Knowledge (XXG)

:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 2009 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Featured list logedit
2005
June 13 promoted 10 failed
July 20 promoted 8 failed
August 14 promoted 9 failed
September 3 promoted 8 failed
October 7 promoted 2 failed
November 7 promoted 6 failed 1 removed
December 6 promoted 4 failed
2006
January 11 promoted 11 failed 1 removed
February 3 promoted 8 failed 1 kept
March 13 promoted 11 failed 2 kept
April 10 promoted 5 failed 1 removed
May 10 promoted 7 failed 1 kept
June 9 promoted 10 failed
July 10 promoted 9 failed 1 kept
August 10 promoted 7 failed 1 kept
September 5 promoted 7 failed
October 8 promoted 10 failed 1 removed
November 11 promoted 8 failed 2 kept
December 20 promoted 11 failed
2007
January 18 promoted 11 failed
February 11 promoted 11 failed
March 12 promoted 10 failed 1 kept
April 20 promoted 17 failed 1 kept
May 23 promoted 14 failed
June 22 promoted 9 failed 1 kept
July 29 promoted 20 failed 2 kept/1 removed
August 41 promoted 15 failed 3 removed
September 42 promoted 11 failed 1 kept/1 removed
October 43 promoted 17 failed 2 kept
November 40 promoted 18 failed
December 38 promoted 15 failed 2 removed
2008
January 46 promoted 18 failed 6 removed
February 34 promoted 16 failed 10 removed/3 kept
March 65 promoted 9 failed 4 removed/2 kept
April 48 promoted 25 failed 2 removed/2 kept
May 50 promoted 39 failed 1 removed
June 46 promoted 23 failed/2 quick-failed 4 removed/1 kept
July 85 promoted 27 failed/10 quick-failed 3 removed/2 kept
August 58 promoted 52 failed/7 quick-failed 4 removed/1 kept
September 59 promoted 33 failed/5 quick-failed 3 removed/1 kept
October 75 promoted 30 failed/2 quick-failed 5 removed
November 86 promoted 13 failed 8 removed/5 kept
December 70 promoted 11 failed 3 removed/2 kept
2009
January 63 promoted 16 failed 3 removed/1 kept
February 62 promoted 24 failed/1 quick-failed 4 removed/1 kept
March 47 promoted 14 failed 4 removed/1 kept
April 47 promoted 15 failed 13 removed/2 kept
May 28 promoted 19 failed 15 removed/2 kept
June 56 promoted 14 failed 16 removed/4 kept
July 45 promoted 21 failed 9 removed/5 kept
August 37 promoted 15 failed 8 removed/6 kept
September 25 promoted 11 failed 3 removed/4 kept
October 40 promoted 13 failed 2 removed/4 kept
November 26 promoted 9 failed 2 removed/1 kept
December 24 promoted 14 failed 4 removed/0 kept
2010
January 30 promoted 13 failed 2 removed/2 kept
February 39 promoted 23 failed 0 removed/8 kept
March 38 promoted 20 failed 2 removed/1 kept
April 35 promoted 10 failed 3 removed/1 kept
May 30 promoted 7 failed 2 removed/2 kept
June 33 promoted 6 failed 0 removed/2 kept
July 36 promoted 15 failed 1 removed/5 kept
August 31 promoted 10 failed 3 removed/0 kept
September 36 promoted 13 failed 1 removed/3 kept
October 23 promoted 13 failed 3 removed/0 kept
November 22 promoted 10 failed 2 removed/2 kept
December 26 promoted 7 failed 3 removed/2 kept
2011
January 16 promoted 13 failed 6 removed/2 kept
February 28 promoted 11 failed 5 removed/2 kept
March 21 promoted 6 failed 1 removed/1 kept
April 17 promoted 8 failed 6 removed/1 kept
May 21 promoted 14 failed 2 removed/2 kept
June 21 promoted 10 failed 0 removed/4 kept
July 29 promoted 9 failed 2 removed/1 kept
August 19 promoted 21 failed 0 removed/5 kept
September 22 promoted 8 failed 1 removed/0 kept
October 23 promoted 3 failed 3 removed/0 kept
November 13 promoted 2 failed 2 removed/0 kept
December 13 promoted 9 failed 1 removed/1 kept
2012
January 18 promoted 9 failed 0 removed/1 kept
February 21 promoted 5 failed 0 removed/0 kept
March 17 promoted 8 failed 1 removed/1 kept
April 11 promoted 4 failed 0 removed/0 kept
May 8 promoted 16 failed 3 removed/1 kept
June 14 promoted 15 failed 2 removed/1 kept
July 18 promoted 7 failed 5 removed/1 kept
August 42 promoted 6 failed 3 removed/2 kept
September 26 promoted 6 failed 1 removed/2 kept
October 28 promoted 15 failed 5 removed/0 kept
November 20 promoted 8 failed 2 removed/3 kept
December 16 promoted 14 failed 4 removed/2 kept
2013
January 19 promoted 12 failed 4 removed/3 kept
February 22 promoted 8 failed 0 removed/1 kept
March 19 promoted 13 failed 0 removed/3 kept
April 19 promoted 4 failed 0 removed/2 kept
May 17 promoted 7 failed 1 removed/1 kept
June 24 promoted 7 failed 0 removed/1 kept
July 23 promoted 9 failed 0 removed/0 kept
August 15 promoted 7 failed 0 removed/0 kept
September 26 promoted 9 failed 0 removed/0 kept
October 13 promoted 13 failed 1 removed/1 kept
November 12 promoted 7 failed 1 removed/0 kept
December 8 promoted 3 failed 2 removed/0 kept
2014
January 13 promoted 10 failed 0 removed/0 kept
February 12 promoted 10 failed 3 removed/0 kept
March 28 promoted 8 failed 0 removed/0 kept
April 16 promoted 5 failed 0 removed/1 kept
May 15 promoted 6 failed 1 removed/1 kept
June 11 promoted 6 failed 0 removed/0 kept
July 18 promoted 11 failed 0 removed/1 kept
August 12 promoted 7 failed 1 removed/1 kept
September 16 promoted 13 failed 0 removed/0 kept
October 9 promoted 12 failed 1 removed/0 kept
November 14 promoted 7 failed 1 removed/1 kept
December 5 promoted 7 failed 2 removed/2 kept
2015
January 17 promoted 9 failed 2 removed/0 kept
February 13 promoted 5 failed 0 removed/0 kept
March 15 promoted 11 failed 0 removed/1 kept
April 17 promoted 5 failed 11 removed/2 kept
May 15 promoted 9 failed 3 removed/0 kept
June 14 promoted 4 failed 6 removed/0 kept
July 22 promoted 9 failed 1 removed/1 kept
August 29 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/0 kept
September 26 promoted 4 failed 1 removed/6 kept
October 18 promoted 11 failed 0 removed/1 kept
November 23 promoted 8 failed 4 removed/1 kept
December 10 promoted 4 failed 1 removed/0 kept
2016
January 16 promoted 10 failed 5 removed/0 kept
February 8 promoted 4 failed 0 removed/0 kept
March 10 promoted 6 failed 1 removed/0 kept
April 12 promoted 6 failed 2 removed/0 kept
May 14 promoted 9 failed 0 removed/0 kept
June 16 promoted 6 failed 2 removed/0 kept
July 9 promoted 4 failed 0 removed/1 kept
August 17 promoted 7 failed 0 removed/0 kept
September 21 promoted 11 failed 0 removed/0 kept
October 8 promoted 5 failed 2 removed/2 kept
November 8 promoted 4 failed 1 removed/0 kept
December 10 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/0 kept
2017
January 14 promoted 9 failed 2 removed/1 kept
February 13 promoted 7 failed 1 removed/0 kept
March 10 promoted 3 failed 0 removed/0 kept
April 16 promoted 6 failed 3 removed/2 kept
May 16 promoted 1 failed 0 removed/0 kept
June 12 promoted 5 failed 1 removed/0 kept
July 10 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/0 kept
August 19 promoted 2 failed 2 removed/2 kept
September 15 promoted 6 failed 1 removed/1 kept
October 15 promoted 3 failed 0 removed/0 kept
November 19 promoted 3 failed 1 removed/0 kept
December 25 promoted 3 failed 0 removed/0 kept
2018
January 25 promoted 3 failed 1 removed/0 kept
February 22 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/1 kept
March 15 promoted 2 failed 1 removed/0 kept
April 16 promoted 6 failed 0 removed/0 kept
May 12 promoted 3 failed 0 removed/0 kept
June 16 promoted 1 failed 2 removed/1 kept
July 12 promoted 0 failed 1 removed/0 kept
August 14 promoted 3 failed 4 removed/0 kept
September 11 promoted 3 failed 0 removed/0 kept
October 14 promoted 4 failed 0 removed/0 kept
November 13 promoted 4 failed 0 removed/2 kept
December 10 promoted 5 failed 0 removed/0 kept
2019
January 10 promoted 7 failed 1 removed/0 kept
February 10 promoted 0 failed 0 removed/0 kept
March 17 promoted 2 failed 2 removed/0 kept
April 11 promoted 9 failed 2 removed/1 kept
May 15 promoted 5 failed 1 removed/0 kept
June 10 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/0 kept
July 12 promoted 2 failed 2 removed/3 kept
August 11 promoted 2 failed 1 removed/0 kept
September 7 promoted 0 failed 1 removed/0 kept
October 8 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/0 kept
November 13 promoted 1 failed 0 removed/0 kept
December 10 promoted 3 failed 1 removed/1 kept
2020
January 11 promoted 7 failed 0 removed/2 kept
February 10 promoted 2 failed 3 removed/0 kept
March 8 promoted 0 failed 1 removed/0 kept
April 21 promoted 2 failed 1 removed/1 kept
May 20 promoted 3 failed 0 removed/0 kept
June 25 promoted 4 failed 1 removed/3 kept
July 15 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/0 kept
August 26 promoted 4 failed 0 removed/0 kept
September 17 promoted 1 failed 0 removed/0 kept
October 15 promoted 4 failed 2 removed/0 kept
November 15 promoted 5 failed 1 removed/0 kept
December 21 promoted 4 failed 2 removed/1 kept
2021
January 24 promoted 4 failed 0 removed/0 kept
February 7 promoted 0 failed 2 removed/0 kept
March 21 promoted 8 failed 4 removed/0 kept
April 20 promoted 4 failed 2 removed/2 kept
May 14 promoted 6 failed 1 removed/0 kept
June 17 promoted 1 failed 0 removed/1 kept
July 15 promoted 1 failed 0 removed/0 kept
August 16 promoted 2 failed 1 removed/1 kept
September 11 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/1 kept
October 23 promoted 1 failed 2 removed/1 kept
November 10 promoted 1 failed 1 removed/0 kept
December 9 promoted 1 failed 0 removed/1 kept
2022
January 21 promoted 1 failed 1 removed/1 kept
February 10 promoted 2 failed 2 removed/2 kept
March 20 promoted 0 failed 3 removed/1 kept
April 17 promoted 2 failed 1 removed/0 kept
May 20 promoted 2 failed 1 removed/0 kept
June 2 promoted 3 failed 0 removed/0 kept
July 13 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/0 kept
August 22 promoted 5 failed 1 removed/0 kept
September 10 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/0 kept
October 10 promoted 4 failed 3 removed/0 kept
November 9 promoted 1 failed 0 removed/0 kept
December 15 promoted 2 failed 1 removed/0 kept
2023
January 10 promoted 3 failed 0 removed/0 kept
February 12 promoted 4 failed 0 removed/2 kept
March 19 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/1 kept
April 12 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/0 kept
May 19 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/0 kept
June 19 promoted 4 failed 1 removed/0 kept
July 16 promoted 5 failed 2 removed/0 kept
August 19 promoted 4 failed 0 removed/0 kept
September 24 promoted 1 failed 0 removed/0 kept
October 22 promoted 1 failed 0 removed/0 kept
November 14 promoted 1 failed 0 removed/1 kept
December 15 promoted 0 failed 1 removed/0 kept
2024
January 13 promoted 2 failed 1 removed/0 kept
February 17 promoted 2 failed 1 removed/3 kept
March 26 promoted 5 failed 1 removed/2 kept
April 27 promoted 4 failed 0 removed/0 kept
May 34 promoted 5 failed 3 removed/0 kept
June 29 promoted 6 failed 1 removed/0 kept
July 36 promoted 3 failed 1 removed/2 kept
August 35 promoted 1 failed 1 removed/0 kept
September 23 promoted 5 failed 3 removed/0 kept
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 by Matthewedwards 23:40, 28 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): Scorpion and Maxim(talk)


This is one I got together fairly quickly and I hope this is the final piece of a potential Triple Gold Club FT. The table format is new, some alternate formats are here (A is the original). My reason for the switch was that a lot of people who visit the page are likely more interested in what team won the year rather than who the individual members were. As it was, it was difficult to browse through and pick out winners, so I thought the collapsible tables would help. That way, anyone who wants to know who the members of a team were can easily find it. It does have it's downsides though, one has to open each collapsed header manually and ctrl-F is not useable. Either way, this is a WikiCup entry and all concerns are welcome and will be addressed by me or Maxim. -- Scorpion 01:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - I note a bit of rushing ;)

  • From 1920 to 1968, the Olympics also acted as the Ice Hockey World Championships and the two events occurred concurrently. -- Comma before and and I guess a link to the '68 event.
  • In 1987, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to allow professional athletes to compete in the Olympics and in starting in 1998, the NHL allowed its players to participate. -- (1)Comma before and (2)Remove the in before starting
  • The Soviet Union began competing at the Olympics in 1956 and nine straight Olympic medals, including seven gold. -- Add won before nine
  • The Soviet Union broke up in 1991 and in 1992 a Unified Team composed mainly of former Soviet players won gold. -- Comma before and and after 1992.
  • Teams from Canada have won the most medals over, with 16, including nine gold. -- I don't believe the over is needed, no?
Athlete medal leaders
  • Is there a specific order in which the nations are in? It seems a bit awkward to have this column sortable since there are more than one entry listed in some.--TRUCO 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Andrwsc
  • The "Medals per year" table seems like an obtuse kind of summary for a team sport. Is it really needed? The main article has a better summary in its "Participating nations" section, where instead of "1" or "—" in each table cell (or "2" since the introduction of the women's tournament) it shows a final placement, with gold/silver/bronze colouring for the medalists. I don't see a need to repeat this data in a different form. (But the "Athlete medal leaders" section on this list is great; good work in compiling that!) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Resolved discussion about 1920 Czech roster
  • Ok, Scorpion0422, since you've taken the task of promoting this, you get a difficult task! We have long had an apparent discrepancy for the 1920 Czech bronze medal team. The IOC database shows 8 players, including Adolf Dusek. The sports-reference.com site also has 8 players, but shows Karel Wälzer instead of Dusek. The website of the Czech NOC lists the following 10 players: Karel Wälzer, Jan Peka, Jan Arnold Palouš, Otakar Vindyš, Karel Hartmann, Josef Šroubek, Karel Pešek-Káďa, Vilém Loos, Josef Loos, Karel Kotrba. Databaseolympics.com (not a source you cite) shows 10 players, with Karel Kotrbá and Josef Loos as the two additional players. The Czech Knowledge (XXG) page also shows those 10 players. You task is to resolve this situation for the FL. Good luck! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I did some checking in the New York Times archives (since that's one of the new newspapers with free online archives that go back that far) and I was able to find an article about the US beating the Czechs, but no mention of a roster. Google News and Newsbank have also been unhelpful. Here is a summary of my findings so far:
Player Czech NOC ABC S-R IOC D-O Italian NOC SI/CNN ESPN
Karel Hartmann Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vilém Loos Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Jan Palouš Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Jan Peka Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Karel Pešek Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Josef Šroubek Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Otakar Vindyš Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Karel Wälzer Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Josef Loos Yes Yes No No Yes No No Yes
Karel Kotrba Yes Yes No No Yes No No Yes
Adolf Dusek No No No Yes No Yes Yes No

Still looking though. The solution may be to go with the Czech NOC and add a note about what the IOC says. They are the two most official sources, so what they say matters more than the secondary sources. -- Scorpion 23:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Good work so far! I've added ESPN. The other thought that occured to me would be to ask a question at the S-R website (feedback page), as the Olympics section is maintained by members of the International Society of Olympic Historians and they might be able to explain the discrepancies. I also found one of their journal articles that shows per-game roster information, and their 8 players match the 8 listed on the S-R website.
Hope this helps — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I've done some more checking and nothing new. I think the best solution would be to go along with the IOC and add the following note:
  • These eight players are listed in the IOC database. However, the members of the team vary by source. The Czech Republic NOC listing includes Karel Wälzer, Josef Loos and Karel Kotrba and removes Adolf Dusek.
  • I think I would also include the ISOH journal article as a reference, as it is clearly a "scholarly work" and is itself very well referenced. ISOH has uncovered multiple errors in the IOC database, and we've referenced their work on lots of other articles. We might also want to double-check Canada and Sweden for 1920 against those references... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I have checked the roster for Canada and the US of A against all of the above refs and they all check out. (A few days, ago I did a quick sweep of the entire list and everyone listed is either in the IOC database, Sports-reference or DatabaseOlympics, I did pick out a few small errors). -- Scorpion 19:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • You have a whole lot of redirects because of misspelled names (missing letters or accents). Instead of me pinpointing them all, insert User:Splarka/dabfinder.js into your monobook.js and use the redirect finder to fix them all.
  • "Teams from Canada have won the most medals ever, with 16, including nine gold." Comparable quantities (16, nine) should be written the same.
  • "have been awarded and have been won by teams from 13 National Olympic Committees."-->have been awarded to teams from 13 National Olympic Committees. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Fixed prose stuff. I can't get the script to work though. Does it take some time for it to highlight the redirects? Maxim(talk) 15:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
There should be two functions on the sidebar. The first should say "Find disambiguations" and the one below says "Find redirects". Don't forget to bypass your cache. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 23:40, 28 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): Tintor2 (talk)


I am renominating this for featured list after it had all its issues fixed from the previous nomination. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead
  • In Japan, they are published in Shueisha's Weekly Shōnen Jump since 2001. -- They are should be 'they have been'.
  • He also encounters former Soul Reaper Sōsuke Aizen who created an army of powerful hollow called arrancar to destroy the Soul Reapers' organization, Soul Society. -- Comma before who
  • An anime adaptation, produced by Studio Pierrot and TV Tokyo and airing on TV Tokyo, premiered on October 5, 2004. -- Reword to An airing of a anime adaptation, produced by Studio Pierrot and TV Tokyo, premiered on TV Tokyo on October 5, 2004.
  • Viz Media released the first volume on June 1, 2004, as of December 2008 twenty-five volumes have been released. -- Comma should be a semi-colon not a comma.
List
  • From my standpoint the listings seem fine, but I would seek a copyedit of the summaries of the chapters. But first of all, where are these based from?--TRUCO 02:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Done the lead fixes. The summaries are based on the volumes. Is there any notable grammar issue?Tintor2 (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I mean, where do they come from. Are they reworded statements from another website? I'm not sure, but its a lot of content and a copyedit would be nice, just in case.TRUCO 21:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, they were made based on the volumes. If not they would be breaking copyvio.Tintor2 (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay, then. Due to that, it is best to seek a good copyedit of them. For now I will Weak Support this nomination (since it meets the rest of the WP:WIAFL criteria) until a thorough copyedit is done.--TRUCO 22:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


Resolved comments from Goodraise

Resolved comments:

  • Romaji titles need title-casing.
  • "048. Menos Grande (メノスグランデ Menosugurande)" - No need to give romaji in this case.
  • Ref 2 misuses the "title" parameter. Either give the chapter name or use the "chapter" parameter.
  • Ref 61 needs a publisher.

-- Goodraise (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Done.Tintor2 (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "Ore-sama no na wa Ganju" -> "Ore-sama no Na wa Ganju"
  • "Renshūkyoku Op.1" -> "Renshūkyoku op.1"
  • "Hitori - ō no Kodoku" -> "Hitori - Ō no Kodoku"
  • Link the publisher in ref. 59 and 61.

-- Goodraise (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Done.Tintor2 (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Weak support, until a prose expert says it meets 1.a. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Support: Meets the featured list criteria. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


Note I have done two complete copy-edits (summaries only), one here and another here, after the summaries were expanded. I will repeat that I did not look at the lead. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I did some light touching up of the lead, nothing major. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

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 by Matthewedwards 23:40, 28 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): NOCTURNENOIR


Peer review

Another anime list for your consideration. The list has been lightly copyedited. Please keep in mind that the episodes are eight minutes long (including the ending theme) so the episode summaries are therefore quite short in comparison to most summaries. Thanks. NOCTURNENOIR 02:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(Copyedited by —La Pianista  @ 20:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "that ran for 48 episodes between 1998 and 1999"-->that aired 48 episodes between 1998 and 1999
  • "which focuses three goddesses" Missing a word.
  • "The series had only two pieces of theme music"
  • "However, Urd's predictions are all inanimate objects." I am confused. If these are predictions, then why does Gan-chan marry the kettle?
  • "Gan-chan, Urd, and Skuld laze around, bored" Redundant, if they are lazing around then doesn't it follow that they are bored?
  • "The three battles the rat"-->The three battle the rat
  • "Gan-chan volunteers to act as a distraction. " I think "decoy" would be better here.
  • "Urd and Skuld find the treasure, but it turns out to be a windup doll of a golden Buddha statue. " "but" implies contradiction. What did they expect the treasure to be?
  • "Skuld and Urd build him-->Skuld and Urd build for him
  • "ate like a pig following his exercise and regained his weight. " Can you put something more encyclopedic than "ate like a pig"?
  • "Gan-chan has turned into mini-Godzilla named Gabira." Needs "a" before "mini-Godzilla".
  • "can containing"-->can that contains
  • "Upon entering "
  • "However, the bad luck almost immediately" The way this is phrased, readers are expected to know that bad luck comes from the ring. Please explain further.
  • "They try to place a spiritual barrier on the ring, but it fails." Fails to do what?
  • "Urd and Skuld bathe him sunlight." Missing a preposition ("in", I think).
  • "They duplicate themselves to make teams." "make"-->form.
  • "play in ridiculous fashions, at one point, mimicking the tornado pitch of the Tasmanian Devil. Urd then disappears for her "ultimate pitch," and the rest all imitate her, leaving the stadium deserted. "-->play in ridiculous fashions; at one point, they mimick the tornado pitch of the Tasmanian Devil. Urd then disappears for her "ultimate pitch", and the rest imitate her, leaving the stadium deserted. What action do they imitate?

That is the first 12 episodes. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"and they try to save him with their various strange methods."

Those were just a few more things, I've no time to go through the entire article. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Summaries still need work I am afraid. Some quick examples of erroneous or unclear things.

First 15 ep summaries.

Rambo's Revenge (talk)

16–35

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

36–

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • The Adventures of Mini-Goddess... was a Japanese animated TV series that aired 48 episodes between 1998 and 1999. Episodes exist forever, so "...is a Japanese..." is more correct
  • The series premiered on WOWOW as a part of the omnibus show Anime Complex; it is currently distributed in North America by Geneon Entertainment, formerly known as Pioneer Entertainment. The two parts of the sentence don't flow for me, because WOWOW is a Japanese network, and the bit after the semicolond discusses American distribution. Also, Anime Complex should be italicised per WP:ITALICS

Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 20:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:31, 28 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email)


Great music. Great lady. Great list? Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 07:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment
Resolved comments from Truco

Comments by Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead
  • She has also featured as a guest artist on four charting singles by other performers, and contributed to nine other songs on other artists' albums. | Add 'been' before featured
  • Done
  • Rihanna's music incorporates various styles of musical genres, including R&B, dance-pop, and the Caribbean music styles of reggae and dancehall. | IDK, per consistency with the linking of genres in other discographies, some of these are commonly known enough to have no need of a link .
  • Not Done - just for consistency, if one or two are linked, I'd prefer them all to be. But if other people feel the same as you I will change it
  • It performed well in English speaking countries, reaching Number 2 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart in the United States, the UK Singles Chart, and the Irish Singles Chart. | Spell out UK in its first occurrence.
  • Done
  • It was released at the end of August and performed moderately well in various charts around the world. | Its not clear in the context as to what year the album was released.
  • Done
  • In the United States it reached Number 10 on the Billboard 200 Chart, Number 35 on the UK Albums Chart, Number 12 on the Irish Albums Chart, and also appeared on a number of other European charts. | Comma after US
  • Done
References
  • How reliable is hitparade? I've never seen it used in discographies.

--<TRUCO> 14:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 21:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Whataworld06

I really like this list, though I did notice a few things that could improve it:

  • ""—" denotes releases that did not chart" needs to be added to the bottom of tables with chart positions (see this)
  • Done
  • I don't think all of the reference linking is needed (Allmusic is linked dozens of times). Consider linking the work or publisher only the first time it is used.
  • Add the Wikimedia Commons for Rihanna to the External links section (see the bottom of the Rihanna article)
Gotcha. -Whataworld06 (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done
Thank you! Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 06:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Looks great, have hidden my minor comments below. Drewcifer (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Drewcifer

Two minor complaints, mostly preference-based: the first sentence in the lead is written in the same-old boring "This is a discography of" style. We already know that, from the title. Also, consider bolding the album titles in each of the tables. There's so much data in these tables, that I find it helps to draw attention to what all the data actually pertains to. Also, you should definitely wikilink "Barbadian". I had to look that up separately. Drewcifer (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: the first sentence -- Not really. It neatly summarises her discog with "it consists of three studio albums, one remix album, fourteen singles, twelve music videos and one live DVD." We have to say "discography" somewhere and this is the most natural place. I bolded the albums, and have linked Barbadian. Thanks for looking! Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 06:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I didn't notice this before, but the singles column has grown to 11 columns. 10 is the recommended cap. This would also fix the problem of the bottom legend spanning across all of the columns. It might also help make some more room (albeit not much) for the certifications, based on the conversation down below. Drewcifer (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. You wouldn't believe how many times I've removed these, but the people keep adding them. They even changed FINLAND to TURKEY (and the chart positions) but kept the FIN reference! There's no real difference between 11 and 10, so I think it's OK to leave it as it is. It'd just get added back in again if I removed one. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 08:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I kind of assumed it wasn't done by you, since the bottom row wasn't updated along with it. And yeah, I know 11 is close to 10, but I'm kind of a stickler for 10, for alot of reasons. As it stands, the table doesn't quite fit on my monitor (1024x768, a very common resolution), so the table is getting squished a little bit (about one column's worth, as a matter of fact). 10 is still plenty of data, and anymore begins to border on an indiscriminate stat dumb. And of course, 11 is close to 10, but 12 is close to 11. And hey, 13 is only one more than 12. So it's a slippery slope. This isn't enough for me to retract my support, but I'm uneasy with it, because of all of the above. You could add a note to try and curb fans adding another column. Drewcifer (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
OK. While I was sleeping Cannibaloki has added singles certifications and removed the US Pop chart. All is well!. C Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 16:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Hopefully everyone is happy. Drewcifer (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • Some of the links in the singles as featured artist needs to be corrected. Norway and Switzerland.
  • Done
  • The chart for Finland is incorrect, the reference for those charts positions goes to the YLE chart, not the Mitä hittiä.
  • Done
  • Just a question, why did you choose to put the charts for Austria and Switzerland, but not the one for Germany? I believe is the biggest german speaking market.
  • No particular reason. MOS:DISCOG says 10 charts. I just picked 10 charts at random.

Frcm1988 (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 06:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

More comments

  • In the music video section, only link Chris Applebaum and Anthony Mandler one time.
  • Done
  • The references from Allmusic for the Guest appearances: 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45 and 47 are lacking the author.
  • Tomorrow going to bed now :)

Frcm1988 (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 09:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Good work. Frcm1988 (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "The discography of Rihanna, a Barbadian singer" Comma after here.
  • Done
  • "was later certified Platinum" No caps.
  • Done
  • "well in various charts around the world." Two vague phrases: "various" and "charts around the world". Delete one.
  • Done
  • "It's highest chart " Spot the simple grammatical error here.
  • Done

More comments later. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 03:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "A Girl like Me, with a less tropical but greater urban sound"-->A Girl like Me, which had a less tropical but greater urban sound
  • Done
  • "It was certified Platinum" More unnecessary caps.
  • Done
  • ""Shut Up and Drive" and "Don't Stop the Music" were also released as singles; both had a rock/club style to the music." Source?
  • Done
  • "rerecorded"-->re-recorded (neater)
  • Done
  • "radio-edit remixes of eleven tracks" Numbers over nine should be written in numerals.
  • MOS:NUM#Numbers as figures or words: single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words

Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Seems like a silly reason to oppose, rather than just saying "comment" or "neutral". They're not included because they don't really have to be. Adding an extra column for the singles is going to squash the entire table.
  • I actually agree with Cannibaloki's position here. I find it a poor argument to say major content such as certifications for singles and videos are not included because they don't have to be. If that is the case, then I suggest we might has well remove all charts and album certifications, as they do not have to be there either. Not inserting such information defeats the whole purpose of nominating this discography for FL, which is to come up with the a comprehensive and complete discography. For that matter, I also suggest you add DVD charts and album sales, given the commercial success of Rihanna. Do U(knome)? or no 05:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Album sales isn't necessary because certifications are awarded based on the number of sales. It would just be repetitive information. I'll look into searching for DVD certs later or tomorrow, but I think it's too much information for the singles. It would make the table look extremely ugly, which would make it fail Criterion 6.
In fact, Criterion 3: Comprehensiveness. It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about entries, doesn't seem to support including them force their inclusion:
  • All albums, singles and featured songs are included, meeting the "defined scope, complete set of items" part.
  • "All of the major items": the certs for albums are major, whereas the awards for singles and DVDs are not -- the threshold of sales for earning certs are lower for singles than albums
  • "It has annotations that provide useful and appropriate info" -- it has chart positions for all charted releases and bulleted notes for albums, guest appearances etc.
I don't see where it fails, and so I think the oppose is invalid. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 06:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, the album certifications actually do not tell me how much Good Girl Gone Bad sold worldwide, and also sales are recommended at MOS:DISCOG. In regards to single certifications, saying that the threshold of sales for earning certs are lower for singles than albums is actually not true. If you take a look at the world's biggest music markets, sales thresholds per award are the same for albums and singles in United States, Australia and Japan, while they are actually higher for singles in Germany and the United Kingdom. And also, saying that inserting an extra column will make the tables look ugly is quite subjective and not necessarily true (e.g. Eminem discography). So it really doesn't make much sense to have album certifications but not single ones, which are too recommended at MOS:DISCOG. Do U(knome)? or no 07:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, a proposed WP:CREEP MOS. I happen to think that the singles table in the Eminem discog doesn't look wonderful; there's too much white space, but whatever.
I have included chart positions for the DVD, and the RIAA sales certification. Despite what the article said, it wasn't certified in Australia according to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations.htm, nor in Belgium according to http://www.belgianentertainment.be, the Italian one can't be reliably verified because you need a password. I can't find any other certs for the DVD, from any National record industry assns listed at http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_links/national_associations.html Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 17:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Fine, let's ignore DISCOGs, but what about the points I made about sales and certifications? By the way, the DVD also charted on Australia's Top 40 Music DVD chart. (source). You may want to include it if you feel it is appropriate. Do U(knome)? or no 00:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I guess I was wrong about the thresholds for singles vs albums WRT certifications. I still don't think they're necessary for singles though. Especially when they're in the articles themselves. Sorry. I've added the Aussie chart for the DVD. Thanks for the link, I wouldn't have found it. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 05:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Cannibaloki, I see you added this information yourself. I won't remove it, so could you strike your "oppose"?
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 by Scorpion0422 15:14, 28 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): Giants2008 (17-14)


Here's a second Yankees-related list from me. This is based on the other current baseball team records FLs, and has been peer-reviewed, like all of the lists I've brought here before. As always, I'll be around to respond to the community's comments. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead
  • After beginning play in Baltimore, Maryland as the Baltimore Orioles in 1901, the club moved to New York two years later; in 1913, the team changed its nickname from the Highlanders to the Yankees. -- The last part implies that the reader already knows that they were known as the Highlanders but its never mentioned before, so that should be reworded accordingly.
  • From 1901 to 2008, the franchise has won more than 9,000 games and 26 World Series championships. -- Is it really necessary to link franchise? Its seems like a pretty common term not needing specific linkage.
  • Outfielder Babe Ruth holds the most franchise records with 15, including career and single-season home runs, batting average, and on-base percentage. -- As seen in previous FLCs and in the context, a comma should go in place before with.
  • Everything else checks out fine.--TRUCO 02:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
All three of those have now been fixed. Thanks for the quick review! Giants2008 (17-14) 04:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - I participated in this list's peer review and fully support its inclusion as a FL. Nice work. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

A couple of minor issues, but overall, extremely well done.

  • In the caption of Babe Ruth's lead image, all three numbers are comparative to one another, so spell out "fifteen", rather than 15, per WP:MOSNUM.
  • I would like to see the "#" symbol superscripted or separated from the numbers in some way where ties are indicated. As is, when the characters are the same height, it's cluttered. I believe that I used the § symbol with superscripting to some degree of success throughout several other featured lists.
  • Navbox needs to contain a direct link to this article to be included (see Template:Philadelphia Phillies).
  • 'Twould be nice to have an external link directly to the official site (this was requested of me at my first FLC and I've tried to include it ever since). Don't forget to bullet it.

Hope this helps. Good work. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 12:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "The Yankees compete"-->They compete (avoids the repetition of "The...Yankees" in two consecutive sentences)
  • "Yankees players who are still active"-->Active Yankees players
  • File:Ruth1921.jpg needs a more specific source. We need to be able to easily find the picture.
  • The external link is not really necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 15:14, 28 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): KV5Squawk boxFight on!


I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the FL criteria. It is fully referenced and meets the qualifications as laid out in WP:WIAFL. Questions will, of course, be addressed by the nominator. Cheers. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 03:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead
  • Since the institution of Major League Baseball's Rule 4 draft, the Phillies have selected 45 players in its first round. -- According to the MLB Draft article, 'Draft' is capitalized in Rule 4 Draft.
  • Since the 'Draft' is a proper noun, it should be capitalized when referring to it, like 'The Draft'.
  • Yeah, but in the usage of "The Draft" needs to be capitalized because its referring to the proper noun. If it were in the April draft, then it needs to be in lower case.--TRUCO 02:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The draft is Major League Baseball's primary mechanism for assigning amateur baseball players, from high schools, colleges, and other amateur baseball clubs, to its teams. -- IMO, this would be better formatted if the from high schools, colleges, and other amateur baseball clubs was in between emdashes, the excess of commas is daunting.
  • 28 years later, third baseman (later left fielder) Pat Burrell (1998), pitchers Brett Myers (1999) and Cole Hamels (2002), and second baseman Chase Utley (2000) were all members of the team during the Phillies' 2008 World Series championship. -- Wouldn't the (later left fielder) be better stated as '(later a left fielder)'?
  • These additional picks are provided when a team loses a particularly valuable free agent in the prior off-season, or, more recently, if a team fails to sign a draft pick from the previous year. -- Remove the comma after or
  • Four other supplementary picks have been awarded to the Phillies for the loss of free agents. Dave Coggin was the first, selected in 1995 with the 30th pick, which was provided for the loss of Danny Jackson. Adrian Cardenas was selected in 2006, Travis d'Arnaud was picked in 2007, and Zach Collier was taken in 2008, using picks awarded for the losses of free agents Billy Wagner, David Dellucci, and Aaron Rowand, respectively. -- Since the first sentence states the pick in which the player was selected, why doesn't the latter follow that format as well? Consistency is needed.
Picks
  • The table was originally sortable; however, I encountered many problems with continuity, especially with the years that had no first round pick. The colspans ruin the sorting and, in my opinion, the visual appeal of the table per Cr.6 was both easier to maintain and served the purpose of the table more appropriately, rather than forcing it to work for Cr.4 while sacrificing appeal. Many other FLs are not sortable. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 02:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Resolved comments from NatureBoyMD
Comments from NatureBoyMD (talk · contribs)
  • "13 of the 45 players came from high schools or universities..." - Numbers at the beginning of a sentence should be spelled out. (per WP:MOSNUM)
  • Same as above with "28 years later, third baseman (later left fielder) Pat Burrell (1998)..." -

NatureBoyMD (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Done both, one through spelling out (which I don't agree with because it's unnecessary to spell out forty-five, but MOSNUM is so contradictory that it's easier not to fight with it) and one through refactoring. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 12:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "while Texas and Florida follow,"-->and Texas and Florida follow,
  • "Eight first-round picks have gone on to win a championship with the Phillies."-->Eight first-round picks have won a championship with the Phillies.
  • "The Phillies have failed to sign their first-round pick only twice."
  • Jeff Jackson links to the wrong article.
  • Because a comprehensive draft history would be impossibly long, between trades and the sometimes unending length of the MLB draft. Also, first-round picks, in many cases, are many times quite notable because of their "boom-or-bust" quality. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 04:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 15:14, 28 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): neuro, Ironholds


Another Royal Society medal, worked on by myself and Ironholds - seems FLable. neuro 15:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A note for transparency, I am in the WikiCup. neuro 15:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead
  • The Gabor Medal is a medal awarded by the Royal Society of London for "acknowledged distinction of interdisciplinary work between the life sciences with other disciplines ". | remove the extra space between the quotation mark and disciplines
  • It was first awarded in 1989 to Noreen Murray "in recognition of her pioneering work in the field of genetic engineering, in particular for her development of the bacteriophage lambda system as a cloning into which could be incorporated DNA fragments of over 5 kilobases in length", and was most recently awarded to Richard J. Roberts "for his internationally acclaimed contributions to the discovery of RNA splicing and his structural and genetic studies that have extended the range of sequence specificity of restriction and modification of enzymes". | (1)Is the suppose to be there ? (2)State the year as to what recently means.
References
  • First done, I'm checking up on the second. As for the refs, I'll do them in a moment or two, just got to sort some stuff out first. neuro 16:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

Sources

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 by Scorpion0422 15:14, 28 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email)


I think this meets the criteria. Thanks in advance for taking a look. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 22:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Procedural note The nominator is in the WikiCup. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)
Not usually a discog man, but as it's a band I like...
  • "and sold only 313 copies" -> "and sold only 313 copies in its first year of release"
  • Done
  • "Von brigði was released in 1998 and featured remixes of tracks from Von. Only one track, "Leit af lífi" is new to the album.", sounds funny using "was" and "is" talking about the same thing -> Only one track on the album, "Leit af lífi", was new.
  • Done - It was only released at one time, which is why I used "was", but "Leit af lífi" has only ever appeared on that album. As the album physically exists, I thought present tense should be used. But you're right, it does ready odd.
  • "Kjartan Sveinsson joined the band in 1998, playing keyboards", should keyboards be plural. I realise some synth stuff is played on multiple keyboards at once but thought I'd check.
  • Done
  • "It reached Number 1 on Icelandic album chart", -> on the
  • Done
  • "We Play Endlessly" the discog box says 1999 -> 2009. Also I'd possibly mention this remix in the lead for completeness (as you mentioned the other one).
  • Done (the date). I haven't added anything to the Lede because it was just a free giveaway in The Independent newspaper, nothing particularly notable about it otherwise.
  • Music video: I believe it is Svefn-g-englar not "Svefn-G-Englar"
  • Done

I haven't done enough discog reviews to know about style issues and what charts should be used in the list and when. So all I will say is that it looks good to an untrained eye. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed them all, I hope. Thanks for looking. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 00:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done

Sources

  • Ref 19: "HitParad" -> HitParade?
  • Not Done - HitParad for Sweden, HitParade for Switzerland
  • Ref 39: publisher The Mill links to a disambig page
  • Done
  • Ref 40: Two redlinks
  • Not Done - Someone may or may not create them in the future. I have no interest in doing so at this time.

Otherwise they look good. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 08:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead
  • I'm not an expert on music or discographies, by why aren't (bass) and other related terms stated as "(bassist)"? In the sentence Sigur Rós was formed in 1994 in Reykjavík, Iceland, by singer Jón Þór Birgisson (guitar and vocals), Georg Hólm (bass) and Ágúst Ævar Gunnarsson (drums).
  • Done
  • Sigur Rós released their debut album, Von in 1997 on Smekkleysa Records. | (1)comma after the album title (2)Is on _____ Records stated correctly, isn't it like "with _____ Records"?
  • Done
  • Only one track, "Leit af lífi" was new to the album. | Comma after the song name.
  • Done
Albums
  • Why does the certifications list ISL and not IFPI?
  • Because it's for the country, not the whole of Europe. The IFPI is the BPI/RIAA for many European countries, but each country has it's own subsidiary. I was told to do this in a previous discog FLC where I previously had them displayed as IFPI (Iceland), IFPI (Germany) BPI (UK), etc.
  • The 2009 compilation album needs verification in some way, .
    • As do the Remixes, EPs, and Soundtrack albums.
    • As well as the singles which did not chart.
  • I know it's striked but I thought I'd answer anyway. Their physical existance can verify its title etc.
Directors
  • What's verifying the final 2008 music video director?
  • Dammit, I had it.. I'll find it again. Tomorrow though.
References
  • What Rambo stated is what I also found.
  • Replied above.

--<TruCo> 18:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks! Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 08:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments by JD554 (talk · contribs)
*Von brigði was released in 1998 and featured remixes of tracks from Von: The album still exists, so this should be features.
  • Done
  • Keyboardist Kjartan Sveinsson joined the band in 1998 and a year later... would be more consistent with how the other band members are introduced.
  • Done
  • "untitled #1 (a.k.a. Vaka)" isn't the title of the song. It should be "untitled #1" (a.k.a. "Vaka") in both the lead and the singles table.
  • Done
  • Number is capitalised in quite a few places where it shouldn't be.
  • Done
  • In the various albums tables, change Vinyl to LP (wikilink first instance to LP album).
  • Done
  • Where Digital download isn't the first item in the list it shouldn't be capitalised.
  • Done
  • EMI doesn't need to be wikilinked in the compilations albums table as it has already been done in the studio albums table.
  • Done
  • The We Play Endlessly and Rímur entries should have Format: rather than Formats:
  • Done
  • Change Chart peak positions to Peak chart positions throughout.
  • Done
  • In the soundtrack albums table, change Released on to Released:
  • Done
  • "Leit Að Lífi" (Remix): Remix shouldn't be capitalised unless it's part of the track title, in which case it should be within the quotes.
  • There looks to be a lot of overlinking in the references. Just one example is Allmusic being wikilinked every time when it should only be the first time.
  • I know the redlinks have already been mentioned, but if you don't want to create stubs it would be better to unlink (but this isn't a deal breaker).
  • I'm not sure. If they are created later, they will turn blue. If they are removed the incentive to create them is removed too.
  • For the second official website in the external links, can you clarify the second one to official UK site, otherwise it looks odd there being what looks like two identical external links.
  • Done

Looks like it's going to be another great discog. --JD554 (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 19:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Additional comments from JD554
  • Checking through the references for the music videos and, with the exception of "Svefn-g-englar", none of the references confirm Sigur Ros as directors, including the new one you added. --JD554 (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The link for reference #4 doesn't confirm the chart positions. Is there some instruction missing from the reference?
  • Reference #19 doesn't confirm Sigur Ros guesting on the track Dot.
Comment

Just a matter of preference, but considering that everything (chart positions/certifications) is referenced in the body of the article, I think you can remove them from the lead to enhance readability. Also, stuff like record labels and the names of the singles released from an album, don't need referencing at all. indopug (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Done Thank you! Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 19:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "but was certified Platinum in 2005 by Iceland's record industry association." 1)Why the capitalization of "Platinum"? 2)Could we know the name of the record industry assn?
  • "It comprises eight untitled tracks divided by a 36-second silence." Not sure what is meant here, is it between each song?
  • The silence is between tracks 4 and 5. Any ideas on how to rephrase?
  • "It was certified Gold in Iceland" Why the caps?
  • Done

Sources

  • Spell out abbreviations in the publishers such as BPI.
  • Done
  • It is authorised by the Icelandic music people to publish the charts. It is also a retailer, selling mp3, aac, wmp versions of songs. See also http://tonlist.com. It's also listed here

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Looks very nice, happy to support. One more thing, partly my fault: ICE looks kinda weird, doesn't it? What about ICL? Also, do you know of a way to lessen the space between BEL and (FL)? I dunno, both are up to you, they both just look a little funky to me. Great work though! Drewcifer (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comment Looks pretty good. A few minor comments:

  • What does "VLA" stand for? Is this an abbreviation for the Flemish region? Is there an abbreviation you could use that would be more familiar for an English-speaker such as myself that's not all that knowledgeable about the reason? The same goes for the ISL abbreviation. I realize this is the common abbreviation in the region, but it's not based on the country's English name. Something like ICE or ICL would be clearer for english-readers, since this is an English-wiki. The rationale for this is further explained at MOS:DISCOG. For instance we tend to abbreviate Switzerland as SWI, not CH, as they do in Switzerland itself.
  • It was being used for the Flemish region (Vlaamse Gewest), I have now changed it to the ISO 3166-2:BE code VLG, which is probably what I was going for in the first place.
I'm aware of the ISO standards, and that they are more encyclopedic, but they are not as user-friendly to many English-users. People familiar with the region will know what you're talking about, whether they speak English or not, but those who aren't will not (i.e. me). I believe standards of clarity and ease of use are most important here. Drewcifer (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
OK. Done Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 08:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The list needs some general references, just to verify the broad information like labels, release dates, formats, etc. An allmusic link and a link to the band's homepage usually does it for me.
  • The Sigur Ros entry at Allmusic is in the External links. So are the two official homepages.
  • I see that, but they are not in the references section, therefore you're not saying "this information is from here". What you're saying is "hey, check this out too." In the interest of transparency of all the info, general references are very useful, whether or not they appear in the external links section or not. Drewcifer (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Resolved stuff from Cannibaloki

Comments

  • Nope. The correct name is "Smekkleysa Records", not "Smekkleysa", and not Bad Taste. In all honesty, the article should probably be moved.
  • Formats
  • Which ones? It's "Format" where there is only one format, and "Formats" where there is more than one.
  • Done both
  • You have created a section with the name of "DVDs", which makes it confusing and redundant when you wrote in the field format: "DVD" (again?).
  • Done

Cannibaloki 02:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 05:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 05:54, 28 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk)


I have worked on this for the last month, It is my 5th award in a SPOTY topic. WikiCup entry. I must also thank User:Chrishomingtang and User:Chamal N got worked on this page before me (from this to this), which greatly reduced the work I had to do. All comments welcome. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment I think you should add a note about joint winners.—Chris! ct 23:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you mean. There already is a note, and joint winners are mentioned in the prose. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, the main list should have a note even though it is mentioned in the prose. Look at NHL Foundation Player Award as an example.—Chris! ct 00:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah I see what you mean. Done. I should probably explain why I used two notes when it may have seemed one would suffice. The BBC only recognises three sets of joint winners, and recognises Protopopov and Belousova as a couple/pair that won the award. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead
  • The award is presented to a non-British sportsperson considered to have made the most substantial contribution to sport in that year. | (1)Unlink British. (2)In this context, I would add 'a' before sport -Done
  • The winning sportsperson is the one with the largest points total. | (Opt.) Possibly add 'amount of' before points.
    • -Reworded to "the largest amount of points in total"
  • Australian golfer Greg Norman has won the award twice, while American boxer Muhammad Ali and Swiss tennis player Roger Federer have each won the award three times. | IMO, this is awkwardly worded having stated first that someone won it twice and then two others have won it 3 times. Maybe reword it or remove it as I don't see what it adds to the prose.
    • Swapped order, keeping as it compliments the number of winners against the number of rows in the table.
  • The husband and wife skating duo of Oleg Protopopov and Ludmila Belousova are the only pair to to have won the award, doing so in 1968. | Since the award was shared on previous occasions, how about stating that they are the first 'married couple'?
    • Discussion The situation is more complicated than it seems (see response to Chris above), they were the only pair to win.
  • Belousova was the first woman to become Overseas Personality_mdash;she is also the oldest, aged 33-years-old. |Typo on the mdash formatting. -Done
  • The youngest ever recipient is Nadia Comăneci, who won in 1976 aged 16-years-old. | The first part is weirdly worded, how about, 'The youngest recipient of the award is..' -Done
  • Boris Becker, who was 18-years-old when he won in 1985, is he youngest male to have won. | Typo on the. -Done
Image caption
  • Muhammad Ali (top) and Roger Federer (bottom) have both received the award three times | Needs a full stop -Done
  • Oleg Protopopov and Ludmila Belousova, joint recipients of the award in 1968, were also husband and wife | Needs a full stop -Done
References

Thanks for the comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support -- Problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 14:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment -- this list would be a lot more interesting if it gave some idea of what they did that year to earn the award. For example, the first guy won an Olympic Gold Medal, the second set 3 new world records etc. Rules99 (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Whilst I would like to, it could be construed as WP:OR. The BBC does not specifically mention why it gave all the awards, so whilst the winners achievements in that year maybe mentioned alongside the fact they won the award, it is not explicitly mentioned if any specific contribution(s) caused them to win. For example, an athlete may have a very successful season and break a national record say. Who is to say that whether the good season or the NR was the contributing factor to winning the award. If it is not explicitly mentioned then it is OR. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Then couldn't you just provide it as background information not necessarily implying a causal link? Rules99 (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I've been advised against adding unnecessary background information (e.g. the age they received the award if not directly relevent ) All the winners have there own articles if people are really interested in their careers. After all isn't that what wikilinks are for...? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
          • I think we should be assuming that readers want to know what they did that particular year. Rules99 (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
            • The thing is listing this information IMO does imply a link. Take Roger Federer. If we list that he won his fifth consecutive Wimbledon title that implies a link, however he actually did a hell of a lot of impressive stuff in 2007 so how can you choose what to include whilst remaining neutral. It seems an unnecessary and contentious addition considering everything would be in their individual articles. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
              • Having everything in separate articles means the list is just navigational and not informative (and also deadly boring). Incidentally we can cite someone linking success at Wimbledon with the award: "after equalling Bjorn Borg's record by securing a fifth successive Wimbledon singles title. Federer won three of this year's Grand Slams... " . If these really are contentious you could demand citations although I don't regard them as necessary. Rules99 (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
                • Bad choice due to it being recent. One wouldn't be able to this for the older winners (i.e. pre-1990). I notice that Rules99 has been blocked indefinitely so I can't continue this discussion in a constructive way. If anyone else wishes to discuss this please let me know. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I'd like to be able to sort by nationality. Rules99 (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    • This can be done, and I have done it in the past, but I would require that there is consensus for it. The first SPOTY list I submitted started it's FLC with the nationality sortability . However during the FLC, Chris! combined them. Can I ask you to work out a solution between you, so I can standardise it for all the lists. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
*Comments
    • Manual of Style requires that when a flag is first used in a table or list, it needs to be accompanied by its country name. See MOS:ICON#Accompany flags with country names.
    • It would be more helpful if footnotes a and b appeared immediately below the table they're used in, rather than in a Notes section a long way below.
      • Not done. WP:LAYOUT seems to suggest the end. Also there are multiple notes from all 3 tables, and it seems silly to have an individual Note section after every table for 1 note. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Wasn't really thinking of a whole Note section, just a couple of lines under the table, like here, for instance, though that style works better on a small table. It might be simpler to add a couple of lines of Key immediately above the table, so the reader can anticipate annotations to come: something along the lines of
Key
† Denotes joint winners
‡ Denotes a winning couple
But if you're leaving them how they are, there's one thing that does need fixing, which is that you haven't got the reflabel/notelabel things formatted quite right. It shows up particularly with footnote c, where if you click on the c in the Winners by sport table, when you click on the letter c to go back after reading the footnote, you return to the top of the Winners by nationality table.
Done. I have added a key like you suggested, and a second backlink for that other note. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    • For information, BBC Sport is a division of the BBC which publishes its own output, so should be publisher rather than work in those references citing it.

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • The lead image should not have a period in the caption.
  • "Oleg Protopopov and Ludmila Belousova, joint recipients of the award in 1968, were also husband and wife." Are they not married anymore?
  • There is an inconsistency in dashes; use either spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes, not both.
  • "The winning sportsperson is the one with the largest amount of points in total."-->The winning sportsperson has the most total points.
  • "American boxer Muhammad Ali and Swiss tennis player Roger Federer have each won the award three times, while Australian golfer Greg Norman has won the award twice. " "while"-->and.
  • "The husband and wife skating duo"->The husband-and-wife skating duo
  • "Belousova was the first woman to become Overseas Personality—she is also the oldest, aged 33." Tense inconsistencies ("was" "is")
  • "who won in 1976 aged 16"-->who won in 1976 at age 16
  • "Two cricketers that received the award" Use "who", not "that", when referring to people.
  • "with fourteen recipients, tennis is the most represented sport.-->tennis has the highest representation, with with fourteen recipients. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
All done, thanks for taking a look. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 05:45, 28 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): igordebraga , Gary King (talk)


After finding an article that was a simple list of games (already found somewhere else), I decided to expand and put info on other Metroid media, that doesn't get much attention in the games and series' articles. I tried to mirror the style of the other video game media FLs, and did a Peer Review to search for problems and possible improvements. Now let's see if the article is good enough to enter the Featured Lists. igordebraga 23:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Weak Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) -- Due to prose issues.

Lead
  • Metroid is a video game series published by Nintendo and originally created by Nintendo's R&D1 development team. -- Originally? This sounds as if it has another "creator", what are you trying to say?
  • The series debuted in Japan with Metroid (メトロイド, Metoroido?) on August 6, 1986, and was later released in North America and PAL regions. -- its best to state when it was released in the other regions.
  • Metroid is one of Nintendo's most successful franchises, with 14 million units sold, and all the games have received some level of critical acclaim. -- some is really weasely, how about 'a level of critical acclaim'?
  • The lead needs to summarize the list itself more. The first game in the series was released, but the most recent or other significant releases need to be mentioned as well, this is a standard for all FLs.
    • Added the most recent title.
Video games
  • Many of the notes need to be copyedit, some are not complete sentence and thus do not warrant a full stop. Others need to be reworded, like the second note of the first game; it can be reworded to read as a complete sentence.
    • Refer to the soundtrack notes as a point of reference, see how those don't have stops? That's because they aren't complete statements, the same should be applied to the above.
Comic books
  • I don't understand the release date format February–May 1994? What does this mean, since it isn't noted about different release regions.
    • "Nintendo Power, Issues #57–61". It's the timespan where all the mentioned issues were released.
Manga
  • 18-page adaptation, consisting of comedic strips with four panels. -- this is an example of an incomplete statement, which is why it should be reworded or the period (full stop) should be removed.
    • Just as a point-of-reference: The first two chapters of Volume 1 received an online version with color and sound effects. -- this is complete statement.
References
Further comments
  • Remove the full stops
  • The third note in the first entry in the first subsection.
  • Second note in third entry in the first subsection.
  • First note of the fourth entry in the first subsection.
  • The last entry of the first subsection, Remake of Metroid, with improved graphics, new gameplay features and areas to explore. Also has the original game as an unlockable extra -- The first period should be a semicolon, and the last one should be removed or the entire thing should be reworded into a complete statement.
  • The first note of the first soundtrack entry.
  • The first note of the second entry in the Manga section.
  • The note in the last entry in the Manga section.
  • The first note of the fourth entry of the second subsection.
These are all not complete statements because they don't contain the proper clauses.--TRUCO 21:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments - It may be just me but there seems to be a lack of references, eg:

  • The comics book section is lacking references for the creative team and the release dates
    • It's covered in the refs for the stories themselves; but added to two as it doesn't show the date
  • Manga doesnt reference the release dates
    • Despite one I needed to add, it's covered in the refs inside the "Notes" section.
  • In the video games some of the sentences arent referenced like Metroid Prime is the first 3D game in the series, Metroid Prime 2: Echoes first multiplayer in the series, Metroid Prime Hunters first with online multiplayer
    • The Castlevania list linked above shows not anything needs refs, but added.
  • Soundtracks section doesnt reference the composers.

Salavat (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well with no other issues that i can see and to me the lead reads fine to me now, ive changed my comments to a support. Salavat (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Just curious under the comics section you only list 3 stories by Valient Comics. How come Samus Aran's Starship Hunter IV isnt listed there to? Salavat (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not an adaptation of the game, as the title mentions, it's just an analysis of Samus' ship. igordebraga 05:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • I would much prefer to see spaced en dashes used in listing items of items, they are less abrupt and look neater here.
  • "Currently, the franchise consists of ten video games, with the latest installment being Metroid Prime 3: Corruption for the Wii. " Two ideas here that are clumsily connected and aren't that closely related.
  • "dating from the Nintendo Entertainment System to the current generation of video game consoles." Redundant phrase
  • "The 2D Metroid games are side-scrollers, and the 3D games, also known as the Metroid Prime series, give the player a first-person perspective." Contrary to what I usually say, I think "and"-->while to emphasize their differences.
  • "and all the games have received a level of critical acclaim." Not sure what that means.

Dabomb87 (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 05:45, 28 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): -- ], – Nurmsook!


I am co-nominating with Nurmsook so that this can be resolved and have its promotion kepted. This article was just re-written by me and Nurmsook, and Scorpion0422 was the original editor and creator. Comments are welcome! -- ] 23:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: Sources, images, and prose look good. Disclaimer: I have the second-most edits to the page and I gave it a copyedit after Nurmsook and SRE.K.A.L.24's rewrite. Maxim(talk) 00:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I have the second-most edits to the page... What are you trying to say here? Thanks for that great copy-edit though! Disclaimer: 4 of your 6 edits were minors. -- ] 00:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead
  • The winner is given a grant of US$25,000 to further causes the winner supports. | I think 'help' would work better than further here.
Done. -- ] 00:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • No player has won the award twice, nor has any team twice been represented by winners. | --> 'No player has ever won the award twice, nor has any team been represented twice by winners.'
Done. -- ] 00:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The award is closely related to the King Clancy Memorial Trophy, as only three of the eleven NHL Foundation Player Award winners—Darren McCarty, Marty Turco, and Joe Sakic—have failed to win the King Clancy Memorial Trophy in addition to their NHL Foundation Player Award. | (1)No need to state in addition to their NHL Foundation Player Award its repetitive of what was already stated earlier. (2)I still don't see how this NHL award is closely related with the King Trophy, a more thorough elaboration should be given or that statement should be removed.
Done your first request. I hope Nurmsook can reply to your second statement. -- ] 00:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Done. – Nurmsook! 01:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Notes
  • Note A | Reword to 'No award was presented due to the NHL 2004-05 Lockout.'
  • Note B | Remove the full stop, its not a complete sentence.
Done both. By the way, your username is too long, according to WP:SIGN. -- ] 00:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

--<TRUCO> 00:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support | Problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL. Thanks for letting me know about my signature.--TRUCO 02:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - "as both are awarded to players who have made a significant humanitarian contribution to his community" doesn't seem gramatically correct ("players who have made (plural)....his (singular) community"), and ice hockey should surely be linked somewhere in the article? Other than that all looks good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. – Nurmsook! 17:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
In that case I am happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Excellent job, considering the speed in which this article was brought to quality standards.

  • "Winners have often made large charitable contributions to their community prior to being awarded." It is unclear that these contributions have led to the players' winning the award. Maybe "Winners have often won the award as a result of their large charitable contributions to before being awarded."
I'll let Nurmsook reply to this comment of yours. -- ] 00:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "German Olaf Kolzig is the only non-Canadian winner, while Ron Francis is the only winner to have been elected to the Hockey Hall of Fame." "while"-->and.
Is this necessary? -- ] 00:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems as though Maxim took care of these, because these quotes are not the same as what's actually written in the article. Regardless, all have been addressed! – Nurmsook! 00:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 05:45, 28 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): iMatthew // talk //


iMatthew // talk // 20:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

General comment
  • Fix the dabs, as seen in the toolbox.
Lead
  • The National Hockey League (NHL) is a professional ice hockey league composed of 30 teams, founded in 1917. | The final part of this statement should be "which was founded in 1917."
  • Currently, the Florida Panthers and the Toronto Maple Leafs have no captain, and have instead named four or five alternate captains. | I thought that teams could only select up to 3 alternative captains if they have no main captain?
    • A team may also choose not to select a captain and instead select up to three alternate captains, unless a main captain does not exist. | This doesn't really help, it says that The team cannot select more than 3 if they dont choose 1 main captain, but if one doesn't exist then ..?? --<TRUCO> 21:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • However, Vancouver Canucks goaltender, Roberto Luongo is the team's current captain, but two (of the three) alternate captains handle on-ice duties in his place: Willie Mitchell serves as the liaison with the officials, and Mattias Ohlund handles ceremonial aspects of the game (e.g. faceoffs). | (1)Comma after Luongo (2)Remove the comma before and Mattias Ohlund
  • Toews is younger than two current captains—Sidney Crosby of the Pittsburgh Penguins, who is the youngest-ever permanent captain and Vincent Lecavalier of the Tampa Bay Lightning, who has captained the Lightning in two stints seven years apart. | Comma after permanent captain and the last part should be along the lines of "in two stints that were seven years apart."
  • In 1984, Brian Bellows was named temporary captain of the Minnesota North Stars when Craig Hartsburg was injured. | If this article is about the current captains, why is this noted?
Notes
  • Toronto Maple Leafs player Mats Sundin, at the time an unrestricted free agent after the 2007–08 season did not sign a new contract, leaving the Leafs with no captain. | Comma before did not sign
  • Despite goaltenders not being allowed to act as captains during the game, Roberto Luongo was named captain for the Canucks, but was not allowed to wear a C on his jersey. He incorporated it into the artwork on the front of his mask, however. | The other captains are linked in the notes, so per consistency Luongo should be linked.
References
  • Ref #1 | Rules isn't necessarily the work, the work field is if the publisher is getting the published content from somewhere else, like Billboard and Nielsen.
  • Ref # 7 | Joe Pelletier. is not the publisher.
  • Ref # 9 | I don't know how trusted this website is or its reliability, but my Firefox malicious site report system found this site as an attack site.--<TRUCO> 20:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
All of Truco's concerns seem to have been addressed. Maxim (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Followup comment
  • The Minnesota Wild do not name a captain for the full season; rather, they rotate captains on a month-to-month basis. -- Do you mean The Minnesota Wild have not named a captain for the full season; rather, they will rotate captains on a month-to-month basis.?--TRUCO 23:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Well that sentence needs revising because do not name is not grammatically correct. Unless you mean "did not name"?--TRUCO 23:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
How is it not grammatically correct? But no, I mean do not name. iMatthew // talk // 00:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh. Now I see, I was misreading that statement.--TRUCO 00:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Nurmsook

Comments from Nurmsook (talk · contribs)

  • I changed some of the images to better reflect the scope of the article.
  • There should be a note reflecting the monthly rotating captaincy of the Minnesota Wild (I think Buffalo might do this as well)
  • You need a ref for the Ohlund/Mitchell captaincy duties in place of Luongo in the lead. – Nurmsook! 04:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I looked for sources about this, and I can't find anything... iMatthew // talk // 13:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
      • For the rotating captaincy it appears as though the Sabres only did this last year. As for the Wild, a quick Google search of "Minnesota Wild rotating captaincy" should solve the problem. And for the Canucks reference, just check the 2008–09 Vancouver Canucks season article. There's one in the pre-season section. All of these are pretty well documented topics, so it won't be difficult at all to find sources. – Nurmsook! 20:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Further, the lead states that teams can choose a maximum of two alternate captains, but many of these teams have more than two. This is very confusing, and needs to be clarified. – Nurmsook! 20:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Alright so to get you started on this, according to Rule 14 of the NHL Rulebook, when the captain is not in uniform, a coach can deligate three alternate captains. In the ref in the Canucks' season article, it discusses that because Luongo is not "technically" an in uniform captain, the Canucks can have three alternates. As for the other teams listed with more than two, it's probably a rotating alternate captaincy, so you'll have to do some mega research to clarify that all. I hate to say it, but without a ton of sources, I don't think this is going to pass FLC. But don't give up! The sources are for sure out there and I'll do my best to help ya out!! – Nurmsook! 06:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
          • I went through the lead and added a ton of references and expanded it quite a bit, but it still needs quite a bit of work before it passes. It should give you a good start though. – Nurmsook! 19:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
All of Nurmsook's concerns seem to have been addressed. Maxim(talk) 01:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24
So what was the consensus here? -- ] 00:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-- ] 19:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I think ref 6 should be using {{cite news}}.
    • I'd disagree, it's a website article.

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24

  • I think you should mention that alternate captains are appointed before each game.
I don't think you are finished with this...

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "founded in 1917" Not really necessary.
  • It adds some context IMO.
  • captain who has the "sole privilege of discussing with the Referee any questions relating to interpretation of rules which may arise during the progress of a game."-->captain, who has the "sole privilege of discussing with the Referee any questions relating to interpretation of rules which may arise during the progress of a game". (note that I moved the period to outside the quotation marks.
  • "of two alternate captains who serve"-->of two alternate captains, who serve
  • "named captain name more than"—"name" repetition annoying, why not "select"?
  • "amongst"-->among
  • "and back to his crease" Not sure what this means.
  • File:NicklasLidstrom.jpg needs an author.
  • File:Joe sakic.jpg same.
  • "Player is currently on the Injured Reserve" Why is "Injured Reserve" capitalized? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

  • The author of the blog is Joe Pelletier is a published ice hockey author. He is using the blog as a means of publishing information.
Unless otherwise specified, all done. Maxim(talk) 00:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
While we are on the topic of NHL articles, can you take a look at History of the National Hockey League (1967–1992) and History of the National Hockey League (1992–present) to do a prose check pre-FAC? Sorry for the off-topic note, but of course extra eyes (TalkPageFLCPage stalkers). Maxim(talk) 01:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I looked at 1967–92 a while back; I was almost finished with the fourth. Will go right now. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 05:45, 28 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): Efe (talk)


I am nominating this for featured list because it has been peer reviewed and I think it meets the criteria. Thanks, Efe (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - I participated in the article's peer review, and believe it to be of FL standards. -Whataworld06 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

Title
  • I think its redundant to have (U.S.) in the title if the Hot 100 is only produced in the U.S.
Lead
  • In 2007, seven acts achieved their first US number-one single, either as a lead artist or featured guest: Mims, Maroon 5, T-Pain, Young Joc, Plain White T's, Sean Kingston, Soulja Boy Tell 'Em. | the names should be organized in some order (alphabetical at least)
  • Three number-one singles tied for the longest run on the chart this year: Knowles' "Irreplaceable", Rihanna's "Umbrella", and Soulja Boy Tell 'Em "Crank That (Soulja Boy)" all topped the chart for seven weeks, the last of these was non-consecutive. | 1)Add an apostrophe with an S to the end of Soulja Boy Tell 'Em 2)was --> "were"
Image
  • Caption: Soulja Boy Tell 'Em first U.S. number-one single "Crank That (Soulja Boy)" spent stop the chart for seven weeks. | spent stop?
See also
  • Yeah, but its not generally correct since both of those are already linked in the prose. Just the List of number-one hits main article should be there.--<TRUCO> 15:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I am hesitant. Can you provide me a discussion over the use of see also? Leaving that section with one entry is not a good idea, IMO. Cannot stand as a section. --Efe (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:SEEALSO.--<TRUCO> 14:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
It says: "Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." Perhaps we discuss this at the project's talk page? --Efe (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Nah, its not that big of a deal. Like the guideline states, its all on editorial judgment.--TRUCO 00:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
In addition, dabs need to be fixed (as noted with the toolbox) and ref #27 and 50 are dead.--<TRUCO> 22:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "In 2007, there were 17 singles that topped the chart." Redundant.
  • "Three number-one singles tied for the longest run on the chart this year" "this" is too strong a back reference, say "2007" or "that".
  • "weeks, the last of these was non-consecutive." Should be a semicolon, not a comma.
  • I see no comma splice here because "the last of these was non-consecutive" is not an independent clause. Do you have any suggestion or better phrasing? Perhaps that would settle it. --Efe (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "previous calendar year" Redundant, unless there is another type of year that could be referred to here.
  • "one for five straight weeks."-->one for five consecutive weeks. better word choice
  • ""Irreplaceable" is the best-performing single of the calendar year, topping the Top Hot 100 Hits of 2007." I am unsure of the logical connection of these two phrases. Is the song the best-performing because it topped the Top Hot 100 Hits of 2007, or was it already known as the best, and just happened to top the list?
  • "for its jump from 64th to first place" Keep the numbers in the ordinals consistent.
But MOS states it should be in words, unless I missed some. --Efe (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "making it the biggest leap in this year."-->the largest leap of that year.
  • "has been credited by the music press as 2007's Song of the Summer." By the music press in general, or a specific agency/magazine/institution?

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk)


Another RS medal: don't worry reviewers, only two more to go after this! then I start submitting the awards and lectures, mwahaha Ironholds (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Check the toolbox, there is a dab link and a couple of dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead
  • Awarded every year, the medal is the oldest Royal Society medal still in use, having first been awarded in 1731 to Stephen Gray, who won his for "his new Electrical Experiments: - as an encouragement to him for the readiness he has always shown in obliging the Society with his discoveries and improvements in this part of Natural Knowledge" | who won his it would be better worded as 'who received his'
  • The Medal was created following a donation of £100 to be used for carrying out experiments by Sir Godgery Copley, something which the interest on the amount was used for for several years. | Remove extra for
  • Since the medal was created it has been awarded to a number of notable scientists, including 52 winners of various Nobel Prizes; 17 winners of the Nobel Prize in Physics, 21 winners of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine and 14 winners of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, including Frederick Sanger who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry twice in 1958 and 1980 and was awarded the Copley Medal in 1977 "In recognition of his distinguished work on the chemical structure of proteins and his studies on the sequences of nucleic acids". | (1)Reword the beginning to 'Since its creation, the medal has been awarded...' (2)This sentence needs to be split, it makes up more than 80% of the last paragraph.
  • There is no mention of the most recent winner in the lead.
Recipients
  • Rudolph Peierls doesn't sort correctly alphabetically.
  • Entries that don't have a reference, what is verifying the rationale and the receiving of the award?
    I'll try and be civil and polite here: they would be verified by the big "general reference" at the bottom. The process of instituting third party sources in a notes column for this sort of list was instituted at your request here where you also said quote "You don't necessarily have to find it for all of them, just some, at least to have diversity, and the ones that you can't find will be fine sourced with the general reference". My apologies if it is too much to expect a user to remember what changes they instigated. Ironholds (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Well then. I do remember that, however, I didn't think the general reference would be doing that since I didn't click on them. Something is wrong with the formatting, the general references should be that large, they should be like it is here.--<TRUCO> 15:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • You remember saying the general references would be fine but thought that rather than clicking on the general references here (which are named in exactly the same format as those at the Rumford Medal) it would be better to add a pointless thing to the list of corrections? Sizing error fixed.Ironholds (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • My apologies, I went a bit OTT; when at the urging of a reviewer you have found 156 third-party sources for something and are then told you need more things tend to get a bit.. heated. Ironholds (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
References
  • Make it into one or two columns because {{ref}} states that not all browsers have the ability to see it in 3 columns.
  • Ref #4, the publisher is not nobelprize.org its the 'Nobel Foundation': make that for all references from this source.
  • Some of the Universities should be linked because I see other that are linked, so either add links or remove them for consistency purposes.
  • Ref #76 should be cited with {{cite book}} not {{cite web}}
  • How reliable is nobel-winners.com? Its not affiliated with the Nobel Foundation, which makes its reliability questionable.<TRUCO> 15:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    All but the last three points are done; the third I'm working on finding an alternate source, the first two: 1) can you give an idea of which universities are not linked, and 2) #76 is a website. Ironholds (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • (1)Never mind, I thought you were linking each one in every occurrence, but you just linked it on its first occurrence. (2)Yes, but its on a book. Cite book does the same thing, place the URL where it is required and fill in the according information.--<TRUCO> 16:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Followup comments
  • The statement about the most recent winner should state the year to define what recently means.
  • Why does the last sentence in the lead state Sir Roger and not by the person's last name? Just seems odd to me.--<TRUCO> 00:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I remember seeing these in the nominators userspace, and remember this as the longest one. I can't see errors with the list, yet another quality Royal Society list from Ironholds. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
    Heh, thanks. Sounds like an advertisement "yet another good quality list from Ironholds! Oh what WILL that man think of next? Order now and receive free shipping." Ironholds (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "been changed a number of times"-->been changed a several times
  • "A second donation of £1666 13s. 4d." What do the "s" and "d" stand for?
  • "Since its creation"-->Since its inception
  • "including 52 winners of various Nobel Prizes"
  • "These include Frederick Sanger who was awarded"-->These include Frederick Sanger, who was awarded
  • "and is one of only four people"
  • "having won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry twice in 1958 and 1980" Dabomb87 (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    All done. Ironholds (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

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 by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): Another Believer (talk)


I am nominating this awards list for FL status because I believe it qualifies and I have made several improvements to the list based on suggestions made in the peer review process. Thanks! Another Believer (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

FLC is backlogged right now, so please try to keep your nominations to one at a time for the time being. Not asking you to withdraw this, just saying for future reference. If you could review some FLCs, that would also be helpful. Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

General comment
  • Like Dabomb said, due to the backlog, attempt to avoid nominating over 2 articles at one time.
Understandable. I apologize.
Lead
  • Several singles from 19 charted on the American Billboard charts and United Kingdom Singles Chart, including "Chasing Pavements", "Cold Shoulder", "Hometown Glory", and "Make You Feel My Love". | (1)Since its stated as American Billboard charts, why not state the latter as 'English Singles chart'? or vice versa.
Done. I removed "American" and changed "United Kingdom" to "UK" (the chart is most often called the 'UK singles chart', but I wasn't sure if the country name needed to be spelled out since it was the first time that name was used.
Actually, you do have to spell it out in its first occurrence, so it will be best to possibly list American as 'United States'.--<TRUCO> 14:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Like so? --Another Believer (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)\
Change to and the United Kingdom's Singles Chart .<TRUCO> 19:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Done. --Another Believer (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Awards
Done. Actually, I removed the second sentence in the MTV Video Music Awards section. I don't think it's necessary.
That's fine.--<TRUCO> 14:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "She has released one studio album of original music called 19. Since it is specified that she released one album of original music, is she mainly a cover artist or something?
Comment: No. That is her only album. Should "original music" be removed?
Yes, it is a bit confusing. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Done.
  • I think it would be helpful to provide her real name.
Done.
  • "The success of Adele's debut album won her two awards, " Should be a colon, not a comma.
Done.
  • "Overall, Adele has received four awards from 15 nominations." Comparable quantities should be written out the same (four, fifteen or 4, 15)
Done. Since I have read that numbers greater than ten should be written numerically, I will make it "4" and "15".
  • "artists of any race or nationality performing black music"-->artists of any race or nationality who perform black music
Done.
  • "the world of urban music including R&B, hip-hop, gospel and reggae as a potent force in the cultural worldwide music community." Logical punctuation, the period should be outside the quotation marks.
Done.
  • "mtvU also has its own annual awards show, the mtvU Woodie Awards, where winners are determined by online voting."-->mtvU has (holds?) an annual awards show, the mtvU Woodie Awards, in which winners are determined by online voting.
Done.

By the way, when you address these comments, you don't need to ping me, as I watchlist all FLCs that I comment on. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Good to know. Thanks!

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks so much! --Another Believer (Talk) 00:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): —Chris! ct


I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fulfills the FL criteria. —Chris! ct 21:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Bencherlite
;Comments from Bencherlite

An interesting list; just a few points.

  • "Robert C. Weaver was the first African-American to hold a Cabinet-level position; appointed United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in 1966" - how about "Robert C Weaver became the first... position when he was appointed United States" etc?
  • "In 1975 Secretary of Transportation William Thaddeus Coleman, Jr." - comma after 1975?
  • "In 1979 Harris became the first" - comma after 1979?
  • "Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice's appointments as Secretary of State made them the highest-ranking African Americans in the United States presidential line of succession until the inauguration of President Barack Obama in 2009." I think this could be reworded, because Obama (as President) isn't in the line of succession to the Presidency.
  • "Administration" sorts by first name of the President, rather than last.
  • "The table below is organized based on the United States presidential line of succession." Unclear (particularly as it's a sortable table) and "organized based on" is poor.
What do you suggest?—Chris! ct 03:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
"Numerical order represents the seniority of the Secretary in the United States presidential line of succession (Secretary of State being the most senior)." or something like that, perhaps? Bencherlite 09:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "The table below is organized based on the time of which the departments were first established." Ungrammatical ("organized based on", "the time of which") and unclear.
What do you suggest?—Chris! ct 03:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
"The departments are listed in order of their establishment (earliest first)." (or something similar?) Bencherlite 09:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Does the table for defunct departments really need to be sortable when it only has one entry?
  • Notes section:
    • (a to d) Shouldn't it say "The Department of the Treasury was established in 1789" etc? It seems odd to say "Secretary was established".
    • What's happened to note e?!
    • (f and g) Sentence should start with "The", i.e. "The Postmaster General"
    • (h and i) I don't like "Secretary of War was defunct" - how about "The position of Secretary of War became defunct"? Same for Secretary of Commerce and Labor.
Everything else done except the two I replied above.—Chris! ct 03:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Bencherlite 14:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

All done—Chris! ct 20:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, good work. Bencherlite 17:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "The United States Cabinet has had 16 African American appointed officers in its history. "
  • Do you really need to link United States and Africa?
  • "prior to"-->before
  • "In 1979 Harris"-->In 1979, Harris
  • "African American Secretaries with four."-->African American Secretaries, with four.
  • "President Bill Clinton appointed seven African Americans to the Cabinet during his tenure, and President George W. Bush appointed four." Why did you mention these two presidents? Is there anything special about this?
Reworded—Chris! ct 03:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Replaced—Chris! ct 03:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Everything else done—Chris! ct 03:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

It is a .gov site, which is a part of the US government.—Chris! ct 03:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to find a better source.—Chris! ct 03:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Did you find a replacement source? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I replaced one of them. I kept the other one because it has another ref to supplement it.—Chris! ct 02:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. I launched this list into the main space about a week ago after several days of construction in my sandbox, during which time I have received technical support and guidence from Woody (of which I am very greatful) and the list has also just passed an A-Class Review by Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history. Any and all comments welcome. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: the two remaining redlinks should be filled out within the next few days. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • In an official broadcast on 23 September 1940, King George VI announced his decision to establish the awards of the George Cross and George Medal to recognise individual acts of bravery by the civilian population. -- This broadcast was what? A newscast?
  • The George Cross was replaced by the new award, the Cross of Valour, which was created by letters patent within the Commonwealth of Australia and its Territories on 14 February 1975. -- I'm not sure if Territories is like the US and states, but does it need to be capitalized?
  • The only thing that stands out in the table is the date (or year) in which the awards were awarded. --TRUCO 22:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support As Abraham says, I have done some work on the list, mainly ironing out the little problems with it. It meets all the criteria in my opinion, it is extremely well-cited, it meets the MOS, the lead is ok and it has an appropriate images. No issues here, regards, Woody (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "for actions which are not "in the face of the enemy"" "which"-->that (restrictive clause)
  • "The Royal Warrant establishing the awards"-->The Royal Warrant that established the awards
  • "and would henceforth formally became recipients" Wrong tense.
  • "Fortitude whilst a prisoner of war, Korean War" "whilst" is archaic, use the simpler "while".
  • "Fortitude whilst a prisoner of war, Second World War" Same comment. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): JD554 (talk)


I am nominating this for featured list because I finally got around to finishing it off and I believe it meets the FL criteria. If any editors have any concerns, I will of course address them as soon as I can. JD554 (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments You should make it clearer that "Kick in the Eye" did not chart on the "main" US singles chart; someone just glancing at the page might misinterpet it that way. "US Club" should suffice. Also, I think there might have been six music videos, but I may just be misremembering (although footage from The Hunger was fashioned into a video for "Bela Lugosi's Dead"). WesleyDodds (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed "Club Play" chart. I'm not sure if we should be listing videos that weren't released to promote either the single or the album the song was from. Was The Hunger video released to promote a re-release? I'm not sure, so it's probably best to leave it out unless a reliable source can be found to say it was. --JD554 (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It's mentioned in the Bauhaus bio I own. I'll look it up. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Resolved stuff from Cannibaloki

Weak oppose

  • The discography of Bauhaus, a British gothic rock band formed in 1978... + The band was formed in Northampton in 1978...
Fixed --JD554 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Studio albums, Live albums, Compilation albums

  • Title → Album details
Fixed --JD554 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Released: dd-mm-yyyy or mm-yyyy (Okay) → Released: yyyy (Remove all)
Fixed --JD554 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • ! colspan="3"| Peak chart<br />positions
  • ! rowspan="2" width="90"| ]
  • Formats
Fixed --JD554 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "—" denotes releases that did not chart. You have how prove that these albums were released worldwide?
I haven't said they were released worldwide --JD554 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Extended plays: Title → EP details
    • The column to the peak chart position is bad, change it.
Both fixed --JD554 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Video albums

  • Title → Video details
Fixed --JD554 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Red links? Remove them or then create these pages.
Fixed by NSR77 (thanks) --JD554 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Music videos

  • Song → Title
  • In what year were released the music videos?
Both fixed --JD554 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

For now is that. Cannibaloki 16:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You beat me to it --JD554 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead
  • The discography of Bauhaus, a British gothic rock band, consists of five studio albums, four live albums, three compilation albums, four extended plays (EPs), eleven singles and three video albums. | 1)Remove the bold, its not the literal title of the article 2)If this is done, link to the title of the band and remove the link that appears later in the lead.
I've restored that format, it was changed by another editor. --JD554 (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The band was formed in Northampton in 1978 by Daniel Ash (guitar), David J (bass), Kevin Haskins (drums) and Peter Murphy (vocals). | IMO the roles should instead be formatted like "(bassist) instead of (bass)
It's just as clear to say what instrument they played. --JD554 (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The next two full releases failed to break the Top 40 of the UK Singles Chart. | to break is very wordy, how about,
I'm not sure what you were going to suggest there, but it doesn't seem wordy to me. --JD554 (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I was going to suggest "to reach" or "to rank". to break is not professional.--<TRUCO> 19:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Changed to "reach": I agree that's better, but just as wordy ;-) --JD554 (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Studio albums
  • The UK Certifications should have UK pipelinked to the British industry and the Certifications to the statement itself. In addition to having "(sales thresholds)" added, as seen in this FL.
As it's only received certification in the one country, that isn't necessary. Certification and sales threshold information is contained in the BPI article. --JD554 (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
General comment
  • Since there is no general reference, the Live albums, Compilation albums, Extended plays, Singles, and Video albums need verification. So for the Singles, EP's, and Comp. albums, the entries that didn't chart need to be verified in a way. The others need a straight-forward source to verify them .
All the releases are their own references, to add a reference to the fact there is an album etc would seem circular. --JD554 (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. I guess.--<TRUCO> 19:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
References
Zobell has been used in other discographies and it states its sources here. --JD554 (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Looks fine by me.--<TRUCO> 19:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "nine-minute long"-->nine-minute-long
  • "They also released their debut album, In the Flat Field, which reached number " When?
  • "Changing label in 1981 to Beggars Banquet Records saw the band reach the "-->After changing labels in 1981 to Beggars Banquet Records, the band reached the
  • The second paragraph is very dull. It mainly consists of sentences such as "such and such album was released in , which reached". Change it up.
  • "Another reunion tour followed towards the end of 2005, before work started on a new album, Go Away White, which was released in March 2008. " Delete the first comma, delete "which was".
  • "Following the release of the album, Bauhaus again disbanded."-->Following the release of the album, Bauhaus disbanded again. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): Cannibaloki


I am nominating this list because it is mostly based on the discographies of Dischord Records and Load Records, as both were promoted to featured list status (model and source of "respiration"). This is the first list containing only extreme metal bands which at least reached this page ("gangrenik" grammar). I chose not putting it on peer review, because its content is very short, and we don't need lose time with this. I think it is ready to receive comments, of course. Cannibaloki 05:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - pretty good list overall, but

Lead
Catalog
  • Do the 'split' albums have official names? In addition, why aren't these capitalized?
    • No. Done.
  • The Co-releases column name isn't really descriptive of the column, can it be renamed in a way to state that the 'album' was co-released with such record.
  • In my opinion the note at the top and bottom of the table should be in a key at the top, it would be a better format.
    • Done. I put on the bottom of the table.
Notes

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Looks very nice, so I'm happy to support immediately. Only one minor suggestion: I'd take out the last sentence of the lead ("Since its foundation, Willowtip has released 72 albums from 52 artists.") It's something that would require constant updating as the label releases more and more, and therefore it's prone to be out of date. I don't think the sentence is necessary, so I'd just take it out to avoid the hassle. Otherwise, great work! Drewcifer (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks!--Cannibaloki 15:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
And one other thing I noticed: "Split" isn't the name of anything, so it should be lowercase, not uppercase. Drewcifer (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Done.--Cannibaloki 18:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Is there a reason to not make the table sortable? Being able to find the albums alphabetically, or see all of a groups releases next to each other would be helpful. If made sortable, i would support. If free images exist for some of the bands, might be a nice addition down the side of the table (I use larger than standard fonts, and there is still enough space). The list of bands at the parent article should be a see also now.Yobmod (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a specific rule? Cannibaloki 15:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 .


The lists of nominees for the 3 categories of this award all already made FL, so this is the final part to make it a featured topic (i forgot i hadn't submitted it, this was essentially finished months ago!). It is very much a niche award, with no controversy, so 99% of sources are just list results, hence our article reflects that. All the formatting and sources are essentially the same as the sublists, so should have no problems. ThanksYobmod (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please fix the disambiguation links. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed all links except the Buffy one. The awards for buffy are for the TV series, comic and a novel, so in that case i think the disambig is the best destination. Thanks for pointing outthat tool, it will make finding these much easier!Yobmod (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)
Strong Oppose
  • Sortability of names should be by surname.
  • Nobody published "Angels in America"?
  • Note A: "People's Choice award winner" - what does that mean?
  • "Comic/GN" seems to be centered in one of the columns
  • Inconsistent linking (e.g. you link "Warner Aspect" in 2000 & 2006 but not in 2004)
  • The image causes the ==Regulations== text to be further down in the article than it should be. Please fix this.
  • The ref column should not be sortable.
  • The lead is too short.

Please note these are all points I quickly noticed without reading a single bit of prose. FLC is not a substitute for peer review, and this should have had these simple problems solved there not here. Regards, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of these issues are rather minor, so unless there is a major concern that you did not note, I don't see the reason for a strong oppose. Granted, the lead may be a bit short, but note that the next section is all prose. Maybe the lead should summarize the regulations a bit more. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes you are quite right and have ammended accordingly. When I found those errors without looking at the prose I became a little exasperated that this had not been to PR. Please forgive me if I appeared hostile in any way. I will endeavour to give a full review later on in this FLC. Sincerely, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I think i can fix all of these in the review time:
  • Names are now sortable by surname (and double checked)
  • Missing publisher added (was HBO).
  • All publishers with articles linked (and diambigs checked).
  • Cateogry column justification made consistant.
  • Refs are already unsortable (did you fix this?).
  • People's Choice was an extra award for a couple of years. It always ended up going to works that got the juried award, so was scrapped. I make sure it is clarified in the prose.
About the lead - i purposely made it shorter so as not to be repeating information in the immediately following prose section. I can beef it up easily enough, if such repitition is not a problem? To me it seemed to close together. Or i can put the regulation directly in the lead, but then that looked like to much in depth info for the lead.Yobmod (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I like the lead as it is. Why don't you merge the two paragraphs together? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to increase it slightly (with sentences about regulations, major winners and one about the latest award), but keep it to 2 paragrpahs. Would this be a good comprimise? Hopefully this will also make the picture not mess with titles - on my setting it fit perfectly, d'oh.
This is acceptable and I have struck above. I just have a few additional comments below this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • "G K Hall" -> G. K. Hall
Done
  • For "Comic/GN" I assume GN means graphic novel but you need to spell it out for people.
Done
  • Award process section: "Novels, Short fiction and Other works", don't CAPS novel, short and other. This also needs changing in the following sentence. And for "winners in the Best Novel category" at the end of the paragraph.
Done (also in lead)
  • "calendar year in English in North America that includes" second in should be or/and? Includes -> include
done (changed to "English-language works in NA that include..."
  • "from the SF genre" -> spell out SF.
done
  • Is the Hall of Fame still active as I note no inductees since 2003

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I made an addition that no Hall of Fame inductee since 2003. There has been no anouncement about it being dropped (so i can't cite that), they just haven't been given.Yobmod (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
For the Holdfast Chronicles? That is a series of 4 books, so some were published by Ballantine, and others by Tor. I can change it to an & sign, but thought that made it sound like they were cooperating, rather than competing. none of the books were published by both companies. I made it into a comma, is ok?.Yobmod (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Fine. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all my issues have been resolved. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


Question (or Help! :-)). The images on my settings overlapp with the first heading, they don't cause it to move. This happens whether or not the TOC is expanded and on different monitors. Is this the same for everyone else? If this is something that settings can affect, can someone explain how to change it? I always make sure images don't move any tables, but thought that overlapping the headings was normal.Yobmod (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed this. If this is not what you desired please feel free to revert or enquire further about what to do. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Looks better.Yobmod (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "Established in 1998, the awards were initially presented by the Gaylactic Network, with awards first awarded in 1999." This is contradictory; awards were first presented in '99 but established in '98?
    • The awards go over the year boundary, ie They were open to submissions in 1988 and announced long-lists, then in 1989 they announced the winners.
  • "The most recent awards were presented in October 2008 at the Gaylaxicon science fiction convention in Washington, D.C., in October 2008, with Gin Hale and Joshua Lewis winning the awards for best novel and best short fiction respectively."-->The most recent awards were presented in October 2008 at the Gaylaxicon science fiction convention in Washington, D.C.; Gin Hale and Joshua Lewis won the awards for best novel and best short fiction respectively.
    • changed per suggestion.
  • "with the winners and short list of recommended nominees decided by a jury." Make this a separate sentence.
    • changed per suggestion.
  • "Since their inception, awards"-->Since their inception, the awards
    • changed per suggestion.
  • "This includes but is not limited to"
    • changed per suggestion.
  • "Melissa Scott has likewise received"-->Melissa Scott has also received
    • changed per suggestion.
  • Blank table cells should have em dashes.
    • I wrote "Novel" in most of them, as i thinkit looked better and sorted better (even though it is repeated in the next cell).
  • I forgot to mention this in your previous FLCs, but there should be a note that explains that the year links in the table link to the year-in-literature article for that year. See List of Washington Wizards head coaches as an example. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I added a sentence to the table description, with links to the master lists for each subject area

Sources

Fixes with be along shortly :-). And i'll apply changes to the previous lists too. Sorry about the refs, they were newly added, and i'll use a tool to convert them all in one go. Done with reflinks.Yobmod (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Support if the links for the dates in the table are fixed. Some of them do not point to the correct article location (for example films with dates that link to the year in literature.)Dillypickle (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, checked them all, and fixed the five i found going to lit instead of right aricle. Evil copy/paste to blame!Yobmod (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
struck my comment, leaving the support.
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 by Matthewedwards 06:36, 21 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): Scorpion

Oh boy, my first nom with this fancy new preload template. Anyway, sourced, WikiCup entry, will address concerns, etc. For those who may think the current table is too cluttered, there is a sample version that lists only the first year the player won that accomplishment here. Enjoy. -- Scorpion 16:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments by Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)
Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)
  • Possibly explain what the bold is for in the key, I realised but it wasn't immediately obvious to me.
    • I took a shot at it but the sentence is a tad awkward.
  • "medals to the players who had won the three championships" is anything known about these medals, is there a picture (I'm guessing not, but thought I might as well ask)
    • No, after the initial press release, the IIHF hasn't mentioned them since. I'm actually suprised at how little I was able to find about that.
  • "and award medals to" this isn't actually cited in either ref. Is there a cite for it?
    • Hmm, you're right. In fact, none of the IIHF sources specifically say medals either. Removed that bit for now.
  • I'm never sure about this one: "22 members of the Triple Gold Club—nine Swedes, six Russians, five Canadians, and two Czechs" don't the "22 members" and "nine Swedes" etc. come under comparable quantities, and therefore it should be twenty-two?
    • Neither am I. Switched to twenty-two for now.
  • "Swedes Niklas Kronwall, Mikael Samuelsson and Henrik Zetterberg needed the least to join the club, measuring from the time of their first victory of one of the three championships" It seems odd to say "the least" and not immediately follow it with (the least) what, can this be reworded or the word "time" added.

Otherwise I am impressed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, my issues have been resolved, I won't support just yet because this nomination has only been open a short time and I'd prefer to wait to see if any other reviewers find a cause to object. Congrats for your excellent work. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, No major issues have been raised in the other reviews. I can now confidently support this nom. Well done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - Excellent list overall.

Lead
  • The club has been described as a "a modern fraternity" because prior to 1977 NHL players—considered professional—were not allowed to play in the world championships or Olympics, which were intended for amateur players. - comma after 1997
    • Done.
  • Swedes Niklas Kronwall, Mikael Samuelsson and Henrik Zetterberg needed the least to join the club, measuring from the time of their first victory of one of the three championships, winning the Olympics and World Championships in 2006 and the Stanley Cup in 2008 (as members of the Detroit Red Wings). - IDK, IMO its not really clear as to what the least is referring to.
    • See above, done.
Members
  • What does the bold represent?
    • See above, done.
References

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "because prior to 1977,"-->because before 1977, (one of my pet peeves, before is much simpler and more concise)
    • Fixed.
  • "very few Europeans played" The intensifier "very" is not usually necessary. Readers won't distinguish much between few and very few. If you want, you can put "rare".
    • Removed.
  • The blue shading should only be present in the first column; it is only used to indicate players who were inducees. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I prefer to have full row colouring rather than specific cells. I think it looks a lot better.
      • No problem. I can also see that the shading the achievements lends credence to the fact that those achievments led the player to be inducted into the hall of fame. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion 16:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 06:36, 21 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): :bloodofox: (talk)


I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the requirements. I've recently rewritten valkyrie from scratch (now GA), for which this is a subpage, and you may be interested in having a look at that too if this list interests you. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of them are self-redirects from the navbox, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I just caught that too. I fixed the one redirect in the introduction. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


Comments (yobmod)Support - all queries answered.

  • The names of the works they appear in would be better linked each time, as the first linking moves when sorted.
Done! –Holt (TC) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the translations shouldnot be sortable, as they are not standard (some have more than one translation). Sorting would imply to a reader that they can simply sort and look for the meaning, which doesn't work for "Help" for example.
Done! –Holt (TC) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The first sentence needs re-jigging- "...who choose who..." is confusing (even if not technichally wrong.
I changed it to "...who choose which warriors who will win or die...", but that might need rewording as English isn't my first language. –Holt (TC) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I fixed.
  • Can the one entry in the source column with an explanation have the name of the source first for sorting (or use a sort key).
Done! –Holt (TC) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Are the entries for the sources written so that the major/earlier source is first? If not, it should be, or maybe even 2 columns (Earliest source and other sources). This latter method would be great if not too wide, and the information is known.
I agree that this would have been very handy, but I am not sure if the markup would work correctly. Quoting from meta:Help:Table: "With colspan and rowspan cells can span several columns or rows," ... "However, this has the disadvantage that sorting does not work properly anymore." If someone with more experience with tables could look into this, I'd be grateful. I'll read some more on the help pages and see what I can do. –Holt (TC) 17:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
EDIT: Reading your comment again, I understand you didn't imply anything about colspan/rowspan, which I thought at first. It should be doable regarding the dating of the sources, and this is basically how it would look (mark all, copy, paste on Knowledge (XXG) and preview). I'll let Bloodofox say his opinion before anything is done here. –Holt (TC) 18:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's possible to figure what are "major" and "minor" sources here. They are all major sources for our purposes. All of these sources were recorded around the same time, but they reach much further back. It will be problematic to trot out all of the theories regarding dating here, but suffice to say that much of it comes from much earlier oral tradition. With these factors in mind, I would just leave them listed as they are. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, if there is no good way to detirmine which is earlier, then this is fine.
  • I take it this includes all of the names used in the sources? (so is presumably comprehensive?)
Only sources specifically referring to figures as valkyries. The problem with including all of the mentions of all of the figures is that their names are commonly employed in skaldic literature in kennings, which would mean listing a whole lot of works that only use valkyrie names as synonyms for "battle." It wouldn't be helpful. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
OK.
  • Could it not be renamed to simply "List of Valkyries" (keeping current name as redirect)? The current list is both a list of name meanings and list of orignal sources, so if there is no conflict with other lists, a general name would be better for a sortable list. Are there notable Valkyries outside of Norse mythology?
The problem is that there are a lot of valkyries in Wagner and a lot of valkyries in anime, video games, and manga, for example. This article is specifically about valkyries in Norse mythology. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, just "List of Valkyries in Norse mythology" (removing the names part).
Well, it's specifically a list of names that are outright referred to as valkyries. There are other figures that could be valkyries that are not specifically called this, etc. The reason for the specific title is because who could or could not be a valkyrie can get complex fast without precision. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Confusing: "The valkyrie name Herja may point to a connection to the name of the goddess Hariasa, who is attested from a stone from 187 CE." Which one does "who" refer to, and what is meant by "attested", the existance of the Godess? The link in mythology? Yobmod (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The stone from 187 CE refers to Hariasa. In this case, as everywhere else it is used when referring to sources, 'attestation' means "to bear witness; give testimony." In other words, the source says it was a goddess, therefore the goddess is attested by that source. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
So the stone attests to the existance of such a goddess, rather than attesting to the link between the names? I think this should be clarified. Modern scholar saying there is a link is notthe same as archeological proof of such, which is how i first understood it.
Yes, that is correct. Hariasa is attested on the stone inscription. I've adjusted the prose to reflect this perhaps a bit more clearly. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Comment Why aren't the Rök Runestone and the Karlevi Runestone mentioned?--Berig (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe Bloodofox left these out on purpose because they are not specifically referred to as valkyries on the stones. diffHolt (TC) 18:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I have only mentioned sources where the figures are outright called valkyries. The reason for this is because if they're not outright referred to as valkyries it gets complicated; all of those Brynhildr mentions, all of those Hildr mentions, the iffy Róta mentions. The Prose Edda says Hildr is the same figure as Brynhildr, Hildr appears as a witch, Brynhildr appears in several late sources, and it's not even clear we're talking about the same figure sometimes, and so on and so on. Better to just leave those attestations out and handle them on their individual articles (when there is enough information for an individual article) or things get too complicated for the purpose of this list. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
But they aren't mentioned as Valkyries in some of the sources that are included, i.e. Oddrúnargrátr and Grímnismál, unless I've missed something.--Berig (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
If the article is to narrow down the attestations to only sources where each name is explicity said to refer to a Valkyrie, I think it has to be explained in the lead, if not in the name of the list.--Berig (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC) I strike that seeing that there is information which I missed.--Berig (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
There are also the zillion kenning mentions, which is why I came to the conclusion that I had to narrow the list down to only where the figures are specifically referred to as valkyries. I'll remove the Oddrúnargrátr mention, since I may have missed this from my earlier purge, but it seems to me that it's doubtless that Odin refers to the list in Grímnismál as that of a list of valkyries, although he doesn't use the name "bear me a horn .... einherjar in Valhalla ..." :bloodofox: (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I see what you mean. There's no reason to include the runestones unless the other kenning attestations are included as well.--Berig (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. Easily the best list of valkyries there is, online and offline. It is thoroughly sourced, comprehensive, clear and well-written. –Holt (TC) 19:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) A very interesting and well done list.
  • "where the deceased warriors become einherjar." A brief description of what einherjar are would be helpful for those not knowlegeable in Norse mythology.
  • Image captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods at the end.
  • "Valkyries also appear as lovers "
  • "Valkyrie names commonly place emphasis on associations"-->Valkyrie names commonly emphasize associations Dabomb87 (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words! I will respond to your recommendations numerically:
  1. Well, I think the einherjar are pretty well described there already. As the valkyrie list says, they are deceased warriors who have died in battle and are chosen by the valkyries to prepare with Odin in Valhalla the events of Ragnarök. That sums it up.
  2. Is there some policy about this somewhere? I've been adding periods to the ends of my captions for some time and I'd like to know.
  3. I think the also is necessary here as not all valkyries appear as lovers of humans. In fact, this only happens with certain valkyries in the heroic poems (see valkyrie).
  4. Changed per suggestion. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:MOS#CAPTIONS. Everything else looks good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks—I removed the period. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Support -- All my potential objections have been answered. Rules99 (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 06:36, 21 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): Drewcifer (talk)


I've been working on this one on-and-off for a while, but I think it's finally ready. Thanks for any comments and suggestions you could give me. Drewcifer (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • A couple dabs need to be fixed.
  • "films dealing"-->films that deal
  • "in this thesis" I think you mean "his".
  • "which was the first student film"
  • "Lee's first feature-film She's Gotta Have It, " No comma necessary.
  • "Lee directed, produced, wrote, and acted in all of his first three feature-films, including She's Gotta Have It, School Daze, and Do the Right Thing." "all of" is redundant. "including" is only used for incomplete lists.
  • Trim redundancy: "Throughout Lee's career, he has starred or acted" When else could Lee have done these things?
  • "a series of Nike commercials also starring Michael Jordan"-->a series of Nike commercials that also starred Michael Jordan
  • "Lee has directed a number of music videos, by artists " Comma not needed.
  • "including "Fight the Power" by Public Enemy, which was featured heavily" I don't know what it means for a song to be featured "heavily". Was it played multiple times or was it the theme song (not an either/or question)? Such a claim would also need an inline citation. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Great suggestions overall. I think I addressed all of your concerns. As for the "Fight the Power" comment, I added a ref, but I'm not sure how else to reword it. To anyone that's seen the film, I think they would agree that "featured heavily" is the best way to describe it. The first scene is a dance number/music video type thing set to the song, and a character in the film carries a boombox around with him at all times, which is always playing the song. Additionally, I think it's the first song in the credits. But I don't think that much detail is necessary here, so "featured heavily" gets the point across, I think. If they want to know more they can go to the page about the song or the film. Drewcifer (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Ref 2, should be The New York Times, not just New York Times.
  • The Hollywood Reporter ref requires registration. Denote this in the ref with format=Subscription required in the citation template. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead
  • Lee's films are typically referred to as "Spike Lee Joints". - source? FIXED
  • Lee has also been interviewed in and contributed to many documentaries. - is this verified by the table itself?
Yes, all the documentaries he has been interviewed in are listed in the table, usually denoted by "Himself".

It might be worthwhile to separate out some of the credits into further tables - such as for the television work, as well as appearances as himself. Since he is mainly known for his work as a filmmaker, the appearances in particular would benefit from their own table, as they otherwise give the impression of being part of his body of work (as a filmmaker). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I in a way disagree since he has been apart of the direction/promotion of those films.--TRUCO 01:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not talking about his appearances in his films, though. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
When you're right you're right! Done. Drewcifer (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 06:36, 21 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): KV5Squawk boxFight on!


I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it exemplifies all of the featured list criteria. I know that I may be stuffing beans up my nose here, but I feel it necessary to address some concerns ahead of time. I am aware that the level of citations in the lead may be low compared to some other leads. The reason for this is due to the length of the Phillies' franchise history. The list is unsplittable by city or other non-arbitrary criterion vis a vis the Giants or Orioles lists. Some of the facts in the lead would require the use of between five and, in one case, fifteen references to fully verify. Though all of these references are available and presented in the article with their individual years, I feel that citing fifteen refs on one fact to be overkill per WP:LEADCITE and visually unappealing/distracting per WP:FL?'s Cr.6. Comments are welcome and will, of course, be addressed by the nominator. Cheers. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 22:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead
  • The team's record in his five Opening Day starts is 4–1. - is -->"was"
  • Actually, the verb is what makes the tense past or present, so it would be grammatically correct either way. Since the record isn't going to change but still exists, it's like a world record or a season record; it doesn't change in history. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 23:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Art Mahaffey has the best record in Opening Day starts for the franchise; though many players have won their only Opening Day start, Mahaffey started and won two Opening Day games, for a winning percentage of 1.000. - in this context, best record is POV unless you provide statistics right after it.
  • IMO it would make it sense to add the years in which the franchise used each stadium.
  • Steve Carlton won his Opening Day start against the Montréal Expos in 1980, while Brett Myers received a no-decision against the same franchise (now the Washington Nationals) in 2008, a game that the Phillies eventually lost. - I thought Tampa Bay was in the 2008 World Series?
  • Grover Cleveland Alexander started Opening Day in 1915, the Phillies' first World Series appearance, while Robin Roberts started the first game of 1950, and Terry Mulholland the first game of 1993. - Alexander's name is already mentioned before this, no need to mention his full name again.
Key
  • Each year is linked to an article about the Major League Baseball season;

numbers indicate game number during that Opening Day in the case of a doubleheader. - 1)if you mentioned the acronym of the Major League Baseball (MLB) in the lead, you can write MLB here to save space 2)"the" should be added before game number

Table
  • To be consistent, Grover Cleveland Alexander should be piped just to "Grover Alexander"
  • Not so. All contemporary accounts refer to Alexander by his full name or by his nickname, Pete Alexander. In addition, his article is titled as such, so there's no need to use the redirect. Furthermore, the Phillies retired a "P" for him using his full name, so it's obvious that they considered it necessary as well. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 03:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Footnotes
  • Ties were technically possible in baseball until several rule changes beginning in 2007; however, ties were rare in practice due to the extra-innings rules. - wouldn't beginning be "began"?
References
  • To be consistent with the other links, link USA Today
  • Its redundant to list the "work" as Retrosheet.org and the "publisher" as Retrosheet, Inc. when the URL is name after the publisher, so its best just to name it Retrosheet, Inc.''TRUCO 01:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Not correct on this point; they are two separate things. The non-profit company Retrosheet, Inc. is distinct from the website Retrosheet.org, like Baseball-Reference.com is distinct from Sports Reference LLC. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 03:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
* Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Also, what makes Retrosheet a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Dabs are fixed. I am searching for the link that shows Retrosheet's reliability; however, I have seen this same question over and over again at FLCs, FACs, and GA noms. Does reliability have to be re-established every time? I would think that many of us have done enough FLs or reviewed enough times to know that this is something we see on a regular basis and know. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 00:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "Recreation Park yielded a 1–2 record on Opening Day, while Veterans Stadium has the lowest winning percentage (.200), with two wins and eight losses." "while"-->and.
  • "Subordinating conjunctions also join two clauses together, but in doing so, they make one clause dependent (or "subordinate") upon the other." In this case, "while" is used as a subordinating conjunction, and clause 2 is dependent on clause 1 to explain that the record stated is for Opening Day, rather than all-time or some other statistic. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 23:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "the Phillies' first World Series appearance, while Roberts started the first game of 1950, and Terry Mulholland the first game of 1993." Same comment.
  • All of the information on the Alexander image was already present; I just organized it into the correct format. I don't have any information on the source of the Gleason picture and don't know where to look. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 17:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

  • Ref 2 needs a format=PDF added to the template.
  • All the Retrosheet references have double periods.
I had a similar issue with a recent GAN. It is just a quirk in the citation templates that they add a period, even if the information submitted to the template already ends in one. I think the simplest fix is to just drop the period at the end of the abbreviations, which will make the information submitted to the template look funny, but will produce a citation in the article with just a single period. Rlendog (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
That is what I do too. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 06:36, 21 February 2009 .


This is my fourth list for a BBC Sports Personality of the Year topic. I believe it now meets the criteria. Per this I think I am meant to mention I am participating in the WikiCup, but please note I started this topic before entering the competition. Thanks in advance for comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • When Alex Ferguson won the award in 2001, the BBC described the award as "a new accolade" to be presented annually; however, there had in fact been two previous recipients of the Lifetime Achievement Award. - remove the word the before BBC, its not common to say the BBC.
    • Not done, that is the common way () because it stands for "the British Broadcasting Corporation", infact see what it says on the first line of BBC.
  • The inaguaral award went to Frank Bruno in 1996, following his retirement from boxing that year following medical advice. - 1)typo on inaugural 2)Reword the beginning to "The inaugural recipient of the award was ..." 3)repetitive use of following, for the last part how about "that year after he was given medical advice." -Done, Done and Done
  • Having been favourite to win the main award in 1995, but losing to Damon Hill, the Lifetime Achievement Award was criticized by many for being a consolation award. - 1)add an "a" before favourite 2)Who is this statement referring to?
  • Golfer Seve Ballesteros won the award the following year, and after that there was a three-year hiatus. - 1)Comma after that 2)I suggest rewording the last part of the sentence to ", before there was a three-year hiatus." -Done
  • The award has been presented annually since football manager Ferguson ended the hiatus in 2001. - why not state that he is a football manager in his first mention? -Done
  • Five of the ten recipients have been associated with football, with tennis being the only other sport to be represented more that once. - that --> "than" -Done
  • Six of the winners have been from the United Kingdom, with the other winners being from Brazil, former Czechoslovakia, Spain, and Sweden. - unlink the countries, they are common geographical terms -Done
  • Table and references check out fine.--TRUCO 00:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
All done, thanks for the comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "The BBC Sports Personality of the Year Lifetime Achievement Award is an award given annually, as part of the BBC Sports Personality of the Year ceremony each December." Comma not needed, something that can be applied to the other BBC SPOTY lists.
  • "The winner is a selected by BBC Sport." Extra word.
    • Done.
  • "however, there had in fact been two previous recipients of the Lifetime Achievement Award."-->however, two people had already received the Lifetime Achievement Award.
    • Done.
  • "The inaugural recipient of the award was Frank Bruno in 1996, after his retirement from boxing that year following medical advice."-->The inaugural recipient of the award was Frank Bruno in 1996, who won it after his retirement from boxing that year. Fixing grammar and also trimming unnecessary detail.
    • Done.
  • "causing many to criticize his " Should be "criticise" because this article uses British English.
  • "Golfer Seve Ballesteros won the award the following year, before the award took a three-year hiatus." The subject is wrong; the award didn't take a break.
    • Done.
  • "Five of the ten recipients have been associated with football, with tennis being the only other sport to be represented more than once."-->Five of the ten recipients have been associated with football; tennis is the only other sport to have been represented more than once.
    • Done.
  • "Six of the winners have been from the United Kingdom, with the other winners being from Brazil, former Czechoslovakia, Spain, and Sweden."-->Six of the winners have been from the United Kingdom, and the other winners are from Brazil, former Czechoslovakia, Spain, and Sweden.
    • Done.
  • ""in recognition of his footballing achievements" which include " comma after the quote.
    • Done.
  • "including five Wimbledon championships." Change five-->5 for the comparable quantities to be written the same (better not to change the quote).
    • Done.
  • "for achievements which include helping"-->for achievements that include helping
    • Done.
  • "scoring twice in the final." Watch the logical punctuation, the period should be outside the quotation marks.
    • Done.
  • File:Alex Ferguson by FvS.jpg—the image has been deleted on Flickr so we can't verify the licensing. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Replaced (used image of Pele instead)
Thanks for taking a look, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24

  • Couldn't you also tell the readers that Martina Navratilova is the only female to have won the award? -Done
  • All the images are images of people who are related to football. Just add a little more variety to it. -Done
  • (Many) more to come...

-- ] 00:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24 (continued)

  • "former Czechoslovakia" If you're saying "from", it should be "Czech Republic" because that was the country Navratilova was from in 2003. If you were saying "born", then the sentence will be fine. Either one is fine.
  • Done, went with the "born" option as it provides more background.
  • Done, no idea when that got put there.
  • Good luck in promoting the topic.

-- ] 01:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, for the review and kind words. I believe I have addressed all your concerns. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 06:36, 21 February 2009 .


I am nominating this article for featured list because it has previously gone through a failed FL review. I addressed the majority of points, passed it through Peer Review and now want to try and get it promoted. I feel it now meets the criteria and errors should be minor. 03md (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - prose issues still pending

  • Please provide the link to the previously failed FLC nomination.
    • Added the link
  • The UK Singles Chart is a record chart compiled by The Official Charts Company (OCC) on behalf of the British record industry. The chart week runs from Sunday to Saturday, and the new Top 40 chart is first revealed each Sunday on BBC Radio 1. - the new Top 40 chart? I thought it was the UK Singles Chart? Which is it?
    In a way that you just told me, state that BBC Radio 1 only releases the Top 40 of the main chart.--TRUCO 00:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done
    • It is the UK Singles Chart but Radio 1 only reveals the top 40 - how else can I put this?
  • During the 2000s, 248 singles have reached the number-one position on the chart, as of 1 February 2009. - remove the dash in between the number-one
    • Done
    • Why does the title have it as well? Saying number-one is much different from saying "number 20", yet they are implying the same thing, but the dash prevents that.
    • Moved the page so it does not have a dash.
      I would consult with the respective project to discuss moving the rest of them, because its not correct stating "number-one" and then "number twenty" when the same meaning is implied, yet inconsistent.--TRUCO 00:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Rihanna and Jay-Z's song "Umbrella", spent 10 weeks at number one in 2007, the longest spell at the top of the charts since Wet Wet Wet's 1994 hit "Love Is All Around" topped the charts for 15 weeks. - 1)remove the first comma 2)add ", which topped" before the name of Wet Wet Wet's 1994 song name. (notice the comma)
    • Done
  • The Internet allowed music to be heard by vast numbers of people on social networking sites such as YouTube and MySpace (Lily Allen first gained exposure on the internet and her debut single "Smile" reached number one in 2006). - 1)the last part of that sentence should not be in parenthesis, it should be in front of a semi colon. 2)Allen's statement also doesn't match up, is it meant to be like Lily Allen first gained exposure on the internet with her debut single "Smile", which reached number one in 2006.?
    • Changed to semi-colon; regarding the second point, I meant that Lily Allen made herself known on the internet and following this exposure her debut single Smile went to number one. How should I best phrase this?
      In a way that you just told me.--TRUCO 00:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Corrected the sentence
  • This and the introduction of the UK Download Chart in 2004 saw a decrease in record sales and the number of copies needed to achieve a number-One reduced. - why is "one" capitalized?
    • Changed
  • Gnarls Barkley's "Crazy" became the first song to reach the top of the charts on downloads alone in 2006, remaining at number one for nine consecutive weeks. - notice the inconsistency with number one and number-one?
    • Corrected
  • This set a trend that was continued by Pop Idol winners Will Young and Michelle McManus and runner-up Gareth Gates; - 1)comma before and runner-up 2)What year was this?
    • Done
  • Fame Academy winner David Sneddon, and the winner of the first series of The X Factor Steve Brookstein in 2005. - what year was the Fame Academy?
    • Added the year
  • Reality television winners did especially well during Christmas: every Christmas number-one from 2005 to 2008 came from an X Factor winner. - 1)especially well is WP:POV, reword 2)If it was from every winner, why was is the X Factor linked to the first series?
    • This phrasing was recommended by dabomb87 but I can change it if necessary. I have Changed link to The X Factor main article.
  • Shayne Ward reached number one in 2005 with "That's My Goal" and he was followed by Leona Lewis, Leon Jackson and Alexandra Burke. - comma before and was followed
  • Done
  • Lily Allen's song "The Fear" is currently the number-one single, as of the week of 1-7 February 2009. - it should just be the week of "1 February 2009"
    • Done
Images
  • The image caption of Rihanna needs a full stop
    • Done
  • Some of the image captions have Number-One, they should be number one.
    • Done
Singles
  • In 2000, 42 songs hit the top spot, a UK charts record. - source for being a record?
    • I cannot find a suitable source - I will have another look
    • Found a source - added reference
  • Four songs (Shakira and Wyclef Jean's "Hips Don't Lie" (2006), Eric Prydz "Call on Me" (2004), S Club 7's "Don't Stop Movin'" in 2001 and Daniel Bedingfield's "Gotta Get Thru This" in December 2001 and then again in January 2002) were at the top of the chartsfor two separate spells. - 1)Just list the names of the songs, no need to list the artists 2)Be consistent with the formatting, either say it with a format of "Song A (year)" or "Song A in year"
    • Done
  • Some of the artists have inconsistent linking, they should all be linked, examples Shakira and S Club 7.
    • Done
Million selling singles
  • Five have been the debut singles of talent show winners, two have been charity singles ("Do They Know It's Christmas" and "(Is This The Way To) Amarillo") and one was a novelty record ("Can We Fix It?"): - the parenthesis within the parenthesis should be within brackets.
  • What do you mean
    I mean like "(I am a Wikipedian)."--TRUCO 00:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.0.45 (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Why isn't this in a table format?
  • Changed to table format

TRUCO 15:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
General comment Truco, the hyphen in number-one singles is correct because it is a compound adjective. I moved the article back and moved the other decade articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • There is one dab link.
  • "I Have a Dream" / "Seasons in the Sun" There should be a non-breaking space before the slash.
    • Done
  • "This and the introduction of the UK Download Chart in 2004 saw a decrease in record sales and the number of copies needed to achieve a number one reduced."-->This and the introduction of the UK Download Chart in 2004 led to a decrease in record sales and a reduction in the number of copies needed to achieve a number-one single.
    • Changed
  • "Reality television show produced " Should be plural.
    • Done
  • "Reality television winners did especially well during Christmas:" Should be a semicolon.
    • Done
  • "Lily Allen's song "The Fear" is currently the number-one single, as of the week of 1 February 2009."-->As of the week of 1 February 2009, Lily Allen's song "The Fear" is the number-one single.
  • Changed
  • "Appearances on Band Aid 20's "Do They Know It's Christmas?" are also included, even though artists did not receive individual credit on the cover." Comma not needed. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Removed the comma
  • There are many redirects; rather than having me point them all out to you, put this script into your monobook.js page and use the redirect finder to spot and fix them. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure where to find the redirect checker - I manually checked the whole table the other day, as well as the text, so I'm not sure where the redirects are.
      • It is because I think you put the script in wrong—try putting in importScript('User:Splarka/dabfinder.js');
        The redirect finder is on the left sidebar of the screen and says "Find redirects" under "Find disambiguations". Don't forget to bypass your cache. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • All redirects sorted and removed

Sources look good, but other reviewers are asked to provide the viewpoint on everyHit.

  • What makes everyHit a reliable source?
    • It is the only source that I can find that provides evidence of 42 number-ones in a year being the record. The data is all accurate and covers the whole period. What other similar source could you suggest?
      • As long as it is being used for that one claim and its other uses are supported by more reliable sources, it can stay. I will leave this unstruck for other reviewers to decide Dabomb87 (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
        • It seems reliable, but I don't think we can link to it since their FAQ states This is an altruistic, non-commercial public resource for personal and educational use only. Additionally, according to their about section, it is a fan website created by a random person who has many records and lists them, but they state that they get every release that reaches the top 40 by the British Record Industry, so I see it as a bit questionable.--<TRUCO> 16:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
          • I have decided to replace the general everyHit reference with one to the Official Charts Company website (see this link) which should be more reliable. Is it okay to leave everyHit as the verification for 2000 seeing a record number of different songs at number-one? 03md (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • There is one dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Removed dead link
Comment
  • "Before the advent of music downloads, the chart was based entirely on sales of physical singles from retail outlets. The chart is based on sales only, and rankings do not reflect the degree of airplay the songs may receive." Perhaps this info is too general for the list. I think it would be better to just state what determines the chart ranking during the year. --Efe (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I have removed the redundant sentence and added that downloads were incorporated into the chart from 2005. Hope this solves that issue.

Support It looks to pass all of the criteria to me. Question: Will there also be lists of number ones by decade, then by year? Seems useless to do so, but the people seem to also be supporting the US list of no. 1s by years.Yobmod (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  • It is up to others to decide - I suppose yearly tables could be created with more specific references etc. which could also get up to featured list standard.
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 by Matthewedwards 06:36, 21 February 2009 .


I am nominating with User:SRE.K.A.L.24, comments welcomed—Chris! ct 02:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "The team was founded in Vancouver, British Columbia in 1995 along with the Toronto Raptors, as part of the NBA's expansion into Canada. " Comma not necessary.
Done. -- ] 04:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "In their franchise history, the Grizzlies have never won a playoff game or a playoff series even though they went into the post-season three times."-->Although the Grizzlies have competed in the postseason three times (thrice?), they have never won a playoff game or a playoff series.
Done. -- ] 04:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "There have been ten head coaches for the Grizzlies franchise." Numbers greater than nine should be written in numerals.
Done. -- ] 04:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "who coached only for two seasons."
Done. -- ] 04:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "regular season games coached"-->regular-season games coached
Done. -- ] 04:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "while Mike Fratello is the franchise's all-time leader in regular season games wins (95)."-->and Mike Fratello is the franchise's all-time leader in regular-season game wins (95). or "and Mike Fratello is the franchise's all-time leader in regular-season games won (95)."
Done. -- ] 04:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "Basketball Hall of Fame as a contributor in 2005." Is it possible to link to contributor or add a footnote that describes what it means to be one?
I don't think so...You could go ahead and try... -- ] 04:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "Winters, Hollins, Sidney Lowe, and Iavaroni have all played in the NBA." That is not very remarkable. I say delete this.
Done. -- ] 04:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- ] 04:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - excellent list, Dabomb got most of my comments

  • 2003–04 NBA Coach of the Year - this should be in the format of "NBA Coach of the Year (2003-04)"
It doesn't really make a difference... -- ] 19:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I tweaked it anyway to be consistent with other lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Most lists I checked use the year first format.—Chris! ct 19:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I will make all the lists use the same format. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Umm...ok, sure. -- ] 19:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
So I guess, he changed it to a format of "Year Award" format right?--TRUCO 21:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
No answer, I guess I'll take that as a yes =P--TRUCO 00:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Unlink Canada, its a common geographical location.
Dabomb87 removed the wikilink. -- ] 19:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Spell out the first instance of the U.S. abbreviation.
Dabomb87 tweaked it. -- ] 19:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Why does the "United States" have a dash in non-United-States? --TRUCO 21:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Fixed—Chris! ct 00:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Owned by Michael Heisley and several locals including J.R. Hyde, Andy Cates, and Elliot Perry, the Grizzlies play their home games at the FedExForum. - this sentence doesn't match up together well, it needs a transition or just needs to be split into two sentences.
Done. -- ] 19:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

TRUCO 15:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5
  • "first non-United-States team" - there are two here, so change to "teams". Also, the comment above from Truco regarding "non-United-States" was never fixed though it was marked as such. It should be "non-United States".
Done. -- ] 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "The Grizzlies and the Raptors became the first non-United-States team to join the NBA since 1946." - needs a ref
I'm not very good at finding refs. I hope Chris can find one soon. -- ] 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Done—Chris! ct 19:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "all-time leader in regular-season games wins (95)." - remove "games" or change to "games won". Either is fine.
Dabomb87 changed the grammar, but I'm hoping you're right. -- ] 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Done. -- ] 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • What is a "contributor" in the context of the Basketball Hall of Fame? This needs some more definition or a link. I see that it was noted above; however, I believe that context is needed. Even a reference that explains it from the NBA Hall of Fame would help.
Got one. -- ] 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "though Johnny Davis head coached two games" - just coached, "head coached" isn't a valid verb.
Re-phrased it. -- ] 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "before Hollins' third term with the Grizzlies" - I would say "with the team" or "with the franchise"; Grizzlies has been said a lot and this would break it up a bit.
Done. -- ] 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hope this helps. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 12:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 06:36, 21 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): Saola


I am nominating this article for featured article because I think it satisfied the criteria. Saola 22:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I think you meant featured list :)
  • "The 1972 Atlantic hurricane season is only one" done
  • "the others being 1968 season"-->the others being the 1968 season done
  • ", a total of 7 tropical or subtropical depressions formed, of which all became tropical or subtropical storms or hurricanes."-->seven tropical or subtropical depressions formed, all of which became tropical or subtropical storms or hurricanes. done
  • "The first storm of the season, Subtropical Storm Alpha" Comma after this phrase. done
  • Numbers under 10 should be written out. done
  • "3 became hurricanes with none reaching Category 3 intensity or higher on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale."-->three became hurricanes; none of these reached Category 3 intensity or higher on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale. done
  • "It killed 122 and" 122 of what? done
  • WP:CAPTION, image captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods at the end. done
  • Please check the use of "it's", this is being used as a possessive, so use "its". done Dabomb87 (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources

  • Ref 1, add format=PDF to the citation template. done
  • Spell out abbreviations, such as NOAA, UNISYS and HURDAT. done
  • Web-page titles should not be in all caps, rewrite them in sentence case. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean web-page titles should not be written in all caps, do you mean the publisher for the refs? --Saola 19:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Please do not alter reviewers' comments (strikes). I changed the strikes to little "done"'s. I was mistaken about changing the titles; you can change them back. I only meant to spell out abbreviations in the publishers, not the titles. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I think I fixed them, I won't be here tomorrow until at least 4 p.m. EST (2100 UTC) --Saola 02:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

commentsJason Rees (talk)

Will do so tomorrow, I'm going to bed. --Saola 04:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Did local time.--Yue 19:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Change the Track map from the timeline one to the one in the seasonal article
  • "2 p.m. EDT (1800 UTC) – A subtropical depression forms from a extratropical cyclone southeast of Savannah, Georgia. " - References need to be together also after extratropical cyclone add a comma and add in "located to the" southeast .....
  • "8 p.m. EDT (0000 UTC May 26) – The subtropical depression strengthens into a subtropical storm and is named Alpha." - Add in "previously located to the southeast of Savannah, Georgia," before the strengthens into part.
  • "6 a.m. EDT (1200 UTC) – Subtropical Storm Alpha reaches its peak strength of 70 mph (110 km/h)." - Change its peak strength to its maximum sustained winds.
  • Add a point before this sentence - 7 a.m. CDT (1200 UTC) – A tropical depression forms while over the Yucatan Peninsula.
  • Change that sentence to say A tropical depression forms over the Yucatan Peninsula.
  • "The tropical depression emerges off the Yucatan Peninsula" - Emerges into what? (i presume the GoM)
  • Change this from "Tropical Storm Agnes strengthens into the first hurricane of the season" to Tropical Storm Agnes intensifys into a Category One hurricane.
This one is fine Cyclonebiskit 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "1 a.m. CDT (0600 UTC) – Hurricane Agnes reaches its peak strength of 85 mph (140 km/h)." Again change this to its maximum sustained winds.
  • "2 p.m. EDT (1800 UTC) – Tropical Depression Agnes unexpectedly strengthens into a tropical storm how can ." Strengthens -> Reintensify
  • (1800 UTC) – "Tropical Storm Agnes makes landfall near New York City, New York with winds of 65 mph (100 km/h)." - Add local time which is 1300 EDT. (UTC -5)
  • Change this - "There was no tropical systems during the month of July." add a comma and add the words within the Atlantic Basin.
was -> were Cyclonebiskit 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "A subtropical depression forms north of Bermuda." add the words to the before north.
  • "Subtropical Storm Bravo become tropical and is named Betty" - Change to Subtropical Storm Bravo becomes Tropical and is renamed Betty.
  • "Tropical Storm Betty strengthens into the second hurricane of the season" - Again into a Category One Hurricane.
This is fine also Cyclonebiskit 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "A tropical depression forms west of Daytona Beach, Florida" add the words forms "to the" west of Daytona Beach, Florida.
This is fine (per minor discussion on IRC) Cyclonebiskit 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "2 p.m. EDT (1800 UTC) – Tropical Storm Carrie reaches its first peak intensity of 60 mph (95 km/h)." References need to be together.
  • "Tropical Storm Betty become extratropical in the frigid waters of the North Atlantic." become -> becomes
  • "Tropical Storm Dawn strengthens into the third and final hurricane of the season" into a Category one Hurricane
This is also fine Cyclonebiskit 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "Tropical Depression Dawn dissipates northeast of Charleston, South Carolina after having paralleled the Georgia and South Carolina coasts for the last 24 hours." add "to the" before northeast
This is also fine Cyclonebiskit 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "A subtropical depression forms northeast of Bermuda" add "to the"
This is also fine Cyclonebiskit 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "There was no tropical activity in the month of October in 1972." Change this to "There was no tropical activity in October, within the Atlantic Basin.
Try and be uniform throughout the article, it should read "There was no tropical systems during the month of October." Cyclonebiskit 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think thats it Jason Rees (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I did the fixes.--Yue 19:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I think so too SupportJason Rees (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • Subtropical Storm Alpha and Subtropical Depression Alpha - are these the same? It's unclear. Do either have articles?
  • Actually, why is anything in May included, when you've already stated the season doesn't begin until June? These events are not part of the season.
  • Tropical Storm Agnes, Hurricane Agnes - the same as the subtropicals? Do any of these have an article you can link to?
  • Article link for Subtropical Storm Bravo?
  • Article link for Tropical Storm Betty or Hurricane Betty?
  • Link for Tropical Storm Carrie, or Hurricane Dawn, or Subtropical Storm Charlie, or Subtropical Storm Delta, or Subtropical Depression Delta?
    • Just of note, the above storms don't have articles yet. Cheers, –Juliancolton 00:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Ah. OK. Well I don't mind redlinks. I'm of the school that they encourage new articles. One question though, which is probably not suitable for FLC but it has my curiosity all the same: Is the reason they don't have articles that no one has gotten around to writing them, or because they're not notable enough? If the latter, is a list of non-notable hurricanes notable? I know it has references, but just because it happened and the fact it happened can be verified doesn't mean it is notable. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 06:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, this is where it can get tricky. In theory, all storms meet WP:N, although most of them are generally deemed non-notable by the WikiProject. Also, in terms of tropical cyclone documentation, 1972 was quite a long time ago, and thus information is probably scarce for the storms that didn't make landfall. I suppose articles could be created on all of these storms, but they would probably be little more than stubs. Each storm has its own individual section in the 1972 Atlantic hurricane season article, however, so it might be more appropriate to pipe-link to those. –Juliancolton 17:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 00:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Still unresolved

  • MOS:NUM -- local times should include minutes (2:00 p.m. EDT, not 2 p.m. EDT.)
  • Please link to EDT and UTC for readers unfamiliar with either
  • "There was no tropical systems" --> "There were no tropical systems", surely?

Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 07:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): MisterBee1966


The list is complete and covers all 318 recipients within the Kriegsmarine. Every bit of information is cited. I therefore feel that it may qualify for the featured list rating. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise
General
  • Usage of serial commas is inconsistent.
  • The list contains too many red links.
Lead
  • "The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross and its variants was the highest award " - "The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross and its variants" is plural. "Was" is singular.
  • "At the end of 1944 the last and final grade" - Add a comma after 1944.
  • Three links in the lead link to Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. Either de-linked all but the first or make them lead directly to the subsection where the desired information can be found.
  • "29 December 1944 concluded the variants of the Knight's Cross." - Add a comma after 1944.
List
  • In the first two sections, there are parentheses around the enactment names, but not in the third section.
  • Why aren't the first two lists sortable by date?
  • "awarded after this date and must be considered "illegal" hand-outs." - Who used the word "illegal"?
Footnotes
  • "German National Achieves" - You mean "German National Archives"? (multiple occurences)
Sources
  • Citations 2-5 need a language parameter.

Otherwise, sources look good. (Including the German ones.)

Nice list, good work. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from MisterBee1966

  • Regarding too many red links: I have written 5 featured lists so far and every time the a coverage of greater than 80% was required. Has this changed recently?
  • and its variants was the highest award done
  • comma after 1944 done
  • parentheses arount enactment done
  • sortable by date done
  • illegal handout: check again it is cited "Fellgiebel 2000, p. 4."
  • Achieves/Archives done
  • linking of Knight's Cross done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Citations 2-5 need a language parameter. doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • serial commas doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Let me explain: "Oak Leaves, Swords, and Diamonds" is with serial comma. "Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds" is without. Either way is acceptable, but you have to choose one and use it everywhere. -- Goodraise (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I think the only place left was in the infobox to the right. I removed the comma before the "and". I noticed that it may take a while for this effect to be visible. 22:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Support: All issues resolved. Sources look good (including the German ones). -- Goodraise (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - well constructed and comprehensive list that meets the criteria. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - A++ list; meets FL criteria. AdjustShift (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "Of these, 316 presentations were formally made and two recipients received the award after 11 May 1945, " comparable quantities should be written the same. Seems like some parallelism is going on here. done
  • "cease of all promotions and illegalized all subsequent awards done
  • "and a higher grade, the "-->and as a result, higher grade, the done
  • "the last and final grade" Spot the redundancy. done
  • "Within each of these lists a unique " "Within" can be shortened to "in" unless you are emphasizing the insideness. done
  • The second color of the legend needs an accompanying symbol. doen used the question mark
  • "This along with the * (asterisk), indicates that the Knight's Cross was awarded posthumously." Comma not necessary. done
  • More wordy phrasing: "Ultimately, it would be awarded to "-->It was awarded to done
  • "Nevertheless a number of Knight's Crosses were awarded after this date and have received the medal without legal authority" Comma after "Nevertheless". A subject is needed, the Knight's Crosses did not receive a medal (right now, it reads "Knight's Crosses ... have received the medal..."). done
  • "Also Karl Jäckel received his done
  • "There is no reference of the Oak Leaves awarded to -->There is no reference that the Oak Leaves were awarded to doneDabomb87 (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
All issues addressed MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 .


The above list is a complete collection of the Scheduled Monuments (SM) in Greater Manchester, England. The subject is an important one, and SMs are sites of historic importance that are protected from change by legislation. The list features a developed lead and descriptions of each monument in tables. I believe the article fulfils the FL criteria. Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll return for a full review later, but for now, my only comment is that there is a dead link and the disambiguation links need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The links were easy enough to fix, the reference was used as a back up and wasn't necessary so has been got rid of. Nev1 (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Excellent list overall; there are no major issues, just some proofreading things:
  • "is a "nationally important" archaeological site or historic building, given protection against unauthorised change." A bit ambiguous. Is it nationally important in part because it is given protection or is it given protection as a result of being historic?
  • "While Scheduled Monuments can also be recognised as listed buildings" I don't think it should be plural (listed buildings).
  • "The metropolitan county of Greater Manchester is made up of 10 metropolitan boroughs" I think "composed of" is a better phrase.
  • "and are the two main areas of Roman activity" Should it be "were"?
  • "The stone circle is located near the summit"
  • "Only six stone"-->Only six stones
  • "lord of the manors " Should "lord" and "manors" be capitalized?
  • "The current structure was built in 1421, however"-->The current structure was built in 1421; however, (on both occurences)
  • "as a result of Manchester expanding."-->as a result of Manchester's expansion.
  • "The ditch is visible in sections today" Implied by present tense
  • "The barrow is oval shaped measures 17 m (19 yd)" Missing a connector I think.
  • "The base of the stone cross is medieval, however the cross shaft is modern."-->The base of the stone cross is medieval, but the cross shaft is modern.
  • "The stone cross was of four known crosses marking the medieval route from "-->The stone cross was of four known crosses that marked the medieval route from
The relevant changes are here. Nev1 (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Images


Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Some comments - mostly look and feel.

  • When first looking at the page I was slightly surprised to see the set of images 'start' above the first table. On checking the source I saw that all tables and the image column are part of an outer table - something I hadn't seen done before. I would suggest that you get rid of this outer table and put the images separately in each section (before each individual table). One advantage of this is that you can have images directly next to the table of the district that the depicted monument is in (and thus you don't 'run out' of images half-way down the page).
  • Will address this next. Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC) The problem is there aren't enough images, some sections would be without them (not so bad for Trafford which on has one SM, but Bolton has three and no images) which leads to the tables being different sizes. Also, some sections have too many images, which means they follow on to the next section, looking messy and causing link bunching; this would mean some have to be left out, in an article with not that many images to begin with. Take a look here to see the problems. While it would be desirable to have the images nearer to the appropriate entry, the current ribbon of images is a neat solution to the problems mentioned. Nev1 (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I made my original suggestion because there is now a large right margin of white space for nearly half the page. However, if there aren't enough images available there is not a lot you can do about it (except a field trip perhaps). Boissière (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • A few of the image captions don't have wikilinks to the depicted monument.
  • I think that you need to review the sortability of the columns. In my mind you don't need to sort the description column and if the date and location column are to be sortable then the sort order when you click on them needs to make some sort of sense. Currently both are just doing the default sort on the text of the cell.
  • Agreed, the description column does not need to be sortable, the date column is the only one that concerns me, as Bronze Age doesn't sort nicely with dates like 1677. I'm not sure how to fix that, I'll have a look round, there's probably some template or something, like "sortname". Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
That's much better. There is one error though, in Wigan the Moat of Moat House is in the wrong place in the date order. Boissière (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
After a couple of attempts, Wigan now sorts properly. Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • As all the tables contain the same columns then you need to ensure that the columns line up from table to table.
  • The columns are already fixed to a set width, this is pretty much as good as it gets. If the columns don't quite line up, it's because the text inside the columns is too long. For example, for the Bury section, 200 BC–250 AD won't break down into anything smaller because the manual of style requires non-breaking spaces between the numbers and BC/AD. Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • (Not look and feel) I am almost certain the the Hanging Bridge is entirely within the city of Manchester and that no part of it is inside Salford. The city boundary in this area is the River Irwell and for the bridge to be in both cities it would have to span this river which it does not do. The cited reference (the Salford city council website) does not explicitly claim that the bridge is in Salford.

Boissière (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - FLC criteria are met. It's just a pity that the images do not link up better with their descriptions, but I understand the reason for that. This will be improved as more images become available. In the meantime it may be better to place them in the order in which they appear in the list. For example Radcliffe Tower should be lower down, and Mamucium and Hanging Bridge should be swtiched. Otherwise an excellent list with good, short but adequate, descriptions (the editors are fortunate that that there are "only" 38 SMs in the county). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 .


I believe this list meets the Featured List criteria, similar to List of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Atlanta Braves Opening Day starting pitchers, and other similar featured lists. Rlendog (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - excellent list

  • Flanagan's two Opening Day starts came eight years apart, in 1978 and 1986. - instead of came, how about "occurred"
  • McNally's record of three wins and no losses in Opening Day starts gived him a 100% winning percentage, the best in Orioles history. - 1)gived should be "gave", unless its an English variant 2)no need for the percentage symbol 3)best is WP:POV, "highest" should work better
  • The Orioles played in the World Series championship in 1966, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1979 and 1983, winning in 1966, 1970 and 1983. - Either remove championship or add "game" after championship
  • I don't know, but I just find it weird that you link the other publishers but not the MLB, that's just IMO though.--TRUCO 01:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) An excellent list (as always), just a couple things:
  • Link "winning percentage" in the lead.
  • "Flanagan's record of no wins and two losses represents the lowest winning percentage" Not really a representation, it just "is". Change "represents"-->is.
  • "They have had a record of nine wins, four lossess and two no decisions in 15 Opening Day starts at Camden Yards." "had" is not necessary.
  • Dabs need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed them. I also apologize for botching the Baseball Reference citations. I must have put the list together initially without the work/publisher split and then neglected to check it before submitting the FLC. Rlendog (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • What makes BaseballLibrary.com and Retrosheet reliable sources? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • BaseballLibrary was considered a reliable source for List of New York Yankees Opening Day starting pitchers and List of Boston Red Sox Opening Day starting pitchers, both of which are featured lists. BaseballLibrary is in fact the sole source for much of the information in the Red Sox list.
    • Retrosheet is actually the source for much of the box score information included in Baseball Reference, which is itself considered a reliable source. See for example the attribution at the bottom of this page . It is also heavily used in Sabermetric books researching baseball history. See, for example, the acknnowledgement on page 7 of Rob Neyer and Eddie Epstein's Baseball Dynasties book (you may need to search for "Retrosheet" and link to the "Front Matter" item; there is also a 2nd reference to Retrosheet within the book).Rlendog (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the clarification on Retro sheet. For BaseballLibrary, we need to know exactly what kind of fact-checking the website does; that it is used on other FLs mean nothing. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
        • The information I was sourcing from BaseballLibrary was included in the Retrosheet and Baseball-Reference sources anyway, so I removed those citations. I am pretty sure the BaseballLibrary information is good, since it matches up to the other sources, but I do not know how to prove it, and it is unnecessary for this article anyway. Rlendog (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): neuro, Ironholds (talk)


A Royal Society medal - worked on by myself and Ironholds, seems FLable. neuro 16:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Note One of the nominators, Neurolysis, is a WikiCup participant. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I asked Garden if I should note that (I listed this before it was mentioned, and he said it didn't matter, in case you are wondering why I didn't do it myself). I don't know FLC etiquette so well, so I just figured it was best to leave it alone once it was announced that it should be mentioned in the opening statement.. neuro 17:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Scorpion said something about it here and here. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh right, didn't see those. Fair enough then. :) neuro 12:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)
Initial concern from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Comments

  • I'd give Michelle Dougherty an explicit cite (list & lead) as she is not listed on the general refs winners page. This should do.
  • General references say "The Royal Society", just Royal Society I think.
  • Ref 5 "JSTOR" is italicised but it isn't for any other of the refs.
  • I notice a few occasions when the Medal has been shared by 2 or 3 people. Do they share the medal and money? How many times has this happened? Those might be worth mentioning in the lead.
  • I am a bit concerned about the image. It appears quite widely on the internet. Looking around I think it is possible it may have originally come from here. I think this could be a copyvio, additionally it was the user's (Gosaldar) only contribution and they did not provide a date they took the photo.
  • All books should have pubishers stated. e.g. refs 22 to 25 are missing along with some others.
  • Refs 5, 7, 42, 43, 50, and 79 all need subscriptions to verify the info. This should be noted in the ref.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "The only year where no medal "-->The only year in which no medal
  • "Unlike other Royal Society medals such as the Copley Medal, " "such as the Copley Medal" is unnecessary. You might link "other Royal Society medals" to Royal Society#Medals.
  • "J. J. Thompson"-->J. J. Thomson
  • "Frédéric Joliot"-->Frédéric Joliot-Curie
  • "Anthony Hewish"-->Antony Hewish
  • Several dabs need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 .


I've recently reformatted the page to be consistent with other FLs of similar scope. Hopefully it meets the criteria. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 21:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Procedural note The nominator is in the WikiCup. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • I would explain that the FIFA Cup is used to represent the championship, and that way you can eliminate saying that in this sentence..The Italy national football team were crowned champions after beating the France national football team in the final, and awarded the FIFA World Cup Trophy.
  • The current World Champions, Italy, follow with four titles, while Germany hold three. - "holds" not hold
  • The other former champions are Uruguay (who won the inaugural tournament) and Argentina with two titles each, and England and France with one title each. - it maybe the punctuation but it should be like ..The other former champions are Uruguay (who won the inaugural tournament) and Argentina, with two titles each, and England and France, with one title each.
  • I find it redundant to link to the respective finals article in the World Cup and Final score columns, it should just be in one.
  • In the year column, it's the link to the article about that year's competition. In the Final score column, it's a link to the article about the final match. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email)
  • Shouldn't Runners-up be "Runner-ups"?
  • I don't know, but IMO the World cup column should be called "Year" and then a footnote should be added that each year is linked to the respective finals article.
  • The image of the cup should be decreased it goes through the first section on my browser (FF).
  • Why is there a lot of extra white space in between the first section's table and the following section's header?
  • In ref #2, if you are going to spell out the acronyms in the other refs, why not spell it out here?

--TRUCO 22:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank's for taking a look so quickly! Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 22:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would support this nomination since the prose and other related issues were resolved to meet WP:WIAFL, but with the discussion and worry about this being content forking, I will wait to see the outcome of that discussion first before making my final decision.--TRUCO 22:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Support, all issues resolved. I think that this article is fine as a stand-alone list. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "after beating the French national football team 5–3 after a penalty shootout." Change the second "after" to "in".
  • Done
  • "Of these, only eleven have made it to the final match, and only seven have won."
  • Done
  • "while Germany holds three"-->and Germany holds three
  • Done
  • Add a note that describes where the hidden year links and the links in the match scores go to. 17:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks for reviewing Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 03:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


Comment from OdinFK (talk) Shouldn't it be mentioned (in a footnote probably), that the 1950 "final" was not a real final but the final game of group play? OdinFK (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support — I like the list the way it is. I also don't think that this is an unnecessary content fork. Actually some content has to be forked off from the main article, otherwise it will just grow to huge proportions with all there is to say about the World Cup. OdinFK (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

  • No need for comma after first four words
  • Done
  • Ref 1 is before full stop, should be after
  • Done
  • "The championship has occurred every four years, except in 1942 and 1946, due to World War II." - reword, grammatically speaking this sentence indicates that the championship has occurred every four years due to World War II
  • Done
  • "Teams compete to win the World Cup Trophy" - very short sentence, should be merged with another one. Also, if you're going to mention the trophy, you should elaborate that a different trophy was used up to and including 1970
  • Done
  • Is it really necessary in the sentence starting "the most recent...." to write "Italian national football team" in full? Surely "Italy" would suffice? I doubt even the most non-football-savvy person would read "the tournament was won by Italy" and assume that the entire population of the country competed
  • Done
  • "In the eighteen tournaments held, seventy-five nations have appeared at least once in the World Cup finals tournament." - I suggest that everything after "once" is redundant
  • Done
  • "The current World Champions.....follows with four titles" - grammatically incorrect. Also I see no real reason for the capitals on World Champions
  • Done
  • "The other former champions are Uruguay who won the inaugural tournament" - needs comma after Uruguay and tournament
  • Done
  • In the table, for the two matches that went to a penalty shootout, you have listed the "score" of the shootout itself as the match result. This is completely incorrect, under the laws of association football the result officially recorded is that at the conclusion of on-field play. The score shown in the table should be the score as it stood at the conclusion of normal play, with the "score" of the shootout shown in the footnote.
  • "At the end of the game the winning score is that from the penalties". No it isn't, the final score of the game in 2006 was 1-1 (see BBC report), the penalty shoot-out did not form part of the game and was equivalent to a coin toss to decide who got the cup. If the game had been decided by a literal coin toss (as many big games were back in the day) would you show the score as 1-0 ont he grounds that Italy got one "head" to France's nil? We may not be bound by the laws of football, but we are bound by the requirement to present accurate information. The information as presented is inaccurate so unfortunately I have no option but to oppose unless it is rectified (if it's changed, I would support) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It now shows the Final scores with the penalty results in footnotes. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 06:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • As noted above, "runner-ups" is not a real word, should be "runners-up" (as it originally was, in fact)
  • Done
  • In the footnotes, why are there capital letters on "Full-time" and "Extra time"
  • Done
  • Do BBC Sport and FIFA need to be wikilinked 20 times each in the refs?
  • Not done There's no guarantee that what is currently the first ref will continue to be, and if removed the Wikilink will go with it. There is no harm in linking them each time. WP:OVERLINK states nothing about references.

Looks good apart from these points. The most important issue if the one regarding the scorelines for the 1994 and 2006 finals, which must be corrected as the information as currently presented is inaccurate -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. I have done all but two. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 03:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - unnecessary content fork of FIFA_World_Cup#Results. A list this size can easily sit within the parent article. Only the stadium and host city of the final match have been added, and these could be added to the existing table with a bit of re-formatting (maybe by giving the third and fourth place teams less prominence). --Jameboy (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Your oppose has no validity. The page has existed for over two years with no previous complaints of forking. The Featured list criteria does not mention content forking, which I don't believe this page is. It has eighteen entries in the first table and eleven in the second. That is well above the requirement for a List.
FIFA World Cup is a WP:Featured article, the formatting, layout and information in the table in the Results section is the same now as it was when it was promoted. It was not mentioned at its FAC, or its FAR, where it was kept as a FA.
Your oppose should reflect what is listed at WP:FL?, nothing else.
  • Does it meet Knowledge (XXG)'s general requirements? Yes
  • Does it contain professional standards of writing? Hopefully
  • Is it comprehensive? Well it has the results for every World Cup final, there are no empty table cells of missing information, it has footnotes to accompany the entries. So yes
  • It is easy to navigate? Does it have section headings and table sortability? Yes
  • MOS compliant? Yes
  • Visually appealing, suitable use of colors, layout and formatting? Yes
  • Stable? No edit wars, only needs updating every 4 years. Yes.
I don't see where you're coming from. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 03:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Firstly let me say that as a standalone piece of work, it is excellent, and I hope I wasn't too blunt or disrespectful with my previous comment. You are correct, it deserves to be a featured list based purely on the list criteria, but if content forking is not part of the list criteria, I think it should be. Given that that the user is quite likely to have navigated from FIFA World Cup to this list, I think he or she would be disappointed to see the same information repeated - the list has to offer them something more. Increasing numbers of lists are appearing that, while well-produced and informative and great standalone pieces, fail to ask the questions "should I exist?" and "where do I fit in"? If stating my opposition based on such things is invalid, then fair enough, I accept that. I guess this is a wider point that I should take up at WP:Lists and WP:FL. --Jameboy (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Another pointless list that should be the centre piece of the main FIFA World Cup article, not split off onto a separate article. I see the AFD raised this morning was closed on a technicality within a very short space of time. Perhaps putting a mergeto tag here would be a better idea. - fchd (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at the main World Cup article again, all the information in this list is already there, albeit in a slightly less-readable form. Therefore, I suggest just copying the two tables and the references to replace those in the main article, and making this a redirect. - fchd (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I rather think this is the wrong forum to discuss that. Here we discuss the list and decide if it is worthy of being listed at WP:FL based on the FL criteria. Content forks should be discussed at a different venue, either WP:AfD or WP:Proposed mergers. I had opened a disussion at AfD, but it was closed after an hour by an admin who apparently had not read WP:GD for it says, "Nominations imply a recommendation to delete the article unless the nominator specifically says otherwise". Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 00:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your oppose is invalid based on WP:FL?. I'll discuss whether the list meets the criteria, but not whether it deserves to exist. This isn't the right forum for that. Take it to WP:AfD or WP:Proposed mergers and I'll be happy to discuss it. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 00:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have started a thread at Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates#Content forks, because this discussion has the potential to affect many FLs. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)



  • I also think this is fine as a stand-alone article. Does FIFA World Cup even need a list? I don't think removing that table from the main article would do any harm; directly below it is a list of finalists with all winners and runners-up. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Giants2008

Comments - Actually, I didn't support above. I merely said that I thought it was an appropriate list for Knowledge (XXG) to have. As long as I'm here, I might as well offer a full review. I probably don't do enough reviewing at FLC anyway, considering that I have five FLs myself. Wish we had 36 hours in a day to make things easier.

  • Unneeded links in the lead: Germany (country, not national team) and South Africa. Also multiple links to Italy national football team and France national football team.
  • What are your thoughts on making the table key its own section? It looks like it doesn't cover the Results by nation section, when it is meant to.
  • Here's an innovative one: How about offering a note in the key that the links in the Winners and Runners-up columns go to national teams? They're a lot more valuable than straight country links, which are what they appear to be at first glance.
  • Footnote 3: Take "also" out of the parenthetical part?
  • Is the TM mark needed in reference 5?

Very good list overall, and I'll be happy to support for real when these are done. You also might want to put ChrisTheDude in your summary above. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I have made the necessary changes and removed you from the summary below. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 04:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The Italy and South Africa links are still in. Do you want to leave them? I'm not really worried about the South Africa link, but am not crazy about having duplicate links in the lead. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I've now fixed it. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 07:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - Not really convinced by the rationale of the opposers, and it's a high-quality list that meets the standards. I noticed that a new paragraph has been added, and I'll make any needed fixes myself when I get a chance to read it closely. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


Oppose There isn't enough context for the list to stand alone as it is currently written. At no point are we told what a World Cup final actually is, i.e. that it is a one off match with extra time if required etc. Since the Maracanazo was not actually a World Cup final as such, the explanation for its inclusion should be described fully in the text, not hidden away in a footnote. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing I can do about it being a stand-alone article. I still feel FLC is the wrong forum to discuss it. I've tried to address your point about describing what the final is, and the Rules of the Game for the match. Since the refs, including FIFA, verify the claim that the 1950 final is the final, and since the article does discribe the discrepancy, I'm leaving it. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 07:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I mean not to debate as to whether the article should exist, but to say that it ought to be able to stand up without having to refer to other articles to get context. For penalties, it'd be useful to put that they have been the tiebreaker since - the rules used to be different. I'd much prefer an explanation for 1950 in the prose. It wouldn't take much, a paragraph starting something like "The tournament has been decided by a one-off match on every occasion except 1950, when..." Oldelpaso (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Done - I have moved the footnote and put it in the lead section. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 19:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - Excellent piece of work here, meets the criteria and is fully deserving of that little bronze star. Great work. Sunderland06 (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


Summarising !votes of those who have commented
(as of 23:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC))

Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 04:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What was the outcome of this anyhow? I haven't really followed and the discussion at WT:FLC is a bit confusing.--TRUCO 01:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The FLC is still open; there is still no consensus on the validity of this page's existence. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Yup. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 07:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Note Odelpaso is on a WikiBreak. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 .


I am nominating this list for FL status because I believe it meets all requirements and I have made improvements to the article based on a peer review session. Hopefully this awards list can join the other wonderful featured lists relating to awards and nominations won by musicians. Thanks so much! -Whataworld06 (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "Due to the success"-->Because of the success
Done.
  • "under Island Records throughout"-->under Island Records in
Done.
  • "Several of Winehouse' singles have charted around the globe"-->"Several of Winehouse' singles have charted worldwide"
Comment: "Around worldwide"? Or just "have charted worldwide"? DONE.
  • "Normaly " Typo.
Done.
  • "mtvU both provides
Done.
  • "12 months prior to the"-->12 months before the
Done.
  • ", as voted on by teens" Use "teenagers", it is a slightly more formal register.
Done.
  • "Best International Female Artist - Rock/Pop" Should be an en dash.
Done.
Done. Now states: "...sponsored by PRS for Music (previously The Performing Right Society)."

Sources

Comment: I am not sure if a discussion has occurred regarding the reliability of this source, but I have seen it used for other featured articles/lists. For example: 50 Cent discography, Maroon 5 discography, and Love. Angel. Music. Baby..
We need something better than that. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I have replaced the acharts references with Billboard sources displaying American and European chart positions. If this is not enough, please let me know. Thanks! Done.
Comment: I can replace the source with this one, though it is in Spanish. This Billboard article mentions Amy Winehouse being nominated, but doesn't specify "Rehab" as the nominated work. I am not sure how to display the Spanish source, but it has the information needed and it's directly from Premios 40 Principales.
Add both refs. For the Spanish ref, add language=Spanish to the template. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
DONE.
Comment: How about I replace the source with this BMI article? Or even this BBC article? -Whataworld06 (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Either is fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Done. -Whataworld06 (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Oops - I didn't realize there were 2 CM references used. I have not corrected the above yet. Working on that now... -Whataworld06 (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I have replaced the source with this. I hope this meets requirements for reliability. DONE.
  • I believe I have corrected all concerns raised and suggestions made, Dabomb87. Thank you so much for your assistance, and please let me know if there is anything else that can be done. -Whataworld06 (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. I don't like this one, because all the small section give me brain ache. But this is a result of the short career, so cannot be helped. As i find nothing actionable to change, i think it matches all the criteria.Yobmod (talk) 09:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Struk support, after seeing a better formatting possible.Yobmod (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • She is best known for her eclectic mix of various musical genres including soul, jazz, rock and roll and R&B. Ref?
  • Since refs 1-7 all go to Billboard pages, can they be replaced with the Billboard page for Winehouse? I'm pretty sure that will link to those pages anyway.
  • I'm also not a fan of the many small sections. Have you looked at List of No Country for Old Men awards and nominations, a recently promoted FL with a different layout style?

Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 06:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

oohm strongly agree that the List of No Country for Old Men awards and nominations type formate is prefferable. Will support is something like that is enacted.Yobmod (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
All music awards lists use this format. The problem with the Old Men format is that there are no descriptions of the individual awards. Readers shouldn't have to click on every award link to find out what it is. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Right. The list I created is similar to most of the other Featured Lists relating to awards and nominations received by a particular artist. I think wikipedia users will appreciate the consistency. -Whataworld06 (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
But the alternate format allows sorting by year, which would be very useful. I can't support a format all becasue other reviewers have accepted it in the past, when that format results in poor readability, as it does in this case. The idea that creating tables with a single entry is the best wikipedia can do is simply not true. But i don't oppose, staying neutral.
Episode lists manage to have continuous sortable lists and detailed descriptions, so it is possible for these too, no?.
And they clearly don't all use this format, as we have an example that doesn't (supported by some of the same people that are supporting here.) So both formats are acceptable, and i think for this one the current format is the wrong one, sorry!Yobmod (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I only said that all music awards lists use this format. You may be right that the other format is better, but consistency is important, as shown in this discussion. I think there should be an independent discussion on this, not one that confined to those who participate in FLCs. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 .


I believe this list meets all the requirements to become a Featured List. If promoted, it will be the first all-time baseball team roster to reach FL status. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from KV5
  • Note: I peer reviewed this list and support its inclusion as a featured list after the correction of the following concerns/suggestions.
  • Captions that are complete sentences need to end with full stops/periods. I think that this only applies to the lead image at this time.
  • I would like to see expansion of the captions for any players who are franchise leaders and have pictures, since these are important facts to note.

Other than that, excellently done. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 13:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) How many more articles do have left for your Featured topic?
  • "Of that number"-->Of those players
  • "where it remained through 1984"-->in which it competed through 1984
  • "Three former Sounds players have gone on to win a"-->Three former Sounds players have to won a
  • "Since 2005, Nashville has been the top farm team of the Milwaukee Brewers." Can you explain what it means to be the "top" farm team?
  • In the image captions, be more descriptive. It is not clear what name (year) means—other than the name of the player pictured. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. The change in the third bullet didn't make sense; I think you meant to leave out the "to". I changed the text to "Three former Sounds players have won a...". Changed "top farm team" to "Triple-A farm team". I added to the captions. Are they what you had in mind? After this list, the topic is 3 FLs away from FT. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - nice job! Rlendog (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Images check out and are all licensed/tagged properly. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool.--TRUCO 01:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 .


The list was recently peer reviewed, and I feel it meets the criteria. Regards, Efe (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Weak Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - due to the sourcing and a couple prose problems.

Lead
  • The proper acronym for the United States is "U.S." not US.
Thanks for the supporting comment. I have also given him a link just below this one. --Efe (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • In 2004, 13 acts each achieved a first US number-one single, either as a lead artist or featured guest, namely: Sleepy Brown, Twista, Kanye West, Jamie Foxx, Lil Jon, Fantasia Barrino, Juvenile, Soulja Slim, Terror Squad, Ciara, Petey Pablo, Snoop Dogg, and Pharell. - 1)namely should be "most notably" 2)13 acts achieved their first U.S. single, however, you stated "most notably" as if you were only going to list a few, but you listed all of them, so this should be reworded 3)If you are to list them all, list them in alphabetical order
  • Its not randomly listed; its based on whose single first topped the chart. But it could be alphabetized, too. A mere editorial preference. --Efe (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I never said they were randomly listed, I said that the way the sentence is worded makes it seem like you are going to list only a few of those 13, yet you list all 13, which is why I stated that the sentence should be reworded accordingly. Its not a editorial preference, its unprofessional for them to be in any random order.--TRUCO 21:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
So what do you suggest now? --Efe (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not in the MOS, its a standard of other FLs as well, because its unprofessional to list the people in any random order. In addition, reword accordingly as I mentioned above.--TRUCO 00:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Here, I trimmed it: "In 2004, 13 acts each achieved a first US number-one single, either as a lead artist or featured guest, including Fantasia Barrino, Ciara, Jamie Foxx, Lil Jon, Petey Pablo, Pharell and Kanye West." Sorry about the MoS thing. That was supposed to respond question number one. --Efe (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. But like I stated in my first point, US is not correct, its "U.S." (the proper acronym).--TRUCO 04:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
U.S. is the original acronym but US has generally been used nowadays: Knowledge (XXG):Manual_of_Style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations. --Efe (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • During the year, seven collaboration singles reached number-one position. - add "the" before reached
  • You mean this: "During the year, seven collaboration singles the reached number-one position." Perhaps you mean "During the year, seven collaboration singles reached the number-one position." But I think its meaningfully the same as "During the year, seven collaboration singles reached number-one position." --Efe (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Barrino and Ciara were the only acts to have earned number-one debut single this year. - add an "a" before number-one debut
  • R&B singer Usher had four number-one singles that appeared in the 2004 issues, and Outkast had two. - issues? You mean "charts"?
  • Usher's "Yeah!" is the longest-running number-one single of 2004, staying at that position for 12 straight weeks. - it would be better stated as Usher's "Yeah!" is the longest-running number-one single of 2004, remaining in that position for 12 straight weeks
  • Other singles with extended chart run include Ciara "Goodies", which features Petey Pablo, and Usher's "My Boo", which features Alicia Keys, each topping the chart for seven and six weeks, respectively. - Ciara should be "Ciara's"
  • He had four singles that topped the Billboard Hot 100, namely: "Yeah!, "Burn", "Confessions Part II", and "My Boo"; he is the only act in 2004 to have earned multiple number-one singles. - namely is being misused here, it should be a related phrase to "most notably"
  • I don't like to use that because its tends to be POVic. Also, when you say most notably, you only mentioning part of the entire list. In this case, I mentioned the four singles. --Efe (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The feat broke the record set by Glenn Miller and His Orchestra; in 1940, their records spent 26 consecutive weeks at the top spot of Record Buying Guide, a jukebox chart Billboard magazine published in the late 1930s and early '40s. - the semi colon should be after 1940 (so replace that comma with the semi colon)
Chart history
  • Checks out fine
References
  • Only one publishing source is being used, which is a primary source. Third party sources should be found to include more variety in the referencing.--TRUCO 04:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This sourcing issue is the only thing keeping me from supporting.--TRUCO 22:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I have added one from MTV but I will still try to search for more. --Efe (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Try searching newspapers, magazines, or other published work online.--TRUCO 02:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I am actually reluctant to add some more non-Billboard sources because everything are well sourced. --Efe (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I know what you mean, but this is an issue also brought up at FAC per WP:PSTS. With at least two non-primary sources, the list will be fine. Variety is just needed.--TRUCO 02:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, I understand. --Efe (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Added two non-Billboard sources to support one line there. --Efe (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Perfect.--TRUCO 21:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "In 2004, 13 acts each achieved " Redundant
  • But even as "In 2004, 13 acts achieved...", it is understood that they are 13 separate acts. Also, looking at the sentence more and more, I do not think "achieved" is the correct verb. Maybe "released"? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Seems awkward. Number-one singles are not released, they are achieved/gained/earned, although they were literally released. --Efe (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, but what of "each"? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
What about this: "In 2004, 13 acts achieved first U.S. number-one single". --Efe (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, but you are missing a "their" after "achieved". Dabomb87 (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Done. --Efe (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "trying the record set in 2003." I suspect that "trying" is not the intended word here.
  • "on the top spot had reached" Redundant
  • "is the most-successful act" Hyphen not really necessary here.
  • Two reasons: a)It is redundant (the colon makes it clear that the following items are the singles); b)A colon should be preceded by a grammatical sentence; "namely" makes the sentence ungrammatical. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
All comments have been addressed. Thanks for the review, Dabom. --Efe (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support as long as you fix these minor points:
    • No need for comma after "physical sales" in the first para
    • Missing word in "such extended chart run" in the last para
  • "becoming the first act to have achieved such extended chart run on the Billboard Hot 100" should be "becoming the first act to have achieved such an extended chart run on the Billboard Hot 100" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Missing "s" in "Other singles with extended chart run" in the third para
    • Four mis-spellings of "Bronson" in the refs
You misunderstood my comment. "Bronson" is the correct spelling, but it was mis-spelt four times as "Bonson". Please correct each instance of "Bonson" to "Bronson"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 .


One, two, three, four... (Better than leave this blank.) Cannibaloki 01:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead
  • The band's major-label debut, 1990's Cowboys from Hell, peaked at number 27 on the Billboard Heatseekers chart, and was certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). - it should be made aware that Billboard is an American organization since this band charted on international charts as well
    • Done.
  • The following year, Cowboys from Hell: The Videos was released; it included all video clips produced for Cowboys from Hell as well as additional material. This video was certified gold by the RIAA. - comma before as well
    • Done.
  • Pantera's second major-label album, Vulgar Display of Power (1992), reached number 44 on the Billboard 200, and was later certified platinum in Australia and the United States. - 1)It was certified in Australia by the respective industry, so the name of the industry should be given not the country's name and the United States should be replaced with the "RIAA"
    • Done.
  • Vulgar Display of Power was backed by the singles "Mouth for War" and "Walk"; both songs received music videos that were included on 1993's Vulgar Video. - was backed by is not featured wording, replace with "included"
  • After touring for two years, the group released Far Beyond Driven (1994), which debuted atop of the Billboard 200 and ARIA charts, and reached the top five in Sweden and United Kingdom, and was certified platinum in Canada and the U.S. - 1)It should be made aware that the ARIA charts are Australian 2)add "the" before United Kingdom
    • Done.
  • If my suggestions are taken, you may have to fix up the formatting of the "U.S./United States" instances accordingly.
    • Done.
  • The album produced three singles, "5 Minutes Alone", "I'm Broken", and the Black Sabbath cover, "Planet Caravan"; the last, reached the top 30 in the U.S. Mainstream Rock Tracks and UK singles chart. - 1)Wouldn't it be better to make the comma before the singles a colon, and then make the semi colon an emdash (the longer one) 2)Whether you take my suggestion or not, the and before the Black Sabbath cover and place it before Planet Caravan 3)the last should be the latter
    • Done.
  • The Great Southern Trendkill (1996) peaked at numbers two and four on Australia and U.S., respectively, and reached the top five in Finland and New Zealand. - 1)It should be made aware that the topic is about the charts not the country in general 2)link to the Finland/New Zealand charts?
    • Done.
  • It was certified platinum in the U.S. and Australia. Pantera's final studio album, Reinventing the Steel (2000), became their second release to peak at numbers two and four on Australia and U.S., respectively. - it should be made aware that these are the charts, it is awkwardly written like this
    • Done.
  • The best-of album Far Beyond the Great Southern Cowboys' Vulgar Hits! (2003), which combined the titles of the band's four major-label albums, was released in the U.S. - shouldn't there be another period after U.S.? Since the period that's there belongs to the acronym?
    • Done.
  • Although it only reached number 38 on the Billboard 200, it was certified platinum. - certified platinum by ___?
Discography
  • For the 1996 box set, can the content be added or an emdash, an empty box is not really appealing. Other than that, the discography checks out fine.
References
External links

Comments

  • Are you absolutely sure that "Cowboys From Hell" and "Cemetery Gates" weren't released as singles? I mean, the band's template at the bottom of the page disagrees with this discography.
    • Those you mentioned were released as radio promos, not singles.
  • I'd consider removing the refs from the lead as everything is obviously referenced again. indopug (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "Pantera formed in the early 1980s, and" Comma not necessary.
  • "it included all video clips"
  • "as well as additional material." Delete this phrase. "included" means that there is additional material.
  • "This video was"-->The video was
  • "by the Australian Recording Industry Association and by the RIAA."
  • "both songs received music videos" What do you mean by "received"?
  • "which debuted atop of the U.S. Billboard 200 and Australian ARIA charts, and reached the top five in Sweden and the United Kingdom, and was certified platinum in Canada and the U.S.."-->which debuted atop of the U.S. Billboard 200 and Australian ARIA charts, reached the top five in Sweden and the United Kingdom, and was certified platinum in Canada and the U.S.
  • "—the latter, reached" Delete comma and make em dash a semicolon.
  • "the top five in Finland" "in"-->on.
  • "Although it only reached number 38 on the Billboard 200, was certified platinum by RIAA." Insert "the album" before "was". Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The lead needs an inline citation. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

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 by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 .


Peer review, Previous FLC, Collectonian informed, Dabomb87 informed, Rambo's Revenge informed


Most of my rational can be found on the page of the previous FLC. The list has been copyedited by Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) (informed of FLC) and I have removed the unsourced episode in question. Thanks. NOCTURNENOIR 21:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to question on my talk page: I don't see a problem with citing the episode, as long as the information is not controversial. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Undid the removal and cited the episode. NOCTURNENOIR 21:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Goodraise
Comments
  • "The English adaptation is licensed by Media Blasters" - Ok, that leaves the question: Who created the English adaptation?
Well, Media Blasters did. I'm not entirely sure how to reference this fact, so please check the fix I made. NOCTURNENOIR 22:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
How about "The anime was licensed for an English adaptation by Media Blasters"? -- Goodraise (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I've tried something else and removed the words "English adaptation" altogether. Hopefully, this solves the problem. NOCTURNENOIR 22:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm anything but an expert on English prose, but that whole sentence just doesn't seem right to me. You're squeezing so much information into it, it reads like it's crying for mercy. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Third time's a charm. I've split the sentences. NOCTURNENOIR 22:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Not sure I know what you mean. NOCTURNENOIR 22:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
From WP:EL: "Adding external links to an article can be a service to the reader, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." - In other words: These external links have no more relevance to season 1 than to season 2 or to Belldandy. It seems they're just there for the purpose of having an EL section. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh wow, when you said EL I thought episode list!? and was utterly confused. I've removed the section. NOCTURNENOIR 22:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Support My issues with the prose have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I haven't heard anything. I removed it in an earlier revision, but apparently I reverted that. Anyway, I've removed it for now. NOCTURNENOIR 22:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • Is there a better reference (possibly foreign language) to use instead of (with) reference 1, because the encyclopedia section of Anime News Network is editable by anyone and therefore not considered very reliable.
  • In general, that source is widely accepted when it comes to anime episode list FLCs. That being said, I'll go take a look anyway. NOCTURNENOIR 19:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the refs as best I can. Most of the refs indicate that the songs were the openings or endings, but do not confirm the episode numbers. I could just cite the episodes themselves if you would like, as the episodes do list the opening and closing tracks and the artist's name when the credits roll. NOCTURNENOIR 20:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • In the episode summaires try not to be too colloquial – e.g. I noticed the word "dorm" in episode 1 & 2

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 .


This article was previously reviewed for Featured List status, but back then, there were not many other NFL "starting quarterbacks" lists. Some objected to the format of the list but now that others have seemed to copy off my idea, I think it's ready to be passed. There are many references and it has been updated thoroughly. conman33 (. . .talk) 08:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Weak Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - prose/formatting issues

Lead
  • The Kansas City Chiefs are a professional American football team based in Kansas City, Missouri. The Chiefs are a member of the Western Division of the American Football Conference (AFC) in the National Football League (NFL). - there is no reason to give an acronym for the AFC since its not mentioned again in the article.
  • Numerous backup quarterbacks have successfully led the franchise in the starter's absence, most notably Mike Livingston and Rich Gannon. - why are they notable?
  • Davidson played with the franchise from 1960 to 1962, by then Len Dawson was acquired through free agency and played for the Chiefs . - wouldn't it be "Texans/Chiefs"? In addition, remove the extra space between Chiefs and the period
  • Three future Hall of Famers played for Kansas City including Dawson, Joe Montana, and Warren Moon. - comma before including
  • In the 2008 season, the team's most recent, the Chiefs alternated the starting quarterback position between Brodie Croyle, Damon Huard, and Tyler Thigpen. - I know it sounds redundant, but you need to state that it was the team's most recent "season"
  • Thigpen played in 11 games in the 2008 season following season-ending injuries Croyle and Huard, but managed to lead the Chiefs to a 1-10 record as starting quarterback. - this sentence does not make sense, I hope you spot the error towards the middle of the sentence
Starting quarterbacks
  • The team's primary starting quarterback, or the quarterback that started at the beginning of the season, is listed first. The number of games started in the season is listed in small parentheses. Statistics do not include post-season starts. - this would be best represented in a table key not in words
  • Starting quarterbacks by season (1960–2008) - is it necessary to have (1960-2008) in the header? Its not like there are sections broken up to represent other eras.
  • Having the starting quarterbacks column sortable isn't the best idea because some entries have two people and it really isn't representative. Either, remove the sortability function for that column or list each season more than once and list the quarterbacks in each of those extra instances
Notes
  • Since the 1978 NFL season all teams have played 16-game schedules. - comma after season
  • Strikes by the National Football League Players Association in the 1982 and 1987 seasons resulted in shortened seasons (9- and 15-game schedules, respectively). - why does the 9 have a dash next to it?
  • Blackledge started the first six games of the 1984 season before Kenney was retained as the starter after a thumb injury. - comma before before
  • In 2006, Huard filled in for an injured Green after Green suffered a concussion in the first game of the season and threw 11 touchdowns and only one interception. Green returned in week 11 and finished the season with 7 touchdowns and 9 interceptions. - its irrelevant to say his game stats
  • By Week 3 of the 2008 season, Brodie Croyle, Damon Huard, and Tyler Thigpen had all started one game each. Both Croyle and Huard suffered injuries in their respective starts in Weeks 1 nand 2. - typo on and
  • Be consistent, link all the players name mentioned in the notes or don't link them at all.
  • Note A, B, C, D, and G need verification by a source.
References
  • The section called notes under the table should be called "footnotes" and the "further reading" section should be called "References", or you could rename this section to "References" and make the book a general reference and the rest specific references as seen here--TRUCO 17:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(Resolved comments by nominator)

Lead
  • The Kansas City Chiefs are a professional American football team based in Kansas City, Missouri. The Chiefs are a member of the Western Division of the American Football Conference (AFC) in the National Football League (NFL). - there is no reason to give an acronym for the AFC since its not mentioned again in the article. - DONE
  • Numerous backup quarterbacks have successfully led the franchise in the starter's absence, most notably Mike Livingston and Rich Gannon. - why are they notable? - DONE - Removed, this was from History of Kansas City Chiefs quarterbacks, but being this is an article about starters, it's not notable here.
  • Davidson played with the franchise from 1960 to 1962, by then Len Dawson was acquired through free agency and played for the Chiefs . - wouldn't it be "Texans/Chiefs"? In addition, remove the extra space between Chiefs and the period - DONE - changed from "Chiefs" to "franchise"
  • Three future Hall of Famers played for Kansas City including Dawson, Joe Montana, and Warren Moon. - comma before including - DONE
  • In the 2008 season, the team's most recent, the Chiefs alternated the starting quarterback position between Brodie Croyle, Damon Huard, and Tyler Thigpen. - I know it sounds redundant, but you need to state that it was the team's most recent "season" - DONE - added "(2008)" in parentheses, link to 2008 season article
  • Thigpen played in 11 games in the 2008 season following season-ending injuries Croyle and Huard, but managed to lead the Chiefs to a 1-10 record as starting quarterback. - this sentence does not make sense, I hope you spot the error towards the middle of the sentence - DONE - re-worded, hope it's better
Starting quarterbacks
  • The team's primary starting quarterback, or the quarterback that started at the beginning of the season, is listed first. The number of games started in the season is listed in small parentheses. Statistics do not include post-season starts. - this would be best represented in a table key not in words
  • Starting quarterbacks by season (1960–2008) - is it necessary to have (1960-2008) in the header? Its not like there are sections broken up to represent other eras. - DONE - removed
  • Having the starting quarterbacks column sortable isn't the best idea because some entries have two people and it really isn't representative. Either, remove the sortability function for that column or list each season more than once and list the quarterbacks in each of those extra instances - DONE - changed to unsortable, The last review I underwent told me to change this to a sortable table.
Notes
  • Since the 1978 NFL season all teams have played 16-game schedules. - comma after season - DONE
  • Strikes by the National Football League Players Association in the 1982 and 1987 seasons resulted in shortened seasons (9- and 15-game schedules, respectively). - why does the 9 have a dash next to it? - DONE - "9-" was added as if it were to say "9-game" or "15-game"
  • Blackledge started the first six games of the 1984 season before Kenney was retained as the starter after a thumb injury. - comma before before - DONE
  • In 2006, Huard filled in for an injured Green after Green suffered a concussion in the first game of the season and threw 11 touchdowns and only one interception. Green returned in week 11 and finished the season with 7 touchdowns and 9 interceptions. - its irrelevant to say his game stats - DONE - That must have been added in by someone else, I agree that it's not relevant.
  • By Week 3 of the 2008 season, Brodie Croyle, Damon Huard, and Tyler Thigpen had all started one game each. Both Croyle and Huard suffered injuries in their respective starts in Weeks 1 nand 2. - typo on and - DONE
  • Be consistent, link all the players name mentioned in the notes or don't link them at all. - DONE
  • Note A, B, C, D, and G need verification by a source.
References
  • The section called notes under the table should be called "footnotes" and the "further reading" section should be called "References", or you could rename this section to "References" and make the book a general reference and the rest specific references as seen here - DONE
TO-DO
  • Insert table to replace "The team's primary starting quarterback, or the quarterback that started at the beginning of the season, is listed first. The number of games started in the season is listed in small parentheses. Statistics do not include post-season starts." - DONE
  • Sortable or unsortable columns? - DONE
We'll need a consensus. Like I said, the previous FL review I made told me to change the table into a sortable format, but now I'm told to make it unsortable. If unsortable, should I remove the templates that make names easy to sort?
All recently promoted sports lists of people (football and basketball) do not use sortable tables. I say that sorting isn't necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Note A, B, C, D, and G need verification by a source. - DONE
Found link for Note B (1978 season) and Note C (strikes). Removed 3 notes detailing injuries that made Dawson/Livingston, Grbac/Gannon, and Green/Huard rotate the starting job. This sounds too detailed and if anybody wants to read up on them, check out History of Kansas City Chiefs quarterbacks or their own respective articles. I felt they were too much and irrelevant in a broad sense.

conman33 (. . .talk) 06:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  • It looks much better, the only thing, however, is that links to the proper seasons should be linked in the lead. In addition, the year column should be made sortable. Lastly, the last part of the lead should be part of the second paragraph, its too short to stand alone on by itself.--TRUCO 14:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
DONE conman33 (. . .talk) 01:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • Disambiguation links need to be fixed.
  • "The Chiefs have had 31 starting quarterbacks in their franchise's history." Move this sentence to the start of the next paragraph.
  • "Cotton Davidson was the team's first starting quarterback, playing all 14 games for the Texans in their inaugural 1960 season." A bit clumsy, try: "Cotton Davidson was the team's first starting quarterback; he played all 14 games for the Texans in their inaugural 1960 season."
  • "Davidson played with the franchise from 1960 to 1962, by then Len Dawson was acquired through free agency and played for the franchise for 14 seasons" a) What happened to Davidson, did they release him? b) the sentence structure is off—"by then" doesn't belong here.
  • "following the Chiefs' victory in Super Bowl IV"-->after the Chiefs' victory in Super Bowl IV
  • "Three future Hall of Famers played for Kansas City, including Dawson, Joe Montana, and Warren Moon." You say three, but "including" means that there are more. Reword to "Three future Hall-of-Fame quarterbacks started for Kansas City: Dawson, Joe Montana, and Warren Moon."
  • "After Croyle and Huard were sidelined by injuries, Thigpen played in 11 games, winning one and losing ten games."
  • "Thigpen remained the starter through the remainder of the season." Change "remained"-->was. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

DONE conman33 (. . .talk) 01:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 .


I am nominating this list for FLC because I believe it meets the FL criteria. Thank you. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment I think the reference titles should be changed a bit. Right now all of the last half of references on that page say The Billboard 200. For example this link is about the Week Of Jan 01 1983. but all of your references from 17-69 say The Billboard 200. I think for all those reference titles should include the week for reference title. So for example, change "The Billboard 200" forJanuary 1 column to --> "The Billboard 200 for The Week of Jan 01, 1983" and so on for every other citation. --Gman124 05:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment

  • I feel some of the information on Thriller is more relevant to the 1984 page, not this page. For example, only 6 of the 7 singles were released in 1983. "Thriller" was released in 1984 and was one of the reasons the album spent 15 weeks at number one in 1984. His Grammy awards are more relevant to the 1984 page because they helped the album sell well in 1984.
  • I agree with you in the singles part, since you know more about Jackson than me, did you have any suggestions for any relevant information about the album for this year? In the awards part, it may helped the album sell in 1984, but the 26th Grammy Awards are for accomplishments from the year 1983.
    • Nothing really, you can take any relevant information from Michael Jackson or Thriller (album) if you want it. I think you have the main points, just that some of them are more relevant to the 1984 page, which currently lacks info on why the album was the best selling of 84 as well. Note that his visit to the White house also boosted sales in 84.
  • Ok I will changed the singles part an mention that 6 singles were released in 1983 and 2 of them reached number-one, and I will remove the part of the 7 singles and put it in the 1984 list. Frcm1988 (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Inconsistency with the number formatting in the lead (and caption).
  • Changed
  • I can still see examples where where you have twenty-two and then 25.
  • Sorry I missed that one
  • Is there a reason that you mention none US act's nationalities but don't do the same for American act's?
  • In the list for 1999 another reviewer told me to remove the American nationalities since the list is American
  • Personally I don't think nationality needs mentioning at all, but it's no big issue.
Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • There were six number-one albums on this chart in 1983, including the debut album of the Australian band Men at Work, Business as Usual, which spent the last seven weeks of 1982 and the first eight weeks of 1983 at number one and was certified quadruple platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in 1984. - either place a comma before and was certified or replace that and with a semi colon and start the next part of that sentence with "it was"
  • Done
  • It peaked at number one for twenty-two non-consecutive weeks in 1983, with the seven singles released from the album hitting the top ten on the singles chart. - hitting-->"ranking on"
  • Changed
  • Two of them: "Billie Jean" and "Beat It", reached the top of the Billboard Hot 100, - the top ____?
  • Added position
  • In 2008, 25 years after its release, the record was inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame and, a few weeks later, was among twenty-five recordings preserved by the Library of Congress to the National Recording Registry as "culturally significant". - 1)the comma should be before and not after it 2)add "it" before was
  • Done
  • The two singles released from the album: "Flashdance... What a Feeling" by Irene Cara, and "Maniac" by Michael Sembello reached the top of the Billboard Hot 100 in 1983. - change the colon to a comma and add a comma after Sembello
  • Done
  • British band The Police were the year's most influential rock band, with Australian, British and American bands copying the white-reggae formula of their earlier successes. - comma before and
  • Done
  • The group released their fifth and final studio album, Synchronicity in 1983. - comma after the album name
  • Done
  • The album, a varied accomplished blend of rock, funk and third-world rhythms, - comma before and
  • Done
  • ..stayed at number one for seventeen weeks and was certified quadruple platinum by the RIAA in 1984. - quadruple would be better worded as "four times"
  • Changed
Albums
  • Checks out fine.
Image
  • Michael Jackson's sixth album Thriller, spent 22 weeks at number one, sold more than 15 million copies becoming the best-selling album of 1983 and won the Grammy Award for Album of the Year. - remove the comma after the album name and reword the middle part of the sentence to .."to become the best-selling"... Also, add a comma before and--TRUCO 17:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
One last comment
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "with the seven singles released from the album ranking on the top ten on the singles chart" The noun + -ing sentence construction is awkward and ungrammatical.
  • I will change the sentence, some information belong to 1984.
  • "to have seven top ten singles" I think "spawn" would be better and stronger than "have".
  • Changed
  • "British band The Police were the year's most influential rock band, with Australian, British, and American bands copying the white-reggae formula of their earlier successes." This is too subjective to be a flat-out statement. Maybe "British band The Police were considered by to the year's most influential rock band; Australian, British, and American bands copyed the white-reggae formula of their earlier successes."
  • Do you think that the author of the article should be mentioned or is fine with just The New York Times
  • "which remained three weeks at the top"-->which spent three weeks at the top
  • Done
  • "Singer-songwriter Lionel Richie," No comma necessary.

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): TRUCO


I am renominating this list because FL director Matt stated I could immediately renominate it since the last FLC only had one support, and only one reviewer reviewed it. The same statements I made in the previous FLC apply here as well, any other comments will be addressed.--TRUCO 18:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Support My issues were resolved at the last FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Support – The only problem are the images, that are not being next to the table in my browser. Cannibaloki 18:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

How about now?--TRUCO 18:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, not changed at all. You should remove those images, see Knowledge (XXG):Layout#Images. Cannibaloki 19:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Or convert them into a gallery. Cannibaloki 19:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
How about now? I'm not sure what resolution you're using, but I am also using FF 3, and they work fine for me. If it still doesn't I'll just remove them.--TRUCO 19:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, looks good now. (1024×768) Cannibaloki 19:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Cool cool. It was the coding of the thumbnails and the width of the table, so I fixed it.--TRUCO 19:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Some of the first paragraph and all of the second paragraph, which is basically half of the article itself, contains no citations of where the information came from. — Moe ε 19:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets start this over, the first paragraph is sourced by the refs that are there. The beginning of that paragraph is sourced by the general reference, which serves as a ref to the entire article (prose and list). The second paragraph is not sourced because per an accepted FL standard, the summary paragraph does not need references because since it is a summary of the list, the references in the list cover for that paragraph, so there is no need for inline citations for that paragraph. In addition, that paragraph is also sourced by the general reference.TRUCO 20:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I still prefer inline citations, but if the information is actually cited in someone way then I'm fine with it. — Moe ε 21:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so you still oppose it?--TRUCO 21:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
No. — Moe ε 21:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
May you cross it out, you don't have to support.--TRUCO 21:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 .


I believe this list is worthy of featured list status, it has had a thorough peer review which addressed many issues, and I now believe the list is very close to attaining FL standard. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Note Nominator is a WikiCup participant. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - A very good list (started by me, I might add ;) ). My only suggestion would be to use "Wembley Stadium (1923)" and "Wembley Stadium (2008)" instead of "Wembley Stadium (original)" and "Wembley Stadium (new)", as, while the current Wembley Stadium is currently the "new" Wembley Stadium, that will not always be the case, so it would be better to disambiguate by the year that each one opened. – PeeJay 15:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - While I'm not aware of any guidelines on how much prose can or should be included in a list, I don't think the History section is required. It says For more details on this topic, see Football League Cup, but the History section there is the same size, so something isn't right. The History section could be merged into the lead without losing any information, and I have put forward a proposal for what this may look like in my sandbox. By doing it this way, the reader goes straight from the lead into the list, while maintaining a good lead to introduce the list. --Jameboy (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Well I was just going along with what has already occured in other featured lists such as List of FA Cup winners which has a history section, I think it should remain personally it is nice addition and does not detract anything from the section in the main article. NapHit (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree with NapHit. Similar sections have been included in pretty much all of the other "List of winners" articles, so it stands to reason that this one should have one too. It doesn't stray from the main topic of the article too much, so I don't see what harm it does. – PeeJay 17:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
        • On the other hand, I agree with User:Jameboy, I don't see any need at all for this to be a standalone article. Merge the table of winners back in to the main League Cup article, and you have all the information in one article, which isn't too big (which might have been the case for the FA Cup). The way this stands now, it's just an article for an article's sake. - fchd (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • The competition was established in 1960, and is considered to be the second most important domestic cup competition for English football clubs, after the FA Cup. - remove the first comma
  • The first Football League Cup was won by Aston Villa, who beat Rotherham United 3–2 on aggregate, after losing the first leg 2–0. For the first six seasons of the competition, the final was contested over two legs, one at each participating club's stadium. - 1)the second sentence should go first because it helps to explain what the terms in the following sentence means 2)What does aggregate mean (link? footnote? elaboration?)
    • 1) done; 2) linked
  • Liverpool hold the record for the most League Cup titles; they have won the competition seven times including four consecutive titles from 1981 to 1984. - comma before including
    • Done
  • The cup is held by Tottenham Hotspur, who defeated Chelsea 2–1 after extra time in the 2008 final. - add "currently" before held
    • Done
  • Swindon Town also then of Division Three matched this feat in 1969. - comma before also and after Division Three
    • Done
  • Sheffield Wednesday then in the Second Division became the last club to win the competition whilst competing outside the First Division, when they beat Manchester United in the 1991 final. - comma before then and after Second Division
    • Done
  • With the promise of potential European football, First Division teams entered the competition, and all 92 Football League clubs entered the League Cup for the first time in 1969–70. - since the year is in that format, where is the link to that season or respective article?
    • Linked to the appropriate season, although it is a redlink
  • The final returned to London in 2008, where Tottenham Hotspur became the first side to win the competition at the new Wembley, beating Chelsea 2–1 after extra time. - the first side? Is this another word for "team"?
    • Yes
  • Is the attendance necessary? It doesn't add to the relevancy of the list. If it is, it should be summarized in the prose as well.
    • The attendance isn't especially relevant, but I've left it in as I don't really fancy removing so much info myself. I don't like the pressure, you see.
It is not needed describing the attendance in the lead is unnecessary, it is overkill, I will add a link to attendances or something so the reader can click on that if they are interested, otherwise there is no need for anything else. NapHit (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Then at least add footnote stating why the attendance is there, if I didn't know any better, I would be like "Why the hell is the attendance in this type of list"?--TRUCO 18:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Added note to clarify NapHit (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "The Football League Cup is a knockout cup competition in English football, organised by and named after The Football League." Comma not necessary.
  • "second most important"-->second-most important
  • "It was during this period"
  • "whilst "-->while
  • "the first time that any team had won"
  • "The last League Cup final replay was held in 1997, with Leicester City beating Middlesbrough 1–0 after extra time at Hillsborough" The noun + -ing structure is awkward.
  • "both teams winning two titles each"-->as both teams won two titles each
  • Add a footnote or item to the key that says the links in the year column link to an article about the Football League Cup Final for that year. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I don;t think this one is necessary, iyt just sees like overkill to me, if they hover over the link they will find out is the final article, responded to the rest of your comments. NapHit (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I changed the header so the note is not necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, the section titles indicate that the tables are about the finals of the competition, so it should be more appropriate to title the columns as "Year". – PeeJay 19:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I am OK with "Final". Dabomb87 (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
However, the entire article is about the finals of the League Cup, so why is anything other than "Year" required? – PeeJay 19:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Consensus at MOS is that while having hidden year links in tables is acceptable, it is preferable to add explanatory text or make the header clearer so that the reader knows that those are not trivial year links. See List of Nashville Sounds managers for example; many other sports FLs do this. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • I think the references need some slight formatting. Please check with User:Ealdgyth
    • guardian.co.uk, independent.co.uk and football-league.co.uk are the names of websites and should not be italicised. football-league.co.uk can be removed completely since the publisher is "The Football League"
    • Ref #4 needs a space between "BBC Sport" and "(British Broadcasting Corporation)"

Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 00:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the problem with the refs. NapHit (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 .


Another Royal Society medal; comments appreciated as always. Ironholds (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • Just a friendly notice, refrain from nominating lists of the same subject back to back, considering that there is a lack of reviewers and these noms are by one user. Wait at least for one to be promoted/archive before nominating another one.
  • The Buchanan Medal is awarded by the Royal Society every year "in recognition of distinguished contribution to the medical sciences generally". - if the period is apart of the original quotation, it should be in between the quotation marks.
  • It was created in 1897 to be awarded once every five years, but since 1990 the medal has been awarded every two years instead. - comma after 1990
  • Since it was created it has been awarded 28 times, and unlike other Royal Society medals such as the Royal Medal it has never been awarded to the same individual multiple times. ---> Since its creation, it has been awarded 28 times, and unlike other Royal Society medals such as the Royal Medal, it has never been awarded to the same individual multiple times.
  • As a result of the criteria for the medal most of the winners have been doctors or other medical professionals; an exception was Frederick Warner, an engineer who won the medal in 1982 "for his important role in reducing pollution of the River Thames and of his significant contributions to risk assessment". - comma after medal
  • For the quotes, if the period is apart of the original statement/quotation it needs to be in-between the quotation marks
  • Its not stated in the lead who was the first recipient of the award.
  • Can a footnote be implemented to explain why there was No award in 1994?--TRUCO 19:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    All done; I'm afraid it doesn't give any reason why there is no award, it is simply missing a year (or pair of years, rather). I'll stop with the FLs for a while then, heh; I've got other things to do as it happens. Ironholds (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Then what you just told me should be integrated into a footnote, because it leaves the reader in question. In addition, can an image be added?--TRUCO 22:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The Royal Society building, maybe; there isn't really an option for a picture of something medal-related at the moment because I forgot who the medal is named after and cannot find that info. Reasoning added.
  • An image of the recipient? An image of the award itself? Something related to the Royal Society. For the footnote, it should be something like An explanation as to why no award was given this year is disclosed by the Royal Society.--TRUCO 23:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "in recognition of distinguished contribution to the medical sciences generally." Logical punctuation, the period should be outside the quotation mark.
  • "One winner has also won a Nobel Prize; Barry Marshall, who was awarded the Buchanan Medal in 1998 "in recognition of his work on discovering the role of Helicobacter pylori as a cause of diseases such as duodenal ulcer, gastric ulcer, gastric cancer and gastritis-associated dyspepsia" and won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2005." Semicolon should be a colon.
  • "who won his in 2008 "for his outstanding " Can you eliminate the "his ... his" repetition? Maybe change the first "his" to "the medal".
  • The image caption should not have a period. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • but since 1990, the medal has been awarded every two years instead. no need for either the comma or the "instead"
  • unlike other Royal Society medals such as the Royal Medal - link to Royal Medal perhaps?
  • "for his important role in reducing pollution of the River Thames and of his significant contributions to risk assessment" -- a bold quote. I think perhaps a reference is necessary.
  • Because some of the entries have an emdash in the ref column, it appears as if he is they are all completely unreferenced. Perhaps the archive page can be referenced each time instead?

Nothing else. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 00:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 .


The next go at an FLC from WP:POKER. This list has a completely different format than previous ones, so I'm not sure what to expect here.---Balloonman 07:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments
Done---Balloonman 16:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • All images need to be in their correct place. The photo of Hinkle should be within that section (Event 2), not right above it.
Not done. I ended up having todo that due to formatting issues. When I put the images below the break for the individual event, there was lot of over lap of images pushing into the next event. See this for an example. By putting the images first, I kept the images correct and was able to improve the formatting.---Balloonman 16:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
What? That example is pushing the images way too low, below the information. They only need to be below the header, which will not overlap. And this is part of WP:MOS#images. Put the photo within the relevant section, not the one before it. Reywas92 18:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
done---Balloonman 04:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • The 2008 World Series of Poker was the 39th annual World Series of Poker (WSOP). - "2008 World Series of Poker" is not the title of the article, so it should not be bolded. I would recommend linking it to the proper article (without the bold).
done---Balloonman 03:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • As has been the WSOP custom since 1976, each of the event winners received a championship bracelet in addition to that event's prize money, which (after the casino's rake) ranged from $87,929 to $9,119,517. - the first part is confusing how about "As a WSOP custom since 1976,"
done---Balloonman 03:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Is it correct to capitalize Main Event?
Yes a quick web search will validate that 90+ percent of the cases which use WSOP and Main Event will capitalize it. It isn't a main event, it is the Main Event.---Balloonman 03:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • ; the Main Event was resumed on November 9, and concluded with the heads-up final between Peter Eastgate and Ivan Demidov the next day. - remove the comma
done---Balloonman 03:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Omaha is version of poker wherein each player is dealt four hole cards, must use two of them in conjunction with three community cards to make the best possible five card hand. - the comma should be replaced with "and"
done---Balloonman 03:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Considering that 55 entries are listed, a more thorough summary should be given IMO to the list.
Query I actually considered adding a glossary section wherein I defined the terms in a little more detail, do you think that would be helpful? If so, should the glossary go at the start or end of the list?
No not really, thats what links are for. In this statement I meant that because there are 55 entries (55 things listed) it is best to summarize these 55 things in the lead/prose (writing)--TRUCO 17:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really sure I agree/am on the same page here. Perhaps I'm being a little dense, but with 55 events, if I were to summarize them all, wouldn't that would essentially create a list of poorly written prose? Event 1 was a $10,000 Pot-Limit Hold'em event won by Nenad Medic. Event 2 was a $1,500 No Limit Tournament won by Grant Hinkle. Event 3 was a $1,500 Pot-Limit Hold'em event won by David Singer. Seems very redundant and counter the purpose of having a list. Would create some very dry prose, that wouldn't be, IMO, befitting the best WP has to offer.---Balloonman 06:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I meant like a small brief prose summary of the events, not necessarily summarizing each one, like summarizing the most significant ones and a brief summary that can say something about most of the 55 events.--TRUCO 21:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the second paragraph already does this. On a similar point, wouldn't it make sense to switch around the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs? The explanation of the events should come before the summary of the list. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
In a way, I guess. But its fine since this is a big list. Dabombs comment should be resolved before I cap and support.--TRUCO 21:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Done---I'm Spartacus! 17:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Whoa there... :S Dabomb87 (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Is the Whoa There because of the name change or did I miss something ;-) ---I'm Spartacus! 19:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
No, it was the name change. That was ... unexpected, to say the least :) Dabomb87 (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Consistency is needed in the entry dates: a comma is needed after the "Month Day" followed by the "Year" (add comma in between for all entries)
Done---I'm Spartacus! 06:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
done---Balloonman 03:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Some of the images need to be decreased, some are very large like the Mike Matusow one.
  • In the key: Denotes a bracelet winner. The first number is the number of bracelets won in the 2008 WSOP. The second number is the total number of bracelets won. Both numbers represent totals as of that point during the tournament. - needs to be reworded because the first sentence is not a complete clause.
done---Balloonman 03:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • What place they finished - who is they?
done---Balloonman 03:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The people who made it to the final table - wouldn't it be "players" versus people
  • For the references, the publisher is not WorldSeriesofPoker.com the publisher is "World Series of Poker"
  • In ref #24, why is the ref have the publisher of Harrah's Entertainment and not "World Series of Poker" (the first one in that ref)
  • Some of the {{cite web}} templates aren't filled out properly, but I'll let the source reviewer check those out, because at a glance some of them aren't filled out correctly like the difference between the "Work" and "Publisher" field.--TRUCO 17:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Why thank you, I think I will ;-) ---Balloonman 03:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
What about the rest of my comments?--TRUCO 17:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten, I didn't work on WP much last night... and most of the other changes are the types that I need to atually work on (EG some of the changes I can do at work during quick five minute breaks... but the rest... hopefully this evening.)---Balloonman 17:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • Nice lead section. It introduces the game well, and I could understand it, even though I've never played a game
  • All events but the $10,000 World Championship No Limit Texas hold 'em Main Event, the most prestigious of the WSOP events, ended by July 15. Perhaps say when that finished too because if it finished after July 15, wouldn't that be the last day of the competition?
    • Reworded. The competition was during the summer, but one event was suspended until November.
  • that event's prize money, which (after the casino's rake) ranged from $87,929 to $9,119,517. perhaps say here which games' prize totals were $87,929 and $9,119,517.
  • Since this is a World Championship, it might be worth mentioning that prize money is in US Dollars?
  • Over past decade -- probably supposed to be "Over the past decade"? Also, although this page is one-year-specific, "the past decade" may seem aged (and even incorrect) in five or ten years.
  • Or it may include variations on the rules -- I may be wrong, but I don't think sentences are supposed to begin with "Or"
  • Perhaps check with User:Ealdgyth, but I think some references may need re-formatting:
    • Contacted Ealdgyth for guidance.---I'm Spartacus!
    • References should use the same date format as in the prose of the page, in this case mmmm dd, yyyy, not the ISO yyyy-mm-dd format
    • Refs such as #1, where the publisher is given as WorldSeriesofPoker.com, need only be "World Series of Poker". Linking to the Knowledge (XXG) article is preferred but not required IIRC. I think that should be the work, too, with Harrah's being named as the publisher
    • Names of websites (Pokerpages.com, Pokernews.com, Pokerlisting.com etc), should not be italicised, per WP:ITALICS
    • Refs 7 through 61 have three references in each reference. At one of my FACs I was told not to bunch citations into one reference. I don't know if this has changed though.

Otherwise it looks okay. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 00:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone?


-- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 23:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • The Clippers the oldest team to have never been to the NBA Finals. - "are" is missing
  • The team plays its home games at the Staples Center since 1999. - this should be "The team has played its home games at the Staples Center since 1999."
  • The Clippers are owned by Donald Sterling, and current head coach Mike Dunleavy, Sr. is their general manager. - an elaboration to the difference of the GM to the HC should be elaborated or at least have GM linked.
  • The lead should state who was the first/most recent head coach.
Oops, I missed that.--TRUCO 03:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Tables and references check out fine.

--TRUCO 03:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)}}

Support Meets all criteria, and I fixed all issues that I saw myself. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 21:15, 10 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): Scorpion


Based on the List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing and List of Olympic medalists in freestyle skiing, except with many of the kinks and flaws already worked out. This is a WikiCup submission. -- Scorpion 18:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • The first Winter Olympics, held in 1924, included Speed skating, but the first official short track speed skating events were not held until the 1992 Winter Olympics in Albertville, France. - 1)decapitalize Speed 2)In the "city, country" link, France shouldn't be linked since its a common country
    • Done.
  • The results of those events are not considered official and are not included here. - instead of here, how about "in this list"?
    • Done.
  • For the 500 metre and 3000 metre table, how about using a format with the bullets and indented bullets (like the country in the first bullet and the medalists with indented bullets)
  • Is it possible to add who the first medalists and most recent were for each event?--TRUCO 03:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Experimental medal table with bullets
Games Gold Silver Bronze
1992 Albertville
1994 Lillehammer
1998 Nagano
2002 Salt Lake City
2006 Turin
  • Support - problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.20:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)TRUCO

Comment "South Korean Yang Yang (A) is one of six athletes to win five medals in short track speed skating." should be "Chinese Yang Yang is one of six athletes to win five medals in short track speed skating."—Chris! ct 19:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that she is from China. In regards to the (A), it is used to differentiate her from her fellow speed skater Yang Yang (S). -- Scorpion 19:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Good, I support.—Chris! ct 22:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Support, all issues resolved. I found it interesting that the German version was also featured. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "Prior to"-->Before.
    • Done.
  • "The men's and women's 1500 metres was" "was"-->were, we are talking about two things here (men's 1500 and women's 1500).
    • Done.
  • "A total of" Redundant.
    • Done.
  • "Eric Bédard"-->Éric Bédard
    • Done.
  • "Francois-Louis Tremblay"-->François-Louis Tremblay
    • Done.
  • "Ahn Hyun Soo"-->Ahn Hyun-Soo
    • Done.
  • " Jin Sun-yu"--> Jin Sun-Yu
    • Done.
  • "Chun Lee-kyung"-->Chun Lee-Kyung
    • Done.
  • "Kim Yun-Mi"-->Kim Yoon-Mi Dabomb87 (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Done.

Sources

Strong oppose, there is no need to change the style of the medalists in the relay events! We have hundreds of Olympic pages which list the medalists in team competitions NOT in this style. All Olympic page had and have an established style up to now... Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not exactly a major issue. What's wrong with it? I think it makes the table neater, more organized and easier to read. -- Scorpion 21:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you prefer something like this instead:

Experimental medal table with indents
Games Gold Silver Bronze
1992 Albertville

 South Korea (KOR)
     Kim Ki-hoon
     Lee Joon-Ho
     Mo Ji-Soo
     Song Jae-Kun

 Canada (CAN)
     Frédéric Blackburn
     Laurent Daignault
     Michel Daignault
     Sylvain Gagnon
     Mark Lackie

 Japan (JPN)
     Yuichi Akasaka
     Tatsuyoshi Ishihara
     Toshinobu Kawai
     Tsutomu Kawasaki

1994 Lillehammer

 Italy (ITA)
     Maurizio Carnino
     Orazio Fagone
     Hugo Herrnhof
     Mirko Vuillermin

 United States (USA)
     Randy Bartz
     John Coyle
     Eric Flaim
     Andrew Gabel

 Australia (AUS)
     Steven Bradbury
     Kieran Hansen
     Andrew Murtha
     Richard Nizielski

1998 Nagano

 Canada (CAN)
     Éric Bédard
     Derrick Campbell
     François Drolet
     Marc Gagnon

 South Korea (KOR)
     Chae Ji-Hoon
     Lee Jun-Hwan
     Lee Ho-Eung
     Kim Dong-Sung

 China (CHN)
     Li Jiajun
     Feng Kai
     Yuan Ye
     An Yulong

2002 Salt Lake City

 Canada (CAN)
     Éric Bédard
     Marc Gagnon
     Jonathan Guilmette
     François-Louis Tremblay
     Mathieu Turcotte

 Italy (ITA)
     Michele Antonioli
     Maurizio Carnino
     Fabio Carta
     Nicola Franceschina
     Nicola Rodigari

 China (CHN)
     An Yulong
     Feng Kai
     Guo Wei
     Li Jiajun
     Li Ye

2006 Turin

 South Korea (KOR)
     Ahn Hyun-Soo
     Lee Ho-Suk
     Oh Se-Jong
     Seo Ho-Jin
     Song Suk-Woo

 Canada (CAN)
     Éric Bédard
     Jonathan Guilmette
     Charles Hamelin
     François-Louis Tremblay
     Mathieu Turcotte

 United States (USA)
     Alex Izykowski
     J. P. Kepka
     Apolo Anton Ohno
     Rusty Smith

Sorry no, I would not prefer the change to this style. To bring this list to featured status there is no need to change the style which is used on (all?) other Olympic pages. If we want to change the style we had to discuss this topic not only for this page but for all Olympic pages (and these are hundreds). And I think we had to do this on the WP:Olympics talk page? Up to now I have never read that the common Olympic style is not neat, organized and easy to read? Please see e.g. Athletics at the 2008 Summer Olympics. I think it is necessary and desirable that all Olympic pages have the same style? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I never said the common style is bad, I just think this version is an improvement. Is there any reason why you are against the current style other than maintaining the status quo? -- Scorpion 00:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The reason is that I think it is not to prefer to have different styles on the Olympic pages. It was and is a hard work for only a very few editors to bring all the Olympic pages in line. To establish a new style on only this page destorys a long work and makes confusion. And again, I don't think that there is a need to add dots or spaces. So please allow me again to ask to reestablish the common style. Kind reagards Doma-w (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
How about just one space then for the individual athletes? That way it would be similar to the old style (but still not a huge difference) but still differentiate between the nation and the athletes. -- Scorpion 02:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:) First I still do not think that this is the right place for this discussion. Second I am sure that I can not decide this alone! And if there is not a huge difference why we do not keep the established style? Isn't the flag shown in front of the nation enough difference between the nation and the athletes? Please see also e.g. Athletics at the 2007 Pan American Games or 1930 British Empire Games. All these pages had to change the style? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've reverted for now, but I do think you are over-reacting to this. If you think about it, 4 of 57 medalist pages are now within FL standards, but would that not make them inconsistant with the old standards? Should you ever not make potential improvements simply to maintaining the status quo? No. -- Scorpion 18:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Not involved with this, but quality always trumps consistency or maintaining the status quo. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Scorpion! Every improvement is welcomed. But is it an improvement? Is it better quality? Again, if you want to change the style please discuss this on the WP:Olympics talk page. I remember that one of the members of the WP:Olympics started last autumn a guideline for these kind of pages. As far as I know the work is still in progress. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Due to the list being currently wrong (I guess this may have been accidental from when you were fiddling with what tables to use). I noticed the one capped above didn't match the article's list. Looking at the 5000m for example the reference does not state the names listed currently in the article. It lists the ones capped earlier in this FLC. I didn't check any further than that but I urge you to double check the information as we don't want to go featuring the wrong stuff! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC) As a side note I personally prefered the stylistic change to the table suggested earlier.

This is a simple but pretty embarassing case of human error. When I went back to the old version of the table, I decided to do it the easy way and copy and paste the table from an old version. Long story short, I accidentally copied the results of the women's 3000 metre relay into the section for the men's 5000 metre relay. It has been fixed now. -- Scorpion 19:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I guessed as much, anyway no harm done I just figured the best way to get your attention and stop the wrong version being promoted was with an "oppose". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Support

Good work, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 21:15, 10 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk)

Another of my Royal Society lists. To anticipate a query about the use of numbers (3) rather than words (three) in the nationality section of the lead; the biggest numbers are large enough that using words isn't appropriate, and I didn't want to apply two different standards to the same area of the list. Ironholds (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

All fixed. Ironholds (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • For one the article needs to be broken into sections (the list itself)
    Can you explain why? Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The Rumford Medal is awarded by the Royal Society every alternating year for 'an outstandingly important recent discovery in the field of thermal or optical properties of matter made by a scientist working in Europe'. - the marks you're using should be quotation marks "", in addition the period should be inside the quotes
  • First awarded in 1800 it was created after a 1796 donation of $5000 by the scientist Benjamin Thompson, known as Count Rumford, and is accompanied by a £1000 gift. - 1)Comma after 1800 2)Since this is an international list, the currencies should be linked 3)The last part about the gift should be a new sentence because it doesn't tie in with the rest of the first part of the statement
  • Since its creation the medal has been awarded to 100 individuals, including Rumford himself in 1800. - comma after creation
  • The medal has been awarded to citizens of the United Kingdom 53 times, Germany 17 times, France 14 times, the Netherlands 7 times, the United States 3 times, Italy twice and once each to citizens of Australia, Hungary, Luxembourg and New Zealand. - 1)Well regarding your comment above, the numbers below nine should be spelled out if its going to be like this 2)Unlink the countries, they are too common
  • The most recent winner was Edward Hinds in 2008, a physicist from the United Kingdom who was awarded the medal 'for his extensive and highly innovative work in ultra-cold matter'. - quotation marks should be used
    Done. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The lead needs to be substantially expanded to summarize the list more and more about the history of the medal and how it is regarded, and a summary of what professions the medal was awarded to.
    Dividing it by profession wouldn't work; they're all 'scientists' of some sort of another. There isn't much of a 'history'; unlike the Royal Medal which has gone through various stages, this one has stayed stable. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh I know, I just meant they are rather thin on the ground. The discussion above with Dabomb has set out a way to get them. The citations for individuals; would you like me to create a 'notes' column to stick em in? Ironholds (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed; I was thinking I could find news posts and whatnot to stick in and verify that person X won the award. Now that I think about it I am unlikely to be able to find most of those on the net; would it instead be alright if I linked them to the main text of the article as additional verification that the medal is awarded for X, worth Y, sponsored by Z, so on? Ironholds (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
You don't necessarily have to find it for all of them, just some, at least to have diversity, and the ones that you can't find will be fine sourced with the general reference.--TRUCO 00:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Mm, I'm now thinking my second idea was better, if that is alright with you. Ironholds (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • What needs to be done is make the original sources from the primary sources into general references like they are in this FL reference section. Then in the new notes column, add emdashes (the longer dash) to all entries that don't have a specific ref. In addition, the notes should not be sortable.--TRUCO 22:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Mhm, I meant to do those but got slightly distracted, I'll be on it in 20 mins. Ironholds (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Done. Is there anything left for me to do? All the different lines and indents has me confused as to what is left. Ironholds (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
You have to add the dashes to all blank entries in the notes column.--TRUCO 19:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Done. Is it support/close off comments time yet? :P. Ironholds (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I love this process; every time I get told something different :P. Last time I was told 'you must have them in the column for the rationale, general sourcing just isn't good enough!' Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Resolved comments by Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)
*Oppose for now - per my concern with NNDBs reliability (originally raised at Hughes Medal FLC).

NB. This is a good reason not to have many lists from one topic as candidates, as many of the problems may apply to all lists. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Other comments
  • Check your nationality demonyms. I believe "Luxembourgian" refers to the language. I think the nationality is "Luxembourger" (have a look in the Luxembourg infobox)
  • I'd prefer more information in the references (e.g. ref 25, I had no idea what Mimas was, so had to search, eventually found that is was a data center. Try using work and publisher fields and wikilinking them more (e.g. work=] |publisher=])
  • The names are the most important thing on this list. I'd widen the name column so that they don't wrap onto two lines.
  • List 1986: "Wilhelm Röntgen and Philipp Lenard" as "Philipp Lenard and Wilhelm Röntgen" for two reasons. First it is alphabetical, and secondly that is the order they are listed by the Royal Society.
  • Rationales: they should be consitent with the caps they start in – currently "For", "for" & "In", "in". I recommend lower case them all.
    Well I'm quoting them, so the caps situation is the caps situation on the RS listings. Ironholds (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Further comments
  • For "No award" I'd sort it as zzz, so it always appears at the bottom.
  • I'd still add more fields/info to some of the refs as it can help establish reliability/notability
    • Ref 20: "

Comment. This is the main article for this award, not a "List of winners", yes? I am suprised that there is so little to write about a 100+ year old award. I really think the introduction should be longer and give more information, or this should be retittled to "List of...", so that a future article on the award in general can be written.Yobmod (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

  • There really isn't any more information available, either from the royal society or elsewhere. It isn't like the Nobel or the Turner; while a highly respected set of awards it is an "internal" set; the only coverage comes from news reports of the organisations who employ the winners, and even then it is normally parotting the Royal Society website. Ironholds (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 21:15, 10 February 2009 .


Nominator(s): TRUCO

I am nominating this list for FLC because I believe it meets the FL criteria, and is modeled after the List of WCW World Tag Team Champions FL. Any concerns will be addressed, co-nom with User:ThinkBlue.--Truco 16:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Fixed. Thanks.--TRUCO 17:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


Resolved comments by Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)
Quick comments
  • For "Wrestler name (#) The number represents the amount of times the wrestler has held the title individually" -> this is a bit confusing as if they regain the title with the same team again their number doesn't increase. Reword to something about how many teams the individual has won it with.
  • Can you make N/A in "Days held" sort to the bottom not the top. ("*" might work)
  • Similarly with the other N/A fields can you sort them to the bottom under sorted text ("zzz" or something)
  • In ==By wrestler==, shouldn't "A.J. Petrucci" sort by Petrucci, not A.J.

I saw a note on your talk page from Dabomb87, I will try and review this fully later. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much, and I'll be awaiting that review, but these quick comments are now fixed.--TRUCO 21:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • Not necessarily because per WP:ACRONYM, if the said subject/topic is best known by their acronym (In order to determine the prominence of the abbreviation over the full name, consider checking how the subject is referred to in popular media such as newspapers, magazines, and other publications.), which it is per . In addition, in wrestling, promotions are strictly referred to by their acronym on most occasions. Also, the official name of the stated championship is "ECW Tag Team Championship" not "Extreme Championship Wrestling Tag Team Champions" .--TRUCO 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

More comments

  • Entries 25, 27 say "(The Dudley Boys)"; 29 says "The (Dudley Boys)"; 35, 37, 39, 41, 43 say "(Dudley Boys)". - be consistent
  • 45 says "(Impact Players)", 48 says "(The Impact Players)" - consistency again
  • 31, "Little Guido and Tracy Smothers<br/>(Full Blooded Italians)" and 50, "Little Guido (2)and Tony Mamaluke <br/>(Full Blooded Italians)" should probably sort together by name.
  • 50, "Little Guido (2)and Tony Mamaluke - space after (2)
  • Random linking for events. Lots of events link to Extreme Championship Wrestling#Tradition. Why? Examles being "Bloodfest: Part 1", "Double Tables", "Return of the Funker", "Three Way Dance", "Gangsta's Paradise", "Hostile City Showdown", "As Good as it Gets", "Better than Ever"
    • Because in sortable tables, linking is an exception to WP:OVERLINK. In addition, those events don't have respective articles because they were random events held by ECW before it produced pay-per-view events, so they are un-notable to have an article. The link to their tradition covers these events as being random named live events before ECW produced pay-per-view events.--TRUCO 21:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • An overall issue it consistency with sorting names. It seems to be a bit random. I'm don't think sorting by wrestlers real names instead of their wrestiling names is a good idea, as this is not what a would reader expect.
  • Following up on this. Entry 43 sorts differently to the other Dudley Boy ones because it is missing a sort tag.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


Even more comments

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Additionally

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you had to go through all this trouble, but I meant that note to be as "individually" (in general), so that should resolve your comments on that. In addition, I didn't create the table, so I'm not to aware of the way it was formatted. --TRUCO 01:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I oppose this change. This changes the entire meaning and brings a whole heap of different problems. It would mean you would have to also change all the pairs who won multiple times to "Buh Buh Ray (8) and D-Von (8)" for example. This would cause lots of changes to be required. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. That's not what it means, this is a standard for all tag team championship lists, like List of WCW World Tag Team Champions. The number represents the amount of times the wrestlers has held the title individually overall, however, it is only noted when he has won it with a different tag team partner. For instance, lets say D-Von (of the Dudley Boys) won it 7 times with Bubba, but then won it with Tommy Dreamer (his first different tag team partner), it would read like D-Von Dudley (8) and Tommy Dreamer, and then if he won it again with Bubba it would read like Bubba Ray (8) and D-Von (9) because as a tag team they have differentiating number of reigns, do you understand?--TRUCO 16:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but if that is the existing standard it doesn't work and needs to be changed. The note in no way conveys that information to the reader. If you explained a scenario, gave someone the desciptive note I am sure they would have no idea when and where to use the numbers. You can't use one set of rules for people in multiple tag teams and a another for those winning in only one team unless it is explicitly clear. I appreciate that you have worked hard on this list (trust me after all my reviewing I don't really want it to fail) but this needs resolving. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Oops. I didn't save the correct revision, how about now?--TRUCO 16:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I now think I understand fully the system you are trying to use. I would reword the note though. How about "The number represents the individual reigns of a wrestler, when this is distinct from the tag team's reigns". If this is what you meant please let me know and I can recheck all the numbers (although please allow me time as this is not the most interesting job in the world :P) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly what I meant. Note reworded. Okay =) (I'm really sorry you had to go through this trouble, it would have been less errors if I created the table, but I did not, ThinkBlue did.)--TRUCO 19:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've struck all the issues that no longer apply. There are two issues remaining in the at the top of the "Additionally" section. After those are resolved I will cap all this (basically reset my review) and go through the numbers again. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, those are now done. Thanks, again.--TRUCO 22:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Second review of numbers

  • 33: "Chris Candido (2)", third individual title - should be 3
  • 18: "Raven (2) and Stevie Richards" - no 2 after Raven as it is the pairs second win and the reigns coincide

I am happy with all the numbers after these fixes :) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Done all.--TRUCO 23:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
By individual
  • Lance Storm: 203+48+31=282! Nowhere near 417.
  • Grunge, Rocco, Saturn, Rocco are correct
  • Chris Candido 42+46+203=291
  • A.J. Petrucci 283+0=283
  • Stahl 283+0=283
  • Sabu & Van Dam are correct

For these I am assuming that the "days held" column has the correct numbers. If there is a cite for these tables then maybe those are wrong, either way something is. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Done all. I didn't make that table either, so I'm not really aware of that, the "by individual" and "by tag team" tables were added during this FLC, so I'm not aware of their stats. Sorry about all the issues.--TRUCO 23:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. This is probably the most thorough FLC review I have ever done (click show!) and every issue was resolved to my satisfaction. The only thing I haven't checked explicitly is the numbers for the "days held" column. However using this tool I checked a random sample and all were correct. Therefore I will now support this nomination. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Gimmetrow 23:50, 7 February 2009 .


This was an easier one; I've tried to fix problems that were raised in my earlier nomination of the Rumford Medal. Enjoy. Ironholds (talk)

Resolved comments from Truco

Quick-Fail/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • The Leverhulme Medal is awarded by the Royal Society every three years 'for an outstandingly significant contribution in the field of pure or applied chemistry or engineering, including chemical engineering". - the name of the article should be bolded not just part of the name, either write its entire name and bold it or just don't bold it all. In addition, why is this article called ____ of the Royal Society" and the other medal list doesn't have that name.
    See my reply to Chris below. Ironholds (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The lead needs to be expanded like it was in the Rumford Medal list.
    Tried to do so; anything else? Ironholds (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • They appear identical to me. I've got a bloody massive screen, though, so most things look different. Could you be a bit more specific? Notes section check, refs in it check, em dashes check, 3-column referencing check.. what is wrong?Ironholds (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with all that Truco has to say except for the last. Articles are only considered unstable if "It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, ". However, the lead needs significant expansion, an image also would be nice. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; significant expansion is not something that makes it 'unstable'. Significant expansion followed by an edit war with a user who doesn't agree with said expansion would be unstable. Ironholds (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment Why is "of the Royal Society" a part of the article title for Leverhulme Medal? Shouldn't it just Leverhulme Medal, similar to Royal Medal, Darwin Medal etc?—Chris! ct 02:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There is another medal called the Leverhulme Medal, so Leverhulme Medal acts as a disambig page. I'd be quite happy to move this to the 'proper' title since we don't have an article on the other one. Ironholds (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Then I suggest you move it to Leverhulme Medal (Royal Society); so that the name remains as ____ Medal with a disambiguation at the end.—Chris! ct 03:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Done and done. Ironholds (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Support In this edit, I fixed everything that I would have normally commented on here. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 .


Based on my experience with this FL, I believed this list fulfills the FLC criteria.—Chris! ct 00:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I made a few copyedits, and, as with the female list, you've done an excellent job! All you need to do is make the tables centered; just add style="text-align:center;" to the head of the tables and then remove the align="center" from within them. Also, in the cells listing two presidents, please add a semicolon or comma to separate the links. Reywas92 21:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't that make everything in the table centered?—Chris! ct 21:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Everything shouldn't be pushed over to the left. It would also be nice if the column order was the same as the Female list: Party to the right of the administration. In addition, not a single article links to this list. I recommend you add links from the people listed to the list, as well as a See Also from the Cabinet and Female articles. And if you wanted there's nothing wrong with more pictures. Reywas92 21:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I am pretty busy right now and will probably get to your comment later today/tomorrow. Thanks—Chris! ct 23:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Done all except centering every column. I try to do that (using preview) and I don't like how it look with everything in the column centered. I want to see what other think first.—Chris! ct 02:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "who were born outside of the present-day United States." Anytime you have "outside of", always delete the "of", as it is redundant. What do you mean by "present-day"?
"Present-day" means today.—Chris! ct 05:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Irish-born James McHenry, who was appointed by Washington as Secretary of War in 1801 and served the same post in John Adams's administration" Comma after here.
  • "Albert Gallatin, born in Switzerland, became the third foreign-born members" "members"-->member.
  • "including German-born Oscar Straus and Mexican-born George Romney, father of former Governor of Massachusetts and the 2008 Republican U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney." Needs a citation because it is WP:BLP information.
Will get to this tomorrow.—Chris! ct 05:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "The Department of Treasury has had the most foreign-born Secretaries" Comma after here.
  • "each have had two."-->have each had two.
  • "while the others"-->and the others
  • "Since most foreign born Cabinet members are not natural-born citizens, meaning that they were not born in the United States or born aboard to American parents," Use em dashes (—) instead of commas.
  • Explain the italics. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I think note d is pretty clear at explaining that.—Chris! ct 05:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Done all except those that I have responded to.Chris! ct 05:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 .


This is my third list for a BBC Sports Personality of the Year topic. I believe it now meets the criteria. Per this I think I'm also meant to mention I am participating in the WikiCup, but I had already started this topic before entering so that fact is largely insignificant to this submission. Thanks in advance for comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments
  • Personally, I'd like to see the name column sorted properly by surname, not by nationality first then surname.
  • Perhaps have a separate column for nationality, then drop the "by nationality" section as redundant.
  • Also, the "by sport" is redundant to the main table, and I'd drop that as well.
    • Sorted the sorting. Sorry it was an old issue from when nationality and name columns were combined. I am reluctent to immediately unmerge those columns as I merged them following a suggestion by Chrishomingtang at another FLC. If people really want them unmerged I can do it, I'd just like to see what the consensus really is first. The "by sport" section is there for consistency across the topic, as while it may be easy to count them here, other awards that have been given a lot more times would be difficult to count (e.g. this award). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Bencherlite 23:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "Helen Rollason was the first female presenter of Grandstand and after being diagnosed with cancer helped raise over £5 million to set up a cancer wing at the North Middlesex Hospital where she received most of her treatment." Split these sentences: "Helen Rollason was the first female presenter of Grandstand. After being diagnosed with cancer, she helped raise over £5 million to set up a cancer wing at the North Middlesex Hospital, where she received most of her treatment." -Done
  • "Since then nine"-->Since then, nine -Done
  • "the exception being South African Paralympic sprinter Oscar Pistorius"-->the exception is South African Paralympic sprinter Oscar Pistorius -Done
  • "Two recipients have not played a sport professionally, they are Jane Tomlinson who won in 2002, and Kirsty Howard who"-->Two recipients have not played a sport professionally: Jane Tomlinson, who won in 2002, and Kirsty Howard, who -Done
  • "Geoff Thomas, who won the award in 2005, raised money by cycling the 2,200 miles of the 2005 Tour de France course in the same number of days as the professionals completed it." If he is not a professional cycler, what does he do? -Done, well spotted
  • The different notes systems are confusing (n 1 and n 2, then a) -Standardised
  • "both Cricket and Rugby union at a professional level." Are you sure that these sports should be capitalized? -Uncapitalized
  • "for fundraising and raising awareness of multiple sclerosis, since being diagnosed with the disease in 1999." Comma not necessary. -Done

Dabomb87 (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I have now fixed the above. Regards, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 .


I am nominating this awards list for FL status because I believe it qualifies and I have made several improvements to the list based on suggestions made in the peer review process. -Another Believer (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Support I participated in the article's peer review, and believe it to be of FL standards. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the ChartStats reference with everyHit.com, the UK Top 40 Hit Database. I hope this helps! -Another Believer (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Everyhit has not been shown to be reliable either. See this discussion. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible I could just site this source? The Guardian is reliable as far as I know, and it indicates at the bottom of the article that "Fast as You Can" reached a chart position of #33. -Another Believer (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Good enough. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Done! -Another Believer (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, it works. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 .


iMatthew // talk // 13:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • The New York Islanders are an American ice hockey team that compete in the National Hockey League (NHL). - the statement about the competing in the NHL should be in the following sentence, this should state where they are based, considering its never mentioned in the prose
  • Since 1972, the team has played its home games in Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum. - this sentence makes it seem like there was a previous venue, how about stating that 1972 was their inaugural season, or along the lines of that
  • In 36 completed seasons, the team has won four Stanley Cup championships and has qualified for the playoffs 21 times. - is there a specific link to the NHL playoffs?
  • They have played more than 230 playoff games, and won more than 130 of them. - repetition of more than, replace the second occurrence with "over"
  • As of the end of the 2007–08 season, New York had won more than 1,200 regular season games, the 14th-highest victory total among NHL teams. - link to this season?
  • The Islanders were founded in 1972, and won their first out their four consecutive Stanley Cup championships in 1980. - needs rewording to "The Islanders were founded in 1972, and won their first out of four consecutive Stanley Cup championships in 1980."
  • Since then, the team went as far as losing the Conference Finals in 1993 to eventual Stanley Cup champion Montreal Canadiens. - wouldn't it be "champions" not champion?
  • Since then, the Islanders entered a period of decline, qualifying for the playoffs once from 1994 to 2001. - 1)reword the first part of the sentence, its too repetitive with the previous way the sentence began. 2)the from should "between" and the to should be "and"
  • The Islanders have never won the Presidents' Trophy, although they led the NHL in regular season points three times before the league began awarding the trophy, winning the Stanley Cup in two out of the three seasons. - the last clause of this sentence needs to be a new sentence or in after a semi-colon and beginning with "they won the..."
  • What's verifying Note C?
  • Are the notes in the tables verified by the general references?
  • Note: GP = Games played, W = Wins, L = Losses, T = Ties, OTL = Overtime Losses, Pts = Points, GF = Goals for, GA = Goals against, PIM = Penalties in minutes - why is this needed if the table key does the same thing? In addition, some of these should be placed in the key--TRUCO 18:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done with everything. iMatthew // talk // 19:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Note A: "The Rangers were placed in the Clarence Campbell Conference's Patrick Division." Did somebody copy that note from the Rangers list I worked on, by chance? Also, the general reference for Hockey Database has a typo: "Hockey Datebase". Good luck! Giants2008 (17-14) 03:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Done with your comments. Thanks! iMatthew // talk // 12:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "the team has won four Stanley Cup championships and has qualified for the playoffs 21 times." Comparative quantities should be written the same way.
  • "their first out four consecutive" What does "out" mean?
  • "Since then, the team went as far as losing the Conference Finals in 1993 to eventual Stanley Cup champions Montreal Canadiens. Since then, the Islanders only qualified for the playoffs once between 1994 and 2001. " Very choppy prose; repetition of "Since then" is annoying. "went as far as" is ungrammatical.
  • "regular season points"-->regular-season points
  • "The Islanders last qualified for the playoffs in 2007, while their most recent playoff series victory was in 1993. "-->The Islanders last qualified for the playoffs in 2007; their most recent playoff series victory was in 1993. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good although note Giant's comment on the typo. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Done with your comments. Thanks! iMatthew // talk // 12:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 .


Ok, let's see how well I learned my lessons from my first FLC attempt. Here is my second go at an FLC. Tell what I need to do to get this to the next level.---Balloonman CSD Survey Results 07:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - many prose and content issues

  • The World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet is considered the most coveted non-monetary prize a poker player can win. - the name is already spelled out before this, no need to spell it out again
Done---Balloonman CSD Survey Results 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Since 1976, a bracelet has been awarded to the winner of every event at the annual WSOP but titles won prior to 1976 are still counted as "bracelets". - comma before but
Done---Balloonman CSD Survey Results 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove the infoboxes, they are not representative of the list, the same can be said with images and subcaptions
Done---Balloonman CSD Survey Results 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The first World Series of Poker was not a freeze out tournament, but rather an event with a set start and stop time with the winner determined by secret ballot. - 1)Use acronym 2)link to freeze out tournament?
Both Done---Balloonman CSD Survey Results 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • In 1973, five-card stud was added. - link/explanation as to what this means per WP:JARGON
Done---Balloonman CSD Survey Results 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • In 1977, an the first Ladies only event event was introduced in the form of $100 buy-in Stud Poker Tournament. - 1)"a" not an 2)link to buy-in or elaboration?
Both Done---Balloonman CSD Survey Results 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • By 2007, the popularity of the Ladies Event had grown to the point that it became the first Ladies only event to have a prize pool greater than a million dollars. - before this, the currency was represented with numbers and the US dollar sign, be consistent with the formatting of money
Done, but I'd like other people's input here... I'm not sure I like this change.---Balloonman CSD Survey Results 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The Ladies played Seven Card Stud for the event's first two decades, but have been playing Texas Hold'em since 2001. - link to Texas Hold'em
Done---Balloonman CSD Survey Results 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Between 1991 and 1997 Isaacs set an event record by finishing in-the-money five times. - 1)comma after 1997 2)Explain/link finishing-in-the-money? per
  • Due to complaints from mothers the event was moved to a different day in 2004. - comma after mothers
  • Potential conflicts with Mother's Day, no longer exist as the WSOP's new owner, Harrah's Casino moved the event from late spring to the summer. - 1)Remove the first comma 2)comma after Casino 3)Well is it "early, mid, or late" summer, since you stated that it was move from late spring
  • This week long event is held at Caesars Palace and is designed to equip women with the tools compete at the World Series of Poker. - add "to" before compete at the
  • In 2007, Sally Anne Boyer, the Ladies Champion similarly participated in the camp. ---> "In 2007, Ladies Champion Sally Anne Boyer similarly participated in the camp.
  • The women who have attended the camp have done well at the Ladies Championship. Patty Till finished in third place at the 2008 Ladies Championship. - how about merging these like so.."The women who have attended the camp have done well at the Ladies Championship, including Patty Till, who finished in third place at the 2008 Ladies Championship."
  • The person who won the Ladies Event. - should be "Ladies Championship event"
  • Remove the periods in the first, second, third, fifth, and seventh entries in the key, they aren't complete sentences
  • Each year is linked to an article about the WSOP World Series for that year. - this should be a footnote not in the key
  • Tournament Prize is the amount of money they won for winning the Ladies Event that year. - should be "The amount of money they won..."
  • The ref column should not be sortable
  • The money columns should be center aligned
  • Jennifer Tilly was nominated for an Academy Award for her role in Bullets over Broadway. Tilly is known as the Unabombshell because of her dating Phil "Unibomber" Laak. - how is this relevant to the list?
  • Svetlana Gromenkova, the 2008 winner, borrowed Anthony Rivera's "lucky" sunglasses. Rivera had won the Half Omaha/Half Stud Championship earlier in the week. - once again, how is this relevant?
  • On June 10, 3 events awarded bracelets, including the Ladies event. This was the first time in WSOP history that 3 people living in the same city, New York, won bracelets on the same day. It was also the first time that a new "excessive celebration" penalty was implemented to minimize disruption from exuberant players. - numbers 0-9 should be spelled out not in # form
  • How reliable is the pokerroom.com?--TRUCO 19:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
      • It's not one of the pages I regularly visit, but it is one of the older and larger poker cites on the web. I would say that it would be on par with a PokerStars/FullTilt/UltimateBet websites, as that is what it really is, an online casino. For this, I would trust it (plus, it is a fairly well known story that is often cited on poker shows.)---Balloonman 03:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Resolved comments from GaryColemanFan

Comments from GaryColemanFan

  • Is it necessary to show who participated in the 2008 tournament? Won't this information be outdated soon? I'm not sure what it adds to the article.
????I'm not sure where/what you are referring to here? The only place where somebody from the 2008 tournament is mentioned other than the winner, is when I'm talking about the "WSOP Academy Ladies Only Poker Camp," which is a camp designed to coincide with this tournament.---Balloonman CSD Survey Results 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to the section in the key that states: "† Denotes player who participated in the 2008 WSOP." GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Reworded, what I was looking for was something to indicate which players were still active. So I changed the wording to reflect that.
I don't know if I'd consider it necessary, but I'm sure some people would find it helpful. It certainly doesn't hurt anything, so I'll cross that out. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Nani Dollison's lifetime winnings need a second look. They should be consistent, and I'm assuming that lifetime winnings shouldn't be lower than the winnings from a single tournament.
Fixed---Balloonman CSD Survey Results 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I think there is a new problem here, as it now states that she won $622,904 in both 2000 and 2001. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Ooops, was rushed due to my son waking up from a nap... he's in bed now, so I fixed it.---Balloonman 03:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason that Barbara Enright's name can't be centered?
Fixed---Balloonman CSD Survey Results 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The list of men's champions gives additional information (winning hand, number of entrants, etc.). Would that information be appropriate here? There is some extra space in the table, which would allow this to fit. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The women's event has been as well documented as the Main Event. It has only been in the past few years that it has started to emerge as one of the pre-eminent events at the WSOP. When it was first added, it was added as a gimmick to get more women to play poker (I wish I could find the source where I read that!) But anyway, the first tournament was only a $100 buy in, and frankly the WSOP doesn't even know how many people were in the earliest tournmanets let alone the winning hands. I could add a column for the number of participants, but about half of them would be empty and I figured it would be better not to include it.---Balloonman CSD Survey Results 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I assume you mean that the women's event has not been as well documented as the Main Event. I was expected that was probably the case, so feel free to ignore this comment. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that's what I meant. Not as well documented. Many of the earlier Ladies events we don't even know who the runner up was or how many people were in the event.---Balloonman 03:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The "Notes" section has a formatting problem. The notes read a,,c. There should be consistency. The corresponding "a" seems to have been removed when the infoboxes were taken out, so it doesn't link to anything in the prose or table. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Done---Balloonman 07:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "The World Series of Poker (WSOP) is the "the oldest, largest, most prestigious, and most media-hyped gaming competition in the world". It is held annually in Las Vegas." I think that there is a way to merge these sentences: "The World Series of Poker (WSOP), held annually in Las Vegas, is the "the oldest, largest, most prestigious, and most media-hyped gaming competition in the world".
done---Balloonman 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "prior to"-->before.
done---Balloonman 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "but rather an event with a set start and stop time with the winner determined by secret ballot" Is there a way to eliminate the "with ... with" repetition?
done---Balloonman 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "the first Ladies only event"-->the first Ladies-only event
done---Balloonman 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Jackie McDaniels won that event to became the first Ladies Championship." A couple things wrong here: wrong verb tense, and one can't become a "Championshiop".
done---Balloonman 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "only three players"
done---Balloonman 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "of color," Check your logical punctuation here, the comma should be outside the quotation marks.
done---Balloonman 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Traditionally" Comma after here.
done---Balloonman 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "The women who have attended the camp have done well at the Ladies Championship" Can you verify this?
reworded---Balloonman 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Sally Anne Boyer similarly" "similarly"-->also.
no longer applicable, reworded section---Balloonman 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • See WP:CAPTION, images that have captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods.
done Made into sentences.---Balloonman 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes we did, the poker room is an established gaming casino and one of the oldest/largest poker cites on the web. I would not rank it as reliable as a magazine, but for this story, which is pretty well known in poker lore, I believe it is reliable. ---Balloonman 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
done---Balloonman 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 .


I am nominating this timeline article for featured list candidacy because I feel it satisfies the criteria. While not being a great follower of hurricanes/tropical cyclones I've based this of many similar lists, capturing the same comprehensiveness. I believe the lead is sufficient, the timeline image accurate, and the timeline itself to be complete, also accompanied by images. Cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TRUCO

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • The season officially started on June 1 2007, and finished on November 30; however Subtropical Storm One formed outside the official timeline on April 21. - 1)remove the comma before and 2)I don't think the season began in 2007?? Done - Removed comma and really can't believe 2007 wasn't brought up at peer review.
  • It produced a total of seven storms, less than the average of ten usually formed throughout an Atlantic hurricane season; while four of the storms went on to become hurricanes. - the semi colon isn't right, it should be a comma Done - Changed to comma.
  • Tropical Storm Danielle made landfall at the Delmarva Peninsula on the Virginian coast on 25 September causing minimal flooding. - 1)consistency with the date formatting (Day Month) (Month Day) Done - Changed to month-day.
  • Its not clear in the prose which was the first storm formed "officially" (not Subtropical Storm One), and the last one formed.
  • Tropical Storm Bonnie strengthens to Hurricane Bonnie - "into" not to Done - Changed to that.
  • The season officially ends in November, but the reader is left in question as to what happened to Tropical Storm Frances after it becomes extratropical, since it formed in the 1992 season. Done - Added disspated after becoming an extratropical gale.
  • Why not add the 1992 Pacific season in the See also section? Done - Added. --TRUCO 03:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Jason Rees

A very well written timeline but the only thing i can see wrong with the timeline is that there are brackets obscuring the UTC times eg (1800 UTC).Jason Rees (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed these. Sunderland06 (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Local time needs to be added in to the timeline Jason Rees (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I've added all these times in now. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Theres was just one mistake with the local times so i have changed it and i now Support this article -Jason Rees (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "started on June 1 1992" Comma after "1". Done - Added comma.
  • "however Subtropical Storm One" Comma after "however". Done - Added comma.
  • "It produced a total of seven storms" Done - Removed redundancy.
  • "caused severe flooding over southwestern Florida and Cuba" "over"-->in. Done - Changed to "in".
  • "When Andrew struck Florida and Louisiana through April," What do you mean by "through"? Comment - In the month, simply changed to "in".
  • "to hit the United States with damages estimated around $26.5 billion, while killing 68 people."-->to hit the United States. Damages were estimated to be about $26.5 billion and 68 people were killed. Done - Changed to that.
  • "coast on September 25 causing minimal flooding" Comma after "25". Done - Added comma.
  • Inconsistencies, sometimes you say "weakens into " but other times it is "weakens to". Done - I've changed all "to"s to "into"s. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Cyclonebiskit 18:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Cyclonebiskit (talk)

Comments from Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs) Comments

TD One- formed 220 mi (355 km) northwest of Havana, Cuba
TD Two- formed 305 mi (490 km) southeast of Bermuda
Andrew- formed 775 mi (1,245 km) southwest of Brava, Cape Verde
Bonnie- formed 345 mi (555 km) east-northeast of Bermuda
Frances (as an EX-low)- formed 475 mi (765 km) southeast of Bermuda
Hope that helps :) Cyclonebiskit 18:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Cheers a lot for that Cyclonebiskit, I've added them all in. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Some of the units are in nautical miles, which is generally discouraged. The units for an Atlantic based article should be in imperial with metric conversion in parenthesis Done - There is miles with kilometers in brackets.
  • I'm just wondering as to why there are so many wind speeds compared to other timelines, not that I find anything wrong with it, it just seems strange Comment - Not sure really, I saw it in a timeline NuclearWarfare was working on and decided to use it, as I'm not very common with the usual method.
Other than those few things, this is a very well made timeline, especially since it's your first WPTC article. I hope to see more of your articles in the future for the project :D Cyclonebiskit 00:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 .


Another professional wrestling hall of fame list, its pretty much based off its sister list. Any comments will be addressed.--TRUCO 23:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments The following comments have already been addressed pre-FLC, but I will post them here for convinience:

  • "National Wrestling Alliance (NWA)" You already defined the abbreviation in the bolded phrase.
  • "The Class of 2005, the inaugural inductees into the Hall of Fame did not have a formal induction ceremony," Comma at the end of this phrase should be a semicolon.
  • "There were no inductees in 2007 due to the NWA planning an international expansion to the promotion." The noun + -ing structure ("NWA planning") is ungrammatical. Reword.
  • "which also included"
  • "Kai is the only woman to be inducted into the Hall of Fame."-->Kai is the only woman to have been inducted into the Hall of Fame.
  • "Overall, there were 21 inductees; two managers, commentators, and promoters, and fifteen wrestlers." "21"-->twenty-one.
  • "The NWA Hall of Fame logo (2008-)" Hyphen should be an en dash.
  • Fix the dab. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Done all.--TRUCO 22:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good, but reviewers' opinions on this one would be welcome. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments For some reason, there is a large white space above the table. I think the images are too large and they push the table down.—Chris! ct 05:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? I don't see that on my browser , are you referring to the white space due to the table of contents box creates, if not, then it must be your browser.--TRUCO 15:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I think I know why this happen. The table width is set to 80% and the images don't have enough room, pushing the table. Do you mind removing the set width on the table?—Chris! ct 00:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh okay, done.--TRUCO 00:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Excellent, I supportChris! ct 00:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Chris, could you comment on the above source issue? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:58, 3 February 2009 .


Been a week since my last active FLC. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 02:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • The team began playing in 1946 as a charter member of the National Basketball League (NBL), and joined the NBA as part of the NBA-NBL merger. - doesn't the NBA-NBL have a link to its merger?
Nope. Only the ABA-NBA merger does. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I was gonna say redirect it to a specific section, but there is none available in any of the related articles.--TRUCO 03:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The Hawks won their first and only NBA championship in 1958, but has never returned to the NBA Finals in 47 years. - since its already elaborated that they have only won their only title in the NBA, reword the second part of the sentence to ", and they have not returned to the NBA Finals since then" or ", and they have not returned to the NBA Finals in 47 years"
Done own rewording. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • There have been 26 head coaches for the Hawks franchise. The franchise's first head coach was Roger Potter, who coached for seven games. - repetition of franchise
So? I don't get what you mean here. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I mean reword the second franchise to like "team" or "organization", franchise is too repetitive.
Reworded second one to team, though I kind of regret it because on the NHL head coaches article, I use team since WP:HOCKEY split their franchises by name (ie. List of Dallas Stars head coaches). -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Red Auerbach, Red Holzman, Hannum and Lenny Wilkens are the only Hawks coaches to have been elected into the Basketball Hall of Fame as a coach. - 1)comma before and 2)So these individuals are the only coaches to have been inducted in the Hall of Fame for their position as "coach" in entire NBA history? That's how this sentence reads
Done first one, but I don't get what you mean on the second. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I mean that by the wording, it sounds like the coaches in that sentence are the only coaches in NBA history to be elected into the Hall of Fame as a "coach"--TRUCO 03:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
It says right on the sentence that, " are the only Hawks coaches to have been elected into the Basketball Hall of Fame as a coach." -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay calm down sir.--TRUCO 15:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Achievements column: 1957–58 NBA champions - should be "NBA Championship (1957-58)"
Both way works. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Per consistency with other FL's.--TRUCO 03:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it matters, though some of my featured lists also have this wording. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
They may have passed before this new format began, because the column reads "achievements", which infers that the individual won a specific achievement, which is not "NBA Champions" but the "NBA Championship"--TRUCO 15:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you meant National Basketball Association, so I think I done what you requested. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what i meant.--TRUCO 03:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

--TRUCO 03:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "The Atlanta Hawks are an American professional basketball team based in Atlanta, Georgia. The Hawks play"-->The Atlanta Hawks are an American professional basketball team based in Atlanta, Georgia. They play...
Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "names since its inception; they were called"-->names since its inception; it was called
Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "The Hawks won their first and only NBA championship"
Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Alex Hannum is the only head coach to have ever won an NBA championship with the Hawks"
Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Auerbach, Holzman, and Wilkens were also named one of the top 10 coaches in NBA history in 1996."-->Auerbach, Holzman, and Wilkens were also named as 3 of the top 10 coaches in NBA history in 1996.
Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Both image captions need rewording:
    • "Current head coach of the Hawks, Mike Woodson, has coached the Hawks since 2004."-->Mike Woodson has coached the team since 2004.
    • "Hall of Famer Red Auerbach coached one season for the Blackhawks."-->Hall-of-Famer Red Auerbach coached the Blackhawks for one season.
Done both, though Hall of Famer is usually spelled without dashes. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Dabomb87 (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support
    • NBA-NBL merger? There was no such merger. Reword a little.
    • ...as 3 of the top 10 - ...as three of the top 10?
It should be "three of the top ten" or "3 of the top 10", though I prefer the second choice. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 03:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice seeing you back on Knowledge (XXG). Hope you'll get your Wikiholistic ways back. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry to complicate things, but the Hawks actually started out in the NBL as the Buffalo Bisons. They moved to the Tri-Cities midseason. The Hawks' website doesn't mention this for some reason, but here are a few sources: , , . Zagalejo^^^ 07:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't add that part because I didn't have a reference, and they never played as the Bisons. I'll clear up the sentence just in case someone is gonna comment on that again. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 07:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Added. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 07:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure they never played as the Bisons? Where did you read that? Zagalejo^^^ 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Fixed the sentence. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 23:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • A few more comments
  • The Hawks won their only NBA championship in 1958, and they have not returned to the NBA Finals since the 1960 NBA Finals. Why not just say, "they have not returned to the NBA Finals since 1960"? I don't like the repetition of NBA Finals.
  • Did Roger Potter coach the Hawks while the team was in the NBL? If not, the article should clarify that he was the first head coach after the team joined the NBA.
  • Why not include the NBL seasons in the list? This might require some more research, but I'm pretty sure the book Total Basketball contains that information. Zagalejo^^^ 07:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Because the potential featured topic that I will be working on is List of NBA head coaches (now a redirect, so no bother wikilinking the article). If WP:NBA agrees on adding the NBL seasons, I'm fine with that, but right now, consistency is what I, and maybe the WP:NBA, want. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 08:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it was maybe because the ABA was merged into the NBA. Also, they have an internet source for ABA seasons. If you can get references for the NBL seasons, I'll put it on the list if you really want it on the list. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 20:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph (especially the fifth sentence onward) seems a little choppy to me. Is there any way to improve the flow? Much of that information is already available in the list, so perhaps we can simplify things. You could just say, for example, that five Hawks coaches have been elected into the Hall of Fame, rather than listing all of them in the lead. Thoughts? Zagalejo^^^ 20:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It's four by the way. Listing them aren't that bad, as long as it doesn't list like more than five at max. How is that going to improve the "flow" though? I'm not very experienced with the creating sentences (barely passing my English class), so any help from you would be great. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 20:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, my bad. There are five Coach of the Year winners. Anyway, we wouldn't automatically improve the flow by doing that, but we would reduce the wordage and make it easier to merge similar ideas into single sentences. I'll have to think about this a little more, though. I don't have any quick fixes in mind. Zagalejo^^^ 20:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I took a stab at it. Did I remove too much? I deleted the sentence about the coaches who have spent their entire careers with the franchise, since that's not a particularly meaningful statistic. Many of them were just interim coaches. Zagalejo^^^ 05:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:58, 3 February 2009 .


I have been working on this list for quite awhile. I overhauled it substantially a few months ago and have been tweaking it ever since. Based off of similar tallest buildings featured lists, I think it meets all FL criteria: it's comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. Let me know of any concerns so I can address them ASAP! --Torsodog 17:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

Prose
  • More doubling the height of Japan's previous tallest building—the 17-story Hotel New Otani Tokyo—the Kasumigaseki Building is regarded as Japan's first modern high-rise building, rising 36 stories and 156 metres (512 ft) in height. - Remove More and start the sentence with "Doubling"
  • Oops, weird typo. Corrected.
  • A 610-metre-tall (2,003 ft) tower known as the Tokyo Sky Tree is also under construction in the city. - comma before known and after Tree
  • Done.
  • When completed, the structure's height will surpass Tokyo Tower's by 277 metres (909 ft) making it the tallest free standing structure in Tokyo and Japan. - comma before making
  • Done.
  • This list of the tallest buildings and structures in Tokyo ranks skyscrapers and free-standing structures in the prefecture of Tokyo, Japan by height. - FL's are discouraged to begin as "This is a list of ____" or "This list of _____"
  • The tallest structure in Tokyo is Tokyo Tower, a lattice tower that rises 332.6 metres (1,091 ft) in Minato and was completed in 1958 - and was should be , which was (notice the comma)
  • Done.
Tables/List
  • This height includes spires and architectural details but does not include antenna masts. - comma before but
  • Since the second clause after the but is not independent, I don't think a comma should be used here. Also, I copied directly from other FLs (e.g. Vancouver).
  • Although a link is present, a small sentence should be given to explain what Ward means in the prose.
  • Tallest all residential building in Tokyo and Japan. - is the all suppose to be there?
  • Yes, though I think it should probably be "all-residential" (as in it is the tallest building that is completely devoted to residential housing).
  • The notes like 16th-tallest building in Japan. - need to have the full stops removed because they are not complete sentences and are fragments.
  • I was a bit confused on the rule here because other FLs kind of change what they use. Thanks for letting me know though! All removed.
  • Tallest free-standing steel structure in the world. 20th-tallest tower in the world. Tallest structure in Japan. Tallest structure in Tokyo. - these type of notes should either be in a full sentence format or need to be separated with commas/semi-colons
  • I opted for the semicolon.
  • In the first section, one of the images needs to be removed because it leaves too much white space in between the next section
  • Image caption: The Kasumigaseki Building was the first modern office skyscraper to be built in Tokyo and was the city's tallest building until 1970. - well when did it first become the tallest building?
  • Added year built.
  • The existing structures in the first section should sort by rank in the same way the others do, like using the {{sort}} template, have it sort according to its height with the others in the # column.
  • Wow, I didn't even realize this! It got all messed up when I threw those pesky mdashes in. Thanks and fixed.
  • The reflist was too long with only one column, but I did removed the 3 in favor of 2 columns instead.
Thanks for all the help! I still have to go back and add a few things to the prose (namely reword the first paragraph and add the bit about what wards are), but other than that I think I addressed all of your other points. Let me know if you have any thing else! --Torsodog 19:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
My comment about the intro sentence that states "This list of ____" needs to be addressed. Once you're done with the prose comments, notify me.--TRUCO 00:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

We don't start lists out as "this is a list of..." anymore. Take a look at List of tallest buildings in Vancouver for a suggestion. Also, in the title, "structures" seems redundant and isn't consistent with other similar lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Odd, almost all of the tallest buildings FLs start out with the "this is a list of...", but I will happily change it. Also, the structures portion is consistent with lists for cities that contain tall structures. See:London, Salford and Manchester. If this is also changed for some reason, however, let me know. --Torsodog 22:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
We have moved away from that robotic repetition of the article's subject in the past half-year, most of those tallest-building FLs were promoted before. On your second point, no need to change it if it is consistent with others. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well I've switched up the first paragraph quite a bit and added a few more bits into the lead. I hope this addresses your concern! --Torsodog 02:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "second tallest overall structure"-->second-tallest overall structure
  • "Overall, of the 25 tallest buildings and structures in Japan, 18 are located in Tokyo."
  • "height limit of 31 metres until 1963 when " Comma after "1963".
  • "in favor of a floor area ratio" Shouldn't it be "Floor Area Ratio"?
  • "Doubling the height "-->Double the height
  • "Tokyo is broken into two sections" I think "divided" would be better here.
  • "are located within"
  • "tallest free standing structure"-->tallest free-standing structure
  • Add a note about the equal signs in the list, as in List of tallest buildings in Vancouver.
  • "42th-tallest building in Japan"-->42nd-tallest building in Japan
  • "42st-tallest building in Japan"-->42nd-tallest building in Japan Dabomb87 (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources

  • Quite a few of the sources need publisher information. Examples only: Refs 93, 95, 99, 100.
  • Ref 104, add format=PDF to the citation template.
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 by Scorpion0422 23:58, 3 February 2009 .


My first FL nomination or maybe in a featured process of any sort. This is a continuation of the trend of bringing San Francisco Bay Area rail station lists here for FL consideration. —kurykh 08:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

I helped write this list and am satisfy with it, but I still have some comments.

  • 9 subway stations -> nine subway stations
  • The opening year of Balboa Park Station needs a ref
  • Consider adding more info about stations to the lead (eg. ridership in stations)
    • I have looked far and wide, and this information isn't even available. There is ridership per line, but not per station. I will keep looking though. —kurykh 06:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It is more helpful to order the metro lines based on years open rather than alphabetically. And add a note to explain this similar to List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations. (just ignore the first part if lines are already ordered based on years open)
    • The problem is that unlike many other systems, Muni Metro line names have remained constant for the past century or so. The other articles seemed to have it sorted by years because of their names changing after every extension. Many descriptions regarding Muni Metro, formal or not, are done alphabetically, and it would be strange to do otherwise. —kurykh 06:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris! ct 19:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:58, 3 February 2009 .


I am nominating this list for FLC because I believe it meets the FL criteria. Thank you. Frcm1988 (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


Resolved comments from Efe

Comment(s) by Efe

  • I didn't understand your point at first, but then I realize that you refer to the longest-running "number-one" album of the year. First I thought that you were refering to the number of weeks in total the album spent on the chart and I thought that some of the other albums spent more weeks on the chart: Spears and the Backstreet Boys. Sorry my mistake.
  • Added
  • "The Billboard 200, published in Billboard magazine, is a weekly chart that ranks the 200 highest-selling music albums and EPs in the United States." Its kind of redundant. --Efe (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Removed 200
  • "There were 23 number-one albums on this chart in 1999, including Garth Brook's Double Live, which spent a consecutive run of five weeks at the top of the chart starting in early December 1998." Wondering why you first mentioned the album?
  • I mentioned it first because is the first number-one album of the year, and the only one that started its chart run at number-one in 1998.
  • It's the second biggest sales opening for an album in 1999, but I can remove that part.
  • Removed
  • "Pop singer Britney Spears peaked at number one with her first album ...Baby One More Time" Maybe a little bit rephrasing because it seems that Spears is the one who peaked on the chart. Maybe "Pop singer Britney Spears' first album ...Baby One More Time peaked at number one". --Efe (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Changed
  • "I Am…, the third studio album by rapper Nas, was originally planned as a double-disc concept album comprised of autobiographical material, but was scaled down and released as a single disc after some of the tracks were leaked." This should not be here because the intro is the analysis of the list. --Efe (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I added that part for a little context on the album, but it can be removed, what did you suggest: I Am…, the third studio album by rapper Nas, stayed at the top of the chart for two weeks and has been certified double platinum by the RIAA.?

Support Issues addressed. --Efe (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose w/ Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • There were 23 number-one albums on this chart in 1999, including Garth Brook's Double Live which spent a consecutive run of five weeks at the top of the chart starting in early December 1998. - comma before which
  • Done
  • Flesh of My Flesh, Blood of My Blood by American rapper DMX, debuted at number one with 670,000 copies sold in its first week, making it his second album that debuts at the top of the chart. - 1)unlink American 2)Remove American since the list is American 3)debuts should be debuted
  • Done
  • American pop singer Britney Spears peaked at number one with her first album ...Baby One More Time for six non-consecutive weeks. - remove American
  • Done
  • TLC's third album, Fanmail, which was the year's top selling hip-hop album, stayed at number one for five weeks and won the Grammy Award for Best R&B Album at the 42nd Grammy Awards. - 1)unlink hip-hop, common genre 2)stayed would sound better as "remained"
  • Done
  • I Am…, the third studio album by rapper Nas, was originally planned as a double-disc concept album comprised of autobiographical material, but was scaled down and released as a single disc after some of the tracks were leaked. - 1)unlink rapper, for one it is too common of a genre and two it should have been linked earlier 2)A link to leakage in this context is needed.
  • Done
  • The album stayed two weeks at the top of the chart and was certified double platinum by the RIAA. --> The album stayed at the top of the chart for two weeks and was certified double platinum by the RIAA.
  • Done
  • Certified as diamond by the Recording Industry Association of America, it made her the youngest artist to reached the ten million sales mark and the top selling female act of 1999. - the acronym is needed for the Recording Industry Association of America in a (RIAA) form.
  • Shouldn't the full name be mentioned at least one time?
  • Ricky Martin's eponymous set achieved sales of six million copies, making it the year's top selling album by a solo male artist. - other singlers have their genre listed, why not Martin?
  • Done
  • Millennium by American boy band Backstreet Boys spent ten weeks at number one on the chart, selling 1,130,000 copies in its first week of release, - 1)Remove American 2)unlink boy band
  • Done
  • American nu metal band Limp Bizkit, released their second album Significant Other, which debuted at number one and sold over five million copies by the end of the year, also helping push Limp Bizkit's first album past the platinum mark. - 1)Remove American 2)The link to this genre can stay since its not as common 3)the comma should be made into a semi-colon and the other part of the sentence should go after with the rewording of ..."this helped push Limp Bizkit's first album past the platinum mark.
  • Done
  • Christina Aguilera self-titled debut album was released in the summer of 1999, the lead single "Genie in a Bottle" shot to the top of the singles chart for five weeks, helping the album reach the number one position in September, and selling five million copies by January of 2000. - 1)Genre for Aguilera 2)the link to her self titled album should be piped linked as "self-titled album" not just album 3) Full stop after summer of 1999 Start next sentence with "its lead single" 4)shot is wordy, "ranked" works better 5)the helping should be "which helped" 6)Remove the of between January and 2000
  • Done
  • Fly by the country music group Dixie Chicks peaked at number one for two weeks, making them the first country group to reach the top of the Billboard 200; - remove the link to country music, common genre
  • Done
  • Human Clay, the second album by American post-grunge band Creed became a hit, entering the charts at number one and selling ten million copies over the next two years. - 1)Remove American 2)comma after Creed
  • Done
  • Santana peaked at number one for three weeks with Supernatural, his first number-one album in 28 years. - genre for Santana?
  • Done
  • Breathe, the fourth album by country artist Faith Hill, entered the charts at number one upon its release in late 1999, and its title track became Hill's biggest hit, topping the country and the adult contemporary singles charts; the album sold five million copies by the end of 2000 and won the Grammy Award for Best Country Album at the 43rd Grammy Awards. - 1)full-stop needed after in late 1999 2)late 1999 needs a dash in-between 3)Start the next sentence with "It's title track..."
  • Done
  • Born Again by The Notorious B.I.G. was the second posthumous album by the rapper to reach number-one on the albums chart, and the seventh posthumous title to reach the top during the 90's - the 90's should be spelled as "1990s"
  • Done
  • The list needs to be renamed to "List of Billboard 200 number-one albums of 1999" or "List of number-one albums in 1999 (United States)" or "List of number-one albums in 1999 (U.S.)"
  • The see also section belongs before the references.
  • Done
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "which spent a consecutive run of five weeks at the top of the chart starting in early December 1998."-->which, starting in early December 1998, spent a consecutive run of five weeks at the top of the chart.
  • Changed
  • "TLC's third album, Fanmail, which was the year's top selling hip-hop"
  • Removed
  • "in the summer of 1999" Don't use seasons; use months instead.
  • Done
  • "late-1999" No hyphen necessary.
  • Removed
  • "making them the first country group to have reached"-->making them the first country group to reach
  • Changed
  • Spell out RIAA.
  • Is it necessary to spell the name again, I already put the complete name: "Pop singer Britney Spears's first album ...Baby One More Time peaked at number one for six non-consecutive weeks. Certified as diamond by the Recording Industry Association of America." Frcm1988 (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Ref 3, change the title to sentence case. Web page titles should not be in all caps.
  • Changed
  • Spell out lesser-known abbreviations such as RIAA.
  • Done
  • Done
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 by Scorpion0422 23:58, 3 February 2009 .


I am listing this here at FLC because I feel it meets the criteria, having been edited extensively and peer reviewed. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • Published by Billboard magazine, the data are compiled by Nielsen SoundScan based collectively on each single's weekly physical and digital sales, and airplays. - the data are compiled isn't right, it should be "the data is compiled"
  • Both Knowles and 50 Cent dominated this year's chart. 50 Cent's first number-one single "In da Club" and Knowles' second number-one single "Baby Boy" both topped the Hot 100 for nine straight weeks, becoming the longest-running number-one singles of 2003. - dominated is in a way a point-of-view, reword. In addition, the first period can be changed into a colon
  • Seven collaboration singles topped the chart in 2003, setting a record for most number-one collaborations in a calendar year since the onset of rock era in 1955; - "the" needs to be added before rock era
  • With the combined chart run of "Get Busy" and "Baby Boy", the latter in which he is featured, Sean Paul became the most successful Jamaican-born artist in terms of chart performance in Hot 100. - add "the" before Hot 100
  • During the year, nine acts achieved each a first US number-one single, either as lead artist or featured guest. - I don't know whether this is an English variation or not, but the word "a" should be added before "lead artists" and before "featured guest"
  • Unlink the wikilinks in the image captions, its WP:OVERLINK
  • With the amount of white space, I would add a couple more images.
  • I have found a better source, and I would be happy to remove About.com if you can provide me a link where this site is being discussed, so that I'll stop using the site should it be proven unreliable. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The thing about About.com is that anyone can write for it and there is no fact checking or editorial oversight; the reliabilty of individual pages depends on whether the author of that article meets WP:SPS as an expert.
OK, I'll remove it. Anyway, I have two better sources. --Efe (talk) 07:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • Why terms linked in the caption, when they are already linked in the lead and the table?
  • I see no problem with it. Its just that they are linked because they're in the lead. And it has been a sort of guideline to have links in the table. --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "there were 11 singles that topped the chart, in 52 issues of the magazine" No comma after "chart".
  • "During the year, nine acts achieved each a first US number-one single, either as a lead artist or featured guest."-->During the year, nine acts achieved a first US number-one single as a lead artist or featured guest.
  • "either as lead artist or featured guest." Why is this phrase repeated at the end of the second paragraph?
  • "longer than any single to have topped this year"-->longer than any single to top that year
  • "Hip hop duo"-->Hip-hop duo
  • "three weeks of which "
  • "at number one combining "In the Club" and "21 Questions"."-->at number one with "In the Club" and "21 Questions".
  • "to have topped the chart"-->to top the chart
  • "which charted for eight straight weeks in summer" Don't use seasons; use months instead.

Dabomb87 (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Only pending issue is the about.com thing above. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Note An IP editor has left a comment on the article article's talk page that states the images squeeze the table. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the screen resolution of his computer. --Efe (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - With regard to the references. The publisher date goes "year-month-date", but the retrieve date goes "date-month-year". — R 18:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's how the template is formatted, I think. --Efe (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. — R 06:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - All good. — R 06:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


Is it alright if we move the list to "List of..." as a couple other lists have been moved now? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it has been agreed in a discussion on the project's page. Go ahead and thanks in advance. --Efe (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Letting you know here that I will move your other lists too so that the precedent is clear. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I actually raised a discussion at the project's talk page for others to generate a guide in the moving of these lists. --Efe (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I left comments over there; if nobody raises a concern I will probably move the other pages by the end of the week. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
OK. --Efe (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:58, 3 February 2009 .


iMatthew // talk // 20:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Weak oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Nice to see a different type of sports list, but there are many problems. These are just from the top:

  • I'm not sure about the title of this article. How about: List of New York Islanders awards and accomplishments, a la Portland Trail Blazers accomplishments and records?
  • "The team has won the Clarence S. Campbell Bowl trophy"
  • "Denis Potvin, Bryan Trottier, and Mike Bossy are the team's most decorated players, with all three winning the Calder Memorial Trophy once." You say they are the most decorated and then you say that they have won a trophy? What is the criteria for "most decorated"? Instead, say how many awards/achivements that they have won. The sentence construction is also awkward with the noun + -ing.
  • Prune this redundancy-plagued phrase: "In addition, they have also won other various awards"
  • "Other management personnel to be inducted"-->Other management personnel who have been inducted
  • "General manager" Why is this capitalized? Also, it would be more useful if you pipe linked this to the "Sports teams" section in that article.
  • Whenever a year range is preceded by "from", do not use an en dash. Example: "from 1972–1992"-->from 1972 to 1992.
  • "In its history" Another redundant phrase; when else could they have won these awards?
  • "Bryan Trottier, Denis Potvin, and Mike Bossy are some of the Islanders' most decorated players" In the lead, you say they are the most decorated. Now you say that they are only of the most decorated players. Which is it? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I will come back for more comments later. One thing: Fix the dabs. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "The New York Islanders have retired six numbers. Of the six retired numbers, five players have been inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame." Confusing. Readers who don't understand these things will be confused over retired numbers and players.
  • "One of these is for Al Arbour, Islanders head coach for 19 seasons."-->One of these is for Al Arbour, who was the Islanders' head coach for 19 seasons.
  • "Another banner is for Bill Torrey, General manager of the Islanders from 1972 to 1992."-->Another banner is for Bill Torrey, who was the general manager of the Islanders from 1972 to 1992.
  • "Potvin recorded 310 goals in 1060 games for the Islanders, while Bossy recorded 573 goals in 752 games." "while"-->and.
  • In the "All Star Games selections" "Year" column, change the header to "All Star Game" or something like that.
  • "33 All-Star Games have been held since the Islanders arrived on Long Island, with at least one player representing the Islanders in each year, but the 2001, 1999, and 1979 games." Don't start sentences with numerals; the noun + -ing ("player representing") structure is awkward.
  • "The All-Star game has not been held in various years" "various"-->several.
  • "Mike Bossy played a franchise high"-->Mike Bossy played a franchise-high

Still not there yet. Find a copy-editor (User:Maxim or User:Resolute) to look at it. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: This article needs to be linked on the navbox (no need to stall promotion over it though). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of (or could find, anywhere). iMatthew // talk // 16:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Just kidding! I found one, and added it in. iMatthew // talk // 18:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Heh, good add. Support meets WP:WIAFL, well written. Resolute 06:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • Following league realignment in 1981, they then captured the Prince of Wales Trophy as Wales Conference playoff champion consecutively from 1982 to 1984. - wouldn't it be "the" Wales Conference playoff champion?
  • Denis Potvin, Bryan Trottier, and Mike Bossy have won four to five awards each, with all three winning the Calder Memorial Trophy as rookie of the year in their first NHL seasons. - have won four to five awards is badly worded. How about saying, "have won at least three awards"?
  • Other management personnel who have been inducted include Al Arbour, who coached the Islanders for his entire career, and Bill Torrey, who held the general manager position from 1972 to 1992. - be consistent, state from what years Arbour coached
  • Trottier and Bossy have both won the Conn Smythe Trophy once, awarded to the most valuable player of the playoffs. - add "which is" before awarded
  • The All-Star game has not been held in several years: 1995 and 2005 as a result of labor stoppages, 2006 because of the Winter Olympics, and 1979 and 1987 due to the Challenge Cup and Rendez-vous '87 series between the NHL and the Soviet national team respectively. - comma before respectively--TRUCO 17:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - One minor thing though, in the table for Individual awards there seems to be a stray cell between the Seasons header and the 1978–79 cell. I tried to remove it but couldn't. Perhaps it could just be colspan/rowspan playing up. This however doesn't effect my support. Sunderland06 (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.