, leading zeros removed.--2008Olympian _chitchat 08:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Gary King (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Per WP:LEAD, don't link the bolded text.

 Done --2008Olympian _chitchat 17:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• First sentence: Why not "Houston, Texas"?

 Done --2008Olympian _chitchat 17:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Some season links are linked more than once.

 Done --2008Olympian _chitchat 17:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Put consecutive inline citations in order: instead of
  • The references are listed on each citation in the order of importance of the reference. For example, the NY Times would get precedence over profootball weekly, which gets precedence over about.com, which gets precedence over youtube. The numbering comes by way of the order in which they are cited in the article. That's how Harvard does it in their Blue Book: for example, you would cite the paper of record, the NY Times, first, then the "other" papers of record, in order, the Washington Post, L.A. Times, Wall Street Journal, then any other papers from major cities, then mid-size, etc. Same order for legal cites: constitutions, statutes, then court cases in that order.
• "The Texans were prohibited from selecting a player from a team and trading the player back to that club." At first it's a team, then it's a club. Be consistent.

 Done Fixed.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat 04:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• "In order to become competitive with existing teams,"

 Done Fixed.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat 04:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would recommend dividing the "References" section into 2 subsections: general and specific sources. See Los Angeles Lakers seasons#References for an example. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done I had called the specific references "Notes," modeled after the FL 2001 NFL Draft page, but I changed it like the Lakers page instead.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat 04:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The 2002 National Football League Expansion Draft was the start of the Houston Texans new National Football League (NFL) team." Now that you've put the subject at the beginning, the sentence is not grammatically correct. For starters, "Texans" should have an apostrophe after it. How was the draft "the start" of the team? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

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

 Done Changed, but please note that the all caps came from the original source. --2008Olympian _chitchat 17:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but in this case MOS wants them not in all capitals even when the original source has all capitals. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 2 October 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 20:26, 11 October 2008 .

I am nominating this list because I think is ready to achieve FL status. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - once again another great list, Jaespinoza you are doing a fine job on these Billboard albums of the year, you must know the FL criteria by memory :)--S_RX 00:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes http://acharts.us/album/12862 a reliable source?. Answer: I got rid of the reference, I did not needed it.
• Current ref 10 (Almas del Silencio) needs to not the language it is in. Answer: DONE! Jaespinoza (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Comments because of the items below

Gary King (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • All comments resolved. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Much better Gary King (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 20:26, 11 October 2008 .

Nominating another episode list. sephiroth bcr 02:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

Gary King (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Think that's it. sephiroth bcr 04:35, 29 September 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 20:26, 11 October 2008 .

Very well constructed list, clear and concise with a good use of colours and maps. I think it definitely good enough for an FL. Felipe C.S 01:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Felipe C.S 16:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose.
• Change compared with, not to, for contrasts.

The structure of this list was copied from the article "List of countries by Human Development Index" (a featured list), and in the list of countries: "to" is currently used. Felipe C.S 20:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Unsure what the "comparable country" adds to the reader's understanding. Likely nothing but confusion. "Hmmm ... I know Hungary's HID well."

The reader does not need to have accurate knowledge of the indices, the column "Comparable country" serves to establish a relationship between the Brazilian states and the countries of the world, leading the reader to compare the quality of life in Brazil and in the rest of the world. Felipe C.S 20:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• "officially not a state"—better "not an official state".  Done Felipe C.S 20:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Also" is idle.
• A region is not a country, but the equation is there in the lead.
• Accessibility guidelines breached in the use of colours in the text; and it's unclear what they refer to (the adjacent map? Nope).  Done Felipe C.S 05:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• So Apama's HDI went down from 2003 to 2004 ... is that what I gather? Could be more explicit.  Done Felipe C.S 20:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Why the italics for some regions/states?

Only the regions are in italics, and because are not states, it is important to differentiate. Felipe C.S 20:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Numerical ranges: unspaced en dashes, please. Tony (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - I do not answer the other questions because I do not understand. Please express it better. Felipe C.S 20:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

Gary King (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• <Sigh> Not only do I review it, I have to argue with you.
  • Just because some other list uses the wrong preposition is no justification for using it here too. Compare to for similarities, compare with for differences.  Done Felipe C.S 02:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • GET RID OF "ALSO".  Done Felipe C.S 02:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You've equated region and country in one unweildy sentence in the lead.
  • "Comparable country" is absolutely ridiculous concept. I suggest you remove that column. Better to provide more information about the Br. states than hope (vainly, I believe) that a reader will go off and read about Hungary, just because it comes close on some index to a Brazilian state. That is discretionary browsing at its worst.  Done Felipe C.S 02:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you now tell us what the italics mean?

To highlight the regions between the states. Felipe C.S 02:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You might get a native English-speaker to help. Tony (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to strongly oppose until the random browse column is remove and replaced with either nothing or something more connected with the topic. Tony (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Random browse column? Felipe C.S 15:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's gone, and not before time. Wherever I look there are little glitches:

• "Increase", "steady", "decrease" in the key—they need to use the same grammar (increaseD ...); this is not an English-language issue, but one you have to get right in any language when listing.

Well, these are protected templates, I can't do anything. Felipe C.S 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Remove "actually". The ranking ties—are these an artifact of your construction? If so, I'd be inclined to GIVE them equal rankings where a few decimal places is required to differentiate them. The margins of error and the methodologies would involve much greater differences, so we're talking of meaningless (even misleading) distinctions here.

The rankings can be seen in the source. Felipe C.S 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Change from one year to the next is the theme of the table, yet there's nothing about how these measures have been changing over the past ... decade or so, in the lead. This would be a helpful part of the big picture. Tony (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If you see, my English isn't good. I'm unable to create an acceptable text for the lead. Felipe C.S 20:46, 10 October 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 20:26, 11 October 2008 .

And here's another chapter list (well, I've only done four, so this one is a harder line to throw out. Damn you Gary for making me want to do short nomination statements! :p) sephiroth bcr 08:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I did not check the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:08, 27 September 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 20:26, 11 October 2008 .

I'm nominating this article, because I think it has reached FL status. This is what the article looked like prior to my working on it. Since then, I've re-written and reformatted most of the article, added relevant pics and template(s), and corrected POV and trivia sections. It was also peer reviewed. The article is now well referenced, comprehensive and aesthetically pleasing. If there are any minor issues remaining, I'd be willing to work on them, until the article reaches FL status. --Flewis 07:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.droppunt.com/

This site is dedicated to covering the AFL season, together with various other competitions within the afl. All the info here is accurate and also verifiable (feel free to cross check with http://www.afl.com.au/ {official AFL website} if you have any more concerns with this source) --Flewis 02:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Then it would probably be better to use the AFL site itself, no? That way you don't have concerns with possible bias, etc. on a self-published site. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if AFL maintains Mark of the Year history on its website. --Flewis 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Reviews/Reviews.asp?ID=3400

This source asserts the following claim: "Many of the best marks in the VFL/AFL were featured in a VHS/DVD named Miracle Marks." If you check up the "about us" page , the website states that "The site is dedicated to Australian DVD news and reviews of Australian DVDs. It is updated on a daily basis." Along with: We have almost 930,000 page views per month, and around 2,840,000 hits per month (March 2008 figures). Surely, a 'phony' site would not be as popular with people looking for a reliable plot synopsis and review? --Flewis 02:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This website is listed with the 'Australian Business Directory' . --Flewis 01:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• • the various YouTube videos

According to WP:YOUTUBE, there is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page. All the videos linked in the article are verifiable per my personal knowledge, the name of the video, and the comments (e.g. "That's not Tony Modra!!" - that video would not be included in the article). The only other possible way to assert whether or not these video's are in fact video's of the particular event, would be to request another wiki user to cross check them.

The entire reason videos were included in the article, was to enhance the prospective reader's knowledge on the subject (just as pictures aid visually, so to with video). --Flewis 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

See above about reliable sites. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.footystamps.com/ac_tony_modra.htm (ref is also lacking publisher)

Done --Flewis 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Done what? Did it get replaced? With what? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Footy stamps - Asserted as a reliable source in the Australian Footbal directory (Yahoo) --Flewis 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.footywire.com/ (refs are also lacking publisher)

Done --Flewis 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Done what? Did it get replaced? With what? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the disclaimer: "The statistics on this website are based on the official AFL statistics: --Flewis 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.elvis.com.au/gary_ablett.html (ref is also lacking publisher)

Done --Flewis 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Done what? Did it get replaced? With what? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This site may seem worrisome because it has not much to do whatsoever with 'Australian Rules Football, (It is in fact the official Elvis Presley fan club in Australia). Regardless though of the purpose of the site, simply based on the fact that this site is an official site directly trademarked under the "Elvis Corporation" is enough to assert verifiability. --Flewis 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.fullpointsfooty.net/fitzroy's_last_hurrah.htm (ref is also lacking publisher)

Done --Flewis 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Done what? Did it get replaced? With what? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This site lists a bibliography here: --Flewis 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 20 (2001 Mark of the year) is lacking a publisher

Done --Flewis 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Same for current ref 22 (Past Mark's of the year..)

Done --Flewis 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 34 (Nicky Winmar..) is lacking publisher

Done --Flewis 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Lists should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order.--Crzycheetah 21:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Done - Wikitable has been reformatted into earliest-latest chronological order --Flewis 02:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hey Flewis, in the future could you hold off on using the {{Done}} template. It's repeated use on one page (especially one this big) will start to affect load time for some reviewers. I changed all the instance of the template to Done, feel free to use that format or another one tha just incorporates text. Thanks a lot! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 06:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done No just kidding. In the future I'll be sure to use: done --Flewis 12:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not quite ready A featured list is supposed to be the best of the best Knowledge (XXG) has to offer. Here are some problems:

• The overall tone of the article is colloquial rather than formal. Featured content should be in a tone written for informing the audience, not entertaining it. This reads like a sports book for teenagers. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not the "professional standards of writing" I would expect from featured content. This is going to be the hardest of my objections to overcome, since just about every sentence of the lead will need to be tweaked.

I'm trying my best with this issue. So far I've re-written the prose--Flewis 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• The history section needs better information. Why was there no award in 1971 or 1972? Exactly when did journalists help pick the award?

I'm afraid that I'm able to find absolutely no information on this whatsoever. Google yields few results and Google Book Search doesn't fare much better. I think some parts of this section may have to be removed if they cannot be verified.--Flewis 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Update - I have removed all the unreferenced material in the "Selection Process" Section --Flewis 11:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Grammar and spelling errors like "Chris Tarrants mark" which should be "Chris Tarrant's mark" must all be identified and fixed before FL status is even considered. fixed
• No redlinks. Redlinks should be delinked or the target article should be created. Featured content should not have redlinks for any length of time.

Done --Flewis 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• The "Selection Process" should have 3 sections to mirror the history section. The reader should walk away with a high-level view of the selection process in the 70s/80s, the 80s/90s, and the current process. started a fix but expert needed - stub sections introduced

As above, my searches for reliable sources have turned up fruitless. Parts of this section might also need to be removed --Flewis 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

See Above - unreferenced material removed. --Flewis 11:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• The statement in the History section that "The current selection process was first used in the 1998 season" must be reconciled with the statement in the Selection Process section that "The system was modified slightly in 2006." Any other similar inconsistencies must be identified and fixed. fixed by rewording
• The article contains terms and references unfamiliar with non-football fans and/or non-Australians. Sentences like "The Victorian Football League also runs in conjunction, but only selected from the few games that are televised each year on ABC2." make little sense to my non-Australian, non-football-watching brain. I'm not sure what the best way to fix this problem is, but it needs to be fixed.

I've added explanations and links to other wiki articles--Flewis 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• In some browsers, the pictures overlap the table if the window is too skinny. This may be a limitation of Knowledge (XXG), but knowing this limit, it might make sense to move the pictures to other places within the article or reduce their number. On the other hand, their current placement and number may be the best option. If it is the best option available, then this is not a block to featured list status.

Default thumbnail size is now used --Flewis 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• The pictures should be in the same order as the list defaults to - currently oldest first. Done --Flewis 11:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Using both colors and */#'s is unnecessary. Pick one. I'd go with the #/* because it is more friendly to blind and colorblind people. This is not a block to featured list status.

I used these together with symbols per WP:MOS#COLORS --Flewis 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Consider using color or other separators every 5 or 10 entries, to make the table easier on the eyes. This is not a block to featured list status.

• What I do like:
  • The list itself: This topic is a good candidate for featured-list status: It is well-known enough to not be trivial, yet not universally known and therefore the topic would benefit from the exposure that featured-content status offers.
  • The sortable table, kudos to whoever thought to make this sortable.
  • Links to the videos, provided they aren't pirated.
  • Bottom-templates, although the red links in them should be eliminated as well.

• There are probably more things I could think of that I like and more things that I could think of that would block featured list status, but I only have so many hours in a day. I'll spend a few minutes doing some minor fixups, so some of the things above may be gone by the time you read this.
• davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC) updated 00:09, 1 October 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 20:26, 11 October 2008 .

And here's another episode list. sephiroth bcr 06:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

• "The episodes are directed" – "They are directed"

• Fixed. sephiroth bcr 04:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• "The animation was produced by TMS Entertainment and Aniplex was responsible for the music production." – "TMS Entertainment produced the animation and Aniplex was responsible for the music production."

• Fixed. sephiroth bcr 04:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Think that's it. sephiroth bcr 04:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 20:26, 11 October 2008 .

The map was created by Matthewedwards! Thanks! Gary King (talk) 04:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Weak Support

• École de technologie supérieure, I think, should be sorted out as T, not U. Also with all of other Écoles starting with a "University".
• Université Laval is a disambiguation. The article is Laval University.

-- K. Annoyomous24 23:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The sorting and names are based on this. Also, the link is not a disambiguation, it's a redirect. Gary King (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for using the wrong word. It is a redirect, so shouldn't you just link the article to Laval University? -- K. Annoyomous24 06:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The article uses the French name of the university. Gary King (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you just put ]? I just want to fully support this list. -- K. Annoyomous24 00:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay done Gary King (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 20:26, 11 October 2008 .

previous FLC (16:20, 18 August 2008)

Table issues from previous FLC were finally resolved. Nominating the list for a third time because, again, I believe it fits FL criteria. Pandacomics (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - unable to evaluate the non-English sources for reliablity. Link checker tool shows several dead links. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Dead links resolved. Feel free to re-run the tool to check. Pandacomics (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

• I'm not sure why, but the tables are "broken". A lot of the rows in the tables don't have borders on the far right.

Gary King (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe browser cache? I mean, if the rows truly missed a " | " or something, the tables would be noticeably more wonky and wouldn't have the data neatly placed into its cells. I myself had to clear my cache quite a few times just to get the borders to show up. Pandacomics (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No Gary is right they are all messed up. I have fixed the one for the "HITO Radio Music Awards" section to show you the problems. Can you fix the rest please. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you list which rows have problems? Because, as mentioned above, I don't seem to have the table problems on my end, thereby making it enormously hard for me to see which ones you and Gary are having glitches with. Pandacomics (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed all the tables and the template. They were all being forced to work unaturally which caused odd bordering between rows (due to incorrect rowspans and extra row breaks). I've left a note on your talk page with details that might be useful in future. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Would be good to have the final table left aligned instead of centered. And suggest rephrasing the opening sentence. The problem is not so much a distinction between awards and accolades as with the verb won. Accolades and awards are not synonymous: awards are won, but accolades may be informal praise which are earned or received. Winning implies formal competition. Since this is a list of awards rather than accolades, suggest either revising to include accolades (which would be difficult to do with completeness) or revising the lead sentence description. Durova 20:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully it is a-ok. Pandacomics (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 05:44, 4 October 2008 .

I think this list meets all the criteria for FL and I think it would be useful to get a college basketball season article as a FL so it can act as a template for other such lists. Remember (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose

• Lead
  • This is a list of seasons completed by the men's basketball team of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I. - FL's are discouraged to begin with "This is a list of ___"

Revised to state "The men's basketball team of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is referred to as the North Carolina Tar Heels and play in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I. The Tar Heels have played their games at the Dean Smith Center since 1986" in accordance with Los Angeles Lakers seasons page.

• • The North Carolina Tar Heels have a 73.6% all-time winning percentage, winning 1,950 games and losing 699 games in the 98 seasons from the team's first season in 1910–11 to the most recent season, 2007–2008. - why is the 1910-11 season in that format while the 2007-2008 is not like that (i.e. 2007-08)? Also are there articles about the seasons?

Someone changed some of the format of the seasons, but I have changed them to be consistent as well as refraining from using the n dash since these seasons do have page articles which do not use the N-dash. So yes, there are articles about the seasons, but they are slowly being put together. Let me know if there is any other inconsistent use of years.

I have now added links to all of the season years.

• • The Tar Heels also have the most consecutive 20-win seasons, with 31 seasons from the 1970–71 seasons through 2000–2001 season. - what is "20-win seasons?

A 20-win season is a season in which a team wins 20 games. I thought that was pretty self-explanatory, so I am a bit confused by the confusion. A 20-win season is a pretty big deal in college basketball given the fact that if you don't do well in tournaments (or don't go to them) you may only have about 28 games in a season.

• • No need to say "North Carolina Tar Heels" over and over, Tar Heels or even Heels will do just fine.

I will revise.

• • In 1921 North Carolina joined the Southern Conference. - the southern conference of what?

Changed to read - "In 1921 North Carolina joined the newly formed Southern Conference, a college athletic conference affiliated with the NCAA's Division I."

• • I'm not even going to review the rest of the lead because it is too long, more than 5 pargraphs, fails WP:LEDE and CR 4 and 2.

I will shorten

• Table
  • The table is also messy and some refs are used multiple times but are not in the correct format using {{nw|<ref name="(name goes here)">}}

I will reformat the references, but I don't know what you mean when you say the table is "messy."

Any more suggestions are welcome. Remember (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

--S_RX 01:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In my eyes its messy per the so many different colors representing a certain thing. Another thing is the totals, can they not be incorporated into a row in the table? Also it's appearance looks messy because in the column that has quarterfinalist, semifinalist, etc. some have links some dont, and most of the seasons are red links.--S_RX 00:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the totals section could use with better formatting, but I was at a loss on how to do it. I want the large table to still be sortable, and I believe all of the total information is useful. I just don't know how I should construct the total section to make it the most user friendly layout. Any suggestions are welcome.

I added a totals section at the bottom, but any further advice on how to make this work would be welcome. Remember (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the conference final section, the problem is that there are pages for the ACC Tournament for each year but not for the Southern Conference. I didn't know whether to set up webpages for each Southern Conference Tournament pages via redlinks or whether just to link to the page on the Southern Conference Tournament (even though it only shows the winners).

As for the various colors, I actually link them and think they are informative, but that is my opinion and others could easily differ. Remember (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• My first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. I will revise them. Remember (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Lead far too long - see WP:LEAD.
• Don't overlink North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball.
• Use en-dash for season year ranges, not hyphen, per WP:DASH.
• In order to meet WP:WIAFL and bearing in mind this a "seasons" list, you need to have articles about most, if not all of the Tar Heels seasons.
• There's plenty more but once you fix the above, I'll be happy to continue the comments.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the suggestions. I doubt I will have time to make all of these changes before this nomination closes out, but I will try to make them in the future. So any additional comments you could provide would still be useful. Remember (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 05:44, 4 October 2008 .

I've been working on this list for quite sometime and I must say it has greatly improved from its state some weeks ago. The citations are formatted nicely and the programming history has been expanded, and everything that needs to be cited is cited. –Howard the Duck 17:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: This series only has 2 seasons yet. I dunno the exact parameters on when to divide to a Gossip Girl (season 2) subarticle but if it needs to be divided w/o sacrificing this FLC I'll do it. –Howard the Duck 17:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• remove bold from link per WP:BOLDTITLE
• ""Gossip Girl,"" → ""Gossip Girl","
• "from the CW" – link "CW", explain what it is, like "from the television network the CW"
• "The CW" – "The" is capitalized here but not earlier?
• "5 more episodes " → "five more episodes "

Gary King (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. –Howard the Duck 01:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: I've changed all instances of "The CW" to "the CW" except when it's at the beginning of the sentence. I honestly don't know what is the proper convention but I went safe and used "the CW". –Howard the Duck 04:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

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

The links in the references are what I'm referring to. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The ALL CAPS titles came from the CW press releases. I will make them appear in sentence case, and use the links from the CW.

• Current ref 1 is lacking a last access date.

Yes, it is okay to use todays date if the link is still live. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.thefutoncritic.com/home.aspx a reliable source?
• Current ref 9 is lacking a last access date
• Current ref 10 is lacking a publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source?

Actually, yes it does matter what website it comes from. The publisher of the information is the website, if they don't have a reputation for reliablity, how do we know that the press release is acurately reproduced? See below. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 11, you should give the author, as it is known.
• What makes http://entertainmentnow.wordpress.com/ a reliable source?

To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The ratings in the blog are identical to the numbers spawned elsewhere. –Howard the Duck 03:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look okay. Can't check links as the link checker tool is down. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't get this. What link titles? The titles of the episodes?
• I didn't add ref 1 so is it OK to use today's date? The link is still live.
• I dunno about the futoncritic website since it was there before I edited it but I'll find a new source.
  • I found new sources but finding sources on the listings of repeat airings would be next to impossible. –Howard the Duck 03:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• See bullet point #2.
• I'll find a better source for this.
• • This is a press release so I think it doesn't matter which website it comes from since all of the articles will look identical.
• I'll do that.
• The entertainmentpress blog is used in a lot of U.S. TV articles. Plus the ratings numbers it fleshes out correspond to other sources, and it is released by ABC so it is reliable.

–Howard the Duck 03:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead has to say how many episodes have aired, alongside an "As of" date.
• I've never heard the network referred to as simply "CW", the "The" seems to be part of its name, "The CW". I think your decision to change "The CW" to "the CW" is wrong, based on The CW Television Network, http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,1152384,00.html, http://www.cbsrecords.com/news.shtml and http://www.tribune.com/pressroom/releases/2006/01242006.html, which all use a capital T.
• Provide context for the reader, especially the non-Americans as to what "The CW is". Is it a cable network, a digital-only network, a terrestrial network, etc.
• When referring to the series, "Gossip Girl" should always be in italics
• "and is developed for television" is the developing ongoing? I'd use past tense here.
• Don't begin sentences with "However". Use a semi-colon in place of the period and a lowercase h
• "the CW announced five more episodes to be produced and aired in April and May 2008." sentence seems incomplete. Simple change would be to replace "and" with "which"
• "Despite low ratings during the first part of the first season," reference, please, unless covers it
• "on early March 2008"?
• Entire lead needs a copyedit. Also see the lead sections of other episode lists, such as List of Lost episodes, List of Smallville episodes, List of The Simpsons episodes, List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes, list of Desperate Housewives episodes
• See same pages for how to do the season overview table
• "Repeats are also aired every Sunday on the CW at 8:00 p.m. Eastern (7:00 p.m. Central; on September 23 and September 30 only) before subsequently airing two hours earlier at 6:00 p.m. Eastern (5:00 p.m. Central)." present tense needs fixing, rest of sentence needs rewriting
• "key demographics" highly specialised term. Can this be wikilinked or explained?
• "is one of the most buzzed about new shows on the internet." present tense, WP:TONE on "buzzed", and reference
• "Its digital video recorder ratings were high, increasing the shows profitability." prove both
• "what's" contraction, and what exactly is shown on MTV? Links to series articles
• "still warned parents of several scenes in the pilot." such as?
• "After the last episode produced before the writers' strike was aired, the CW moved the series to Monday starting on January 28, with repeats of the first season until the first post-strike episode was aired, after which it continued to be aired on Monday nights." clumsy. Lot of unnecessary wording
• the references are not part of the title, and should not be in the quotes. Use the RTitle= field. Were the episode titles given on screen? If so, you don't need to reference them at all. Even if they weren't, you could instead use http://www.tvguide.com/detail/tv-show.aspx?tvobjectid=288136&more=ucepisodelist, from TV Guide, and put the reference in the table header, next to "Episode title"
• Production codes please
• Instead of "Original the CW airdate", just do "Original airdate", and use the original airdate (so when they premiered on CTV first, use that. You can do a footnote to say that these episodes aired on a different network in a different country.
• "Serena van der Woodsen's return ... is not warmly welcomed by her closest friend ... whose relationship with her has been competitive and difficult." doesn't seem like her closest friend then.. perhaps explain why
• "Serena receives an icy reception to Blair" to or from?
• "that she knows that she" -- that she that she, eugh
• "running off" Tone
• "As the students" what students?
• "Dan gets confused best friend Vanessa Abrams returns"
• "On Blair's masked ball" on or at?
• "Chuck contemplates on investing" there's one word here that isn't necessary
• "Blair is again devastated" when was she devastated the first time?
• "van der Woodsens" Dutch name convention is to capitalise the V when not using the first name
• "not knowing the romantic histories of Rufus, Alison and Lily, that causes them to be uncomfortable." who is uncomfortable? Rufus, Alison and Lily, or the Van der Woodsens?
• "Blair goes around" in circles?
• "Nate asks her to the cotillion ball making Chuck jealous." a comma is needed somewhere in here..
• "after she learns that Serena is not going to the ball." there's a word that isn't needed somewhere in here..
• "Convincing Serena and Lily that she is sick, she goes to the ball with Dan as her partner." who does?
• "Blair gets disappointed" --> "a disappointed Blair"
• "Serena, Blair, Nate, Chuck and their entourage" unwieldy. Perhaps pick one of them: "Serena and her entourage", "Nate and his entourage"
• "who turns out was not pregnant after all." missing a word, but Tone is awful
• Queen bee is the wrong link. You could be looking for Queen bee (subculture) which redirects to conformity
• "Jenny does something illegal to fit in with the in-crowd." what do they do?
• "Blair and Jenny take their popularity war to a whole new level." what level?
• "Blair finally takes matters with Georgina into her own hands," how?
• "The second season began to air on September 1, 2008" sounds like it was going to and then didn't. How about "The second season premiered on September 1, 2008"
• "on its previous Monday time slot" --> "in the same Monday timeslot as the final part of season one" perhaps?
• "The CW started the television season at the end of the northern hemisphere summer instead of the more conventional start in the fall along with other larger TV networks." needs rewording slightly
• As I said before, each individual episode title doesn't need referencing, you can use http://www.tvguide.com/detail/tv-show.aspx?tvobjectid=288136&more=ucepisodelist instead; however, that isn't the case for unaired episodes. They should be referenced since WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Same with summaries for unaired episodes. Best bet is to remove them completely though, and add them only after they've aired
• I'm not convinced "Gossip Girl Revealed" needs to be listed separately. You could just say in the prose for season one that "the pilot reaired on January 28, 2008, and included additional footage including deleted scenes, outtakes, interviews and a special commentary by the cast."
• Per WP:FOOT, don't do {{reflist|3}} because they are inaccessible to users with smaller/laptop monitors. 2 is fine.
• The entire WP:TONE is unencyclopedic, and the episode summaries do not summarize. They tease. Please read WP:Plot summaries and WP:PLOTSUM.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'd be doing the minor things tomorrow or in the next day but there are some things I'd like to clarify:
  • The reason I used "the CW" instead of "The CW" is that the capitalization hawks might come and instead demand to use "the CW". I'd be using "The CW" as per your suggestion.
  • No MTV series were explicitly stated on the source.
  • I don't know where to get production codes. I tried searching before (to replace the TV ratings) but I can't find any.
  • I prefer to use The CW's airdate since it is the network producing the show. CTV just buys them and airs it. I'll have to be convinced to use the date when it was first aired anywhere, otherwise, it's like saying CTV is the original network.
  • I read on the official Gossip Girl blog the blogger uses the "van der Woodsen" convention when referring to the van der Woodsens. I can't find it but I do remember it being used there.
  • The plot summaries are all cited from The CW's plot summaries, so several plot elements aren't included. I found this hard to deal with on episode 12 since The CW's plot summary was crap and I had to insert "she was not pregnant after all" even though it was explicitly said on the source (although it was implied). If they'll be uncited, the plot summaries would be slightly reworked and some elements will be added. The reason I used The CW's plot summaries is to prevent anons from adding their own favorite parts of the story.
    • Basically the teasing tone of the summaries has to do with The CW's plot summaries. If they will be un-cited the tone will improve.
  • I've consistently hidden cells for unaired episodes via HTML markup but the anons persistently remove it.
  • "Gossip Girl Revealed" was a special episode, it was 90 minutes long (30 minutes longer than a ordinary episode). I dunno if it deserves it own section at the bottom since there were several scenes that were shown that were previously unaired, and the actors hosted the show.
  • Was it even in three columns? I didn't noticed, when I cleaned this up there wasn't any columns. It's currently 2 anyway. –Howard the Duck 13:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think on your statement about "despite low ratings...", you were referring to reference 4. It's covered there. Nevertheless I transferred reference 3 at the end of the sentence right before reference 4. –Howard the Duck 13:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• In addition to the things mentioned above
• Fails Criteria 3 as it is not comprehensive. The webisodes were episodes of Gossip Girl so need to be included.
• Using The CW dates and not original airdates, doesn't put it from a worldwide perspective. Most episodes of season 1 aired in Canada first.
• The two stubby sentances at the end of the lead.
• The teaser style of the episode summaries. Even if they are from CTV of The CW this is an encyclopaedia and we should inform.
• Pilot was available on iTunes for free before the premiere, but this isn't even mentioned.
• Season 2 DVD release. "TBA 2009" unless you have a ref for being released in 2009 that is WP:CRYSTALBALL.
• It scares me how many refs on Entertainment Wordpress which isn't a WP:RS unless you have information that proves otherwise.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• I had been planning myself to get this to FL, but I haven't seen the whole series yet. Anyways, good job for now, but I don't think it's FL status just yet. Here are some comments:
• Your Entertainment Now wordpress is not very reliable, unfortunately. If other users have problems with it, try using the refs from List of Heroes episodes. Fortunately, most of the episodes aired in the same week, so all you have to do is copy and paste the refs for the appropriate date.
• The title sections do not need a ref, I think. Has there been a change in the FL requirements?
• As previously said, webisodes need mention. Again, have a look here: List of Heroes episodes
• Um... there are more issues, but I think most have been said by the above users. If this fails, and I catch up to the series, I will probably help to get it to FL status.

Sorry, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 07:01, 4 October 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 16:39, 2 October 2008 .

previous FLC (16:01, 11 September 2008)

Last one failed because of a lack of comments (hint). Cheers, –Juliancolton 21:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments all issues resolved; from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs). Hint taken ;)

• In the lead, I see this: "One storm—Hurricane Hazel—caused sustained hurricane force winds". However, in the next section I see this: "October 15, 1954 – Hurricane Hazel crosses the state, producing hurricane-force winds."
  • Not sure exactly what the problem is. :) –Juliancolton 00:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Should have been more specific—in the first instance, hurricane-force is not hyphenated, but the second time it is. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I see now, got it. –Juliancolton 01:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• "August 12, 1955 – Tropical Storm Connie makes a landfall in southern Maryland, dropping heavy rainfall peaking at 12.32 in (313 mm) in Preston. The heavy rainfall leads to severe flooding which causes $2.5 million (1955 USD) in damage. When the schooner Levin J. Marvel capsizes in high seas, 14 people drown." Repetition of heavy rainfall.
• "September 19, 1955 – Hurricane Ione makes landfall in North Carolina, with its outer moisture producing light rainfall across the state." It's that notorious with + -ing construction. Use a semicolon instead: "Hurricane Ione makes landfall in North Carolina; its outer moisture produces light rainfall across the state."
• "September 28, 1958 – Hurricane Helene is pulled well offshore from the Carolina coast..."—What does "pulled" mean?
• "September 9, 1969 – Hurricane Gerda intensified offshore, prompting a hurricane watch for eastern Maryland. Because the storm remained offshore, only light precipitation falls." Why is this the only bullet to start with the past tense?
• I'm getting "bad request" from two web links, current refs 4 and 17.

Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the comments. Done with everything except the first point. –Juliancolton 00:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • the first paragraph should be expanded a little. It's too short currently.
    • I merged the two. –Juliancolton 21:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • In the only note, the …and may be used interchangeably part should be cited because I am not sure it's correct.
    • I disagree. It is rather common sense that a tropical cyclone is a form of cyclone or a storm. –Juliancolton 21:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
      • What you're saying is that it will be fine to move Tropical Storm Doria (1971) to Hurricane Doria (1971). It's not about agreeing or disagreeing. It's about what is right and what is wrong. Tropical Storm Doria can never be mentioned as Hurricane Doria.--Crzycheetah 22:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
        • That's not what I said. "Hurricane" and "tropical storm" are different intensity classifications, and can thus not be interchanged. "Storm", "cyclone", "tropical cyclone", "hurricane" are not classifications, and in this case, are interchangeable. –Juliancolton 22:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
          • If a "tropical storm" can never be a "hurricane", then why are you mentioning "tropical storms" in the list of "hurricanes"?--Crzycheetah 06:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
            • As said before, "hurricane" is an all-encompassing term for Atlantic and Pacific tropical cyclones. The name is based on project consensus. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
              • As our Tropical cyclone featured article states, hurricane is a system with sustained winds of at least 33 metres per second (64 kn) or 74 miles per hour (119 km/h). Now, you're saying that this article is against a project consensus, so maybe we should de-feature that article? By the way, you even supported that article.--Crzycheetah 01:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
                • It's actually quite simple. A "hurricane", in a way, has two meanings. In the informal sense of the word, "hurricane" can refer to any tropical cyclone at any intensity, anywhere in the world, but usually in the Atlantic Ocean basin. In the technical, and meteorological sense of the word, "hurricane" does in fact refer to an Atlantic or Pacific storm with winds of more than 74 mph. As we're trying to keep the article title short and sweet, List of Maryland tropical cyclones (1950–1979 would be too bulky, and unnecessarily technical. –Juliancolton 17:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
                  • Is it encyclopedic to use the informal meaning that may mislead some readers? I think it's just lazy to keep the title "short and sweet". Plus, your sentence --Crzycheetah 02:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
                    • Actually, many readers don't know what a "tropical cyclone" is, but would know what a "hurricane" is. –Juliancolton 02:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
                      • Well, there is a link to "tropical cyclone" in the opening sentence. I always watch on TV meteorologists say this tropical storm may become a hurricane or something similar to that. They never say a hurricane hit Florida when in actuality a tropical storm hit the state. I believe we need to follow the technical meaning of the word because we are an encyclopedia and not a message board.--Crzycheetah 02:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • If No storms made landfall in Maryland at hurricane intensity part is correct, then the title of this page is very misleading and should be changed to "List of Maryland storms" or "List of hurricanes that affected Maryland".
    • "Hurricane" is an all-encompassing term for Atlantic and Pacific tropical cyclones, so again, I'm afraid I must disagree. –Juliancolton 21:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Please, explain to me how the following two sentences don't contradict each other, "One storm—Hurricane Hazel—caused sustained hurricane-force winds (winds of 75 mph (121 km/h) or greater) in the state, one of only two storms to do so. No storms made landfall in Maryland at hurricane intensity.". As I understand, two storms hit the state with hurricane-force winds, but no storm hit the state with hurricane intensity. Can you explain the difference between hurricane-force winds and hurricane intensity?--Crzycheetah 02:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Any reason why 1971 is wikilinked?
  • Where is the other list? Thee one from 1980 to present? I see the List of Maryland and Washington, D.C. hurricanes (1980–present), but I don't understand why someone combined Maryland and Washington, D.C.in the second list, but not the first. This inconsistency sould be fixed.
  • There are some pdf files in the references, so a format=PDF field should be added to the templates.

--Crzycheetah 20:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed everything else. Thanks for the review! –Juliancolton 21:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

SatyrTN comments

• "In all, tropical cyclones have killed..." - that probably needs a time qualifier, like "During this time period, tropical ..." That also needs a cite.
• Rm notes section if there aren't any notes.

Looks fine. I conditionally support this FLC. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed the notes section, and changed the wording in that sentence. That doesn't need a cite, it's simply a count-up of what's already in the article. Thanks for the comments! –Juliancolton 18:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That verges on WP:SYNTH. It's not a show-stopper for me, but I would feel much better if it were sourced in some way. Just an opinion.

• I Support this FLC. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments Oppose

• Make the table in "Deadly storms" sortable
• Make the "Number of deaths" column wider so it doesn't span two lines.
• Disambiguate "Mid-Atlantic"

Gary King (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The lede is poorly written and includes contradictions. "One hurricane, Hazel, brought hurricane-force winds to the state, one of two storms to do so." - is a flat-out contradiction, unless you're (as occurred to me after I fixed it) assuming qualifiers on the "one" and "two" that aren't actually given. This should be separated into two paragraphs, one giving general information and the other giving information just for the period, and making it quite clear which is which. Additionally, the list provides nothing useful in terms of navigation or sorting - it is simply an unhelpful chronological list of storms. In a featured list I'd expect to see an organized presentation like other hurricane lists (see List of retired Atlantic hurricanes) gives, particularly information on deaths, strength, and damages provided in sorted or sortable tables. Finally, the text (where there is any cohesive text) is neither engaging nor brilliant; wikilinks are missing and damages, when given, are not always converted into modern dollars. — jdorje (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Have you seen the numerous similar FLs? For example, List of New Jersey hurricanes, List of Delaware hurricanes, List of New York hurricanes, List of South America hurricanes, List of North Carolina hurricanes (pre-1900), List of Florida hurricanes (2000–present)? I'll try to address your concerns about prose and Wikilinking, but I don't understand why you're opposed to this format. –Juliancolton 00:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Yep, those all have the same problem - including for many of them confusion in the prose in the lede. I don't agree with citing them as "precedent", however. If those articles have the same problems as this one, they should be fixed. — jdorje (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, do you see any more specific problems with this particular article that I can fix? –Juliancolton 17:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)