Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 2010

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:25, 29 April 2010 [1].

---

List of Final Fantasy video games

Nominator(s): PresN 16:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

A spin-off of a former featured list, List of Final Fantasy media, I've been working on this video game list for a while now and think that it's ready for FLC. There's no dabs, no images (so no alt text needed), and checklinks is giving me a clean bill of health. --PresN 16:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 15:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment The first sentence says it is a "series of role-playing video games". The second paragraph however lists other types of games that are included in the series. Do you believe it would more correct to simply state it is a video game series, and then state the different types of games included (e.g. remove "role-playing" from the first sentence)? I do understand that they are primarily RPG's. Jujutacular T · C 22:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC) I guess another option would be to somehow work into the opening of the article that they are primarily role-playing games. Jujutacular T · C 22:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Alright, changed it to video games in the start and then said that it's primarily RPGs when the lead gets to mentioning genres. --PresN 14:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support I say it meets the GA status.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• ?? This is FLC... --PresN 16:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• yeah not so sure if it's feature list yet...i guess it could be too, but i often worry if i over rate it. one thing, that i see is fortress is in ff main series related section, even though it says spin off on the notes.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Changed to say spin-off/sequel- it looks like a spin-off (rather than a direct sequel), but concept art shows characters from FF12 in it. Either way, the terminology is misleading- it's not a spin-off of the series as a whole, as it's directly related to FF12, so it goes in "main series-related". --PresN 19:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Also, lists can't be GAs. --PresN 19:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• alright then, i vote for it becoming a featured list. they should make a GL or something thoughBread Ninja (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. Tezero (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Link spin-off first time round. Fixed. "on nearly every video game console" can you prove that statement? Probably not, so changed to "over a dozen" (13 that I counted) "among other honors" such as? Removed. I think a key may be useful for things like JP, NA and PAL. I know they're linked but it would be of use to know what they are anyway. Alright, can you point me at an article that uses a key so I know how to do it? None of the video game FLs seem to have one. I can't quite work out how FF 1 was released for the Wonderswan Color on December 9, 2000 when our article here about the Wonderswan Color says the console itself wasn't released until December 30, 2000. What makes that source reliable? The wonderswan color article is wrong. The press release from when the console was released clearly says that the console was released on December 9. It also backs up the December 9 release date of FF1. Also mildly confused that the PAL PSP version was released "February 8, 2008" and yet the system release says "2007 – PlayStation Portable (Final Fantasy Anniversary Edition)[5]"... The first release of FF1 in the PAL region (Europe) was the PSP version, which was released there on February 8, 2008. However, the PSP version was initially released on April 19, 2007, in Japan. Therefore, the release year of the PSP version is 2007, but the first release of FF1 as a whole in Europe is the 2008 release of the PSP version there. Similarly for FFII. Ditto for above. And FFIV for the GBA. There may be more of these, I won't point them out because I may be missing the point somewhat. Can you clarify these issues please? Yes, this happens a lot. Europe generally gets video games released there months to years later, so quite often the first release date in Europe is going to be a different year than the first release date of the game itself. re-release or rerelease. Be consistent. Whoops, fixed the one instance. I would have thought that notes which are complete sentences should take a full stop. Or at least be internally consistent (Final Fantasy XI: Online seems to have a few full stops). full stops removed. Did you put (GBA) somewhere so we know that you mean Game Boy Advance? And if you abbreviate it, why not use it consistently afterwards? Unabbreviated. They were only used in the date cells of the tables, as I felt it looked awkward with it fully written out there. I found a better way to write them, though. Mobile Phones->Mobile phones. Then you have "Mobile phone". Be consistent. Standardized on Mobile phones Sometimes you relink a platform within a single cell of the table, sometimes you don't. Be consistent. Standardized on 1 link per cell. personal computer or PC. Be consistent. Fixed the one instance of PC. "Outside of Japan" no need for "of". Fixed. Ref 75, please uncapitalise that in accordance with the WP:MOS. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Can you confirm that ref 46 uses an en-dash, not a hyphen. ? Not sure what you mean- the title of the ref is using a hyphen. Do you mean that it should be using an en-dash? Yep. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Alright, fixed, I think. Where are the "Original release dates" for the spin-offs? They have them, except when the cell is a series. I can put them in there if you think I should. Just seems odd to have "Original release dates:" in the cell with nothing following... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Alright, fixed. The "release date" thing was because I couldn't figure out how to make the template not display that; I've now forked off a version for use for series and collections. --PresN 15:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Alright, thanks. Marking them off as I go. --PresN 16:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Done, a couple of them have questions for you. --PresN 19:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Done. --PresN 15:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment; this article has a fair amount of overlinking, particularly tactical role-playing game (the three Tactics games in a row) and consoles such as PlayStation Portable and PlayStation 2. Tezero (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Is there a rule written down somewhere about how often you're supposed to link in lists? 'Cause The Rambling Man up there wanted it to be no more than 1 time per game/cell, whereas you want it to be the same way its done in regular articles. I can go either way, but I'd like to know what it's supposed to be. --PresN 14:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• I said I wasn't overly bothered. Typically we link once, and once only, unless it's a sortable list. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Per below, I've hit upon a solution- one link per section. This eliminated linking PlayStation 2 in 5 cells in a row, but ensure that you don't have to go hunting for links late in the list. --PresN 01:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, I believe that I have addressed your concerns. --PresN 02:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't scrutinize the article as well as others have or probably will, but the things that I noticed are the potential overlinking and Collections section.

• I tend to think it is acceptable to once link per cell or per row, rather than expecting readers to find the linked first instance that is somewhere in the list, but I'm not sure if WP:REPEATLINK agrees since the list is not sortable.

• I've hit upon a solution- one link per section. This eliminated linking PlayStation 2 in 5 cells in a row, but ensure that you don't have to go hunting for links late in the list. --PresN 01:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• I mainly question the purpose of the Collections section. To me, it seems out of place to me as they are not games themselves. The information is worthwhile, but I am not sure that this is the correct place to summarize it. I think that the section at least needs an explanation to mention that the collections are individual products available as a single purchase.

• I've put in an explanation of what collections are; they may not fit 100% but there isn't another article to put it in. --PresN 01:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Another minor gripe would be the term "system release," but I see that that is used in other FLs. To me, it sounds like when the system was released, not when a game was released for it. "Release dates by systems" seems a more appropriate phrase, but I understand there may be precedent for the term currently in use. —Ost (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Per below, I've gone and changed the template to use your phrasing, as it better exemplifies what the field is used for. --PresN 01:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why you use piped links instead of redirects? For instance, you use [[Final Fantasy I and II (compilations)#Game Boy Advance|Final Fantasy I & II: Dawn of Souls]] instead of [[Final Fantasy I & II: Dawn of Souls]], which goes directly there. DabSolver shows other examples. I was able to use WP:CHECKLINKS to replace the instances, but you're welcome to revert if you purposely excluded the redirects. —Ost (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks! I'll go ahead then and cut down the overlinking, since it seems to bother people. How did you use checklinks to fix the pipedlinks? I only use it for external links. --PresN 21:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Basically, it applies its commonfixes after it fixes dead links, so I just ran it and saved it, even though your links were fine. I figured it would be easier for you to revert me than to do it by hand. DabSolver may have done the same, too, although I've played with that tool much less. —Ost (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, nifty. I suppose that I used piped links due to some OCD-ish quirk, but you're swaying me to just use the redirects as they won't have link-rot issues. --PresN 01:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, I believe that I have addressed all of Ost's concerns. --PresN 02:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. I think it looks good and I can support FL promotion assuming other reviewers don't find major concerns. —Ost (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. (Note that I am unfamiliar with series.)

• The lead linking to articles implied by text seems out of consistency with usual wikilinking one would expect. For example "first game" implied FF1, but I almost expected to be taken to first video game or something. I do recognise that changing this may reduce readability. So I support change only if it is of equal or better readability.
• Why is the whole "fourteenth is forthcoming" linked? Would it be preferred to just link say "fourteenth title is forthcoming" or alike? It is not going to be coming forever.

• These two seem to be the only examples of this implied linking I could find- they now have more obvious links. --PresN 01:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Would ".. has placed it as one of the best-selling video game franchises." rather be clarified as ".. has placed it as the sixth best-selling video game franchise."? Are you worried about the place changing or?

• I wrote it that way because when I started re-writing the lead it said it was the "third best-selling" and the linked article had it as the sixth. There's no need in my mind to be specific if it's less than the top 3, and it does seem subject to change, yes. --PresN 01:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Shouldn't List of best-selling video games#Franchises ("best-selling video game franchises") instead link to List of best-selling video game franchises?

• Yes, fixed. --PresN 01:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think all the notes do need the full stops. They looks weird directly followed by refs. Besides, it is syntactically incorrect.

• Alright. Done. --PresN 02:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ost316 suggests redirects instead of pipes. I am not sure why. I prefer piped links myself.

• It might be a style preference, but I also like redirects because it gives you one central place to edit the section link instead of routing through articles if someone changes a section name. I also read WP:NOTBROKEN as preferring redirects—"With a few limited exceptions, there are no good reasons to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]."—but that may be my interpretation. —Ost (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• True, this will increase further editing required should the articles be created or sections renamed. I'm just assuming that most of these redirects don't deserve an article and probably never will. Of course, it's case-by-case basis. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  23:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Well, in any case, I think I'll stick with redirects now that they've been changed, as I don't feel strongly about changing them back. --PresN 01:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• OK. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  13:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Microsoft Windows personal computer" looks a bit weird and uses two links one after another. I am uncertain how to improve this though.

• Same here. No idea about a better link though. --PresN 01:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• Since per above there's now only one such link per section, it should be less of a problem now too. --PresN 01:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• I also find "system release" slightly confusing. "Release dates by system" indeed sounds like a better option.

• I agree, I've gone and changed the template to use that wording. --PresN 01:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• I do not find the systems being overlinked, simply because they are so randomly distributed that it would take additional effort to be bothered by the same links. It may appear a bit on the non-aesthetically "blueish" tone, but I am sure it is because of the loads of referenced.

• Per above, I'm going to one link per section, which reduces the redundant links without making it unduly hard to find them later in the list. --PresN 01:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• OK, it probably cannot be helped any further anyway.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  13:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think I will support this as a FL given some of mine and couple previous issues are resolved. The referencing must have taken you a while. :P—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  21:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Haha, yeah.... --PresN 01:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• I added an optional "multiplereleasedates=yes/no" param to the {{VGtitle}} template. You can use it to display proper "Original release dates:" and "Original release date:" instead of "Original release date(s):". Edit: I added this it to article. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  23:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, lots to do! Comments inline with your suggestions as I get to them, I'll put a summary comment when I finish it all. --PresN 01:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, I believe that I've address all of Hellknowz's concerns. --PresN 02:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Given this is FLC I think it deserves a bit more nitpicking :)
• You missed 3 fulls tops. I fixed them.

• Thanks! --PresN 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Final Fantasy Legend series. "The three games were reissued by Sunsoft." Rewhat? Do you mean re-released, republished, localized? Is this a term specific to this system/game release?

• It means republished, but I guess it's not a common term. Changed. --PresN 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Final Fantasy Adventure. "..it has generated its own series, called the Mana series." --> ".. has generated its own game series, called Mana." I think it helps to clarify it was game series not manga or anime or something equally insensitively stereotypical. Also would "Mana" be enough instead of "the Mana series" as series is already mentioned right before.

• Agreed, changed. --PresN 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Final Fantasy: Unlimited on PC Adventure - Labyrinth. Would Amada Printing be notable enough to be redlinked? I don't think FL or FA actually forbids occasional redlinks.

• I don't think so, as far as I can tell they're just a defunct publisher that mainly handled small print runs of trading cards or the like. This was the only game they ever did. There's very little reason to think that any English speaker would create an article about them.--PresN 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Nevermind them then. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  14:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Final Fantasy X/X-2 Ultimate Box. "..with a bonus disc." What bonus disc? Empty/full/with game/with bonus material? Ref is forum in Japanese which helps me not.

• It had the same video on it as FFX International, added in. --PresN 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Final Fantasy Mobile series. "Final Fantasy i" <-- typo? It looks like something that may not be. Reference is in Japanese.

• No, that's correct. Weird, but correct. --PresN 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Same place "..were released separately for two mobile phone brands." What brands? It seemed like it talks about something mentioned before but I cannot find any previous mention of phone brands. Add ".. two different mobile.." if you don't want to specify which ones so it is clear you had no intention to.

• I'm going with "two different" as I can't tell what brands they are just from the logos. --PresN 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ivalice Alliance series. Given you want to keep redirects instead of pipes - Ivalice Alliance (like in Final Fantasy XII notes)

• Fixed. --PresN 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Final Fantasy VII Snowboarding. Snowboarding video game is redirect to Snowboarding video games.

• Fixed, also there was another piped link there. --PresN 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sure I would miss half the links even if I was to look for them specifically. :)—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  14:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Should E³ be wikilinked at its first mention in Final Fantasy Versus XIII?

• Yes, also expanded to the full name. --PresN 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Before Crisis: Final Fantasy VII. NTT DoCoMo is redirect to NTT Docomo.

• Fixed. --PresN 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Fortress. "Spin-off/sequel of Final Fantasy XII". Is it interchangable or both? The slash is sort of ambiguous. Can you say "Spin-off sequel of ..." as in it is sequel to canon game but spin-off in terms of story?

• Yes. It's sort of both; there's not a lot of detail available, but it's not an RPG (spinoff) but seems to involve characters from FF12 after the game (sequel). --PresN 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Finest Fantasy for Advance collection (????, Game Boy Advance)" doesn't include year anywhere (well, at least 3 times). Should it?

• Probably! Fixed. --PresN 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  13:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, same deal as before with the inline comments. I think I've addressed them all. --PresN 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support then. I cannot see any more problems or omissions. I'm not an expert on "featured stuff" but it seems to me it satisfies all the FL criteria. I could probably nitpick lack of prose and lack of more solid references than occasional forums but I think this is close to as good as it gets for lists with such obscure info. I'll gaze over it again later to see if I missed anything. Looks like good work to me! —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  14:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks! FYI, there shouldn't be any forum references- the one you referred to above as a forum is actually a listing of games in the Square Enix site. --PresN 15:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support; my only concern with this article has been alleviated. Impressive work. Tezero (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:25, 29 April 2010 [2].

---

List of accolades received by Inglourious Basterds

Nominator(s): JuneGloom07 Talk? 11:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the article meets the Featured List criteria. This list was created to include the awards and nominations for the film Inglourious Basterds. This is my first featured article/list nomination and I look forward to your comments. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 11:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 18:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments Check dablinks from toolbox on the right, there is 1 "Inglourious Basterds is 2009 war film..." Which war? Done (I wasn't sure if you wanted 'war' linked or replaced, so I've replaced it with 'World War II' for now.) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 17:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Discrepancy between the infobox dropdown and the main list for Broadcast Film Critics awards (3/10 vs 2/10) Fixed. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 17:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Another discrepancy for San Diego Film Critics awards. Fixed. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 17:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Neither column in the infobox (Won and Nominated) add up to the totals listed, fix this after you resolve the discrepancies noted above. Fixed. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 17:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC) IMDB is generally not considered a reliable source. Find a different source. Replaced. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 17:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC) That's it from me for now. Good work overall! :) Jujutacular T · C 19:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Everything looks great to me now. Thanks! Jujutacular ^T · C 18:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Support I had some issues, mainly concerning the referencing, but handled them myself last week. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments welcome to FLC, hope you continue to contribute more good lists! Caption for image doesn't need a period. 62nd Cannes festival has a specific article at 2009 Cannes Film Festival. "the film has grossed $320,351,773 worldwide," very very precise number which I'm sure will have changed since the information was released. Perhaps say "over 320 million" or similar? "screenplay (Best Original Screenplay) to its direction and editing (Best Director, Best Editing) " not sure you need the "explanations" in parentheses. Aha, you link to the actual Cannes festival later on. Just do it once. "was entered for the" perhaps "submitted for consideration for the..."? The White Ribbon should be in italics. "Inglourious Basterds received eight Academy Awards nominations, the ceremony saw Waltz win for Best Supporting Actor" not a comma, perhaps a semicolon? No spaced hyphens please (e.g. "Best Sound Editing - Sound Effects and Foley in a Feature Film") Bullet point for external links. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Fixed all of the points. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 11:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support my comments addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Good work. Gage (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 07:31, 29 April 2010 [3].

---

2010 Winter Paralympics medal table

Nominator(s): Basement12 (T.C) 10:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the games are now completed so it should remain stable. Modelled on 2008 Summer Olympics medal table and other similar articles - Basement12 (T.C) 10:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Support. I found no problems in this list. Ruslik_Zero 19:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments Do you have a reference for the "officially known as" statement? "most total medals" reads a little strangely to me, maybe "most medals in total" "who won two gold medals in biathlon " no real need to repeat "gold medals" as the whole sentence is introduced as being about gold medals. "para-athlete" would "Paralympian" be more appropriate or am I missing the point? The see also really should say it's pointing to the "all-time" medal table, not the redirect. While not essential, I'm a little surprised to see references with non-North American-formatted dates... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC) All done. Its an international sporting event so doesn't have a true affiliation to one country and i'm from the UK hence the dates are formatted in this way. The see also link should be to a page explaining ranking systems, as there is no Paralympic page i've used the Olympic equivalent - Basement12 (T.C) 11:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support my issues taken care of. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

*Comment: why does the table list NPCs that did not win any medal? Parutakupiu (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC) It didn't when it was nominated. I've undone the edit that changed this Basement12 (T.C) 10:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Any records regarding medalist nations? Did any NPC win its first Paralympic medal or gold? Parutakupiu (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Not that I know of; I couldn't find any sources saying so and having searched back through old medal tables I couldn't see any - Basement12 (T.C) 20:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
*Comment One issue, that should be trivial to resolve. Do you have a citation for the Russian Federation winning the most medals in Torino, since you mention Vancouver was their second consecutive? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Reference added - Basement12 (T.C) 08:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Nice work. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• "Athletes from 21 countries won at least one medal, 15 of them got at least one gold medal." Two little picky things here. First, I think the comma should be a semi-colon the way this is now. Second, "got" doesn't strike me as the most formal language. If you change this to "winning" or similar, it would take care of both problems in one shot.
• The external link should be removed from reference 1's publisher, leaving just the publisher's name. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Both points dealt with as you suggested - Basement12 (T.C) 15:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Great job. Gage (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 07:31, 29 April 2010 [4].

---

82nd Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 03:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... the article have a great potential to be one. Thanks Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 03:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support Fantastic job!

• Please have consistent linkage. In the major awards section all films are linked, but in the other awards section only new film are. Be consistent by linking them all.

Question A few weeks I unlinked all repeated links because it was overlinked. Major section could be with only a few links or both section must have Wikilinks?

Note Some movies on "other awards" section have no articles. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 21:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Generally prose can be overlinked but not tables. There was a talk page post about this that often a person is looking for a specific award, not reading from top to bottom, so they should be linked at each appearance. Don't link if there is no article. Reywas92^Talk 21:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Linked Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 23:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Overlink#Repeated links for future reference, where it says "tables, in which each row should be able to stand on its own."--WillC 07:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• The Nominations and awards section should be renamed because that is about special notes over individual films, not all the nominations and awards.

Fixed Re-named to "Notable nominations and awards" Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 21:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• I see no reason to list all the qualified films. Expanded they take up half the entire page. This is irrelevant and could practically just be replaced by a link to 2009 in film.

Removed and replaced Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 21:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the rest of the section is needed either since I now see that is linked in the lead. Reywas92^Talk 21:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 23:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Very nice overall. Reywas92^Talk 20:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Great job. Felipe Menegaz 13:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Check the toolbox; there is a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, replaced link. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 19:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Nice work. Gage (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Honorary Academy Awards - why are the recipients a bold list? And why, suddenly, a "Source:", also bullet pointed? Same for Thalberg. For both, the ceremony wasn't in the live telecast and both awards don't appear on the references' award list TbhotchTalk C. 14:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC) I would like a sentence or two on what these awards are about. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Done TbhotchTalk C. Since you're hiding some tables, why not have them in full size text? I don't understand this. TbhotchTalk C. 16:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Refs still need attention... BBC is a publisher, if anything, while BBC News may be the work. Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 16:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Ref 18 appears to have a typo. Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 16:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Sometimes the NY Times has a publisher, sometimes not. Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 16:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Ref 49 appears to have two "works", NYMag unlinked and NYMag linked. Fixed. TbhotchTalk C. 15:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC) What makes tvbythenumbers.com a WP:RS? If it is, make references to it consistent, i.e. 37 and 41 should be formatted similarly. Removed TbhotchTalk C. Ref 12 inconsistently unlinks to AMPAS. Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 15:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Inconsistent linking between 31 and 69. Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 15:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

*Comment I'm starting all over again. I think some of the comments were resolved, some were overlooked, some were misunderstood. So, I'll start from scratch and review this list again. As such, I'm offering an oppose because until I'm satisfied that some basic elements of WP:WIAFL and what is Wikipedia's finest finest work are met, I'm not happy to see these previous and clearly unsatisfactory supports to allow this to be promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Comments "first woman to ever win an" no need for "ever" Removed TbhotchTalk C. 15:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC) "Other winners were Avatar with..." multiple winners? There were other "other" winners you haven't listed here. Added all winners. TbhotchTalk C. 15:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC) "and Oscar-nominated actress" It's mildly confusing because it doesn't appear as if she was nominated this time round, so is the fact she was previously nominated of relevance? Removed TbhotchTalk C. 15:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC) "On February 20, 2010, took place the Scientific and Technical Achievement Awards presentation, at which they were submitted the Honorary Awards where..." it may be me, and it is early, but that doesn't read at all well. I changed it to -> " On February 20, 2010, took place the Scientific and Technical Achievement Awards presentation. At this ceremony Lauren Bacall, Roger Corman and Gordon Willis were awarded with the Honorary Award and received an Academy statue". TbhotchTalk C. 15:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC) "with nine nominations each" no need to repeat nominations. Removed. TbhotchTalk C. 15:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Be consistent with the relinking in the tables. You relink e.g. The Hurt Locker, but you don't relink e.g. Quentin Tarantino. Fixed. TbhotchTalk C. 15:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC) "9 nominations" not sure why this is in bold and not sure you need to keep repeating "nominations" because the heading already says this is about multiple nominations. Changed. TbhotchTalk C. 15:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Same for wins. Above. TbhotchTalk C. Would still like to know something, even just a one-liner about the significance of the honorary award and the Thalberg award. Irrelevant for this ceremony. TbhotchTalk C. 15:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC) If it's "Irrelevant for this ceremony." then why is it mentioned in this ceremony's article? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Because it belongs (see here in Thalberg Award Recipients list section. TbhotchTalk C. 16:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC) It has no context in this list. It needs at least one line saying what it's awarded for. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC) It's illogical, so also I must say why Best Picture was the Best Picture or why there are Best original screenplay is not merged on Best Adaped Screenplay. TbhotchTalk C. 16:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC) No because best picture is an oscar, the thalberg award is completely out of context. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC) TbhotchTalk C. 17:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Added "an award which is provided to the 'creative porducers'." Why is Tribute Montage capitalised? Fixed. TbhotchTalk C. 15:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC) "and Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award (awarded November 14, 2009)" confused, what did Latifah do here if it had already been presented? Because Latifah appeared on the live telecast. She presented a repetition of the Scientific and Technical Achievement Awards TbhotchTalk C. 16:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC) "in sync with" synchronised with. Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 16:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC) "Then-president " followed by "AMPAS President Sid Ganis" Perhaps the first time should be AMPAS President, and the second time just Ganis. Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 16:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 2nd para of Ceremony information reads really poorly, very stilted. "Mr X did A. Mr Y did B." no real flow to it. Removed (some) TbhotchTalk C. 19:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC) "keep the running time of the telecast shorter" "keep" "shorter"? Perhaps make it shorter? Changed TbhotchTalk C. 16:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC) "cite the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences's decision" why go back to expanding the acronym AMPAS here? Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 16:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC) "next highest grossing" some hyphenation here. Fixed TbhotchTalk C. "Renowned film critic" says who? Removed TbhotchTalk C. 16:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC) TIME = just Time would be fine. fixed TbhotchTalk C. 16:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC) "having two host was a disadvantage. [34]" hosts, and remove the space between the period and the ref. fixed TbhotchTalk C. 16:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC) "right'down" should be a space, not apostrophe. fixed TbhotchTalk C. 17:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC) "gave an average critic of the" critique? Changed. TbhotchTalk C. 17:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Why are Canton and Boxer not redlinked? If the Academy deemed them notable enough for inclusion in the in memorium section, are they not notable enough for a Wikipedia article? I always see the redlinks as spoilers, if the redlinks are acceptable I can add them. TbhotchTalk C. 17:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Redlinks are fine by me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC) "the skit was eventually done by" not done, performed perhaps? Changed. TbhotchTalk C. 17:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC) In Memorium needs to be in italics in the presenters section to be consistent with the rest of the article. Fixed. TbhotchTalk C. 17:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC) According to our own article, USA Today is published by Gannett Company, not USA Today. so, I have to change |work=Usa Today |publisher=Usa Today to |work=Gannett Company |publisher=Usa Today? TbhotchTalk C. 17:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC) No, you have to change it to work=USA Today Is "Best Supporting Actor" really an "activity"? "Presenting the award for Best Supporting Actor" would be better. Changed. TbhotchTalk C. 15:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Change it in the Presenters table for every relevant entry. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I don't understand this. TbhotchTalk C. 01:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Are you refering to this? TbhotchTalk C. 07:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC) I added it. I don't know if it's right. TbhotchTalk C. 03:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Great work. --haha169 (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:57, 27 April 2010 [5].

---

List of South Africa women Twenty20 International cricketers

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 19:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it comprehensively covers the topic. The list is unlikely to expand at a rapid rate as women's matches are not played that regularly, and most of the members of the team will remain reasonably stable. The table is laid out in a similar fashion to that of the list of Test cricketers (List of South Africa women Test cricketers). Harrias ^talk 19:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments Image caption doesn't need a full stop. Done: changed as suggested. Link over appropriately in the opening sentence. Done: changed as suggested. "of the leading cricketing " really? why leading? Why not just international teams? (later... I wouldn't personally class Ireland women as a "leading" nation in cricketing terms....) Ireland are one of ten women's Test playing nations; look at the Women's European Championship Twenty20 2009 for example, the only one of Ireland's matches considered a T20I is the one against fellow Test nation Netherlands. Okay. I see where you're coming from. But perhaps you should be purely factual and say it's a match between two international teams? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC) The problem is, it's not a match between any two international teams. They are the leading cricketing nations in women's cricket. Just because the standard might be quite low it doesn't prevent them from being among the leaders. Harrias talk 21:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Okay, accepted to an extent. Would it be more accurate to say the international match would have to occur between ICC-recognised female T20I teams? I know it seems I'm making a point out of this but "leading" seems purely POV/OR but I'm just after the reality of the situation! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Rephrased to ..between two of the top 10 ranked countries of the ICC in terms of women's cricket. Harrias talk 08:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Could (just a suggestion) abbreviate Twenty20 International to T20I so you don't have to keep repeating such a mouthful throughout the lead. I can and will do if you like, but purely as a personal thing, I don't like the abbreviation. Don't know why! No big deal, leave it how it is if you prefer to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Is there a reason why the first T20I was played on neutral turf? I think they were just coinciding tours. It certainly wasn't part of an ICC tournament. Any chance of a note explaining why? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Done: have explained they were both touring at the same time. Harrias talk 09:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC) "starting with the match against New Zealand during their tour of England in 2007" do you need to repeat this information? Probably not, I was having difficulty working out how to phrase it though; should I just remove this altogether? I'd remove the repetition as a minimum. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Done: removed. Harrias talk 09:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Spell out ICC before using the abbreviation. Done: changed as suggested. No link for the inaugural world female T20I tournament? Done: changed as suggested. Second para of lead, three consecutive sentences start with They... Done: fixed. Cri-zelda -> Cri-Zelda (per our article). Done: changed as suggested. apiece -> each? What's wrong with apiece? Nothing, a bit archaic but, as they say in Oz, whatever. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "is arranged in the order of debut appearance" - "is initially arranged..." Done: changed as suggested. "are listed alphabetically " -> "are initially listed..." Done: changed as suggested. "Stumpings effected" why not "taken" or "made"? Because effected was in the FL (India women Test players) that I stole it from!! Would suggest something more "normal" (as I suggested..) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Done: changed to 'taken'. Harrias talk 09:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC) I would expect the incalculable average and the en-dash bowling statistics to sort as zeros. Done: I've left it as it is for the bowling average, as that statistic is better the lower it is, it seems to make more sense for them to display as higher, rather than as zero. Harrias talk 09:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments; I've responded to most of those relating to the lead, and will work on the sortability. Harrias talk 20:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support all my comments addressed, no further concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Full usage of the International Cricket Council should be in the first paragraph. Done: changed as suggested. Don't think we need "women" after each of the national teams when the second word in the article indicates that these are female sides. There are quite a few of these in the lead. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Done: changed as suggested, although I left it in one case where I feel it distinguished from South Africa's men. Harrias talk 20:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Further suggestion regarding the one remaining use: it feels like "The" should be added at the start of its sentence, as in "The South Africa women...". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC) That doesn't sounds right to me; I could lengthen it to the full "The South Africa national women's cricket team played their...", but I think that 'The' would be more logically followed by South African women, which isn't really saying the same thing. Harrias talk 19:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC) The sentence now starts with "South Africa women played their first...", which I don't believe is optimal grammar. That's why I made that comment in the first place. It just feels to me like something should either be taken out or added. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Done: changed. Harrias talk 07:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Support – After the fixes, everything looks good. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC

Support Aaroncrick ^TALK 05:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Great work. Gage (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 15:25, 27 April 2010 [6].

---

List of North Carolina hurricanes (2000–present)

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC), User:Hurricanehink

I am nominating this for featured list because, according to an FL director, the previous nomination failed due to a lack of comments. This list needs to be featured in order to save an existing featured topic for demotion (which was supposed to have happened a week ago). Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• As primary writer, I'll gladly co-nom. I checked over it, and I fully agree that it should be a featured list. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - should the article be written in past tense? And no offense to the kid or his family, but is "Rip currents from Tropical Storm Danny result in the death of a 12 year-old boy" really important enough to include here? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• All similar articles use present-tense, and although there really hasn't been any major discussion on the issue, consistency is good. Also, if source-able, all storm-related deaths should be included. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• I was the original author, and the reason I had it in present tense (and not past) was because it was a chronology. For storms in a single year, the past is fixed, but in this case, it's not so much about a single fixed date, but rather all the different storms that affected the state. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• My thought is that the entire subject of the article is in the past, so it should use past tense. To reply to HH below, my concern is specific to this article and others. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Don't most timelines use present-tense? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Well, List of Byzantine emperors doesn't... Either way, I feel like present tense sounds awkward at times. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Could you please point out a few examples? Maybe the wording can be improved. Check this, though. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 11:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't really have examples, it just reads oddly (to me) in present tense. However, I'm probably insane and/or in the minority. :-) Consider this concern dropped. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 19:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Jujutacular (talk · contribs) As in the previous nomination, I believe this sentence should be fixed: "The first storm to impact the state during the period was Hurricane Florence in September 2000, and the most recent is Hurricane Ida in 2009". Past tense should be consistent: "the most recent was Hurricane Ida...". I'm asking Hurricanehink and Ed to comment. As before, I will support if consensus is against me. Jujutacular T · C 01:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Yea, I agreed with you and made the change. Or, I agree with you and make the change. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Hmmm, you actually made it all present tense. I think it should be all past tense. Jujutacular T · C 01:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Well, that's a larger semantic discussion of which this list is only a part of. As JC noted, the list is following the same format for the other similar hurricane lists (particularly the North Carolina hurricane lists prior to 2000). Is there anything specific to this article, and not related to other articles, that you can comment on? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure I understand. The lead at List of North Carolina hurricanes (1980–1999) is all in past tense. To me, "The first storm to impact the state during the period is Hurricane Florence in September 2000, and the most recent is Hurricane Ida in 2009" makes no grammatical sense. Jujutacular T · C 02:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Clarification The list being in the present tense looks fine to me, I agree with it. I'm just concerned with that one present tense sentence in the lead. Jujutacular T · C 02:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Jujutacular ^T · C 19:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The state borders South Carolina and Georgia to the south, Tennessee to the west and Virginia to the north." This sentence seems to detailed for the scope of this list. Surprised to see no summary of storms by category, or at least a mention of the Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale. "12 year-old boy"-->12-year-old boy The navbox in the see also section should go at the bottom of the page (above the categories) per WP:LAYOUT. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Fixed everything, hopefully satisfactorily, with help from Jason Rees (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton | Talk 16:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments What's USGS (used in the caption without explanation)? "17.5 percent" just a query really, why not %? The subsectioning appears abitrary, I guess you're doing it to carve them up roughly equally in size? "enter the state as a subtropical depression and drops over" singular to plural here for me, perhaps just "drop over". "in 9 indirect" after the semi-colon, I would expect this to be "nine". I guess the accuracy of your rainfalls etc is driven by the sources. It seems a little odd to see "8.31 inches (211mm)" and "10 inches (250mm)" to me, that's all. If it is driven by the sources, perhaps a general note would be useful. Are you using the convert template to ensure consistent conversion (10 inches=254 mm where I'm from...) This has been a bit of a an issue for a while within tropical cyclone articles. Generally, exact amounts are given exact conversions, while general estimates (10 in) are given rounded conversions to avoid the perception of precision (if that makes sense?) –Juliancolton | Talk 13:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC) I suspected you'd say that, but you have "up to 17 inches (432 mm)" which is an accurate prcision (i.e. 1 inch=2.54mm)... I'm not trying to be difficult (although I can see that I probably am!) but all I'm after is internal consistency. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Actually, Ivan is actually 17.00 inches, surprisingly! Hence the exact 432 mm, which I clarified in the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC) "kills 8 people in the state,[23] and causes severe flooding just 9 days" eight, nine. "of less duration" shorter in duration. Similarly to above, 3 inches is 76mm for me. En-dashes for year ranges in the references please. Don't mix date formats in the references. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Done with everything else I think. Thanks for the comments. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Ive been reading this article bit by bit over the last couple of weeks and i think its FL worthy.Jason Rees (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

1. Can tables be made sortable?

   I'll see if I can work on this. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

   Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

2. Since Isabel was the strongest strom, I think the article would benefit from an image of it. For instance File:Hurricane_Isabel_18_sept_2003_1555Z.jpg or File:Hurricane_Isabel_NC_landfall_radar.jpg. The image should go to the leading section, with the current image moved to 2003-2004 section.

   Well, the lead already has an image of damage from Isabel, which is more relevant than a satellite/radar shot I think. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

3. As an extratropical cyclone Tropical Storm Barry This sounds like an oxymoron. This actually was an extratropical cyclone, which in the past was a storm. So a better choice of words is "Tropical Storm Barry, which by 7 May tuned into an extratropical cyclone, crosses".

   Good point, fixed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

4. The same with The precursor cyclone to Subtropical Storm Andrea produces .... Any storm is a cyclone. Why not to say simply "The precursor to Subtropical Storm Andrea produces ..."?

   Nice catch. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruslik_Zero 15:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 24 April 2010 [7].

---

Order of battle at the Battle of Camperdown

Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The companion article to Battle of Camperdown and in the same vein as Order of battle at the Battle of the Nile, this lists the ships and casualties suffered by the British and Dutch fleets during the naval Battle of Camperdown in 1797. All comments welcome, enjoy. Jackyd101 (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments "Spithead and Nore mutinies" just link the whole thing rather than two links heading to the same article. I can do, although I should note that in the next month or so I will be breaking them into separate articles. No worries then, good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC) You use Yarmouth in preference to Great Yarmouth. I'm guessing that back in 1797 that was how it was most commonly referred to? All contemporary references use that term (I think the name became Great Yarmouth in the mid-19th Centry but I cannot be sure of that). I thought as much, no problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC) You refer twice to "the Texel" while the article about it states it's an island and municipality. Why, then, "the Texel" and not just "Texel"? This is tricky: the name of the island is Texel, but the name of the anchorage behind the island is "The Texel" (as in "The Texel Channel", although it is never called that). I'm not sure what to do here - none of my sources spell this out as they assume prior knowledge, so I can't reference it. "Dutch formed line" forgive my ignorance but is that grammatically incorrect or is it a sailing term, to form line? Its a sailing term related to the line of battle. So it wouldn't be "Dutch formed a line"? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "the van and rear of the" what's the van? A naval term for "vanguard". I will wikilink it. "Both sides suffered heavy casualties during the battle as both fleets had been trained to aim at the hulls of their opponents, maximising the damage to personnel.[8] Although both fleets fought hard, both were suffering from popular unrest at the time of the battle." "both" is used four times in two sentences so reads a little repetitively. Why is "weak construction" a necessity for shallow waters? Is it related to the mass of the construction? "The Dutch did however have the advantage of weight of shot, especially when their well-armed frigates and brigs are included" change of tense here. I'll change this for clarity, although in fact I think it is technically correct: The Dutch did have the advantage in the past, but it is when the frigates and brigs are included statistically. I'll change it though. I decided to include the word "statistically" here rather than change the tense. Is this OK? Sure is. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC) You link line to line of battle towards the end of the lead, is that the same line that I noted above? Yep, I'll move the link. Per WP:ACCESS you need a symbol as well as a colour to denote a particular property. I've done this, although I am actually a bit reluctant to use colours or symbols to denote the captured ships as it oversimplifies what was sometimes quite a complex process (hence the notes section, which is severely foreshortened itself). I was told at another FLC that this was standard however - what are your thoughts? I'm not sure that captured ships need that notation at all, I think the notes suffice. It's really a matter of taste. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC) (1997 [1900]) vs (2000) [1997]. "Batsford Ltd.." spare full stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC) I've replied to several of you points. Those I haven't replied to I will address directly in the article this evening. Thank you very much for your review and comments.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC) All done, except those noted above. Thanks.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC) You're welcome, I thoroughly enjoyed the article, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support very interesting work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support: looks fine to me, I couldn't find anything to pick fault with. Good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support: This is a very unique list, and really interesting to read. There's nothing wrong with it. Great work! --haha169 (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support looks good to me. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

A big thankyou to everyone who gave their support to this article and offered their comments. It was all much appreciated. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 24 April 2010 [8].

---

Timeline of the 2007–08 South Pacific cyclone season

Nominator(s): Jason Rees (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... after a complete rewrite of the list over the last few weeks i feel that the list is ready for FLC. I have checked with both User:Hurricanehink and User:Juliancolton who both feel that it is ready. Any comments are welcome.Jason Rees (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: Their are currently several deadlinks as webcite is currently transfering servers they say it will be back soon.Jason Rees (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Webcite is now back up.Jason Rees (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

*What is "east of 160E"? FixedJason Rees (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC) How? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Ive clarified whats east of 160E unless you meant West (ie the Aus region).Jason Rees (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC) A non-expert would not understand what you mean by "east of 160E". Spell it out. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC) As a non-non-expert, I'm not sure how else to word that to be honest. Would a link to longitude piped to the "E" suffice? –Juliancolton | Talk 16:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Definitely. You and I know that 160E means 160 degrees longitude east, but we shouldn't assume a non-expert has a clue what 160E means. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC) done by nominator. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC) PipedJason Rees (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC) "either form or move into" "form in or move into" FixedJason Rees (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC) How? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC) RSMC Nadi attaches an F suffix to tropical disturbances that form or move into the South PacificJason Rees (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC) No, the grammar was poor and needs to be fixed per my suggestion, or reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Yeah and i reworded it per youre suggestion.Jason Rees (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Not quite, but I've fixed it per my suggestion. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Ok Thanks.Jason Rees (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Interestingly, the timeline (in my opinion) fails WP:ACCESS as you only have colour to designate the category. For colour-blind folks, and those not able to discern the different colours so well will not be able to work out which category each storm is in. The only way around this i think is to link the section back to the seasonal article which i have done.Jason Rees (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Not by any means the "only way around this". Fix the timeline to make it comply with our accessibility guidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) It is the only one i can think off so if you have a suggestion let us know.Jason Rees (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Fix the timeline to comply with WP:ACCESS. This isn't WP:PR, so if you need further advice, I'd look elsewhere. Sorry to sound harsh but this is your problem to fix. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC) I think ive managed to find a way around it but id like to point out that none of the other featured timelines has had this problem.Jason Rees (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Then they all need to be fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Spaced hyphens in January 10. FixedJason Rees (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Nope. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Yep.Jason Rees (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Last two entries in January 10 have spaced hyphens still. Please fix. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC) No they dont - 1800 UTC, (0600 FST, January 11) - RSMC Nadi reports that Tropical Cyclone Elisa (11P) has intensified into a Category 2 tropical cyclone. 1800 UTC, (0600 FST, January 11) - RSMC Nadi reports that Tropical Cyclone Elisa (11P) has reached its 10-minute peak sustained wind speeds, of 95 km/h, (60 mph). Jason Rees (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Well, on my screen, the "hyphen" between "... 11) - RSMC Nadi ..." on each of those lines is a spaced hyphen. Perhaps my browser needs a slap... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Perhaps but ive C&P two  – from another point in the article.Jason Rees (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Not correctly, obviously. I've fixed the issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Ok Thanks.Jason Rees (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC) "Regional Specialized Meteorological Center (RSMC) in Nadi, Fiji" all one link? why not link the "Regional Specialized Meteorological Center (RSMC)" as you currently do and Nadi, Fiji to Nadi, Fiji? Same for the TCWC. Ive considered doing this in the past and i think its better to link to the company pages as opposed to RSMC and then Nadi Fiji or RSMC and Wellington NZ.Jason Rees (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Not in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Why? - Both articles have more details on the centers than the articles your wanting me too link to.Jason Rees (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC) I'm confused why you wouldn't think it better to link both the company and its location. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Because we wouldnt be. Both links would go to their name sakes ie Regional Specialized Meteorological Center & Nadi, FijiJason Rees (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC) So link them individually. The organisation and the location. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC) After taking some independent advice ive done the wikilink the way you wanted it.Jason Rees (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Timeline needs en-dashes for the various speed ranges. FixedJason Rees (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC) "RSMC Nadi reports" makes RSMC a singular entity, "RSMC Nadi issues their final" this makes them plural... Personally i do not see the issue but I have been advised by User:Juliancolton that British English would present it as plural, while American English would present it as singular.Jason Rees (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC) At least be consistent within the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Sorted i think.Jason Rees (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC) You should link UTC and FST at least once. DoneJason Rees (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC) "0600 UTC, (1800 FST, February 7)" FST is 36 hours ahead of UTC? FixedJason Rees (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC) "February 18}" curly bracket. FixedJason Rees (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC) "re–intensified" hyphen, not en-dash. FixedJason Rees (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC) "Depression 14F (24P) " or "14F, (24P)," be consistent. FixedJason Rees (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC) hyphens, not en-dashes for the ISO dates in the refs. FixedJason Rees (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC) "Within this basin" which basin? FixedJason Rees (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC) How? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC) If you read the paragraph above im sure its pretty obvious i mean the SPAC. Spell it out. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC) DoneJason Rees (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support my comments addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll support, having done some standardization to the article's comma usage. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Support as per above --Dil Hoom Hoom Kare 01:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I support per above. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 24 April 2010 [9].

---

List of members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee

Nominator(s): Arsenikk ^(talk) 07:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This list presents the 54 men and women who have awarded what is arguable the world's most prestigious prize. Hopefully, it also meets the FL criteria. Arsenikk ^(talk) 07:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment Good list! A few comments though,

• Parties are not linked, as it is sortable they cd all be wikilinked
  • The agrarian party is not linked properly? Sandman888 (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • The Agrarian Party and the Centre Party are the same (they changed their name half a century ago to get more votes). Therefore, the former sorts as the latter.
      • Shd be noted Sandman888 (talk) 07:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
        • It is clearly stated in the prose, while discussing the party alignments. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• It's not chaired between 1909-22 ? Shd be explained in note or corrected.
  • Solved Sandman888 (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• If images had same size it'll look better.
  • See WP:Images for how to force same size. Sandman888 (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I tried to experiment, but no matter what I do, some of the images will look bad. There are also accessibility reasons to use default image sizes, and use of "upright" should make them correct. I notice Jørgen Løvland was not "uprighted", so it should look better now.
• Most of your sources is in Norwegian. Per WP:Sources English is preferred, perhaps other could be found. Sandman888 (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. The problem with the images is that two of the (Løvland and Lundestad) have been uploaded at thumbnail size, and are therefore not displayed at more than such. Note that almost the entire article is sourced from English sources, except the bios of the current members (which links the the extremely reliable bio section of the Norwegian Parliament website) and an article about the internal nomination procedures within parliament (which I have not been able to find in English sources). As I live in Norway, I cannot go down to the library and borrow an English-language book on a Norwegian topic, but I did add an online source for the controversies. I'll have a little look around, but I can't say I'm optimistic. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• • I'd prefer it if the image of Sejersted was a close-up and only showed his face, that'll also make it same format as the two other pics Sandman888 (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Good idea. I've uploaded and linked to a cropped version. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Support - forgot that. Sandman888 (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Lead is a little short, just one small para. I know we don't necessarily have to have acres of text on our lists but you have several other sections of prose and, after all, the lead is supposed to summarise the whole article... I've expanded the lead to include more. My initial though was to not bee too redundant toward the other prose, but if there is no problem with that, the lead can easily be expanded. It is now almost twice the length. "have at some time been chair." reads a little oddly to me. Perhaps "have been the chair [linked] at some point" or similar? Fixed. "professor of history" where? This was mentioned in the prose, but now added. "and the award money is managed" an odd sequence. Mostly the award is renowned for its own notability, then perhaps the medal, and lastly the money. Why launch into financial matters here?! My idea was to indicate that the committee does not have any jurisdiction over the Nobel's assets, but I have removed this after your request. Norwegian Nobel Committee is overlinked. Fixed. "from then to 1967 had three representatives in the committee until 1967." reads poorly to me - 1967 quickly repeated, this need a rephrase. Fixed. That was a typo. "The appointment is done by parliament" -don't like "done" maybe "made", and just a quick one, have you linked to the Norway parliament at any point so far? Fixed. "the next three largest parties" shouldn't this be "three next-largest parties"? Fixed. "a full-time politician or party employee all his life" obviously not true. Presumably he started this "career" when he was, say, 18? Rephrased- "Since leaving politics, she has been a business executive and board member, and has been a consultant since 2002" - "has been a" repeated quickly. Maybe "member, and since 2002, a consultant."? Fixed. In what order do you have the current members? Chair, deputy chair, then regular members by seniority. "a former sole proprietor" what does this mean? According to her bio, she worked as a "sole proprietor". She is now retired. "From 2009, four of the members are women" - not sure quite what you mean, do you mean the current panel has 4 women? That is correct. I rephrased slightly, but fear all I did was add redundant words. " Christian Lous Lange is the only person to have both sat on the committee and been its secretary, and the only laureate to have sat on the committee. Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson was, however, awarded the Nobel Literature Prize." so Lange isn't the only person to have sat on the committee and been a laureate? Or was Bjornson awarded it after sitting on the committee? It's not clear. I've tried to rephrase slightly, by specifying 'peace laureate'. Lange was the only person to sit on the committee to receive a Peace Prize, which is the only one this article and this committee deal with. In Safari, End doesn't sort properly as you have a mix of numbers and text. I've tried to fix this by using {{sort|2010|present}}. If that doesn't work, I don't know what to do. "Years" could be better represented as "Tenure (years)" in my opinion. Good idea. Agrarian doesn't seem to sort properly (presumably as it's sorting as Centre?) The Agrarian and Centre Parties are the same (in different time periods, as stated in the prose) and they have purposely been made to sort as the same. Why doesn't secretaries table have Start, End etc like the main table? I've changed to this to increase internal consistency. The original reason was there was no need, as there is no overlap, unlike with the members. "as a associate professor " an associate... Fixed. "Geir Lundestad has been secretary since 1990" is a complete sentence so needs a full stop. Fixed All notes are unreferenced. I'll take a look to figure out how to do this technically. Adding a ref inside a 'ref group' doesn't work. Hm... Take a look at List of One Piece episodes (season 2) to see how to do it. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Done. Thanks for the tip, Dabomb. Arsenikk (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review. Arsenikk (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Sort by Deputy chair, then by Chair (in Safari) and things go a little odd in that list. Also, I would expect people to have not served in those roles to sort as "zero" if you understand what I'm trying to say. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC) I've sorted the non-chairs as "0", which may help the sorting. I see that it is possible to create a slightly odd sorting, but I don't know what to do about. If either "deputy chair" or "chair" is sorted "twice" while sorting in that order, then it works fine. Unfortunately, it seems that most browsers use non-optimal sort algorithm. If you know of any more technical solutions to solve the issue, tell me, and I'll try to apply them. Arsenikk (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Sorting is now mostly fixed for me in Safari, but when sorting by "End" I get four results, two with "present" at the top and two with "present" at the bottom. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I've tried with both Firefox, Opera and IE, but haven't been able to reproduce your results. No matter what, it sorts as if 'present' is 2010 (as I have coded it to do). Arsenikk (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC) It's a shame it still doesn't sort correctly under Safari... Perhaps try a note at Help talk:Sorting? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC) I've lest a note there. Arsenikk (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Per User:Nmajdan suggestions at the above, I have sorted all the 'end' year entries with {{sort}}. Arsenikk (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Rambling Man has made me an expert at table sorting :). Looks like you need to make the same change to the Secretaries table.—NMajdan•talk 20:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Done. Sometimes I wonder how many mice The Rambling Man wears out each month just pressing sort buttons ;) Arsenikk (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC) I don't even have a mouse... the touchpad is exhausted.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support good work on my nit-picking. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• Question. This gives C. B. Hanssen as "deputy chairman, [...] 1923". Is it impossible to find info about old deputy chairmen and include this in the table? Geschichte (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • While the Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD) is without doubt a reliable source, it raises the question of why the Norwegian Nobel Committee has refrained from including the information of deputies before 1991. I have tried to search for committee members sitting at the same time, and NSD seems to be incomplete—some people are not even listed as members of the Nobel Committee. Given the limiting information NSD provides, I cannot see how a complete list of deputies can be created, nor can I use it to verity that the post-1991 position is the same as the pre-1991 position (if it existed)—and why it is left out of the Norwegian Nobel Institute's list. For that matter, NSD could not even be used to create a complete list of committee members, deputies or not. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Neutral. Geschichte (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I've contacted the institute to ask about the issue; reply is pending. Sorry about the late reply here, I've had a busy week, but I've got some time to take a look at the university library now. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Done. All deputy years have been added and referenced. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

1. Historically, the committee's members have represented seven political parties, also including the Liberal Party, the Centre Party and the Christian Democratic Party). I do not know where to put an opening parenthesis.

   Fixed this. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

2. the committee was renamed the The Nobel Committee of the Parliament of Norway, I think one "the" is enough.
3. and sat in parliament representing Hordaland from 1989 to 1993, and as a deputy from 1993 to 2001. What does deputy mean here? It can mean a member of parliament, for instance.
4. All notes in the 'Notes' section are complete sentences and should have a period at the end.

Ruslik_Zero 13:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

All done. I specified Ytterhorn as a "deputy member of parliament". Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Support. Well, I support now. Ruslik_Zero 15:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:35, 22 April 2010 [10].

---

List of 2010 Winter Olympics medal winners

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Modelled after the List of 2006 Winter Olympics medal winners, there's really not much else to say. Enjoy! -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment how about adding times/distance/score in somewhere. The more details the better I think, and why is there only 8 references?--intraining ^{Jack In} 23:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • This is meant to be a general page, if readers want details, then they can go to a specific article. As for references, there are two general refs (one was just added - I knew I forgot something) which cover all the medal winners, so why would more specific citations be needed? -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 10:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose List is too general, obviously not up to FL standard if it is missing valuable references. Anyone can copy a list from 2006.--intraining ^{Jack In} 12:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Please specify what in the list is unverified. Saying "it is missing valuable references" means nothing. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I was referring to the list as it stands at point of nomination. I beleive it should have more details, Just accept my vote for what it is; other users may disagree with me.--intraining ^{Jack In} 13:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
      • everything listed is unverified if it doesn't have it own realiable source.--intraining ^{Jack In} 13:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
        • All the table information is referenced under "general" in the references. In-line citation is not necessary for lists where the bulk comes from a single or very limited number of sources. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• First of all, it is not "copied" from the 2006 list; the formatting was modelled after it. As for your claims of being unsourced, I admit that I forgot to add a general ref until this morning. However, this ref is in place now, so the table is covered. Every medal winner is either on or linked to from that page. I could ad in 86 individual citations to that page, but what would the point of that be? -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 17:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

;Comments Twice in the lead, a redundant "in total" and "overall" is used before a number. While I understand you need this to not start a sentence with a digit, how about rewording the sentences, such as "Medals were won by 450 individual athletes" instead of "A total of 450 individual athletes won medals". Done. At least as an adjective, "cross-country skier" should be hyphenated. Done. I find it unnecessary to both specify the country by name and three-letter code (in addition to the flags, but they are okay). It's the way the template works. Why are countries in italics? The MOS does not permit this sort of formatting. Again, it's the template. How about linking the sports in the 'medal leaders' table. I thought about it, but I decided not to because everything is already linked. Some reviewers will say to link things only once, others will say to link everything in a sortable table. Accessdates are inconsistently formatted. Done. There is inconsistency for linking works and sources in the references; some are linked and some are not. Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 17:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments "A total of 2,632 athletes..." Done. It's better to say that athletes represent an NOC (an organization) rather than say that they are from an NOC (as in country). Fixed. If the acronym "NOC" is not used more than once, there's no need to specify it after National Olympic Committees. Fixed. "Medals were won by 450 individual athletes." could be merged with the next sentence (e.g. "Medals were won by 450 individual athletes from 26 countries; 19 of these countries secured at least one gold medal.") Done. On the second paragraph, you could link the first instances of "Canada" and "United States" to their "... at the 2010 Winter Olympics" articles, as you do on the last paragraph for Slovakia and Belarus. Done. "Chinese short track speedskater Wang Meng tied Bjørgen for the lead in gold medals, with three." — First, speedskater → speed skater; second, is "with three" really necessary? Bjørgen's gold medals are numbered just one line above... On another note: you could give this sentence some more flavour (e.g. "Chinese short track speed skater Wang Meng was the only other athlete that could tie Bjørgen's gold medal lead". Just a suggestion, nothing compulsory to approve this list. Implemented the first two suggestions. The MoS allows one to increase the image used in the lead section up to 300px. Done. You could add more images (there are loads of free pics from these Games). I'm not saying an image on each sport's medalist table section, but you could do it on the medal leaders section, for example, with one of Bjørgen and Wang Meng... Again, just suggesting. Done. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion0422 02:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. No issues from me, lead reads well and the overall list is well structured. Salavat (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – "while figure skating was the only to...". Feels like a word is missing from there. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments "were opened to men" why not simply "open to men"? Done. "46 events were opened to men, 38 to women and 2 were mixed pairs events" not keen on the repeat of events, perhaps simply "2 to mixed pairs." Done. "the only sport in " I know I hate repetition, but previously you've been using the word "event" to describe these rather than "sport".. sport/discipline is pretty much the same thing. I could switch it to discipline, but then there would be two uses of the word in one sentence. "Canada finished first in gold medal wins and became the first host nation since Norway in 1952 to lead the gold medal count, with 14 gold medals" gold medal repeated thrice. I'd lose the last one, so ending the sentence "with 14." Done. "which was 13," "previously 13"? Done. Any note on why the Men's 20km Individual silver was shared? There was a tie. I added a note about it. Similar sorting issue as before with many of these olympic lists, when sorting by total medals, in descending order, Ohno should sort after anyone with a gold medal who has three medals, and Meng should sort above everyone on three medals as she has three golds. I thought was conventional Olympic medal table formatting? I think 2010 Winter Paralympics medal table (also a current FLC) does it the way I expect... That is the convention, but in this case, there is a cutoff: anyone with 2+ golds or 3+ medals is included. So, to default sort it by gold medals would give the impression that someone who won no golds finished in the top 20 in golds won, which wouldn't be true. Washington Post has a publisher but USA Today doesn't, any reason? The Washington paper lists The Associated Press as the agency, I think should actually be listed as the author, so I switched that. Similarly for some of the other sources. I've tried to make them more uniform. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 18:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC) You're always welcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:35, 22 April 2010 [11].

---

List of Pop Idol contestant music releases

Nominator(s): 03md 10:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it previously went through a failed FLC but met with positive feedback. The main reason for failure was that the nomination was still there after one month with not enough comments. 03md 10:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• The section Pop Idol albums is completely unreferenced.

• Added a couple of refs.

• "series of top five hits" should probably be top-five.

• Done

• there is inconsistent use of "number one" and "number-one" – I have no real preference of one over the other, but be consistent throughout.

• Changed all instances to "number-one".

• Similarly with "top-10", "top 20", "number three" etc.

• Done.

• "charted at number one in January 2003,[5]." Reference after the full-stop, and no comma.

• Done.

• "Jessica Garlick, the latter being selected as the United Kingdom's entry for the Eurovision Song Contest 2002 and finishing third in the competition." Could you provide a reference for the Song Contest position.

• Done.

• per WP:MOSNUM, numbers at the start of a sentence should be spelled out.

• Done.

Just a few, mostly MOS changes. Harrias (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thankyou for the comments - they have all been addressed. 03md 11:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Support good work on this. Harrias ^talk 11:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments "singles( "Light My Fire"" odd spacing. Done. "He achieved several more top-20 hits in 2003. After several years away from the music industry, Gates briefly returned with a new album and singles in 2007.[8]" several repeated too many times. And how did his album/singles get on? Done. You suddenly talk about Darius but don't explain why. Which series? Where did he finish? Done "who did not even make the" remove "even" as you're putting undue POV on the statement. Reworded the phrase. "Other contestants from the first series to have chart success were Sarah Whatmore (who did not even make the selection for the live shows), Rosie Ribbons, Rik Waller, Zoe Birkett and Jessica Garlick, the latter being selected as the United Kingdom's entry for the Eurovision Song Contest 2002 and finishing third in the competition." split the sentence after Garlick. Done. "As of November 2009..." now it's March/April 2010... Done. "Will Young has had 14 singles peak within the top-100, followed by Will Young with nine entries." read that again. Oops - corrected the typo. No need to continually repeat first names. Done, I think. McManus' caption doesn't have Pop Idol in italics. Done. Spaced or unspaced slash. Lead has a spaced slash, table has a mixture... Done. Song title heading should be Song title(s) for the double A-sides. Done. Hyphens to represent uncharting albums - I would prefer en- or em-dashes. Done. "promotional version. [66]" remove that space between ref and punctuation. Done. The By artist table sorts badly, the en-dashes blow it out (in Safari). Done. 4 [E] - remove the space. Done. "1.2million sales" space between 2 and million. Done. As per User:Goodraise many times, Chartstats may be debated as being a reliable source. Is it really published by the Official Charts Company? Which other source should I use and how should I cite it - I don't have access to Musicweek or anything else. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Cheers for all your comments TRM. I have addressed all but the sourcing issue. 03md 23:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC) I noticed that The Official Charts Company have now added a singles and albums archive to their website, therefore I have removed the Chart Stats refs and am now citing this site. However, I am not sure how to fix a problem with the formatting of the references - as the urls have a gap between the first and surname of artists, the second word appears as part of the title. 03md 23:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Can you give me a specific example? They look (at a quick glance) okay apart from the fact the artists' names are all capitalised... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC) It's fine now, Dabomb has fixed them for me. The artist names are capitalised on the website so that is how I have done them here, but this can be changed. I have also had to keep the Chart Stats ref for Sam & Mark as I couldn't find a page for them on the Official Charts Company website. 03md 09:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, please change them. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Done. 03md 23:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment -- the only issue I see now (aside from the resolved comments from my last review) is that the term "number-one" is used interchangibly but incorrectly. "number-one" should be used as an adjective to describe the single/album, it should not be used in the sense of describing where it ranked on the charts. For example, some sentences are in similar fashion to "it ranked number-one in the UK" (sentences like this should not have a dash). Sentences like "his hit was a number-one." (that is okay to have a dash).Truco ₅₀₃ 01:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 01:11, 22 April 2010 [12].

---

Vladimir Horowitz discography

Nominator(s): Etincelles ^(talk) 18:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC) and Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) 10:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because in the last nomination all problems were fixed and since I have added many more references. Etincelles ^(talk) 18:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 16:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments: "Video releases" section - Rachmaninoff: Piano Concerto No. 3 is out of order Divide reflist into columns for readability File:HorowitzPianoBain.jpg could use a touch up (a few scratches) - if you don't mind I could do it. Note:Restored version uploaded at File:HorowitzPianoBain2.jpg. Jujutacular T · C 20:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Jujutacular T · C 17:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Done Etincelles (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support As far as I can tell, all issues with the previous nomination have been resolved. I couldn't find anything else to take issue with. Good work. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Under the dates column of "Albums", why are some of the years separated by a slash? This is done when albums were recorded in two specific years, not recorded in a variety of years where a dash has being used.Etincelles (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC) I'd recommend using commas instead, as they are less ambiguous. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Done. Etincelles (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC) What makes Encyclopedia.com a reliable source? Removed. Etincelles (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC) So what references the info that was previously cited to that site? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Now referenced. Etincelles (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Publications (The New York Times and Rolling Stone) should be italicized. You can do this in the reference by changing "publisher" to "work" in the citation templates. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Done.Etincelles (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment this is an excellent piece of work and has improved immeasurably since its first nomination. I was heavily involved in the first review, I have to say that this is a massive improvement over that list, and will take some time to check it over, but right now it's an example of how to take constructive criticism and develop a great list out of it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support worthy of FL status. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• "Horowitz's final recording, with Sony Classical was completed four days before his death". Feels like it could use another comma after Sony Classical.
• "This final recording consisted of repertoire that he had never previously recorded". Should an "a" be before "repertoire"? (not sure if that's used in classical music circles)
• "His discography contains numerous albums and also compliations of compositions by a variety of composers." No need for "also" in this sentence; it's merely an extra word that doesn't add anything after "and".
• Second sentence of Overview is lacking a period at the end.
• No need for two Sony Classical links in Overview. One will do fine, and interested readers will have already clicked on that. The same applies for stereo links, of which there are currently two. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Support — Looks very good. Jimknut (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: "This final recording consisted of repertoire that he had never previously recorded". Should an "a" be before "repertoire"? (not sure if that's used in classical music circles). I've never seen it written as "a repertoire" in Classical music, just "repertoire".THD3 (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

All done, however I agree with User:THD3. Etincelles ^(talk) 18:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:09, 20 April 2010 [13].

---

List of Olympic medalists in luge

Nominator(s): Parutakupiu (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, another list of Olympic medalists. This time, I worked on this in the past days in a sandbox before moving the new enlarged content to the mainspace page. Once again, I added a considerably large lead section with sourced citations, and lots of free-licensed and relevant images along the medalist tables, as well as the usual statistics section. This time, however, I decided not to included the "Medals per year" section because I now think that it's something that belongs to the parent article "Sport at the Season Olympics". So, that's it. Please, review all the way! Thanks. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Haven't looked very closely but I couldn't find any big problems. Good work. Felipe Menegaz 13:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Another great list. Reywas92^Talk 17:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• How many people have won a medal? Reywas92^Talk 14:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I have one problem: how do I count medalists in the doubles event? Officially, it's the team that wins the medal (even though each member is awarded one), but in some occasions one luger has won a doubles medal more than one time... but with different partners. Do I consider a team as a unit and if there's a change in the composition I count it as a different team? Parutakupiu (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • How many people can say they won a luge medal? Count two people for the doubles, but don't count people again for a second medal. Reywas92^Talk 17:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Done. Parutakupiu (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments Not sure you need "Some" in the caption. And I tend to use "far left" and "far right" instead of "first from left" etc. Removed "Some" and corrected caption. "he competed in" "in which he competed"?" Rephrased. "to win at least a medal" to win at least one medal would read a little better for me. Corrected. "leads the medal count with three medals" no need to repeat medals here. Removed. "the oldest female individual gold medalist at the Winter Games (36 years old)" perhaps "at 36, the oldest female..."? Rephrased. "made up for this situation by" no need to say "situation" here, it adds nothing. Removed. "composed by" should be of, but I don't think you need this at all. Just "was Stefan ..." Removed "composed by" altogether as suggested. Is it worth noting the shared gold in the lead? It is! Forgot that notable piece of history. It was this gold medal tie that made the FIL introduce clocks with higher precision in its events. Done! Sorting by total number of medals in descending order, I would expect it to sort per regular Olympic tables, i.e. 3 gold, 2 silver comes ahead of 2 gold, one silver, 2 bronze. In Firefox, at least, it doesn't do that right now. You're talking about Hackl and Zöggeler? But they are ranked in the table as you mention... I see it that way and I use Firefox. Not sure you really need the medal sweeps table. I would just include it as a part of the lead... The list does survive without it and it could look like trivia... I'll remove it and leave the reference in the lead. Not directly relevant but a shame the luge template header is a slightly different colour from the two Olympic templates. That template is not Olympic-specific, else I'd give it the same colour... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review. Hope the changes will suit you. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support very good list. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• "are the other pairs to have won the doubles event for two times". Don't think "for" is needed here.
  • Rephrased that portion.
• "introduced timing equipments that measured...". Is plural for "equipments" correct here?
  • Don't know. Anyway, I changed here and after.
• What makes http://sports123.com/lug/mwc-s.html a reliable source? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Replaced it with official document from international federation. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Support – Nice work. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Is it really necessary to have the "event" column in the medal leaders table? The reason it's present in some lists (ie. List of Olympic medalists in freestyle skiing) is because athletes usually compete in just one event, all three of which are very different. In this case, men can compete in two events, so does noting it really matter, since it doesn't differentiate between which medals were earned in which event? Otherwise, this is a fantastic list, and the lead is great. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it doesn't give all the information one would like, such as for example which medals were won in each event, but at least you know that X won all his/her medals in a single event, while Y collected medals in different events... I don't know. I can remove that column if you really think it doesn't add any value to the table. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:09, 20 April 2010 [14].

---

List of Baylor Bears head football coaches

Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 12:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Big 12 coach list #8. I believe all necessary requirements have been meant.—NMajdan•talk 12:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support –

• Serial comma used in next-to-last sentence of the first paragraph, but not after Teaff's name in the following sentence.
• Comma after "the worst coach the Bears have had". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes made.—NMajdan•talk 19:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Support with two minor comments.

• "the school chose the Bear as" why not just "chose Bears as"?
  • No reason. Changed.—NMajdan•talk
• Is the WWII cancellation referenced anywhere?
  • Its in the media guide, page 76.—NMajdan•talk

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Support - I can't find anything wrong with the article. Great job! NThomas (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:09, 20 April 2010 [15].

---

List of San Diego Padres first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It's the return of the draft pick lists!!! :) Built in the model of the many others, now includes sortability from the start. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comment: "Jay Franklin" redirects to John Franklin Carter, who I don't think is the right guy. Mm40 (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Why the distinction for the one center fielder? Why not group him into the rest of the outfielders?
• 5 third basemen - should be five third basemen.
• in the states of California while Georgia follows with six players - I don't like the word while here. Seems like an incorrect usage of the word although maybe I'm wrong and somebody who knows grammar/syntax better than I can correct me. Maybe replace it with a semicolon or full sentence stop.
• No Padres first-round picks - Again, doesn't sound right to me. Maybe None of the Padres first-round picks. Same thing with the sentence after this one. Also, despite starting the two sentences with the same wording, one uses has and the other have.
• 12 All-Star teams, won 7 Gold Gloves and 6 Silver Sluggers - The numbers here should probably be spelled out like you did earlier in the lead.

Overall, a good article with just a few issues that I could find.—NMajdan•talk 21:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed, except the last one per WP:NUM (12 > 10). Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• This isn't enough of an issue to prevent my support, but I want to push back so I get this right in my future articles. I'm not familiar with your link, however I am familiar with WP:MOSNUM and while it does say consistency is the most important thing, it does say you can spell out numbers that are one word (like eighteen or twelve). While you're consistent with this instance it is inconsistent when the other set of numbers earlier in the lead is considered. But maybe that is going beyond the scope of the guideline. Also, still curious why the center fielder is listed separately from the other outfielders.—NMajdan•talk 13:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• As for numbers, I've always understood the style to be that numbers > 10 should be done with numbers and not spelled out and then all numbers in a sentence should be of the same format. As for the CF it's because the B-Ref page notes his specific outfield position (they almost always just say OF), and I didn't think we should throw that information away. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I'd still prefer them to be spelled out, but this isn't a big enough issue to prevent my support.—NMajdan•talk 13:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments "Three different states are tied with 5 players:" per what you're saying above, because you start with "Three" I would expect 5 to be consistent and hence five. "22 season career" 22-season career I think. "the prior off-season" preceding? previous? not keen on prior... Greene's second place in ROTY, is that cited anywhere? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC) All fixed. Greene's fact is cited by ref #4. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support my comments admirably dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments – "Nine of the players came from high schools or universities in the states of California and Georgia follows with six players." Should "states" be "state" here? Also, I think a comma should come before "and". Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC) "None of the Padres first-round picks...". Apostrophe needed at end of Padres. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Can the schools/colleges be made sortable as well? Could be, but it was purposefully left unsorted given that there would be no satisfactory way to sort (both locations and schools, eg). Staxringold talkcontribs 19:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC) The Khalil Greene and Cesar Ramos images are cutting into the right edge of the table. What size is your monitor? I see a huge gaping whitespace between them, and neither has a fixed size parameter so should adjust. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Figured out why this happens from another FLC. I have a widescreen monitor, but the resolution is lower than default (makes text larger). With default settings, I see the same whitespace you do. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC) The publisher of reference 50 (USA Today) should be italicized as a printed publication. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 19:27, 17 April 2010 [16].

---

List of Major League Baseball wins champions

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The onslaught from WP:MLB continues (slowly). This is the second installment of the pitching half of the forthcoming featured topic candidate on the Triple Crown. Everything to be addressed as speedily as possible. I am, humbly and as always, grateful to all who take time to review an article that I have worked on. Cheers to you all. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Dabs and external links, and contributors all check out fine. The Jake Peavy image needs alt text. Is this a literal 'championship'? Because I don't see the sources say it is, or is it more of a feat? Lead Is it possible to link and/or spell out the ERA acronym? Per WP:MOSNUM, don't start off sentences with digits. Such as 16 wins is the largest ... Ties for the win championship are common, the most recent coming in the American League in 2009. -- wouldn't it be from instead of in? Im a bit confused by this sentence, if you may explain to me since I'm not a basebally expert. "16 wins is the largest margin of victory in the American League—Ed Walsh notched 40 wins in 1908," References Very heavy reliance on the Baseball-reference, are there not other refs that can verify the same information?--Truco 503 19:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Replies to Truco: This isn't an award, in that a trophy is presented or anything like that, but it is generally recognized as a competition and "champion" is generally the term used for the leader at the end of the season. Alt text is no longer a requirement, but I'll get to it eventually. I'm not sure which "in" you're referring to, but both of the ones in the sentence you reference are grammatically correct. ERA acronym is done. As to the margin of victory, the basic meaning is that the leader had X wins, and the second-place finisher(s) had Y wins. The margin of victory is X minus Y. I don't know if we have an article on margin of victory or not to link to. Yes, there's a heavy reliance on Baseball-Reference, and there might be other sources out there, but it's the most reliable that I have found for absolutely any baseball information that's out there, and it's the best source we have available to us by a long shot. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Support Well we have one (Margin of victory), but its more about American football. All issues, resolved.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Would it be better to arrange pitchers by date first instead of by league? It would make the list one single table. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 19:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't believe so, for several reasons: we're not trying to make a single table, as the championship is awarded separately in each league (the "other leagues" were combined simply to make it more succinct); and to maintain consistent formatting across the articles in this series. In some years, winning the championship in one league is much different from the other based on the dynamics of the offense and the pitching in each league in any given season. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, makes sense, looking at it and other lists. My only other comment would be that the list of inline citations is very long: about 25% the length of the article/page in my browser. Is there a way to reduce that length through an autohide feature, or by using the citation for the next page level up, say this instead? —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 23:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• No to both; MOS forbids hiding citations, and the higher-level citations don't show runners-up. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments "with 8 win championships " why not eight? "8 wins... in 21 seasons". If that's wrong, I'll change it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC) You abbreviate ERA but not AL, NL etc which you use far, far more often. Any reason? Because I think that AL and NL look very sloppy when used over and over again in prose. In truth, the only reason I abbreviate ERA is because it's the much more common way to speak about the statistic; saying "ERA" as ee-ar-ay is more prevalent than someone saying earned run average. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Runner-up can be multiple so should be Runner(s)-up. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) In the key, "Player with the second-best ERA in the league" -really? Not second-highest number of wins? Ummmmmm... I'm dumb. That's the only explanation! :-D KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Leader would be better of as "Champion(s)" (since this is about "champions") While I'm not particularly a fan of the change, it's done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC) "pitching triple crown" what's one of those? And is it cited? The link to Major League Baseball Triple Crown and Tommy Bond's caption both explain it; it should be sufficient here as explanation since it's a caption and should be succinct. I'll hunt up a cite for Peavy when I get home today if needed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Phil Niekro's article says he was inducted into the HOF... Just missed one, I think. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Ref 158 needs an en-dash rather than a hyphen. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support my comments addressed. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• American League table: 1942 runner-up Thornton Lee is listed as having 222 wins. How his team didn't beat out the Yankees for the pennant, I will never know. :-)

• Yikes, good catch, though I think you meant '41. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Five of the images—McGinnity, Peavy, Webb, Lee and Sabathia—are cutting off the right edge of the table.

• I don't see this happening in either IE or Firefox on a small resolution at work, and I built the table on my laptop at home without any issues like this either. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• For me, it occurs on a widescreen monitor with IE, but my resolution is at a lower level than default settings (makes the writing larger). If resolution is put at its default setting, the images fit fine. I'm marking this as resolved, and perhaps this explains why I'm often the only one who sees formatting oddities. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• The Charles Radbourne and Eddie Cicotte images are both lacking some type of source that would prove public domain status. (The Radbourne image page says it's from the Hall of Fame, but I'm not sure their photos are really PD anyway) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Commented out for now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Note that for a few of the images, I added/improved their source links, because I know how much of a hassle such issues can be. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Looks good, sorry for not weighing in earlier. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 19:27, 17 April 2010 [17].

---

List of NHL players with 50-goal seasons

Nominator(s): Resolute 01:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominating for several reasons: 50 goals is one of the NHL's most celebrated achievements, I'm looking to set a standard for related lists and for the WikiCup. The list has been stable, it is now well referenced, complete and has plenty of images. Resolute 01:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment - boldface shouldn't be used as an indicator —Chris!_c/t 01:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware of that. Changing now. Resolute 01:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I suppose current players can be indicated with a highlight and a '*', as discussed at WikiProject hockey. Also, the "Games played" and "goals" key could probably be done in {{abbr}} to make them tooltip, like I've seen used in other hockey articles. eg. GP Schmloof (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, done. Resolute 17:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Shouldn't this be at List of 50-goal seasons in the National Hockey League or List of 50-goal NHL seasons or something like that? This isn't a list of players (right off the bat Hull appears several times), this is a list of seasons. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Semantics, imo. It is still a list of players, but some players have multiple entries. Resolute 16:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• How is it semantics? List of Major League Baseball players with a career .400 on-base percentage is a players list, it's about the players. This is a seasons list, the player is just a descriptor for that season. This is List of Major League Baseball home run champions. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• This list is still about the players. Players with multiple seasons that fit the criteria will receive multiple entries, however. Resolute 01:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose (for now) from Truco (talk · contribs) General WP:ALT TEXT says that each image needs alternate text. Actually, ALT text was taken out of the FL criteria recently (see here). Mm40 (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC) True, though according to the FL directors this change is temporary and "there's no reason why you shouldn't add alt text should you feel sufficiently capable of doing so." [18].—Chris!c/t 02:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC) I realized afterward that I forgot alttext (again). I'll be adding it in. Resolute 16:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Dabs, contributors, and external links all check out fine. Lead Do not bold what is not the title directly, per WP:MOSBOLD Is it correct to say in 1944-45 and not in the 1944-45 season? When discussing historical events, it is typical to simply refer to the season by its years alone. IMO, "1944-45" is no better or worse than "1944-45 season", except that I would prefer not to have a couple dozen instances of the word "season". Resolute 16:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC) 50-goal seasons were relatively common in the 1970s and 1980s as offense increased across the league but have declined in frequency since the mid 1990s. -- mid 1990s should have a dash in between The introduction of the centre red line and permission of forward passing out of the defensive zone in 1943 dramatically increased scoring;[3] Six players scored 30 goals in 1943–44, the first time in league history so many players reached that total in one season. -- Six should not be capitalized Phil Esposito scored 50 goals in five consecutive seasons in the 1970s, led by a then NHL record 76 goals in 1970–71 -- 1)period is needed 2)dash between 'then' and 'NHL record' Bossy, who had set a league rookie scoring record with 53 goals in 1977–78, surpassed the 50-goal mark in each of his first nine NHL seasons. -- dash between rookie and scoring A record 14 players scored 50 goals in 1992–93.[16] Among them was Teemu Selanne, who scored 76 goals as a rookie, surpassing Bossy's record for first year players by 23 goals. -- dash between first and year Brett Hull scored 50+ goals five times in the 1990s, --> Brett Hull scored over 50 goals five times in the 1990s, Only five players reached the 50 goal mark between 1999 and 2004: Pavel Bure twice, Joe Sakic, Jaromir Jagr, Jarome Iginla and Milan Hejduk. --> Only five players reached the 50 goal mark between 1999 and 2004: Pavel Bure twice, Joe Sakic, Jaromir Jagr, Jarome Iginla and Milan Hejduk all achieved it once. Five players topped 50 in 2005–06, however it has since remained rare for a player to achieve this milestone. --> Five players scored 50 in 2005–06; however, it has since remained rare for a player to achieve this milestone. Key Can you not make the key into a small table, like in other FLs? Images "Rocket" Richard was the NHL's first 50 goal scorer dash between 50 and goal Vincent Lecavalier scored 52 in 2006–07 you may as well say 52 goals References Publisher for CNN/SI: CNN is the publisher but the work comes from SI, also be consistent with the naming of all these publishers because you have them set differently throughout the reference section.--Truco 503 19:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC) I disagree on CNN/SI. The website is a partnership between the two, and the online content does not typically originate from either individually. I'm willing to change it, but I think publisher=CNN/SI is preferable. Could you elaborate on what you believe is inconsistent about the publishers? Resolute 16:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC) All should be fixed, save what I commented on directly. Thanks! Resolute 16:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Ref #11 is what I meant by the inconsistency. Not neccesarily, CNN publishes the magazine on their site (hence the sportsillustrated.cnn.com) and at the bottom of the site it does say copyright CNN.--Truco 503 01:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Ref 11 is from a Sports Illustrated article itself, reproduced on SI's vault website. CNNSI doesn't re-publish SI's magazine content. Their online content is separate, and is CNN and SI's effort to compete with ESPN for online sports coverage. Resolute 01:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• "50-goal seasons were relatively common...". Don't believe sentences should start with numbers like this.
• Don't need two 50 goals in 50 games links in the main section. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ack! Someone snuck that second link in right under my nose... Both should be fixed, give or take a dash, since I have no clue if it should be there or not when joining two words. Resolute 02:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps the number of times a player reached the milestone should be given it's own column, then one would be able to quickly find out which players scored 50 in a certain amount of seasons. Also, would it be possible to add some kind of indicator of which players led the league in goals scored to the table? Yes, one can figure that out already, but some kind of indicator would help. If not, I think the Maurice "Rocket" Richard Trophy should be mentioned somewhere in the history section. Otherwise, great work. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• I had thought about highlighting league leaders, but decided that that effectively duplicates content at the Richard Trophy article. I wonder if other reviewers have an opinion on that? Certainly open to adding it. Putting number of times reached could be moved to a separate column, but would having a sort that basically goes Bossy (9), Gretzky (9), Bossy (8), Gretzky (8), Bossy (7), Gretzky (7), etc add any benefit? I'll have to contemplate how to discuss the Richard trophy... but will be when I have more time. For now, I've just thrown it into a see-also section, since it does have considerable relevance to the topic. Resolute 21:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Also, I am not a big fan of using multiple different highlights for different tidbits. imo, highlighting active players is of greater relevance than highlighting league leaders, especially since not every season has a leader >50. Resolute 21:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments Lead image caption needs a period. I know the history section is a good length, but a single paragraph lead just feels really lightweight. "Joe Malone scored 44 goals for the Montreal Canadiens – in 20 games – in the NHL's inaugural season of 1917–18. It was a record that stood nearly 30 years.[2] " merge so "18, a record that stood..." "dramatically" seems a little POV, especially since you've just mentioned a guy who got 44 in the inaugural season, and after said "dramatic" increase you mention six guys who just made it over 30... " averaged a goal per game in" if we don't know how many games he played, this is meaningless... " 50 goal mark" or "50-goal mark" - be consistent. All the images with complete sentences for captions need periods. Does "Rocket" have a citation? "however it has since remained rare for a player to achieve this milestone" not too sure about this. Six players in the last three seasons doesn't seem that rare to me. Ref 19 - New York Times should be The New York Times. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC) All should be addressed. The addition of the Rocket Richard trophy in the history should take care of the citation for the "Rocket" nickname. Resolute 01:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support my comments dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 19:27, 17 April 2010 [19].

---

List of Nebraska Cornhuskers head football coaches

Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 15:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Big 12 Coach list #7. Hopefully all necessary changes have been made.—NMajdan•talk 15:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Nothing too serious wrong with this article, in fact while there are a couple of phrases I wouldn't have used myself, I can't find any problems with the prose at all. I'm sure some more nit-picky reviewers will give you some stuff on that though! I do have a couple of small issues:

• While I normally view on a big widescreen monitor on which I'm sure this would render fine, on the 1024 x 768 that I am using at the moment, the table requires a horizontal scrollbar. I can't find anything regarding what resolution we should be tagetting, but I'd suggest a fair few people will still access at this? Don't know if you can practicably make it smaller, and it's certainly not going to make me withhold my support, but it may be worth looking at.
  • There's not a whole lot I can do to make the table smaller. Before this comment, I removed the PT (Postseason Ties) column since Nebraska has never tied a postseason game, so all entries in this column when dashes or zero. The only other thing I can think of besides reducing the font size is to ditch the years in the NC column, although I believe that information is useful.—NMajdan•talk
    • As I said, its not a huge issue I don't think. Normally I wouldn't have spotted it at all, just happen to be on an old laptop at the moment.
• In the NCs column, should "3— 1994,..." take an endash rather than an emdash? Also, emdashes should not be spaced if you do keep it. Of course, it could be that it really is an endash, and my tiny monitor is making it look bigger!
  • You're right, should be en dashes. Regarding the spaces, I have used that in other FLs so hopefully it is not a problem.—NMajdan•talk

That's all from me, another nice list. Harrias (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review!—NMajdan•talk 13:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Support: no problem at all, I know how frustrating it can be to have an article sitting unreviewed for ages here! Harrias ^talk 13:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments Could expand lead image. Expanded a bit. Better?—NMajdan•talk "organized football began in 1890." reference for this? Its covered in the general reference.—NMajdan•talk "The Cornhuskers have played 1,219 games ..." as of when? Should at least put it into context. Is the text following it ("during their 120 seasons") not enough?—NMajdan•talk "The first coach was Frothingham..." seems odd to me that is the penultimate sentence in the lead of the list of head coaches... Removed.—NMajdan•talk Notes 1 and 4 are unreferenced. Both covered in the general references.—NMajdan•talk 2nd gen ref needs an en-dash. Fixed.—NMajdan•talk The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment – "that represents University of Nebraska–Lincoln in the North Division of the Big 12 Conference in the National Collegiate Athletic Association." Should be another "the" before University. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed.—NMajdan•talk

Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 22:14, 16 April 2010 [20].

---

List of accolades received by Precious

Nominator(s): Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 02:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel the article meets the Featured List criteria. This is the first article/list that I've made that I've ever nominated for Feature List quality, so I'm not very familiar with every detail the list needs, so I'm very sure that this article might need minor edits. Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 02:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The summary box at the top is impossible to read. Please reformat, perhaps using List of accolades received by Avatar as an example. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  Fixed Gary King (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 18:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments: I currently don't see any kind of order for the list. I would say replace "Xth Foo Awards..." with "Foo Awards" and just order the list alphabetically by the awards. Done. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 15:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC) It would be nice to have darker lines between awards like in List of accolades received by No Country for Old Men. Done. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 15:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Add a column for the date of the ceremony for each award. I can not do that because I can not find all the ceremony dates for all of the awards (such as for the "Gold Trailers"). Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 12:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC) This source says the 2008 Golden Trailer Awards took place on May 8, 2008. Jujutacular T · C 14:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Oh, lol, thanks for the link. I'm currently working on adding the dates of the awards ceremonies to the chart. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 15:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC) I think that I've properly formatted the chart table. I currently have the chart table in my user sandbox, can you see if this is the way it should be formatted so that I could then add it to the article? Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 17:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Should the title of the list really include "(film)"? List of accolades received by Precious is currently a redlink. For comparison: Dexter (TV series) and List of awards and nominations received by Dexter. Done. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 11:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Jujutacular T · C 01:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Great work! Jujutacular ^T · C 18:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 00:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose IMDB is usually not accepted as a reliable source. Fixed. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 20:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC) "from the top newspapers" what's a "top newspaper"? Fixed. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 19:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC) "to the casts acting performance" I think there's an apostrophe missing here. Done. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 19:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC) "The film won all five of its nominations at the 25th Independent Spirit Awards, for Best Feature, Best First Screenplay, Best Female Lead and Best Supporting Female." I count four here. Fixed. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 19:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC) " The film won its only nomination, the People's Choice Award, at the 34th Toronto International Film Festival, and Breakthrough Performance by an Actress, at the 81st National Board of Review Awards. The film also won its only nomination,..." confusing, you keep saying "won its only nomination..." but it's unclear if this is in general or from a specific body. Fixed. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 19:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC) "Recipients and nominees" - not true. I don't see all the nominees for each category here. Could you please specify where you do not see a nominee from a category? Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 19:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Ok, misunderstanding here. You're not listing all nominees for a given award, just the Precious nominee... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC) In the list when the film was nominated for something like Best Film/Picture the award site simply listed Precious as the recipient. With noms. like SAG award for Outstanding cast, it did not specify the actors who were included, it just stated Precious as the credited recipient. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 20:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Don't like the linking of the date to the specific ceremony. In fact, I'd prefer to see just a year, then a specific link to specific ceremony. What is the ordering of the list? Given the table is unsortable, I would normally expect it to be sorted by the first column. Clearly it isn't, but it's odd. Perhaps it's related to the fact I don't like the ceremony date, I'd prefer just a year and a specific link to the ceremony....... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC) As per the user above, I added the ceremony dates for each award ceremony; the list was originally formatted by A-Z and the award would be linked to the award ceremony or just the award itself. Would you prefer if I changed the list back to it's previous version? Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 19:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC) @TRM. This is the sorting method used in every similar featured list: List of accolades received by No Country for Old Men, List of accolades received by Ratatouille, List of accolades received by WALL-E. That's why I recommended it. Jujutacular T · C 19:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I would move the "date of ceremony" to not be the first column then. It seems odd to have a table which is initially out of order. Whatever other FLs have, I'm not sure about this. And no response regarding the reliability of IMDB... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Fair enough, and yes, agree IMDB is not a reliable source. Jujutacular T · C 20:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I'm currently working on reformatting the awards/nominations list. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] Done. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 21:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support a nice piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support I don't have any problem with this list. All right. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 01:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The film grossed $47,536,959 domestically and $53,455,664 worldwide." Why so precise? Round to the nearest million (or at least tenth of a million); it's neater to read and there's more margin for error if the source is wrong. Done. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 17:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Typo in ref 30; should be "Viacom", not "Vaicom". Done. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 17:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Why does this not look like List of accolades received by Avatar? I would prefer some standardization. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Ordering the list like Avatar's has been disputed (see resolved comments by The Rambling Man). Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 17:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC) I'm interested in what DrNegative has to say about this; will withold support for now. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments from DrNegative (talk · contribs)

• The nomination column in the info-box should contain the count of all nominations, including the nominations that eventually became wins. All award wins are still nominations as well. This also makes it easier for the reader by presenting the awards count of wins/noms as numerator/denominator.

Done. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 17:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• My personal opinion here, I feel the dates look better on the left-hand column of the list, followed by the awards which are alphabetized, and then the award "category" column. More than likely, your average reader will constantly ignore the date column in between the two as it is now when comparing what accolades where won for the particular award ceremony and it may be more of an annoyance. DrNegative (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ordering the list like that has been disputed (see resolved comments by the Rambling Man) Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 17:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read Rambling Man's comments and I can see his point too. I guess it comes down to personal taste at this point and I am just trying to get our film-awards lists to a certain standard format so to speak. List of accolades received by Ratatouille, List of accolades received by WALL-E, and now List of accolades received by Avatar all follow the same format so I don't think we should deviate from it. However, I can't place my opinion above Rambling Man's because he makes a good point too. We need a compromise of some sort it seems. DrNegative (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to add my input, does it really matter if the date of the award ceremony is on the left or right side in the awards table; a Featured list is suppose to be about whether or not the article meets all of the FL requirements, not about "personal taste" on how the awards table should be formatted, just sayin'. Crystal Clear x3 17:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, which is why I was hoping to see this inconsistency addressed on all film awards lists. I guess you're right; this isn't the best place to settle the issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 03:23, 16 April 2010 [21].

---

List of number-one albums of 2009 (Mexico)

Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because i think it is complete and useful and meets all criteria. Thank you. Jaespinoza (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose (for now) from Truco (talk · contribs) General Dabs, external links, alt text and contributors check out fine. Lead The first two sentences can be combined into something like: "The highest-selling compact discs and music downloads in México are ranked in the Top 100 México record chart published weekly by AMPROFON (Asociación Mexicana de Productores de Fonogramas y Videogramas), a non-profit organization made up of Mexican and multinational record companies.[1]" Fixed! Should be 'on' not 'in' ("In 2009, 20 albums reached number one in the chart, including Primera Fila, a live album recorded by Vicente Fernández that spent seven non-consecutive weeks at the top, and won the Latin Grammy Award for Best Ranchero Album.") Fixed! "Lines, Vines and Trying Times by Jonas Brothers and No Line on the Horizon by U2 peaked at number-one< Remove the dash> in the Billboard 200 in the United States and also reached <add a the here> top position of this chart." Fixed! "Shakira's seventh studio album Loba debuted at number-one <remove the dash> and was certified Platinum <Platinum should not be capitalized> in the first week of sales." Fixed! "Alejandro Fernández released two number-one albums: the compilation album De Noche: Clásicos a Mi Manera, <remove this comma> and the double album Dos Mundos." Fixed! "Dos Mundos includes Evolución, a Pop music album produced by Aureo Baqueiro, Kike Santander and Julio Reyes, and Tradición, a Ranchera music album produced by Joan Sebastian; both albums debuted at the top two spots in the chart, and also in the Billboard Top Latin Albums chart in the United States." --> "Dos Mundos includes Evolución, a pop music album, and Tradición, a ranchera music album; both albums debuted at the top two spots on this chart, and also in the Billboard Top Latin Albums chart in the United States." Fixed! "Thriller 25, the 25th anniversary special edition reissue of the album recorded by the American singer Michael Jackson in 1982 also reached number-one after the singer's death in June 23, with the album also peaking at the top in the American digital sales charts." --> "Thriller 25, the 25th anniversary special-edition reissue of the album recorded by the American singer Michael Jackson in 1982, also reached number one after the singer's death on June 23, with the album also peaking at the top of the American digital sales charts." Fixed! "Madonna, with her third compilation album Celebration, earned the top spot of the chart and received a platinum certification in México for sales over 80,000 units." Fixed! Something should be added about who had the most number-one albums. Fixed! Table "Atrevate a Sonar" should be noted that its a soundtrack from what media exactly? (note this in the lead or in a footnote) In the lead says that is the soundtrack for a Mexican soap opera, should I add something else? Publisher Billboard should be in italics, its a magazine Fixed! Use either the acronym of AMPROFON or spell out the entire acronym, be consistent.--Truco 503 19:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Fixed! Thank you. Jaespinoza (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- Issues resolved, although I agree with the comment below. Rename the article.--Truco ₅₀₃ 20:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support All is fine, Great job! Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 04:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

*Comment: The article should be moved from List of number-one albums of 2009 (México) to List of number-one albums of 2009 (Mexico) (without acute accent). Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 05:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed. Thank you. Jaespinoza (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 19:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 22:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*Comment Surprised this hasn't come up yet, what makes Mexicancharts.com a reliable source? Staxringold talkcontribs 14:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Mexicancharts.com is a section published by Hung Medien, and is listed as a good chart in the Wikipedia:Record charts list. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments "México" why, when our main article is Mexico? Fixed! "On 2009, 20 albums" in 2009. Fixed! "of this chart" which chart? You'd just mentioned Billboard, I assume by "this" you mean the Mexican chart? Fixed! What is ranchera? Fixed, added a link to ranchera. "after years with" be specific. Fixed, expanded sentence. "for sales over 80,000 units" sales of over... Fixed! Ref 3 has a spare period. Fixed! Spaced hyphens in the references should be spaced (or unspaced) en-dashes. Fixed! No Mexico-specific category for this list? Fixed, created a category for Mexican record charts. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support comments resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 03:23, 16 April 2010 [22].

---

Aurealis Award for best science fiction novel

Nominator(s): Salavat (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well following the trend of Aurealis Award for best horror novel and Aurealis Award for best fantasy novel, here is its science fiction equivalent. Note, i omitted the "ties situation" sentence for this list because there hasnt been any ties as of yet, but if anyone feels it should be re-added ill do that in an instance. Thanks, Salavat (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments - been a while, and I apologise for the lack of comments from anyone. So here's some stuff... yearly - ok, accurate but would be happier with "annually" Changed. Salavat (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC) "The Aurealis Award design given to the winner" do you mean the design on a trophy or something that is awarded to the winner? Further explained. Salavat (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC) "Awarded for Excellence in fantasy fiction" - your lead includes many more genres... Woops, oversight, changed to science fiction to relate directly to this list. Salavat (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Not 100% convinced you need to split into decades. It was only split to creat a shorter table. As it isnt a sortable table i didnt think it was a problem. It can be changed to one table if you feel that would be more appropriate or if it is decided to make sortable. Salavat (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC) You could look at Mercury Prize for how to create a sortable table with similar entries as you have here. I dont think the Mercury prize is that great because all it can do is sort the winner and the aurealis also have a publisher which would increase the amount of text in the short-list nominee box. I prefer the current format but if sortability is really an issue then i think this layout would be the most appropriate (also used here for another example Academy Award for Best Picture). Or it can be changed so that all columns are sortable besides the year column. Salavat (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Ive done a sandbox of 1995 here for an example. Salavat (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Okay, ignoring my ramblings above, ive created a table now which is sortable and merges both decades together. Salavat (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Voyager, HarperVoyager both redirect. Is that still accurate? Voyager is the old imprint they used. they now use an imprint called HarperVoyager. Salavat (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support I prefer this format. Good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, now to go back to my previous featured lists and reformat them. Salavat (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments from Mm40 (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC). Well well, we meet again!

• The caption is worded oddly; I suggest "The Aurealis Award design is often placed on the winning books' cover as a promotional tool." or something similar
  • Changed to suggestion. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Is there any information on when (i.e. what month) in the following year the award ceremony is held?
  • It doesnt appear to be consistent from a look at the locus online references. The last three years have been in january but before that they have been in february and march. And the only mention of the ceremony date on the official site is for this years ceremony and not an overall hosting date. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• The article is using both "short list" and "short-list"
  • Changed the un-dashed one to a dashed one. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• I think you're missing a comma after the year here: "Since 2003 hounarable mentions have been". Also, is there a reference for this change being made in 2003?
  • Fixed the comma issue. The sentence on honourable mentions isnt really a referencable thing, its more like a statement to just say that they started. It wasnt a change to the awards and they dont give any direct reasons why they exist however you would assume the obvious. The only mention of honourable mentions is in the guideline for judges [23], but that doesnt state why they can be included by the judges. I dont think there would be any real reason other the the judges wanting to make a mention of the book, and they havent all started in 2003, eg young-adult cat only has 2005, it appears to be upon the judges whim, but as there isnt anything that states that i cant add it as a reason. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• The section names should not include "novel". Thus, "Novel winners and nominees" → "Winners and nominees" and "Honourable mention novels" → "Honourable mentions"
  • Fixed. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• This is just a personal preference, but consider centering the tables by adding style="text-align:center" at the beginning
  • Centered. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Since some books have multiple authors, I think the "Author" column heading should be "Author(s)"
  • Fixed. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Really nitpicky, I know, but I think the last column would look nicer without the period after "Ref."
  • Fixed. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's all I can find, I look forward to supporting once the above issues are resolved. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Some people would raise the question that your "meet again" might be a polite way of saying "stalking" :). But either way its all good to me. Thanks for the review, Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, never thought of it that way. Anyways, nice article. Mm40 (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, stalking or meeting is always welcome at by featured candidates. Thanks again. Salavat (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 16:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments Try using: {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} instead of simply 2 columns. At wide resolutions, 2 columns looks awkward. Done. Salavat (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Why have width="85%" for the table? At small resolutions, there is a lot wasted space. I don't think there is enough aesthetic gain for wider resolutions to justify it. So you you want me to just go the full 100% instead?? Salavat (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Actually just leave it out, which effectively makes it width="auto". That way, it takes up as much room as it needs to, but no more. Jujutacular T · C 16:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Ok, so i took it out of then previewed the table without the widths set on the columns but now it looks strangly too narrow. Salavat (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Yea, I think you're right. I put it back. Jujutacular T · C 16:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Jujutacular T · C 00:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Jujutacular ^T · C 16:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:39, 14 April 2010 [24].

---

2010 Winter Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It's been three weeks since the Olympics ended, so I think this page is sufficiently stable. It's modeled after the 2008 Summer Olympics medal table and 2006 Winter Olympics medal table, both FLs. Enjoy! -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 16:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Prefer "ranked" over "sorted" in the first sentence. It should remain sorted. That word has brought forth a lot of debate on the talk pages of this and similar articles. It's a very long and tedious debate, but basically, the way it's sorted has long been disputed. Some feel it should be ranked by total medals, some feel it should be sorted alphabetically. The IOC officially says there are no rankings. So, techinally the table is just sorted by gold, per the IOC website. That makes sense, thanks. Jujutacular T · C 03:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC) It says this is the "largest Winter Games". The source does not explicitly state that, and the article does not state by what numbering we're measuring "largest". Removed. It's true, but I don't think it's necessary. "leaving 54 countries without a medal" - By my count, 82–26=56. Am I missing something? Fixed This source seems to be broken. Switched to a working ref. Jujutacular T · C 03:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 00:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC) One more: "Bjørgen...became the ninth Winter Olympian to win five medals at one edition of the Games."- I was unable to verify this statement (being the ninth) from the source listed. Jujutacular T · C 03:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Removed, thanks. -- Scorpion0422 16:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. Thanks for your hard work. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments " gold medal wins[2] and became the first host nation since Norway in 1952 to lead the gold medal count, with 14 gold medals, breaking a series of gold medals records. Canada broke the record for most gold medals at a single home Winter Olympics, which was 10, set by Norway in 1994 and the United States in 2002. Canada also broke the record for the most golds " count "gold medals" or "golds" here. Perhaps a rephrase? A user has been continually adding records Canada set that I find are rather trivial for a page like this. I removed the first bit and switched "golds" to "gold medals". "won five medals (three gold, one silver, one bronze) more than any other athlete" surely some punctuation before "more than..." here? Fixed. National Olympic Committee is overlinked. Fixed. Sorting by gold (descending), I'd expect it to sort per the original sorting, i.e. in accordance with your notes. Instead, I get Norway third (with 8 silvers) and USA fourth (with 15 silvers) despite both having 9 golds.. It works for me, and only switched to Norway first if I sort other columns. But, is it really that important? 2nd EL has no publisher info or anything. It's unnecessary, so I removed it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion0422 23:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Shouldn't ranks which tie be e.g. 17= etc rather than just two 17s? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Never heard of this convention before, is it common? Another possibility: 17 (tie) Jujutacular ^T · C 19:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Well it's pretty commonplace. It simply means "17th equal". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments (from the editor who worked the 1998 table to FL status) – Didn't find much to comment on, and what I did find was either minor or subjective.

• The first sentence strikes me as akin to the "This is a list of" beginnings that we've been discouraging lately. Not sure if anyone else feels the same, or if I just think this because I started the 1998 list differently and have a bias toward it.
• "A total of 2,632 athletes from 82 nations participated in 86 events from fifteen different sport disciplines." All the other numbers above 10 are given as numerals in the lead, so I imagine that "fifteen" should be as well. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Both done. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Support – Looks good to go after the changes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I think that a medal map should be added to the list. It provides a better visual impact as we can see in 2007 Pan American Games medal table, the latest Featured medal table. Felipe Menegaz 16:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • It doesn't really add a lot to the article. How does knowing location of nations like Estonia help readers understand the article? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Sourced and well presented. However, I would have to agree with Felipe Menegaz, a map of the countries that earned a medal would be a better visual representation to compliment the table. Sb617 (Talk) 01:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:39, 14 April 2010 [25].

---

List of Sri Lankan Test cricket records

Nominator(s): ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is based on the List of Test cricket records article. It was at WP:PR for some time (I closed the peer review today, after fixing the issues raised there). Since this is somewhat different from most of the existing cricket lists, your suggestions and comments would be very valuable on making this a featured list. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. I believe the Fastest Test centuries/half-centuries/double centuris sections may be completely unverifiable. You are providing the strike rate for the runs scored not the half-century/century. For example Jayasuriya may have hit his first hundred runs with a strike rate of 300.00 (i.e. faster) but then taken a very long time to get the other 57 runs (e.g. strike rate 20.00) which would overall drags his strike rate for 157 runs. However, he still scored the faster century (first 100 runs). This example is clearly fictional but is useful to indicate the problem within a context. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Would you suggest removing those three tables (fastest scores are not that important in Test cricket anyway) then? There is a separate page at Cricinfo (http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/content/records/210170.html) for fastest Test centuries, but it's not possible to find something like that for each team, so I have used the search engine here. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 15:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes ditch those sections (especially half/double centuries). Ideally it would be nice to have fastest century recoreds by balls faced/minute for Sri Lanka in that style (here's a couple more i.e. the 2006 top 10) but I realise it might be difficult to find and my quick google came up with nothing (It seems feasible for ODIs however). If you wanted a fastest section I suppose you could do highest strike rate with a qualifier e.g. 50 runs [26]. Up to you but, in my opinion, the current sections must go as they are misleading. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed those three sections. Keeping them like "fastest 50+ individual scores" is pointless IMO; what matters are the actual records regarding the centuries themselves. Otherwise the article would become just a collection of statistics, I think. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 16:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I quite agree. I do think a fastest 100 would be a useful record to add if it could be found but I understand the complexities involved and have struck my oppose. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• I must admit that I am against these sorts of lists on Wikipedia. Lists of Test centuries, five-wickets hauls etc are pretty stable, they are unlikely to change that much too quickly. Whereas almost every list on this page could change two or three times in a month or so. It is unlikely to I'll grant you, but it could; at which stage it becomes very hard to keep it up to date, and is possibly breaking WP:FL? criteria 6 for stability. Besides that, I feel it is a bombardment of information without much analysis and explanation at times, and it better left on Cricinfo and to a lesser extent, CricketArchive. I'm not going to oppose the list, because I feel you've done a good job on it, but I'm afraid in this case I can't support it either, unless you can convince me that it is worthy of inclusion in it's current form. Possibly, maybe, a split version would be more suitable, batting records one one page, bowling on another etc. I'm not sure. Harrias (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• I did consider the stability issue before starting work on this article, and it seemed pretty ok to me. Looking at their recent matches, Sri Lanka plays an average of less than 10 Tests per year. Most of their Test tournaments are 2 or 3 match tournaments, and they have never played more than a 5-match tournament to the best of my knowledge. It's almost always one tournament per season, which means about three tournaments per year. Also, the only records that will need to be updated regularly are the career runs and wickets, batting and bowling averages, and dismissals. The other records are not very likely to change in every match, so updating the article after every tournament should be an easy enough job. As I said, this is based on the List of Test cricket records, which went through a FLRC last year, so I didn't really think length would be an issue. If more reviewers agree that the article's stability and size may be problems though, I will withdraw the nom since they are major concerns that I can't really do much about. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Lists I can be stable yet dynamic. For example Premier League Player of the Month changes, well, monthly. However, like TRM made me do for that list, will you promise to keep an eye on new Sri Lanken records in the future and update this accordingly. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I will have to do that. But as I said, I don't expect the updating to be that hard. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment

1. Narrowest win margin by wickets: Winning by 5 wickets I think is a considerable win. Overall test record table in Cricinfo limit it to victory by 3 wkts or less. Consider trimming.
   • True enough that it is not a very narrow margin, but when it comes to Sri Lankan records these are the narrowest margins they have. I think we should stick to the top five records because of this, and also to keep it consistent with the rest of the article.
2. Best career average bowling: Qualification needed. Best--Chanaka L (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
   • Stupid mistake. Added now. Thanks for the comments and sorry for the late reply; I couldn't work on this for a few days. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Mahela Jayawardene's first name doesn't need to be repeated in the lead. Fixed In a couple batting tables, Arjuna Ranatunga's name is sorting before Aravinda de Silva's. Is this the intention? I think you're talking about the "most half-centuries" table, since that's the only that has both of them. It works for me though, both in Firefox and IE. I've checked the sortname templates and they seem to be used correctly as well. In the table for best bowling figures in a series (individual), a 2007 series isn't sorting in the right place. Done. I've added a sortkey to sort by date Reference 39 has what appear to be a typo in the publisher name ("Oxfors") Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Thanks for your comments. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 05:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Support – With TRM's comments resolved, this looks to meet FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Support — Very detailed and time consuming list. Well done. —Aaroncrick (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments "nearly 200 matches against every other Test-playing nation" I'm just wondering if you could put a comma after matches just in case someone thinks SL have played 200 matches against each other nation... Done Last two sentences of the lead both contain "also" and "Sri Lankan", just a shade repetitive. Removed Sri Lankan. "is one of the most accomplished" a bit journalistic, can we stick factual? Reworded the caption. Any way of linking out to Murali's featured list of five-wicket hauls? Done I would be tempted to limit the TOC to second level headings because it's a mammoth right now. I couldn't find a way to limit it earlier. Limited to 3rd level now. "Only two matches have ended in a tie in Test cricket history, and no game played by Sri Lanka has been tied" would prefer ", neither of which involved Sri Lanka." Done "as a win by innings" I thought it would be "as a win by an innings and xx runs"? I've added this to the explanation. "Most career runs" table needs one more colspan. Done Should second highest be second-highest? Done, and similar ones as well Career average - is it worth pointing out what innings with scores where the batsman is not out do? I have now included in the explanation that not out innings are also included in the total runs. It already says that it is divided by the number of times he has been dismissed. Centuries/half-century tables, I'd prefer to see the columns forced to the same size from section to section so the tables look the same... Done "a batsman getting out without"-> "batsman dismissed without"... Done "2000 deliveries" other 1000s have been comma separated... Done Best figures in an innings needs one more colspan. Looks like Chanakal has done it. Muralidharan - consistent spelling please. Fixed fifth best -> fifth-best (if you agreed with my comment above about second highest) Done twenty-two times - 22 times. Done Ref 31 links Cricinfo. None of the others do. Fixed Is BBC Sport really a work? If so, perhaps BBC should be the publisher...? I've made it publisher. I always mix up works and publishers... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the detailed review. I think everything is fixed. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 08:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:39, 14 April 2010 [27].

---

List of National Treasures of Japan (temples)

Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

After two recently featured shortish lists, this is another list of the series of lists of National Treasures of Japan. It uses the same structure as the already featured castle, shrine, residences, painting and sculpture lists. I tried to incorporate comments from previous FLCs. bamse (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Early comments Support

• Some of the refs need ordering (particularly placing #10 before others, but also I see #29 before #27 in the last paragraph).
• Extra space between #18 and #10 (which need reordering) after the sentence "natural environment in contrast to symmetrical layouts." Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I reordered all references. There should be a bot for that (or is there already?). Also fixed the extra space. bamse (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Check the toolbox; there are a few dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

  It seems that a few organizations decided to re-organize their websites with the start of the new fiscal year on April 1. Already fixed one link. It'll take some time to find the new location of the other pages since google is still pointing to the old locations. bamse (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

  All dead links are fixed. bamse (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The only thing I see which might be an issue on lower-resolution screens is the Statistics section with the tall left-aligned table next to the smaller right-aligned table and image. Should these maybe not be next to each, and instead placed above or below the left-aligned table? Other than that, I think everything looks very nice. I'm assuming the entries with a dash for the image are those for which we have no images? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks for the feedback. I increased the size of the map a bit so that the space is filled better on my (small) screen. I now have a long and narrow table on the left, a small table on the top right and the map below it also right-aligned. It is virtually impossible to arrange the two tables and map in such a way that it looks good on all browsers and resolutions. I hope that it looks decent on most settings. Indeed, the entries with a dash don't have an image on wikipedia yet. There are only about 1110 (just added a picture of Kōjō-ji's pagoda) national treasure temple structures out of 152 without image which is quite remarkable. Except for the konjikidō where photography is not allowed, all structures can be photographed and will eventually have an image. bamse (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

  Support based on improvements made. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments "In fact the number of structures listed is more than 152" no need to say "In fact". Removed "In fact". bamse (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC) battle of Shigisen or Battle of Shigisen? Capitalized. bamse (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Was the battle when the temples were constructed or were they constructed after the battle? Fixed by Truthkeeper88 to read: ... in the wake of the Battle of Shigisen in 587, after which Buddhist temples began to be constructed. bamse (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Pagoda overlinked. Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "kon-dō" linked on its second use, not first. Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "and wars few" comma after wars. Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "extant... extant..." repetitive. Removed first "extant". bamse (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "Emperor Shōmu, decreed temples " no need for the comma. Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "only extant example of these halls[16][26]" missing some punctuation here. Added "." bamse (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "Excellent examples" excellent in whose opinion? Reworded to "Representative examples" which is closer to what the provided source says. bamse (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "The table's columns (except for Remarks and Images)" - col is called Image. Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "year; The column" not a capital letter after the ; Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "structure"; The column " ditto. Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC) " at 50.1 (m?)," why the ? I used the wrong template (Template:nihongo instead of Template:convert), that's why. Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "4.363 m (14.31 ft)," extraordinarily accurate - nearest millimetre? That's what the source says. Probably goes back to the conversion from some Japanese units of measurement. I rounded it to 4.4 m. bamse (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "copper-tiel roofing" is that tile? Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Decimal place consistency needed - 18 m (59 ft) vs 29.8 m (98 ft) etc... especially with the mm accuracy above. That's the accuracy provided by the various sources. Indeed mm accuracy does not make much sense here (and is probably due to conversion from some Japanese units). Now I rounded everything to one decimal if the respective source provided this accuracy. I left "18 m", etc where the source did not provide more accuracy. bamse (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "　5×5, single-storied, yosemune style,[ex 8] hongawarabuki roof[ex 2]" seems not left-aligned. Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC) No need to link ken more than once in a line. Fixed in remarks column of "Chion-in", "Hokke-dō" and "Fudōdō". Hope those were all. bamse (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Note 2 is a little odd, starting with "and ..." and is unreferenced. Made a full sentence out of it (The statues represented the nine stages of nirvana.) and added a reference. bamse (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Note 39 is indecipherable to me. Translated it. bamse (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC) As is the last bullet of Note 35. Translated it. bamse (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC) What makes "Zuiryū-ji" (a) worth linking, (b) reliable? Same with Kaijūsen-ji, Hōgon-ji, Saimyō-ji, etc, etc.. These are major Japanese temples which (a) should have a wikipedia article (after all they have national treasures which makes them notable). (b) The official websites of these temples are a (very) reliable source in my opinion. bamse (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Ref 53 needs to be formatted correctly - why the spaces in the title? Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC) What makes "dynax" reliable? It doesn't even load for me. Indeed it does not appear to be reliable. Removed it. The table info for this national treasure is sufficiently referenced by ref 5. bamse (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) further reading link needs an en-dash. Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. I started to address some point but will need another day or so for the rest. bamse (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC) As ever you're more than welcome, and please take your time to consider the comments you have yet to address. No rush! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks. I think I addressed all of your comments. bamse (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 20:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment Just one thing, what is the default sorting of the table? Jujutacular T · C 18:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC) The default sorting is the same as the order used by the Database of National Cultural Properties which is published by the designating agency. The order is geographic traversing Japan roughly from north-east to south-west. The same order is used in other featured National Treasures of Japan lists. bamse (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Thank you, that makes sense. Jujutacular T · C 20:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Jujutacular ^T · C 20:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 07:14, 14 April 2010 [28].

---

MusiCares Person of the Year

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 21:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria and is very similar to Grammy Legend Award except that it also contains the lifetime column for additional information. I believe links, alt text, disambigs, etc. should be up to standard. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments - nice list. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 00:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC) "with an all-star tribute concert " sounds a little tabloidy to me. Can we be more specific/encyclopedic? Hmm, would it help if "all-star" had quotation marks, since that is how the source uses the term? Or can you think of a more encyclopedic way of saying "with many talented musicians"? --Another Believer (Talk) 00:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Quote marks would work (along with direct reference) for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Added quotation marks. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC) "The first three MusiCares Person of the Year awards were presented to American musicians David Crosby, Bonnie Raitt, and Natalie Cole between 1991 and 1993" reads just a shade odd. The awards were made annually, one per year, to each of these recipients just once. It's picky but there you go... Is the following clearer: "From 1991 to 1993, the first three MusiCares Person of the Year awards were presented to American musicians David Crosby, Bonnie Raitt, and Natalie Cole"? Since the lead mentions that the award is presented annually, I think it is clear that during each of those years, one musician received the award. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Yes it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I'm not convinced the lead is quite spot on. It basically tells me everything that's in the list except for the date of birth/death of the recipients. Could you expand upon, perhaps, why the recipients got the award? Does MusiCares provide citations for the winners? I was under the impression the lead should simply be a summary of the list (which I think it is); besides, although it does seem a bit redundant compared to the list itself, I was going off the format used for the Grammy Legend Award article. To be honest, I have been trying to find more information about the award itself, such as how winners are determined and why they are chosen, but sources seem to just indicate that winners are awarded for their musical achievement and dedication to philanthropy (or something along those lines). I am not sure what you mean by citations for the winners, but I did not find an official list on the MusiCares site. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I would agree with you if this was a fork of a main article, but this is the main article about the award, so I'd like to know a little more about the background of the award. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Doing... --Another Believer (Talk) 17:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I have to say, though, I am really struggling finding how recipients are chosen. All I can find are the winners and a general why as to why they were chosen. Because it is always MusiCares Foundation representatives providing quotes to the press about why recipients were chosen, I went ahead and added "Chosen by the MusiCares Foundation" to the lead, along with a quick phrase about "Grammy week" (with two references referring to the week-long event leading up to the Grammy Awards). I think this helps because it re-affirms the relationship between the MusiCares Person of the Year award with the Grammy Awards. I will remain on the lookout for a nomination procedure, but it seems to me there is no formal one. Given how the music industry operates, I am sure it has more to do with which big-name musicians who dabble in philanthropy are available to act as a guest of honor for a star-studded event to raise money for the foundation. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Don't like bare URLs, even in the infobox. Changed to MusiCares. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I'm an Englander, and I'm pretty sure it's not a Nationality. That would be British. At least that's what I write on my landing cards, have in my passport etc. Odd, isn't it? Gotcha. I was simply using Template:ENG (or the corresponding flag template for each entry). However, I could change the column title to "Country of origin" if you prefer. Again, I was keeping consistency with Grammy Legend Award in mind when I expanded this list. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Nationality and GBR is fine by me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Done. Changed to GBR, and changed "English" in the lead to "British". I noticed GBR displays "United Kingdom"--if you prefer, I could use GBR2 to display "Great Britain". --Another Believer (Talk) 17:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC) The template implies that this is a "special Grammy award". The lead just says it's awarded by the same organisation. Am I missing something? I wondered about this myself. There is clearly a connection, as the official MusiCares site is connected with the main Grammy Awards site. The way I understand it, the award is associated with the Grammy Awards (presented during "Grammy week", given by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, etc.), but sponsored by the MusiCares Foundation (which itself was established by the NARAS). Personally, I think the link should remain in the Grammy template. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your suggestions, as always! Feel free to let me know any other adjustments that need to be made. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Another great awards list. I can't see anything of concern. Pyrrhus16 17:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comment Looks great; one question: should this list go into Category:Grammy Awards? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. A very good list. Jaespinoza (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support I couldn't find anything to gripe about :) good work. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:58, 13 April 2010 [29].

---

IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship

Nominator(s): --WillC 09:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I want to raise the level of anything I can. This is the only active New Japan championship that is not an FL. If any reviewers have a nomination they would like a review on, present the link here and I will be sure to review it. Also, I am apart of the WikiCup. This was at one point an FL, so I know there is a chance of it getting there again.--WillC 09:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note to closing director If this is promoted, don't forget to update WP:FFL. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments "The title was introduced on February 6, 1986 at a NJPW live event. The title is contested for by junior heavyweight wrestlers" merge. Done--WillC 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC) "The weight-limit for the tag team title is 220 lb (100 kg); it is assumed they have the same weight-limit." don't understand this at all. Well I couldn't find a ref for the title's weight limit. I had one for the tag title, so it would be common sense they would have the same weight limit. Mainly it is saying, the tag has this weight limit, and it is assumed the singles title has the same one.--WillC 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC) "junior heavweight championship" vs "Junior Heavyweight Championship"... One is proper name of title while the other speaks of type.--WillC 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Is there some link to "unification" in a sporting sense you could use? Yes, placed it in.--WillC 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC) "11 defenses" is repeated too many times. 11 defenses is only stated once. The number 11 is repeated alot though, but I can't change that, those are statistics.--WillC 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC) "all share the record for the fewest successful defenses, with zero" awful. Perhaps it's something like "failed to defend their only title"? reworded--WillC 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Several "events" not linked or explained (e.g. Battle Formation, Destruction '09) Non-notable events thus no need for links. Those were the names of the events.--WillC 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Infobox overlaps the main table in Safari. fixed--WillC 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Sorting by "Succesful defenses", the en-dash should sort as lower than 0. Fixed--WillC 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Combined days in the Combined reign table doesn't sort because of the + sign. Fixed--WillC 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Refs should use unspaced en-dashes, not spaced hyphens for year ranges. Check out WP:DASH. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Done--WillC 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Support

Resolved comments fromMPJ-DK

Sorry it's taken a few days to get back to you on this but I've been busy. I see you've addressed the list and I've hidden the stuff I feel is resolved and commented or expanded on the rest. It is okay, I'm busy half the time these days anyway. I only get on here for a few minutes everyday now and rarely do I stay on the computer much longer than 30 minutes a day anymore. I got stuff to do, so I understand...you must be the same.--WillC 07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Lead The link used in IWGP is not correct, missing a "d" at the end, I also question the worth of the link, how about a citation that supports it instead of linking to an unsourced statement on a page already linked to... if that makes sense? Fixed, covered by New Japan refs I do believe.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) "it is contested for by junior heavyweight wrestlers." How about something along the line of "Only wrestlers under the Junior Heavyweight weightlimit may hold the championship" or words to that effect? Just a suggestion Changed--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) "The IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship was one of eight championships that assembled the J-Crown, or J-Crown Octuple Unified Championship for short" a few things How about from AUgust 5, 1996 until XXX the title was part of the..."?? I guess I could do that. You say that "J-Crown Octuple Unified Championship" is the short version of J-Crown ;) I had the full name first and shorthand second to begin with. Must have forgot to remove the ending when I changed them.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) "It formed on August 5, 1996" - I just got a mental image of the eight belts joing together transformer style. "it" refers to the championship and probably should be "it was formed", or created. Changed to created.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) "is won as a result of a predetermined outcome." I'd add "to wrestling matches" or something like that. done--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 2245 should be 2,245 Done--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) The tournament "to retain" and then listing the titles just doesn't read well. Why not explain that the tournament consistet of 8 champions who all put their title on the line or something along those lines? I don't really have much information on the title. I've checked Slam and PWTorch, and didn't come up with really anything, that is why it is vague. I'm blank on how to re-word it...any suggestions?--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) "NJPW keep track of all championship title defenses per reign, which is unlike most mainstream wrestling organizations." source for that? and definition of "Mainstream" please is? I got none, was told to put it in during the last IWGP Title I nominated. Thought to continue it, but I can remove it. Didn't want to place it in anyway.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) "the most of any former champion." should just be "any champion" Done--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) "Guerrera's, Pegasus Kid's, and current champion Naomichi Marufuji's only reigns all have the least successful defenses, with zero" - hmmm sorting the "successful title defense" colum I see 7 reigns (one needs updating) with 0. Needs to be consistent or it needs to be crystal clear it refers to combined number of defenses. Oh, I went by the second table. That was meant to be total. I forgot to add single reign, I must have screwed that up. Active championships usually contains a section on the current champion, who he beat etc. I don't see that here. I told who the champion was, but not who he beat. Thought it would be redundant, and was waiting for his first defense to add that part. Will add anyway.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) In the interest of keeping it simple why not just call it a "NJPW Show" instead of a "live event"? Everyone knows what a show is after all. Well NJPW Show doesn't role off the tounge. I would feel live event would be better, and also consistent with the table.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Yes but no one calls them "live events", they're wrestling shows. In fact "Live events" would indicate that there are also "non-live events" which there aren't.  MPJ -DK  16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Okay--WillC 07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC) "it is assumed they have the same weight-limit"... for what? "the same weight-limit for the singles title" perhaps? Yes, weight limit for the title hasn't been discovered yet, but I would feel it is common sense they should have the same weight limit, seeing as some have held both titles.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Then please put "for the singles title" or something like that so that it's stated, not inferred.  MPJ -DK  16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Done--WillC 07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC) The creation of the J-Crown is mentioned, but not the disbanding. Reading the text it appears that the J-Crown still exists. Check above, information isn't vast that I have found. I'll look some more.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) The table now has more information on the breakup of the J-Crown, shame it's not totally reflected in the lead.  MPJ -DK  16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC) I added the information featured in the table a while ago to the lead.--WillC 07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC) "Title changes happen mostly at NJPW-promoted events", considering how few non-NJPW title changes there has been maybe actually mention that in the text? it explains what is meant by "Mostly". Done--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) I was thinking more along the line of actually stating that reigns 36 and 37 starting on WCW Nitro due to their working relationship or something along those lines.  MPJ -DK  16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Okay--WillC 07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Main table "successful defenses the champions had during" - Copy and paste from Tag I think, it should just be champion. Fixed--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Sorting issues Juventud Guerrera should not sort by "G", it's not a last name it means "Youth Warrior" Pegasus Kid should not sort by K, it's not a last name Great Sasuke should n ot sort by S, it's not a last name as Sasuke is Japanese for Ninja All done--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Notes Note for reign 27 is in present tense Same for Note on 29 And Notes for 31 Note for 37 - maybe it should read "replaced Guerrera in the match", otherwise it's not clear what he was a replacement for. Notes vacated before reign 45 - "contested in a battle royal"? A new champion could be determined by a battle royal maybe? the title doesn't contest in itself, it's contested for. Note for 45 - Not a complete sentence. All done, just removed reign 45's note, it should be common sense.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Combined reigns table No need for the note [N 1] since none are tied I just hid it, it may be needed later.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Sorting, same name sorting issues as in the main table Fixed--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) NJPW may keep track of the reigns but that still means this page needs to reflect it as well, Mistico has two successful title defenses listed yet that's not what's in the list. Minor mistake fixed--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Sources Lead Outdated information - Marufuji has successfully defended the title, twice actually (on Jan 30 and on March 5). So all that information needs to be updated. Hadn't heard, but NJPW's site lists no defenses.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) I know they don't - this is one of the dangers of just relying on the "Official source" since match results list two title defenses. More on that later.  MPJ -DK  16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Well it determines if NJPW recognizes those defenses. I'll be happy to add them, I just need references for those defenses. I'm not sure if NJPW held those events or some other company. I don't keep up with Japanese wrestling, let alone wrestling in general at all. I haven't payed attention since January to be honest. Once I get some refs to back them up, I'll place them in there with a note stating NJPW has yet to acknowledge them.--WillC 07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Sorting Ultimo Dragon should not sort by "D", it's not a last name it means "Last Dragon" Vacated sorts as "V" shouldn't sort like it was held by a wrestler called "Vacated".  MPJ -DK  16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC) What would you suggest then? It would default sort as V, are you thinking dash instead?--WillC 07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC) I sorted with – for vacant in my last FL.  MPJ -DK  10:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry but the fact that from 2000 the only real source is the company's own records is a bit of a problem for me. It's a Primary source and while it's fine in general this is "Featured List" and as such should have independent confirmation from independent thirdparty sources. There are pitfalls to the "official" story being the one being blindly presented, there could be "deliberate omissions" NJPW chosen to make? Without independent confirmation how do we know for sure? Well we would have to have information on that to begin with. None has been found, so that isn't our place to determine if NJPW has removed reigns on purpose. I have checked Slam bios, etc. I will see if I can find information on the January 4th shows, otherwise it is hard to find. Afterall this is a Japanese title. The only Japanese site that can be trusted at this point is just NJPW's. Sadly, this one hasn't been used in a major American promotion recently, so information is even shorter than the others.--All Done--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) That's it for now.  MPJ -DK  10:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC) "None have been found" - but you more or less admitted that you did not look very far, you would have known about the two title defenses for Marufuji if you had checked elsewhere. . Primary sources lead to problems, for instance the fact that they do not list two title defenses just highlights that point. I can sympathise with sources being hard to find, I work on Lucha Libre after all but that's not an excuse. It's pretty recent history (2000-2010) not pre-internet era, so frankly I don't see how it can be FL quality with mainly primary sources. It was delisted as an FL before for sourcing issues, so it'd be doing it a disservice to just "let it slide". If no reliable third party sources exists then maybe it's not actually a FL quality topic. My biggest problem remains the over-reliance on the NJPW sources.  MPJ -DK  16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC) I looked at the known reliable sources. I don't follow wrestling like I use too. Following primary sources is based on acknowledgment. If NJPW don't acknowledge something, then it wouldn't be "official" as a defense. Of course it may have happened, I just haven't been given any proof of that yet. Not my place though, you are the one presenting it and only said dates. Not names of events or what company. After I get that info I can better add that information. Well a few third party sites are used within the article, there is no guideline against primary sites being used majorly, the only thing about third party is they establish notability..though that wouldn't be a problem in this case. If I find time I'll check WrestleView's Japanese column started in early 2008. Just give me time, I'm a bit busy these days with work. I'll look tomorrow for information. Maybe I can find a magizine article of some sort. That remains me, I'll check PWI. I totally forgot about that article GaryColemanFan gave me during the tag title FLC months ago. That may hold some information. I agree on using alot of third party sources mainly, if you look at the TNA articles I've done, I use a majority of third party over primary if possible. If there was alot more information on Japanese wrestling on English sites, this article would be flooded with it. It is odd, this article's main problem is third party, when it was delisted for having third party references, but unproven references. Kind of ironic.--WillC 07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC) NJPW.com may be the source for what "officially" happens, but that doesn't mean it did not happen if it's not acknowledged - Wikipedia is based on facts, if it happens it should be listed, if it's not "Officially recognized" then that should be noted instead of saying "It never happened". NWA WOrld title changes - not officially recognized but listed, same with the WWE title and the whole ruckus about Angle and his number of TNA World titles, "Official" is nice, but it's not "NJPWikipedia" after all ;) I know it's not easy to find sources but I also know it can be done.  MPJ -DK  09:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC) I agree, Wikipedia is based on facts. Been trying to get everyone to see that forever. "Official" is a strange concept. In a matter of facts, these defenses happened. I agree there. They are backed by proof. However, officially in company view, they aren't acknowledged yet it seems. So they are official yet unofficial. Some on here can't tell the difference.--WillC 05:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Here is a little help with the two "missing title defenses" I used this [http://www.cagematch.net/?id=112&search=true&s_Tag_von=04&s_Monat_von=01&s_Jahr_von=2010&s_Tag_bis=21&s_Monat_bis=03&s_Jahr_bis=2010&s_Teilnehmer1=Naomichi%20Marufuji&s_Matchart=%28^

Woops forgot to move this down the other day.  MPJ -DK  05:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments – "Only wrestlers under the junior heavyweight weightlimit may hold the championship." Should "weightlimit" be two words? Added "-"--WillC 05:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC) The last sentence of the first paragraph reads as if it would fir better to begin the second paragraph. Moved--WillC 05:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC) "Liger's 11 reigns holds the record for most days as champion at 2,245." Needs to be re-phrased, as it reads like the reigns were champion, not Liger. Fixed--WillC 05:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC) "With 11 successful defenses, Minoru Tanaka's reign under the ring name 'Heat' is the most during a single reign." Feels off grammatically. Try changing "is" to "had" and see if that is better. Changed--WillC 05:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Footnote 1: "where he defeating Koji Kanemoto." "defeating" → "defeated". Also, this needs a reference. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Fixed, refs are in the table in the defenses column.--WillC 05:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Support – My comments were taken care of before; I was just waiting on the resolution of MPJ's batch before supporting. Seems to meet the standards now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk) There is a very large whitespace under the lead for me, probably caused by the {{clear}} template under the second paragraph. Would it be possible to remove that extra line break, or is it serving a purpose? Removed, it was placed there because the infobox expanded into the first section. Not a problem now.--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Do we need to list all eight championships in J-Crown? Yeah, was placed in for another review above I do believe. The entire championship was all the titles.--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) "of a predetermined outcome of a wrestling match" is there anyway you can reword to avoid the duplicated "of a"? Removed common sense part.--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) "twice at non-NJPW events" → "at non-NJPW events twice" for a more normal-sounding sentence (IMO) Done--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) "Reign 36 and 37": should "Reign" be plural? Done--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Guerrera and Liger are both linked twice in the second paragraph Done--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) "had the most during a single reign" the most what? I get what is being talked about upon a second reading (successful defenses in one term), but can you make this a bit clearer? Not sure how much clearer you can get, the beginning of the sentence says defenses.--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) "11 reigns of successful defenses totals to 31" as it is written, this does not make sense. What is a "reign of successful defense"? I suggest rewording the sentence to "Over his 11 reigns, Liger defended the title 31 times, a record" or something similar Done--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) "all have the least successful defenses, with zero" is very weird-sounding. How about "all ended after the first title defense was lost" or something similar Redone--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) The second-to-last sentence ("By combined defenses of all reigns...") is redundant to the previous sentence Redone--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Would it be possible to center the left side of the keys? Done--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) In the notes for reign 37: "Psychosis replaced Guerrera in the match" what match? The match for the title. Pretty much common sense.--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) In the notes for the first vacated reign, should "Top of the Super Juniors" be "Best of the Super Juniors"? No, the tournament that year was called the Top of the Super Juniors.--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) In the notes for the second vacated reign, I don't think you need to link "bone fracture" Done--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) The third heading doesn't need "List of" Done--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) The one footnote needs a reference In table, in defenses section, current reign column.--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Multiple authors are cited incorrectly. They should have "Last, first; Last, first" for all authors Which ones? Two general refs say Gary Will and Royal Duncan. As far as I know, the book is called "Wrestling Titles by Gary Will and Royal Duncan".--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) NJPW.co.jp is the work, and New Japan Pro Wrestling is the publisher. Done--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Reference titles should not be translated; their original Japanese title should be given Done--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) What is the quote at the end of reference 1? It talks about weight limit.--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) The curly quotes in the title of reference 2 should be straight (WP:MOSQUOTE) Done--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) The spaced hyphen in reference 14 should be a spaced en-dash Mm40 (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Done--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 04:52, 10 April 2010 [30].

---

List of Moonlighting episodes

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The greatest TV show in the history of the world ever, at least according to my wife. While I wouldn't go quite that far, it's a pretty cool show and so, twenty-five years to the very day since the first episode aired, I present this list for your consideration. Please let me know what still needs tweaking. I'm on the right hand side of the Atlantic, but have done my best to write in that crazy colonial form of English :-) And in the interests of full disclosure, I'm not in the WikiCup ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I like the fact that the lead in the list is so much better than the lead in the main article. Sandman888 (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment I made an American English fix in the summary of Episode 3 - "Blue Moon is..." instead of "Blue Moon are..." Make sure the rest of the list uses this convention as well. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Done - there was only one more. I also changed "the Blue Moon team are" to "the Blue Moon team is" - is that correct? I'm sure I read somewhere that "team" is considered a singular noun in American English...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments daunting list, so that's probably why it's been overlooked for 3.5 weeks. Apologies for that Chris... so my bits 'n' pieces... I wonder if, in the opening sentence, you can provide a little bit more context, e.g. when it ran, where, etc? Done "model who loses most of her assets" fnar. can you specify which assets she lost? Done You seem to switch tense in the lead (Moonlighting is followed by characters were...) Done. Referring to long finished shows in the present tense is an Americanism I haven't yet got to grips with..... "on ABC" - perhaps include "in the United States" (unless the context you'll be adding earlier makes this redundant!) Done I think it'd be safe to link pilot appropriately. Done " The series lasted 5 seasons, but only 66 episodes were produced." - but? but? 12.5 episodes per season is okay isn't it? Perhaps, again, some context as to why this is a "but" rather than a "with". Over here, 12.5 episodes per season would be quite a high figure, but in America their seasons last for nearly six months and usually have at least 20 episodes. That's what's so unusual about that figure of 66 episodes. I've noted this "Ratings declined, however in the later " a comma after however here. Done "cancelled" call me odd but is that one too many l's for a USEng cancelation? Done That's a start, my dinner's on the way, so episode critiques will follow after you've looked at these comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Many thanks for your comments, hope your dinner was tasty -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC) 'Twas. Moving onto the episodes... "left broke" a little colloquial. Did they get those Nazi diamonds in the pilot? "famous mystery author" I take it you mean mystery the genre, not mystery the unknown author... "become involved in a CIA assassination plot, which culminates in a huge food fight at a banquet" yeah, that was Moonlighting alright... "but won't go" avoid contractions. "he winds up dead" a touch colloquial again. "ex-accountant has bought a new life with her stolen money in Argentina" becomes unclear whose money it is... "he can't act like" contractions. "in a diamong heist" a diamong? a diamong? "to the theatre " theater for this list. "she'd never kept " strike three. "can't get along with" make that four. "and can't tell them" gah. "lost Agens to " Agnes. You linked New York but not Chicago. I wonder if there's any need to link these cities at all. "repo men" a bit colloquial, or perhaps ripe for linking. "Agnes' mother" I'm ambivalent, but most of the USEng I've seen would say "Agnes's" here. "man she's living" six. "trash the house." colloquial. "and it's in the" last one. Refs 15, 17, 19 have a spare ] The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC) All addressed, I think, apart from the query about the Nazi diamonds in the pilot. I can't remember the answer and will have to re-watch the episode to answer it. Luckily I (or rather the wife) has it on DVD, so I'll try and do that tonight....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Actually, I just found the climactic scenes from the pilot episode on YouTube, so will watch that and answer your last query at lunchtime. The occasional WP edit when I'm meant to be working is one thing, but watching 15 minute YouTube videos is a whole different kettle of fish..... :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC) All done now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Support - all good. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 20:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments Two columns would make the reflist a bit easier to take in. "The Blue Moon team is cornered by the drug dealer whose money it is, but are able to turn him in and use the reward money to assist their dire financial situation." - This sentence is still a bit strange, the second half of the sentence still uses British convention ("are"). However, simply switching that word to "is" would make a bad-sounding repetition of the word "is". Try rewording. Is episode 62 really titled "Perfetc"? Jujutacular T · C 15:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC) As I see Chris is on wikibreak for the next week or so, I took the liberty of addressing my own concerns. I decided the reflist looks better as it is, at least on my comp. Reworded the sentence, and I'll take Allmovie's word for it, being titled "Perfetc". I guess it's a joke or something. Jujutacular T · C 20:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Jujutacular ^T · C 20:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 06:56, 8 April 2010 [31].

---

List of accolades received by Avatar

Nominator(s): DrNegative (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This list was created to include all major and regional awards and nominations for the film Avatar. It is thoroughly sourced and cited and meets all content and style requirements (to my knowledge) for a featured list. The content will be stable since all major awards for which the film would qualify have now been awarded and any future accolades would likely encompass "Best of..." or "Top films of..." types of inclusion in the future. DrNegative (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Knee-jerk lead comments "List of accolades" vs "List of awards won by Avatar" vs "Awards & Nominations" - what is this list about? That is the title that Wikiproject Films agreed to call award pages related to films. Im not defending it, just explaining. I am not sure how to address this one. The archived discussion can be found here. DrNegative (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC) "American science fiction epic film" what makes it American? This was discussed for the main article here and here. Current consensus notes it as an American film based on the distribution studio who also financed the majority of the film's budget, which in this case is 20th Century Fox, headquartered in Los Angeles, California. DrNegative (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC) #1 is to be avoided per our MOS. Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Isn't all time supposed to be all-time? Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC) I guess those $ are US? link it. Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC) "winning for Art Direction" perhaps this is US Eng but I see no need for the "for" here. Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Split the Academy/BAFTA sentence as it reads poorly right now. Fixed. I am assuming you were talking about the Academy/Golden Globe sentence. I split it up. DrNegative (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC) "The Visual Effects Society awarded the film six awards for its achievement in visual effects" read that again and tell me if it's a bit of a dud sentence. Tweaked this sentence a little for better flow. DrNegative (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Three "received" in consecutive sentences... Rewrote and removed several "received" from paragraphs. DrNegative (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC) What is CGI? Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Deal with these first, then I'll review the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your suggestions. I attempted to rectify the problems that you stated to the best of my ability and will do so on any future issues that you note as well. DrNegative (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Very nice list, and I see no further problems. Reywas92^Talk 21:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

*Comment I don't think File:Avatar (2009 film) poster.jpg can be justifiably included in this list. It does not aid readers' understanding of the awards the film received (the main focus of the list). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Removed. DrNegative (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Publications in the references need to be italicized; you can do this by changing "publisher" to "work" in the citation templates. I saw Los Angeles Times, but there may be others. I found about 8 that were publications and changed to "work" in the citation templates for each. DrNegative (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Ref titles that are in all caps should be converted to title case. Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC) What makes the following sources reliable? http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/Phoenix_Film_Critics_Society_Awards/2009 reliable – IMDb is not usually considered reliable. http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=5445 http://www.indiewire.com/article/avatar_wins_with_ny_online_film_critics/ Found more suitable sources for all the above. DrNegative (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Spell out abbreviations of reference publishers. I saw NAACP and BAFTA, but there may be others. You probably don't need to spell out NBC or ABC, though. Removed acronyms and spelled out. DrNegative (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC) http://www.empireonline.com/awards2010/winners/ is dead Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC) There's also a dab link, check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC) What makes http://www.43kix.com/wap/award.php?award=46&year=2009 reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Removed it, already had a primary source anyway. DrNegative (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Everything looks good to me. Great work. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk) In the second sentence ("The film was premiered...") do you need to repeat 2009 in the dates? Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "with an approval rating" I think "with" should be changed to "accumulated" or "garnered" or something similar Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Four of five sentences ion the second paragraph begins with "The film"; you can use "Avatar" once or twice Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) The "and it won" in the Golden Globe sentence sounds odd. I'm not sure if there's anyway to reword it, though Tweaked. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "six awards during their annual awards ceremony" is their any way to avoid repeating "awards"? Tweaked. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "of the top ten films of the year" the repetition of "of the: makes this sound clunky. How about "of the year's top ten films"? Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Is top ten hyphenated or not? You use both styles Removed hyphen. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Should there be a comma before "and the New York Film Critics Online"? Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Per MOS:HASH, "#10" → "number 10" Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Are the last two sentences of the lead, about the Southern Sky Column, relevant to this article? They're not mentioned in the table. It's interesting, though, so I'm not completely against keeping it in These were moved over from the awards section in the main article. I thought I could be considered a notable accolade mention in the lead although not an award for the chart. If you feel it needs to be removed I can do so. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Is it Andy Jones or Andrew R. Jones? Stephen Rivkin or Stephen E. Rivkin? Removed all instances of middle initial for the guys. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Are you using a non-serial comma with "and" (John, Jane and Joe) or a serial comma without "and" ("John, Jane, Joe")? Be consistent Fixed. Made consistent. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) The MoS doesn't like the use of TM Removed. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) There's a double comma in the last Saturn Award Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) The italics in reference 9 are messed up; "Dallas" is, "Observer" isn't, and the retrieval date is Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Italicize "The Hollywood Reporter" (reference 35) "OK!" (reference 48) and "Los Angeles Times" (reference 53) Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Is here supposed to be an external link in reference 36 (Screencrave.com)? Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) I'll support once these nitpicks are resolved. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: I don't think the fair-use image is justified in this case. It does not enhance the readers understanding of the article. Mm40 (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I strongly feel that a picture of the producer and director holding the film's most prestigious accolade, which is also mentioned in the lead and table, would help the reader. However, as a reviewer your opinion takes precedence over mine and if you want me to remove it, I will axe it. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Images aren't my strong point, so can other reviewers comment on it? Thanks, Mm40 (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I must agree with Mm40. From WP:FU: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". While this certainly would qualify for fair use under US copyright law, our policies are more stringent. A similar photo could plausibly be taken and released under a free license. I would suggest using File:JamesCameronCCJuly09.jpg. in its place. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. In addition to Jujutacular's reasoning, the purpose of use given is very weak: "To show the reader a pic in the infobox and to give them scope as to what the article is about, in this case Avatar's awards." The scope is made quite clear in the list's title. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Very well. Removed. DrNegative (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and guidance everyone. DrNegative (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 06:57, 7 April 2010 [32].

---

List of National Basketball Association season rebounding leaders

Nominator(s): —Chris!_c/t 03:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I've not done one for a while :). —Chris!_c/t 03:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Initial comment Could you include a basic definition of a rebound (and perhaps offensive vs. defensive, since you mention them) as the similar baseball lists nominated below do? As with a home run or earned run average, someone not familiar with basketball would have no idea what a rebound is. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Added, though I am not sure where to put it.—Chris!_c/t 05:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think right where it is works nicely. "The NBA recognizes the rebound leader each year. BTW, here's what a rebound is." Since it's a rate stat, rather than a counting one, could you dig up and add whatever qualifications there are for winning the title? I assume there are some, like if someone had a 14 rebound game in their debut last year they couldn't just sit out the rest of the season and win the rebound title with 14 RPG in one game over Howard's 13 and change. Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree, the minimum statistics requirement should be mentioned, basketball-reference has a complete page on this. — Martin tamb (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, done—Chris!_c/t 21:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

*"The rebounding title was first ..." not sure if you need to repeat "rebounding" here as it's clear what title you're talking about. Done "layers who earned rebounding titles before the 1973–74 season also did not record any offensive or defensive rebounds because statistics on them were first compiled by the league during that season" I had to read this about three times before I got it. Any chance of a reword such that you say offensive/defensive rebounds weren't explicitly recorded until the 73/74 season? Does this statement mean that the previous winners just had both offensive and defensive rebounds added together? Try to reword. Does it work? The explanation as to what a rebound is, and what defensive/offensive is, probably needs to go before the section explaining the recording of offensive/defensive rebounds. Done I'm pretty sure the MOS is ambivalent, but reading "had 1941 in the 1959–60 season" made me look twice, any chance of a 1,941? Done "Dwight Howard had the highest season" if he's active, isn't it "has the highest"? Similarly phrased for Wallace. Notes have average to one dp while table has average to 2dp. I know, but I can't do much about this as the main source lists averages to 2dp and the sources for individual season list averages to 1dp. References need en-dashes, not hyphens, per WP:DASH. Fixed by Dabomb, Everything else also done—Chris!c/t 19:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Has the season always been 82 games since the very first season? Yes Actually no, it's only been 82 since the 1967–68 NBA season. Here's the breakdown 1967–68 NBA season—present: 82 games (except the lockout-shortened 1998–99 NBA season which has 50 games) 1966–67 NBA season: 81 games 1961–62 NBA season—1965–66 NBA season 80 games 1960–61 NBA season: 79 games 1959–60 NBA season: 75 games 1953–54 NBA season–1958–59 NBA season: 72 games 1952–53 NBA season: 69–71 games 1951–52 NBA season: 66 games 1950–51 NBA season: 66–69 games I haven't found an external reference that mentions all these, but it can be easily verified from seasonal standings at NBA.com or basketball-reference. Don't know what this information has to do with the list though, maybe TRM can explains further. — Martin tamb (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Opps, I guess I was wrong. But what does this have to do with the list?—Chris!c/t 07:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC) "To qualify for the rebounding title, a player must appear in at least 70 games (out of 82)..." clearly this has not always been the case then. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC) This is why I mentioned this above. This link covers the requirements for the various schedule lengths. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Well, I thought only the current requirement is relevant here. Also I don't know how to indicate this clearly within the prose. Should I add something like "This is the rate requirement since the 1974-75 season."—Chris!c/t 22:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC) I ran into something similar with Major League Baseball Rookie of the Year Award, and I gave qualifications a whole section there. In this case maybe note something like "This is the requirement since BLAH, with requirements changing with the schedule length several times before that"? Staxringold talkcontribs 02:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Ok, done—Chris!c/t 18:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Better, but a clumsy sentence structure (requirements repeated, with repeated) and any reason why you haven't linked that particular season, while all others are linked in the lead? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC) The link is an easy fix. As for the sentence, what do you suggest?—Chris!c/t 23:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Not a major issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There is a dead link; please check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Done

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments – "Offensive rebound occurs...". Feels like "An" should go before this. "Defensive rebound occurs...". Also feels like a lead-in word is missing from here. Comma after "1950–51 season". "He also holds the rookie records for total rebounds when he had 1,941 in the 1959–60 season." "when he had" → "with". Otherwise, it doesn't work grammatically. "Among active players, Dwight Howard has the highest season rebound total in the 2008–09 season, and Ben Wallace has the highest season rebounding average in the 2002–03 season." This reads like they were only records from those years. To fix this, I recommend moving the season to inside the parentheses, like this: (1,161 in the 2008–09 season). "while Moses Malone and Bill Russell have both won six and five rebounding titles, respectively." Lot of redundancies here. First, we don't need "rebounding titles", since the first part of the sentence makes it clear what the number represents. Also, "both" should be removed; it would only be useful if Malone and Russell had the same number of titles. The Wilt Chamberlain photo has a retouched version without the smudges on the top, which is more visually appealing than the current image. I'd recommend using that one instead. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Done all—Chris!c/t 02:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Support – Was waiting to see if Martin's comment below would get a response, but I guess it doesn't matter too much, as the criteria seem to be met. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Great list, made a few fixes and just one comment: it would be interesting to know which players that have won both the rebounding title and the MVP in the same season. — Martin tamb (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Support Made a few copy-edits for grammar and precision. The list meets FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Support (regardless of the active definition) Mm40 (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk) Do you think the second and third sentences could be merged? For example, "An offensive rebound is ... while a defensive rebound is ..." or something like that The sentence saying beginning "Rodman has also won the most consecutive..." can just be given along with the fact that he's won seven. You've given that he's won seven times twice "Russell in 1957, 1959 and 1964 to 1965 with the Boston Celtics" sounds odd – why not just list them normally? It would be useful to have a note defining "active" Consider centering the table Note [c]: "higher rebound total" → "higher rebound totals", same in notes [f], [g], [h], and more (I'll stop putting them here, please check throughout) Note [e]: "record for total rebound and" → "record for total rebounds" You link Mutombo in [k] and [m] but not in [o] Duncan is linked in both [o] and [q] All I can find in an otherwise very good list. I'll be happy to support once my nitpicks are fixed. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Fixed most of them. Is there a reason why you think "active" is not clear? It seems straightforward to me.—Chris!c/t 21:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC) It may be more of a baseball thing (where old players aren't officially "retired" but no teams are interested them), but there are some sort of gray areas. What if some young player sits out as a free agent for a year because of injury? What if they're with a team sitting out? I'm not a basketball guy (least favorite of the four major sports in the US), so I don't know how often these situations occur. The baseball project probably got a bit more strict about it after the Barry Bonds situation. Regardless, though, this should not hold up promotion. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 03:22, 7 April 2010 [33].

---

List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for the United States

Nominator(s): Anthony (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm nominating this list because it is comprehensive, fully sourced, and meets all the FLC criteria. Furthermore, it is based off the similar List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for Canada, which is a current FL. Anthony (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments: "Canada and the United States dominated the preliminary round of the 1998 tournament, and in their head-to-head match up, the United States won 7–4." - could you clarify that this match up was in the early stages, as you go on to mention that they meet in the final? Fixed. Anthony (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC) "The two teams met in the gold medal final" is 'gold medal' necessary? Fixed. Anthony (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC) "In thirteen games played between the two teams in 1997, Canada won seven and the United States won six." Could you provide a reference for this? Fixed. Anthony (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC) "Jenny Potter is the all-time leading scorer in the women's tournament at the Olympics, with 11 goals, 19 assists and 30 points." and this? Unfortunately there's no cumulative reference; it's comprised of adding up the stats from each Olympics. It's no less valid, you just have to do a little math. Anthony (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC) That's okay; just to clarify then; do you mean that she is the all-time leading scorer in the women's tournament at the Olympics for the United States? Because I read it as her being the all-time leading scorer overall.? Harrias (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Added "American" in front of scorer to clarify. Anthony (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Table looks fine and sortability works well. But, shouldn't someone with a Gold and a Silver sort above someone with just a Gold? If I knew how to do that, I certainly would. But I dont't know enough about Wiki-formatting to pull that off. Anthony (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's all from me, looks a pretty good list on the whole. Harrias (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Support Looks good, I'll have a fiddle at getting those medals to sort better for you too. Harrias (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments I agree with the comments in the previous review on sorting in the Medals column. Check out my list List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NFL Draft for some ideas. You could use {{ntsh}} and come up with a point system for sorting. I.e. 3 pts for a gold, 2 for silver, 1 for bronze. So Jenny Schmidgall-Potter would have 8 points and you would use {{ntsh|8}}. I managed to figure out how the Canadian page did it, and copied it thusly. They're now sorted by number of medals; in case of a tie, they're further ranked by the types of medals. Anthony (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC) The Notes column in the goaltender table is center justified while in the skaters table it is left justified. I suggest fixing the goaltender column. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC) The "Notes" section are actually references (see WP:FOOT). I suggest separating out the "References" section into "General" and "Specific" references (again, see my list earlier in the review). Fixed. Anthony (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Double period in the Podnieks reference. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC) No categories? Surely you can find an applicable one. Fixed. When I was working on it in my userspace I did not have categories; when I copied it over I neglected to add them. Anthony (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Might I suggest using WebCitation to archive some of those references? It would be a shame to lose some of them as they probably contain data that would be difficult to find freely elsewhere. (Not a requirement.) Not a bad idea; I might look into that. Anthony (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC) I've been hit before because the templates at the bottom of my lists did not contain a link to the article it is being used on. However, since I am unable to find a specific MOS requirement, I'll just leave it at that. (Not a requirement.) The templates contain a link to the United States women's national ice hockey team, which is the primary page. This is but a small subsection of that page, and is not really worthy of being included in a template. Perhaps if additional pages are created one might come up, but for now, there's no applicable template or link for it. Anthony (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Overall a good list. Just a couple comments/issues.—NMajdan•talk 18:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Why are goaltenders and skaters separated? Why can't you just include a position column? It would be nice to be able to sort by years-of-participation or number of medals among all athletes, and not just those two groups.
  • As you are primarily a football editor (according to your page), I will say that in hockey, goalies and skaters are always separated on account of the different stats required for each. Sortability would be a mess if you combined wins and goals-against average with assists and penalty minutes. Every hockey list separates the two; to ask otherwise would be insanity. Anthony (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, I don't know if it would be insane, per se. I do see your point, however, I still think it would be nice if I was able to sort everything together. This will not prevent my support, but I will leave this comment un-capped in case someone else has something to add.—NMajdan•talk
      • I agree with Anthony, goaltenders have a whole different set of relevant stats. Sorting them together would make no sense. Harrias (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Support. My concerns have been addressed.—NMajdan•talk 20:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I must say, I'm quite happy to see this list. Ever since I completed the lists for Canada, I've been hoping that other editors would start creating similar lists for other nations. Just a few quick comments, are two lead images really necessary? Perhaps you should use the best one (Image:USAWomen2010WinterOlympics.jpg). Also, would it be possible to add a minutes column for the goalies (I recently added one for the Canadian list). I think it's beneficial because GAA is calculated using minutes played and goals against, so it would be nice to have both pieces of the puzzle there. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Removed image, and added minutes column. Anthony (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support My concerns have been resolved. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 00:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs) "Caitlin Cahow won bronze with the American women in 2006, and added a silver in 2010." - No comma here. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC) "Erika Lawler posted 2 points in her first Olympics, and helped the Americans to a silver medal." - Same. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC) "Kerry Weiland made her Olympic debut in Vancouver, and finished with 2 points in 5 games." - Same. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC) "Molly Engstrom has 7 points in 9 Olympic games." - Not being familiar with ice hockey myself, I find has to be an awkward word choice here. Could you replace it with something like earned, received, or was awarded? "Has" is a perfectly fine word, since you said yourself you are not familiar with ice hockey, but I changed it to "scored" (which is not entirely correct, since you only "score" a goal, you don't "score" an assist, but whatever.) Anthony (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Just to be sure, has is used in ice hockey related, reliable sources in exactly this way? Personally, I find neither word to be an optimal choice. Goodraise 05:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC) "Angela Ruggiero has 6 goals and 9 assists in 21 Olympic games." - Same. This one I'm leaving, because there's no other way to say it without sounding awkward for hockey; again, you not being a hockey person would not understand, and that usage is fine across dozens of featured lists and articles on Wikipedia. Anthony (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC) I find it rather presumptuous of you to tell me I wouldn't understand something. Whether or not I'm a hockey person is irrelevant. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not personal experience. Unusual word usage such as this is no big deal, and I'm not insisting that you change it. The point is, before I can support this nomination, I have to be convinced that the usage is fine. You can convince me of that by showing me reliable sources (not other Wikipedia articles) using the word that way. Goodraise 05:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC) I apologize for being presumptuous; I've just never needed to explain word choice to someone before when it comes to hockey. Having said that, "Bergeron has five points in four games", "Christiansen has 3 points in his last two games", "Benn has five points in his last five games" are just three examples. I hope this convinces you of proper word usage. Anthony (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC) The third general reference states its title as "Results database", yet when I look at the page, I cannot find those words anywhere. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC) The second specific reference is giving a dead link. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC) The third specific reference gives "Canadian Press" as the author of the source. Sounds more like the name of a newspaper to me. Fixed. The name of the paper is the Waterloo Region Record, the publisher is Canadian Press. To be honest, I copied that one direct from the Canadian page. Anthony (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Though it is not exactly part of the criteria, I must say I find the choice of images to be less than stellar (same goes for the captions). List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for Canada does a way better job in that respect. May I inquire what is wrong with the photos? They're all high quality, color, action photos of the women's ice hockey team, playing women's ice hockey. I'm afraid I don't understand what your issue is with the photos. The Canadian women's page has the same set, except for a few where the women are not playing hockey. If that's your issue, I say you've got it backwards; if anything, there should be MORE pictures of them playing hockey, since it's a list about hockey players. If it were baseball, I'd want pictures of them swinging a bat or throwing a pitch. Standard shots of people standing around does not a good list make. Anthony (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Well, the new lead image is better already. As for the rest, pictures of them playing ice hockey are obviously better than pictures of them doing something not at all related to ice hockey, but the priority of the article is the players, not the game. The pictures should convey what these people look like and that's simply not what images like this one do. Then there's the captions. The captions of all the pictures of individual players in the Canadian list explain how that particular player stands out, while the captions in this list are mostly just restatements of what's been said in the respective player's list entry. Goodraise 05:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC) That Tueting image is the only free one I could find of her. As for the US captions vs. the Canadian captions, I honestly do not see much difference between the two. Canada mentions how many medals the players won (except for Wickenheiser and Campbell, who obviously are special players). USA does the same, except it focuses more on the stats. Both lists summarize what's in the list. At any rate, I added an image and made slight alterations to the captions on some of the images. Anthony (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC) That's it for now. Might be back with more. Goodraise 00:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutral. Did not (yet) find the time to review this extensively enough to support. Goodraise 00:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• Would be nice to see it mentioned in the lead the player who was inducted into the two halls of fame.
  • Fixed. Anthony (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
• The bold in the reference quotes strikes me as unneeded. Just having them there should be sufficient to point out the intended information. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed. I've seen it in a number of other articles, just to highlight the information, but I removed it anyway. Anthony (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Don't like a two-sentence opening para. I'd try to merge it with other essential info. I added another sentence, but there's not much else to add that's related; the similar Canadian article had 2 sentences, so I figured as an opener it would be OK. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC) "Until 1998, women's hockey had been " you mean international hockey? Fixed. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC) "Canada won seven and the United States won six" no need to repeat won. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC) "The Americans would end up taking bronze in the tournament. " prefer "The Americans ended the tournament taking the bronze medal" or similar. Not keen on the "would.. ing.." stuff. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC) "in the gold medal game, and in a repeat of 2002 the Canadians took the gold," don't repeat gold, perhaps say "in the final, and in a repeat..."? Fixed. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC) "gold medal winning team was" surely one or two hyphens here? Fixed. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Jenny Potter or Jenny Schmidgall-Potter? Fixed. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Ref. in the tables should be Ref(s). Fixed. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Skaters list sorted by medals... typically one gold exceeds any number of silver. So when sorting descendingly, Mounsey should come ahead of Darwitz and Chu etc... Fixed. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Ref 3 isn't specific enough - which page is this referring to? Fixed. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC) " In 2006" would prefer "In the 2006 Olympics" (linked per our link). Not sure where you're referring to; the only "In 2006" links to Ice hockey at the 2006 Winter Olympics. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I'm just saying you could link it like this: "In the 2006 Olympics..." The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Ahh, gotcha. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC) "(1g, 2s, 1b)." dislike this enormously. Write the words please. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC) I just took out the parentheses; they can look to the left if they want to see the specific medals. I wasn't married to that idea anyway. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Check the toolbox; there is a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know where the toolbox is, but I found a dead link and repaired it. Hope that helps. Anthony (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. For future reference, the toolbox is at the top right corner of this page. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:58, 6 April 2010 [34].

---

List of Philadelphia Flyers players

Nominator(s): Harrias (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all the FL criteria. It is based on existing ice hockey player lists, but I have added sortability to the tables. Unfortunately, due to the nature of this, the addition of SortKeys has made the article a lot larger and slightly slow to load, which is unfortunate. Harrias (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Anthony (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments: No mention is made of stats leaders, such as games played or goals scored. All the other hockey player FLs have that included somewhere in the lead. Have added in a paragraph on this, it has no specific references as the information comes from the table, which is taken from the general references. "of these Bill Barber and Bernie Parent had the most notable careers for the Flyers." - Unsourced and NPOV, should be removed. Done: have provided the full list instead. You might want to update the accessdates on the general reference websites. Done: changed as suggested. Gagne and Timonen's names are not wikilinked on the photos along the side. Done: added links. Maybe include something about how many players are in the Flyers HOF, since it's in the table. Done: added as suggested. Upon further review of the Flyers HOF, I realize a few things. One, there's no source for any of the players' inductions into the Hall. Secondly, according to this article, there's actually 20 members, not 15. You can use the article as a source, but I'd update it to reflect the new info. Anthony (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks, I've been trying to find a RS for their inductions. Although there are 20 members, only 15 of those are players; the other five are made up of non-playing staff. Harrias (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Done: added that reference in. Harrias (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Overall a good list, just missing a few things that are included in other lists. Fix these issues and I'll gladly support. Anthony (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, I've made tweaks and additions as requested. Harrias (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Support - all comments have been addressed, and list is up to FL standards. Anthony (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment – What makes the following sources reliable? http://www.flyershistory.com/ http://thehockeywriters.com/mike-richards-the-broad-street-captain/ http://www.rauzulustreet.com/hockey/nhl/philadelphia.html – Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Removed hockeywriters and rauzulustreet, left flyershistory in for the sole reason that it is a supporting source to hockeydb; all the information is at hockeydb, but for a list of this size, it's nice to have a supporting source for the information. I can remove it if you feel it is necessary though. Harrias talk 09:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I would personally feel better if the source was removed, as I feel much better about an article/list if the sources are solid. Maybe Hockey-Reference or another site has a good replacement you could use. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Done: removed as source. Harrias talk 09:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Now that the source comments are done, I'll look at the lead like I do for all the lists I review. Only found a couple things worth commenting on here: The last sentence of the first paragraph, regarding expansion, could use a cite. Done: changed as suggested. Harrias talk 21:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC) "with his 420 regular season and 563 playoffs goals." I believe "playoffs" should be singular in this case. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Done: changed as suggested. Harrias talk 21:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Support – Looks good to go. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States - Rmv the "United States" per WP:PLACE. Done: changed as suggested. Disambig Miroslav Dvorák. Done: changed as suggested. 1000 points - Should be 1,000 per WP:MOSNUM. Done: changed as suggested. Hockey Hall of Fame; - Probably need a colon here since you're listing the players immediately after. Same thing after number retired;. Done: changed as suggested. one regular-season - You hyphenate regular season here but there are several other instances in the lead where you did not. Done: changed as suggested. Kimmo Timonen and Simon Gagne. - This caption doesn't need a period since its not a full sentence. Done: changed as suggested. Stats are updated - Probably be better to spell out Statistics. Done: changed as suggested. Daggers should be superscripted. I can do this if you want; I don't particularly have anything against it. But why should they be? Again, just something that has been pointed out to me in several of my FLCs. Prior precedent if you will.—NMajdan•talk Done: changed as suggested.

• When you have a player with multiple season ranges, shouldn't the ranges be separated by a comma?
• Blank cells should use an em dash instead of a regular hyphen.
  • I disagree, many tables use en dashes as I have done here, and there is nothing that I can see in WP:MOSDASH stating that either should be preferred.
    • You're right, I don't see anything in the MOS. It's just something that has been pointed out in a couple reviews of my lists in the past.—NMajdan•talk

• I'd prefer the numerical columns (Seasons through Playoffs SV%) to be center aligned, but that's just personal preference. I won't withhold supporting the list because of this.
  • I'll leave it as it is for the moment, and see if anybody else comments on it. I'm willing to change it, but it'll be arduous, so I don't want to do it and then have three people say they prefer it as is!

—NMajdan•talk 18:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I have made most changes as suggested, but commented on a couple of them. Harrias ^talk 20:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. My most pressing concerns have been addressed. There are still a few outstanding items, but nothing large enough to prevent my support. I've left those issues uncapped for other reviewers to comment on if needed.—NMajdan•talk 13:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments Link captain the first time (if you have to), not the second. Done: changed as suggested. "number retired" could you add "by the Flyers" to be clear (particularly to non-experts) which organisation has retired the numbers? Done: changed as suggested. You don't repeat Clarke's first name in the third paragraph but you do repeat Barber's... Done: removed Barber's first name. 1,000 points vs 1817 minutes... be consistent with the comma separators. Done: changed to 1,817. "17 of them were" MOS doesn't like starting sentences with numbers. Done: written number out in full per MOS. Any particular reason why the names are listed by surname? That's how all the other hockey FLs are listed. Is Biron's caption (deadline day trade) cited anywhere? Done: added citation. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, I have responded to them all above. Harrias talk 11:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:58, 6 April 2010 [35].

---

List of Dragonair destinations

Nominator(s): Aviator006 (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I am in the process of nominating for Cathay Pacific Group for Good Topic and need to bring its relevant lists to FL-status. The article has been overhauled into table format, completely researched and referenced. Aviator006 (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple of comments: Alt-text should describe only what is visible in the picture for a viewer not familiar with the subject. For instance, I cannot see that the second pic shows Hong Kong Kai Tak Airport or the third pic shows Guangzhou's Baiyun Airport (this info is already in the caption). You might leave out information which is not relevant to the article such as "blue sky background" in the first picture. Corrected. Aviator006 (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Better, but still could be improved. 1st picture: If I don't know what "Dragonair's livery" looks like, the alt text is not very informative. Try to describe what it looks like (dragon at the back, some Chinese characters and "Dragonair"). 2nd picture's alt-text is good. 3rd picture: It is not obvious (at least to me) that the structure in the back is an airport building. Just discovered the parked planes, so 3rd picture's alt-text is ok. bamse (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Updated to read, 'An aircraft painted in white, with a red dragon on its tail and the name Dragonair in both English and Traditional Chinese on the fuselage, taxiing on the taxiway'. Aviator006 (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Note that alt text is no longer required by the FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Oh, didn't know that. Sorry for making such a fuss. In any case the alt-text is good now. bamse (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC) "... 11 countries and territories": What does "territories" refer to? (Unfortunately) Hong Kong is not a country and depends who you talk to, the Republic of China is questionable, hence, using the term territories. I have now added a wikilink to [[Territory (administrative division)|territories]]. Aviator006 (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC) OK. bamse (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC) " In the coming years...": Proper tense? Updated to 'In the following years,' Aviator006 (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC) "more cities in China and other countries within the Asia-Pacific region, including Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Japan, Nepal, Philippines, Republic of China, South Korea and Vietnam": either replace the country names (other than "China") with city names or add a "to" after "and". 'to' added as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC) bamse (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC) ...and some more: "...cargo division...operated to...": Is this good English? Updated to read 'The airline's cargo division, Dragonair Cargo, operated a fleet of Boeing only aircraft to...' Aviator006 (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC) "...freighter fleet were...": maybe "were"->"was"? Corrected as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC) "The destination list shows airports that have been served by Dragonair as part of its scheduled passenger and cargo services since 1985": maybe add "since its founding in" to make clear that "since 1985" is not a restriction on the list. Updated as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Remove the "s" on "codes" in: "The list includes the city, country, the codes..." Sentence updated and the 's' relates to IATA airport code and ICAO aiport code, hence, it is not removed. Aviator006 (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Replace "Official website" in the external links section with something more descriptive. I believe 'Official website' is the correct way of doing it on Wikipedia. Arsenikk (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Probably could be in some more categories. [[Category:Cathay Pacific]] added. Aviator006 (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Please explain what a "not continual service" is and what " for dates which occur in the future." means and refers to. These two phrases are no longer used in the article. The paragraph previously contained these two phrases have been rewritten. Aviator006 (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC) I see. I was just a bit surprised to see this comment disappear from this page without any notice... How is "Non-continuous service" (appears twice) defined? bamse (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Apologies, I have accidentally deleted it when I update with feedback. Anyway, I have now added '(services to those destinations that have been suspended or terminated and subsequently resumed or recommenced)' to define it. Aviator006 (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC) OK, if you get rid of the parantheses I am ready to support. bamse (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC) I couldn't just remove the parantheses as the sentence will no longer make sense. I have rephrased the sentence to 'Additionally, there are labels for airports that: have been served by cargo or regular charter service only, are the airline's hub, or have services suspended or terminated and subsequently been resumed or recommenced.' Does this sounds better? Aviator006 (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Very good! Just one more question: What is a "regular charter service" as compared to a "charter service"?bamse (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Regular charter service is like scheduled service, but is not part of the air services agreement between the two countries. Charter service is a single ad-hoc service. Aviator006 (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC) and one more... Would it be feasible to add (as a footnote or so) the dates (years) when a non-continuous service was suspended/resumed? bamse (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately, I believe this will be too messy for those airlines that have a lot of non-continuous services to show in the article. However, the information is in hidden text in edit mode and in the citation. Aviator006 (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC) bamse (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Support: All comments (very patiently) addressed. bamse (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

;Comments Either 'Hong Kong Dragon Airlines Limited' or 'Dragonair' should be linked, not both of them. Otherwise, you lure the reader to think they are two different articles. Wikilink removed from 'Hong Kong Dragon Airlines Limited'. Aviator006 (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 'wholly owned' should have a hyphen. Hyphenated as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC) The lead is a bit short. Perhaps mention how Dragonair differs from Cathay Pacific; is it a regional airline? Perhaps also mention the former use of Kai Tak Airport as a hub. The lead expanded as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC) There should probably be a 'the' in front of 'Republic of China'. Consider added '(Taiway)' after that, as most people know what Taiwan is, but keeping track of republics and people's republics and whatnot is a bit tedious. Updated to 'Republic of China (Taiwan)'. Aviator006 (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 'air operator's certificate' is a common noun, and should be in lower-case. The article should be moved. The term is used as is throughout Wikipedia, if such change is needed, it needs to be applied globally. I believe it should be discussed outside of this Review. Aviator006 (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC) The description seems to contradict itself, as it first states "...scheduled services..." and later "...only operated charter services..." If this not a typo, then I believe there has been established consensus at WP:Airlines to not include charter services, based among other things on that charter services would involve directory-like entries at an AfD for some three to four years ago now. Paragraph rephrased, please review. Aviator006 (talk) 07:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC) The prose mentions "charter only" services, but there is none in the key. Also, "charter only" should use a hyphen. Key now included 'Regular charter service only'. Paragraph rephrased as mentioned in comment above. Aviator006 (talk) 07:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC) By "main hub", do you mean there are multiple hubs? If so, these should also be indicated, if necessary as "focus city". If not, just use hub. Also, do not caps the second word. No, only single hub, hence, updated to 'Hub'. Aviator006 (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC) It is a bit of an overlink to link 'Dragonair' in the two top images. Wikilinks removed as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC) The third image should use an en dash, not a hyphen, as punctuation. See WP:DASH. Corrected as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC) I am a bit weary to include 'unknown' in the table. That essentially means the list is incomplete, unless, of course, it is regarded by reliable sources as unknown. But it might pass, since there is only a single instance. But to be a bit strict, there might be some mention of this in Japanese news sources... Japanese source obtained. Aviator006 (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC) I would have though it was unnecessary to use both the old and new Hong Kong flags; limit to the flag at the time the operation ceased. Old Hong Kong flag removed as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC) New York city needs to link to 'New York City', although it can be piped to New York. Correct to wikilink to [[New York City|New York]]. Aviator006 (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC) The alt texts need to be a bit more concrete, look at WP:ALT. They should not contain proper nouns, but unlike other places on Wikipedia can use subjective terms. One of the flags has an alt-text, and it should be empty. (set alt=) Alt texts updated. Aviator006 (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC) The use of ref groups is perhaps not the best idea. How about just using the raw formatting <sup>[Cargo]</sup> to create the "box". Please elaborate your concern. I see them particularly useful for a long table to be able to click to see its definition. Aviator006 (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC) As 'Cathay Pacific destinations' is mentioned in the navbox, there is no need to have it in the see also section. Section removed as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC) In the last two external links, 'destinations' and 'network' should be lower-case. Un-capitalised as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Only a single source is not from Dragonair or Cathay Pacific. Perhaps you could take a look at online newspapers, particularly for newer instances, to establish independent sources. I'm not saying they all have to be independent (particular older entries), but there needs to be a fair bit of independent verification. Alternate citations added. Aviator006 (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC) I would have though it better to either limit to one image under 'destinations' and let the table receive full width, or add additional images of destination airports. Additional images included. Aviator006 (talk) 07:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC) I find the top image a bit cropped. Are there any images of full aircraft available? New image included. Aviator006 (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Nice to see aviation lists at FLC. Arsenikk (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC) All feedback reviewed and updated. Aviator006 (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC) There are several things which have not been seen to: Could you mention how many of the services are codeshare. '3' has been added into the lead where codeshare is mentioned. Aviator006 (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC) AOC still capitalized. Please explain to me the logic of why it should be capitalized, and don't feed me WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you can explain the grammatical implications (for all intents why 'Air Operator's Certificate' is a proper noun) I will let it pass. Most people who have been writing a lot of the aviation articles are really bad writers, and aviation articles are among those with the most capitalization errors. Term uncapped as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC) References are still all to Dragonair or Cathay Pacific As per my sign off on the 26th, there were more than a dozen non-KA/CX citations, compared to 1 initially reported. Aviator006 (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC) The [cargo] etc boxes should be in plain text, to avoid unnecessary linking Linked labels removed. Aviator006 (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Could you come with a slightly more precise definition of "regular charter". Definition added with citation. Aviator006 (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Arsenikk (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC) What makes ref 7 ("Goodbye Kai Tak") a reliable source? Alternate reference added. Aviator006 (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC) A lot of the references use spaced emdashes, see WP:DASH. Corrected to endashes. Aviator006 (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Arsenikk (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments "in Hong Kong; with its corporate headquarters" not sure you need that ;, perhaps a comma, but not the ;. Corrected as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Don't really think Chairman requires a wikilink. Corrected as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC) However, consider linking alliance to Airline alliance (after Oneworld) Linked as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC) "Dragonair Flight 841 from Chongqing was the airport's last scheduled arrival flight and the aircraft landed on runway 13 at 15:38 GMT (23:38 Hong Kong time) on 8 July 1998." quite a bit over the top for me really. Do I need to know the precise time and runway on which the last flight landed? 'and the aircraft landed on runway 13 at 15:38 GMT (23:38 Hong Kong time) on 8 July 1998' removed from article. Aviator006 (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Shanghai and Hong Kong should be linked on all instances in the table, due to sorting, who knows which one will come first... Linked as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC) End sorts peculiarly - you should force the "present" to sort as, say, 2010. I have used {{sort|2100|present}} to enable sorting. Also, to ensure the 'present' will sorted as last. Aviator006 (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Ref should be Refs. Corrected as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Additional comments reviewed and updated. Aviator006 (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Done well to (patiently) address the concerns raised by others. Sb617 (Talk) 00:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:58, 6 April 2010 [36].

---

List of Washington & Jefferson College alumni

Nominator(s): GrapedApe (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to nominate this list of alumni for featured list review. It was written to follow the precedent of recent lists of alumni. It has has undergone a thorough (and helpful) peer review. Hopefully it is good enough for Featured List designation. GrapedApe (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment I notice that alt text has been added, but right now it merely duplicates the image captions, which is not the purpose of alt text. Alt text describes only what you can see in the picture without external information (i.e. it must be verifiable), which means alt text such as "Andrew Wylie" is largely useless since nobody knows what Wylie looks like. Instead, describe what Wylie looks like; a common analogy to writing alt text is to pretend that you are describing the photo to someone over the phone. See the alt text at List of University of Central Florida alumni, a recently promoted Featured list, for an alumni list that has good alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• I see. I'm on it. --GrapedApe (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I gave it a try. Hope that works better.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • It does look a lot better, thanks. There are still a couple images whose alt texts need to be improve, such as the image of Stephen Foster and the picture of John Astin. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Moot point now, since alt text is no longer part of the FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BencherliteTalk 21:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

;Comments from Bencherlite My standard question for alumni lists – what steps have you taken to try to make the list as comprehensive as possible? I'm not looking for proof that you've got all the notable alumni in the list, since that would be virtually impossible to do or to prove; I'm just looking for an idea as to how you've gone about finding names to add to the list, whether you've written articles for people who were obviously missing from Wikipedia, whether there's an outside list of notable alumni that you were working from, etc. I checked the contents of Category:Washington & Jefferson College alumni for additions. I also created articles for a lot of early professional sportsmen from the college. Also, I looked through the Biographical and Historical Catalogue' for any names that stood out, especially prominent politicians,judges, and Presidents of colleges. Here are a few articles I wrote to fill in the gaps (William Burnett (preacher), Joseph Smith (1796–1869), George D. Archibald, Latimer A. McCook, Thomas Stokeley Wilson, Ethelbert Patterson Oliphant, Samuel Dexter LeCompte, George Addison Crawford, Edwin Nevin, William Burnett (preacher)). - GrapedApe That's good enough for me on this point. BencherliteTalk 08:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC) No dab links Alt text still needs work: "Freshmen celebrate their first evening at Washington & Jefferson College" for the first image isn't a description of the image for alt-text purposes (think of telling us instead roughly how many people there are, what they are doing, where they are positioned, and the words of the caption). Alt-text is dull to do, I know, but you do need more than "Black and white full torso photo of a Caucasian male" to give a proper description. The images are quite small - what happens if you try removing the "100px" limitations? I was following the format from List of United States Military Academy alumni (academics). References - these comments are not exhaustive Where your reference title is along the lines of "ANDERSON, James Patton, (1822 - 1872)", you need to remove the all-caps even if they're in the source, i.e. "Anderson" done Ref 4 is incomplete (needs date/acccessdate) done Ref 15 with "Elm street printing company" - enough capital letters? Ditto ref 21 done The lists – general comments on a relatively brief read Any reason why the width of "state and local" differs from the rest? I have no idea. It probably has something to do with the alumni/start template. Personally, I think you don't need to link Washington & Jefferson College in the notes at all, certainly not as much as you do. The usual guide is to link more in sortable lists so that people can find links quickly, but when the opening words on the page are "Washington & Jefferson College", it's hardly difficult to find the link. There is certainly no need to link the college twice in some notes, as you do e.g. for Boyd Crumrine Patterson. If you've got a President of W&J, consider linking to the presidents' list instead. done Academia Thomas D. Baird: no need to link common terms like "mathematics" done Frederick E. Grine's notes shouldn't have a full-stop (not a complete sentence) done John McDowell Leavitt: has a ",;" in the middle done Francis Julius LeMoyne's notes should start with a capital letter; also you have "nationally known" (without hyphen) and "historically-black" (with hyphen), and I read in MOS:HYPHEN that "A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb", so you should change it to "historically black" done Jacob Lindley's notes should start with a capital letter; also, do you need to mention that he was educated at Dod's log college in the notes as well as in the year column? done Alfred Ryors: overlinking of Indiana and Ohio universities done John Work Scott: "vice" not "Vice" as you're not at the start of a sentence done Joseph Smith: "grandson" not "Grandson" as you're not at the start of a sentence done Military Any reason to link the Confederate State Army in the first note but not the Union army in the second? done John Byers Anderson: is there a missing "and" after Cumberland done Maxwell Hunter: two "Worked" mid-sentence, should be "worked" done Daniel McCook: stray mid-sentence capitals (Officer, His) done Henry Christopher McCook: stray mid-sentence capitals done Actually, I'm not going to point stray mid-sentence capitals out any more, you find them please! I think I found them all George W. Morgan: any reason for the ? there? (Something similar in ref 117) done That will do for now. The list looks in generally good shape, but needs a fair amount of polishing. I'll return with more suggestions when you've responded to this batch. BencherliteTalk 22:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note to nominator Please do not strike reviewers' comments; the reviewers themselves decide when issues are resolved (I changed the strikes to indented and italicized "dones" where appropriate). Dabomb87 (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Took a brief look at the Athletics section, and am curious as to why Head Coach is capitalized three times (by my count). I don't believe it's a proper noun. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 12:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• More comments from Bencherlite I have a number of minor points which I have put on the talk page of this FLC to avoid cluttering up the front page. Bencherlite^Talk 00:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• These appear to have been addressed as well, for the most part. So, what's left?
  • Some of the alt-text is still inadequate, even under the recently loosened guidance: "Caucasian female smiling at the camera", "Color photo of a Caucasian male", "Black and white photo of Caucasian male in a chair", "John Astin", "Photo of a bearded man" and I could go on. The alt text for the lead image basically restates the caption. Even though I'm not the world's greatest fan of WP:ALT, this isn't close enough to being adequate for me to be able to ignore it in good conscience while alt-text is still one of the FL criteria.
  • Some of the references give the publisher as "W&J College", others as "Washington & Jefferson College". Any reason for the difference? - I changed them all to Washington & Jefferson College
• If the alt-text can be improved, I'd be prepared to support but not just yet. Bencherlite^Talk 21:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the help so far. I will get to the alt text in the next few days. --GrapedApe (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Support as alt text is no longer part of the Featured List criteria. Of course, if that situation changes before this FLC ends, you'll need to comply with whatever half-baked the new standard is! Bencherlite^Talk 21:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support prose – Read through the lead and the writing looks okay for the most part. The one part I wasn't crazy about was "with Jefferson College in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania being chartered in 1802 and Washington College being chartered in 1806." I've never been a fan of these "with + being..." type of sentences; perhaps "; Jefferson College in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania was chartered in 1802 and Washington College was chartered in 1806" could be considered? I also skimmed through the sources, and what I saw looked good as far as reliability goes; however, I didn't check the tables other than the athletics one before, so this shouldn't be considered a 100% support. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments What's CEO? - I linked it to Chief executive officer "These three log cabin colleges" no need to repeat three here. - done Or indeed, log cabin... - done "had 12,000 living alumni" exactly? - done "Before the union of the two colleges in 1865," you just mentioned 1865 two sentences prior... - done 12,000 vs 1936. Be comma-separator consistent.- done Alumni is linked on its second use.- done Is it true that "These graduates " equals students "who have completed at least one college year as full-time students"? One year makes a graduate? - I think I clarified this In Safari, the key overlaps the lead image. - I don't really know how to remedy this problem. I added a {{clear}} template to remedy this. Jujutacular T · C 18:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC) "where he was the lone vote " his was the lone vote...? - done Business section - the ? sorts curiously for me in Safari. Force it to sort as a zero. - done Ewing's class year seems to be forced to sort as something (despite it being a ?). Are you consistently applying some kind of logic in every section because it doesn't appear so to me. - I think I cleared the sort issues Ref 28 - needs an en-dash.- done Ref 33 appears to have double " - done Ref 40, 64, 192, 237 have a human-readable date while all others in the refs are ISO. - done Ref 70 needs an en-dash. - done Ref 87, 129, do they need the space between the year and the en-dash. - done Why is ref 169 spaced en-dash? - done Ref 182 - en dash required. - done Many ref's need attendance - this is the version with the specific numerical ref values I've noted above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Ref 10 - spare period. - the second period is added by the reference template, since the publisher name has a period at the end: "Co." To change it to remove that period would create an inaccurate reference. Ref 57, 235 - spare period. - the second period is added by the reference template, since the publisher name has a period at the end: "Co." To change it to remove that period would create an inaccurate reference. Not inaccurate at all. Just one less period. How is ".." more accurate? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Because the first period is part of the name of the publisher, while the second period is part of the citation style. To put another way, each period is serving a purpose: one is part of the name of the publisher, while the other is part of the citation format. To change it would introduce error into the citation: the name of the publisher will be incorrect. At least that's how I understand it. I don't believe the second period is necessary; similarly I would not write "Barack Obama is the president of the U.S.. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Fair point. Changed.--GrapedApe (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC) I would add a (s) to the Reference heading as there is oftentimes more than one. - I'm an unclear about what this means i.e. make the col heading Reference(s). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC) This does not appear to be a parameter in the {{Alum}} template that can alter that. Suggestions? I changed the template source code to reflect this discussion. [37] Is it really necessary to repeat "U.S. Congressional Representative" for every single line in the U.S. Congressmen section? - Do you have any suggestions on another way to note this? Don't continually repeat the phrase. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Changed. Col widths are all over the place from section to section. I'd like to see them fixed. - I used the standard {{Alum}} series of templates. I did that so that the widths would be automatic. Also, the column widths look the same to me (on firefox) Not the same in Safari. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC) I don't know how I can alter the {{Alum}} template to fix this problem. Especially since I can't see the problem. Any suggestions? Fixed column width was one of the design goals of {{mem/a}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks! I will work over the next few days to make the switch!--GrapedApe (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Something's gone awry in the "Military and aerospace" section... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Fixed. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Changed to the {{mem/a}} template. Did that work for Safari?--GrapedApe (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC) After making that change, it became clear that there was no way to have the class years all on 1 line, so I changed the coding to a wikitable, like List of Brigham Young University alumni and List of University of Central Florida alumni. This should take care of all of the aforementioned problems (class years on multiple lines, references, and column widths.--GrapedApe (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC) "Eaton, Samuel John Mills; Woods, Henry (1902)" should be a general ref so you only need to specify author and page number(s) each re-use. - I am not sure how to do this. Could you please do one as an example Check out some of our recently promoted FLs for help here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC) In progress. This might take a while, since there are multiple editions of this book (1889/1902) that are used.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Status update: I have completed this process for the "Academia" and " Military and aerospace" sections. Please let me know if I am doing it wrong.--GrapedApe (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Done! All of the cites for that book are now short refs. All of the 1889 references were repaginated to match the 1902 version (a superior edition anyways).--GrapedApe (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support Looks great, good work. Jujutacular ^T · C 04:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ImGz (t/c) 12:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

*Comments There should be a space between the "p." and the page number in your specific references. done I think having the 1902 in the specific references is superfluous - you're only using that version. According to WP:CITESHORT, the years are not superfluous CITESHORT says that 'many articles use', not that it's required. Whether it is included or not seems to be left to the discretion of the author (Mary Rose vs. 21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry) I'm not sure what the MOS says about this, I can't find anything on a quick run through, but I do not think it's necessary for each specific page reference to have a link to the book/page when the general reference already links to it. Maybe it's not necessary, but it's helpful. The general reference should have the book ISBN or the OCLC. done McGuffey, Baird, Hunter, Oliver, Cowan, Dallis, Ewing - watch for stray punctuation at the end of the notability description. done Several instances of capitalization inconsistencies - "professor of mathematics" vs. "Professor of Languages and Philosophy", "president" vs. "President", "college" vs. "College" (example of this one is: grandson of College founder, Joseph Smith vs. studied under college founder John McMillan). All clarified "first President of President of Franklin College" huh? fixed Morgan - shows odd formatting for me right before the years listed. I don't see any odd formatting there. Stoffel - why is "majored in mathematics and physics" in the notability description? Why is his majors listed and not others? If I came across interesting information about an alumni about their time at the W&J, I tried to find a way to include it. (like at Walter B. Massenberg, Nicholas P. Dallis, Charles Page Thomas Moore, Martin Delaney, Alberto Vilar, Stephen Foster James McGready, and Al Helfer). (Also, I majored in mathematics at W&J, so it amused me). Fair enough. Voorhis - "left college to enlist in the Spanish–American War" which college would this be at this point? left Washington & Jefferson college to enlist.. or left the College to enlist.. clarified Helfer - "Mr. Radio Baseball;" should be "Mr. Radio Baseball"; done Smith - "a Historically Black College" capitalization? done Meyers - which newspaper? If it's defunct/red link you don't have to link it, but mentioning it might not be amiss since you mentioned that he published a newspaper. done External links - please clarify exactly what W&J stands for at the beginning of the article. Reading through the article this is the first time I'm seeing the abbreviations mentioned outside of the references. --ImGz (t/c) 04:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Used full name there Towler - "he was a 5x Pro-Bowler" not everybody is aware of what "5x" means. done Numbers one through nine should be spelled out. --ImGz (t/c) 12:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support --ImGz (t/c) 14:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 07:37, 6 April 2010 [38].

---

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Songs from the 1980s

Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am re-nominating this for featured list because all comments for improvement were adressed. Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk) In the ALT text of the Los Lobos image, you should mention the number of men performing. In Chayanne's ALT text, how about "singing into a microphone" rather than "holding a microphone"? Fixed! In the first sentence of the lead, the comma should go after the parenthesis listing former names Fixed! "record chart that is based on" Fixed! You repeat "information" three times in the first two sentences; is there any way you can reduce this usage? Fixed! "Previous to this charts inception" → "Before this chart's inception" needs to be possessive for "charts", and "Before" sounds better (IMO) than "Previous to" Fixed! "which continue to be listed" → "which continues to be listed" Fixed! "in September 6, 1986" → "on September 6, 1986", I think. Same thing with the date next sentence Fixed! "However, in the the listings" – fix the double "the" Fixed! "number-one" shouldn't be hyphenated when used as a noun, only as an adjective. Thus, "first number-one song" is correct, but "also reached number one", "peaked at number one", and "simultaneously peak at number one in the". The last three examples I gave need to have their commas remove Fixed! In the second paragraph of the lead, "Un Hombre Solo" should be "Un hombre solo" (note capitalization) to match the article's title Fixed! You can cut out "produced by Taylor Hackford and written and directed by Luis Valdez" in the third paragraph, as it's not really relevant to this article. Fixed! "were the artists with the most number-one hits" can be more concise as "released the most number-one hits" Fixed! A personal stylistic preference, but I think the table would be better completely centered. This can be done by adding style="text-align:center;" after class="sortable wikitable", and removing all other align="center" I like the table as is, but if you think is better centered I can change it. The third column should be "Reached number one", without the comma Fixed! There's an extra space before "¿Y Quién Puede Ser?" in the table I do not know how to fix that, since the extra space is because of the sortkey, can you help me? Gabriel's caption needs a period/full stop at the end. Fixed! Consider adding Chayanne's nationality in his caption Fixed! Reference 9 is in French (I think) Fixed! References 8 and 13 need periods/full stops at the end, as does the one book listed under References Fixed! This article isn't linked in the second navbox at the page's bottom ({{Latin Pop Airplay}}), so it should be removed Fixed! This is a very nice list: appealing, engaging, and useful (despite my laundry list of issues above). I'm looking forward to supporting once these are dealt with. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Support: a nice list, well presented. Good work. Harrias (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Support I copy-edited the lead a bit, but could otherwise find nothing to fix. The list meets all of the FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments "Spanish-speaking radio stations" perhaps "Spanish-language" as radio stations don't, themselves, speak... Billboard Hot 100 is overlinked. I've fixed both of the above, and did some copyediting of my own. Mm40 (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Are all of these consecutive weeks at number one or are some non-consecutive? Worth a note. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC) I don't quite understand the question. In the list a few songs had separate chart runs at number one, like "Fuiste un Trozo de Hielo en la Escarcha", "Fría Como el Viento" and "Ay Amor", do you want me to clarify this? Jaespinoza (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Just worth noting that a record that is listed more than once is because it's a non-consecutive number one. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Fixed! Jaespinoza (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry to be picky but why shouldn't "¿Y Quién Puede Ser?" list between "Y Ahora Te Vas" and "Y Tú También Llorarás"? I have been trying so hard for that. I don't know if the sortkey does not work, or maybe I'm not doing it right. I have been trying several times to place this song between "Y Ahora Te Vas" and "Y Tú También Llorarás" but I do not know how to do it properly, can somebody help me? Fixed sorting. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks! Jaespinoza (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 21:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment A weird change in verb usage in the first paragraph: "The data were compiled...", "This data is compiled..." Jujutacular T · C 19:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Looks good. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:31, 3 April 2010 [39].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Viv Richards

Nominator(s): Harrias (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because we just don't have enough cricket featured lists! Seriously though, another one of these lists of cricket centuries, modelled off those that have gone before. Harrias (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Just one quick thing (I know nothing about cricket), but should "North Marine Road Ground" (in the ODI centuries table) be "North Marine Road" to match the linked article? I don't care either way, just checking if you do. Mm40 (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Done: Changed link. Harrias ^talk 07:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - all looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

;Comments: one of the greatest batsman --> one of the greatest batsmen fast century --> fastest century Replace 189* (and similar ones) in the lead with something like "unbeaten 189" or "189 not out". This is ok in the table since it needs to be concise and the key is there, but this would not be clear in the lead section. His ODI record of 189 has been surpassed by three batsmen and matched by one ([40]). The article makes it sound like he's still in second place, so make this clear. Perhaps add another note? Perhaps follow x/y format (xth test of y) for the "Test" column? This is used in List of international cricket centuries by Donald Bradman, List of international cricket centuries by Brian Lara etc, and makes it's meaning clearer I think. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Done Harrias talk 13:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments Just a quick RS query - what makes rediff.com reliable? To be honest, I'm not big on knowing how to prove RS. However, just looking at the wikipedia page for Rediff.com, it sounds pretty reliable. I'm sure I can find an alternative source for that info if you want though? Works for me, cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Don't think you need to link countries like England. The teams, yes, but the countries? Don't think so. Done: Removed England, but left Antigua, as it's less known. "Richards' 24 Test centuries are the third most by a West Indian batsman, trailing Brian Lara's 34 and Sobers' 26." don't like this at all. Perhaps "Richards has the third-highest number of centuries for the West Indies, behind ..."? Done: fixed as suggested. Notes 1 and 2 are unreferenced. Done: The references were provided at the end of the sentence the note was in. Added the reference in the note too now though. "70 minute record" - 70-minute. Done: fixed as suggested. Date ranges in the refs need en-dashes. Done: fixed as suggested. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. Harrias talk 20:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment — Seeing that there is no images in the ODI section, why cant we have the number of balls faced ... I know I'm being annoying but it would be handy, probably more so than Strike rate. —Aaroncrick (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Done: added as suggested. Harrias ^talk 09:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support —Aaroncrick (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

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