Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FL criteria. Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FLC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. A list should not be listed at Featured list candidates and Peer review at the same time. Users should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split FL candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings). One of the FL directors, either Dabomb87, Giants2008 or The Rambling Man, determines the timing of the process for each nomination; each nomination will last at least 10 days (though most last at least a week longer)—longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews: actionable objections have not been resolved; or consensus for promotion has not been reached; or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. After the 10-day period has passed, a director will decide when a nomination is ready to be closed. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{ArticleHistory}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating. Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents – Closing instructions – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects

Shortcut: WP:FLC Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists ← Featured pictures Featured sounds Featured portals Featured topics Featured list tools: Featured list criteria Featured list candidates Featured list removal candidates Featured list log Former featured lists Removal candidates log

Nomination procedure Toolbox disambig links edit count external links alt text Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that Peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list. From the FLC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FLC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated list. While adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary. Supporting and objecting Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the list nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page). To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by the reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used only when necessary, because it can cause the FLC archives to exceed template limits. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider. Graphics are discouraged (for example, Y Done or N Not done), as they slow down the page load time. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.

Nominations

1951 Asian Games medal table

Nominator(s): Bill william compton^Talk 12:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a my second nomination for FL which is again of Asian Games related medal table [first one is still in process]. It is fully sourced and all concerns will be addressed by me, thanks. --Bill william compton^Talk 12:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• I would suggest the list and accompanying prose are too short in content to appropriately designate this as "featured". I've previously been advised of an unwritten but generally accepted lower limit of 10 items. StrPby (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  I appreciate your comment, but I didn't find any such thing on FLC; that there should be at least 10 items on list, moreover, this is a medal table, static in nature, which I can't change; if you've any better idea to expand it then please tell me. I'd agree on prose, but I don't know what else to add here. I could try to add more information, but that would be either irrelevant or should be covered within a main article. Denying this list for featured status because it contain less number of items would be gratuitous. --Bill william compton^Talk 13:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  The earlier discussion where this came up was here. Since you agree that the prose is lacking, I will formally oppose based on criterion 3(b) of WP:WIAFL, specifically "In length and/or topic, it ... could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." In this case, given what little there is here, I would say there is no argument for a stand-alone medal table article. This is not an oppose based on the number of items in the list, but the fact that both the list and accompanying description would easily (and "reasonably") be included in the 1951 Asian Games article without needing to be split out. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

But how it could be possible that any article of list class could never be good enough to be a featured part of an encyclopedia. If you think that prose need more work then in spite of directly opposing it you may mention it as your concern and I could work on that and I'll try my best to make it fit for 3(b) of FLC. Also shouldn't be a main thrust of the process (nomination) is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria and if you've noticed after your first comment I've already started working on prose. If 1896 Summer Olympics medal table could be a featured list then why not this one. So, please make comments and ask for changes, but don't just oppose it because you think it can never be a stand alone list; give me some time to resolve your comment. --Bill william compton^Talk 15:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Essentially a 3b oppose is based on the belief that the article should not be a part of the encyclopaedia, at least as its own article. Courcelles 18:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Rosenborg BK in Europe

Nominator(s): Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Rosenborg is the most successful football team in Europe from Norway, particularly during the late 1990s and 2000s. The following list presents Rosenborg's achievements and matches in UEFA tournaments and hopefully also meets the criteria for a featured list. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments some openers... Should the lead say "Rosenborg BK" rather than "Ballklub"? Or should the title of the article be changed? 'Ballklubb' is the full official name, which for convenience is provided this once for the readers; I have no problem instead just using 'Rosenborg BK' at that point. Note that 'Rosenborg Ballklubb' is a redirect to 'Rosenborg BK'. The abbreviated use of title seems to have been used by all articles currently at FL and the use of abbreviated team names seems to be universally for European football teams. Arsenikk (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC) "The team has participated 29 seasons in " -> participated in 29 seasons of... "UEFA Cup and Europa Leageu," typo. Opening para has "Rosenborg has..." twice in a row, makes for tedious reading. "The clubs first appearance was..." -> "The club's first European appearance was.." "entered tournaments seven seasons until 1974–75" -> "tournaments in seven seasons.." "Rosenborg has since entered UEFA tournaments every seasons, with the exception of the 2006–07 season..." -> "Since then, Rosenborg has be involved in UEFA tournament every season except the ...." "The club plays their home matches" - you stuck with singular all the way through the first para so this should be "plays its home matches" "it has a capacity for 21,116 spectators" odd English, maybe "it has a capacity of 21,116." or "it can host 21,116 spectators"? "while with 27 goals, Harald Martin Brattbakk has scored the most goals" maybe "while Harald Martin Brattbakk has scored the most goals with 27." "Rosenborg's most frequent opposing teams..." -> Rosenborg have played x, y, z six time, more than any other team... "Total" row should be fixed at the bottom of the table so it doesn't sort. I seem to recall List of Ipswich Town F.C. records and statistics has the code for this in the European stats section.... Image captions - I don't particularly like "vs." in prose. Perhaps "playing against"? Matches table has incomplete rows (refs missing) for 93/94 Austria Wien {and that must be wrong too, should be 93 and 93!} and the 94/94 Deportivo de La Coruna match. No need for ref columns to be sortable. Ref col has more than one ref so could be Ref(s) The "By club" doesn't include two or more match ups because, for example, Bayer Leverkeusen should be there, having been played twice last year. It must be three or more games... May have been a misunderstand from my side, as the intension is that the table lists teams Rosenborg has met at two different double-match setups or more. I've tweaked the formulation slightly. Arsenikk (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC) "Statistics are as of the end of the 2010–11 and include" missing a word after the year range. I'll need another complete run-through but this is a start for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the feedback and improvements. All the issues have been seen to except the first which I have commented on. Arsenikk (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Phoenix Suns seasons

Nominator(s): Cheetah (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria. I recently worked on the Clippers' list, so I used it as a template to improve the Suns' list. Comments/Questions/Criticism are welcome! Cheetah (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments ", center from the University of Oklahoma" two links needed here. done "The franchise owns the NBA's..." maybe common USEng but would be more universal wit "The Suns franchise has the NBA's..." done "56 percent of its games" why not 56%? Since it was in the body of the article, I thought percent was correct. I guess you're thinking that the second bullet of WP:% applies here. Anyway, I changed it, but I want you to think about it.--Cheetah (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC) "2010–2011 season." link and get rid of the second "20" done "playoffs 29 times, posted nineteen seasons of 50 or more wins, appeared nine times at" MOSNUM - all words or all digits but avoid mixing... done "winningest" this is the ugliest word ever invented by America. Can we be more international and say "franchise with most wins"? done GB sorts incorrectly in Safari. It should sort as zero. done 1954->1,954 done ref 2 - en-dash please, twice. done Phoenix Suns cat is not needed as it's a supercat of Phoenix Suns seasons cat. done The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your helpful comments, especially the one about sorting. I've done most of it, though on some of them I'd like an explanation. Thanks once more.--Cheetah (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• " In 2004, Nash signed with the Suns and led..." he re-signed then? No, maybe not, perhaps put the MVP thing after Nash's sentence...
  • I first mentioned that he got the MVP award, then explained why he got it. Do you still want me to mention the MVP award later in the paragraph?--Cheetah (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I think it reads okay on a re-visit, no action required. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
• "Amare Stoudamire" -> Amar'e (per our article).
  • done...he won that award in 2003 while he was known as Amare. I changed it to Amar'e, but shouldn't it be Amare?--Cheetah (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I guess we go with whatever you're using in the list to reliably source his name if there's a conflict... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
• No need for bold text in the all-time records table.
  • done...are you sure about that? It's a total of the first two rows.
    • I suppose that's fair enough being bold, it's just the sheer volume of text being bold looks pretty naff. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• "win-loss" should be "win–loss" (endash rather than hyphen, as it is a disjunction).
• First you use the term "began", but then change to "have made". Stick to one form.
• I find the first sentence of the second paragraph too long.
• I may be that this is really important somehow (I do not follow basketball or North American sports in general), but it seems as very trivial to mention from where Adams was drafted.
• Perhaps mention 1976 when the first final is first discussed in the prose.
• Also consider linking the finals the first time they are mentioned in the prose.
• Parts of the lead are lacking references.
• Win% = winning percentage should be in the key.
• I was under the impression that acronyms should not be small, but I cannot find it in the MOS today. Perhaps someone else can confirm this?
• Images check out fine.
• Perhaps link 'Steve Nash' in the image caption.

Overall looks good. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've done all but one. Can you tag the parts that you feel are lacking references? Thanks!--Cheetah (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Grammy Award for Best Remixed Recording, Non-Classical

Nominator(s): Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the few categories not being altered next year. I have not included the original artists of songs, as the prize is awarded to remixers only, but lemme know what you think. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Dab/EL check - There are no dab links but there is one dead link. GamerPro64 03:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Looks great! I would recommend "commanding" the Nationality column to be wide enough to accommodate the length of the widest entry (UK) so that is does not wrap to a second line. I think I used 125px before? (Edit: For accessibility purposes, you might want to look at the scope/width formatting on the Jazz Fusion list.) --Another Believer _(Talk) 13:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Support. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments Are original artists for the track on which the remix is based available for this list? I could probably hunt them down, but the award is not awarded to the original song. If I was to add the original artists, where would I place them? Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Trentemoller has a diacritic on the o in our article. Fixed Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Cat says established 2002, first award on this list was given 1998. Oops, forgot to change it when I merged the two. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

List of international cricket centuries by Andrew Strauss

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 16:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Another international cricket centuries list: this one for England's current captain Andrew Strauss. A few impressive achievements, not least his three high scores in ODI cricket. Don't understand why people want him to retire from it! Based on those that have come before. Harrias ^talk 16:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Not sure if a non-expert will understand "opening batsman".
• "on 19 occasions in Test cricket, and 6 times " I know you're following MOSNUM here, I'd prefer it the other way round, "nineteen occasions... six times.." but it's my own personal pref so no major trauma.
• I like the quote but what's a "tyro"?!
• Link Wisden as the other Wisden link goes straight to the COTY article.
• "he was run out on 83 by Nasser Hussain" interesting nuance of cricket. Most would expect the run out to be by an opposition player. Can we rephrase this to reflect that it was (I assume) a poor decision to run (by someone!) which ended up in Strauss being run out?
• "who he went on to replace in " can we be clear here, i.e. "who Strauss went on to replace"?
• "match of the series against the West Indies" is there a link to that series? Same for the following Eng series vs SA.
• You mention Lord's being his home ground, but on the second time of mentioning it, any reason for that?
• I think we have an article for England captains somewhere you could link to? (for "as England captain in 2009")
• "during an Ashes series" could link the generic "The Ashes" here.
• "He scored his second century the following season, scoring 152..." don't repeat "scor..." here, perhaps just "... season, with 152.."?
• "third highest total " would have thought that should be third-highest.
• " his batting temperament suited itself to" - "his batting temperament was suited to..."
• "he was named Man of the match." -> "named man of..."

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Vuelta a España general classification winners

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this list is close to featured list, it is similar to the already featured Tour de France and up for nomination Giro d'Italia lists and will hopefully form part of a featured topic. Thanks in advance for your comments NapHit (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments "held over 23 days in September" always 23 days? Always in September only? "the newspaper Informaciones, " no link? And presumably it's a Spanish newspaper? "Spain and countries with a close proximity in Europe such as the Netherlands" when was Spain close to Holland? It's probably closer to Morocco. "into day-long segments, called stages. " no need for comma. "There are other jerseys as well: " - perhaps "Other jerseys are awarded, including: " "French cyclists are second with 9 victories " - nine. "also been set up by newspapers" maybe established rather than set up? "The first race was won by Gustaaf Deloor, he won again the following year" not ", he won" perhaps "who". "four year suspension" four year needs a hyphen. "Frenchmen Jacques Anquetil" man. "by the smallest margin," ever? "following year Pedro Delgado won his second Vuelta." no need to repeat Pedro. dashes in the table should sort as zero. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Ok, I think I've addressed everything here, thanks to Edge as well for clearing up the issue over the month of the race and for your other edits, much appreciated. Thanks for your comments TRM. NapHit (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• I checked this, and fixed some inaccuracies in the lead. Did not get to checking the table, but sources look good. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 13:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• I would have said the semicolon on the first line should be a comma.

There isn't a semi-colon on the first line assuming your talking about the lead? NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

When I think of it, using lines is not accurate since it will depend on screen width and size rendering. The place I am thinking of is "three "Grand Tours"; along ". Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

done NapHit (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Is the 1941 edition the only which also took place in countries "with close proximity"? Particularly if this is a recurring phenomena, which countries are these?

Someone had changed the sentence from what it originally meant, rectified that issue. Regarding the countries, the only one I can find a reference for is the Netherlands which is not close enough to Spain to warrant being put in the lead. See TRM's comment above. NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of the lead is without references.

Added a ref NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• In the history section there are some very short sentences, such as "He won his second Vuelta in 1983." that perhaps could be merged with adjacent sentences.

I'm not sure the prose would read better if I did this, as I would end up saying "so and so won this year, the following year" over and over again which is not good practice, so I think its fine. NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• The history section seems completely referenced except for the last statement of the third paragraph.

done NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• To me it seems odd to have rows for years without a competition.

Each to their own I suppose, I personally think it would be odd not to include them, as it conveys to the reader clearly what years the event did not take place. It would look odd in my opinion if the table jumped from 1951 to 1955 without explanation. NapHit (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Linking years countries in the table and elsewhere is overlinking.

The countries are only linked in the table as far as I'm aware apart from Spain obviously. I was of the impression that sortable tables were allowed to overlink and this has not come up in any candidacy for a while. Unless policy has changed I'm not sure if there is an issue. NapHit (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between overlinking and repeatlinking. Tables have an exception from the MOS guideline of only the first occurrence being linked, i.e. tables can have the same link repeated in multiple rows. However, tables do not have an exception from the guideline of overlinking, which involves linking to terms deemed to general to serve a purpose, for which countries are specifically mentioned. More about this at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking). Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the MOS page you brought this quote from the repeatlink section would seem to contradict what your stating; "where the links are in a table or in a list, as each table or list should stand on its own with its own independent set of links." NapHit (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• The "stage wins" column sorts oddly for me. In an increasing sort, it sorts zero, emdashes, larger numbers.

fixed this NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Again, when sorting by "cyclist", 'not contested' is sorted in the middle under NOT..

I tried to fix this, unfortunately as there is a cyclist whose last name starts with Z I can't get the not contested bit to sort after him so I'm afraid there is not much I can do unless there is a way around that issue. NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think my last edit solved this.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes it did thanks Edge NapHit (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• What order is used to display the multiple winners with the same number of wins? It does not seem to be sorter either by year or surname.

It's sorted by the year of their first win NapHit (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Then Fuente is in the wrong order. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed NapHit (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Image licenses look good.

Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Grammy Award for Best Jazz Fusion Performance

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 15:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list status because I believe it meets criteria and closely resembles other Grammy lists with the highly-sought-after star in the top right corner. Thanks, as always, to reviewers! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: nomination was not transcluded until 00:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC). — KV5 • Talk •

• Support can't find anything wrong, but then again I've looked at so many of these types of lists, I'd like to hope I wouldn't! Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support The only wee issue I see is "No female artists were nominated in 1991, the final year the award was presented," as I don't really see the significance of this year and not many (any?) other female artists nominated. Otherwise, very nice work. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Jaespinoza (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support everything ok.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 08:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

List of human characters in Sesame Street

Nominator(s): Christine (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a high-quality list with lots of good research. I've worked hard at making this list informative and fun to read, kinda like The Show itself. Christine (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Restarting nomination, previous comments can be seen here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support like I did before.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 09:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - what does a "blank" cell mean in the Actor column? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  It means that no source was found about who played the particular character. The source for Buddy and Jim, for example, is the Old School DVD, which does not list the actors' names. In other words, there's a source for the characters, but nothing was found that stated who played them. Clear as mud? Christine (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support – All of my comments were addressed before the restart. Perhaps dashes for the blank actor cells should be considered if that is thought to be a problem, but I can't get too fussy about it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (H)

Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 18:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The next Phillies roster list, following after the promotion of "G". Comments addressed as always. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 18:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments I know it's my fault this exists in the first place, but could we change "team[H])" to "team)[H]"? I wouldn't, just because the "H" note only applies to what's in the parens, not the whole line including what's outside the parens. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Gah, looks funky inside the paren. Can we arm-wrestle over this? I'm sure our readers can handle the one-character displacement, and aesthetically it's waaay superior... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Since it's in the key, at least I don't have to change all the lists. I tried a compromise. — KV5 • Talk • 21:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC) I could be wrong but when you say "also a major league record", I'm not sure you've linked to mlb beforehand (or a similarly relevant link). MLB is linked in the first sentence. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Ok, just wondered if it was therefore supposed to be Major League rather than major league (I know there have been discussions over other "major leagues")... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Understood... when we use "major league" as an adjective it's traditionally uncapped. — KV5 • Talk • 21:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Recommend you directly cite Bob Hall's 30% in the caption. As a non-expert I can't see it, even if it's in the baseball-reference.com link. Sorry! It is in the B-Ref link, but some "routine calculations" as outlined by WP:NOTOR are required. If you'd prefer I duplicate the link, I will. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC) I would prefer that, but also (even if it's just for my benefit) how you use the baseball-ref page to calculate that? I am a baseball newbie so it would be instructive for you to help me interpret that page! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC) The way I arrive at that is simply an average. If you look at Hall's statistics page, the "Standard Fielding" table shows the number of games played per position. Using only the Philadelphia games, I take an average of the games played for each position shown. In this case, it's 20 at 3B, 15 at SS, and 11 at 1B. 46 total games = 43% at third base, 32% at short, and 24% at first. Hope that helps. — KV5 • Talk • 21:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Hallahan's caption ditto. And perhaps go for "in a single season" rather than that awkward "in 1 season" (MOSNUM trauma for me). I'll change the wording in Hallahan, but the cite easily covers the 22 strikeouts - not sure how it's unseen. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC) No, it was the "1 season" I had the biggest problem with... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC) "Pitcher Earl Hamilton lost his only decision with Philadelphia." this is quite mystifying to a baseball newbie. Any chance you could make that clearer to a dunce like me? Would a link to the article on the decision work? I was trying not to be repetitive - "X won Y games, Z won A games", etc. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC) I think so. To the rest of the non-baseballing world "los[ing] his decision" can mean a world of things. Again, it's down to me reviewing it as a newbie. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Done. — KV5 • Talk • Hansen caption has typo. Done. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Ref 27 needs an en-dash. Done. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support job done again, good stuff! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 21:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support plus a couple of questions
  • Why don't you write 2010-present for active players instead of 2010-2011? When I see 2011, I first assume that he's done with the Phillies in 2011. On second thought only, I start checking what the italics are for. Maybe since in NBA-related articles, we write present, that's why I assume this.
    • "Present" would imply that the player is on the roster. Not all players who have made a 2011 appearance are on the roster; hence, the use of 2011 instead of present. — KV5 • Talk • 23:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
      • So, since you're using 2011 and not present, it means that Roy Hallaway, for example, made an appearance in the 2011 season, but is not currently on the roster?--Cheetah (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
        • No, if you're talking about Roy Halladay. The "2011" indicates that he has appeared for the Phillies in 2011, and the blue text and italics indicate that he is currently on the roster. — KV5 • Talk • 23:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
          • That's the problem I see. The "2011" indicates that he played his last game for the Phillies and is not on the roster anymore. THEN I see the blue background and italics and get confused because I see a contradiction. As a wikipedian, I am used to seeing the word "present" for the players who are actively playing for their teams.--Cheetah (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Well, for one, not all Wikipedia sports articles are alike. For two, there is no contradiction because 2011 does not indicate the last game; it doesn't say that anywhere (and in any case, the last game may have been the game that the team last played, so it's still correct). Lastly, "present" requires constant updating; if a player makes his first 2011 appearance, then it can stay the same for the entire year and this is more stable than changing back and forth all the time. — KV5 • Talk • 00:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
              • It's not only in sports-related articles, it's also in biographical articles that in year ranges first year means the beginning and the second year means the ending. By your logic, we should write in the Roy Halladay article 1977-2011 because he's breathing in 2011.--Cheetah (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
                • No, by my logic, his infobox should read "2010-2011", with which there would be no problem. You've falsified my argument by implying that it should apply to birth and death dates, which I never said and disagree with. — KV5 • Talk • 11:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
                  • I am not implying anything, I am stating that universally whenever there is a year range like "2010-2011" or "1888-1999", the first year means the beginning and the last year means the end. That's it.--Cheetah (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
                    • There are exceptions to every rule, so "universally" is misleading. And even so, if "the first year means the beginning and the last year means the end", 2011 currently is the end because this is the last year the players have currently played for the team. I'm not going to be changing to present because of the horrible complications it creates during the offseason. — KV5 • Talk • 11:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • For pitcher statistics, you have "record, earned run average, strikeouts". For two pitchers, you have "earned run average, walks, innings pitched". What I'm asking is why not write "innings pitched, earned run average, walks" for those two pitchers. Innings pitched implies that those two pitchers lack a win-loss record; walks imply lack of strikeouts. This way, the order is maintained. I know it's a huge nitpicking on my part, but I believe it would be neater.

--Cheetah (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• • • I really don't think that distinction is big enough to worry about, especially since it means going back to pick apart all the previously promoted lists and then adding yet another thing to check before future FLCs. The order of the statistics isn't really that important, as long as it gets the message across. — KV5 • Talk • 23:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Everything looks good. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

List of University of the Philippines Los Baños people

Nominator(s): Moray An Par (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it sufficiently lists notable UPLB people. Moray An Par (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Quick comments on a first glance.

• My browser makes the images appear first and then the tables creating masses of white space. I'm using Safari for Mac.
• "director" is a disambiguation link.
• Lead is a little short, could use bulking up a bit in my opinion.
• As of 2009 in the lead. It's now heading to mid-2011. Can we update that?
• Put (UPLB) after the first use of the full title in the lead.
• Is this list complete? I doubt it so perhaps consider using the {{incomplete list}} template.
• "Sergio Osmeña III" has a discipline of a very wide horizontal line. This should just be an en/em-dash and should be noted as to why.
• "Agribusiness management" or "Agribusiness Management"? Probably the former. What does that mean?
• Avoid superscripts, so 20^th should just be 20th.
• Don't think you need to link "singer".
• Or Theater actor.
• Or spider.
• or president...
• When did LLD become a "relationship"?
• Something odd going on with the image of Sirindhorn. Some red link text, comments to the left of the main image... not sure what that's all about, but it needs solving.
• "has had 7 chancellors." seven. Are they notable? If not, why are they in the list? If so, why aren't they linked to articles (or red-linked)?
• Names should sort using the {{sortname}} template so they use surname rather than first name.
• Use en-dash in year ranges, e.g. refs 36 & 37 need to be 1895–1986 not 1895-1986 or 1895 -1986.
• That applies to chapter ranges too (e.g. refs 41, 42).
• Ref 45 has a bare URL.
• About.com is not reliable. I'm not sure about a number of the sources you use, but I don't have time now to go into detail. Perhaps if you fix up the above, I'll see what I can do on a ref check.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have addressed the above concerns. I'll find a replacement for the About.com reference. I personally believe that UPLB chancellors fail the WP:Professor test, and are not independently notable. I'll integrate Emil Q. Javier into the faculty list. I'll also find an update summa cum laude list. As for the lead, I based it here List of Wilfrid Laurier University people. What other information would you like mentioned? I'll do these when I get the time later.

I think the list is sufficiently comprehensive, at least, according to Wikipedia articles. I came up with that list by searching all BLPs mentioning UPLB. I just then searched outside references to confirm it. But that doesn't mean that that's all the notable people from UPLB. I'll search alumni forums for list of other alumni. Maybe I'll find a number who are notable, and have Wikipedia articles. Moray An Par (talk) 05:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I have included additional personalities in the list but I also realize that these must not be all. So I added {{dynamic list}} at the top. What other concerns are there that I still have not addressed? Moray An Par (talk) 08:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Wale discography

Nominator(s): Michael Jester (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because its lead section shows great writing skills, the lead section is well written and describes what the article is about, the article is easy to navigate, the article follows all the appropriate Manuel of Styles, and the article has visual appeal Michael Jester (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the mixtapes notable enough for inclusion? Are they official releases? What label were they put out by? Have they received comprehensive coverage in reliable sources? The fact they exist isn't reslly enough to warrant inclusion. The individual article pages didn't help ascertain any of this. They either have zero references or very little unreliable ones.
• Self Made Vol. 1 says it was released on May 24, 2011.. so it hasn't been released yet, doesn't really exist, and doesn't belong on a page listing his releases. Also, it's not referenced
• Why are the references for chart positions in the Singles' "As featured artist" table next to the positions, and not in the header, which is the accepted standard for discogs?
• References should have publication dates where available
• What makes http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.13318/title.wale-confirms-move-to-rick-ross-maybach-music-group a WP:Reliable source?
• What makes the blog http://www.2dopeboyz.com/2008/06/20/wale-paint-a-picture-mixtape-req/ a RS?
• What makes the blog http://www.getrightmusic.com/2008/05/30/wale-mixtape-about-nothing/ a RS?
• Or any of the following:

• http://www.5starhiphop.com/2010/wale-mixtape/ ?
• http://vibesource.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/wale-hate-is-the-new-love-mixtape/ ?
• http://www.thelmagazine.com/TheMeasure/archives/2010/08/04/wales-second-seinfeld-themed-mixtape-more-about-nothing-somehow-better-than-the-first ?
• http://hiphop-n-more.com/2011/04/maybach-music-group-presents-self-made-vol-1-album-cover/ ?
• http://www.musicvideocast.com/wale-waledance-music-video.html ?
• http://www.prefixmag.com/media/wale/family-affair-video/29451/ ?
• http://www.prohiphop.com/2009/11/ucb-pat-your-weave-music-video-ft-wale.html ?

• Refs 19 through 23 need correct attribution
• "kazeem" with a K
• names of websites, broadcasters, etc (Myspace, MTV, Ultratop, Vevo) should not be in italics in references. Only the titles of magazines, newspapers, books, journals, etc.
• Prose in the Lede isn't a bit iffy in places. The reader shouldn't have to read the first paragraph to understand the second (It begins "The next year", requiring the reader to read the first to figure out what year.) Just start it with "In 2008"
• What is a "hometown hit"?? Please don't say it got a couple of spins on some local radio station and was popular with clubbers and hip iPod wearing high-schoolers. Is it "Dig Dug" (Shake It) as the text says, or "Dig Dug (Shake It)"?
• Is Maybach Music Group a record label or musical group? The prose and the table don't make it clear.

Overall there's a lot of very dodgy-referenced stuff here, especially the mixtapes. I wonder, if with all the non-notable stuff removed, this wouldn't be better placed at Wale#Discography. 1 album, 7 singles, and a few more music videos..? Seems to fail Criterion 3(b) as an unnecessary fork. All that plus the poor Lede means I have to Oppose at this time. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The mixtapes are official released. Also, I fixed most of the references problems. I still have to find a couple more, though.

That didn't answer my original question. Anyone can self-publish a mix tape. What makes these notable enough for inclusion? Where have they received comprehensive third party coverage? Your references just prove they exist, which I'm not disputing. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Still showing "Self Made Vol 1", which hasn't been released yet. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

So after some research, I decided that his most recent mixtape, More About Nothing, is probably the only one that is worth including. Does this mean the others should be taken out of the lead section? I also took out the compilation album. Michael Jester (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Austin

Nominator(s): TheAustinMan (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has been worked on for a while and it appears to meet all of the requirements of an FL article. I have checked the article multiple times, and it has been checked with the criteria as well. The list is modeled after the already FL status List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque, which in turn is modeled after a number of other featured lists. When you state any concerns/suggestions, please do so in an understanding fashion, which would be simple, yet understanding and comprehensive. As always, your comments will help this article, and I will do my best to fix your concerns if any. Remember to respond positively and with constructive criticism. Also remember that the use of graphics is discouraged. Again, thank you for your comments. TheAustinMan (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthewedwards (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments Nice to see one of these again. Just this week I was thinking it's been a while Don't be self-referential (This list of tallest buildings in Austin ranks...) It's almost the same as "This is a list of talles buildings in Austin", which was done away with a couple of years ago. The cat article doesn't begin "This is an article about cats" or "This article about cats describes...." "56 floors", "56 floors", "21 skyscrapers" need no breaking spaces "more than 30" --> "more than thirty", "in the past 3 years" --> "in the past three years" "Multiple buildings proposed in Austin could possibly finish in the top 12 if constructed." top 12 of what? "The city is going through a second building boom, with a multitude buildings already built, under construction, approved, or proposed in the past 3 years." Both statements need fixing to a specific date or rewriting ("Between 2008 and 2011" or something for the second one, perhaps) William B. Travis State Office Building doesn't have a year of completion in the table Something's up with the sorting with the year and rank. After clicking the year column a couple of times, and then Rank, the rank gets sorted either as 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 46, 44, 42, 4, 38, 37, 36, etc, or 1, 10, 11, 12 ... 19, 2, 21, 22 ... 3, 30, 31, 33, etc. It only happens after clicking the year column first.. perhaps it's to do with that empty cell Neutral for now. Not too bad, just a bit of cleanup. I'm assuming the refs are all okay as they have been in previous tall building lists. Haven't checked the image Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Partially Complete: I have fixed most of your concerns. Unfortunately, however, I could not find a completion date for the William B. Travis State Office Building. Also, what do you mean by "a non breaking space" and how do you fix that? Sorry, I just have kind of a low html editing skill (I'm only 11 :-/)TheAustinMan (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC) I wouldn't go telling people that if I were you. A non breaking space means that at screens where the 56 is at the end of the line, it puts it at the next line so the following word is next to it, not separated. Instead of a regular space, type & nbsp;, so you have 56& nbsp;floors (no spaces -- don't know why "nowiki" won't work Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Forgot to add -- I'm guessing by your name you're from Austin, can't you go to the State Office Building and see if there's a plaque on the wall or something? That should be okay as a primary source. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Done: I fixed your concerns. I added the non-breaking spaces, and I found a link for the year of completion for the William B. Travis Building (1985). I tried sorting the years and rank and few times, and it seems like its all in good order. If the problem with the sorting persists, then I'm not sure what's going on then. If you have any more concerns, please state them. TheAustinMan (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC) It might also be useful to have image mapping for the first two photos (thy skylines), which I can do if you don't know how, as long as you tell me what all the buildings are. If not, at the very least I'd like the image captions to state which buildings are which, from left to right, and from which compass direction they photographs were taken. Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC) 400px Well I don't know how to map images, but I'll give you the info. I'll provide you wikilinks, if any, so you can check with them to see if they match. You can also search them up on Wiki Commons. I'll go left to right with the descriptions below: The first sizable building on the left is AMLI II, or the short one on the left. The building sticking up above it (with the red "trimming") is One American Center The prominent building on the left half of the image, the tall gray/blue one, is W Austin Hotel and Residences Smack dab in the middle (the blue one) is the Frost Bank Tower The apparent tallest one in the image is The Austonian. Overlapping the Austonian is The Ashton The Ashton itself seems to overlap 100 Congress (the one with the triangle face) On the furthest right with the staircase design is One Congress Plaza This photo was taken in Butler Park, facing a north or northeasterly direction 400px Furthest left with barely any lighting on is Spring (building). It's the green one. Sneaking behind Spring is The Monarch. Next right is a building that has a semi-circular top. That's 300 West Sixth. After that is a building with a bunch of antennas and red lights. That's One American Center. Moving in front of One American Center is the Chase Bank Tower. (It's black and has a white top). Next right is 360 Condominiums. It is probably the building that takes up the most photo space out of all the others. The brightest building in the image (next right) is the Frost Bank Tower. The building with the green lights is AMLI II. The only building under construction in the picture is W Austin Hotel and Residences. The next building (with the crown lighted in blue/white) is The Austonian. The building who's color is crimson-brown is The Ashton. The Ashton overlaps 100 Congress. The building with the blue lighting around its borders (like an outline) is One Congress Plaza. It has the moon directly above it. The next building is San Jacinto Tower. The building behind S.J.T. that has a bundle of red lights on top is Four Seasons Residences. This image was taken from Lou Neff Point, facing an ENE direction. TheAustinMan (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC) OK, I'll get on this later. I've hidden the pics for now.. Probably not best to have two big pics in the middle of an already lengthy page at FLC. :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Did the first image map, was pretty easy, but check that I did it all correctly, especially 100 Congress which I'm not sure I identified correctly. I'll let you identify each building in the caption (I'm pretty sure screenreaders don't work on image maps but you'd have to check with WT:ACCESS for confirmation). The caption shouldn't be too hard to find; it's in the Image: line just like a normal image caption would be. Just don't wrap it in square brackets or you'll break the template. Also suggest identifying the buildings on the file description page at Commons as most people will want to click the image to get a larger view. It's past midnight now so I'll do the nighttime one tomorrow. Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oh, and I forced the thumbs to 400px. I'm sure there's a style guideline orimage use policy somewhere that says don't force image sizes, but oh well.. there's no point mapping it if it's too small to be seen. Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• I checked with WT:ACCESS, so an answer will probably come in. I'll put it on here if the question has been answered. :) TheAustinMan (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• OK. Meanwhile I've mapped the second photo. Matthewedwards :  Chat  17:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment At the risk of giving contrary advice, I don't think "56 floors" or "21 skyscrapers" need non-breaking spaces ( ). Nor do I think there is any policy or guideline that suggests that non-breaking spaces should be used in such cases. I would also expect per WP:ORDINAL that "more than 30" would be preferred (although I don't find "more than thirty" to be poor style, it does contradict our guidelines). --RexxS (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Isn't it that words above ten that can be spelled out as one or two words should be? Like thirty and thirty-one are ok but three-hundred-and-sixty two aren't? Figures in prose just looks jarring to me, but it's not a huge deal either way. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• From WP:ORDINAL: As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words. But it's not a big deal for me either. --RexxS (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• All the images except the first have alt text, and the alt text given is reasonable (remember that screen readers will hear the alt text and then the caption, so we don't them to be too duplicative). --RexxS (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• I mapped the image last night and may have removed the alt text. I'm not sure if it works with mapping, though. The guys at WT:ACCESS will let us know. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, I added the alt text. Seems like it works. I just need some old computer with dial-up to see if the alt text shows up :D TheAustinMan (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• The alt text does show up, thank you. The image maps convey information not accessible via the keyboard, so fail WCAG 2.0 but MOS:ACCESS offers no guidance on the issue. --RexxS (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• But you said at WT:ACCESS#About Image Mapping and Captions that the image map links do work with a keyboard, by using tab, enter and backspace. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry to be blunt, but please try it for yourself, so that you can actually see what happens before making any more guesses. Yes, the LINKS work, although they take the viewer to a non-existent article half of the time. No, the TOOLTIP doesn't work if you use the keyboard, and as far as I can see the image map was implemented principally to display those tooltips, which fails accessibility standard WCAG H24: Providing text alternatives for the area elements of image maps. --RexxS (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• The table needs scope="col" for the column headers, and would benefit from having suitable row headers marked up with '!' and scope="row". There's a description at MOS:ACCESS#Data tables and a tutorial linked from there. However, if you want assistance with the markup, either I or one of the regulars here would be happy to help. --RexxS (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I don't really know how to do that. And no, the tutorial doesn't really help me either sadly. TheAustinMan (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks for doing the scope="col" charts and all that. You've earned my gratitude. TheAustinMan (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• I've marked up the table in three stages. It may be worth examining the diffs to see what each step does for future reference. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• I would suggest removing <br><small>[[Foot (length)|ft]] / [[metre|m]]</small> from the Height header, as it is doubly redundant. The units are given explicitly in each data cell in that column and WP:OVERLINK has this guidance: Avoid linking common units of measurement. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Done The measurement "legend" has been removed. TheAustinMan (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments While I love the mapped skylines, the second one means the table (on my screen) is really constrained horizontally. Not ideal. Might also be worth saying which direction (left to right e.g. north-east to north or whatever) these panoramas show. "of varying statuses. " what does that really mean? Read the first para of the lead and count how many times "building" is used. Makes the prose repetitive and dull. Any reason why the Scarborough Building isn't linked in the lead? Second para, count the "Austin"s... I guess eight? Again, needs some work to make the prose less repetitive. "in the top 12 of Austin's" why top 12? Mostly it's top 10. Just curious. "fifth in height if completed." in US or just Austin? Sorting by name, I'd expect 21 Rio to sort before 100 Congress. Use the {{sort}} template. Frost Bank Tower - "Known as the first skyscraper" - well either it is or it isn't. Which is it? "One Congress Plaza was ..." caption needs a period. Be consistent when linking the Austonian. Sometimes you say "The Austonian", sometimes "the Austonian" and sometimes you just link "Austonian". Don't mix date formats in the references. Either all yyyy-mm-dd or human-readable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Oh hey Mr. Rambling Man. Thanks for your comments. I fixed some of them, but the majority I'll work on later. TheAustinMan (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comments

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

:*One dablink I appreciate that you want the various buildings seen in the images, but 400px is a bit excessive. Could you reduce it a little? Maybe 275–350px? Is there any point in making the rank column sortable, when it sorts in the same order as height? Year→'Year built' or 'Year erected' "If built, will take all titles The Austonian has" - this makes it sound a bit like a real estate takeover. Surely the only "title" that is exchanged is 'Tallest building'? "Emporis.com" should be "Emporis" or "Emporis Corporation" Dates should all be formatted one way. YYYY-MM-DD or Day Month Year or Month Day, Year, but not a mixture. I would suggest the first or third format, as the second is British English.

• The note should be source with inline citations, not in-prose ELs.
• "Skyscraperpage.com" → SkyscraperPage.com. Skyscraper Source Media

Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, I only increased it to 400 for, like you said, to see the buildings better when moving the mouse over, but if the images being at 400px causing the problems The Rambling Man has with horizontal constraint, then it might be best to reduce size to 350 or 300px. Or use {{clear}} Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Done The concerns listed by The Rambling Man and Adabow have been generally resolved. Answering the question from the Rambling Man, Scarbrough Building is not wikilinked because it does not have a page. However, even though I have generally resolved your concerns, I don't know how to operate the sort template. If anyone could help me, that would be great. TheAustinMan (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• ✓ Done But... should One American Center, One Congress Plaza and One Texas Center be sorted under the letter O or the number 1? I've left them as O for now, but what do people think/what's usually done in this case? Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• I took a look at List of tallest buildings in New York City, which is a pretty big featured skyscraper list. They have a lot a buildings that are known as "One..." instead of "1..." When sorted, they file alphabetically, in that the go between N and P, rather than sorting at the top of the list. Using that, I would suspect that the buildings in this list sort under "O", as usual. TheAustinMan (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 8 needs an accessdate.
• What makes "Wikimapia" (ref 43) a reliable source?

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• You mean reference 28 right? Fixed. Wikimapia is not a reliable source because it is a open to edit thing. However, it is the only source of information regarding the completion of the William B. Travis Building. Should I remove the reference, along with the information though? TheAustinMan (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• I did, thanks. Unfortunately, with respect to wikimapia, unless you can source the information more reliably in keeping with WP:RS, I don't think it's wise to keep the information in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Did you see if the building has a plaque on it or anything? That could be used as a Primary source? Maybe something at Austin Library has something in a book you could use. Matthewedwards :  Chat  08:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Remove space before reference 1. "with a multitude of buildings proposed or were constructed." The "were" is clogging up the flow of this sentence. A couple of the notes in the main table are lacking periods at the end. They should likely have them, especially if there's one at the end of "Tallest all-hotel building in Austin." The ones without periods have a similar structure and should be handled in a similar manner. Timeline of tallest building: "This list includes buildings who have held the title of the tallest building in Austin." Buildings aren't people, so using "who" in this context is inappropriate. Try "that" or "which" instead. Is there a cite anywhere for "Residents' fears of losing views of the state capitol kept buildings shorter than it for nearly a century"? I don't see one here or in the table. Photo caption: "Since then, it has been surpassed by 16 other buildings." There are 17 buildings now taller than it, so I assume this refers to when it was knocked down to the second-tallest in Austin. The problem is that the caption isn't that clear; it only refers to when it was completed and how long it was tallest, without a date when it was first surpassed. Second word of See Also section heading should be without the capital letter. Why is Skyline capitalized in the one note? Is the one website Skyscraperpage or SkyscraperPage? The references, and note/EL, give the name two different ways, which creates an inconsistency. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Done: I have resolved your concerns. For your 5th concern, I simply erased it, because there was no source I could find. Cheers. TheAustinMan (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Latin Grammy Award for Best Male Pop Vocal Album

Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is part of the Grammy WikiProject and I will try to take the Latin Grammy lists to featured status. This is a well referenced list, with images and an expanded lead section. Thanks to all the reviewers for your hard work. Jaespinoza (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments "Latin recording artists, in the United States" is the comma needed here? FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC) "Award-winning albums have been performed by Spanish artists..." seems a little odd way of putting it, perhaps "Spanish artists have won the award more times than any other nationality"? FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC) "Spanish singer-songwriter Alejandro Sanz " introduce him as Span. s-s the first time you talk about him and then just refer to him as Sanz the second time you mention him. FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC) "Performing artist(s)" no need for the (s). FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Mark Anthony is a dab link. FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Ref 8 could use an en-dash rather than two hyphens. FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Don't like leading zeros in the dates, e.g. September 08, 2010. Humans don't need that leading zero to read the date, in fact most of us don't want it at all. FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

*Comments The image captions are a bit awkward. The first could be better written as a full sentence. The others (XYZ winner in [year]) is gramatically awkward. How about "XYZ won the award in [year] for [album]" or "[year] winner XYZ"? FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Linking Spanish seems a bit over the top, but no biggie. FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC) "recordings of the pop genre by a male performer" → recordings of the pop genre by male performers FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support I made a change to one caption per MOS:CAPTION. Nice work. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – Publishers in references 5 and 7 should be italicized, since they're both newspapers. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

FIXED! --Jaespinoza (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support, assuming other reviewers' concerns have been (and are) addressed. List looks good, lead is appropriate, correct table and reference formatting, etc. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of town creation in the Hudson Valley

Nominator(s): Camelbinky (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe all issues raised by the previous FL nomination prior to my extended wikibreak were taken care of, unfortunately I went on a break thinking everything was done and it would be promoted. Another editor came with concerns while I was gone, I have addressed those that are addressable, other concerns that I found to be incorrect or impossible have not been fixed due to obvious reasons (ISBN is not possible to put for a 1880 source for example) or that I found nitpicky (location for publisher I find unneeded on sources; format of diagram I am not compromising by turning into a table).Camelbinky (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Refs 4 and 5, which were identified as, at best, being of questionable reliability, are still present. The research still looks lacking and limited to what is available online. Courcelles 23:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I find references 4 and 5 to be reliable and am willing for it to be brought to RS/N and abide by their decision. Research, even if it was limited to being only online (which it wasnt) would not be a problem for FL status from what I recall of the criteria. The claim that online sources must be backed up by something physical is a strange request, some of the books sourced to an online source like Google Books are ones I do physically own, but linking to Google books seemed a good help to users since this IS an online encyclopedia. Second- Courcelles asked in the previous FL whether I had looked at a full source or just the "50 word summaries of each page", makes me think Courcelles does not know how Google Books works, as the entire book is available on Google books and he/she seems to have been confused by the where the link drops you off at.Camelbinky (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

First, you can't prove unreliability, you have to prove reliability and you've made no attempt to do so. One would be entirely justified to oppose this on 4 and 5a grounds without considering the quality of research- the structure and visual appeal are lacking, and the entire thing is quite difficult to understand as a result of the stylistic choices. Courcelles 23:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Quick comments - the onus to prove reliability of questionable sources is on the nominator. I agree with Courcelles that (as a minimum) refs 4 and 5 need to be demonstrated to be reliable. How you achieve this is up to you, but if it's anticipated to take more than a couple of weeks, I suggest you find alternative sources which are reliable or withdraw the nomination. In other news...

1. Several "double period" issues in the references caused by use of the template and a period at the end of a field, e.g. ref 15.
2. Don't mix date formats in the references.
3. Should La Grange be LaGrange (like our article on it?)
4. "The timelines only represent which town(s) a particular town was created from and does not represent.." shouldn't that be "and do not"?
5. Images all seem to be individually set for different sizes. Not ideal. Use thumb and upright where applicable.
6. Is there an explanation of the difference between solid and dashed lines?
7. Why is Chester placed as it is? Its line crosses others, are they supposed to merge? It's unclear to me.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

1-fixed extraneous periods

2- I believe I fixed all date formats, let me know if I missed one.

3-fixed

4-fixed

5-some images are smaller due to constraints on size of the timelines, if all images are made the same size they would have to be all the same as the smallest I suppose. Is that the best remedy?

6-Yes, there is an explanation of the dashed lines in the section in which dashed lines appear. I could add an explanation in the lede if that is prefered as well.

7-yes, chester is supposed to merge, can work on placing Chester so that is more apparent.Camelbinky (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Isis discography

Nominator(s): Seegoon (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

For your delectation: the discography of a fairly obscure metal band, without the bells and whistles you might find in the discog of a worldwide pop star or venerable rock group. Instead, it's a fairly warts-and-all account of Isis' release history, with minimal chart performance history, no worldwide sales counts and one or two silly and arcane early releases thrown in for good measure. Although it looks pretty bare, I like to think it's got all the bases well and truly covered. I eagerly await your feedback and will jump upon any recommendations with fervour. Thanks, Seegoon (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Serious oppose - basics, suggest you withdraw until you've looked at...... "Visible in back is drummer" I think we'd generally say "at the back" rather than "in back". I didn't write this; I presumed it was an American colloquialism so left it in. Regardless, I've changed it now. After "extended plays" put "(EP)" because the infobox uses that terminology. Okay. "Isis were formed in Boston, Massachusetts, in late 1997 Aaron Turner" - some words are missing here, or maybe some punctuation. Probably after 1997. And late-1997 should be hyphenated. Yes, a word was missing. "Late 1997" shouldn't be hyphenated, as it isn't being used adverbially here. If I said "the late-1997 formation", I'd need a hyphen. Here I do not. "around the release of The Red Sea " when? what is this? It does actually say 1999 in parentheses after The Red Sea. I've altered it anyway. "line-up" or "lineup"? Fair enough. Lineup it is. "Isis released their debut full-length, Celestial, and its sister EP, SGNL>05 (on Neurot Recordings), in 2000, as their stature within metal music began to grow." too many clauses, and cite the final claim. Fair. I've pared this down and removed the offending claim as nothing's to hand to cite it with. You're right; it should've been cited. "In 2002, Oceanic was released to great critical acclaim, and was the subject of a series of four vinyl reinterpretations by various contemporary artists; the series was consolidated into an Ipecac Recordings release, entitled Oceanic: Remixes & Reinterpretations. Growth in stature necessitated relocation to Los Angeles" a lot of unsubstantiated claims in this phrase. Again, fair enough. I should've been more thorough. Cited. "This attention was matched by their next record" not great English. Look for a decent copyeditor here. No need to be so harsh; it's an ugly phrase, certainly. And redundant. I've excised it fittingly. "although critical reception was not so warm and the band do not look upon the album fondly." even worse. Perhaps you're misreading the intention of the 'so' – it is intended to be comparative (i.e. as warm as the previous album), so I've reshuffled. Ambiguity means something was afoul, I guess. " peaking at #98" avoid use of hash to represent "number" per WP:MOS. I wasn't aware of this and have removed it. "posthumous" means after-death. The band didn't "die" did they? Well, no. I've reworded this. Releases that didn't chart anywhere need their own reference. I'm not sure exactly what it is that needs referencing, but I expect allmusic is as good a source as any. I've done my best here. Please check to see that I've done what you've asked for here. Where are EPs referenced? As above. Singles are unreferenced. As above. Most collaborations are unreferenced. As above. DVD is unreferenced. As above. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC) I can appreciate all of your concerns; I hadn't really considered that the existence of each release needed citing in and of itself. Things have changed since I last nominated a discography here and I haven't kept up. I've done my best to address your concerns (except the Live releases and the demo, which I'm working on). Many thanks, Seegoon (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Live albums are unreferenced. I'm just going to look for some viable references for these now. I know it's taken me forever to find these, but after some serious Internet archaeology this afternoon, I feel I've sourced these fully. I look forward to your feedback. Thanks, Seegoon (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – Just one quick one from me: reference 36 shouldn't be in all caps. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, I had no idea that needed changing. Altered appropriately. Thanks, Seegoon (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
    • That's fixed, but current ref 28 also has some all caps. Sorry I missed that before. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
      • You're right; I probably should've scoured it myself anyway. Fixed. Seegoon (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Please increase text size of the notes. There's not so much that they can't be in normal size in the boxes. Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Fair indeed. Amended. Seegoon (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Opening line: "Isis were an American post-metal band ..." Change to: "Isis was an American post-metal band" There is only ONE band that is discussed here. Jimknut (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ah. This is one of those AmEng-BrEng disparities. I've edited to fit AmEng style – thanks for the spot. Seegoon (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

List of ICC Cricket World Cup finals

Nominator(s): Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 09:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all FL criteria. Article has been based on a similar FL article, List of FIFA World Cup finals.Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 09:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• The first three were 60-over matches. Nowadays, ODI pretty much means 50 overs, so mention this fact in the prose.

added to lede. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think it would be better if the key were summarised in table format. When a reader is going through the list and comes across some sort of symbol or colour, he doesn't want to read through several sentences to figure out what it means.
• The "Final" header column is pretty much redundant, IMHO. The article title says list of finals and the section heading also says final, so it's pretty obvious what the table is about.

Its just to mention that we are talking about the actual final match result and not tournament on the whole (as the result is the same). Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Make the table sortable. Is there a better way to arrange the information? For example, I'd like to sort the table by the scores of the first and second innings, as well as the teams. Try to separate them if possible.
• Arrange the co-hosts in alphabetical order, unless there is some other criteria?

This is what has been officially used. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Official where? If you say it's official, you need to show that. Otherwise use alphabetical order which is the most neutral method. Also, the cricinfo scorecard pages used as inline refs for each row in the table do not mention the host nations, so make sure the host nations column is supported by refs. Chamal ^T•C 09:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps move the refs to their own column? This will make it obvious that the reference supports the information in the entire row, and not just the result. It'll be slightly easier to locate too.

Chamal ^T•C 14:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Why is ICC expanded on its second use, not the first?
• Is there a reference covering your opening definition of the World Cup?
• Five of the six sentences in the first paragraph begin with "The": try varying your sentence structure to make the paragraph flow better, at the moment it seems little more than string of bullet points that have been put together.
• Ref 5 can go at the end of the sentence, there's no need for it to be mid-sentence like that, it just breaks the flow unnecessarily.
• "Seven teams have competed in every tournament, six teams have reached a final, five of which have won the title." – Sounds a bit repetitive: perhaps list the nations that have played in all the tournaments, and then state which of those did not reach a final and win. Something like (but probably different from): "Seven teams have competed in every tournament; Team A, Team B, Team C, Team D, Team E, Team F, Team G and Team H. Of these, only Team F have not reached the final, and England are the only finalists never to have won the competition."
• "There have been seven different venues used, with Lord's Cricket Ground hosting four matches [6] being the only venue to host more than one final." – Try to avoid sentence structures that use ", with ... verb-ing ..." such as this one does. Perhaps restructure it to: "Lord's Cricket Ground is the only one of the seven venues used to have hosted multiple finals, doing so on four occasions, in 1975, 1979, 1983 and 1999." (Or something like that).
• "..between 3 and 6 associate nations.." – write three and six out.
• Link associate nations to List of International Cricket Council members#Associate Members.
• "Though an associate nation is yet to reach the finals," – Should be final, singular.

There are quite a lot more prose issues, and overall the prose is not written to a very professional level. If you can address the points above, and leave me a message on my talk page, I'll put up some more points, and we'll try and get the writing up to a better standard (although my own writing is often full of redundancies and the such). Harrias ^talk 12:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments – In addition to the ones above, I found these things:

• "The tournament has takes place every four years." Should be without "has". Also, there should be a note made that there have been three and five-year cycles in the past. Maybe say it's usually held every four years?
• "The current trophy stays with the ICC, a replica is awarded to the winning team." Could use "and" after the comma.
• Remove space before several reference in the lead, not just ref 5.
• No need to capitalize Cricket in "Nations with Test Cricket status...".
• "Since 1996, between 3 and 6 associate nations have qualified to play the tournament as well." Writing the numbers out has already been recommended, but let me add that the end would be better as "qualified to play in the tournament as well."
• The following is a run-on sentence and could stand to be split up into multiple sentences: "The West Indies won the first two tournaments, and Australia has won four, India won two and has been runner up once, while Pakistan has won the tournament once and has been runner up once as well." Australia having the most titles would be nice to note if this is split.
• Australia has played in the maximum final matches". It seems like "maximum" would be better served as a simple "most".
• "remaining runner up in all three finals appearances." I don't like the use of "remaining", and this is another plural use of "finals" which should be made singular.
• Caption: "ICC retains the current trophy with inscriptions whiles an exact replica without inscriptions is awarded to each winner." "whiles" → "while". Also, "The" should be added at the start.
• The table has "Runner-up", while the lead has a couple uses of "runner up". Does it have the hyphen or not? I think it should, but the page should be consistent either way.
• In the main table, decapitalize Venue in "Final Venue" and Nation(s) from "Host Nation(s).
• Last word should be decapitalized in the Results by Nation heading.
• References 1–4 and 6–7 should have the publishers in italics, since they are from newspapers. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Seattle Mariners team records

Nominator(s): WikiProject Seattle Mariners, Albacore (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Should be a nice addition to WikiProject Seattle Mariners. Albacore (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments I would introduce the team before saying how many times they've played in a league. i.e. "The Seattle Mariners are a Major League Baseball (MLB) team who have participated in 35 MLB seasons since.." That's done. Presumably they tied two matches? I would say that in the lead... What do you mean? The wins and losses don't add up to the total so it would be useful to clarify that two matches were tied. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC) That's odd, but fixed. Albacore (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC) "This list documents the superlative..." while we generally discourage this kind of prose in the lead, I find it okay, but only if it's the last thing you say before introducing the list. Perhaps consider making it the final sentence of the lead. Moved to last sentence. "of team members during their tenure as members " members, members... dull prose I'm afraid. Reworded. "season, with ten. Among the ten are records" why two sentences? Now one sentence. Caption: " playing for the Mariners in June of 2009" remove "of". That's done. Ref -> Ref(s). I think leaving it as singular would be better. But sometimes more than one ref is used, hence plural. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC) That's done. –Present -> –present That's done. Mildly confused as to the usefulness of sortable tables when it seems we're sorting apples versus pears... Can't hurt, especially if someone ever wanted to. Fix the spaced hyphens to meet WP:DASH so they're en-dashes in the references. So, for instance, reference five. You want me to put the ndash between history and baseball, right. I'd object to putting the ndash between Baseball - Reference.com because it doesn't look right. Albacore (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC) That's done. What does [last update] mean in the references? It comes up automatically in the cite for wiki Firefox thing. Would you like my to remove them? What's their purpose? I've only starting seeing these in the last few days... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Not sure. Possibly to see if the reference is up-to-date in its facts. Albacore (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Albacore (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

• Remove year links to baseball seasons in prose; per template documentation for {{by}} and {{mlby}}, they are to be used only in lists and tables where it is clear their context is not simply a link to a year.

De-linked.

• Cameron has four home runs in a game - no link to this FL in the lede?

Linked.

• "Gene Walter, a Mariner for 1988 season" - missing the - for the 1988 season

Fixed.

• "which he achieved on July 18, 1988" - redundant to say 1988 here when you already said it earlier in the same sentence

Removed 1988.

• Link American League on first appearance in the lede

Linked.

• "during their tenure" - should be tenures since you are referring to multiple players

Pluralized.

• The tables don't currently meet WP:ACCESS requirements. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial for instructions and more information.

How do my tables differ any from List of Philadelphia Phillies team records, an FL, which I based the article from? Albacore (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

They don't differ, but that's an older FL (which I know because I wrote it). The new criteria have more stringent requirements to meet WP:ACCESS. Don't worry, that one will be updated too; updating all of the FLs that I've nominated and had promoted to ACCESS-worthy status is a long-term goal of mine. — KV5 • Talk • 01:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I added scope tags to the columns and captions to the tables. Does this now pass WP:ACCESS? Albacore (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a good start. You still need row headers, and now the captions make the table subheaders extraneous, so those can be removed at this time. — KV5 • Talk • 12:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Added row headers and removed sub-headers, and replaced colors. Anything else? Albacore (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why the colors were changed; background colors are much better than text coloring. Right now, the row headers are coded wrong. Since this is a list of records, the "record" column is probably the header, rather than the statistic or the player who holds the record, although there are good arguments for all three. But when using row headers, you can't have everything on one row of code; the header has to be on its own row or the last element in its row. I'll mark up one of the tables as an example. — KV5 • Talk • 16:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, the first table and the key are done as examples. You are probably going to want to adjust your colors because they are too dark for backgrounds. I just used the same ones that were there. — KV5 • Talk • 16:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Good now? Albacore (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Replace daggers with {{dagger}} and appropriate alt text.

Done.

• Why use a picture of Ichiro in a Japan uniform when there are five-plus pictures of his in his article in a Mariner uniform, most notably this one by the excellent Keith Allison?

Replaced.

• Missing an en-dash in the "Career pitching" table

Actually there are no en-dashes in the career pitching table. Putting them in makes the years malfit the table. I don't know why that is, they are the only years like that, but I can't find a solution. Albacore (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Um... they are all en-dashes except for 2005–present. — KV5 • Talk • 23:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Look at the code. Albacore (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What about the code? Hyphens and en-dashes look identical in monospace font; that doesn't change the fact that they all need to be en-dashes. Hardcode the HTML entity if you've got to. — KV5 • Talk • 00:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Albacore (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Mariner's franchise holder" - needs to be record holder and Mariners'

Done.

• "Tied with John Dopson, Rick Honeycutt, Vic Raschi, and Bobby Witt." is a sentence fragment; remove period/full stop at the end

Removed period.

• "Win-loss percentage" should be en-dash, not hyphen

Done.

Unspace this en-dash. — KV5 • Talk • 23:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It is unspaced. Looks wrong; probably leaving it as a hyphen would be better. Albacore (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, no, it is not unspaced. You're using the en-dash template, which forces non-breaking spaces. Use the en-dash that's provided in the toolbox. And leaving it as a hyphen wouldn't be better because it's contrary to MOS:DASH. — KV5 • Talk • 00:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Albacore (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 19:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• No need to repeat Ichiro's name in the lead.

Anything wrong with repeating his name? Albacore (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• The last sentence of the lead would make more sense at the end of the first paragraph. That provides a nice segway into talking about the individual players.

Moved, does sound better there.

• What makes baseball-almanac.com (refs 26 and 27) a reliable source? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'd think that being used by Baseball Digest as a reference source would help to establish reliability (see [1]), and has been praised by multiple baseball authors who have used it as a source. SABR also lists it as a web resource. — KV5 • Talk • 22:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Reliable per above. Albacore (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

1982 Asian Games medal table

Nominator(s): Bill william compton^Talk 17:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This is my first nomination, so please try to go easy on me I'm nominating this for featured list because I think it follows all the attributes of Featured list criteria, also it has been reviewed by some of well experienced users during its peer review. Thanks, Bill william compton^Talk 17:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "If nations are still tied, equal ranking is given; they are listed alphabetically by IOC country code.[12][4]" — refs should be numerical sorted

Done

• • "The total number of bronze medals is greater than the total number of gold or silver medals because two bronze medals were awarded per event in three sports: badminton, boxing and table tennis (except the team events)[13][14][15]." — ref after period

Done

• • "Three gymnasts in men's parallel bars and two each in men's floor, women's uneven bar and women's floor tied for second place, thus no bronzes were awarded in these events, also no silver was awarded for men's parallel bars; tie for third in men's vault meant that two bronze medals were awarded.[17][18]" — I would replace also with and.

Done

• • Ref 2: Needs a format parameter

I think the format is web, isn't it?

No, it is in pdf format

Done

• • Consistency on format is needed in date and accessdates.

Done

• • YRef 10: May I ask where you found the book? There is no asin and even not a isbn. I don't think the title is "Yojana Volume – 32,, Number – 12 "; I think it is simply "Voyana" and the volume and number should be split into their own parameters. "Volume" should be in volume=, and the "Number" possibly in series=

It's not a book but a monthly-magazine published by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (India) (Indian Government). Yojana means Strategy, I didn't know how to cite a magazine (because ProveIt doesn't show any magazine option), but now I've added more specific parameters and cited under journal attribute, like this — {cite magazine |author=Kaur Vijay, Sriman R, Rijvi S.T. Husain |title=Yojana (Spotlight on youth & sports) |journal=Socio-Economic |volume=32 |issue=12 |pages=18–36 |year=1988 |location=Delhi|publisher=Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (India)}. I think it's okay now.

Yes, looks good

• • Overlinking in the refs.

Where is Overlinking? please mention.

like "Doha Asian Games' " or "New Delhi"--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 14:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

? I'm still lost, if you're taking about that why I referenced this link to NEW DELHI 1982 than the reason is that this is a overview of Games and this is a medal table published by OCA, both are different things. I used reference to "Doha Asian Games" four different times, because I need to provide reference for each boxing, swimming, table tennis and badminton and information is available on separate page of website (which actually is an archive of website). If you still think that I'm not properly responding to your query then please provide diffs for overlinked refs.

I did it for you.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I get it now! Thanks

• • "Medal distribution": the brown color in the legend doesn't look like the one in the map.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Done

• Support Meets criteria. Won't capping, because it doesn't work correctly.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Gave a review at PR, and have a second batch of comments, some of which relate to that first review. "The number of the participating countries was greatest in Asian Games history." I fear that I made a mistake in my original review. I meant to say that the "the" before "participating" should be removed, not the one before "greatest". That would make the sentence "The number of participating countries was the greatest in Asian Games history." My apologies on that one. Done Medal table: "a" should be added before "three-way tie in men's pommel horse...", along with another before "tie in men's ring for first place". Done "tie for third in men's pole vault meant that two bronze medals were awarded." "a" should also be added before this. Actually, I think this would make a good sentence by itself, as the prior part is quite long. Done Bullet point would be nice for the one note. Done In reference 2, I don't think the parenthetical part is needed for the publisher. If the country itself should be made clear, you could title it India Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, and then pipe the link. Done Is gymnasticsresults.com (refs 17 and 18) a reliable source? Yes it is, it's a most authentic website which reserves archives of gymnastics' results, for Asian Games they have data from Asian Gymnastics Union. Is the YouTube video from an official source related to the Asian Games people? If not, it's troublesome because we aren't allowed to link to potential copyright violations. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Done Video is neither of Indian govt nor of uploader as it is in Japanese and I don't think anyone would ever claim the ownership of this video. This uploader has great list of such videos, if you want then check here. But as taking precaution I've removed this link.

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments good stuff, I contributed to the PR so not much more to add here. I'd be tempted to put note A after the closing parenthesis, not at the end of the sentence, because the note is particularly pertinent to the nomenclature of the games, not the dates. Done Not keen on leading zeros in "accessdates" such as 01 April 2011. Humans don't need that leading zero to read it correctly. Done Ref 13 has an issue with the accessdate formatting. Done I thought we should use archiveurl= etc for the Wayback machine stuff? Done The Rambling Man (talk)

• Support - everything looks good. Just one minor detail, symbol is needed to accompany the color per WP:ACCESS. I've done it for you already.—Chris!_c/t 21:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Chris....

Older nominations

List of Scotland national football team hat-tricks

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

After randomly coming across the FL List of England national football team hat-tricks, I checked to see if there was a Scottish article and there was - I've changed it to match the formatting on the England FL, expanded the prose section and added the conceded section. Hit a problem image-wise as there simply doesn't seem to be much in the way of free use images available for Scottish players listed (in fact, there isn't a single one). Miyagawa (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose until a few issues are solved:

• no reference provided that these 29 are the only 3 or more goals scored
• same for those scored against (I am suspicious that the list is so short)

• There isn't a specific reference to say either - essentially I went through the entire list of Scotland results to double check and collate the article. I've added a general reference for the index page of the website, but in order to place an inline citation for either of those comments on the tables below, I'd have to insert 21 seperate citations for each (as the information is spread across 21 seperate webpages). Miyagawa (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• An fairly elegant solution would be to use something like that at List_of_Metallica_concert_tours#Notes. Nergaal (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• I've implemented a similar solution. Miyagawa (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• color scheme needed for 4 goals and for the instance where Scotland actually lost (really rare to score a hat-trick and still lose

• Its only happened once, in the 3-4 defeat against Norway on 4 June 1963. Would a note be more appropriate as it's a single occurance? Miyagawa (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Just a quick note as I realized I missed it - I've added a color scheme for 4 goals. Miyagawa (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• a hat-trick is 3 goals, not more

• Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments Caption - should be Denis Law not Dennis. "scored three sets of hat-tricks" don't think you need "sets of". "in a match has been four" really it's "in a match is four". Above three are fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC) "although some sources" the two sources reffing this are the SFA and RSSSF, can you explain why this shouldn't be classed as correct? The RSSSF is the one that states that some sources specifically, while the SFA website is one of those sources. RSSSF has him listed as four goals, not five. Miyagawa (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC) "Robert Smyth McColl, Denis Law and Hughie Gallacher " no need to repeat Denis or Hughie here. "with three sets of hat-tricks each" again, no need for "sets of". "in a Friendly against Wales" no need for capital F here. United States national football team is a dab link. Above four are fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Would prefer to see both tables have consistent column widths. I've run a script on the references to ensure they meet WP:DASH (i.e. replacing spaced hyphens with en-dashes per this edit). The Rambling Man (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, will sort out the column width issue shortly. Credit has to go to Jmorrison230582 who did a series of copy edits on the article which fixed all but one of those issues before I could. Miyagawa (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Have now formatted the tables so that they both match. Miyagawa (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "until the 2003/2004 season...". I believe the MoS recommends against the use of slashes when possible. The en dash usually works well for season ranges. The non-free image needs to go. It adds nothing to the article that a free photo of one of the players couldn't provide. Even if there aren't any free photos possible, I don't think the purpose given of "illustration" is sufficient. Check the sorting in the Results column in the first table. I'm getting single- and double-digit scores sorting separately. This may require the use of a sort template to fix.

• Note b: Year ranges should have en dashes. Even in notes, style should be maintained.
  • The first range still has a hyphen. The rest look good. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Note c: Showing up on the same line as the end of note b for me. Maybe this could be avoided by using bullet points? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think I've fixed those points. Removed the image, realized it was a coding error causing note c to attach itself to note b. Fixed the sorting in the results column - found that it was due to a lack of preceding zeros for the single digit results. Let me know if any of these issues are recurring for you and I'll find another way to resolve them. Miyagawa (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• The information in note A is essential enough that it should be presented before the table.
• It is generally less reader friendly to produce the key after than before the table. People need to know the legend before they read the map.
• I would recommend making a short introduction to the table which contains the note about war-year matches, the content in note A and the yellow issue.
• If the content in note D sourced in any way beyond grooming through the ten RSSSF links?
• Any possibilities of free images? For instances any person to have made a hat-trick.
• Refs are normally center-aligned.
• I believe the Dutchman should be sorted as 'Nistelrooy' rather than 'van Nistelrooy'.
• Should not the RSSSF links be dated?

Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think I've addressed these issues now. The sorting has been fixed for Nistlerooy and the key moved above the tables. Ref columns are now center aligned and moved the info from note A to above each table. There are no free use images of any of the goal scorers as far as I can find, I did have a fair use image but it was requested to be removed by an earlier reviewer. The content in note D (now C) isn't available in a single link - those ten links list every Scotland football result and are to represent that there are no missing hat tricks. Miyagawa (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Also, I just replaced the mess of references in the lead with a note tag linking to note A (formerly B), as it was previously referenced by six different references and just looked messy. Miyagawa (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Grammy Award for Best Urban/Alternative Performance

Nominator(s): Blackjacks101 (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I currently believe it make featured list criteria. I have recently promoted a grammy list to FL and by the looks of things (if it gets more reviews) I will soon have a second FL grammy list under my belt as well.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I made several edits to the list--feel free to state if you disagree with any of the changes made. Overall, I think the list is good. No disambig links or problematic external links. I would just make sure that (especially now that the award has been disestablished) its entire history is present. I think this part could be expanded: "The award will be discontinued from 2012 in a major overhaul of Grammy categories. In 2012, the category will be shifted to the Best R&B Performance category." I will take another look at the list soon. (Note: I am busy constructing the Grammy Awards task force, to the point where I am forgetting about my own FLC nominations, mostly due to lack of activity.) --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'll look for more information on the history =), thanks for commenting!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments Think that four paras in the lead for such a short list is pushing it. Think about merging them to, say, two... "was first honored to India.Arie at" - while this may be superb USEng, it reads really weirdly to me. Can we not say "was presented to" or "was awarded to" or something? Don't overlink Indie.Arie. "is the only performer that was nominated twice" - performer to be nominated twice. " from 2012 in a major overhaul of Grammy categories. In 2012, the category will be shifted to the Best" -> "from 2012 in a major overhaul of the Grammys when the category will be shifted..." Performing artists column -> (a) probably should be "artist(s)" and (b) what is going on with the sorting here? Not sure what to say about the fact that the multiple recipient names don't line up with their flags... Indie Arie caption needs a period. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Did all except I don't understand what you meant about the sorting?--Blackjacks101 (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC) The sorting looks correct to me. I did, however, remove the sort command for Gnarls Barkley, as this is the name of the duo as opposed to a real name. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC) I was confused by the fact you sort India.Arie by I and not by A... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC) I assumed India.Arie was a stage name. She is referenced as both Simpson and Arie throughout her WP article. I wouldn't have thought to sort by her last name, but I am not opposed to it if others agree. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC) No problem. It's an odd one because it's her real name but stylised. Either way, now I understand how it was logically ordered, no serious issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• The size of the list is only nine items. This is very thin for a piece of featured content, and in the old days would have been heavily opposed for not meeting the unofficial 10-item rule of the time. Criteria 3b is a little friendlier to such a list (a merge somewhere is unlikely), but I think it's worthy of note in case anyone else wants to comment on it.
• "the award was presented to artists that have made 'newly recorded urban/alternative performances with vocals". Since this is now past tense (the award won't be presented any more), why is "have" here?
• Space needed before the last sentence of the lead.
• "in a major overhaul of Grammys". Missing "the" before Grammys. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! All Done!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comments

• The general ref should link directly to the category

Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 2 does not need publisher linked

Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• The main issue I have with this list is the definition of the category. Urban contemporary is a radio format, not a music genre, so it may imply that artists receive the award for heavy urban airplay. The linking of "alternative" to alternative hip hop is both WP:OR and WP:EASTEREGG.

So shall I just link urban/alternative to the r&b genre (since that's that category it's under at the grammys) or just no link?--Blackjacks101 (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Backstreet Boys discography

Nominator(s): KingdomHearts25 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have put a lot of work into it and I do think it should be a featured list KingdomHearts25 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Certifications are awarded for units shipped, not units sold. Therefore it is incorrect to list sales figures in the "Sales Based on Claims and Certification-Awards" column based on certs alone.—indopug (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Done. I removed all sales based on certs and changed the title to 'Sales' KingdomHearts25 (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Could link discography. Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) "twenty three" hyphenate. Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) " three compilation albums" infobox says four. Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) "which managed to peak at only number sixty-" -> "which peaked at number..." Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) "However, the single quickly became a success throughout Europe." prove it. I've rephrased the sentence as 'made the top 10 in many European countries'. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) " certified three times platinum in Europe,[3] and Diamond in Canada" consistent capitalisation for the certification, no need for linking Canada. Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) "and would eventually become" -> "eventually became". Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) "the best selling " hyphenate. Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) "At the same time, they released their self titled debut album in the United States" confusing when you've already linked to an album called "Backstreet Boys". Perhaps re-iterate it's the "second self-titled album".. Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) "Never Gone's follow up" -> "Never Gone's follow-up"... Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Link Grammy Award in the lead. Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) What does dash mean in the tables? Look at other discogs. Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Last para is predominantly about awards not discog. Three compilation albums have no references. Well, it's listed in the discography. Should I give references to prove that they exist? KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) "Crawling Back to You"" is not referenced anywhere. What do you mean? The peak positions are referenced at the top. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Since none of these positions indicate that the single charted at all, could you show me which references show it was released at all? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC) "Crawling Back To You" has charted in some Billboard charts and Bigger made it in the Japan Hot 100 and Slovakian charts (Week 51, 2009) KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Nor is Bigger. Same. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Same. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Please use spaced en-dashes in the reference titles, not spaced hyphens per WP:DASH. Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

More

• Mixed dates in the refs contravenes WP:MOS.
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Bare url in the refs (ref. 76)
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Please actually reference those releases which didn't chart anywhere, i.e. Bigger, Crawling Back to You, the last two compilation albums...
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• "and four World Music Awards including five categories in 1998, one category in 1999, four categories in 2000 and two categories in 2001." The only way the number of categories makes sense is if they are a combination of all four award wins mentioned in this sentence. Is that the case?
  • Yes, it is. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• References 9, 14, and 45 should have publishers italicized since they are from printed publications.
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Remove all caps from ref 53.
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Publishers of refs 13, 54, 60, and 72 should be spelled out.
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• aCharts (ref 62 and 65) and everyhit.com (ref 71) have always been found lacking when it comes to reliability. Why are they now reliable?
  • aCharts: WP:BADCHARTS states that aCharts is not reliable only for some countries like Italy. As far as the American and Canadian charts are concerned, it is definitely reliable. I am saying this not only because the website is not listed for these countries at BADCHARTS but also because every position of the top 100 weekly singles at acharts corresponds exactly with the top 100 singles at Billboard.
    • I doubt it would pass muster at FAC, and I don't see why our sourcing standards shouldn't match theirs. Is there anything better that can be used as a source for the info? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
      • As for acharts.us, please note the language at WP:GOODCHARTS explaining the green star symbol used with acharts.us: Good and Featured class articles should not rely on unlicensed archives as convenience links, and should use official sites and licensed archives where possible. There's no information at acharts.us that cannot be found at a licensed site.—Kww(talk) 23:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Done. Removed aCharts. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Still see it in current refs 63 and 66. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• • everyhit.com: Done. I have removed everyhit.com KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• In addition to the aforementioned ref 76, ref 75 needs further formatting.
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Not certain that Platinum, Diamond should be capitalised in the prose
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• "After the Black & Blue Tour in 2001, the Backstreet Boys entered a two-year hiatus. They released their fifth studio album, Never Gone, in 2005." My maths must be off because 2001 + 2 years = 2003. So what happened between 2003 and 2005?
  • Done. Removed the "two year". KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• When used as a conjunctive, "However" shouldn't start a sentence. Easy fix: change "blah blah blah. However blah blah blah" to "Blah blah blah; however, blah blah blah". Better fix: remove it altogether and recast the sentence.
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Compilation albums table has the Sales column, but it's empty. Why not remove it?
  • It would be a better idea to have it because the studio album table has the column and it would be inconsistent not to have it here, even though there aren't any sales mentioned. Linkin Park discography is an example. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
    • The WP:FL? require the list be complete. An emtpy column of sales figures implies we forgot to put it in, someone removed it, and that the list is incomplete. Removing the column removes that worry. Since the albums did sell copies, if you insist on leaving the column in, you need to put sales figures. Think about writing the article for the album. Would you put "The album sold __________ copies" and leave a gap because we don't know the figure, or would you simply not mention it? Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Is Backstreet Boys "For the Fans" a notable release? Should it be included here?
  • Done. Removed it. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• A discography is supposed to catalogue releases. NKOTBSB is set for release in May. It isn't out yet, doesn't really exist, and so isn't part of their discography
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Table header is fucked up in the Singles, for Canada. Why not just put the reference by the chart position for that one?
  • Done, fixed it. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Please use correct ISO-3 names for the countries. NL, GER, SWI mean nothing
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Copied from Matthewedwards' talkpage:

      Hey, this is regarding your comment while reviewing the BSB discography on FLC that NL, SWI, and GER should be changed according to ISO-3. I did what you said but another editor reverted my edit saying that this system is not used anymore. He kinda seems to be right as most discographies, including featured ones, seem to have SWI, GER, etc. So, should we leave it as it is or should I still change it? KingdomHearts25 (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
           Then he's probably the one going around changing them. All the discog FLs I've done, I've been asked to do ISO-3 names as they're official. I've also seen other discog nominations being asked to make them ISO-3, as well as a discussion on a talk page somewhere at WP:DISCOG, perhaps the style page. Check out some of them from the date they were promoted, you'll likely find more. GER and SWI have no meaning and are simply wrong. but the thing is that small edits like changing DEU to GER and SUI to SWI won't flag people when they see the edit on their watchlist because no bytes have been added or removed, and so they end up being left that way. Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
We always want to make sense when requiring for certain styles. SUI=suisse is in French, DEU=Deutschland is in German; in other words, if we are going to ask editors to post these two in their native languages, we might as well ask for all other markets be posted in their native languages including Finland which would be SUO=Suomen and not FIN, Sweden which would be SVE=Sverige and not SWE, Austria would be ÖST=Österreich and not AUT etc.. The country abbreviations are in English also at Discographies/style/samples. --Harout72 (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

ISO 3166 is an internationally recognized standard for country codes and abbreviations. Requiring SUI and DEU is not asking for abbreviations in native tongue, just in the internationally recognized standard. Check out ISO 3166-1, a fully referenced and FL article about the codes. The ISO 3166-1 code for Germany is DEU, for Switzerland it's CHE (Latin for "Confœderatio Helvetica"; I made a typo before when I said "SUI" without thinking). For Finland it is FIN, for Sweden it is SWE, and for Austria it is AUT. SVE, SUO and ÖST have nothing to do with anything. You're right, we do want to make sense, and I agree, using those three doesn't make sense. Using made up abbreviations because we want pre-teen and teen Backstreet Boys fans to understand what county we mean doesn't. We're an encyclopedia. Let's educate. Let's, since we require professional standards of writing at WP:FL?, use the ISO-3166 codes, which do make sense. Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

While I'm aware of ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, I don't think we necessarily need to implement those internationally recognized ISO codes in discography tables. I do recall seeing the ISO codes in the past in the tables, but they haven't been in use for quite some time now. Can we really call it a teen desired made up abbreviations? I don't know, but the fact remains that there are no featured discographies with ISO codes implemented in them for DEU=Germany, CHE=Switzerland. However; if this is something that some reviewers desire to see changed, surely the sample table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style needs to be amended first. Otherwise, it wouldn't be fair to single out one discography.--Harout72 (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

If they haven't been used in quite some time, and I'm not sure I believe that, it's probably because a person or people have been surreptitiously changing them. As I said previously, changing DEU to GER won't flag anyone who is watching the page because there is 0 bytes of change. Even the odd ±5 bytes here and there wouldn't cause a page watcher to stop and check out what's changed. Then, because eventually those people have changed enough pages without raising eyebrows, because it isn't noticeable unless you're looking for it, it becomes accepted as the norm. It isn't. They're incorrect abbreviations. The sample table at the Discog style page doesn't need amending first because it isn't a Manual of Style guideline or sub-guideline. It hasn't even been "officially" approved as a style guide by the discog people. There's a huge notice at the top that it's a proposal and it has been for years. The page is effectively dead. It hasn't been updated to reflect what's required at FLC, which sets the standard of what is "the best example [of a list] Wikipedia has to offer", and there hasn't been any discussion on the talk page for months. Besides, a proposal isn't set in stone and even an accepted MOS has changes made to it periodically. While ever they continue to be in the article,FLC is the only place the Discog people discuss their articles. This page is being "singled out" because it has been put up for review, and I'm reviewing it. I'm not reviewing any other, but if I do I'll ask for the same. If you don't want it singled out, don't nominate it, simple. As with all the discogs I've put up, and the ones I've been involved in reviewing, they have been asked to use internationally standardized abbreviations. Perhaps the Discog folk have gotten lax in their standards in my absence, but I'm here again, and while ever we have incorrect abbreviations in an FLC for no good reason other than WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'll stand by my oppose because being wrong does not sit comfortably with "exemplifies our very best work". Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The only time "GER" would be an acceptable abbreviation for Germany is in Olumpic-related or football-related articles, possibly some other international sporting events that "borrow" the IOC codes. Same for "SUI" (not "SWI") for Switzerland (That's why I typed it earlier!). Since discographies and the music industry doesn't have an "official" list of country abbreviations, we default to the ISOs, as with every other subject that doesn't. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I was invited to this discussion by Harout72, and I'm going to wind up agreeing with both of you. Harout72 is right that discographies don't normally use ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes. That isn't because of people making surreptitious changes, that's because WP:DISCOGSTYLE doesn't use them. It just makes up it's own codes. Matthewedwards is right that that isn't how it should be: discography articles should use a standard system. I think the discussion of which system to use belongs at WT:DISCOGSTYLE, and I wouldn't have any objection to any editor that decided not to support any more discographies becoming WP:FLs until the matter is resolved.—Kww(talk) 15:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Instead of a footnote that makes the reader scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page, just do a line break and small font to say "Don't Turn Out The Lights" is performed with New Kids
  • Done. I just brought the note to the single section, so the user doesnt have to go all the way to the bottom of the page. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Rows for Number 1 hits and Top 10 hits aren't standard and are not needed. Any half-wit can count all the 1s in a column and figure out how many number 1 hits they had in a country.
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Perhaps retitle the Videos section as Home videos?
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Ref 2, 21, etc Billboard is a magazine, so it should be italicised. Be consistent between "Billboard" and "Billboard magazine"
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• What makes Rockonthenet.com a Reliable Source?
  • It has reliable information, is not blacklisted, the certifications and awards posted there seem to be accurate, I don't know what is unreliable about it. I think it is a pretty safe site to use. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Many sites that are unreliable aren't blacklisted. We need a bit better reassurance than than "it seem to be accurate" and "I think it's pretty safe to me". What do you base this on? To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.
    • This applies equally to the acharts reference that Giants mentioned earlier. How can they be considered totally unreliable for some information but reliable for others? It doesn't make sense. If the site is wrong, it's wrong, it doesn't matter that some of what they have is right. Surely there are other sources available? Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Hung Median and Chart Stats shouldn't be italicised as they're just website names, not publication titles
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• BPI is a company, and that shouldn't be italicised.
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Ref 51, 55, etc remove riaj.or.jp from the attribution
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Not too bad, but needs a bit of work. Oppose for now. Please ping my talk page for a revisit. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Additional

• What makes enotes.com a RS?
• What makes infodisc.fr a RS?
• What makes videostatic.com a RS?
  • Done. Changed to RS. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• What makes discogs.com a RS?
  • Done. Changed to RS. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• What makes Imdb.com a RS?
  • Done. Changed to RS. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• What makes Chartstats.com a RS?
  • Done. Changed to a more reliable source. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• cmt.com --> Country Music Television
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin discography

Nominator(s): ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I improved some things after the first nomination, including some peak chart positions, which were wrong. Also reassessed small things like spaced em-dashes, newspapers not in italicface, references missing and organisations not wikilinked. I hope it passes this time. Happy reviewing.♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Novice7 (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments – References are inconsistent. For example: Ref 1 says Allmusic but Ref 2 says Allmusic.com. A few more instances throughout. consistent now Ref 6 publisher is wrong. (Billboard → Prometheus Global Media) I think you meant Rovi Corporation and not Billboard. Changed. Many online sources are italicized. Please fix them. I think you are referring to "Encyclopaedia Britannica", which is a book, so I thought it should be italicized. Changed. Ref 35 RPM should be italicized (it is a magazine) True, forgot to do that. Ref 14 vs Ref 36 inconsistent publisher and work. done Ref 40 Zobbel. I don't think it's reliable. Me too, but I'll ask at WP:RSN soon Ref 41 ChartStats. Is it reliable? Don't know. Will ask. Ref 37 publisher missing I think you mean the work. Fixed. I'm doubtful about the usage of "digital songs". Do you mean Promotional singles? Yes, they are promotional singles, but aren't all music download promotional singles? Not really. Now the table looks neat. "released on Atlantic Records..." → released "by" Atlantic Records? Expand US -> United States on the first occurrence. Provide the abbreviation for Recording Industry Association of America in brackets (" including eight-times Multi-Platinum from the Recording Industry Association of America....") Similarly, CRIA too. Usage of times; and "times" → inconsistent from "the" RIAA and "the" CRIA (inconsistent too) "One example is the live album How the West Was Won..." → can you tweak this sentence a bit? You have not mentioned anything about the singles. The notes A, C and D need references A: It was discussed here; I took the first one to prove that it is a studio album. I have no problems to remove the note, but the reader should understand, that some sources claim that it is a compilation album. C: I removed this. D: Is already in the lead. "—" denotes albums that were released but did not chart, albums not released in a particular territory, or chart information is not available. → isn't this a bit too long? Novice7 (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks again for the review. I believe I fixed most of these items.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC) I removed the "music downloads", as I could not find any sources, that these songs were only released as a musical download. I simply merged it with "Singles".--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC) I restored it, as the source backs up the information, that their catalog, including Mothership, was released as a musical download. --♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the review.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support – All the issues I pointed out were taken care of. Also, the discography has improved a lot too. Novice7 (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "which produces seven digital downloads and were released...". Should be "produces" be "produced"? Also, "were" should be "was", unless this is describing both albums in the sentence. forgot to change, after I had added a sentence. done "in the iTunes store including." Cuts out rather abruptly, I'd say. done "was one these songs released in digital stores." Missing word. done Note below several tables: "denotes releases that did not chart or was not released." Conflict between singular and plural here; either change "releases" or "was". This isn't the first time I've seen this at a discography, and I hope it's the last. oopsie. done Note C: "This songs were released as a music download...". Change first word to "These". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC) done. Thank you for your comments.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 21:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Led Zeppelin's untitled fourth album, often called Led Zeppelin IV, is their most commercially successful album. It received a 23× Platinum certification from RIAA, the third-highest of all albums." — Can you mention that "Stairway to Heaven" came from this album? I think we can safely say that it's one of the all-time classics of rock'n'roll. Jimknut (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think it is really that important to add this. It is already mentioned in the third paragraph.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are the album tracks "Darlene", "Ozobe Baby" and "Poor Tom" listed in the singles discography? None of those songs were released as singles. Piriczki (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I reworded the section, infobox and lead beginning.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

How does the reader know which titles in the singles discography were singles and which titles weren't singles? Piriczki (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

ok done.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 16:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Some might think this as being a bit pointy since I recently got into a discussion about it at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Backstreet Boys discography/archive1, but, <shrugs> that's for the closing director to decide. I was told there that this is common practice at discography pages recently, and I think it has to stop:

"GER" has no meaning. I could accept it in an Olympic- or football-related article, but that isn't the case here. We should use international standards for abbreviating country names when a differing standard hasn't been approved (such as in the two cases already mentioned). GER is not an acceptable abbreviation in regular usage, and a list that "exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work" shouldn't be using it. So, while the article continues to uses abbreviations pulled out of our arses, I will have to oppose. Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a valid reason to oppose, only because you don't like the abbreviation. "Oppose" simply means, that you think this list is against the criteria. "GER" is simply and understandable, whereby "DE" not. This is just a disco and not a list about some sport competition, like you said. You can put any abbreviation you want, but it must be understandable for readers.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Piffle. Of course it's a valid reason to oppose. Not just because I don't like it but because it is wrong. It is against the criteria. Criterion 1 requires "professional standards of writing." GER isn't a valid abbreviation for Germany except when writing about the Olympics or football. Outside of those it has no meaning. DE and DEU do. They are accepted standards. Where did you come up with using whatever you like as long as it's understandable. Again, it has no meaning in general usage, and so I don't understand it. It's usage is incorrect and not professional. This may be just a discog, but it's also being asked to be identified as a page that exemplifies our very best work, and whether it's a discog, sport list, tallest building list or list of species, they are all held to the same standard. Matthewedwards :  Chat  17:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I changed it.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 20:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Support, thanks Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The merging of singles, promotional singles, and other charted songs is not good. It doesn't let the reader know which is which. Separate. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 23:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• No, there are notes below (C and D).--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• I see that, but since there are so many of each, it is best to just have each separate sections. That's my main concern. Other than that, I think the page is missing very little to become an FL. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 20:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Ok done.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 20:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Great, but now there are needed columns that are not needed. For example, in the "Singles" section, no song charted on "US Digital", but the chart is still there. Please remove it from that particular table. Same thing goes for "Charted songs" and "Music downloads". -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• is it ok so? In the "Charted songs" column, if I'll remove the columns, only one column remains. So I decided not to delete it.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• One one column should remain. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that if it only charted on one chart. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 17:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• ok done--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Specially with the new expansion in the lead. Congratulations! A job well done. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• "eight digital songs" I've never heard them referred to like this, are they "download-only" songs?

• yes, download-only songs, MP3 downloads; reworded.

• Also not clear what a "charted song" is when other singles etc have "charted".

• A charted song is a song which charted in any charts, but was not released as a single. Singles are released songs, but not vice versa. It is not usual that songs get charted.

• I'm confused. What format did these "items" chart as? Singles? Albums? EPs? How did they chart if they weren't released? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know how; on Billboard (magazine) it says, that Billboard 100 ranks top 100 songs based on "physical sales, digital sales and radio airplay", so either they were charted digital or per radio airplay. They haven't got any format I deplore.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 22:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• "including 8× Multi-Platinum " -> "including eight times multi-platinum"

• Not sure why you suggest this; I think it should be consistent with all others. But I reworded it.

• It was a general comment to make sure that the prose was excellent rather than full of grammatically incorrect figures. There are still other instances of this in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• done--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 22:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Same for following instances of that phrase.

• done

• When was LZ IV released (for the benefit of the lead)?

• done

• "the Led Zeppelin Box Set, Vol. 2 and the " not the same title as you used for the album in the table.

• done

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 19:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus discography

Nominator(s): ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 01:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria to become a Featured List on Wikipedia. ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 01:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Don't you think the lead is too long for such a young singer who has released only three studio albums, and probably has a long career ahead of her? With every new release, the lead will only become more bloated, and would need to be significantly rewritten. I suggest that rewriting be done now itself so that it can easily incorporate additions.—indopug (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think so because although she released three studio albums, she released five well-known soundtracks. And as her career expands, the discography will probably be split in half, such as Mariah Carey discography. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 20:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hmmm I've never been a fan of the tendency among pop-music editors to split discographies; but I guess that isn't relevant to this FLC.—indopug (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

*Quick Comments Extened plays: Spanian Platinum no ref? Done "Walt Disney" label should be wikilinked to Walt Disney Records Done Some references without a format=PDF parameter Done Some references without a language= parameter Which ones? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 20:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC) German-language references 21, 23, 24, 34.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 09:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Done. Ref 21, 23, 24, 45, 46, 58, 59, 60 German (seriously, Dutch and German are not very similar); 85 Japanese Done. Ref 6: no need to link "Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc." Done Ref 9, 17, 84: Check them up; see some errors.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Done

• Comment Look at Ref 99. Something's wrong there. Otherwise nice disco.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Done.

• ok then I'll Support. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Why isn't Hannah Montana discography completely merged here? Nergaal (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • What do you mean? -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Since Miley Cyrus discography covers all the Hanna Montana releases, why does the HM discog need to exist? Shouldn't it be a redirect to MC discog?—indopug (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Consensus is yet to be determined for that. But I'm thinking of keeping it and leaving as a discography for the Hannah Montana franchise (which includes more albums and singles) and not the fictional character, which makes more sense. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "It peaked at number on the Billboard 200...". Number itself is clearly missing. Done. "Meet Miley Cyrus spawned two singles, the first, 'See You Again', which became her first top ten hit in the United States." Change the first comma to a semi-colon, and remove "which". Flow is a bit off the way it is now. Done. "which peaked at number on the Billboard 200...". A forgotten number twice in the lead? This is a first for me in discographies. Done. "both which peaked at number two on the Billboard 200." Missing "of" before "which". Done. "being unable to duplicate prior success." Should it be "her prior success"? Done. The note at the bottom of several tables: "denotes releases that did not chart or was not released." Why is "was" being used for potential multiple releases. Shouldn't it be "were"? Done. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Some might think this as being a bit pointy since I got into a discussion about it at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Backstreet Boys discography/archive1, but, <shrugs> that's for the closing director to decide. I was told there that this is common practice at discography pages recently, and I think it has to stop. "GER" and "SPA" mean nothing. More so for "SPA". I could accept "GER" in an Olympic- or football-related article, but that isn't the case here. We should use international standards for abbreviating country names when a differing standard hasn't been approved (such as in the two cases already mentioned). GER and SPA are not acceptable abbreviations in regular usage, and a list that "exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work" shouldn't be using them. So, while the article continues to uses abbreviations pulled out of our arses, I will oppose. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to change the abbreviations to anything, but the discussion should be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies. Also, if the abbreviations are changed, how would you order the charts? By alphabetic order according to abbreviations or full English names? -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 17:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I would alphabetize by abbreviation, so "DER" comes before "FRA" (even though "France" is alphabetically before "Germany"), but it's up to you. Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

They have been changed. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 23:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Support Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• "which first aired in March 2006. " ref?

• Done.

• I find it odd that in the lead you have "triple platinum" i.e. uncapitalised platinum, but in the tables you have "3x Platinum"...

• Many FL discographies like Madonna albums discography follow the same procedure, as it in the text, certifications are in paragraphs and are treated as a regular noun (not a proper noun, which are supposed to be capitalized). Meanwhile, in the table, they are not. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Cyrus then signed a record deal with Hollywood Records to launch a career under her own name." ref?

• What type of source is needed? It is sourced throughout the article that all material as herself have been released with Hollywood Records. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Two dates "as of (mid) 2010" - any updates considering it's nearly mid-2011?

• Nope, sorry. Since she hasn't released any material and, therefore not set any records, in over a year, updates are extremely scarce. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Other live albums calls both releases EPs, but yet there's only one EP listed. I guess this is ... okay ... but a little odd, are they live albums or live EPs?

• It's a complex explanation, but they are considered live albums because they are live... however they do have EP lengths. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Where is "I'm Still Good" referenced?

• The general references, like the Allmusic source, reference uncharted releases. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Recommend you specifically link these. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think it needs it. Then, every single release would need a specific source. A general source should suffice. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 20:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• No, every single which didn't chart anywhere should be individually cited. Otherwise I don't know how to prove they ever existed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Provide links here, to you. Is that what you mean? Here they are: [2][3][4]. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 00:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Same comment for "Nothing to Lose"?
• And "Rockin' around the Christmas Tree" and "Are Your Ready". They didn't chart, how or where do I determine they ever existed?
• "Can't Be Tamed - Mini DVD" needs an en-dash.

• Done.

• Note P - "ninety-aix"

• Done.

• Ref 1 format fail.

• Done.

• Ref 2 - en-dash please.

• Done.

• And ref 16.

• Done.

• and ref 32.

• Done.

• Check all others, there are many more...

• Done.

• You relink Media Control Charts in the refs, but you don't relink Billboard etc. Take a consistent approach to relinking (or not) in the refs.

• I don't believe there are any repeated links to Media Control Charts in the refs. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Did you look? 24, 25 both link it. As do 46 and 47. However, 59 to 61 and 67 don't link it... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Done.

• Also, if you only link once, make sure it's the first time.

• Done.

• Refs 95, 96, you cite a single page so it should be p. not pp.

• Done.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Giro d'Italia general classification winners

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, although it's been a while since I brought a list here I think that this one is ready to become featured and hopefully meets all of the criteria. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)

Comments Is the Netherlands a neighbor of Italy? Really? he was 20 years, 158 days old when won... - he was 20 years, 158 days old when he won... was 34 years old, 180 days, when... - Is the comma before "when" necessary? the "Stage wins" column should be explained in the key. h, ' and " should be explained in the key, as well. I think these are pretty much self-explanatory, and don't really need to be put into the key, especially when the column highlights what they mean. NapHit (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC) In the references, "in french" should be "in French" --Cheetah (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Apart from the one issue I have fixed done everything else, thanks for the comments. NapHit (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support It looks good to me.--Cheetah (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments Just an initial response to the above, "stage wins" is fine for me. I'm not sure how close to OR reporting bare statistical facts goes, although I do understand because it's sortable, it could give some kind of "impression" of significance that isn't warranted. However, as long as it's clear that most stage wins doesn't equal overall winner, not a major trauma. There is a bit in the lead which states what the stages represent and the key eplicitly says the column represents the number of stages the cyclist won, so I don't think there's a problem. NapHit (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Coppi's caption doesn't need a full stop. "wears the pink jersey." a minor semantic point for me but this could just as well be "wears a pink jersey" since "pink jersey" isn't a proper noun or linked or anything. This applies et seq. "each cyclist having won the competition five times" - don't think you need to reiterate they're cyclists, why not just "each of them having won.."? "the most Giro's" don't think that should be hyphenated (et seq.) "are third with 6 wins." ->six. When, in the "calendar" is this held? First sentence in the lead states this. NapHit (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC) "The first race was won by Luigi Ganna, " make it "The first Giro.." because in between time you've mentioned the Tour de France. "20 year old team " hyphenate -> 20-year-old team-mate... " five time Tour de" - five-time. "1960,[13] and 1964, " why is 1960 ref'ed and not 1964? "His first victory came in 1968, another triumph in 1970 " not sure the comma is the right thing here, maybe a semi-colon or replace with "while". "the following year" you link only "year", I'd link "following year" as a whole. "Giro in 2000 after he won the penultimate stage to take" no, he won it by the standard rules. Winning the penultimate stage wasn't the sole reason he won the Giro. Years which weren't contested, can you not put colspan's in with "Not contested" or something? Shouldn't mess up the sorting... Salvodelli -> Savoldelli (according to our article). Ref 2 needs an en-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the comments they have been addressed. NapHit (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments from EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

*Oppose For lack of verifiability of the team column. Will change to support once acceptable source for the teams is found. (The current source only shows that the riders rode for the displayed team at a certain point during the year, not that they rode for the team during the Giro.) See discussion below. It might be nice to inform the reviewers that List of Tour de France general classification winners, a similar article, is a Featured List already, nominated by the same nominator, and that this article apparently tries to be consistent with it. This may explain why certain stylistic choices were made, although I am perfectly aware that this does not make them immune for discussion. I have corrected some mistakes in the prose. You might want to check that text for style/grammar; my English is decent but it is hard to explain the jersey thing... That seems to run better now. There is little point in me going over the text as I am familiar with it, so its harder to spot mistakes, that is best left to the reviewers. NapHit (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC) I am not talking about the text that you wrote, but the text that I wrote. You might catch my mistakes. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 17:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC) The table is lacking sources. The general references only show the winner, but not the margin, total distance, winning time/points, sponsor/team and won stages. You can use this source as a source for distance, winning time and margin, but not for sponsor/team nor for won stages. The Tour de France winner list had a table with several mistakes, so I suspect this will also need correction, and sources are needed for this. Include that reference thanks for that, much better than the previous one. Yes that is a problem that there is not a reference for the other columns, it's a shame that there is a not a wider general reference as there is for the tour and vuelta. NapHit (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC) It is a big problem that there is no reference for these columns, in my opinion a problem that would prevent this list from becoming featured. Where did you get this information? Just give your sources, that might be enough. Currently, then the main information of this list is unsourced, and I think this list should not be featured as long as it remains unsourced. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 17:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC) The "Stage wins" column can safely be removed, in my opinion. I have never seen it in other overviews (except from List of Tour de France general classification winners, and even there it was explicitly questioned in the FL-review, and no reason was ever given for inclusion). I think this serves a useful purpose as it illustrates how dominant the winner was during the Giro, it will interest some readers to know that riders have won these events without winning a single stage, on this basis I think the column should remain. NapHit (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC) It does not really show how dominant the winner was, as it does not show how many stages there were in total. No other source that lists the giro winners shows the number of stages they won that year, so I am afraid this gets close to original research. To summarize: my first point, about the jerseys, is probably no problem. The third point, about the 'stage wins' column, is something we disagree on, but I'll ignore that for now, and hope some other reviewer will give their opinion on it. The second point, no sources, is a major problem, and until that is solved, I will oppose. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 17:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 1924 winner has no team or sponsor. Needs a note/en-dash etc. In fact, the 1919 to 1924 editions were not contested in teams, because the economic situation after world war I stopped companies from sponsoring the cyclists. The sponsors in the 1919 to 1923 editions mentioned here may have been the personal sponsors of these cyclists in the rest of the year, but not during the Giro. This is a good example why this table needs sources... --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Well. if this is so I'm going to need a source otherwise the sponsors will have to remain, I understand your concerns about the the table but the problem is that sources that cover the statisitical side of the Giro are thin on the ground, so I can make the most of what I have got. NapHit (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC) I hate to throw wikipedia rules around, but in this case WP:BURDEN is very clear: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Still, I tried to back up my claim with the source I used, but I found that I probably clicked wrong and found results for the Tour de France, not for the Giro d'Italia. On the other hand, I also could not verify the information that is currently in the article. Where can I check that, in the 1923 Giro, Girardengo was part of the Maino team? Where did you get this information from? If you can not give sources for this information, it should not be part of a featured list.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 21:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Well you were right to query my sources as according to this source Giradengo rode for a different team in 1923. What I'm going to do is use that website as the source for all the teams, which hopefully should resolve that issue. NapHit (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC) The teams are all correct now and the source is included in the general refs, this also covers the stage wins, although you'll have to navigate there. I could include the two separate pages for the cycling archives references instead of the one general reference if this is preferred. Anyway hopefully that clears any issue with the legitimacy of the information in the table. NapHit (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately, it does not. The source that you give shows that Girardengo rode for the Gurtner-Hutchinson team and for the Maino team in 1923. It does not say for which team Girardengo rode the Giro, it does not show that that the Giro was contested in teams, and if it were contested in teams, it does not show if it was contested by national teams or sponsor teams. I am not making up unlikely alternatives; the Tour de France (the Giro's older brother) has varied from individual participation to national team participation to sponsored team participation. I have tried to find a source that shows which format Giro used, but sofar could not find one.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 16:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC) For this case either team article does not show that they won the Giro, so it could be that he rode individually, but I think this information will not be ascertained without coming from official channels. However, that source is fine for the majority of the other teams, so I think it will have to do as the main source for the teams. There will not be better source than that unless the Giro released a historical guide along the lines of what the Tour did. NapHit (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC) There are many other possibles sources: Books written on the Giro, newspaper overviews on Giro winner history, old newspaper reports on the Giro, a biography of the Giro winner, and cycling result databases. The source that you use does not show which team the cyclists rode for during the Giro, as the Tour example shows. If this list is to become featured, it should be 100% correct, and 100% verifiable. Currently, there is good reason to doubt some of the teams before WWII, and the information is not verifiable. It looks like you are saying "there is no good source, so a bad source will have to do", and although I understand this logic, a Featured List should follow higher standards. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 20:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for non-verifiable info in the table (specifically: teams before 1940)--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Strange Passerby (talk • cont)

*Original comments 12:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC) "Italian cyclists have won the most Giro's, 39 cyclists have won 65 Giro's between them." Grammar. Giro's what? If it isn't a possessive or contraction, there shouldn't be an apostrophe there. This happens quite a bit in the article. "The first Giro was won by Luigi Ganna, Carlo Galetti won the two following Giro's." Per first point. I'd personally add the word "while" between the two names to make the sentence flow a bit better. "From 1914 onwards the scoring format was changed from a points-based system to a time-based system, in which the cyclist who had the lowest aggregate time at the end of the race would win." A ref for this would be nice, although this may be a bit picky. "The dominant figure in the 1920s was Alfredo Binda, he won his first Giro in 1925 and followed this up with another victory in 1927, in which he won 12 of the 15 stages." Shouldn't the first comma be a semicolon? Alternatively, "he won" could read "who won". In the table, kilometres is spelled out but miles isn't. Is there a reason for this? Shouldn't it be standardised to km (mi) or kilometres (miles)? Addressed all your comments, I can't find a reliable source for the switch to time based system, but I'll keep searching and I might find one eventually. NapHit (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC) I found a source ([5]) from RAI, the (leading?) Italian broadcaster, that gives general information about the winners of the Giro, I guess similarly to what this article does. Unfortunately my Italian is not good enough, but it may include something on the time based system, or something else... --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Used googel translate and there was nothing regarding the witching of the scoring method unfortunately. NapHit (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Three more instances of "Giro's" left in the article. Once changed I'll support. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Got them, Cheers. NapHit (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Comma after "Italian cyclists have won the most Giros" should probably be a semi-colon. Remove comma after "of the Liquigas-Doimo team". History: Semi-colon after Alfredo Binda should be a comma. The opposite is true for the comma after "called to the head office of La Gazzetta dello Sport in 1930". Is it "Giro's" or "Giros"? I see both in the article. De-capitalize Team and Points in the table. Are the last two general references reliable sources? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately those two sources are the only ones that cover most of the table, I believe that they are reliable, the cycling archives website is very extensive and updated regularly. The bikeraceinfo one is edited by two people who have had books published on the subject, so I believe the source would be reliable. Thanks for the comments I have addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Benet Academy alumni

Nominator(s): Edge3 (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey all. This is my first FLC attempt (and the first list I've worked on), so I'd really appreciate some feedback! FYI a huge chunk of the lead is just a summary of the main Benet Academy article. Thanks, Edge3 (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support —Mrwojo (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC); I do have some comments though:
  • It wasn't clear to me that "the school enrolled only men of Bohemian or Slovak ancestry" referred to the Czech college.
    • I'm not an expert on this, but aren't those three ethnicities related in some way?
  • Non-graduates should have an "N/A" or em dash to indicate that the Graduated column is intentionally without a date.
    • Em dashes added
  • A sortable table would be convenient.
  • Porter Moser has a period at the end of his description unlike all others. Because they aren't complete sentences perhaps the few descriptions that use periods should use commas or semicolons instead? (Just a thought.)
    • Period removed from Moser entry; semicolons added between phrases within entries

  Thank you so much for your support! I've addressed most of your concerns listed above; I'll work on the sortable table shortly. Edge3 (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

  Sortable table enabled. Edge3 (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Why is this list titled "people" and not "alumni"? Nergaal (talk) 04:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  Yeah I really don't have an explanation for that. I moved the page. Edge3 (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  I fixed up all the redirects etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments' First para is silly short. Merge intelligently (per WP:LEAD, an article of this size doesn't need three paras). Paras combined " An alumni directory compiled in 1937 reveals that older alumni have included members of the clergy, businessmen, physicians, educators, attorneys, musicians, and journalists" while this may be true, this is probably true of any establishment founded for a few years. When was Benet Academy founded? Worth putting that in the lead. Okay, you add that info in the third para, but you can't talk about what happened in 1937 without putting it into context. I went to a college founded in 1284, if I started talking about what happened in 1937 without mentioning that the college had been around for 650-odd years, it would seem strange. I mentioned the year the school was founded in the second sentence US News and World Report is usually called "U.S. News & World Report ". Fixed The lead, as a whole, provides a reasonable overview of the history of the Academy, but this list is about the alumni. You should be focussing on them, not the history of the institution. Ok, I shortened the history paragraph. What does a dash in the "graduation" col mean? Needs clear explanation. I guess "Studied as a freshman" means they dropped out? It's not 100% clear to me (as a Brit...) I added the em dashes per Mrwojo's comments above. The em dash indicates that they studied at the school but never graduated there. I added both the word "only" before "during the ___ school year" and the high schools they graduated from. Ref 1 should be pp. not p. (multiple pages). Fixed. Refs, is it "Daily Herald" or "The Daily Herald" or are they different? Daily Herald, without "the". I removed that one instance. Is "Herald-News" one or both of the above? Neither. See [6] The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I have responded to them above. Edge3 (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• What makes BoxingScene.com (ref 22) a reliable source?

  I can see why you would be suspicious of that source. I've replaced it with a (hopefully) better source.

• Ref 10 gives the page number as pp., when it should just be p. (single-page cite). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

  I switched the parameter.

Thanks for your comments! Edge3 (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

List of France international footballers

Nominator(s): –J10S ^Talk 21:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the required criteria and would benefit its associated project if it became a featured list due to the importance of the players on the list in their sport. –J10S ^Talk 21:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick comment I'm not a fan of colours used in the table, they are two similiar for my liking. I would like to see one them replaced with, for example, with green or yellow. Utinsh (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if the colours are kept, symbols need to be used as well, per WP:ACCESS........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Taken care of. –J10S ^Talk 19:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment the intro is overwhelming. Consider splitting a good chunk of it as a separate section. Nergaal (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, the first column in the table is a bit useless for the "=" entries. Nergaal (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the sortable on the # column since the table is already sorted by the caps. I also removed a portion of the lede and inserted it, along with a little more prose addition, into a created section. –J10S ^Talk 22:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Oppose from KV5 The table doesn't meet ACCESS requirements - table captions, scopes, row headers, and col headers needed. Done. –J10S Talk 05:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC) The numbers are not the appropriate row-headers. This is a list of footballers, not a list of numbers. — KV5 • Talk • 11:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC) That should do it? –J10S Talk 21:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Markup is still not showing properly. I suggest checking out Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial or, failing that, asking User:RexxS for a hand. — KV5 • Talk • 21:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Seems like the only way it will be displayed properly is if I removed the number column. Or not. I got it. Thanks for the link to the tutorial. Though the markup is showing up properly, it is not allowing me to display the yellow color on the "Name" row to indicate that the player is still eligible for the national team, which has forced me to move the color into the "National team career" column, which conflicts with one of your comments below. I've looked up the classes to see if there is one that will allow me to do this, but I haven't found one. Okay, so I found a way to do it, but it means removing the ! scope="row"

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments See my comment about the hatnote that I left at the List of Fulham F.C. players FLC. Just prefer a tidier hatnote without the markup exposed. Done. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) What defines and references "still active for the national team"? It means they have not retired from international football and are subsequently still eligible to play for the national team. I guess I can add a note. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) I would advocate spelling out UEFA before using it, particularly for our readers who may not be completely familiar with the organisation. Done. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Don't like the easter egg from "international" to "FIFA". What would you suggest? FIFA governs international football. I'll just link it to International football. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) We don't need to link basic terms like "Europe". Done. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Do you have a page number for ref 3? No, but in the intro, it states that 798 players have represented the national team since its first match. Book was published in 2004 and several more players have gone on to make their debuts for the national team. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) While I'm in the refs, can you replace spaced hyphens with en-dashes per WP:DASH please? Done. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) French language references should use the language=French parameter. Done. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) France is overlinked. Done. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) As is association football. Done. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Not sure you need the bullet point in the italic note in the Players section. Removed. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) "Players are listed by amount of caps,.." you should add "initially" here because the list is sortable. Done. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Curiously, if you sort the list by caps, when caps are equal, it seems to be the players with fewer goals that are listed first (e.g. Amoros and Djorkaeff). This effectively means you can't get back to the way the table was listed when you open the page... However, I've noticed this sort order depends on what you've ordered previously...! Yes, you can't back to the way the table was listed when you open the page. I am not fully familiar with tables on wiki and have tried to find out how to prevent this. I'll get in touch with User:RexxS, who seems to be a table aficionado, when I get the chance. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) "represented France at four major international tournaments." where is this referenced? Can't see anything on the FFF page. Done. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) "was declared the fourth best French player of all time by magazine France Football." reference please. Done. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) "was integral to the French " is this a quote? In any case, it needs reference otherwise it's just your point of view. Done. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Tigana's caption needs reference too. I can't see where it says he won Euro 84. Done. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) You don't need Category:French footballers nor Category:France national football team as cats since you have Category:France international footballers which is more refined and includes both of the former. Removed. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Whenever there's a sentence that goes "xxx player who...", there should likely be a comma before the "who". It seems minor, but punctuation is important in professional writing, which is strived for here. There are a few instances like this in the second and third paragraphs. Done. –J10S Talk 01:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC) "Bossis was passed just six years later by former international teammate Manuel Amoros. Amoros...". Instead of having sentence to sentence repetition like this, why not combine them in the form of "Amoros, who..."? That wouldn't be too long of a sentence put together. Done. –J10S Talk 01:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Is reference 3 meant to be a cite to the entire book, or certain pages within it? If the latter, page numbers would be nice. I guess you can say its the former, since the book discusses every player that appeared for the national team since its first match. –J10S Talk 01:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Publisher of reference 19 should be italicized since The Independent is a printed publication. Done. –J10S Talk 01:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. –J10S Talk 01:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the status of this nomination? It has been dormant for a few days. — JS^{Rant Away} 20:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I placed it in the backlog listing at the top of the FLC page. Hopefully that will attract some more attention to this list, which has been languishing here without further review for almost three weeks now. Perhaps you could post a message at the soccer (football) WikiProject asking for reviews? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Discontinued Hugo Awards

Nominator(s): PresN 02:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Last one! The first FLC was 11 months ago, and here we are with the 14th! This one breaks the mold of all the other Hugo Award lists- instead of one long table, it's several! As said in the article, each individual convention is allowed to make up its own Hugo Awards, which are just as official as the others despite not being binding on the next convention; additionally, a couple of times Hugo Awards have been officially created by the governing body only to be dropped a few years later. This list contains all of those, resulting in the catch-all title of "Other Hugo Awards" "Discontinued Hugo Awards". I hope you guys find this one as fine as the other 13 lists. Thanks for reviewing this and the other lists! --PresN 02:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose until a decent name is found. This name is simply misleading. It could be "Hugo awards (minor awards)" or "Hugo Awards (deprecated categories)" or something more useful. Plus, the table section should be split into deprecated awards and those still being awarded. Nergaal (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, the name itself kind of points out the fact that this might simply be a CFORK. Nergaal (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A CFORK that is twice the length of the parent article (Hugo Awards), even after you pull the extra white space? I'm cool with a better name if one can be found; I don't think the two that you have work- Minor awards doesn't work because what makes these minor other than that they mainly aren't given any more? They're just as legitimate. And deprecated doesn't work, because Graphic Story is still ongoing- given the buzz around it the two years it's been up I fully expect it to get reupped in 2012. --PresN 17:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

How about "List of discontinued Hugo Awards"? GamerPro64 (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Would work except that Graphic Story isn't discontinued, it's just only 2 years old. That's why I went with Other- the distinguishing feature was that they were all too short to stand on their own. --PresN 21:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to include absolutely all of the "other" prizes in such a list. Just change this to "discontinued prizes" and put the one ongoing into the main article as auto-capped. Nergaal (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, renamed to Discontinued Hugo Awards and spun out the graphic award into its own list. This is rather ironic- the list was originally just that graphic award, and I expanded it to include the other small awards. Now it's back to being its own list. --PresN 20:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments Not sure about the usefulness of having sortable tables with one entry. I know consistency is good, but this still seems a little odd to me. Point; made all single-entry tables unsortable, as well as one where the sorting wouldn't do anything. --PresN 21:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC) "When the Hugo awards were begun in 1953, what awards were given were entirely decided by the committee that organized the Worldcon that they were presented at." not wishing to be rude but I think this is one of the most awkward sentences I've ever read in my life.... Do I win an award? Fixed. --PresN 21:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC) "by the overall World Science..." what's the purpose of "overall" here? None, removed. --PresN 21:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC) "Despite this, however," no need for however here. Actually, despite this, however, it has been removed. --PresN 21:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC) "to add additional categories" reads poorly with the repeat of "add..." (insert repetition joke) fixed. --PresN 21:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC) "The next non-standard Hugo award .." since you changed the title of the list, I guess you need to re-phrase this! Guess so! --PresN 21:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Replied inline. --PresN 21:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support I see no further problems. And yes, you win an award for "worst sentence ever constructed on Wikipedia". It's in the post... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

List of U.S. state horses

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I present the list of state horse breeds of the US for your consideration. I've been slowly working on this for the last few months, and recently took it to PR, where I received some helpful feedback. I'm not all that experienced with FLs, and this is quite different from the other two I have worked on, so I look forward to all of the comments. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Support - I had some pretty involved comments at the peer review and all of my concerns have since been addressed. I checked with the tools in the toolbox and there are no dab links and all the external links are live. Nicely done and meets the FL criteria. I do have have two quibbles, which do not detract from my support.

• The Delaware quarter does not show any horse and rider, it shows Caesar Rodney on his horse.
• Can the table of proposed state horses be made the same width as the table of actual state horses? I do not think the table of symbols needs to be the same width as the others, but these two are in the same section and would look better if they were the same width.

Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the support! I've tweaked the description of the Delaware quarter to include the name of the rider. On my screen, the two tables are the same width, so I'm not sure what you're seeing. I'm also not sure how I would go about forcing the tables to a certain size - coding tables is not my strong points :) Dana boomer (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I made the tables the same overall width and added an "s" to the Pennsylvania seal and flag description (so it is now "horses", since there are two). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments Not convinced how accessible the map is given that it uses just colour to convey information. I'm not very educated about the accessibility guidelines; do you have a proposal to make it more accessible? The general rule is to not use colour alone to convey information. However, since this is an image, I guess the best way to deal with the access issues is to have fully comprehensive alt text which describes to screen readers what the image is trying to convey. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Added alt text to the first image - does it work? "There are twelve U.S. states that have an official state horse, ..." would prefer "Twelve U.S. states has an official state..." Done. Is there a general article n US state symbols somewhere you can link to in the lead so non-experts know what this is all about? There's Lists of United States state insignia, but I'm not really sure that provides any better information... I can link to it if you want, though. I just thought there'd be a good call for a link to something that is meaningful to non-experts, e.g. in the UK we don't have a concept of "state horses". You know what I mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC) I've added a couple of sentences to the article on what state symbols actually are, along with the link that I posted above. Does this help? "There has been a proposed state horse that was not selected in one state, Oregon, " reads very strangely to me. Perhaps turn it around and say that Oregon proposed a state horse, but it was not selected. Done, I think, but take a look. I see no useful reason for the "description" column to be sortable. Done. What's a "founding stallion"? The stallion (male) from which all or most horses of the breed descend. Linked to foundation bloodstock. Be consistent with the use of periods in the description column. They should all have periods now. Would prefer to see column widths the same from table to table with similar headings. Could you tell me how to do this? You would need to force column widths.... it's no major trauma for me, but I'd prefer it. There are many lists which do this already, I'd need to go back and find an example though! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Dana, I know what to do, it'll just take some tinkering. I'll do it when I get home. Courcelles 20:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Okay, done. You might need to play with the widths some more, but as long as the percentage calls add up to 100 and the two tables use the same percentage (like it does now) it'll work. The third table has separate column names, so leaving it narrow is, IMO, better. Courcelles 23:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Thank you Courcelles! The sizing looks fine on both of my computers (different size screens but both Firefox), but if anyone else thinks they're messed up I can play with the ratios. Dana boomer (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC) State symbols "date" column doesn't sort correctly in Safari. Could you tell me how to correct this? I think it's because Safari interprets the whole column as text rather than just numbers. In any case, I used the {{sort}} template in this edit and it seemed to do the job. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Ref 2 has a spare period, "cheat" the template.... Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Thank you for the review! Replies interspersed above. The coding issues I'm going to need help on... :) Dana boomer (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Welcome, very much so. Have hopefully helped above a little.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Full disclosure- I've done some tinkering with this list over the last month or so. Meets FL standards. Courcelles 18:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Florida: "The Florida Cracker horse was first brought to what is now Florida in the 1500s by Spanish explorers, and they played a large part...". Tense conflict between singular ("was") and plural ("they"). There's a similar issue in the Idaho description. Maryland: "Maryland has an long history of breeding and racing Thoroughbreds". "an" → "a". Massachusetts: The state's name should be spelled out instead of having MA in the description. Not a big deal, but the dashes for blanks in the image column might look nicer if they were centered. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you very much for the review! I have taken care of all of the above. My only question was on the centering of the dashes - I think I fixed it, but I'm not sure if it was the most elegant solution. Feel free to instruct me as to if there is a better way, or just tweak yourself if that's easier than explaining to a code idiot like me :) Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic list - I have no problems with the main table but I am concerned with the State symbols section. While state quarters are representative of a state's culture, they are in no way official symbols of the state and are separate from the official breed designation. These are irrelevant to the article's purpose, especially for Delaware, where the depicted horse is coincidental and has nothing to do with a state symbol. Also, the Idaho license plate is just one of 38 specialty plates and is unconnected to the main list. Reywas92^Talk 05:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, given that the Idaho license tag is fair-use and not totally necessary under NFCC 8, I think the image needs to go even if the item does not, non-free content in a list is fairly shaky. Courcelles 05:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the picture from the article. The list of Idaho license plates actually lists many of the specialty plates near the bottom of the article, the Appaloosa is just not part of the list for some reason, so I think that the link is relevant. As for the list, I think that it is also relevant. Three out of the six portray the official state breed/animal, while three of the six are issued by the state (license plate, flag, etc). Would it help if we renamed the section? Something like "state and federal symbols"? I think the introduction to the section makes it clear that these do not all portray official state horses/animals, and that they are not all official symbols, instead saying "emblem" and nothing about "official". However, if you think that more explanation is needed, I would love to hear your thoughts on it... Thank you, Dana boomer (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the flag and seal are official state symbols, but the quarters are not "emblems of several states" as the section into says. They are not federal symbols or emblems either, they are unrelated things that happen to have horses. Delaware and Nevada do not appear anywhere else in the list; the horse is a common animal and coincidentally on the coins, not as a state symbol. I don't see how one of 38 specialty plates is relevant, much less a symbol or emblem. Perhaps these images could be included in the main table, but a separate section isn't appropriate for them. Reywas92^Talk 00:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

They are emblems, though. An emblem is "an object or its representation, symbolizing a quality, state, class of persons, etc.;" per my dictionary. The coins are representations of the state's history. They are not official emblems, but they are emblems. They are also not unrelated - the Kentucky coin has an image of the state horse, which makes it completely related. The license plate is also an unofficial emblem, but is also completely related, as it shows the state horse. At this point, you are the only editor who believes the table should go, so unless more editors chime in with the same opinion, I am going to leave the table in the article. Dana boomer (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The KY coin and ID plate are depictions of their designated equines and would fit in a section called something like "Other depictions of state horses". However, the Delaware and Nevada coins and the Pennsylvania flag do not have images of their state horses, not even having one! This article is about state horses, not generic horses that happen to be on state-related currency or insignia. The Washington quarter has a fish on it, but it has no place on the list of state fish. Reywas92^Talk 22:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Was the question of the name of the article addressed? I know with the state dogs list, it started out as List of U.S. state dogs, but was requested to be changed to U.S. official state dogs during the FLN process. Should this article be renamed to U.S. official state horses? Miyagawa (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't have a strong opinion in this matter. I like the "List of" name better, but that's just personal preference. If there is consensus here to change the name of the article, I have no problem with that, and will happily do the work. Dana boomer (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Mir spacewalks

Nominator(s): Colds7ream (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to put this list forward for consideration as a Featured List because I believe it cover the topic accurately & fully and meets the Featured List Criteria. I also believe I have dealt with all points raised in the closed peer review. It's very much based on the List of ISS spacewalks. Many thanks in advance to any reviewers! Colds7ream (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment An interesting list on an area I know very little about..

• In the lead why is Extra-vehicular activities in bold?
• In the list is there any reason why the logical process of one sub head and table per year is not followed in 1987–1988? - you could easily put the three for 1987 in one table & the four for 1988 in a separate one.
• The tables for 1993 and 1998 are a different width than the others - any reason?
• In the references some of the isbns have multiple hyphens (eg 978-0-387-23011-5.) when others have single hyphens (eg 978-0071372305)?— Rod ^talk 17:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review, glad you find it interesting! :-) In response to your questions, I emboldened EVAs after it was suggested in the peer review that 'List of Mir spacewalks' wasn't a good opening line, and I wanted to highlight the fact that the list concerns them; I've no major objections if you think it needn't be. I've split the 1987/1988 table up, but I think the table widths are due to the shorter lengths of the summaries in those tables; if you know of a way to force them to all display as the same width, I'd be very grateful. As for the ISBNs, I've simply entered them as I found them in the publications in question; again, if they need to be put in a standard format or something, I've no objections. Colds7ream (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think EVA should be bold according to the WP:MOS as it is a link to a different article. I have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (tables) but I'm sure there is a way of making them all the same width but suggest using % (eg 90% width) rather than number of pixels. I also spotted on this look that 1992 doesn't have a title for the Duration column which all the others do.— Rod ^talk 07:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've reformatted the ISBNs, and I believe the table merge has dealt with the column width issues. The link to EVA is no longer bold. Colds7ream (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Suggestion: try adding colors for the key to make the table a bit more appealing. Nergaal (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

What colour codes would you recommend? Colds7ream (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

For † and * color the background of the "Mission" column. Also, I am not sure that splitting every year is ideal since it leaves the likes of EO-24 split over two tables. Can't you merge them? Nergaal (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Just completed the merge. I meant what hex codes would you suggest I use? Colds7ream (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been suggested below that the fewer colours involved in the table, the more WP:ACCESSible it is? Colds7ream (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments I have to say it's really good to see some niche lists here, welcome! Avoid bold links, no need here to link either Mir or Spacewalks (even though that's now no longer linked!). Lead image doesn't need a period. "With a greater mass than ..." would prefer that as "mass greater than..." "third generation of space stations" what were the first and second generations? (speaking strictly as a non-expert here) Second lead sentence is too long, split after "modular design". Don't intersperse "small" coding in the lead, leave the years in full size. " completing 15.7 orbits per day." a long-shot but perhaps consider saying each of those are "earth" orbits? Yuri Romanenko is Yury per our article. "The longest EVA was performed on 17 July 1990, when EO-6 crewmembers Anatoly Solovyev and Aleksandr Balandin conducted an EVA ..." poor and repetitive, don't repeat EVA here. Given the list name, suggest you replace one of the EVA with spacewalk. Why is the list split into multiple sections by year? Why not just add a horizontal navbox at the top which is anchored to various entries of a single merged list? Have you checked that these tables meet WP:ACCESS? I would always recommend a pass by User:RexxS who is abundantly generous with his time in this situations. Not yet, will do. Colds7ream (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Perhaps "duration" needs explanation because it doesn't add up for EO-3 EVA 1, EO-3 EVA 2 for example. I think I've fixed these, do please let me know if there are any other discrepancies. Colds7ream (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC) What's the blue line between 6 and 7? As described in the key, it separates EVAs conducted during different expeditions. There's others throughout the table. Colds7ream (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Why doesn't every EVA have an EVA designation? Lots and lots of redlinked EOs, can you do something about this? We're working on this as a project, but it'll be a while. Colds7ream (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Not relevant if you merge the lists (which would be good) but if you insist on keeping them split, then can you make the col widths the same from section to section. Odd gallery towards the end... needs context. Simply based on the one at List of ISS spacewalks. Suggestions? Colds7ream (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Refs 1, 2, 6 and 8 are really "general references" and, as such, would do better without being continually re-used. Should I just list them as bullets in the references section? Colds7ream (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Ref 3 needs an en-dash. Ref 11 has a spare period (you need to "cheat" the template) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Hi, thanks very much for the review! The merged-list-with-navbox sounds like a great idea, how do I go about coding that? Colds7ream (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Similar to this list, I knocked up a sandbox for boxing champs, here. It sort of does what I'm suggesting here. Let me know if there's anything that needs explaining. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Grand, thanks - I'll have a go at coding that in tomorrow. In other news, I think I've dealt with most of your other comments, with exceptions that I've noted above. Colds7ream (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC) How's that looking? :-) Colds7ream (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Apologies for taking so long to look at your list, but I hope I can be helpful. Improving the accessibility of an article isn't an "all-or-nothing = pass/fail" process, so I hope you'll understand that my comments are mainly suggestions, not requirements for my support (apart from a couple of things like column headers and alternate text).

• All images have (copious) alt text, which work well with the captions. It is possible someone (not me) may think there is too much alt text, but the effort that has gone into this aspect is commendable.
• There is always going to be a problem where information is being conveyed purely by visual means, so the use of symbols in the legend is good, but the † symbol is not very accessible, so you could improve that by using the {{†}} template, and giving it some alt text.
• The part about "EVAs conducted during different principal expeditions are indicated by a wide blue separator" is problematical. If someone can't see the wide blue separator, then they will not get the information you intended them to receive. I don't know how to help you because I've followed the link to List of Mir Expeditions and read it; but I'm none the wiser about what a principal expedition is – or how it differs from a non-principal one. I can see that EO-2 and EO-3 are in a different group from EO-4 and EO-5, but I don't understand the significance; and a blind reader probably wouldn't even be able to get that far.
• The table itself needs some extra markup to identify at least the column headers, ! scope="col". See MOS:ACCESS#Data tables for the guidance.
• The table would benefit from extra markup to identify the row headers, ! scope="row". If you're unsure, I've made a short version of your table at User:RexxS/Mir spacewalks#Minimal markup, where I've stripped out all of the visual formatting and added the header markup, as well as the dagger template, so you can see what I've done.
• In general, the simpler the structure and formatting, the more likely a table is to be both usable and accessible – but this is a suggestion, so you can ignore it without penalty if you don't like it.

If you'd like to try out any or all of these suggested changes (you really need to do the column headers), but are unsure, I'm happy to help – either in doing some for you, or in helping if you get into difficulties while trying them out. I know the reviewers here won't complain if the list gets a few edits as a result; improving accessibility doesn't reduce the stability of an article! Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this, and thank for your kind words on my alt text! I think I've sorted out the dagger signs, and the issue with the principal expeditions was because some of them disappeared. I've restored these, and clarified the description on the List of Mir Expeditions, so hopefully that makes more sense. I've also identified the columns (but how do I make the title row blue again?), but when I set the rows, the table displays weirdly, and I'd like to keep the description cells where they are, so how do I sort this out, please? Cheers, Colds7ream (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The daggers are good, thank you.

I can see now that each EO-X was a different principal mission, and so the separators are redundant. That means that a screen reader won't miss out on the information that is provided only by colour.

The markup on the column headers is good - don't forget that they become bold and centred by default when they become headers.

Why should the first row have a blue background? (It's the #CCCCFF that produces it.)

I can't find the diff where you set the rows, so I can't tell how the table displays weirdly. Could you be a bit more specific about the problem you had? --RexxS (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This happens:

#	Mission	Spacewalkers	Start (UTC)	End (UTC)	Duration
rowspan=2 |1	EO-2 EVA 1	Yury Romanenko Aleksandr Laveykin	11 April 1987 19:41	11 April 1987 23:21	3 hours, 40 minutes
Inspected the rear port of the core module following the failure of Kvant-1 to achieve a successful hard docking on 9 April and discovered a piece of debris left behind following the departure of Progress 28 on 27 March. This was removed, and the subsequent hard docking of the new module was observed.[1][2][3]

Distressingly, I can't seem to find a place to put it in the code which doesn't result in something similar? Colds7ream (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

#	Mission	Spacewalkers	Start (UTC)	End (UTC)	Duration
1	EO-2 EVA 1	Yury Romanenko Aleksandr Laveykin	11 April 1987 19:41	11 April 1987 23:21	3 hours, 40 minutes
		Inspected the rear port of the core module following the failure of Kvant-1 to achieve a successful hard docking on 9 April and discovered a piece of debris left behind following the departure of Progress 28 on 27 March. This was removed, and the subsequent hard docking of the new module was observed.[1][2][3]

Rowspan and scope are both attributes of the tag, so there's no '|' between them. --RexxS (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

How's that looking? I must say, this FLC is turning out to be great - friendly help and advice from everyone and a tutorial on properly coding tables! The FAC people could learn a lot from you folks! Colds7ream (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Support. It looks good to me. All of the accessibility issues are resolved as far as I can tell. --RexxS (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Question – I see that much of the list is cited to Encyclopedia Astronautica. This is a site whose reliability has been questioned at FAC before, and it was removed from the International Space Station article before it was promoted. Why should it be considered a reliable source when it hasn't been proven reliable at other major content processes? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, User:MBK004 said here that the website is recommended by NASA's own PAO. On the other hand, the table happily stands on the other references, so if people massively object it can be removed pretty much with impunity. Colds7ream (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say remove it. If there's any doubt, and the table is fully backed by other sources anyway, that seems to me to be the best thing to do. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to argue for keeping it, partly because I personally believe in its reliability, and partly because the other sources are books which will be unavailable to the vast majority of readers - having this website available allows them to check things. Colds7ream (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• In intro: is "non-monolithic" the same as "modular design"?

Yes, but I can't think of a better way to word it. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

How about just removing the last part of the sentence ("with a modular design.") since it is already implied by "non-monolithic"? bamse (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• What is a 3rd generation space station (or what are 1st/2nd gen.)?

1st & 2nd were monolithic, 3rd non-monolithic. The space station article needs work to support this. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Would be good to have a wikilink or footnote or make it more clear in prose that 3rd gen. implies non-monolithic. bamse (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Should "deorbit" be linked to Deorbit of Mir?

Yes, done. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Was "technologies required for the permanent occupation of space" the only research interest on Mir?
• Is the boldfacing of "Mir" and "Spacewalks" (separated by a paragraph) according to the MOS? I don't think boldfacing of the title (or parts of title) is required or even desired in featured lists.
• I don't understand the "but" in the sentence "The longest EVA was performed on 17 July 1990, when EO-6 crewmembers Anatoly Solovyev and Aleksandr Balandin left the station to repair their spacecraft, Soyuz TM-9, but encountered difficulties shutting the airlock hatch upon their return."

Replaced with 'then'. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure the sentence "EVAs conducted during different principal expeditions are indicated by a wide blue separator." is clear (but I am not a native reader/speaker). Possibly something like "EVAs conducted by different principal expeditions are separated by a ..." would be more clear.

Done. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

How about: "indicated by a wide blue separator"->"separated by a wide blue line"? bamse (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Can "hard docking" be wikilinked or explained (in footnote or text) or is it obvious?
• Why is the legend repeated after the table?

Removed. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Why are there always two spacewalkers? Were they walking at the same time? Were they exiting/entering together? Can this be discussed in the intro?
• References 1 and 2 seem to reference almost all spacewalks and should probably be made into general references.
• References 1 and 8 need accessdates.
• In which way is ref 5 used?
• Is ref 6 part of ref 3 and is ref 7 part of ref 4?

Yes. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

So 3 and 4 cite whole books while 6 and 7 only part of those books? Would be good to have page numbers for 3 and 4 as well (unless you really mean to cite the whole books). bamse (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Book references should have page numbers IMHO.
• What do "EO" and "STS" in the mission names stand for?

экспедиция основная (mission primary) and Space Transportation System. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Could it be explained somewhere (lead, legend,...)? bamse (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Are the images at the bottom, the only images we have of Mir spacewalks?

Yep. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, just wondered whether we could have images for every table entry, i.e. inside the table. Since there are so few, that does not make much sense. I think image galleries are somewhat discouraged in featured content, but here it looks good and adds nicely to the table in my opinion. bamse (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

bamse (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Replied to some, working on others. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Chicago White Sox first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Wizardman 21:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

For those of you that may not be fans of this baseball group, this is part 30 of 31, so worry not, we are just about done. For the rest of you, I present the Chicago White Sox draft pick list. They are actually one of the more successful teams draft-wise; 2/3 of their draft picks have made a major league roster, and one of them just won a World Series ring, though it was not exactly thanks to him.

I think I've earned a milkshake break. While I get one go ahead and comment :) Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Images would benefit from alt text. Otherwise, the article is well marked up to maximise accessibility. I know nothing of the subject, so I had to follow a lot of links, but the balance is good between links and in-text explanations. Overall, it is an interesting read, well-referenced (if somewhat reliant on a major source), and visually appealing. --RexxS (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know much of anything about alt text, and it's not required, so I won't worry about it unless someone else wants to add it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Courcelles 04:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment One quick thing, Frank Thomas should be linked the first time in the lead like the others. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 01:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

*Comments Wondering if due to that team from the north-side an unmodified "Chicago" shouldn't be used here? (2nd para, 1st sentence) Before TRM comes around, spell out MVP in the prose. Don't you mean "Before The Rambling Man (TRM) comes around...."? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Not if it's the lone mention. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Not so sure about access dates that are eight months older than the list itself... Courcelles 08:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Done. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 01:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Just a couple of small ones...

• Comma after Jack McDowell would be nice in the lead.
• In the key, an apostrophe should be added after White Sox in the championship definition. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Both taken care of. Courcelles 03:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Support – Issues are resolved, and it's another great list in this series. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• Perhaps I missed this on (all of ??) the other lists but I think left/right handed pitchers should sort by pitcher, not by l for left or r for right. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's been that way on all of them. I figured out how to make them sort as pitchers, but the lefties first, then the righties, so it should be good now. Courcelles 03:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Excellent, thank you. In which case, I support the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Same as above FLC: it would be nice to have some quantification of a first round pick vs other rounds by say looking at the average salaries. Nergaal (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • And then? Draw our own conclusions? Looks like WP:OR to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I've been having a good read, and, yes, it does appear that you have asked for original research to be inserted into three articles, Nergaal. This isn't the NBA, which has a fairly strict scale where your salary for the first few years depends on where you were drafted. Courcelles 08:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

• Alt-text: remove periods/full stops from sentence fragments, one image is missing alt-text. Also, I'm not sure about the usefulness of the alt text. I hate to be a stickler, but how does a person who can't see know what "Frank Thomas, smiling and holding a red cup" looks like?
• Superscript § indicator since it's at cap height.
• Unspace the asterisks.

Other than these (admittedly very minor) comments, I can't find anything else to quibble with. — KV5 • Talk • 01:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. I'm not a fan of alt text myself and would have kept it out, but was requested earlier in the FLC. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It may be just me but why wouldn't something like "A bald black man in a vertically striped shirt, facing left, smiling and holding a mug" be of use to a blind person? Putting people's names in the alt text is a bit of a waste of time, particularly as his name is already mentioned in the caption. I know the subtleties of alt text leave most people cold, but I've always thought it better to have some rather than none. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, went ahead and fixed that. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

All of the alt text, save for the lead image, still utilizes player names, which doesn't really tell a blind reader what the picture looks like. Anderson still doesn't have alt text. I have to leave for work now, but after work tonight, I can re-do the alt text in the interest of getting from FLC to FTC. — KV5 • Talk • 11:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem? WP:ALTTEXT gives the example of File:Blair Bush Whitehouse (2004-11-12).jpg's appropriate alt text being "Tony Blair and George W. Bush shaking hands at a press conference."- using their names. Courcelles 11:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Forgot I never actually weighed in after my initial comment! Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well as it turned out, my last FL candidate (which is still waiting for more reviewers; First Deputy Chairman of the Soviet Union) was not my last FL Soviet-topic candidate. --TIAYN (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

*Comments Done Mikhail Gorbachev ruled the Soviet Union through the office of General Secretary until 1990 when the Communist Party lost it's monopoly of power over the political system — you forgot a comma after "until 1990"; sentence beginning with a conjunction means it is a compound sentence and should not be merged with the matrix sentence without adding a comma between them. Done The office of President of the Soviet Union was established so that Gorbachev still retained his role as leader of the Soviet Union.[10] — without comma it is confusing what you want to tell us. Without the comma, the sentence has two meanings: Either it was established, so... or it was established, so that... Done He was succeeded by his deputy, Vladimir Ivashko, who only served for five days as Acting General Secretary before Russian President Boris Yeltsin suspended all Communist Party activity.[12] why is president capitalized? Done As Technical Secretary Stasova and her staff of four women, were responsible for maintaining correspondence with provincial party cells, assigning work, keeping financial records, distributing Party funds,[14] formulating party structure policy and appointing new personnel.[15] — "As Technical Secretary, Stasova and her staff of four women were responsible for maintaining correspondence with provincial party cells, assigning work, keeping financial records, distributing Party funds,[14] formulating party structure policy and appointing new personnel.[15]" Done When her office was dissolved Stasova was not considered a serious competitor for the post of Responsible Secretary, the successor office to the Chairman of the Secretariat.[18] — "When her office was dissolved, Stasova was not considered a serious competitor for the post of Responsible Secretary, the successor office to the Chairman of the Secretariat.[18]"

Support after done now.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 14:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• Done Excess "the" needs removal in "were obliged by protocol to rule the country the in the same way as Brezhnev had."
• Done Konstantin Chemenko: Hyphen in "72-years old" should be removed as well.
• Done Not a big deal, but the dash in Vladimir Ivashko's picture column would look nicer if it was centered. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments Done Would move ref [7] to end of sentence. Done "August 1991 Coup" this is not its official title so uncapitalise Coup. Done "more-or-less like a secretary, a somewhat " little bit unencyclopedic for my taste. Done No real need to relink Brezhnev in the table as it's not sortable. Done Category says "1922 foundation.." but the list says 1917 was the first time someone occupied the post, albeit under a different title. Otherwise excellent. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks! :) --TIAYN (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• SupportComment Three links in the See also section are already in the {{Soviet Union topics}} template, the other three links should be in that template. Move the other three links to the aforementioned template and remove the See also section.--Cheetah (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Done --TIAYN (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

List of U.S. Women's Open (golf) champions

Nominator(s): SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria listed. SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular talk 23:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Even though they are retired, please inform User:Bluedogtn of the nomination as they are the primary author of this list. "early-July" - unnecessary use of the hyphen here. "It was established in 1946 and one of the four women's major championships..." - should be "and is one of the four..." Break up the aforementioned sentence, it drags on: "...played each year which include the..." "The champions receive the Harton S. Semple trophy, which is named after the person whose family replicated the previous trophy because Semple was a former USGA Committeeman and President of the USGA from 1973–1974 that was first given out in 1992 to Patty Sheehan." Poorly worded sentence / run-on. "The lowest score for 72-holes is (16-under par)" - why is this encased in parentheses? Use the minus sign (−) instead of the en dash (–) to indicate negative numbers in the table. Slight difference but this conforms with Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Common mathematical symbols. 'Total score' for the first year does not sort consistently. If I click it once it stays at the top, click it again and it goes to the bottom, then stays at the bottom upon another click. I understand it was scored differently than the others, but it needs to be understandable to a layperson, and I don't understand it. Use a sort key or a note or something to clarify the situation. Jujutacular talk 20:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Addressed, I hope it satisfies your oppose, but if not just give me further comments or questions.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose a quick pass Just a query, any reason why (golf) is in parentheses in the title? I guess they did it because they were going off of List of U.S. Open (golf) champions, which I would be glad to take it out if you would like me to do so. They might want to avoid confusion with List of US Open women's singles champions as well, but I simply don't know that for a fact. " is conducted by" what do you mean by this? Go look at List of U.S. Open (golf) champions What? How will that help explain this terminology in this particular list? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Corrected it, and gave the opening paragraph a bit of a revamp. Please, tell me what you think of it now.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC) "It was established in ..." -> "The tournament was established in.." Corrected, but should I leave in ...[the] four women's majors? What's "stroke play"? Corrected with link to article. "the lone exception of the first competition" lone is redundant here. Corrected, took it out. "The champions receive the ..." -> "The champion receives..." Corrected "who was a former USGA Committeeman " -> "named for a former..." Corrected "His family and friends replicated the previous trophy in July of 1992, which the first winner to receive it was Patty Sheehan in 1992.[3]" don't understand this at all. Corrected, but I don't know if it satisfies? "The most consecutive wins at the event are two" "is two". Corrected "and that was accomplished by the following players: Mickey Wright, .." just "by " and the list would work fine. Corrected Don't repeat first names in the lead. Corrected Not sure why you hyphenate 72-holes in the lead. Corrected "which by the way both were " terrible grammar I'm afraid. Corrected, but go check it out to see if it is up to par, which is the last part of the final paragraph. Ensure images have alt text. Already was done. Ensure you use {{dagger}} and {{double-dagger}}, not just the graphical versions. The men's FL List of Masters Tournament champions, List of U.S. Open (golf) champions, List of The Open Championship champions, List of PGA Championship champions do not use them. Why the discrepancy, now? We're moving on and improving things for accessibility. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Corrected Ensure the table uses row and col scopes (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial for more help) The men's FL List of Masters Tournament champions, List of U.S. Open (golf) champions, List of The Open Championship champions, List of PGA Championship champions do not use them, again. Why the discrepancy, now? Corrected Don't use bold alone to convey information. Put an asterisk by the bolded years. Don't use ALL CAPITALS in references, even if the sources do. Corrected The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments – A long list below, but this is an event that I enjoy watching (especially last year) and a list that I want to see reach the highest quality possible. Throughout the lead there is a bad case of over-citation. There's a citation after every sentence, all to the same source in most cases. You could chop the first four cites from the first paragraph, three from the second para, and five from the third para without harming the integrity of the list. There are a couple issues with that, but I'll cover them as I go with my review. For this one, make sure all of the information actually is cited. I notice this in particular at the ends of paragraphs. none of which seem covered by cites now. It's a tough balancing act sometimes between too little and too much. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Corrected.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC) "The championship is sanctioned by the United States Golf Association rules of golf, which is the governing body of the game in the United States." Would make much more sense without "rules of golf". "In addition, this is a USGA Championship event." This whole sentence is probably unnecessary. We already know from the previous sentence that the USGA sanctions the event, right? "and is always the third women's major of the year, and is scheduled to take place in July." It's untrue that it is "always" in July. I remember it being in June in 2008, as the source indicates. It looks like there were a couple other June opens in recent times, too. "A trophy was first presented to the champion in 1953 to Betsy Rawls, and that trophy was retired to the USGA Museum." A less wordy, cleaner way of doing this would be "was first presented to the champion in 1953, when Betsy Rawls won, and was retired to the USGA Museum in 1992." Actually, on another look at the source used, the sentence is untrue. A trophy was awarded before 1953, though not by the USGA. This is surely worthy of a mention, if the other trophies used are discussed this much. To clean up the writing a bit, try replacing "done so by" with "from". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC) CorrectedSaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC) While on this topic, I know that the Open was run by the various professional tours before 1953. That seems worthy of a sentence or so as well. Add "a" before "former USGA Committeeman". "commissioned the replacement replica trophy in July 1992 to honor his legacy and memory." The source doesn't say why the replica was made, and I certainly don't think that can be assumed. Also, "the" should be "a", since this is the first place the replica is discussed. This source might make it explanatory or not, and should I put it in?SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Since it doesn't mention the trophy or future replica, I don't believe it's useful for this purpose. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Corrected the to a situation.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC) "and they won the events in a playoff." "a playoff" → "playoffs". TRM mentioned up there how you should be using minus signs instead of dashes in scores. Well, I think you accidentally put in hyphens instead. To find the minus sign, go to the menu below the edit summary and select Wiki markup. The minus sign is next to a plus sign in the first row. Multiple champions: Per MOS:BOLD, bolding shouldn't be used as a way of emphasis. If you want something to emphasize the back-to-back winners, you're best off with italics. Can the last two tables be made sortable? Note b could use a citation. Surely one of the sources already used will cover this. The first See also link is used in the lead, and therefore shouldn't be repeated here. Spell out USGA in the second general reference and specific refs 3 and 4. Check the capitalization of ref 57. I recognized this because I added it myself a while back, and it was different then. The publisher of ref 58 (The Times-News) should be in italics. The date Google News is giving for ref 77 is wrong. Scroll up a bit and you'll see the paper is from July 2, not July 1. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC) I will get on this over the weekend and on Monday, when I have time. Thanks for the comment Giants.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Corrected all except the sortability comments. I will now have to fix the edition column.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Got the multiple champions sortable and fixed the sort feature in the champions box of the edition. But my question is how should I notate it?SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Edition sounds just fine. For the last two tables, you could try Rank or something like that. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Fixed them with three sentences to explain what they are.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Tinkered away, I feel this article is getting better with all your comments, keep them coming strong.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support - looks good to me now. Jujutacular ^talk 01:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments
  • The sortability of the "total score" is not working because of the 5&4 score.
  • The Key section applies to the champions' table only. Why not move the key to the Champions section?
  • The first key and the second key should look similar. Right now, the first one is in 2 columns and the second column is not colored while the second key is a one column with the whole row colored.
  • The symbols should be different. Right now Deceased golfer and Tournament won in a playoff is marked with †. That's confusing.

--Cheetah (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As the editor has not edited for over a week I have decided to address these issues. NapHit (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks NapHit for fixing them during my absence from Wikipedia.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Nominations for removal

List of Oz books

Notified: Novels, Children's literature, Books

I am nominating this for featured list removal because of its massive amount of unreferenced sections in the article as the links in the "Reference" section aren't even in-line citations. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delist Not one inline citation. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delist DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

List of The Adventures of Mini-Goddess episodes

Notified:WikiProject Anime and manga

I believe the sources are inadequate and that this list no longer means FL standards. Source 1 is outdated and the source for the airdates is linked to a steaming website which I do not believe is reliable. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? --Malkinann (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The first reference is a dead link. SurfTheChannel does not seem reliable. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comments The Wayback Machine only has an archive of the now-dead webpage when it was "under construction", so a new source needs to be found. I am somewhat dubious of SurfTheChannel. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients

Notified: Kumioko, WP:MILHIST, WP:BIO

I anticipate this to be a problematic candidate but here are the issues I found:

• the intro is completely inadequate; not only it is short, but it talks about racial discrimination... when being Jewish has nothing to do with race

• the first two sections are curiously not very well linked with eachother, which points towards the real problem:
• this list is OR, because while it lists individuals who received the award, the Jewish part is debatable at least. There have been some AfDs a few months ago with regards to "list of Jews" type ones, and the major issue was that while somebody may be able to show their ancestry, there is nothing in terms of references to show that these people practice Jewish customs, or eve care about their ancestry.
• Race is a more clear-cut division, but ethnicity, and especially Jewish ones, are extremely tricky. Yeah, such a list could be featured, but this one in specific is nowhere near close at not raising some eyebrows.

Nergaal (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Nergaal correctly identifies his nomination as problematic. He would do well, if in his personal subjective opinion is that the lede would be better if made longer (his very first bullet), to follow wp:sofixit, as long as his edits conform with consensus. I'll be happy to work with him in that regard. His second bullet is not an issue for here either. His third bullet is baseless -- if he were right, we would not have any references to Jews on wikipedia at all ... whether or not that is his preference, that is not how wp operates, as he may be aware if he has been involved in discussion of these issues elsewhere. His fourth bullet -- Tricky, tricky ... -- fails for the same reason as the third bullet. The third and fourth bullets are reminiscent of the arguments he raised that were rejected in his failed deletion effort at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates, and should fail here for the same reason that they failed there.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's put it blunt then: how is this list featured, when for there is absolutely no reference provided for either of the entires that these people actually identify themselves as Jewish. Who declares them Jewish? Wikipedia? Nergaal (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment For all but three of the recipients this source [7] lists them as Jewish recipients of the medal of honour, so I don't think its OR. Bob House 884 (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Is that source authoritative enough to declare them Jewish? Nergaal (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment from Kumioko

While I disagree that this list lacks the qualities necessary to be a Featured list I think some of your comments have some merit and I will work to improve the list over the next couple days. I do disagree that its OR. There are references for each of the individuals that identify them as being Jewish and I will try and incorporate them. I will also try to make the sections flow a little better as is the case of some of the other recipient lists. I partially disagree about the comments relating to the race and ethnicity. There has been quite a lot of documentation regarding persecution and prejudice towards Jews and regardless of whether its a racial issue or not I think the separation into its own list is fair. --Kumioko (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Needs some work for FA - Will this help??Moxy (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Brody, Seymour (2003), Jewish heroes & heroines of America: 151 true stories of Jewish American heroism, Frederick Fell Publishers, ISBN 0883910268, http://books.google.ca/books?id=LADOUweLXPsC&lpg=PA268&dq=Jewish%20Medal%20of%20Honor%20recipients&pg=PR4#v=onepage&q&f=false 
• Scharfstein, Sol (1997), Chronicle of Jewish History: From the Patriarchs to the 21st Century, KTAV Pub. House, p. 320, ISBN 0881255602, http://books.google.ca/books?id=PrAdxFjB7k4C&pg=PT15&dq=Jewish+Medal+of+Honor+recipients&hl=en&ei=R8yjTfarApLogQf82ciwCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false 
• McTernan, John P (2008), As America Has Done to Israel, Xulon Press, p. 72, ISBN 9781600345456, http://books.google.ca/books?id=I7B1Q0pqegUC&pg=PA72&dq=Jewish+Medal+of+Honor+recipients&hl=en&ei=wMyjTfefGIWtgQfjuKCxCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false 

Thanks that helps a lot. I also noticed there are a couple dead links for census info so I will get those fixed as well. --Kumioko (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Can I get an update on this nomination please? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

When you say update, what would you like to know. I have already made a few fixes and I just got the Book by Brody in the Mail so I can start looking through that for referencable material. --Kumioko (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand you're doing what you need to do which is good, I wanted to know from the nominator how he felt too. We can't have an FLRC hanging around for too long. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Alberta general elections

Notified: Tompw, WikiProject Canada

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it lacks citations and the table is not quite as informative as one might expect from a FL. Nergaal (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments Maintenance tag, bad start. Election graph uses only colour to convey information, contravening WP:ACCESS. Bad start "This article provides a summary..." we don't do that any more. Table is in the wrong chronological order, could be sortable, doesn't incorporate row or col scopes, per WP:ACCESS. Currently it's a delist for me, but hopefully fixes can be made. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Why is descending order the wrong order? It should be consistent with the other provinces. 117Avenue (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC) No, it should be in chronological order, no matter what "other provinces" have. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC) The graph is simply the main table presented in an alternate format, so I don't see a WP:ACCESS issue there. The main table, properly formated, removes all such concerns. That said, there is a lack of referencing for the body, and the body itself could be expanded significantly. I'm inclined to agree with a delist at this point. Resolute 18:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC) No, tables and images have their own requirements for accessibility whether you see an issue or not. There's no alt text and only colour is used to convey the information in the image. The table is in the wrong order, and lacks row/col scopes per accessibility. It also appears to use a very narrow coloured bar to indicate the "winning party" with "bold" text, but we know we ought not to use bold in this way as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC) To clarify: would you rather the coloured bars and bolding got removed altogether? How about adding a "winning party" column (which would use the colours and have text)? Tompw (talk) (review) 20:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC) No, I'm not advocating removing anything altogether, I'm simply suggesting the existing data is enhanced for accessibility. Follow WP:ACCESS and WP:MOSBOLD and, if necessary, have a winning party column. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC) (I changed your bullets to numebered for ease of reference).... (1) I agree the maintaince tag is bad - but what material isn't referenced? Feel free to add {{fact}} tags liberally. (2) The graph contains numbers on the chart, so it is simlpy not true to say it "uses only colour to convey information". I agree that alt text should be provided - any thoughts on what exactly? I agree about scope text. (3) Agreed. (4) Why is descending order the wrong order? To me, it pus the most recent (and useful) information at the top. However, if there's a MoS point I've missed, please point it out. I shall work on fixing the issues you've identified. Tompw (talk) (review) 20:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Chronological order isn't necessarily prescribed but it's recommended, and I haven't seen a list go by FLC for probably two years which is presented in "reverse" chronological order. Alt text advice could be sought from FLC's good ACCESS friend User:RexxS. I thought the purpose of the chart was to indicate how many seats were won by which party. Sure, a number will add information, but how does that relate to who won the seats? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC) As for the maintenance tag, I can't see where the 2008 results are referenced, but I didn't place the tag there so it could be more than that. I also can't be clear where the footnotes are referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Further comments - delist still not good enough for me. No need for bold linked Alberta in the lead, just linked is fine. The colours in the graph don't match the colours in the table for each party which is confusing. Table is still in the wrong chronological order (you don't have the graph in reverse chronological order, after all....) Other Parties->Other parties. "The winning party's total is shown in bold" I can't see this anywhere, and bold shouldn't be used alone to convey information. I still don't see row or col scopes added for screen readers (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial for help here) Notes A and B need referencing. No mixed date formats in the references please. Second general reference needs an en-dash for the year range. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC) The notes can be verified with the external links, just like the data. 117Avenue (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources#General reference for why this is undesirable. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC) You guys keep saying that it is thin on the references, do you what it repeatedly tagged with the same reference? 117Avenue (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC) My personal advice is to deal with my comments and then we'll see about specific referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC) How does it look now? 117Avenue (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Still in the wrong order. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC) I am still a bit upset, that the other provinces haven't been targeted, they have all the same problems, maintenance tags, "wrong" order, coloured bars in the table, using general references, graph colours not matching. 117Avenue (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC) ┌─────────────────────────────────┘ Well chance's are that they will be nominated here in due course if they all suffer the same issues. It's nothing personal. Please make the list chronological. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Done, I was catching up on my watchlist, I didn't think you would respond so fast. 117Avenue (talk)

• OK, I think I have dealt with all your points except the one about the graph. (Let me know if you disagree). I am stumped by what should be done to the graph - can you say exactly what should changed? Tompw (talk) (review) 21:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• The list is still extremely thin on the references side. Nergaal (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment very much improved. There's still Nergaal's issue about light referencing, and I'd prefer to see the years unbolded, along with the Coalition relinked on every line (to the appropriate page of course) as the table is sortable, but these, in my mind, are relatively minor. Good work to 117Avenue and Tompw. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Everything has been referenced, unless you have a specific example? 117Avenue (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• I've added fact tags where there is a blatant need for a ref. Still, the intro needs some more expansion. THe table should also have a total seats column. Nergaal (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I have added a ref for the Lieutenant Governor, the other facts can be verified with the cited data, and does not need a ref per WP:CALC. 117Avenue (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I am not sure what is the point for this edit. I've placed ^{[citation needed]} tags which you simply removed. I am not sure this type of unfriendly fixes are the solution out of a FLRC. Nergaal (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
      • What is it that you are questioning?
• Does the Lieutenant Governor call the election? Yes, I have provided a reference saying so.
• Does an election typically get called in the fourth or fifth year? Yes, take a look at the spacing of the elections, which are verified by the Elections Alberta reference.
• Did the first election elect 25 seats? Yes, 22 Liberal, 3 Conservative, verified by the Elections Alberta reference.
• Was the first election in 1905? Yes, as verified by the Elections Alberta reference.
• Did the last election elect 83 seats? Yes, 72 PC, 9 Liberal, 2 NDP, verified by the Elections Alberta reference.
• Did the number of seats increase over time? Yes, 83 is more than 25, and a graphical summary of all elections shows an upward trend.
• Has the province been ruled by four "dynasties"? Yes, Liberal (1905–1921), United Farmers (1921–1935), Social Credit (1935–1971), and Progressive Conservative (1971 to present), were the winners according to the winners column, which can be verified by the big numbers in the referenced data, and the graphical summary, with no party winning an election after losing their "dynasty".
• Has no minority government ever been elected? Correct, the winning party has always been elected to more than half of the seats, as verified by the referenced data, and the graphical summary. The winning numbers were bolded, but it was suggested here to keep them unbolded.
• Can it be said that Alberta has continuously had a dominant-party system for its entire political history? Yes, see previous bullet.
• Can it be said that the dominant party has changed over time? Yes, see dynasties bullet.

Did I miss any? 117Avenue (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Then why isn't the text referenced accordingly if the refs exist? Nergaal (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The intro shouldn't have a lot of references, per WP:LEADCITE, it would just be repeating the same citation. The intro is a summary of the following article. 117Avenue (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The referencing issues seem to have been cleared up. I just have a few comments:

• The final paragraph of the lead is a bit redundant as it just reads out the key.
• Could you put refs 4 and 5 in the table header?
• Are there any voter turnout stats?

Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How should the graph be addressed in the prose, or does it need to be mentioned at all? The Rambling Man suggested that the references be spread through out the article. I could only see turnout back to 1979, are you suggesting another column? 117Avenue (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think the graph needs to be mentioned in prose at all. I can't see TRM's comment about spreading refs, and I think that placing them in the header would make it easier to read. Yes, I was suggesting another column for turnout - it is quite a major factor in elections. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misinterpreting the 31 March comments. 117Avenue (talk) 06:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think so...I still don't see it. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How is it? I had some difficulty getting the new column to sort correctly. 117Avenue (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It sorts fine for me. Is that all the turnout data available? Surely there is more? Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find it through Elections Alberta, and by the looks of Election by the Numbers it may not be possible. 117Avenue (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, but there may be a book somewhere which has such information. Maybe ask at WP:ALBERTA. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Municipalities of Lithuania

Notified: Renata3, WP LITH

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is poorly referenced. It has only one source in the reference section, and one note. Eisfbnore ^talk 20:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Unfortunately, the single reference is to the search page. Users have to enter the search parameters manually to access the information. It would be advantageous to use other sources (such as the CIA book, or even something in Lithuanian would be okay) besides this one. If this information truly is not available, well, the reference used does actually source all information in the table so it's not that big of a deal that it's the only one we have for the table.
  • Most of the sentences in the lead now have inline cites. Please flag any remaining sentences that need one. Novickas (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Some of the Lede has information that isn't found in the table. These things should be sourced:
  • "there are 43 district municipalities that roughly correspond to districts that existed under the Soviet rule." should be sourced
  • "The special status of Visaginas city municipality (based on the 13th largest city) can be explained by the fact that the majority of the residents are Russians."
  • " Palanga city municipality is called this despite actually including a group of popular sea resorts rather than a single city." etc
    • These three have been removed. Novickas (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• The reference has updated population and population density figures for 2010, and our table should be updated to reflect that
  • • This requirement is a little worrisome in terms of maintenance. I really don't think their populations changed much over the course of two years. An update every five years would seem in order tho. Novickas (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Many of the images of the coats of arms have .png and .svg alternatives which should be used instead of the .gifs
  • • Could you explain why .png format is more desirable, and/or point to WP guideline page on this? Novickas (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The article really isn't that bad, so hopefully it can be saved. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• First of all, there should be two articles, one called municipalities of Lithuania, which is a general discussion of the local government and geographical subdivision, and one article, list of municipalities of Lithuania, which actually lists all of them.
• Population needs updating
• The prose is below featured standards, with many grammatical and not least punctuational oddities.
• I would liked to have seen the municipality column only list the name, and then make a second column with "district", "city" or "municipality", which would allow the reader to sort by type.
• I'm not convinced if we need to include rank columns, as the table is sortable, and the reader will get a pretty good idea of how the municipality is ranked.
• The lead is entirely unreferenced.
• The reference provided is perhaps okay, as it is fairly straight-forward to get out numbers.
• Footnoted comments and references are mixed.
• To ease readability, the numbers should be right-aligned.

Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• • • See article for lead rewrite, reference additions, separation of notes and references. I agree with the addition of a 'type' column, we could remove the ranking of density to make way for it. I rather like the rankings in general, but would defer to a consensus for removal. As far as right-alignment of numbers, I'm not seeing that in the other FLs I checked (e.g. List of tallest buildings in Chicago). Novickas (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delist unless much better referenced. Nergaal (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've requested three books from the local library system. They will arrive at my branch within a few days, hopefully they'll offer some useful stuff. Additionally, an IP posted on the talk page of this nomination that people may have missed:

  Hello. I'm lithuanian moderator Profcard in Wikimapia project. Sadly wikipedia contains poor information. Unfortunately, I had to write municipality short description in wikimapia myself. I permit using english text of municipalities (from wikimapia, as I'm only author) if this helped to keep this feature from failure here. Just note full wikimapia.org link that people would found box with descriptions by few clicks. Contact me in wikimapia if there'll be questions.

  I'm not familiar with WikiMapia's licensing and its compatibility with Wikipedia, but it's something to look at. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Two of the books I ordered came in. They don't really have the information we need for this page. :( Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think this list should discuss counties also, which would mean have another table with area/population/etc of counties and rename the article to "Municipalities and Counties of Lithuania". Nergaal (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Why? Counties have their own little list. Renata (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• I will try to see what can be done to address the issues. (Sorry for a late reaction -- it was on my mental to do list, but I forgot about it until it popped up on my watchlist today again). Renata (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Some questions - one, do these sorts of articles need to be updated annually to maintain featured status? (the current population stats are from 2008). Two, another editor has called for a separate, stand-alone article; do other editors see it as a prerequisite to Featured List status? Clearly one could be written here, but I don't see it in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Three, I'd like to ask for an extension to the review period of about a week - any objections? Novickas (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Question for other reviewers how is this list not a content fork of the counties list, Counties of Lithuania (or the other way around?)? This has 60 entries while the counties has 10. And it's not like either of these lists has any extra information asides from the tables (like historical issues). Being such a small country, I don't see why there is a need for two FLs. Nergaal (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That's a very good point. Given that the combined size is about 30kb, they're strong candidates for a merge into Counties and municipalities of Lithuania. —WFC— 12:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • For the record, I know this is the oldest current FLRC, but work is ongoing, so I'm very happy to see it carry on for a while. —WFC— 15:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This one does have some historical info now. Could you explain why you see the counties list as a content fork? Counties and munis are quite separate. (LT counties are not just an aggregation of munis, their governors are appointed by the central govt, among other differences). Novickas (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment about being a possible content fork stricken. The situation in Lithuania seems analogous to MPs vs local government in England; no-one would suggest merging lists on those topics, regardless of size. —WFC— 22:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Can I get a status update? The list hasn't been edited in about two weeks. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for missing it. My main concern about referencing has been solved, but I'll let other editors answer about content forking. Eisfbnore ^talk 23:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

My concern about forking has been dealt with; the only thing now is that the lead itself needs to explain (in a roundabout way) what is significant and distinct about municipalities. As far as I can tell, all actional comments have been responded to (not necessarily resolved, but the balls are in the reviewers' courts), and no fresh ones have been made. That said, work has stopped and at a glance I don't think this is quite ready to be kept, so I'll do a brief review. —WFC— 00:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments from WFC

• I'm going to give the lead a go myself over the next day or so. I'm not an expert, but I've got a reasonable idea of how to structure it.
• Okay, I've tweaked the lead's structure, adding in a few basic facts based on the country's article. I'll dig for sources tomorrow and make any corrections if someone else doesn't beat me to it.
• I think we need a paragraph (probably between the current first and second paragraph), explaining what municipalities actually do. At the moment we are listing a political subdivision, but not explaining why this level of subdivision is distinct or significant from the ones above and below. If a paragraph of this nature is added, it would further improve the lead, and dispel any lingering concerns over whether this is a fork. —WFC— 00:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• The referencing situation appears worrying at a glance, but isn't a big deal. You don't need many references to verify this entire list. However, all reference dates should be formatted in the same way (whichever date format you like, as long as it's consistent), and ref 8 is a footnote, and should therefore have its own area.
• I see no point at all to the rank columns, given that the table is sortable. Furthermore, by removing these columns, there would be space to add in a column for individual maps (such as File:Varena district location.png).

At a glance this list appears to be in worse shape than it really is. I'll do what I can with the lead, and then we'll take it from there. —WFC— 00:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Fixed footnote 8. Removed rank columns (these pre-dated sortable tables) and hacked something to replace them. I do believe having ranks provides very useful info. I do not believe adding locator maps is wise -- they will be either too small to be useful or the table will balloon. Renata (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Unconventional looking, but the principles behind that hack are an excellent compromise. —WFC— 09:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Looks like work is ongoing. Can someone ping me on my talk when the remaining issues are addressed? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
        • ...and now it's been four weeks since the article was last edited. I don't want to delist this article given the effort put in, but if no further activity occurs, I may have no other choice. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Why? Pretty much all of the objections have been resolved. Renata (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
            • Are they? It's hard to tell what has and hasn't been addressed when many of the above concerns remain unstruck. Could you ask all reviewers to revisit this FLRC? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
              • Done. Notified all (I think). Renata (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments There's a couple of "bugs" still, but overall there's been some great work from everyone who edited this article. Nominator's issues seem resolved, as are mine (mostly, see below) and most everyone else's, too.

• Lead is good, but one question: why when translating the words for "counties", "municipalities" and "elderships" is the singular for counties given first, but plural version for municipalities and elderships?
• No link to the article "municipality". Since it has different meanings to people in different parts of the world, linking, or explaining exactly what a municipality is or equivalent to (town, city?) would help. As would explaining briefly what an eldership is (Similar to a village or hamlet perhaps?)
• The colours on that map need toning down a bit. The colours for Klaipeda, Vilnius, Alytus and Utena are horrendous against the black text and make it hard to read (paste the article's URL into the field at http://colorfilter.wickline.org/?j=1;t=a and then when the results page loads, click a few different variations in the Green box. Nice soft pastel colours like those at Help:Using colours would be an improvement.
• Earlier in the nomination I was asked to explain why .png format is more desirable than gif or jpeg for the shields, and/or to link to a WP guideline on this. Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format. However, while this should be done, it's not something that any of the Featured list criteria ask for, so it won't stop it being kept in the end.

Almost ready to say "keep". Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• Soviet Socialist Republic doesn't need to be linked twice in the lead.
• Check the sorting of the second, third, and fourth columns. The diacritics that some of the places begin their names with are causing them to sort after those that start with the regular (English) alphabet, when they should be sorting with their respective letters. May need sorting templates to fix this one.
• The general reference should be formatted with the same information as an inline citation, not as a bare external link. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• The references are not a big issue anymore, but I am still not sure we need both a "municipalities" and a "counties" FL when they overlap so much. Nergaal (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Weak Keep – The citations have been improved, which were the issue I started this FLRC with. However, I'm not sure if there is a consensus on merging or not merging this list with Counties of Lithuania. I hope that issue will be solved before the closing of this FLRC --Eisfbnore ^talk 19:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delist unless concerns have now been addressed. It's been nearly four months, and while these can last as long as needed, 4 months is pushing it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}} template or a <references /> tag; see the help page.