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 promoted 17:58, 31 March 2008.

previous FLC (17:44, 27 February 2008)

Nominator - The article had failed its previous FLC nomination due to an ongoing dispute between User:I7114080 and myself. The dispute has ceased mainly because I7114080 has not been in any active discussions to help solve the issue, so I am assuming the article is now stable and ready to be nominated again. σмgнgσмg 10:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Since it appears nothing has dramatically changed with the article since the last FLC, and I supported it then. Good work! Drewcifer (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support-Written well, supports FL criteria, everything is well sourced. Great work.--TrUCo-X 16:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - remove the links in the bold part of the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title and I'll support. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. σмgнgσмg 02:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Well-written and stable, any formatting issues from the last FLC have been settled. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 02:54, 23 March 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 promoted 17:58, 31 March 2008.

I am nominating this as a WP:FL because I think it is up for it. Here is phase one and phase two. Gary King (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Question: really no acquisitions in the last four months? Hard to believe. Renata (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Feel free to look it up. Here's a good starter. I do not think that Google is out to try and set a record for most companies acquired. Gary King (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Concerns addressed, meets criteria. Another good list. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:15, 27 March, 2008

CommentSupport Thanks. Great list, but blogs shouldn't appear in the citations per WP:RS, Eg. ZDnet and TechCrunch. PeterSymonds | talk 21:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've weeded out the blogs. Gary King (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support my concerns have been well addressed, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - The words "made by" in the title are potentially misleading (Google did not "make" these businesses). No other list in Category:Acquisitions includes that locution. Can this be renamed to List of acquisitions by Google or (better) List of Google acquisitions? --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Done Gary King (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment What is the reason for "see also" links to List of acquisitions by Yahoo! and List of companies acquired by Microsoft Corporation but not linking to the similar lists for Apple, Oracle, Cisco, and IBM (as well as any others I may have forgotten)? (There likely is a good reason for selectively linking to these two, but if the reason for the selection cannot be articulated, the list may need to be either expanded or trimmed.) --Orlady (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft all own the 3 largest search engines in the world. Gary King (talk) 19:53, 30 March 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 promoted 17:58, 31 March 2008.

I wrote this article several months ago, with little knowledge of what a featured list should be. I rewrote it a month or so ago, with better knowledge of what an FL should be. Now, I firmly believe that this article meets all criteria for a featured list. Thanks, Juliancolton 21:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Article was redone beautifully. Congratulations on such a good job JC.32 22:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Well sourced, informative, and looks very good. Well done. --CWY2190 19:28, 20 March 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 promoted 17:58, 31 March 2008.

This list is nicely written, has several images, and references as well, and meets all criteria. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support as nom. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 18:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Support All concerns met, meets the criteria -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 16:18, 28 March, 2008

• Support. The article looks a lot better than it did when I started it, good work cleaning it up. Here are some things that you may want to change, however:

**Avoid links in the emboldened lead sentence per WP:LEAD#Bold title.

• • •  Done - I think adding Curly Lambeau wouldn't be a bad idea. Go for it. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 13:18, 22 March 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 promoted 17:58, 31 March 2008.

The first nomination for this article. It's substantially similar in aspects of cast and production to another of my articles, The Office (U.S. season 3), but of course different in many other ways. I've worked and tinkered on this list for a while, and I feel that it's ready for FLC. Mastrchf91 (/_c) 23:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Mastrchf91 (/_c) 23:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Bring on season 2! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm gathering resources and references as of now, and season 2's not far away. Mastrchf91 (/_c) 20:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good work, there's not many things I have to whinge about!
  • "Schrute, Halpert, Phyllis Lapin, portrayed by Phyllis Smith, and Stanley Hudson, portrayed by Leslie David Baker, compose the sales division of Dunder Mifflin Scranton" - I had to read this sentence a few times (and I'm not that stupid) before I realised it does actually make sense. Maybe reword or place "(portrayed by)" in brackets like so, just to avoid comma confusion.
    •  Done Mastrchf91 (/_c) 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • pop culture obsessed -> pop culture-obsessed
    •  Done Mastrchf91 (/_c) 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, sad eyed -> sad-eyed
    •  Done Mastrchf91 (/_c) 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "and said "Maybe, after "The Office" dies a quick death on NBC, the network will decide that trying to Americanize British TV comedies isn't such a great idea."" - change the internal quotation marks to the single-apostrophe-type-things as in 'The Office' as a quote-within-a-quote.
    •  Done Mastrchf91 (/_c) 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Time Magazine, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Coupling should be italicised.
    •  Done Mastrchf91 (/_c) 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "18-49" should have a bigger dash, like in "2004–2005" below it.
    •  Done Mastrchf91 (/_c) 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "as well as ranked third for number of viewers on its night" - changed ranked to ranking.
    •  Done Mastrchf91 (/_c) 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "between the change from the first episode and the second episode, Office moved to its regular time slot" - seems to be called "The Office" everywhere else.
    •  Done Mastrchf91 (/_c) 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "just over half of that from the previous episode" - should be "half that of"
    •  Done Mastrchf91 (/_c) 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• =D —97198 talk 06:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • All requests are finished. Mastrchf91 (/_c) 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The lead is not written well enough to be featured. Almost every sentence in the lead starts with "the first season...". The first two sentences start identically with "the first season premiered...". Can someone copyedit it, please?--Crzycheetah 07:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I made an attempt... -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 15:29, 28 March, 2008

• Thanks. The only remaining comment I have is the format of the references. Shouldn't all full dates be linked? Most of the retrieval dates are not linked. Also, the last reference uses the {{cite news}} template, maybe it should be done manually as other references were done?--Crzycheetah 19:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've dated all of the references, and changed the last reference from the template to conform with the other references. Mastrchf91 (/_c) 19:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Much better, good job overall!--Crzycheetah 20:03, 30 March 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 promoted 17:58, 31 March 2008.

Another another ice hockey list. It follows the precident of List of Tampa Bay Lightning players, List of Atlanta Thrashers players, List of San Jose Sharks players, and the like. Any comments are always welcome. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Follows the MOS and other WP guides, meets the criteria, though I can't comment on the content of the actual list as it's not a subject I know anything about! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Could you also add those categories to other similar lists as well? --Crzycheetah 06:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support You picked an interesting time to nominate this (considering the large discussion about player lists going on at WP:FLRC) but I don't see anything major wrong with it. I'd like to see some more images, but I guess we can only add what we have. Good work. -- Scorpion 14:42, 31 March 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 promoted 17:58, 31 March 2008.

previous FLC

• Self nomination: This discography contains the official releases of Scottish singer KT Tunstall. The last time this article was nominated it did not receive enough votes. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks very good, all of my suggestions have been taken into account. Great list! Drewcifer (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment- Think about joining the B-sides in the singles table, like in the U2 discography article. I don't know what the manual of style says about this, but I think it is more clear.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, as it's a discography, not a songography -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 19:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not going to lie, I've never even heard of her, but the list seems to be good enough although it is a tad on the short side. I was wondering if Amazon useable as a source? It's a sales website, so I'm not sure if it would fall under WP:RS. -- Scorpion 13:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the Amazon.com references and replaced them with articles instead. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support I like all the discogs on here. —Burningclean  18:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that's a valid enough reason to support this list though. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral for now. All my issues have been addressed, and as I said, I don't think WP:SIZE should be an issue any more, but the B sides table concerns me. I do think this info is interesting and should be included somewhere, but perhaps not here. Each album track isn't listed, after all. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

B-sides are listed in the Powderfinger discography and Alice in Chains discography (both of which are featured lists) just to name a few. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Just as many FL discogs don't have it, too. And for me a discography deals in releases whereas a songogrpahy, I suppose, would deal with songs. -- Matthew 20:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, I'll Support. -- Scorpion 17:54, 31 March 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 promoted 20:19, 30 March 2008.

I bring to the community another great list created by User:Jwalte04. Although, I feel this list meets all of the criteria, I will be glad to address any objections or receive any suggestions to further improve the list. Thank you for your time. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 21:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:03, 27 March, 2008
• Support Great list. GO PACK! (I'm from WI :)) Burningclean  23:37, 29 March 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 promoted 20:19, 30 March 2008.

It is a nicely done list, and is very informative. It also seems to meet all criteria. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 16:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The article was recently delisted over issues like a lack of citations (ie. Teams with no Super Bowl appearances), as well as the inclusion of the "Quarterbacks with multiple Super Bowl wins" and "Quarterbacks with multiple Super Bowl starts" sections. -- Scorpion 16:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm going to go add some. Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 17:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • See Knowledge (XXG):Featured list removal candidates/List of Super Bowl champions/archive1 for various issues regarding the list. --Orlady (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Could one of you make a "to-do" list below, so it will be easier to see and check off what I've done and not done? Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 17:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
        • It appears that you are actively working on adding more sources, so it's premature to comment on the remaining unsourced details. However, note that there are unresolved issues related to the scope of the list. In particular, the inclusion of "Quarterbacks with multiple Super Bowl wins" and "Quarterbacks with multiple Super Bowl starts" sections has blurred the scope of the list. It's also not entirely obvious that "Super Bowl appearances" (by team) belongs in this list of Super Bowl champions. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)  Done
          •  Done I moved them to separate articles. I added references to the list, and will see what else I can do. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
            • I significantly improved the list. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Nice work so far. Two comments: (1) I have not verified this comment against the WP guidelines/policy, but I think the inline external links in the table should be converted to inline callouts to references or footnotes. (2) I repeat my earlier concerns about the need for sources for the "notes" on stadium history. Sources are needed for statements such as (but not limited to) "Miami Gardens was incorporated as a suburb of Miami in 2003" and "Qualcomm Stadium was originally known as San Diego Stadium and Jack Murphy Stadium." --Orlady (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
                •  Done The external links should stay. I have seen this on several other FL's and not only that, but they are all from the same "basic" website, which is already used as a reference. If you click on any random two and compare them you will know what I mean. Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
                  • Sorry, but the referencing for the stadium locations and names is only partly done. There are several facts in those notes that still aren't supported by citations. --Orlady (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)  Done
                  •  Done The "Wild Card Qualifier" cannot be cited. It's stated if the team was a WCQ on the external links. Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 13:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Thanks for fixing the issues that caused this list to lose its featured status. --Orlady (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

* "Prior to the 1970 merger of the American Football League and the NFL, the two leagues met in a championship game" I would make it World Championship game, to be consistent with the header that follows.

• Is it "AFL-NFL World Championships", or "World championships", or "world championships"

* Why is it "Miami-South Florida", instead of "Miami, Florida"? * On that note, why use "Los Angeles-Los Angeles Metro" and "Pasadena-Los Angeles Metro". They're both incorporate as cities, and eveyone out here calls them simply "Los Angeles" and "Pasadena". I dont think anyone uses "Los Angeles Metro", apart from perhaps governmental offices and the Metro system (but that has a different meaning: Los Angeles Metro) The other thing that muddies the waters is that the Greater Los Angeles Metro, which incorporates the Counties of LA, Orange, Riverside, San Bernadino and Ventura is different to the "Los Angeles Metro", officially "Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metropolitan Area", which includes only LA and Orange counties. :I still don't see why it needs to be "Pasadena-Los Angeles". It isn't. Also, Glendale now appears as "GLendale" -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• And similarly "Glendale-Phoenix Metro", "Tempe-Phoenix Metro" and "Stanford-San Francisco Bay Area". They're all cities in their own right.
• There's two }} floating around in the notes section.

-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 16:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• All problems fixed above :) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Heh, you're probably getting real annoyed with me by now, but all locations should include the state for consistency. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• •  Done - Milk's Favorite Cookie 13:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Milk's Favorite Cookie 16:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support much better. Good work! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Support, once the concerns of Rambling Man are addressed. The photo of the Lombardi trophy is excellent. Also the formatting is very nice. MrPrada (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Reference issues now fixed, all other concerns also addressed. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 16:56, 30 March 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 promoted 03:54, 30 March 2008.

This list is part of the series of lists that I am creating and updating regarding recipients of the Victoria Cross. Australian recipients, Canadian recipients and List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality are already FL standard. This follows on from there. It is fully referenced, fully sortable and easily read. I believe it meets the FL standards now. I hope you do too. Woody (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• reference 7 is not referenced correctly.
  • Fixed formatting issue. Woody (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Done
• I assume that the "date of action" refers to the date of the action for which the Victoria Cross was awarded. Although this may seem obvious, it might be mentioned above the table.
  • Added in sentence to lead. Woody (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, but put it (and everything following that sentence) below the title "Ship-based recipients". It is no introduction anymore.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I retitled the header as Recipients in line with the other lists. It was a remnant from when there were two lists. I have also reworded the lead to take in your suggestion. Woody (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I see, but the table explanation is still in the introduction. Doesn't it fit better just above the table?--EdgeNavidad (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• The standard order of the table is very strange.
  • It is ordered by Ship/unit, which given the name of the list seemed appropriate. Woody (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • You're right --EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Done
• The "Notes" column does not need to be sortable.
  • Done. Woody (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • However, it doesn't hurt if the other columns are sortable ;) --EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The others have remained sortable. For me they are... Woody (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
        • And now I can also sort them... Weird. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Done
• In this list (if I counted correctly), 117 recipients are shown. This number does not show up in the introduction. Does this mean that the list is incomplete? I have no way to check this. The introduction does give some number, for example "83 awards given to Royal Naval personnel who serve on ships and in the Royal Naval Brigade". If these 83 persons are in the list, give them a color or something.
  • I have rephrased the lead now to separate ship based personnel from the other organisations listed. The list is complete as far as sources go.
    • Maybe include the total number of VC's given to the Royal Navy in the introduction? Now only the 1356 number is given, which might be confusing.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I have reworded the lead to take in your suggestion. Woody (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Done
• The link to also gives ranks, is it not interesting to include these? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The Victoria Cross does not distinguish between ranks, and I think the table would be too crowded if it did include them. Which rank would you use, the rank when they received the award, the rank they left the forces with? Woody (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • What do you mean when you say that the VC does not distinguish between ranks? I'm afraid I'm not into the subject, so I can not tell which rank is more important. When I saw the list, the first thing I wondered what was the highest rank that got the VC, and what was the lowest rank. I don't think the table would become to crowded if you'd add them, I've seen larger tables that were still clear. I can not tell you what to do here, I just want to suggest the option ;) --EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • My comment was that the VC is awarded to all ranks and that people usually concentrate on the act of valour and not on the rank. I will ask at MILHIST for opinions on it. Thanks for all your comments. Woody (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree with Woody here - rank is irrelevant to the awarding of the VC, but EdgeNavidad does have a point. Readers unfamiliar with the subject (a few/some/many/most/indeterminate number) are aware that there was a large amount of class prejudice in the military during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Perhaps that is the most enduring impression of the British Armed Forces of that time period. There could be interest - whether it's related to the preceding or just general curiosity - in knowing the proportion of officer/NCO/OR recipients. But that could be addressed without precision and another field by explaining in a single sentence that all ranks are eligible for the VC. That is unless there really is a general interest in the rank of each recipient? SoLando (Talk) 16:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• As there are so few notes, I wonder if it wouldn't be better just to put the from the table column next to the recipients name?
• I don't think a asterix and cell shading is necessary to highlight posthumous awards. The shading would do the job perfectly well by itself. I think the shading should extend across the row, too, not just in one cell.

That's it. --

ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 01:23, 25 March, 2008

• Woody is expected - no pressure! ;-) - to return to Knowledge (XXG) tomorrow (27th). Combining shading and the asterisk to denote a posthumous recipient has been the convention for these lists so discussion should be deferred 'til Woody's return. Did that response have the connotations of an answer machine? ;-). SoLando (Talk) 12:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm back now. With regards to the posthumous column, they are both there to meet the requirements of Knowledge (XXG):Colours#Using_colours_in_articles in that we should not use colour as the sole conveyor of important information. In terms of "notes", it is a convention of recipients lists (admittedly one that I started) that we use a notes column to indicate information. I didn't want to clog up columns within the main table. Here it is very clear if there is special, specific information related to a recipient. I personally don't think it is an issue, but if you feel strongly about it, I am happy to change it in this list. Woody (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• With 5 notes for 117 recipients it just looks like the rest have been overlooked. Re the shading and asterix, that was one part of the MOS I didn't remember, but I think bold or itallic text would be better than an itty bitty star.
• Anyway, my suggestions came pretty late in the game and noone else commented on them so it's entirely your choice. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 16:10, 27 March, 2008

I hadn't thought about it that way, but I think most readers will see that the notes are simply exceptional circumstances. I think it better to maintain uniformity across all the lists. In terms of the star, italics were tried on a different list and rejected at FLC as not visible enough. I think the star is more visible than italics and bolding which may come under "Accessible" as well. Can I be forward and ask you, do these objections mean you Oppose this nomination? This has been up for a while and I would like to be ready to close either way soon. Thanks Woody (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No. It meets the criteria, follows MOS, and like I said, I was late in the game in adding comments. If they were deal breakers someone else would have risen the point earlier. Support. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:19, 27 March, 2008

Thankyou for your comments and your review. Woody (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I think the manual of style calls for the ship names to be italicised, eg. HMS Arrogant.
• Perhaps some of the links to ship disambiguation pages could be changed to point to the specific ship, but if it's to avoid too many red links then I don't have a problem with it. Benea (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Done the italics I had forgotten about those. I am not aware that any dab pages are linked, I thought I had caught them all. Thankyou for your comments. Woody (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • There were only two on closer inspection, HMS Harrier and Hazard which are quite new. I've fixed them up now, and now have no hesitation in Supporting. Benea (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks, and during a further run through I found that several of the E and C boats existed, just without the full stop. Thanks again for your review. Woody (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, very close to supporting, but two questions:
  • 1 - is it standard British to say "World War Two"? If not, it should be changed to the more familiar "World War II".
  • 2 - Is there any method to the default sorting of the list? I can see none. --Golbez (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't really think there is a standard notation anymore for the World Wars. I have converted it to World War I for this list as it is Commonwealth English standard. The default sort is by ship name which seemed reasonable given the title of the list. Woody (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah. Well then, I support. --Golbez (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • More British standard to say "Second World War" isn't it? Not some corny "sequel" to "WWI"? Same for the First World War.
  • Why is " in the face of the enemy." in italics?
  • Don't force image sizes, use the upright modifier per WP:MOS#Images.
  • "This along with the *, indicates that the Victoria Cross was awarded posthumously" - why the comma and why both?
  • Be consistent, you have World War One (yuck) and World War Two (yuck) in the lead and World War I (yuck) and World War II (yuck) in the table. Stick with the same names throughout, and preferably not the movie versions...!
  • A note should explain where/why non-conflict recipients were awarded VCs.
  • Make notes column centrally aligned.
• So I can't support for now... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • • Whilst, personally, I don't give a shit how you say itI don't see the difference, I have changed it to Second World War. It is in Italics to emphasise the point and the difference between this and the George Cross; though I have now changed it to quotation marks per WP:MOS. The upright code makes the VC image larger, I am not sure why, though on my screen it doesn't make much difference, it might do on others. As explained above: "they are both there to meet the requirements of Knowledge (XXG):Colours#Using_colours_in_articles in that we should not use colour as the sole conveyor of important information." I have now added in conflicts for all people, thereby avoiding that issue and I have centrally aligned the notes column. Woody (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I have now refactored the comments as the tone was shocking. I am truly appreciative of your comments. Woody (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Cool, well remind me to not review your articles again if it exasperates you so. I find the US version of WWI WWII particularly annoying but your tone more so. Sorry to have upset you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support A great list which meets all the criteria. --Nick Dowling (talk) 00:38, 30 March 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 promoted 01:38, 29 March 2008.

Selfnominating Regions of Peru as a well documented and referenced list of the first-level administrative regions in Peru. The list was formerly shown in the did you know section on the main page. ErickAgain (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)--.

• Comments:
  • Is the first column of the list really needed? It's redundant with Ubigeo, and it acts to number things that aren't ranked in any way other than alphabetically. I say get rid of the first column altogether.
  • Coat of Arms and Location shouldn't be sortable.
  • There needs to be a link to the former regions apart from the disambiguation page, just a small section about how there used to be a separate system of regions, with a link.
• That's all for now. --Golbez (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the former regions they are linked and explained in the "History" section, at the end of the first paragraph. Is that enough? --Victor12 (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That works for me. --Golbez (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed sorting posibility from the last two columns. --ErickAgain (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC).

• Support - MOJSKA 666 (msg) 19:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Conditional Support – Please explain in the prose above the table what "Ubigeo" is. Also note that Ubigeo redirects to UBIGEO, so also update the table to reflect that. Other than that, well done. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 03:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Victor12 (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - It is hard for me to understand the need for some items in the bibliography. Why is a news article about the Decline and Fall of Fujimori relevant for Regions of Peru? I would rather put it as bibliography for the history of Peru or the Fujimori article. The same for the article about the elections in 2002: are they relevant here? If they are, maybe consider making them references, for they are not self-explanatory. I think the Spanish bibliography is more relevant, but my Spanish is extremely limited so you might need to reconsider them as well. For the rest: great article! --EdgeNavidad (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Bibliography" section summarizes all references used in the article, it is not a "Further reading" section. The BBC link is used to support an statement on the causes of Fujimori's fall which can be a somewhat controversial item. As for the Spanish references, they were used in the article because there's little info available on Peruvian regions in English. Peruvian regional elections are not even covered by international news organizations like Reuters or the BBC. --Victor12 (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I understand it better, I did not see that the bibliography items were also in the Notes section. But, I still oppose to this use. According to Knowledge (XXG):Citing sources, what you call "Bibliography" is called "references". The Schönwälder, O'Neill and law references are OK, but the BBC and New York Times references are no books, and the same information is just given twice. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Bibliography" has been changed into "References" to avoid further confusions. I don't think web references (such as ONPE electoral results) need to be deleted. The purpose of this section is to give the casual reader a quick overview of all sources used, not just books. Is there any Knowledge (XXG) guideline on this? --Victor12 (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know or can find. But there should be. For the time being, I think the BBC and NYT references should be removed, you think they should not, so a third person commenting on this would be nice :)--EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. BTW, how about shortening web references in the footnotes? That way only the title and the author (e.g. BBC, Fujimori...) would be shown in the footnotes and the rest of the info (publishing date, retrieval date) would be shown in the References section. Would that be enough? --Victor12 (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Caption for clickable map is fragment so doesn't need a full stop.
  • In Safari, the map renders over the top of part of the next section preventing me from seeing it all.
  • "the process thus, it is not part of any region." - comma seems misplaced to me.
  • Density in the table should clarify that its population density.
  • Do you really need the area to the nearest 0.01 square km?
  • See Also per WP:HEAD should be See also.
• That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, full stop removed, comma removed, Density changed to Population density, and See Also changed to See also. As for the area, should it be rounded to the nearest 0.1 or to the nearest 1 square km? As for the Safari problem I'm not sure on the cause. Maybe its the frame, do you have the same problem with this version? --Victor12 (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, as for area, it's up to you but I felt that it's a little "over accurate" if you get my drift. Nearest sq km would do, and a note to the effect that it's rounded that way. As for the map, it doesn't seem to be a problem with the version you've linked to... Don't know what's going on there...! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Areas are now rounded to the nearest whole unit. The difference in the map is that the version with problems has an {{Imageframe}} template. The framed version looks better so I'm not sure on what to do. Could you post a comment at the template talk page to see if the problem can be resolved there? --Victor12 (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support, looks pretty good to me. --Golbez (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Are the ISBN numbers available for the referenced books? If so, I think they should be added.--Crzycheetah 20:56, 28 March 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 promoted 01:38, 29 March 2008.

I am self nominating this page because I feel that it meets the FL criteria and also because I have been some what working on this page for the past few weeks to bring it up to a (atleast good) standard which it certainly was not this time last month. -- Jamie jca (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I think the "as the stike has now ended, 30 Rock is expected to air five further episodes " needs changing. In five years time, it'd look strange to still see this, and 30 Rock don't air them, NBC do. Something like "The strike ended on date, 2008, and NBC is expected to air five further episodes beginning April 10, 2008....."
  •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Is someone going to update the article every single day for the "as of March 11, blah episodes have aired"? Usually, the date is that of the most recently aired episode.

That's it for now. I'll read through the actual episodes soon. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 16:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• •  Done It's that date because {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} and {{CURRENTYEAR}} templates have been used. -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

More

• In episode one, is "However" needed? And anyway, a sentence shouldn't begin with "however"
• Checking the meaning of "nubile" in Knowledge (XXG) and wiktionary:nubile, I'm not sure if it's the best word to use
• Make the first instance "GE", "General Electric (GE)"
• Wikilink to Late Night with Conan O'Brien

-- Matthew 21:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Meet criteria, all concerns satisfactorily addressed -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 16:14, 27 March, 2008

• Support Looks great. A few minor comments as usual:
  • "in which the season is split into Volume One and Volume Two" - 'split into two volumes' essentially has the same meaning but a little simpler.
  • "The Girlie Show's network executive, Gary, dies, Jack Donaghy" - how about 'network executive Gary dies' just to get rid of a few commas?
  • "a loose cannon movie star, to the shows cast" - possessive apostrophe after show.
  • "various plots and story archs are explored" - I'm guessing that's story arcs?
  • "A few minor story archs are carried over into season two" - as above.
  • "which include, Cerie Xerox's" - no comma necessary.
  • "Don Geiss, the GEO of GE" - is that CEO, or could you explain? I wiki'd GEO but not there. Typo?
  • "returning from summer hiatus to many problems, an immediate problem is Jack trying to maintain the success" - where the comma is should be a full stop (period) to separate into two sentences, or a semi-colon or something. There are a number of ways to re-word it but splitting into two sentences would be fine.
  • "Another story arch" - again, arc.
  • "Floyd are also viewed aswell as Tracy" - 'as well' is two words.
  • "his failing marridge" - now that's an an interesting one. Marriage.
  • We probably don't need all the links in the season 2 episodes synopses. Maybe keep The Today Show but the others such as Pacific, entourage etc are a little trivial and unnecessary. And we don't need a link to TGS - that's already been covered.
  • I also see in season 2 there are a few recurring/guest character links - I haven't looked at the character list but if you're linking season 2 characters maybe link the characters on the list that are mentioned in the season 1 synopses.
• Otherwise, good work, meets all criteria as far as I'm concerned. •97198 talk 06:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done. Thanks for the support. -- Jamie jca (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - sorry I missed this one, my comments...
  • Couple of WP:MOS things - use en-dash for year separators, and no over capitalising section heading (e.g. Series Overview should be Series overview).
    •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "(TGS)" - if this is going to be the abbreviation, un-italicise it.
    •  Doing... All instances of TGS in the text or just in the lead when it says TGS with Tracy Jordan (TGS)? -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is 31 bold in the lead?
    •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Image caption is a fragment so no full stop required.
    •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • One problem I see in general is the instability of the list- you've already got three vacant episode slots which no doubt will be filled in when relevant to do so, but the list should be stable.
    •  Done Removed the empty slots.
  • Refs and need to be placed on the other side of the quotation mark.
    • Can't be done. It's part of the template. -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
      • It actually can be done now. {{episode list}} was updated a couple of months ago and a new field, "RTitle=" will now render any reference to appear outside of the quotes. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:57, 25 March, 2008
        •  Done Sorry, I didn't realise. -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Order citations in numerical order.
    •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• I'll try to review the prose later but these issues need resolution before I can support. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comments-IMO, the lead needs a little bit more sourcing. Also for the table, especially for the second season, seeing how you put the season episode number in parenthesis, I would use a format similar to List of The New Detectives episodes.--TrUCo-X 18:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done but I left season 1 because the season number is the same as the series number. Should I change that? -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    • No it should not, but you responded to my comments accurately, thus I Support.TrUCo-X 20:27, 22 March 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 promoted 01:38, 29 March 2008.

Self-Nomination: Major editing, citing and table building. I think this is an excellent list. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe Knowledge (XXG):Featured lists would be the correct place to nominate as like you just said it is a list. Silver Sonic Shadow (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Nice lookin' now! —Burningclean  19:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• The sorting by date of that internet albums table is screwed up. indopug (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support All of my concerns have been addressed. Great list! One last thing: since Tenacious D is an american band, the dates in the Internet Archive column should be month day year not day month year. Drewcifer (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help. I agree with you about the date system, but the dts2 template allows your own preferences to determine how you see the dates. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That's very true, but that doesn't apply to non-registered users (anonymous IPs) and registered-users without the preference turned on (such as myself). So, typically the original text should be rendered based on the topic, and the dts2 preferences can kick in with those for whom it applies (which is probably the minority of viewers). Drewcifer (talk) 01:34, 29 March 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 promoted 17:28, 28 March 2008.

Originally nominated this for WP:GA status, and was originally promoted after I convinced the reviewer it was an article and not a list, it was later removed on the basis of, er, it's a list. :p Not my finest hour. But in due course I've come back to the article list, improved it, and fixed various problems, and am now nominating it here. All comments are welcome! One thing I'd like to ask is: are archive.com links okay? I originally linked to a story for one of my references but the website has since moved and removed all news articles from before the move, but it's still available on archive.org. It's been linked and noted that it's an archive.com link in the <ref> tag. Hope that's cool. Anyway, critique away, & thanks a lot for any suppots, opposes, comments or suggestions. :) AllynJ (talk | contribs) 14:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I made a small modification to one of the tables but otherwise my major concerns have been addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

A few things from me.

• Numbers 1-10 (except scores) are usually written as words (I refer to the Lead)
• Is that Irish flag something there's consensus over? (I'm ignorant on it - just surprised me)
• "Performance" in Statistics charts is a bit of an oddity, as for most it will be an aggregate of two performances. How about "Aggregate"?

Hope that's helpful. --Dweller (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Done the first and last two, thanks! Re: the Ireland issue, yes it is, really: the Ireland cricket team represents both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland so using one or the other would be both incorrect and potentially insulting given the tensions between the two. Cheers! AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support-however, I would source the lead a little bit more. But in spite of that, it is FL worthy.TrUCo-X 14:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks! But I'm going to respectfully disagree with that suggestion, I think, per WP:LEAD:

Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. - I don't see anything as particularly challengeable, especially when the information in the lead is all listed and sourced in the article. It simply looks neater, I believe. :) AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "a series of matches to prepare, experiment with different tactics and to help them acclimatise to conditions in the West Indies." I think needs another comma after "tactics"
  • I'm not sure on this: I've never used the serial comma, and I don't believe it is particularly common in the dialects of English spoken by cricket-playing countries (ie, per the manual of style, If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style).
• "despite sharing some of main features of the form of cricket" is "the form of" necessary?
  • I would say so: it is meant to clarify meaning One-Day Internationals as opposed to Test matches. I've changed a word that should make this clearer, but I think it would look awkward if I rephrased it to say One-Day Internationals again when they've already been mentioned in that sentence.
• "For example, the main change allowed for thirteen different players to play in a match: nine players being allowed to both bat and bowl, with two only being able to bowl and two only being able to bat." What is this a change from?
  • Done.
• I think "voiced concerns" is better than "aired concerns"
  • Done.
• Why are the matches against a blue background?
  • This is because it uses a template (see Template:Limited overs international). This has become a WikiProject Cricket standard and I would be reluctant to change it.
• Perhaps wikilink to overs and runs
  • This is an issue with the template, really... I don't how it should be addressed, personally.
• What are the names there for? (Marlon Samuels and Thomas Odoyo, for example, and what do the numbers beside them represent?
  • They are the names of a the top scorer/highest wicket taker alongside their runs scored/wickets taken; but again, this is more of an issue with the template.
• Why is small font being used? It's a hinderance to those with poor eyesight
  • Done mostly - I agree it's a readability issue in some places and have removed them there, but I think for the (50 overs) it would look rather odd to have it the same size as the score - the overs aren't part of the score, but are a necessary part of reading the score. (I can't think of a better way to phrase that, sorry! I really don't know how to put it, but I do think it works better in the remaining places.)
• What does aggregate mean in the Statistics section?
  • This is something TRM suggested further up the page as there were only two matches played by each team results seemed poorly chosen, and aggregate - an aggregate of two, in this case - seemed more fitting.

-- Matthew 20:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks! AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Re commas, I've lived in a number of English-speaking countries and as a result speak and write with a bastardised version of the language that changes from day to day!
    • If the templates render these things in a certain established way then that's fine to leave it as is.
    • Support All other concerns have been satisfied with either edits or explainations. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:05, 27 March, 2008

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 promoted 00:43, 26 March 2008.

First, I'm going to address the title. There seems to be no standard for award list titles, there's List of awards won by The Simpsons (titled so because many noms are missing, so I bypassed that one by saying it is mainly a list of awards won), there's List of Home and Away awards, List of awards for Passions (TV series) and List of 30 Rock awards and nominations.

The reason I chose the name "List of awards and nominations for Lost" is because I felt "List of Lost awards and nominations" insinuated the the article had a different meaning, like a list of missing awards or something. If anyone feels differently, I am more than willing to change the title, but I was just clarifying my position.

Anyway, fully sourced, yada yada yada, will address concerns. I tried to use primary sourcing as much as possible, but in some cases the actual award histories page for a certain award would say "for a history please refer to IMDB" in which case I took that to be an endorsement that IMDB was accurate in this case, and used it. -- Scorpion 15:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The other awards (those at the bottom of the list) should be in a ===Other awards=== section, I think.
• Why are some of the cells in the episode columns missing, when others for the same Award-giving-body are given? For example, in the Emmys, Terry O'Quinn (1st mention), Naveen Andrews, and Michael Emerson have no episode mentioned, but when Terry O'Quinn won, his episode is mentioned.

That's it for now -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Support – Good work -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 03:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Because we can only add sources for what we find. The Emmy Awards don't reveal the episodes for the acting nominees and the only reason we know the episode O'Quinn won for is because it was reported by Entertainment Weekly. As far as I know, they haven't revealed the episodes for any others from Lost. -- Scorpion 22:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I know all the Emmy acting submissions and will be able to get sources for some of them. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I could not get reliable sources (because message boards do not count) for the season 1 submissions of O'Quinn ("Walkabout" and "The Moth") or Andrews ("Solitary" and "The Greater Good"). –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Nice stuff! Some comments:
  • 3rd sentence, "It has won and been nominated for a variety of different awards, including..." - did it win or was it just nominated for the awards mentioned thereafter?
    • I actually fixed that shortly before I noticed your comments... Weird.
  • "the Emmys had rarely recognized science fiction/fantasy shows" - just seems more formal and prose-y to say 'science fiction or fantasy shows'.
    •  Done
  • "the series was nominated for nine Emmys but failed to win one" - it's picky but I think for easy reading it should say 'failed to win any'. (And who knows, it might've won two.)
    •  Done
  • And - even pickier - the Primetime Emmys and Golden Globes (to name just two) link categories only the first time they are mentioned, yet the Creative Arts Emmys section repeats the "Outstanding Special Visual Effects For A Series" link. That's just one instance I noticed early on in the list, there could well be a whole lot more.
    • I think I previously got a lot of the double links, but I probably missed a few others.  Done
  • Something I just happened to notice - the Creative Arts Emmys lists a nomination for "Thomas E. deGorter" while the Golden Reel Awards lists a "Thomas DeGorter". I'm assuming this is what their noms were listed as; I'm not sure what should be done for the sake of consistency.
    • I'll go with "Thomas deGorter", a lot more sources use that name.
• My proverbial hat off to you, and good luck! •97198 talk 04:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • A change you made a second ago: in the lead, "Amongst there wins are..." - do you mean 'their', as in 'belonging to them'? Or should it even be 'amongst its wins are...' (referring to the show as an 'it')? •97198 talk 04:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Fixed, thanks for the review. -- Scorpion 04:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - In the "References: General" and "External links" parts, there are links to other lists with this information. Although I understand that the links in both categories have a different status, the categories are so small that I would join them. Also, reference #42 currently shows an error message. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref #42 has been fixed. -- Scorpion 02:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I'm not like the above users, I can't pick out sentences that may seem a bit off. But I can see that the page is informative and well-sourced. One of the best award pages I've seen. Definitely got my support. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 12:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Clean up the tables, add some fixed widths. If you're not sure what I mean, look at List of 30 Rock awards and nominations. I formatted the tables so that they are all inline with eachother. -- Jamie jca (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Personally, I prefer smaller tables and ones that don't have a lot of whitespace in them. -- Scorpion 20:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Would be nice if award-won and award-nom were used more to keep styles somewhat consistent across similar lists. This removed 7k of markup, about 12% of the article. Gimmetrow 07:48, 22 March 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 promoted 00:26, 26 March 2008.

previous FLC

The list has gone through a peer review which was very productive and cleared up many issues, I feel the lit meets the criteria, and is very similar to other featured lists such as Leeds United A.F.C. seasons and Bradford City A.F.C. seasons. Thanks for your time NapHit (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Now comments dealt with, well done. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Another improvement. Well done. Prose is fine, and the table looks spot on. Peanut4 (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Much improved at and since its peer review, this list follows the established pattern of association football club season lists. It satisfies the timeline criterion, is stable and complete, is well-referenced and annotated where appropriate, and has a relevant free-use image. Good work. Struway2 (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment When there is one more than one European competition in one season, you should give each its own row, as in this abortive attempt from a while ago. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeh I've changed to accomodate this now cheers NapHit (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - why aren't FA Cup and League Cup linked in the lead while the other cup contests are? Otherwise can't find a problem with it! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Silly me, fixed NapHit (talk) 15:12, 22 March 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 promoted 00:26, 26 March 2008.

This is an overview of the various specific lists that I've enhanced over the past few weeks. It summarises various successes of managers, it's illustrated, factually accurate and forms an umbrella (hopefully to make a potential featured topic main article) to the sub-articles. As always, I'm completely open to criticism and debate over what I've written and encourage the community to give it to me, both barrels. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• "As of March 2008" - Is someone going to update this every single month? There's a template somewhere that does it automatically. Alternatively, put the month of the most recent tournament, and users can perform manual updates after each Final. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, well this usually an accepted way of keeping a definite timeframe of accuracy on a statistical article which will need occasional updates (only four times a year!), so I'm not sure this really needs to be changed. However, I'm interested in the template you've mentioned, any more info on that? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} and {{CURRENTYEAR}} produces September 2024, and will update automatically. (Don't worry about the redlinks. I don't now why they're there, they just are.) -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Weird, those links don't work.... for me.... but Matthew, could you tell me if you'll object if this statement remains? Just curious... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
        • No, the links don't work, but if you just copy it as it appears, into the article, it will work. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I added them to the article myself, although it wouldn't have stopped me from supporting. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 22:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Support -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 22:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment As you've excluded the Fair's Cup, to be consistent you should exclude here and at the relevant list the first Super Cup too. --Dweller (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment2 I strongly disagree with the use of "current month". If no-one edited this article again for 2 years, the reader would think it was up to date. --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oops. I didn't think of that. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Response to Dweller, I've replaced the templates back to plain text and I've also added a note here that the first Super Cup is excluded from the statistics. I think it's still relevant over at the Super Cup page, it's noted there as well that the title is unofficial and is probably worth listing along with the three tournaments that didn't happen for other reasons... Whaddya reckon? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support as long as Zlatko Čajkovski's sortname is sorted out (no pun intended). Also, although it's not a dealbreaker, I'm mildly confused by the sorting of names with "del", "van", etc in, which currently sort by the "other" part of the surname e.g. Aad de Mos sorts with the "M"s. Surely the "del"/"van" is part of the surname? You wouldn't sort Paul McCartney with the "C"s in a list of musicians....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed, I'm confused too. I think I'll go through the lists and make that a consistent sorting scheme, sorting on the de rather than the subsequent surname bit. Thanks, and I'll try to sort out Zlatko...! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • All fixed I think Chris... Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment A great, simple list. But just some queries to make with the totals table.
  • I have Argentina down as 4-0-2-0-8
  • You've missed Czech Rep off 0-1-0-0-1
  • I have England as 8-6-6-3-23. Peanut4 (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm, despite the A-levels, it seems maths isn't my strong point any more! Fixed appropriately, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Now spot-on. Great work. Peanut4 (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Just one question though, why is Valery Gazzaev listed with a soviet union flagicon, and not a Russian one when he won the UEFA Cup after the collapse of the soviet union? Other than that it's superb NapHit (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks NapHit. In response, the flag represents the nationality of the coach at birth, and Gazzaev was born in Ukraine in 1939 as part of the Soviet Union. Accepted, he won UEFA post-CCCP but I'm sticking with manager original nationality, not necessarily nationality when winning the title... Unless you can spot a problem elsewhere with that! Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah that's fine you've answered my query NapHit (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support another goodie off the conveyor belt. --Dweller (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Great list, well done. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment A lot of teams treat the Super Cup as something of a mickey mouse tournament, so it seems odd to give it equal weight. However, I'm not sure what to suggest as an alternative. One thing which definitely does need doing is the addition of Gérard Houllier, who has been omitted. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - sure they do, but UEFA recognises it as a club tournament with a clearly defined winner. It's not up to us to decide on the notability, UEFA consider it a club tournament. But you're right, Houllier has disappeared. Thankfully he's already made a reappearance! Thanks for the good spot... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 25 March 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 promoted 00:26, 26 March 2008.

Partial self-nomination (VerruckteDan is by far the list’s primary editor - I did some final work to get the list ready for FLC). Another tallest buildings list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Tulsa and List of tallest buildings in Portland, Oregon. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai-me 03:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Refs and should be placed at the end of the sentence, or at least after punctuation mid-sentence.
  •  Done -- Rai-me 11:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• "upon completion in 2009, it would become" → "upon completion in 2009, it will become"
  • "Would" is used to show that it is not a certain event, as the building is not even under construction. -- Rai-me 11:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• "While not new construction," - missing an S perhaps: "While not new constructions,"?
  •  Done -- Rai-me 11:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Are columns usually left-justified, rather than centered?
  • Yes, that is the default setting for the wikitable. -- Rai-me 11:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it's such a lame review. I don't usually do these types of lists because it's not a subject I know anything about. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; all reviews are much appreciated. Cheers, Rai-me 11:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Support As Raime said in the nomination, I feel the list meets the FL criteria and follows the successful model of so many other "tallest buildings" lists. VerruckteDan (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - very good, well-referenced. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 08:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Abstain Support I have notability issues again. Why is Loews New Orleans Hotel more notable than JW Marriott Hotel New Orleans? Why is First National Bank of Commerce Building notable? For W New Orleans, some kind of a description should be added in the "notes" column . --Crzycheetah 23:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done - I have created articles for all three previously unlinked hotels. Although I don't think these high-rise hotels are notable, you are correct in stating that if the Loews Hotel as an article, then the other 3 should probably have articles as well, as there reason the Loews is more notable. Unlike the Albuquerque buildings, these buildings may be tall enough to be notable. I am not sure what you mean by some kind of a description should be added in the "notes" column - why? Most buildings on the list do not have descriptions, and there is really nothing worth mentioning about the W Hotel. Cheers, Rai-me 17:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I support. As for W New Orleans, I think that that name is confusing and a description needs to be written explaining what kind of a building it is. Other buildings' names basically imply what those buildings are for, i.e. banks, hotels, hospitals. "W New Orleans" doesn't imply much.--Crzycheetah 08:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Wouldn't it be easy for a reader to just click on the link and see what kind of a building it is? The "W" Hotel brand is a major hotel chain. I could change the entry name to W Hotel New Orleans, but that isn't the building's official name. Cheers, Rai-me 22:54, 25 March 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 promoted 00:26, 26 March 2008.

Self-nomination. I believe that this list is of a good enough quality to become a featured list. The introduction is comprehensive, the image is given fair-use rationale and the list is given a full set of references. I've tried to model the list on the List of Peep Show episodes, which I promoted to FL successfully a little while ago. ISD (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• A season is different to a list of episodes of an entire series. I'd prefer to see sections on cast, awards, reception, etc. For examples, take a look at Featured Lists Lost (season 1), Lost (season 2), Lost (season 3), D:TNG (season 1), D:TNG (season 3), [[D:TNG (season 4), and current nominations The Simpsons (season 7) and D:TNG (season 3).
• Template:Episode list now includes fields for Writers and Directors. Can these be incorporated into this list?
• The references need sorting out. I'm no expert, but I think the book "Green Wing: The Complete First Series Scripts" should be listed under "General". Page numbers need separating by an endash.

-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Response to comments - I've tried to carry out all the changes you asked for. The book is now a "References" section and a "Notes" section, creating a section just for the book. I've added cast, awards and reception sections as well. In terms of the writers and directors in the episode list, this I feel is not suitable for this article. This series, like most British comedy series, is directed by and written by the same people in every episode. Although there are eight writers and two directors, all of them contribute to every episode and they are credited in all the episodes, so there is no episode which is written or directed by a single person. They are however, mentioned in the introduction and are referenced. ISD (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Support All concerns addressed. Meets the criteria. Well done. -- Matthew 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - In the Green Wing article, the comic relief sketch seems not to be included in the first series, as it is mentioned separately. I don't know what's the truth, but I think one of these articles should change.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Response to comment - I've removed the Comic Relief sketch from the Green Wing (series 1) article. ISD (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Avoid links in the bold opening sentence of the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
  • "having spend the previous " - spent.
  • "having spend the previous night in her car, arrives at East Hampton for her first day of work after a bad night." - night then bad night... reads odd...
  • "greetings to his mother: Joanna." - why the colon?
  • "milk float " - link or explain - non Brits may not get this.
• that's about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Response to comments: I've carried out the changes that you asked for. ISD (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support my comments dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support-Great article and definately meets FL criteria, well sourced and written. However, I would consider cutting down the episode's synopsis. Per WP:EPISODE, as the plot summaries should be a little more brief.TrUCo-X 14:19, 22 March 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 promoted 13:13, 24 March 2008.

I'm nominating this bad boy because it's on a par with the other three lists I recently nominated. It's been tailored according to the comments received in the other FLCs (I hope) and I'd like to think it's as good. It's got many independent sources, it's nicely illustrated, it should comply with the manual of style, I acknowledge that not all finals have an article, but this list is collecting the managers together, not the finals so I hope that won't be a major stumbling block. I've left red links in to encourage those missing articles to be created. Anyway, as ever, I'm more than happy to present this to the community and welcome all criticism, support or otherwise. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man's just too good at this sort of thing ;-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• A description of what the Super Cup is before jumping into why the first one was not considered official would help the flow.
• I'm not sure "anyway" is such an encyclopaedic word

That's it! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Matthew, thanks, good comments, both of which I have hopefully addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Support. Another great list.

• Support Great list, just a minor issue, why is there no picture in the lead, like in the other lists of this type? Other than it's great NapHit (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks NapHit, the lead has no image because no one single manager stands out above the others. In the other lists, it's usually been Trappatoni who's mug is up top because he's won more UEFA/Champs League etc cups than any other manager. Hope that makes sense? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeh it's no big problem, I was just a little curious as to why there was no image, it doesn't detract from the list though which is fabulous NapHit (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Odd, I thought I'd commented already. Getting confused in me old age. --Dweller (talk) 14:25, 18 March 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 promoted 13:13, 24 March 2008.

Self-nomination. This list follows the format used in previous featured lists of this type. It went through a peer review, and I believe it satisfies the FL criteria. Thank you in advance to those who take the trouble to review it, and I leave it to your good selves to decide if it is worthy of promotion. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I participated in the peer review and I'm happy that the article now is more than enough to meet the WP:FL criteria. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comments Very good list, liking the History section. A few minor comments:
  • "by committee" - by a committee? reworded
  • Soccerbase says Bruce left on the 19 November, while the article states 23 November. Is a different source being used for this?
  • Also, Soccerbase say Black left on 28 November and the article says 27, but the BBC says it was the 27, so maybe you could include this somewhere to reference this date.
• Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The list dates are right, but the differences from Soccerbase should have been annotated, and now are. Thanks for pointing this out. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Now issues dealt with. Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support but being finickety, could you cite the Alf Ramsey spat text? Also, is there no way at all to fill the 1948 lacuna? --Dweller (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ramsey duly cited. Re 1948, I find it very frustrating there being one item missing, but have reached my last resort, which would be to go through the local newspaper archives for the relevant few weeks. These are available at the Central Library, but I don't live in Birmingham and rarely visit apart from matchdays when time constraints generally preclude hours poring over microfilm, so unfortunately it's not going to happen yetawhile. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This implies there was no-one in between. --Dweller (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a mirror of approximately this version of the History section of Birmingham City F.C.'s Knowledge (XXG) article. In terms of permanent appointments, Brocklebank was Storer's successor, but what I don't know is whether or not they explicitly appointed a caretaker for those few weeks between the two, and if they did, who it was. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Why does the lead say it's a chronological list, when it's sortable by name and date?
  • As presented, it is a chronological list, both in the prose section and in the table. The reader can use the sort buttons to rearrange the table by name, win percentage, nationality, as he/she wishes, but I didn't think that was something that needed mentioning in the lead?
• Are there specific references to include in the table for "Unknown", Bob Brocklebank, Joe Mallett, and all the others without them, or are they covered by a more general reference?
  • The intro to the table mentions the main sources used for each manager's stats (I've changed it to say "dates and statistics") and says that any differences from the main source are noted in the table. I've also added an explicit reference to FCHD to the Honours column heading.
    • Further to the above. BCFC Archive, which should be the main source for the Storer-Brocklebank gap, doesn't explicitly give the stats for that gap, so I've added a ref to book source Matthews (1995), which does. Thanks for making me look at it again. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

hope that clarifies matters, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:41, 23 March 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 promoted 13:13, 24 March 2008.

Self nom I think this list meets all the criteria, and is of a simliar standard and style to List of winners of the Mathcounts competition which was recently passed as featured. One issue that I can't solve yet is that the names aren't sorted by surname, because {{sortname}} insists on adding a non-removable wikilink. An alternative template is being worked on and will be added when it's up and running. All comments appreciated, and will be addressed. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 03:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed, but just one thing, not sure you need spelling bee in the See also section, but it's not a big deal. If it stays, at least capitalise the S of spelling! Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I also think that spelling bee should be removed from the See also section. --Orlady (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • I'm not convinced that a speller from Puerto Rico is truly "non-American." Could that locution be changed to something like "from outside the 5O U.S. states"?
    • How about one-and-a-half non Americans? :) J/K!  Done
  • Since I happen to live in a community that has bragged about the fact that three local kids have won this competition, I took note of the fact that the winning spellers are identified only by the geographic location of their sponsor and not also the location of the child's school or hometown. I realize that acquiring this information is more difficult than getting the information about the sponsor, and I would not object to making this a featured list on the basis of its exclusion. However, I think this information is obtainable (in many cases, it's included in references already cited) and I'd like to see it added to the article over time. (For the record, the local winners I am aware of are Henry Feldman, 1960, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Glen Van Slyke III, 1963, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and Ned G. Andrews, 1994, Oliver Springs, Tennessee.)

--Orlady (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to have included that but for those winners who's only reference I can find is that on the official site's winner's list, it's not possible. And that would mean a bunch of missing information. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your views of the situation. --Orlady (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Another comment: According to this article, in the early 1930s the spelling bee had separate "boy champions" and "girl champions". Have you run across that information in any other sources? --Orlady (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Huh.. I haven't come across anything else saying that, and even the official website's list of winners (ref 4 in the article) doesn't show that. I just did a quick google search and found nothing else, maybe I typed the wrong search parameters, so I'll have a look around again later. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • That's OK. The source where I found that was the National Review, which is not a particularly reliable source on spelling bees. If you haven't run into that elsewhere, it's reasonable to conclude it's not true. --Orlady (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. A nice piece of work. --Orlady (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Support with comments(Now addressed, see below).

PeterSymonds | talk 16:53, 18 March 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 promoted 13:13, 24 March 2008.

Self-nom It's a bit of a funny little list, but I think it meets the criteria, and not everything has to be so serious, eh? It underwent an AfD recently, the decision was to keep. I came across the list after that and worked on it. All comments appreciated and will be addressed. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 03:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Cool. I like it. I never thought the word "incumbent" could be used to described a cat. I think the article looks pretty good, but I do have a few suggestions:

I know! It makes me want to grin like a Cheshire cat! :) -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm also not a fan of the wikilinked years. That's good for putting certain things into context, but a cat could probably care less about the state-of-affairs in the United Kingdom circa 1978.

• {{not done}} I'd rather leave those in for now and see what other reviewers think, if that's okay. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I can wait, but without some sort of argument in the other direction it'll still be a problem. So I can't support the nom until it's either addressed or I'm convinced otherwise. Drewcifer (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I just think that as the cats are "employees" of the Cabinet, and their work takes them within the close confines of the workings of the Government and politics, the years should stay linked.

Also, taking Humphrey, he was somewhat of a political scandal in the 90s. He was accused of murdering a nest of baby robins when Major was there, but the biggest stink was when the Blairs moved in. There was a big hoo-ha about whether Cherie wanted him to stay or not, with Blair at the time saying the decision to keep him was one of the most difficult he'd had to make, with regards to public opinion. And she eventually posed for photographers holding the cat. Then there was the nonsense when he was retired off; there was a whole discussion raised at PM Question Time about his whereabouts, if he was still alive and wotnot, with the government arranging a clandestine photo-op, with the cat surrounded by newspapers dated that day, hostage style. All this hit the headlines at the time. However, none of this is mentioned in 1997 in the United Kingdom and if that's the only thing that is stopping you from supporting, then I'll remove them. I'd personally prefer to see them linked to 2007 in British politics etc. anyway, but those don't exist. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 22:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 22:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well that's definitely quite a story, but I'm not really sure if it applies to the UK at large, or if that kind of stuff is date/location specific in anyway. So yea, I think it's better without. If there's any opinions otherwise by other reviewers, I suppose I could be more flexible though. So, to allow for that possibility, we can consider this point taken care of, but I won't put it in the hide box. Drewcifer (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And that's about it. Short and sweet list, but I think that's why I like it! Drewcifer (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Further comments All of my suggestions have been well-addressed. However, I think Scorpion brings up some good points. Namely, it seems on the short side. I don't mean to say that the FLC should fail because of it's length, but that it should be expanded to include all of the stories you've mentioned here. Perhaps have a little section of prose detailing the tenure of each cat, wherever info is available. And if you were to do that, the article may or may not cease to be a list... I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think this article has the potential to be much more than a list, and if it has that potential, than it's probably not as comprehensive as it should be. Drewcifer (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• I could move this to List of Chief Mousers to the Cabinet Office, and then start a completely new article regarding the history etc. Would that compromise get your support? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 18:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if the topic really warrants two articles. I mean, it would be very easy to attatch the (relatively small) list to a more prose-based article. My best solution would be to keep it as one, add historical stuff, and call it an article. Probably not what you wanted to hear, but I think this could be much more than what it is right now, and keeping is as a list is just holding it back. Drewcifer (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It's a bit on the short side, and several FLCs in the past have failed due to lack of length. There also some big gaps, why was there no chief mouser from 1997 to 2007? Why were there two cats during some periods? -- Scorpion 02:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• I can't do anything about the length. Official documents have only been released into the public domain as far back as 1929 and mention the first Peter. Other documents mention Treasury Bill as one of Humphrey's predecessors, and another source dates him to the early 20s. So from that point, I would say it's complete and finite. Unless the government release more documents relating to cats, but I doubt it because the only reason there are documents beginning with Peter I is that a request was made to the Treasury for an allowance for food and a feeding schedule, so that the staff wouldn't feed him tidbits all the time, thereby filling him up and causing him to not be vigilant in his mousing activities. And I think if length was an issue, the AfD wouldn't have been to Keep. It would have been to delete or merge into Number 10.
• There were no cats between 1997 and 2007 because reportedly, Cherie Blair hates them. She pushed for Humphrey to leave (see above). Also, as noted in the lead, the title of "Chief mouser" was only given to Humphrey, so even if there was a cat, it's unlikely he would have been the "Chief Mouser" officially. Sybil, has been called that in the press (the reference is there but I can be specific about it in the article), and Wilberforce and Treasury Bill have been called thatin the official Humphrey documents. The other cats are just "mousers", or pets. Some were strays, some were given as gifts, likely simply so as to raise the profile of the giver, which is why there are two at some periods. Also, I haven't read the book or journals that relate to Munich Mouser or Nelson. They were there when I started on the article.
• All this could be added, but then it turns it more into an article and less of a list, don't you think? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 03:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• And short or not, it still covers all the point in the criteria. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - I corrected a typo (no thanks required...!) and enjoyed the article enormously, so I'll support dependent on the final sentence in the lead being worked on a little. Firstly I hate parentheses in prose (as you can see) and secondly I found that particular sentence a little clunky... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm, do you have any suggestions on how to reword it? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 18:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• It looks fine now, support unconditional! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Hehe, I love this page! I never knew there was an official resident cat... £100 a year as well! On the article-related note, I've no further comments. I noticed the last sentence was enclosed in parentheses, and it didn't look too bad, but I agree it could be reworked to get rid of them (like TRM, I also find them distracting, regardless of the fact that I use them outside of article space quite often. :)) Great work! PeterSymonds | talk 20:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reworked the last sentence, so take a look and let me know what you think (revert if you don't agree with it). In doing so, I removed the reference to the Blairs living at no. 11, as it doesn't seem overly necessary to include it. You might not like this, of course, so feel free to change it. PeterSymonds | talk 20:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No, no. That works perfectly :) -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Nice. I made a few tweaks. I wondered what the difference is between "General" and "Further Reading", especially as I doubt David Irving found much scope in his work for dealing with this topic in depth! Could the two subsections not simply be merged into one list? --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the edits. A suitable word instead of "employ" was stumping me. Per WP:CS, Further Reading "offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader … used as sources in the article", and "All items used as sources in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section". At this time I'd rather go by the policy, though I do see your point as both secions are small. Anyway, there was no need to use shortened notes for the Irving book as it was only referenced once, although it can also be included in Further reading as it "covers the topic beyond the scope of the article, and has significant usefulness beyond verification of the article". I hope that these edits will address your concerns. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 16:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good stuff. Nice contender for April 1st main page content, I'd have thought. --Dweller (talk) 12:33, 19 March 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 promoted 13:13, 24 March 2008.

I think this article should be nominated for Featured List status because it is well sourced and written, and meets the FL criteria.--TrUCo-X 02:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support, all my concerns rapidly and accurately addressed. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support, The Rambling Man honestly addressed any concerns I had. I feel that this article goes beyond the FL criteria. iMatthew 2008 18:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support All my issues were addressed a long time ago. I was just waiting to see if anyone had found anything that I missed. These have all been addressed, too. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support In the interests of disclosure, I am a member of WP:PW. This list fits the criteria of a featured list, as it is fully referenced with reliable sources, is complete, and is a useful list. The article complies with the Manual of Style as well as most WP:PW guidelines. For cases in which the list differs from WP:PW guidelines, this is due to useful suggestions from reviewers that I feel should be adopted by WP:PW. I had minor concerns with the article, but I addressed them myself. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:19, 22 March 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 promoted 22:33, 22 March 2008.

Another season of The Simpsons, and I think this one is considerably better than the other Simpsons season FLs because it is more in depth and includes a section of DVD info (if anyone doesn't like it, please say so because I plan on adding similar sections to the rest of the season pages). Anyway, review away and I'll do my best to address concerns. -- Scorpion 15:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Well done. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I can't find any legend or text explaining the episode numbers (for example, "131 - 3") and Prod. codes (for example "2F20"). Are readers supposed to know what these numbers mean? (FWIW, I've expressed as similar concern at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/voting/200804 regarding List of The Simpsons episodes.) --Orlady (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The first number is the series #, the second is the season # and I'm entirely sure that a reliable source exists that explains the production code. In 2F20, 2F is the production run number, the second number (20) is the order the episode was produced, so it would the 20th episode of the 2F production code. -- Scorpion 17:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I found the "production code" explained at the alt.tv.simpsons FAQ (search on "code" to find the relevant FAQs). In my humble opinion, if the production code is encyclopedic information that needs to be included in these lists, the lists should have a legend with a reliably sourced explanation of the code. --Orlady (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, The Simpsons Archive usually isn't considered useable as a RS. We're allowed to link to it, but not use it for citations. Luckily, the codes are mentioned in Planet Simpson, so I used that. I added a key at the top of the list. -- Scorpion 22:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks for adding the key (and the supporting source). --Orlady (talk) 17:02, 22 March 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 promoted 19:28, 22 March 2008.

I've been working on this the past few days, and I think it's ready for scrutiny. As always, suggestions are welcome. Drewcifer (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)