Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/October 2012

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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 15:44, 28 October 2012 [1].

---

List of cities in Uttar Pradesh

Nominator(s): ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC) and User:25 Cents FC 19:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is a comprehensive list of cities in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, 67 cities with a population over 100,000 people. For anybody wanting to explore the cities in the state this is an excellent starting point, order by population size, and just by viewing the list alone will familiarize yourself with a lot of the names. The data is all sourced to latest census figures and I believe it is sound as a featured quality list with relevant background info, map and photos of the larger cities. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose

1. Map is wrong. Lucknow and Kanpur are not that apart. They are just 70 kms from each other.
2. Photograph of Kanpur (the biggest city)?
3. "The Himalayas lies in the north of the state and the Deccan Plateau is at the south". Deccan Plateau to the south? wrong. Deccan Plateau is far away not just south of Uttar Pradesh.
4. "Uttar Pradesh can be divided into two distinct regions, Southern hills and Gangetic plain" - Citation needed.
5. "The central and western regions are densely populated regions of Uttar Pradesh" - Source needed, and I believe that this is completely wrong.
6. The Legend at the bottom of the table says "CT=Census Town". There is no mention of neither "CT" nor "Census Town" in the article.
7. The Type column in the table is unsubstantiated. I believe it is wrong. Areas in India are classified into 4 types:Municipal Corporation/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayat/Gram Panchayat. Refer File:Setup of India.png. In this case, I guess the last two categories may not come into play.
8. The "Census of Uttar Pradesh" section does not look relevant.
9. Biggest Blunder - The population figures in the table doesn't match with the source.

--Anbu121 (talk me) 21:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Whats a "city" by the way? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 21:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

• My biggest and primary concern with this list is that the title reads "List of cities in Uttar Pradesh" and lists populations of urban agglomerations. This overlaps with "List of urban agglomerations constituents in Uttar Pradesh". Also is there a specific criterion for defining a city
• "borders with National Capital Territory of Delhi?" I don't think so, many area like Ghaziabad, Noida and Meerut belong to UP, although they come under the NCT
• The first five lines in the lede are unsourced
• "under 18 divisions" is not verified by the source
• "The central and western regions are densely populated regions of Uttar Pradesh. As of 2011, 67 cities in the state had a population of over 100,000 people" unsourced
• "The sex ratio as of 2011, at 908 women to 1000 men, is lower than the national figure of 933", ditto
• Is there is a source that explicitly states, "Because of both a large population and a high population growth rate, Uttar Pradesh figure among the list of states with large number of people living below poverty line"
• 199,581,477 million?
• "Kanpur is the largest city with 1,640 square kilometres (630 sq mi) area having an approximate population of over 3 million which comes under Kanpur Metropolitan Area". This needs clarity, as it's impossible to have such a huge area for an Indian city. The 1640 figure corresponds to the area of the Metropolitan area
• The first two lines of the second para in "Census of Uttar Pradesh" are unsourced
• There is a mix of data representation between million and lakhs. Be consistent
• Ref #12 is leads to the 2001 district data
• Ref #10 leads to district data and ref #11 corresponds to 2001 town data
• Why is " Government of India" italicised in refs
• PDF refs needs the format to be specified
• Ref #9 needs formatting
• Cats need to be sorted alphabetically
• Above all these are just provisional population figures and the final results are yet to be released

• The biggest problem is that there is factual inaccuracy and data mismatch. Given the number of concerns, I may have to oppose this list at the moment.
  

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments as well as the above:

• "Uttar Pradesh can be " followed by "Uttar Pradesh is divided" is repetitive.
• You repeat "Uttar Pradesh" five times in five sentences, this isn't elegant prose.
• " with 1,640 square kilometres (630 sq mi) area " grammatically weak. Perhaps "with an area of..."
• "over 3 million " -> three million.
• "2001–2011" (see WP:YEAR) vs "r 2004-05" (see WP:DASH as well).
• "The sex ratio" normally we'd refer to this as gender wouldn't we?
• "high population of state have" do you mean "has..."?
• "The Scheduled castes and Harijans are also exits in state" I don't know what this sentence actually means.
• What is BPL?
• What is "lakh people"?
• What is the context for it being "the largest BPL population"?
• Your gallery section is called "Cities and towns", this is about cities right?
• You need to be clear up front about the inclusion criteria for this list, not embed it somewhere in the middle of the lead.
• When sorting the table, the final row (which has a colspan of 30, not sure why) is included in the sort and therefore breaks it.
• Tables need to comply with WP:ACCESS for row and col scopes for the benefit of screenreaders.
• Literacy Rate -> Literary rate.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

This was a nom for 25 who asked for me to nom it. I added the map and the table and background made it seem a worthwhile candidate. Feel free to close this AFD, its clearly faulty. A shame none of you brought this up in the peer review..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Two points from me. (1) It's an FLC, not and AFD. (2) I wasn't invited to participate in the peer review. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry RM, wasn't referring to you, I was referring to the others, I thought this was advertised at WP:India noticeboard.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't. --Anbu121 (talk me) 15:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Mmm, I hope he doesn't do that again, sorry that you weren't alerted in such an obvious place to ask for input.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. TBrandley 14:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to close this FLC, its clearly faulty...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:01, 28 October 2012 (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 not promoted by NapHit 14:01, 27 October 2012 [2].

---

List of Archbishops of Vancouver

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Finally decided to nominate a non-baseball list for once. I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly and meets all 6 criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Question any reason for this to be a stand-alone list and not part of Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The previous embedded list in the Archdiocese article was unsourced and contained only the incumbent's name and tenure in years. Since this list contains more details about every archbishop (e.g. the "Notes" section and the lead), I think this merits to be a standalone list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, but only eleven entries. I don't think this would be UNDUE in the main article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the rule of thumb at least 10 entries to qualify for FL? That was an early sticking point in this FLC I nominated. And from that precedent, all that is required is that the entries have substantial information about themselves. The addition of the "Notes" section satisfies that requirement. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• I actually would have supported that one as there was no good place to merge it. This one... if consensus is that this is solid enough to stand on its own, look for a fuller review from me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. And thank you for expressing support for the 20–20–20 club list. I tried to get it passed, but too many users thought it failed criteria 3b (and then gave ridiculous ideas of where to merge it into). —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - if we want this to be a really useful standalone list, then let's talk about the Archbishops. I want to see more info in their notes, not just "appointed" and "resigned" which effectively is already in the From and Until columns. Specifically:

• "He is in charge of looking after..." reads a little colloquially, "He is responsible for ..."?

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• You could link Archbishop of Vancouver in the lead.

• Unfortunately, there's no separate article for that. Only this list specifically covers the subject in question. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Any reason why " Vicariate Apostolic " is capitalised?

• It's a proper title, the ranked lower than a "Diocese of..." or an "Archdiocese of..." —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Seems odd that Vancouver is linked only midway through the second para of the lead.

• Done. Linked at the very first sentence. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Avoid that bold linking per WP:CONTEXTLINK. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• And then linked twice.

• Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• "present" messes the sorting up.

• Sorry, but I'm not sure what I should do with this. Should I remove the sorting, or replace "present" with another term (could you suggest a word?). —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• No, it's just that using text in a column which you expect to sort by number is problematic. "present" is fine, but it needs to sort later than any other year in chronological order... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• How should I do this? —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• See WP:YEAR for format of year ranges within a century.

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments "He" in second sentence should be "the person", perhaps I think "He" is better as it is more specific (and more appropriate, since the position can only be held by a male). —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC) "Eleven" should be "11" per WP:MOSNUM It states "numbers greater than nine, if they are expressed in one or two words, may be rendered in numerals or in words". Since this number only entails one word, I prefer the word format (IMO it is more formal). —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC) "List of Ordinaries" header is a violation of MOS:CAPS, ordinaries should be in capitals The word "Ordinaries" is already in capitals. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC) What's the reasoning for the color of the table, should it even be there, what's the reasoning. Looks a lot like a WP:ACCESS and WP:COLOR violation, but not really much of color The color purple is utilized for ecclesiastical positions per precedent in FL List of Archbishops of Canterbury (though I'm not sure whether it is still up to date). —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC) "Ref(s)" is missing period dot at end Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Categories should be sorted in alphabetical order Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC) TBrandley 18:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I hate to do this, as the list otherwise is a worthy candidate. However, in my opinion the list clearly fits into the scope of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver article. If you can whirlwind around and bring out more context and size, I am more than willing to reconsider. Given sufficient size, a list of archbishops is inherently within range of the bronze star. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Request for withdrawal – already 2 oppose votes, both which say I should expand the list. However, there really isn't much I can add further to it, since all the bios of archbishops are in the individual articles linked. Given these circumstances, I would like to kindly request the withdrawal of this FLC. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2012 (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 not promoted by NapHit 18:01, 21 October 2012 [3].

---

Selena albums discography

Nominator(s): Jona^{talk to me} 20:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...it received copy-editing from two users (one from GOCE) and two PRs. I believe it is now ready to be a FL =). Best, Jona^{talk to me} 20:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ΛΧΣ21™ 23:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

;Sources comments FN#11 is missing most parameters, which would be these: Billboard, Nielsen Business Media/Prometheus Global Media, Issue N°1, ISSN 0006-2510. I see several Billboard references without the publisher, and other with it. (e.g. refs 21 to 23) FN#16 work? publisher? something? I see several Allmusic works wikilinked and other not. Same for its publishers. FN#41 is missing the accessdate, publisher, year and ISBN. All of them are available at the link. Try not to mix both types of references, as they may seem confusing. — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC) I believe I have fixed them all. Best, Jonatalk to me 22:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC) FN#28 has no accessdate FN#7 to 10 have a different date format. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC) All done. Thanks again for the review. Best, Jonatalk to me 01:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments No image? There is no free images of her. Jonatalk to me 01:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Uses or stuff inside the table should by used with scope="row", rather than col Done Jonatalk to me 01:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC) "List of albums, with selected chart positions, sales and certifications" missing something? This applies to all, (eg: the one in the studio albums section, needs "studio" in the caption) Done Jonatalk to me 01:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Allmusic should be AllMusic Done Jonatalk to me 01:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Why do some references have publishers and some don't? Use the same method for each please. Done Jonatalk to me 01:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Don't use double quotes in quotes/references, per WP:MOS, as in ref. 40, 44, etc. Those don't have periods that were manually added. Jonatalk to me 01:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Categories should be sorted in alphabetical order Done Jonatalk to me 01:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Any external links? Done Jonatalk to me 01:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC) More TBrandley 00:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments Lead is a it big per WP:LEAD, i would expect three paragraphs for a discography, certainly not four fairly chunky paragraphs, I would try and cut down on this as best you can Not done per Mariah Carey albums discography (longest para has 12 lines, includes four paras) and Madonna albums discography (longest para has 13 lines). Jonatalk to me 23:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC) As TRM states below, the lead is too long, lengths of other articles is not relevant here, we are talking about this one. For the size of the list it is simply too big. NapHit (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC) Done Jonatalk to me 18:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC) I am really not a fan of sentences starting "In..." try and re-jig the sentences where this prefix is used. Done Jonatalk to me 23:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC) "In 1989, Selena began recording music for her self-titled debut album, which was released in October 1989." This a prime example of where that prefix is not needed. Remove it altogether as the sentence works without as you state when it was released, having two mentions of 1989 is redundant. Done Jonatalk to me 23:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC) "Dreaming of You sold 175,000 copies its first day of release, a record for a pop singer." Firstly, its first day of release is port grammar. Secondly, is the claim it is a record for a pop singer correct? I'm not convinced surely more recent releases will have sold more? The fact the source says making her THEN one of makes me question this even more I'm only going what Billboard and other high-quality reliable sources tells me. Most music fans already know that record has been beaten but at the time Selena held the record and I do not know who holds this record. Jonatalk to me 23:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC) A quick google search led me ot our Britney Spears article, which states that Baby One More Time sold 500,000 copies on its first day, so I think this proves it is no longer a record. NapHit (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC) Changed the content to "then-record for a pop singer." Jonatalk to me 17:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC) "largest-selling album to bow at number one..." that is not encyclopaedic writing, never seen bow used in this context before Done Jonatalk to me 23:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC) "top twenty" -> top 20 Done Jonatalk to me 23:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC) You don't need to include the page ranges in the Bibliography, especially as just one page is used for each book Done Jonatalk to me 23:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment

• I really don't understand the significance of adding the Blue in the Face soundtrack. If her only contribution is a song, then it should be under Guest appearances under the singles discography, but not here. Erick (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 23:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead is too long, the list isn't actually that big, a large portion of the page length is contributed by the refs, so I would expect to see only three paras. Whether or not other lists have a lead that's also too big is not relevant here.

Ok, so can you kindly point to me which sentences are irrelevant to the page? Then I would be more than happy to remove them. Jona^{talk to me} 17:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I can point you to our guideline on how to write a lead - WP:LEAD. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Done Jona^{talk to me} 18:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Remix albums aren't in the infobox.

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 17:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Most discog infoboxes link to the relevant sections (e.g. studio albums is "hashlinked" to the Studio albums section).

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 17:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Why are chart headings left aligned (e.g. the US TLA heading)?

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 17:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• What territory are the release dates relevant to? Where are the release dates cited?

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 17:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• How can you use the US release dates if the albums didn't chart in the US? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• They were all released in the US regardless the fact that they didn't chart in that country. Jona^{talk to me} 18:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, so where in ref 21 does it cite that Selena was released on 17 October 1989? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Done Jona^{talk to me} 19:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still not seeing precisely which references are citing which release dates and which release territories. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

All information gathered from AllMusic.com would you like me to add a ref to every album here? Also, AllMusic does not specify which country these albums were released so I removed (US). Best, Jona^{talk to me} 19:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, have a look at current FLC discogs, I expect them to reference the release date and the territory relevant to that release. If AllMusic is lacking, then you need to find the info from somewhere else. 19:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Was the soundtrack album released by EMI or EMI Latin?

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 17:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Same for Unforgettable? I would check all these as the articles for these don't say EMI Latin...

• Not my problem if vandals change the distributors, only relaying on AllMusic. Jona^{talk to me} 17:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• It is your problem if I oppose this nomination because the labels are uncertain. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Done Jona^{talk to me} 19:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

So now it's "EMI Music Distribution" for every release? Redlinked? This needs to be addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Mis Mejores Canciones – 17 Super Exitos" sold six times platinum but didn't chart anywhere?!

• According to RIAA yes and no it never shared a position on Billboard. Jona^{talk to me} 17:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• No need for "List of best-selling Latin albums in the United States" in the See also since you've already linked it in the lead.

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 17:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Are my remaining points going to be addressed? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a valid reason on why I need to add a source to verify the release dates of these albums. I checked others and did not see that they had a source for a release date. Jona^{talk to me} 12:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, oppose until you can show me where the dates are verified. I've questioned the fact so you need to demonstrate how I can verify it. How does anyone know you haven't just made them up? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Why would I waste my time on making up release dates, if your so critical about it go and check AllMusic yourself and not have me wasting my time on adding a source to something so ridiculous. Jona^{talk to me} 12:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why you're so hostile about me asking for something that I've asked for on all currently running FLCs and will continue to do so in future. Where did you get the information from? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

If someone is coming at me and judging hatefully on the work that I dedicated then damn right I'm going to be hostile. Secondly, all information was retrieved from AllMusic.com. Just because you *now* are asking all current FLCs for a source on release dates doesn't do nothing on me, I follow models not amateur articles. Jona^{talk to me} 13:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Not judging hatefully, I'm not sure where you get that, but I am asking the same from you as I have everyone else. Unfortunately, we expect the featured material to be of the highest standard, and that includes referencing dates which, it appears, have no references. And quite what makes you think the DISCOGSTYLE is the "model" and not "amateur" I have no clue.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes you are, shall we reminisce? (a) "lead is too long" first of all how are you not going to bring up this "issue" to this discography? this?, this?. I had to remove all record titles Selena had broken and some she currently holds the title to after 17+ years just to make you and that other complainer happy, yet I see other record titles in these discographies, a fan much? I bet if there were a freely licensed photo of her there wouldn't be a problem. (b) "What territory are the release dates relevant to? Where are the release dates cited?" is another one (though I do see you asking for all 2012 nominees) I don't see why you waited until now to bring up this minor issue, but yet have seen you comment on FLCs for the past several years ("but I am asking the same from you as I have everyone else") I just denounced this. Just because these recently promoted lists nominators did as you say, doesn't mean I need to follow the leader and could care less of an oppose from you, I can always renominate again. Lastly, WP:BESTNP was a reference to older promoted lists like Mariah Carey albums discography and Madonna albums discography not the style guidelines that you and other "delegates" have come up with. Jona^{talk to me} 13:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(a) I was not alone in suggesting the lead was too long. Train lead (490 words), Arjona lead (528 words), Usher (621 words), this discog lead originally (826 words) and now (429). Much better. If you think you need a records page for Selena, by all means create one. What do you mean "a fan much?"? Asking for a good summary-style lead is not hateful. (b) asking for references for specific information you have added is not hateful, it is asking for information in the list to be verified. And (c) OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument to use when claiming that the Carey and Madonna discogs are "best". They need work! (d) By now, you probably could have added those references in, instead of which we've had a quite pointless discussion going in circles which basically can be summed up by (e) "Standards change". We never used to insist on WP:ACCESS-compliant tables, but we do now, for example. If you threaten to disrupt this process to prove a point, I'm afraid you will not be welcomed to participate in the process in future. There's no need to do that, I would just reference the release dates, so much easier. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yea because there is no photo of her so of course the complainer was going to be critical about the lead and then you followed. Nope, I'm not going to follow you, I don't do Twitter. Secondly, the lead was better off how it was when I started this nomination but yet haters up in here just didn't like that Selena has a lot of records she broke and wanted me to remove them. You are a fan of those artist(s) I have brought up in this lovely discussion, you didn't complain about the lead on their respective discographies and have been complaining about how the lead is too big on here. Exactly, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument either TRM, don't come at me asking me to go and look at other lists and see how they have their references on release dates, again, just because they bark when you command don't expect all users to bow down. I'm sticking to what I believe how the list should be, and you could go and comment on others and do something productive today instead of arguing with me about this stuff rule you made up. Jona^{talk to me} 14:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read anyone else's review before I made my own, so please don't suggest I did. The lead was too long. I am not a fan of any music in particular besides Lemon Jelly, please don't make unfounded accusations that I may somehow favour one artist's discography over another. As I mentioned above, their leads were all considerably shorter than the original lead here. I'm not "commanding" and I don't expect anyone to "bark", so please don't make that unfounded accusation. I simply asked you to verify the release dates. I don't "expect all users to bow down", so please don't make that unfounded accusation. If you checked my edit history, I have certainly commented at other FLCs today, so please don't ask me to "do something productive today instead". Finally I entirely refute that this a "rule [I] made up". Please check WP:V. It's a policy of Wikipedia, which I certainly didn't "make up". In that policy, you'll read "... any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation..." I challenged the material, so either you'd like to follow a Wikipedia policy by providing verifiable information via an inline citation or you don't want your list to be the best work on Wikipedia. My oppose stands, and I won't be returning to this FLC, the closing director/delegate can determine whether my concerns have been adequately addressed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2012 (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 not promoted by NapHit 17:21, 21 October 2012 [4].

---

List of programs broadcast by Fox

Nominator(s): TBrandley 02:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria. Though an unsual topic (there are no FLs of this kind), I find it interpreting, and hope you enjoy read it. Thank you in advance. Cheers, TBrandley 02:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments "Fox currently maintains 19.5 hours of programming per week." -- 'Currently' should never be used; it would be better to say something like As of the 2012 television season, Fox.... TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC) Done. Anything else? How does it look now? Thanks! TBrandley 06:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC) "The Fox Broadcasting Company, commonly referred as the Fox network or simply Fox, is an American commercial broadcasting television network owned by the Fox Entertainment Group, which is a division of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation group; Murdoch co-founded the Fox Broadcasting Company, along with media executive Barry Diller." -- A few problems. First, there should be a 'to' after 'referred'. The sentence is also really long. I recommend splitting it where the semi-colon is. Done. TBrandley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC) "Though it was officially launched in October 9, 1986,[2] Fox began its official prime time setup on April 5, 1987, with the series Married... with Children and The Tracey Ullman Show airing that night." -- Instead of "launched in", it should be "launched on". Also, I'm pretty sure 'primetime' is a compound word, and should not be spaced. Done. TBrandley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC) "Fox had a programming block for children entitled Fox Kids, which ran from September 8, 1990, to September 7, 2002. -- There shouldn't be a comma after '1990'. Done. TBrandley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC) "Unlike the "three larger networks", which aired prime time programming from 8 to 11 pm Mondays to Saturdays and 7 to 11 pm Sundays, Fox has traditionally avoided programming in the 10 pm time interval, leaving that hour to affiliates to program locally" -- Again with 'primetime'. Also, which time zone is this referring to? EST? Please note that. Done. TBrandley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC) "On April 21, 2012, Fox celebrated its 25th anniversary, with a two-hour television special, featured numerous people related to Fox and its shows." -- "featured" should be "featuring". Done. TBrandley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC) "The networks' animated shows are listed under the Animation Domination banner, which is a Sunday night programming block." -- You're only talking about one network, so it should say " network's " not " networks' ". Done. TBrandley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC) "It is a full member of the North American Broadcasters Association (NABA) and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)." -- What is 'It' referring to? The Animation Domination? This needs to be disambiguated. Done. TBrandley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC) Why are some (the majority of) shows on the list not referenced? See below. TBrandley 23:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Wait, are you saying the one reference used for some titles supports each show's existence? If so, just list it as a general reference. Picking out random ones is odd. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Oh, I didn't. Those were already there when I started working on this (I check to see if it wasn't WP:OR on Google Books), and figured I wouldn't removed them, and there book sources, which people often enjoy seeing. TBrandley 23:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC) TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support – All the issues I listed have been resolved. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Quick and strong oppose Where's the lead? The issue is now (at least I think) resolved, per consensus on the article's talk page. TBrandley 22:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Some of the entries are cited, some aren't. Click on the links for them, and their is prove. It is a huge pain referencing every single show on the list. Suggest you expand upon each entry to describe what kind of broadcast it is. Again, there's the link. It already states what type of show it is (as this is a list, not an article). TBrandley 22:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Withdraw the list, and go to peer review, asking what we'd expect from a featured list. This, most certainly, is not. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC) A user keeps commenting out the lead. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC) If the list is suffering from instability, i.e. edit wars, or content dispute, then it shouldn't be listed here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC) See above. The issue is now (at least I think) resolved, per consensus on the article's talk page. TBrandley 22:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bruce Campbell (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

* There's been a lot of trouble with user Vjmlhds, who has been repeatedly vandalizing the article, even to the point to his own blocking. He seems to have no idea how featured articles work; he's continuously removed the lead and doesn't seem to understand the concept of how images should be used. One of his versions of the article in particular is a mess, utilizing a total of three non-free media images. There's a discussion occurring currently within the article's talk page, and it appears these unproductive edits need to cease immediately. Otherwise because of instability I would have to oppose. Bruce Campbell (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC) See above. The issue is now (at least I think) resolved, per consensus on the article's talk page. TBrandley 22:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC) This version of the article I would support however, other than the fact that I can't see why some entries are referenced and why some aren't, in an apparently random manner. The article is lovely when it's not being ravished by unproductive edit wars. Bruce Campbell (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC) See above. TBrandley 22:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Alright. For now I'm going to change the oppose to neutral and I'll support if it the prose comments made by other editors are addressed. The vandalizing seems to have stopped outright. Bruce Campbell (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Support at this point. Bruce Campbell (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

• I would prefer tables to be used instead of bulleted lists, as I think they would be more useful to the reader. For example you could have columns of Title, Years broadcast, Type of show.
  • I don't see a problem with the current state of it. TBrandley 22:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Currently the reader is receiving hardly any information about the programs. I'm not sure in the current format, this list is the best wikipedia has to offer. NapHit (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Concerned that large parts of the article are not referenced, specifically the Currently broadcast section.
  • See above. It is a pain to reference every show, the article link itself proves its existence and run. TBrandley 22:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It may be a pain but its necessary. Unless those two general refs cover every item in the list then you will have to source individual programs. Wikipedia can't be used as a reference unto itself, specifically because anyone can edit it therefore the information has the potential to be wrong. As every other list that comes through here is expected to be properly referenced, there is no reason why should make an exception because its a pain to reference. NapHit (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. See List of X-Files episodes. None of the episode titles are referenced, as are all other episode list FLs. Those general references cover former programs. For currently broadcast, I could reference to the official Fox site, however. TBrandley 16:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not entirely correct, ref 1 in that list provides all episode titles, so despite the fact they are not directly referenced, they are in effect referenced. The problem here is that those general refs do not cover every item in this list, none of the sports programs are referenced for instance. What proof do I have that Fox only broadcasts certain Formula One races? This is currently a big problem, all programs that started or have new episodes after those general refs were published, will need to be referenced. I still also think tables should be utilised to provide the reader with more info. This list should be able to stand alone and I would expect more info on each program from wikipedia's best work. NapHit (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Seeing as there been a lot of edit-warring and discussion over the content of the article recently, it fails criteria 6.
  • See above. The issue is now (at least I think) resolved, per consensus on the article's talk page. TBrandley 22:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

NapHit (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from --Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments Has the edit warring stopped? If so, good. Yes (at least I now believe). See above. TBrandley 22:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Many, if not most, of the entries still need citations. See above. It is a pain to reference every show, the article link itself proves its existence and run. TBrandley 22:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Why are some given citations then? This makes it even more confusing.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC) See above. Those were already there when I started working on this (I check to see if it wasn't WP:OR on Google Books), and figured I wouldn't removed them, and there book sources, which people often enjoy seeing. TBrandley 00:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC) That doesn't make sense. Just remove the individual citations from next to the certain shows, and place it as a general reference at the bottom of the list. Who enjoys seeing book sources? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Done. TBrandley 00:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Those are the only immediate issues I see, but they are big ones.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Comments Deux Also, to be picky, Millennium wasn't an X-Files spin-off, but rather just a show created by the same person. Removed. TBrandley 23:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC) For Mike Judge, shouldn't you mention he was co-creator and voice actor, rather than just creator and actor? Fixed. TBrandley 23:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC) Many of the images have unsourced claims, like "star of Married...with Children, which was Fox's signature series during the network's early years." I'm not saying it's untrue, but when was it called the signature series? Replaced and removed. TBrandley 23:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC) Some of the dates use YYYY-YYYY and others go YYYY-YY. I know the exception is dates like "1999-2000", but I'd pick one and use it. See below. TBrandley 23:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC) --Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I am content to Support now.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose some quick comments.

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

*"It was the highest-rated broadcast network" highest-rated in what sense? Most viewers? Most popular? Removed. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC) Where is that claim referenced? Removed. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC) "Fox began its official primetime setup on April 5, 1987" vs "On April 21, 2012, Fox celebrated its 25th anniversary"... And? That's when Fox actually celebrated it on television. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC) "As of October 2012, Fox maintains 19.5 hours of programming per week.[3] " but ref 3 was written in 1992, so how can that ref something from 2012? And that ref says 18 hours in any case. Changed "October 2012" to "1992". And, regarding the source information, it says increasing its daily average to 19.5 hours, so that's now fine. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC) "its original debut" has it had more than one debut? Removed. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC) "the longest running sitcom" context, do you mean animated sitcom? Do you mean in the US or worldwide? Clarified. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC) Do you mean "led to"? Done. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC) "Fox had a programming block for children entitled Fox Kids, which ran from September 8, 1990 to September 7, 2002.[8]" seems oddly place, and makes the end of that para read like a list of factoids, not elegant prose. Moved. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC) Check image captions, those with incomplete sentences should not have a period. Removed. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC) Some of the sports shows don't have dates. What does "(Mid-season)" mean for upcoming shows? They are planned to air in Mid-season. Added a link. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC) "Piggsburg Pigs!" has an exclamation mark. Added. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Ripping Friends is The Ripping Friends. Fixed. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Similar comment for The Big Guy and Rusty the Boy Robot. Can you make the Digimon: Digital Monsters link more precise? That's the only and best there is in this case. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Link to the correct The Tick article please. Corrected. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC) D.E.A. doesn't link to a TV show. Unlinked.TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC) "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" Than->than. Done. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Super Greed article says it started airing in 1999. Done. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Boot Camp article says it started in 2001, not 2000. Done. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Perhaps you should check all these articles against the dates you're claiming....? Done. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC) "from which The Simpsons spun off from." grammar fail. Removed. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Doesn't appear to be a colon in Osbournes Reloaded. Done. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Is the second general reference the whole book or specifically pages 1 to 1566? If the former remove the page range, if the latter use an en-dash. Done. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Tracey Ullman has an e in it. Removed. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC) No, it should have an e in it, that's what I'm saying. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Oops, sorry, done. Thanks, TBrandley 16:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• "which lead to two future spin-offs Millennium and The Lone Gunmen" surely all spin-offs occur after the original? So no need for future.
  • Done. TBrandley 16:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• 1990–1992 or 1990–91? Be consistent.
  • For shows that only went for one year, I use the second method, but, to clarify, I used the first one if it went longer. Also, "1999-2000" is like that cause it is a new century. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't understand your logic. Fine, cross-century date ranges do that, but for other year ranges, just two digits for the second year are required. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Please see WP:YEAR. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Are these dates including re-runs?
  • No. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you should note that, because when I checked some of the articles on the shows, the dates you quoted here included re-runs. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support Good job. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• "As of October 2012, Fox maintains 19.5 hours of programming per week." This is followed by ref #3, which is a newspaper article from 1992. I'm somewhat stumped as to how a 1992 article can support Fox's current schedule.
• Similarly, a 1992 reference can not really be used to say that the "The Simpsons is one of Fox's most popular shows..", only that "The Simpsons was one of Fox's most popular shows.."
• Following on from that, your general references are from 1996 and 2007: what is the source for the parts of the main list that are more recent than this? You can't rely on references in other articles, information in this list needs to be referenced in this list.
• Oppose I understand that some of these questions have been asked already, and I have read the answers to those questions, but I'm not satisfied by them. For that reason, I have to oppose this list. Harrias ^talk 06:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• How about talk-shows and news? Also, the list is heavily lacking on references. Nergaal (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It has all the programs. The ones you are talking about are local programs, on local stations, not the full channel. It has all of them. TBrandley 19:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, regretfully. The main issue I have is the fact that the information is not in tables. There is some inconsistency in the years. For example, "2001–2003" and "2004–05", in which the latter is correct. Zac (talk · contribs) 16:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• I withdraw this nomination, while I work on the list, with above issues raised. I well certainly be bringing this list back to FLC soon, though. TBrandley 16:35, 20 October 2012 (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 not promoted by NapHit 17:21, 21 October 2012 [5].

---

List of Prison Break episodes

Nominator(s): Plant's Strider (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for featured list because I'm sure it meets the criteria. I've already contacted the main contributor. Plant's Strider (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments Image should be a thumbnail with a caption. Done. Odd ref placements, e.g. "on Global in Canada[1] and is broadcast in dozens of countries worldwide" you ref Canada and not the "dozens of countries worldwide"... It's self-referential. What's the point of linking the tattoo when it just links back to Prison Break? Done. Two empty cells in the Blu-ray column. The second and fourth seasons haven't been released on Blu-ray in the US. Where are production codes referenced? In the episodes' articles. Spaced em-dashes should be spaced en-dash. Done. Check for misuse of hyphens as well. Done. Our article is called TVShowsOnDVD.com (capital O). Done. You don't need Category:Prison Break. Done. Check all tables meet MOS:DTT for row and col scopes. All 6 tables meet MOS:DTT. Plant's Strider (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Make similar columns the same width from section to section.
  • I don't know how to do that. Can you help?
    • Have a look at coding in a recently-promoted episode FL. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I've done the widths for you, although I'm not sure about what to do with the specials table. NapHit (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• What's No. and #?
  • No. = entire series. # = that particular season.
    • Spell it out (e.g. No. in series, No. in season). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Images need to have alt text briefly explaining the contents of the image, as per WP:ALT
• "The official logo of the series." → "Prison Break logo"
• "the television network Fox" → "the Fox network"
• comma after 2005?
• "and broadcast in dozens of countries worldwide" that statement needs to be supported by a reference
• "2005–2006" remove "20" from it per WP:YEAR, same goes for the other years from other seasons.
• Tables don't meet MOS:DTT, add scope cols and rows, as well as table captions, to ensure it does
• Change No. to "No. in series" and change "#" to "No. in season", as per WP:MOS, WP:POUND, etc.
• Please reference the production codes; they have to be here

I've found this ref for the production codes. The only issue is, that as the tables for the seasons are in the season articles, that will produce four duplicate refs. I'm not sure if there is anyway to get around this, so the ref is only displayed once. NapHit (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Make similar columns the same width from section to section.
• "Teleplay" and "Story" should have "by" at end
• "The second special episode for the series runs for approximately 23 minutes" remove; not important.
• Change from "was aired only on Sky1" to "was only aired on Sky1"
• "The third special episode was aired only on Sky1 in the United Kingdom" also needs a reference
• All of those do
• "FOX/Global simulcast of Prison Break" what's that doing there? Not needed.
• Speaking of that, FOX should be Fox per WP:TRADEMARK
• "Amazon offers full length movies as well as TV shows, with shows like Prison Break" not needed
• Don't "shout" in reference titles
• Don't italic the series only in references
• Lots of publishers in references aren't linked, but should be
• Ref. 91: Use a dash rather than hyphen per MOS:DASH
• Categories should be sorted in alphabetical order
• You should create more redirect links to the list please; there's only one as of right now

:I still haven't figured out how to edit the templates. Could you help on this one? Plant's Strider (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC) TBrandley 02:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The template issues have been fixed by NapHit (huge thanks to him). I'll try to address the rest of the issues by the end of the day. Plant's Strider (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2012 (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 not promoted by NapHit 17:21, 21 October 2012 [6].

---

List of Megas XLR episodes

Nominator(s): Khanassassin ☪ 11:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list as I believe, that after quite some work, it's ready for FL Status. :) Khanassassin ☪ 11:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Comments The lede should have three big paragraphs, per WP:WIAFL. The lede of that list seems rather short. Also, the lede seems very messy. I'd recommend a peer review, and a copy-edit, perhaps from GOCE. The lede is indeed too short. A peer review for a short lead only? Also the question is what should be written and not how much.--Kürbis (✔) 17:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Correct. Perhaps just a copy-edit. TBrandley 17:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Nowhere in WP:WIAFL does it say that leads must have three paragraphs. WP:LEAD doesn't even say that; in fact, it says that some shorter articles should have leads that are less than three paragraphs. As it happens, I think this lead is a bit short for my tastes, but I don't want some non-existent criteria to become a standard by force. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC) The problem is that the series didn't receive enough coverage. Interview, reviews, almost nothing, though there's a very big following. If I could I'd make 3 gigantic paragraphs... but I can't. --Khanassassin ☪ 19:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Unlink action per WP:OVERLINK Done. The lede image should have alt text Done. Image needs a caption and description, with a thumb* Done. That image doesn't seem very high-quality. Could it be replaced? Looks pretty fine to me. Add plainrowheaders to the top of the series overview table Done. series overview table does not MOS:DTT, need to add row and colscopes to ensure it does Done. Series overview table seems a little messy Not anymore. Add table captions to all tables per MOS:DTT, with add the begin of the coding of the table Done. Don't use ";" due to a recent discussions about it. Use actual sub-section headers Uh... I didn't. I used plain bold, which is OK. 2004–2005 → 2004–05, as per WP:YEAR Done. Only have "Megas XLR episodes" linked in external links Done. "The series was met with positive reception", to "The series has met with positive reception" MOS:TV states that "For very lengthy series, generally 80+ episodes, it may be necessary to break the episode list into individual season or story arc lists." This series has far less than 80 episodes and the season articles contain nothing but the episode list tables. There's no decent Lede, nothing about cast, production, reception, or anything that would require separate pages per WP:SIZE, WP:SPINOUT, WP:SS or WP:SIZESPLIT. "may" does not mean "should" or "must"--Kürbis (✔) 17:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Sorry, but at this time, the article doesn't meet featured list criteria. Please get a copy-edit, and/or a peer review, then re-nominate. TBrandley 15:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC) If you think that it is a content-fork, why you state that it should be peer reviewed and re-nominated?--Kürbis (✔) 17:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC) See above. TBrandley 17:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC) I got the rest of the minor issues. TBrandley 01:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments Lead too short, should be at least two paragraphs.* There are two paragraphs. :) There's no fair use rationale for the use of that image in this article. There is now. :) Don't really think we need to link "comedy". OK, de-linked. :) " a New Jersey Junkyard" junkyard shouldn't be capitalised. Sorry, didn't notice. De-capitalised :) Columns for the same information should be the same width from section to section. Done. Where are the air dates referenced? MSN source. Directly cite it then, like you do with production codes. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Done. How could number 12 be aired 8 months after number 11? Sorry, air date error. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC) I believe I've resolved the issues. :) Cheers, --Khanassassin ☪ 14:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment: You might consider adding some more DVD information like release dates, rather than just stating it was released on DVD. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The source doesn't say what the release date was, that's the problem. --Khanassassin ☪ 14:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, per criterion 3b. I don't think there is enough content yet to warrant three articles (1, 2, 3). Goodraise 11:21, 21 October 2012 (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 not promoted by NapHit 12:43, 17 October 2012 [7].

---

List of accolades received by Selena (film)

Nominator(s): Jona^{talk to me} 16:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...I believe it meets the criteria to be a featured list. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 16:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments Link Jennifer Lopez and Selena in the main box Done Jonatalk to me 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Avoid bold links per WP:CONTEXTLINK Do you mean in the infobox? Jonatalk to me 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Yes. TBrandley 02:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Tables don't meet MOS:ACCESS, add scope="row" to ensure it does Can you tell me how to do that if I'm using {{awards table}}? Jonatalk to me 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC) That template only covers scope="col" for the main header, scope rows can still be added with the contents of the table. TBrandley 02:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Table don't meet MOS:DTT, add table captions to ensure it does Per above. Jonatalk to me 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Yeah, I'm stuck on this one. It's fine, I guess. TBrandley 02:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC) The publisher of Box Movie Mojo is actually Amazon.com (who owns the Internet Movie Database) Done Jonatalk to me 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Double quotes (") should be single quotes (') in references per WP:MOS, as seen in ref. 9 Done Jonatalk to me 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Add alt text to the image per MOS:IMAGES and WP:ALT Done Jonatalk to me 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC) TBrandley 16:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I question whether this article meets criterion 3b ("In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.") With such a short list, could this not reasonably be inserted into the main article body? Ruby 2010/2013 05:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Um no it cannot, it will drag the main article down (once fully expanded for FAC) plus FAC reviewers never favor list in article prose and will almost always ask the nominator to turn it into prose. So planning ahead, what is on this list is what it has to offer. If merged into the main article, it will be removed to please FAC reviewers. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 22:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ruby, fails 3 b. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Per above. Jona^{talk to me} 22:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. It is fails criterion 3b, as well there are not many awards for the film. I'd put it into the main article body. And, if you are taking that article to FA status, just write the awards and stuff out in prose, it is done on many FAs including House (TV series). Also see Grey's Anatomy, an A-Class article. And, the tables still don't meet MOS:ACCESS, but that's another story. TBrandley 23:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose could easily be merged into the main article which will then make a suitable candidate for good or featured article. If the FAC reviewers object to a couple of lists in a mainly prose article, then more fool them. (Also, you have another candidate running without any support, please re-read the instructions for running simultaneous candidates...) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• But it's not going to be merged because I figured it would be best to have a separate list on it instead of stressing about what FAC commenter's have to say about a list-format section and turning it into prose which is not my forte. Secondly, why on Earth do you favor on criticizing me about having two nominated lists yet I see others that have 4+ lists? If you are only going to comment on me then save yourself the embarrassment. Thirdly, I will renominate this candidate again and again until an open minded reviewer sees potential in this list and not bitch about how "easily" it can be merged into the main article. However, what about this? it can easily merge with the main article but yet it passed . Jona^{talk to me} 12:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm afraid threatening to disrupt this process to somehow prove a point won't help your nomination. And yes, I'll go and check other people running multiple nominations and ask them not to if they're not following the instructions properly. And no, the list you gave as an example could not easily be merged into the main article. Firstly the list is a lot longer than this one, secondly the article it would be merged into is a lot longer than the one this would be merged into. Finally, since this list is never likely to grow, merging it into a good/featured article candidate is the optimal solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• I can also assure you that FA reviewers don't care about lists as much as you think. See Pride & Prejudice (2005 film) and Ed, Edd n Eddy for two recent examples of FAs with accolade lists. Ruby 2010/2013 16:28, 16 October 2012 (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 not promoted by Giants2008 17:25, 16 October 2012 [8].

---

Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record

Nominator(s): SchroCat (^ • @) 17:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC) and Cassianto^Talk 19:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Known for his clumsy character Inspector Clouseau and his many comic roles on radio, Peter Sellers was one of the best known comedians of his generation. This record of his professional work has recently been split away from the main Sellers page as it was out of place there and not a full reflection of his work. A number of very good people have assisted in specific areas, including Rothorpe, who re-worked the lead, RexxS, who advised on the table format, Br'er Rabbit, who cleaned up the citations and J Milburn who looked at the images. We are now nominating this for featured list status because we believe that it now satisfies the criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments Image can use a better caption. Is he noted for anything, etc. He is, but the format follows that used in other filmographies, such as Christopher Walken filmography, Woody Allen filmography, Spike Lee filmography, James Nesbitt filmography, David O. Selznick filmography and Vittorio Storaro filmography. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC) TB, that's my fault, I cut away the blah telling us he was at home when the picture was taken. I do think the caption is better in its current form as per the listed FL's. -- CassiantoTalk 08:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Tables don't need to be aligned to the top Now altered accordingly - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Align references to the center Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Notes and Footnotes should be actual sub-sections, per MOS:ACCESS Now sub-sectioned - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC) TBrandley 03:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Many thanks, TB. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks TB. I knew if I came knocking you would give some good comments. -- CassiantoTalk 08:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks! TBrandley 15:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments I think this article still has some way to go before it reaches FL quality. I've gone over and it and made some changes here; please revert if I've made things worse. I'm not sure that the Role columns really benefit from being sortable. I must admit that I've found it useful in the past on a couple of articles. Would you mind if we left it like that unless someone else also comments on it? - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC) "The Official UK Charts Company" should really be "Official Charts Company". Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Is there any reason why "The Last Goon Show of All" is sorting under G rather than L? No; now done - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC) For The Running Jumping & Standing Still Film, was Sellers nominated for the Best Live Action Short Film award, or was the nomination for the film itself? Additional note to clarify - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC) It may just be my laptop or something, but the Advertisements heading isn't showing at all. Anyone else experiencing this? I'm seeing it OK on IE and Google Chrome. Anyone else having issues? - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Safari also OK. -- CassiantoTalk 12:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC) It's most probably because 1000 Doors is using Firefox with the "Adblock-Plus (ABP)" addon. I can reproduce the problem where ABP hides the heading "Advertisments". If you disable ABP for enwp you won't have those sort of problems again. --RexxS (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC) A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC) If you add a row that acts as a key to the bottom of a sortable table (like ' "—" denotes releases that did not chart.' in Discography), you also need to add class="sortbottom" to that row to prevent the bottom row from being sorted with the rest of the table. I've applied the fix for you. --RexxS (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Many thanks ATD: your time and thoughts are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Thank heavens for RexxS! Your input here is much appreciated as always. -- CassiantoTalk 19:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• The biggest sticking point for me is the lead – it's incredibly brief. By my count it's about 860 characters long, which wouldn't qualify it for DYK, let alone FL. Obviously it needs to cover the major aspects of the rest of the list, but it doesn't mention Sellers's career on either stage or record at all. I see that on the talk page it was decided that there wasn't much of a need to discuss Sellers himself, but personally I'd disagree with that – per WP:Summary style, I would expect the lead of this article to give more background on who Peter Sellers was.

• Now extended. We feel this word count now mirrors others at FL in terms of quantity. -- Cassianto^Talk 12:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• That's certainly a significant improvement, but I do still feel that the lead needs to at least mention Sellers's careers on stage and record, since obviously that comprises part of the scope of the list. Just a short sentence on each would probably suffice for me personally. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks ATD: it's now been tweaked to include that missing information. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Wow; pretty solid. TBrandley 21:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Tate, I'm looking forward to your next FAC so I can return this favour. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! Your in luck, "Nightswimming" will be at FAC soon. Also, some FLCs also very soon. Cheers, TBrandley 05:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments "Sellers's" argh. I had hoped that BritEng could maintain its dignity and just stick with Sellers'... This is a point that was raised on the Peter Sellers article during Peer Review and the consensus from those with a better grammatical grasp advised me to change them all to s's as the correct term—see Talk:Peter Sellers/Archive 2#Sellers's for a further discussion after the changes. I'm unsure either way - my graps of the apostrophe use is awful. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Not sure for English Wikipedia you really need to link a term so common as "radio". True - now removed "in a nuber of " ummm. Ouch - changed - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC) "Year" heading should be "Year(s)" shouldn't it, for those with a range? It should, and now is - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC) "Orders are Orders" -> "Orders Are Orders". Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Any reason why you don't link BAFTA Award for Best British Actor? There are other nominations you don't link either... what's the deal with that? Only my idiocy! Now corrected - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC) "What's New Pussycat" ->"What's New Pussycat?" Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC) "I Love You, Alice B. Toklas!" -> "I Love You, Alice B. Toklas" Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC) "Waltz of the Toreadors" -> "The Waltz of the Toreadors". The article here is Waltz of the Toreadors (film) - it appears that although the play is "The", the film isn't - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC) "London Film Critics Circle Award" should have a apostrophe > "Critics'" Now suitably apostrophied - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Some notes start with capital letters, some don't. No longer! All now capitalised - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC) "Harry Seacombe" no a in surname required. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Hi RM, Thanks very much for your comments. I think I've addressed them all fully, but if I've missed anything, or there is something else you spot, then please let us know. Thanks again - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - from a quick glance at Amazon, the list is incomplete: hhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0002CH8TW and http://www.amazon.co.uk/Million-Sellers-Peter/dp/B002EGLFP2. Who knows what else is missing. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 01:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• These are not original releases by Sellers, but re-hashed excerpts put out by third parties, the contents of which are covered in Sellers's original recordings. As such they really shouldn't be on the list at all. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• OK, no problem. Oppose is stricken Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 16:50, 4 October 2012 (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 not promoted by NapHit 15:05, 13 October 2012 [9].

---

George Harrison discography

Nominator(s): Kürbis (✔) 16:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

A discography of the "quiet Beatle", George Harrison. He was nicknamed as such because he did not contribute much in the songwriting. After the Beatles break-up, Harrison recorded the most-successful post-Beatles album, All Things Must Pass, and several other successful albums and singles. In the last years he was a member of the supergroup Travelling Wilburys. The discography follows the contemporary standard format. Regards.Kürbis (✔) 16:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead
  • "George Harrison was once invited by his friend Paul McCartney to watch the skiffle band The Quarrymen playing." This is a weak and non-specific statement. When was he invited to watch them play?
    • The date is unknown but he joined in 1958--Kürbis (✔) 09:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "In 1960 the band was changed to The Beatles and Harrison eventually became a full member and the lead guitarist for the quartet." This suggests that Harrison joined The Beatles after 1960 rather than the Quarrymen in 1958.
    • I reworded it slightly--Kürbis (✔) 09:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
      • There are still several problems with this:
        1. You need to make it clear that the Quarrymen were Paul McCartney's band.
        2. It now says he beceame (note the typo) a member in 1968.
           • The spelling has been corrected, but the date is still wrong (see below)--DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC).
        3. "Two years later the band was changed to The Beatles and Harrison eventually became a full member and the lead guitarist for the quartet". This is still incorrectly worded:
           1. He was already a full member of the band before it changed its name.
           2. The band was not changed to The Beatles - the band name was.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
        • 1) Actually Lennon formed the band, 2) Corrected, 3) I am not sure if this band changed its name to Beatles. I was told that "changed their band name" is incorrect English
          • "changed their band name" isn't particularly good English, but the previous phrasing was definitely worse. The current phrasing is better, but the dates are wrong. The Beatles article says he joined the group (whatever it was called) in early 1958. The same article says they adopted the name "The Beatles" in August 1960. It still also says "eventually became a member and the lead guitarist for the quartet" which reads oddly as he was already a member.--DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
            • Ok, it was previously "full member" but some user insisted it was false... Now reverted back. Also fixed the date.
  • "In the later years, his musical effort however was distinguished by some songwriting." This seems incomplete.
  • "Harrison growth as a songwriter was evidenced on such tracks as "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", "Here Comes the Sun" and "Something"." Needs to be "Harrison's growth" and how do these songs evidence the growth?
    • The songs are one of the most respected and were very successful
      • Then give their success as evidence of his growth.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Done
          • "...evidenced on such successful tracks..." would be better as "...evidenced by such successful tracks..."--DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
            • Done
  • At the start of the third paragraph, say when the Beatles broke-up.
    • Done
      • "in" should be "on".--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Done
  • "were still active", I suggest "remained active".
    • Done
  • The Wonderwall album was release in 1968, but the context of the sentence after talk of the break-up in the previous sentence seems to suggest the album was released after the break-up.
  • "The album produced one of his most successful and famous songs, such as chart-topper "My Sweet Lord" and "What Is Life"." Which of these two songs is the one you mean?
    • Actually the first, but now as both topped the charts somehow...
      • This still says "one of", but names two songs.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Done
  • "His next albums were not very successful, receiving silver, gold and platinum certications". Spelling of "certifications" needs to be corrected. Is this three albums that you are referring to; if so which three, as the table does not show an album after All Things Must Pass that received a platinum rating until Cloud Nine in 1987.
    • Corrected typo.
      • The rest of the issues still need to be addressed.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
        • I don't understand what three albums... Simply all albums after this.
          • If you mean all of this subsequent albums, say so, e.g. something like: "His subsequent releases were less successful..."--DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
            • Next is for me the same as subsequent, but I changed it anyway
  • Why is the reference to The Concert for Bangladesh preceding Live Aid by 14 years relevant?
    • Not exactly sure what you mean. The footnote or the mention of this statement?
      • I mean. Why is it relevant to the discography that the concert preceded Live Aid by 14 years.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Well, it is an interesting info; always paraphrasing from the tables is lame.
          • But why is it interesting in a discography and why is it interesting that it was 14 years before Live Aid?--DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
            • Actually, the wording implies that it was bigger than Live Aid, which was to my knowledge the largest concert
  • "After the release of "All Those Years Ago", all songs beginning with Gone Troppo, the worst-charting album only after Electronic Sound, did not chart; this changed after the release of "Got My Mind Set on You"." This is muddled and needs to be broken down into separate sentences. Make it clear the "All Those Years Ago" was a single and state which album it was from. Why not just say that Harrison had a run of six singles between 1981 and 1986 that did not chart.
    • Done
  • "Bearing the several flops in mind, Harrison joined the supergroup Traveling Wilburys in 1988..." Are you saying that he joined the supergroup, because of the several flops?
    • Removed that bit. I think I was mistaken
  • "The group released on 18 October 1988 its debut album Traveling Wilburys Vol. 1, which received three-times platinum and peaked at several music charts worldwide in the top 10." I suggest this be rephrased as "On 18 October 1988, the group released its debut album Traveling Wilburys Vol. 1, which was certified three-times platinum and peaked at several music charts worldwide in the top 10."
    • Done
      • You need a full stop after "top 10".--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Done
          • Rereading this, I think "peaked at several music charts worldwide in the top 10" would be better as "reached the top 10 of several music charts around the world."--DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
            • Ok done
  • Not sure that Concert for George is relevant in a Harrison discography as he does not play on it. If nothing else, that should be made clear.
    • I think it was a very important release and should be mentioned to round off the lead.
      • It might be important in a history of George Harrison, but it is not part of his discography.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
        • I find it notable but will wait what others say
• Tables
  • NZL and SWE in the first table are the other way around in the following album tables.
    • Thanks. Not sure how I missed that...
  • The note indicates that a strike indicates that an album release did not chart. Is it confirmed that the records were released in all of these countries and failed to chart in each case. Did they sometimes not chart because they were not released or is because the source does not have the data?
    • Some were not released or just did not chart, so I reworded the note.
      • "denotes releases that did not chart or were not released." The "releases" needs to be "albums" or "singles" as appropriate.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
        • I think this is unecessary. Also other discographies include this wording.
          • By definition, you cannot have a release that was not released, which is why I suggested that you change "releases" to "albums" or "singles", so you would get "denotes albums that did not chart or were not released".--DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
            • ok done--Kürbis (✔) 11:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

--DavidCane (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I will work on the remaining points. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose still copyediting issues.

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Some really quick issues... Skiffle is overlinked in the lead. Delinked Infobox says 4 compilation albums, lead says three. Updated The Times reference(s) are subscription only. Added a note. Are you sure the original band name was "the Rebels" and not "The Rebels"? Done "was changed to The Beatles and " ->"was renamed The Beatles". Done "became a full member " you said he became a member. What's the difference between a member and a full member? Member may also mean session musician or similar Nope. This doesn't make sense to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Done "the quiet Beatle". Needs a reference. This looks suitable. Added "his nickname "the quiet " -> "his nickname of the "quiet Beatle"." Done "In the later years" the later years of what? Replaced with career "In the later career..." this is still grammatically incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Reworded "his musical effort however was distinguished by some songwriting" what does this mean? Reworded "After a meeting with Indian musician Ravi Shankar he discovered " -> "After a meeting with Indian musician Ravi Shankar, Harrison discovered..." Done "he discovered a new musical instrument" it's not really a "new" instrument is it? perhaps just "he was introduced to the sitar". Done "Later he also tried out with the slide guitar" -> British English doesn't normally say "tried out with". Replaced with tested "of The Beatles in 31 December 1970" not "in", "on". Already corrected " as solo-artists" no hyphen needed. Done ""as members in other " members "of" other bands. Done "debut album" just links to album, worthless link. Delinked The soundtrack to Wonderwall was released two years before The Beatles split up... Yep But you list in after the Beatles split up in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Moved and reworded "This album was not very successful" this just reads poorly to me, I would just say where the album peaked.. was it released in any other territories? Shortened "by short-living recording " -> "by the short-lived..." Done John Lennon is overlinked in the lead. Delinked Apple Records is overlinked in the lead. Delinked "one of his most successful and famous songs, such as " no "such as" if you're talking about "one of..." Reworded "His next albums were not very successful, receiving silver, gold and platinum" sorry, that doesn't make any sense at all. Platinum is extremely successful, don't you think? Not compared with the 6x platinum. I replaced with "moderately" "certifications by British Phonographic Industry " by "the" British... Done "receiving eight-times platinum by " platinum certification or "being certified eight-times platinum". Done "receiving eight-times platinum certifications " nope, see what I wrote. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Oops, done Where are the release dates referenced and for what territory are they relevant? (e.g. the first album seems to be the US release date while the second album seems to be the UK release date...) Will check this Just stated the year. Hope it is ok. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 15:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Most discogs these days implement captions for the tables. Added Why is The Concert for Bangladesh album referenced by both [9] and [23]? Because the information is only available in 23 Then only use ref 23. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Done Where is "This Guitar (Can't Keep from Crying)" referenced? They are referenced by the several Hung Medien references Same comment applies to all non-charted singles. Ditto Please provide inline citations for all non-charted singles. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC) The references are listed below the country abbreviations. "Best of Dark Horse 1976-1989" en-dash required. It has an n-dash Not every time. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Ah, I see. Done Don't abbreviate OCC without saying what it is. And it's not The Official Charts Company, it's just "Official Charts Company". According to the site, it is The Official Charts Company Be consistent with author names, either First Last or Last, First. Done Allmusic -> AllMusic. Done Is that the Shanghai Surprise you meant to link to? Yes A long way to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 12:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Thanks for replying. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

* "Harrison's debut career began with skiffle group..." debut career? his career is viewed as a whole as its within one industry, so no idea why debut is used, needs to be removed Removed "Two years later the band was renamed The Beatles and Harrison eventually became a full member and the lead guitarist for the quartet." -> The band was renamed The Beatles two years later, with Harrison as the lead guitarist Not sure about this. I think the sentence is in conflict with "renamed"; Harrison was not renamed. I would write "with Harrison being..." but that is not great English. Its fines it reads better than the previous version. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC) "Harrison's songwriting skills progressed considerably in the last Beatles years." statement like that needs a ref The reference is AllMusic: "In the wake of that decision, Harrison's playing and songwriting grew exponentially." "It was not only the first official solo album by one of the Beatles, but also Apple Records' first LP release." too many weasel words in this sentence change to It was the first official solo alum by a member of The Beatles and Apple Records first LP release Done "This album peaked" This should be The Done "Harrison's next album was the experimental album Electronic Sound" no need for the second use of album Done "There he received the nicknames "Nelson Wilbury" (on its first album) and later "Spike Wilbury" (on its second album)." what has this got to do with his discography? and if it has any relevance it needs referencing Removed "In honour of Harrison, Concert for George was released two years after his death, receiving an eight-times platinum certification by RIAA." As David states above this article is about Harrison's discography, as this album is not part of it, there is no reason for it to be included Removed Avoid bold links per WP:CONTEXTLINK Done ref 1 The Times is a printed publication and should be in italics, so the parameter work should be used not publisher Done ref 3 publication is date is 30 November 2001 not 30 November 2011 Done ref 5 has two full stops after the author Done ref 6, New York Times is The New York Times Done ref 7, needs a publication date adding and Brautigan was not an author of the page Removed ref 8 needs a publication date adding, there are two full stops after the publisher Done ref 14 has no publisher and it does not look to be the most reliable site It is published by Oricon ref 43 has no accessdate Done You have musiccanada.com and Music Canada be consistent Done The dagger and double dagger symbols are not WP:ACCESS compliant. See WP:NOSYMBOLS, use {{dagger}} and {{double dagger}} instead It does not state they are restricted It does: Symbols that cause problems for screen readers may already have templates created to produce an image and alt text. An example is †; see Category:Image insertion templates for more. Again they need to be replaced by the above templates as its a WP:ACCESS issue. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC) AllMusic is not a work, as its not a printed publication, so it shouldn't be in italics Done Nope still see some refs that have AllMusic in italics. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose copyediting issues and sloppy referencing again

• Also do you have a date for when he formed The Rebels, would be helpful for context

• I could not find the date.

Well if you can't find the date, then you can't start the next sentence with Around this time, when none is given. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Around the time he formed the rebels

I'm sorry but I'm not sure you understand the issue. You cannot start a sentence with Around this time when you do not specify a date, needs re-wording. NapHit (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• "John Lennon's impulsive rhythm guitar playing and McCartney and Lennon's ability for writing and composing songs led Harrison to his nickname of the "quiet Beatle". This sentence troubles me, firstly I fail to see how the qualities of Lennon and McCartney led to him acquiring this nickname, it reads as if this is how he got the nickname. This is compounded by the source not reflecting what the text says, doesn't mention Lennon's impulsive rhythm guitar playing or Lennon and McCartney's ability for composing songs. By all means mention his nickname was the quiet Beatle, but reflect what the source is saying.

• Done

Still got issues with this, the new source mentions Lennon and McCartney's songwriting skills, but says nothing about Lennon's guitar playing. The new source also mentions his aversion to the spotlight was a reason for him earning the nickname, that needs including. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about Lennon

It may not be about Lennon, but when you state the reasons above as leading to Harrison's nickname then they ARE relevant to the article. This has still not been addressed, please alter the sentence to reflect what the sources say. NapHit (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Harrison's growth as a songwriter was evidenced by such successful tracks as "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", "Here Comes the Sun" and "Something". How was it evidenced? What's the difference between these songs and the ones he wrote earlier?

• Explained

No, now it says they were successful and influential again without saying why there were successful or influential, provide some context. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No need. This is a general, non-controversial statement.

No it is not a general, non-controversial statement. You cannot say the songs were evidence of his growth with providing a reason why this was. A non-controversial statement would be he wrote the songs. NapHit (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• "It was certified six-times platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and became the best-selling album by any of the former Beatles." Again a statement like that needs a referenced as it can be challenged

• The reference is displayed

Where? because it doesn't come at the end of the sentence. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It is at the end of the paragraph

No, that source mentions nothing about the album being certified six-times platinum. NapHit (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• "The album produced such successful songs as chart-topper "My Sweet Lord" and "What Is Life"." This sentence reads poorly, needs re writing. Also how successful were the songs provide some context

• I already stated "chart-topper". Reworded.

chart-topper is not exactly encyclopaedic, still not enough context, our article says it was the biggest selling single of 1971, also why is What is Life used? what separates this from the other songs on the album?

Ok, but this does not belong into the discography. "what separates this from the other songs on the album?" because they were the only singles of the album, and the only to peak the charts (Isn't It a Pity was a b-side)

Actually it does belong in the discography, I would expect more context from a featured list. Mention they were singles to avoid confusion, have a look at some recent discography promotions to see the context they provide. NapHit (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• "The live album The Concert for Bangladesh was recorded on 1 August 1971 at New York City's Madison Square Garden, and consists of tracks played at the charity event The Concert for Bangladesh, which preceded Live Aid by 14 years." there are so many issues with this sentence its scary. Firstly you go from past to present tense in the sentence. You don't provide any context for the reader, why was there a concert in the first place? Why is it relevant this preceded Live Aid by 14 years, this an article about Harrison's discography not the concert itself, seems irrelevant to me.

• Removed

instead of repeating the name of the album when you link the concert, pipe it and mention why there was a concert in the first place, provide context. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done. Both need to be mentioned as first is the concert itself and the other the album--Kürbis (✔) 09:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If they both have to be mentioned then re-work the sentence so the concert itself starts the sentence. Then you can explain why there was a concert in the first place, which is what I asked nearly two weeks ago to be included. NapHit (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Harrison's next album was the experimental Electronic Sound, which was the second and last album released by the short-lived recording label Zapple Records" no full stop at the end of this sentence

NapHit (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This has still not been addressed. NapHit (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• The whole of the travelling wilbury's bit in the lead needs referencing as the albums are not part of his discography. Therefore those statements need a source
• * ref 2, book needs an isbn, year of publication, and author's full name

• Done

The isbn is not formatted correctly, see ref 34 where it is. Also this ref uses a 13 digit isbn, while the other two use a 10 digit, need to be consistent. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC}

This is still not formatted correctly! NapHit (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 7 is International Business Times not Time
• Ref 12 does not work
• Likewise ref 24

Thanks for your comments, much appreciated. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 20:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Done a few. Thanks for your comments.--Kürbis (✔) 09:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm very troubled by your attitude to this nomination, if you cannot be bothered addressing issues then just withdraw the nomination. We already have a lot of lists in the backlog and if its going to take you two weeks to respond to concerns then I don't think its fair on other nominators who do respond promptly to issues. You've made hardly any attempt to address important issues I've raised above, answering with often incorrect answers such as saying the six-times platinum sentence was referenced at the end of the paragraph when it is not. If you are not prepared to address issues reviewers raise, then why bother nominating in the first place? NapHit (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 20:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:35, 4 October 2012 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 08:33, 8 October 2012 [10].

---

List of Deccan Chargers cricketers

Nominator(s): Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that the list meets the FL criteria. Requested by TheSpecialUser off-wiki, although I have contributed to the list. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Ref 1 is not reliable.
• Readers would like to know the INR value of US$107 million.
• "team won the series" >> "team won the league"
• "The last coach" >> "Their last coach"
• "Deccan Chargers played their" >> "Deccan Chargers played its" (be consistent, use either plural form or singular form)
• "who now plays for Kings XI Punjab (KXIP) as their captain" - no ref is provided for this
• "are the only batsmen" >> "were the only batsmen"
• "Cameron White, the former captain of the team" - get a ref for this
• "has the highest batting average" >> "had the highest batting average"
• "has the highest strike rate" >> "had the highest strike rate"
• "holds the record" >> "held the record"
• "highest number of runs in a single match" >> "highest score in an innings"
• "who has played the most number" >> "who had played the most number"
• "is also the team's leading" >> "was also the team's leading"
• "holds the record of having the highest strike rate of 12.0 as well as having" >> "held the record of having the highest strike rate of 12.0 as well as had"
• "have the best economy" >> "had the best economy"
• "is the only bowler" >> "was the only bowler"
• "having taken 22 catches" >> "had taken 22 catches"
• "have the most" >> "had the most"
• "has performed the" >> "had performed the"
• You could link "5-wicket haul" to List of Indian Premier League five-wicket hauls

• Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page... tag; see the help page." - Fix this.

• Not done, there are not errors. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Because it was fixed by someone else.

• The stumps column should come under the fielding section

• Fixed Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Year of Twenty20 debut for Kings," "Year of latest Twenty20 match for Kings." Huh?

• Changed Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• It should be West Indies and not Barbados.

• No, as it is a link to the national cricket team, not the generic West Indies one. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Not at all. Barbados is a first class team, and there is only West Indies in international cricket world, there is no T&T, Jamaica, Barbados, etc.

• Not sure how much it matters, as when I do lists I tend to go by nationality, kind of a hard one when WI is the "national" team but isn't a nationality. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• I agree, but in this list nationality refers to under which nation does the player participates in the IPL (i.e, what is shown as his country in the auction). So, it should be WI not Barbados. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 05:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Scott Styris is an Australian?

• Yep. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Man he is a New Zealander! Check his article.

• Ummmm, he's New Zealand's seventh leading run-scorer! Note: Being born in a barn doesn't make one a horse. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Symonds is an English?

• Yes, actually, from Birmingham. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• He is an Australian, we have nothing to do with his native land.

• Again, being born in a barn doesn't make one a horse. He has played for Australia, therefore is Australian, besides which, he moved to Australia with his adoptive parents at a very young age. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• OMG! Shahid Afridi is an Indian!! :P

• Fixed Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• 4 disambiguation pages

• Fixed Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Sanjay Bangar played his first match for DC in 2007?

• Fixed Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Chipli made a century?

• Fixed Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 06:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

• As Vaibhav points out there are multiple issues with tense in this list. As the team is no longer playing it should be in past tense, ye in the opening sentence we have this: "Deccan Chargers (DC) is a former franchise cricket team which was based in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, and was one of the teams participating in the Indian Premier League (IPL)." This does not fill me with confidence for the rest of the article. Thorough copyedit is needed. NapHit (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

• I rarely comment on FL candidates, but on this rare occasion, sadly it's a fail. I think User:Vibhijain has pretty much summed up with his list what is wrong with the list. Is Shahid Afridi really Indian?!?!?! Ensure before nominating a list or article that it reaches the required standard for a nomination likely to succeed. On this occasion, on a cricketing note, it's out. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. TBrandley 01:56, 4 October 2012 (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 not promoted by NapHit 21:40, 1 October 2012 [11].

---

List of Chicago 'L' stations

Nominator(s): Lost on Belmont ^3200N (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it contains a comprehensive lead, lists all stations (including planned/future stations) uses color where appropriate and contains an appropriate graphic representing geography. Lost on Belmont ^3200N (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Comments Image caption needs to be re-written/fixed Categories should be sorted in alphabetical order Both done! Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Wow; it's a wonderful list. That's all. Cheers, TBrandley 03:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per the below concerns of The Rambling Man, NapHit, and Arsenikk. TBrandley 17:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• A lot of the opening dates need references.

In progress Lost on Belmont ^3200N (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a more specific opening date for Berwyn than "1916-17"? Or the two Green Line stations that opened in March 1894, for that matter?

Working on it but still coming up with zip Lost on Belmont ^3200N (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• There should be a symbol for terminal stations in addition to the shading per WP:COLOR.

Done! Lost on Belmont ^3200N (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• The list doesn't distinguish Metra transfers from 'L' transfers, which could be confusing to some people. Either those should be distinguished in the list or something should be added to the lead about the different types of transfers.

Done! Lost on Belmont ^3200N (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• It seems like almost every other train station FL has pictures of some of the stations, and I think pictures would help this list too.

In progress Done! Lost on Belmont ^3200N (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Howard should be marked as a transfer station.

I didn't list Howard as a transfer station (Belmont, Fullerton, etc.) because all of its lines are already in the "lines" category and anything in the transfer column would be a duplicate. Lost on Belmont ^3200N (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

They're still transfer stations, though; even if you don't put anything in the transfer column, they should be marked. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 13:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Done! Lost on Belmont ^3200N (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Great list, and very close to FL quality; the referencing issue is the only major problem I can find. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The table should be accessible. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In progress Done! Lost on Belmont ^3200N (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments " the City of Chicago" no need for City to be capitalised. Done. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC) "On an average weekday 650,000 passengers " Do you really mean "On a weekday, an average of 650,000 passengers..."? Oddly, "average weekday" is the phrase the source uses. I guess this is to differentiate those days from holidays falling on weekdays and weekdays with special events expected to significantly alter traffic. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC) "operated totally independently " no need for "totally". Done. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC) "was achieved " not keen, it wasn't so much "achieved" as "built" really, was it? Glad you pointed that out. The dates were screwed up anyway. Reworded. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC) "the Chicago Transit Authority (a public agency) " You've already abbreviated this to CTA, and it would be better to say "a public agency" the first time round. Changed. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC) "Milwaukee-Dearborn " shouldn't that be an en-dash rather than a hyphen? Double checked over at WP:DASH and it falls under the same condition as "singer-songwriter." The Milwaukee-Dearborn is only one subway. Since it begins under Milwaukee Avenue, runs beneath Lake Street, Dearborn, and then ends under Congress Parkway it isn't a to or through situation. Also, as that's the subway's name it doesn't get reversed.Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC) "As of May 2012" it's now nearly September 2012. Switched to September. I don't know if this falls under WP:CRYSTAL, but CTA has no plans to open any other stations in the immediate future, and physically can't construct a new station with less than two days. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC) "spread out over eight " no need for "out". Done. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC) "95 of these stations ..." avoid starting sentences with numbers. Fixed. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Can you check all the symbols used are accessible? They should be. The accessibility icon was the basis for the airplane, train, and transfer icons. I created the last three duplicating the code from Template:Access icon then modifying the size and alt text parameters.Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC) "only stationon the " caption needs fixing. Done. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Image captions which are complete sentences need a period. Done. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure I understand "at-grade", not clear on what "Grade" means. Switched to "Ground level." Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC) "1916-17" en-dash required. Done. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Ref 7 needs an en-dash. Done. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC) As does 27. Done. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Ref 55, no need to SHOUT. Done. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC) "or a combination of things" really not encyclopedic language. Fixed. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Lead is a little too long per WP:LEAD. Fixed. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC) The notes aren't referenced. They are now. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Not all of the Open dates have references, why?
  • Nudge, is this going to be resolved? If not, my oppose stands and I recommend you withdraw the nomination until you can reference everything adequately. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, okay, I take the hint. I hereby permanently withdraw the nomination. Lost on Belmont ^3200N (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments' As TRM states the lead is a little too long, six paras is a bit too much, would and merge and trim a few bits "The system began as three separate companies which built..." comma after companies "In 1947, the a public agency" doesn't make any sense, not keen on sentence starting with In 1947 either would re-jig it "North/Clybourn is the only stationon..." station and one should be separate ref 58 hyphen in year range should be an en dash NapHit (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC) All fixed. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose based on the concerns raised by TRM and Arsenikk. NapHit (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

;Comments by Arsenikk (talk) "third busiest" should be "third-busiest" Fixed. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC) How long a time-span is "shortly thereafter"? A few days, three years, two decades? Clarified. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Generally it is better to put prose between commas rather than parenthesis, such as with (the Pink Line...) Placed it within em dashes. The comma in the middle of the appositive would make the structure less than ideal. The date illustrates the time frame between most recent changes. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC) "Of the 145 stations on the system," is utterly redundant; remember that if starting a sentence with a number, it should be written out. Reworded. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Berwyn sorts wrong if the table is sorted by year. Fixed. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Dashes to indicate empty cells are normally center-aligned. Fixed. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Glad to see station lists back at FLC—it has been quite some time now. Arsenikk (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Last part of the second paragraph lacks references. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This section was originally longer but had to be cut down due to constraints on the length of the lead. References exist for an expanded and more detailed version, but I doubt there are any for the large scope of the paraphrased version. Lost on Belmont ^3200N (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Surely there must be some references, especially the finalization in 1926. From reading the old version I also see that 1926 is not mentioned, but that a new line in 1943 is, which seems to contradict the current statement. That is among the reasons why a reference would be much appreciated. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The "finalization" mentioned was just that of the basic structure, which happened in 1900. The new line referred to in the next sentence is the Westchester bracnch. As stated in the paragraph, the system expanded outward until '26, that is, the line in 26 was the last line into new territory. You are correct in that there was an error. The Westchester branch had a line extension in 1930 that I had forgotten about. The "1926 line" was indeed in the older version, but it remained hidden as a note (and actually misidentified the line) because the existent list was getting to be long and repetitive. The 1943 line previously mentioned was the State Street Subway which traveled alongside/underneath preexisting 'L' lines, so its opening doesn't represent outward expansion.

I can get references for individual openings, but I don't know of one (a reliable one, that is) that outright states that the mile-long extension of the Westchester branch would be the last extension into new territory until 1969.

I'm not sure how to address this problem. Advice is appreciated. Lost on Belmont ^3200N (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2012 (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 not promoted by NapHit 21:40, 1 October 2012 [12].

---

List of Armenian Olympic medalists

Nominator(s): Yerevanci (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think that the list is pretty much ready to be featured on the main page and is really interesting in its own way, because as I know this will be the first list of Olympic medalists of a certain ethnic group, not country. Yerevanci (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments Per WP:WIAFL and WP:LEDE, the article should contain three detailed paragraphs for the lede. See List of Awake episodes as an example. Done! Merged history into lead section. "This article is about the history of ethnic Armenian athletes at the Olympics." is not needed. Replace. Removed! "Varazdat (Varasdates)" What's Varasdates. Confusing for a person not familiar with the topic Added King of Armenia before his name. "(pugilat)"? removed! 286-342. - should be an en-dash –, as per WP:DASH done! History's paragraphs look very small. Any way of merging? What do you mean by merging photos? Remove those flags in the table, as per MOS:FLAG Done, but are you sure about that? Take a look at Ballon d'Or. It includes flags for clubs and players. The countries should be linked to the team, not country itself. Olympic team is where they should be linked, for the tables Done No references are cited in the Medalists section. See WP:RS and WP:CITE. Please add. Don't "shout" in reference titles, as seen in reference 1 Done! Ref. 7 has the publisher in capitals. Why? Done! There is an external links section, with no external links. Add some, or remove that section completely Removed!! And, there still is much more. For now, that's it though. TBrandley 15:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting list but: the table needs a ref for each entry showing that he is considered of Armenian origin (i.e. a name ending in -ian is not enough for wikipedia to confirm his or her enthnicity) and another one to show that he actually won the medal listed. There also needs to be a reference showing that this is a complete list (i.e. not just wp:or). Nergaal (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Should the references be in a separate column, or just next to their names?--Yerevanci (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

How you have it now is fine. I would put the footnotes into the ref column. However, most of the current references still don't point to the fact that the athletes are or Armenian descent. Also, make sure that the Russian titles are translated. Nergaal (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look at the bottom of the page. Under the references section there is a subsection "General". That book was used in making of the list and I don't think that separate sources are needed to prove the Armenianness of each individual athlete again. --Yerevanci (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That should be clearly discussed in the intro. Also, how reliable is the source? Also, it might be wise to move the second paragraph to a separate section. Nergaal (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't see anything wrong with that source. And what do you mean by saying it should be discussed in the intro?

Where do you suggest to move the second paragraph? I do think it's wise to move it, but I can't think of a place. Or I can simply delete that paragraph, because it's about the Ancient Olympics, while the article is more about the Modern Olympics. I don't know. It looks interesting to me and it might be interesting to other readers as well. --Yerevanci (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Pretty solid; it's good. TBrandley 04:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I expected to see only people who competed for Armenia, not who are of Armenian origin, else this is original research. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the point of this article. It clearly states that "due to historical and political reasons, only the small portion of Armenian athletes have competed for Armenia". There is a source at the bottom under the title General references which was used for creating the list. How is that original research?

If you expected to see the list of Olympic medalists for Armenia, then you go to Armenia at the Olympics and scroll down to List of Medalists. --Yerevanci (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest adding a hatnote for clarity. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Would this be appropriate: This article is about ethnic Armenian Olympic medalists. For the list of Olympic medalists for Armenia see Armenia at the Olympics#List of medalists?--Yerevanci (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is better. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this post, I think the article gives too much weight to the ancient period instead of the recent times. For example, you could write when was the first Armenian committee establised. You state that many do not compete for Armenia "because of the economic crisis in 1990s", but what about in the 21st century? Perhaps mention the reason. I will re-review the list when I have the time. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I will add about the National Olympic Committee.

Please read the rest of that sentecne. It says athletes from Armenia who migrated because of the economic crisis in 1990s. It includes athletes in 21st century that compete for other countries. For example Arsen Galstyan, who won a gold medal in judo at London Olympics few weeks ago, was born in Armenia in 1989 and his left Armenia in mid 1990s. The economic crisis included lack of electricity for about 2 years and gas for more than 5 years. The borders with Turkey and Azerbaijan are closed since then, because of the Nagorno-Karabakh War. Estimates say that about 0.6-1 million people left Armenia in 1990s. Another example is David Ayrapetyan, a bronze medalist of London Games in boxing. He was born in Baku, Azerbaijan. In 1990 after a pogrom about 200,000 Armenians left the city. His family migrated to Armenia, but soon left for Russia.--Yerevanci (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments "Armenian Kings Varazdat" -> "Armenian kings Varazdat". fixed "First Armenians to participate " -> "The first Armenians.." fixed You link Ancient Olympic Games, but not Modern, why? fixed "Both competed in athletics in 1912 Stockholm Games" -> "Both competed in athletics at the 1912 Stockholm Games" fixed "First Armenian to win a" -> "The first..." fixed "diving in 1920 Antwerp Games" -> "at the 1920" fixed Why not link "1992 Barcelona Games "? fixed And Unified team? fixed " a IOC member " spell it out before you abbreviate it. fixed "Since 1994 Winter Olympics " -> "Since the..." and why not link it? both fixed "including some athletes from Armenia who " no need to relink Armenia. fixed " Armenia participates separately, but still some Armenian athletes compete under foreign flags, including some athletes from Armenia who ..." not engaging prose at all, you repeat Armenia three times in one sentence. kind of fixed "in Moses of Chorene's History of Armenia (3.40). Since " what does (3.40) mean? fixed "from 374-78" en-dash needed here. fixed "victory in the 360's" no apostrophe. fixed "in display " -> "on display". fixed "is recorded in Moses of Chorene's History of Armenia" and "chronicled by the Armenian historian Moses of Khoren in his History of Armenia". Repetitive and no need to relink both author and work the second time around if you insist on repeating the phrase. fixed Ref column doesn't need to be sortable. fixed Typically lists of names which are sortable, sort by the surname, using the {{sortname}} template. Is there a reason why this list shouldn't do that? done "Olympics" isn't a country I'm aware of... fixed Some weight categories are capitalised (e.g. Men's Half Middleweight) others aren't (e.g. Men's middleweight). Be consistent. fixed Tables need row and col scopes per MOS:DTT for accessibility. can you explain that? Ref 3, no need to SHOUT. fixed Is databaseOlympics a reliable source? I think it is, because it's widely used on Wikipedia for athletes that are Olympic medalists. Ref 75 has a raw URL. fixed The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Why is one row of the By country table a different colour? shouldn't Armenia be pointed out? I don't think so. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC) color removed Also, I have an important question for you. Do you think that country flags should be added to the country column before their names? I do think so, because in most lists flags are included in tables. --Yerevanci (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC) As long as you comply with WP:MOSFLAG, it's fine by me. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose – Interesting idea for a list, but I see quite a few grammatical and formatting issues on top of the ones that have already been listed. The good news is that I think the list is fixable with some work. Most of what is below is simple to fix; the accessibility issues are more time-consuming than all of these, except for one source reliability concern.

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 02:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

*In the hatnote on top: "For athletes competed for Armenia". Surely "who" should go before "competed"? fixed The opening of the lead is a stubby one-paragraph sentence. I think the lead would be nicer if the sentence was merged with the following paragraph, leaving two decent-sized paragraphs. done "only the small portion of Armenian athletes have competed for Armenia." "the" → "a". fixed "became the first Armenian gold medalist of modern Olympics in 1952." Here, "the" should be added before "modern Olympics". fixed In the second photo caption, "the" should be added in the middle of "were first Armenians". fixed In Arsen Melikyan's entry, the hyphen in the event column should be an en dash instead. The same goes for David Ayrapetyan, Armen Nazaryan's 2000 entry, Arsen Julfalakyan, and Arsen Galstan. all fixed Disqualified athletes: Add "his" to "was stripped of medal". done The Winter Olympics table doesn't need sortability, because there is only one entry. fixed In reference 69, the date formatting of the access date should be made consistent with the other refs that spell out the month, day, and year. You could also switch all of the other refs to the formatting used here, but that's a lot more work that I don't recommend doing. fixed Ref 70 needs a publisher and access date. fixed Publisher of ref 72 (Rossiyskaya Gazeta) should be italicized. fixed Access date in ref 76 should be fully spelled out. fixed Titles of refs 64 and 74 have hyphens that should be en dashes instead. both fixed Giants2008 (Talk) 02:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• The two photographs could use alt text.
  • added
    • I don't see it when I'm reading the article. Could you check that all of the formatting is correct? Giants2008 (Talk) 02:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Seems like alt text doesn't go with double images.--Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 16:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
        • I've seen cases where double images had alt text for each image, so I know it's possible. Why don't you look at some of the lists at WP:FL, find one that has a double image with alt text for each image, and see how it's formatted? That way you can fix this and know what to do for the future. I'd tell you which article to look at, but I can't think of one that has a double image off the top of my head. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 4 could use a page number to help make the citation more verifiable.
  • couldn't find the book online
• What makes databaseOlympics.com a reliable source? If you are choosing between that and Sports Reference, I believe the latter is more reliable.
  • The only reason I used databaseOlympics.com is because that website is widely used on Wikipedia
    • Just because something is used elsewhere doesn't make it reliable here. Those other articles may not have good reasons for using the source. Has data from the site been used in any major media publications, or have any publications recommended it as a good source of information about the Olympics? Giants2008 (Talk) 02:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
      • What do you suggest? I can't see any problem with the source.--Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 01:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
        • I suggest that it be replaced with a more reliable source, because I don't believe it is reliable enough for an FL. I suggested Sports Reference as one good alternative; maybe there are others. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
          • And what makes Sports Reference a better, more reliable source? --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 20:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
            • It's passed stringent FAC source checks in the past, and it is operated by a parent group that runs other sports statistics web sites that have been declared reliable at FAC. To me, however, this is of secondary concern. Why should the site used in this article be considered a reliable source? We still don't have a good answer to that question, and without one I wouldn't consider it reliable. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
              • OK then. I have no problem with replacing databaseOlympics with SportsReference. All I want is a guarantee that after doing that I won't be asked to change it again. So, do you have any more complains about the article other than this? --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 15:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not comfortable with the inclusion of post '92 athletes that competed for countries other than Armenia. The justification for this list is surely that those listed identify as Armenian, or in the case of Soviet era athletes, would most likely have competed for Armenia had the country been independent. Pre '92 athletes that didn't compete for the Soviet Union should be considered on a case-by-case basis: in these instances I accept that someone might have identified as Armenian, but competed for a country other than the Soviet Union because they were unwilling or unable to represent the USSR. —WFC— 14:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look at the "References" section. Under the title "general" there is a book that was used to prove the "Armenianness" of those atheletes.--Երևանցի _{ասելիք ունե՞ս} 22:21, 9 September 2012 (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 not promoted by NapHit 21:40, 1 October 2012 [13].

---

List of number-one adult contemporary singles of 2011 (U.S.)

Nominator(s): Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I completely revamped the entire list and I think it's a really good example of definition of what a list of number ones on a chart should look like. It took a long time to re-format the table, format the references and go though each of the Billboard URLs correctly and do the lead, so hopefully it will be recognised as an FL! I really hope so. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The lead should be rewriten, FL can no longer start with "this is a list of". Use other number-one hits as an example on what to do in this case. Good example : List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (U.S.). Another thing is that I would move the dagger to after the song name rather than the month date. as it follow the color table aswell.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the opening sentence and moved the dagger to the song. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 12:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - As a formatting issue, the yellow is a little loud and too me a bit excessive. The color coding is one of the things I find annoying on the UK number one lists, even though I know many have passed FL. Maybe just the dagger or just highlight the cell for the song not the entire row? The only other thing, which I am quite unsure of on acceptability, is that the only source is the chart itself. At least, the Hot 100 charts reference an article which indicates coverage of actually being a number-one song beyond the chart itself (even though the source comes from the same publication). Just referencing the chart would indicate to me that you can just as well make similar lists on number twos and number threes, thus bordering on WP:IINFO. I'm a chart fanatic, but to be a featured list, I'd want to know what makes it important that these songs reached number one on this particular chart. Please just take these as my personal comments and not outright suggestions. Thanks and good luck. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The yellow/dagger are for people who may have difficulty determining things. I don't know how to make it so only the Song column is highlighted, it just automatically does the entire row. Yeah the Hot 100 gets extensive coverage, but this is the A/C chart, which doesn't get that kind of commentary, so we only have the archives (there's nothing wrong with that by the way, still says who is number one!). Number one songs are more important/recognised/acknowledged, so that's why this is important. At the end of the day, no one really cares about #2s or #3s do they lol. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 00:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

My point is that I could create an identical list in similar fashion using the same identical sources showing a list of number twos for this chart and it would meet the same criteria for FL that this one does. Being number one in airplay on adult contemporary radio stations just does not have the same meaning or impact that being number one on an all-encompassing chart covering both sales and airplay on all formats does; at least, if it does, it is not expressed here or in Adult Contemporary (chart). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah but that would be irrelevant. People are only interested in number ones, and number ones are the most documented type of song. To be honest I don't really see the point in any of your points. I don't mean that rudely. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 10:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, number ones are the most documented type of charting songs, but for principal charts like the Hot 100 or the UK Singles Chart, where one can find other coverage. From this list, I don't see that number-one AC songs are documented any more than the #2s or #3s, etc, since the only references are to the top ten lists of each week's chart. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but the same can also be said for the Hot 100 archive, as you can only view the top ten each week. You can only view the top 100 for the current week. I still don't see what you point is to be honest. Only number one's are documented like this as people only care about number one's. That's why 99% of people know Mariah Carey has had 18 Hot 100 number one's, but 99% of people don't know she has had 3 number two's on the Hot 100. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The difference is I can find plenty of coverage in independent sources about "Whistle" by Flo Rida becoming number one on the Hot 100, thus indirectly confirming that "people care about number one's" on that chart; yet I find nothing significant on "Drive By" by Train reaching number one on the AC chart. What verifiable interest is there about number-one songs on this chart? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The interest is who reached number one on this chart and any given point throughout 2011. (The fact that Adele is on the list with two songs creates a lot of interest, because of how much interest there is surrounding her). Aaron • ^{You Da One} 10:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per 3.b. This list has 8 entries. Nergaal (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  So? What's your point? There is still a fully documented year for each number one's week. It's irrelevant that 8 artists topped the chart. The list is still the same length, regardless if 52 artists top the chart or 8. I'm sorry but that point isn't valid in my opinion. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 10:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  List_of_2010s_UK_Singles_Chart_number_ones Nergaal (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

  Still don't see your point. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 10:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The material in this article could "reasonably be included as part of a related article" (3b): List of 2000s US Adult Contemporary chart number ones. Goodraise 15:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why exactly a 2011 list would be included in a 2000 decade list. Besides the fact, that isn't reasonable. Zac  16:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Except such a list doesn't exist and shouldn't exist. Would be far too long and difficult to navigate around as it would look messy. Your reason isn't good enough to oppose because you are asking to do something which doesn't exist. AARON• ^TALK 16:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm afraid the precedent has been set that these kind of album lists should encapsulate a decade (see the list that Nergaal above has linked you to). Just because the list doesn't exist, it doesn't make it a poor reason to oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• If the precedent has been set, then why do none of the US R&B, Adult Contemporary or Dance number ones lists follow it? Just because it works for the UK number one singles, doesn't mean it does here. I personally think that a decade in one list looks very messy. AARON• ^TALK 16:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have to agree. There's clearly inconsistency. But unless there's an agreement that by year articles should not exist, and decade ones should, there's really no leg to stand on. Just because some articles are some way, doesn't mean all have to be the same, without an agreement, of course. Zac  17:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• The only "leg" we need is the FLCR. Goodraise 00:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• The Billboard Adult Contemporary chart is a chart that ranks the best-performing singles in that category in the United States. This feels a bit too repetitive to me, specifically chart is a chart.

  Removed. AARON• ^TALK

• How about adding some dates or lengths in which a song was number one atop the chart? It seems a bit too short at its current state, and I think that would do the trick.

  It summarises who was number one in chronological order according to the table. I don't know about dates, and I have already listed some lengths (hence the sourcing in the lead...) AARON• ^TALK

  By lengths I mean, for example, "Rolling in the Deep" stayed atop the chart for 19 consecutive weeks, from July 2 to November 5. It gives the readers a better understanding of the timeline. Zac  17:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Year-End most popular soft rock/adult pop songs, ranked by radio airplay detections as measured by Nielsen BDS. would work much better as a footnote, instead of directly in the prose.

  How? It's better to state it where it is. It's more organised to keep it where it is. AARON• ^TALK

  Because it makes the table looked too stretched. Besides that, I'm pretty sure the size of the font is too small per guidelines. Zac  17:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

  It's just the small template to make it smaller, so not really. AARON• ^TALK

• What about making the table sortable?

  What column?? AARON• ^TALK

  I would prefer to see the whole table sortable, but I know that's not entirely possible when you use rowspans. Zac  17:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Zac  16:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think any of it should be sortable, as it then defeats the point of a song being replaced/continued for each week. What would a benefit be of Katy Perry's "Firework" being anywhere else rather than where it should be? AARON• ^TALK

• Support— overall a well-organised and formatted list. However if possible, some more sourcing in the lead would be nice. Not a fan of decade lists as they're bulky and cumbersone to read. Till 15:05, 2 October 2012 (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 not promoted by NapHit 21:40, 1 October 2012 [14].

---

List of United States federal officials convicted of corruption offenses

Nominator(s): Savidan 21:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a list of federal officials convicted of public corruption. If consensus is reached to promote this list, I hope to use the style to raise the similar lists for state, local, and territorial officials to a similar standard, with an eye toward a featured topic. Efforts to ensure comprehensiveness include: searches for reported judicial decisions on Westlaw and Lexis, a read of "Political Corruption in America: An Encyclopedia of Scandals, Power, and Greed" on Credo, a review of this and similar lists and categories, searches of news databases, and, of course, the research that went into the main article. I would be happy to address any comments or concerns. Savidan 21:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments quick ones. Don't start "This is a list..." Done. Savidan 18:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC) What makes these more "notable" than others? I don't know that I have excluded anyone with a Wikipedia article, but I wanted to make clear that this is not a list of every single federal employee convicted of these crimes. There is no good reason to list mail men, administrative assistants, meat inspectors, etc. In addition to their not being relevant, issues with WP:CRIME and WP:BLP could arise. Savidan 18:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Well, the point of the question is that you should define notable, i.e. clearly describe your inclusion criteria, or else use the {{incomplete list}} template... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I have defined what is meant by notable. Basically, the highest members of each branch of government. We're talking about offices that are defined in the Constitution, except for the cabinet, which, while alluded to in the Constitution, is defined by the U.S. Code. Savidan 19:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Merge the individual tables and make their roles another column. Let me sleep on this one. There are problems with this: cabinet secretaries and appellate judges are not have a "state," for example. Savidan 18:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Done. Savidan 21:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Move the images to the right-hand-side, or if you have enough, add them as another column in the table. I will also think about this one. Especially combined with the above suggestion, it will significantly increase the width of the rows, and thus decrease the number of entries that the reader can see at a given time. I think less than half have an image. Savidan 18:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Add them to the right-hand-side then. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC) That will have the same effect by taking space away from the table. I'll try it and see what it looks like, though. Savidan 18:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Table has plenty of horizontal space. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I think galleries is the best stylistic choice. Put simply: there are too few images to include them as a row in the table (and this would make the rows much fatter, and thus only a few would be visible on the screen at a time) and too many to include them on the right at any reasonable image size. See: undefined image size; 150px; 100px. Anything smaller than 100px would really be too small for the images to be visible, and, as you can see, 100px is already too large in relation to the content. Please advise. Savidan 20:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I moved the images to the table. I don't particularly love it; but, I'm fine with it. Savidan 21:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Ref 18 has odd font. So does ref 31. And ref 41. A lot of them do actually... Newspapers are "works" so they should be in italics. The use of smallcaps is per the Bluebook, which is the citation style used in this list. Savidan 18:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Why would you use that citation style for newspapers which should meet our own MOS? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC) The Bluebook has a style for newspapers and there is a preference for having a uniform citation style within an article/list. From Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation style: "Wikipedia does not have a single house style." Savidan 18:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Ok, how odd. So newspaper names with small caps and odd abbreviations are ok? Won't argue, there are more important issues to deal with than that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Aren't legal cases usually displayed in italics? Not in footnotes. Only above the line. Savidan 18:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Why? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Such is the citation style (the Bluebook). Case names aren't italicized when they are followed by a case citation. Savidan 20:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Ok, it's still odd to me but hey, small caps instead of italics like 99.99% of the rest of Wikipedia per Bluebook it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC) What about "in McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991). " in ref 29? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC) There's an exception where the case name is used as part of a textual sentence. In fact, perhaps this can be thought of as the entire rule. Savidan 16:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC) At some comments to be considering.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. Savidan 18:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Interesting but the first sentence is lacking a verb; can't expect much after that. Nergaal (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed. My apologies for the error. It was an artifact of changing the lead in response to Rambling Man's comments. Savidan 01:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Fine, but the intro does not discuss/summarize at all the contents of the table. Nergaal (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I must confess I don't understand what you mean. I have added the count of the total number convicted and the names of the two least-used statutes which were previously not mentioned in the intro. What else do you have in mind? Savidan 01:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
        • First ones that come into mind: list states with at least 3 officials, earliest high-level official, some sort of summary of conviction totals per period, perhaphs in the second paragraph give totals for such crimes, perhaps talk a bit about the entries that are not HoR members. Nergaal (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
          • I added the states with 3+. I was able to find sources for the first cabinet member, senator, and judge. I was not able to find a source for the first House member (although I am VERY sure of the right answer, it would be original research.) I also worry that totals per period would constitute original research depending on how the periods were drawn. I haven't seen to reliable source that adds up the totals per period. I don't understand what you mean by "talk a bit." Do you want me to explain the "story" of the 7 convicts that weren't House members? I feel like that goes way beyond the scope of the list. The point is to list all 40+ of them. Not to tell 40+ stories. Savidan 05:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
            • The list seems fine to me. Nergaal (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I really like this table. Tables are very useful to organize large gobs of similar material in a way that the reader can interface with directly and they also make for a lot of "did you know" reading as other things besides the one sought are seen in context. I was surprised in this table by how few people were convicted of anything before 1930 and how many after. Structurally I like the arrangement where the table has photos second from left column which draws the eye down the page very rapidly. I think it's very helpful to be able to rearrange the data by name, year or state. The only thing I see that I would change is either the sentence "The year of conviction is included (if the official was convicted multiple times due to retrials, only the year of the first conviction is included)" or the inclusion of "Mario Biaggi" two times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellin Beltz (talk • contribs) 17:30, 26 August 2012‎ (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. Biaggi was convicted in two separate cases arising from totally separate sets of conduct. The sentence quoted refers to situations where an appellate court reverses a conviction and the defendant is re-convicted at a retrial. Savidan 16:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support as is, no comments. GregJackP Boomer! 02:19, 8 September 2012 (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 not promoted by NapHit 21:40, 1 October 2012 [15].

---

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A)

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it may meet the criteria. It follows the layout and reference style used in the lists of Oak Leaves recipents (1940 to 1945). Thanks for your review. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I think you have to use accessible signs in cells with orange and yellow background for blind readers, see WP:NOSYMBOLS. Colour is unfortunately not enough. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Comments You repeat 7,322 a few too many times for me in the lead. "The recipients are ordered alphabetically by last name" initially... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the review! I believe to have addressed both comments. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Table could do with rowscopes, see MOS:DTT for more info

• Is this mandatory? I tried scope="row" style=text-align:center and I am not very fond of the appearance it renders. But I will bend to popular demand. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Its for the benefit of people using screen readers as they have trouble reading the list without it. Also as you have clearly defined row header it should be included. If you just use !scope=row and add plainrowheaders to wiikitable sortable then the table will look the same apart from the cell being shaded. NapHit (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Personally I would move the image to after the name

• The layout follows the FLC lists of Oak Leaves (1940–1941), Oak Leaves (1942), Oak Leaves (1943), Oak Leaves (1944) and Oak Leaves (1945). I want to keep it uniform. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• I would also change the key format to something like this. Readers with poor sight might struggle to see it in its current guise

• see above. I want to keep layout as is. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think standardisation should stand in the way of benefiting people with poor sight who might struggle to see the symbol and read the writing. not everyone has perfect vision and can read small text. NapHit (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Why does Kurt Anderson sort to the bottom when I press the sort icon for the name column, he shouldn't be coming after Axtmann

• Oops, that was an error. good catch MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• I assume the Rank column sorts in order of military rank? Only asking because its not explicit and its not sorting alphabetically

• Correct, either from lowest to highest or highest to lowest. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, what I was getting at is that it needs to be clear, so would add a note saying it sorts this way. Sorry, I should have made clear first time round. NapHit (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

NapHit (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead
  • "This number is based on the analysis and acceptance of the order commission of the Association of Knight's Cross Recipients". What does "order commission" mean?

• I linked the term "order commission" to Blue-ribbon panel. The sentence "is an informal term generally used to describe a group of exceptional persons appointed to investigate or study a given question." best explains what they do. Does this work? MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• • From the text, it is not clear if the 43 foreign awards are intended to be included or excluded from this general list, but Ion Antonescu, who is on the List of foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, is not on this list. Without him, the list seems to be incomplete as it does not appear to specify that this is only for Third Reich recipients.

• Good point, I changed the wording slightly: Listed here are the 118 Knight's Cross recipients of the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS whose last name starts with "A". Antonescu does not belong here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Bar Graph:
  • The maximum for the number of presentations is set to 100. This should either match the total number of awards (118) or the largest data point (79).

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• • The maximum for the posthumous awards is set to 10. It should be either 11 or 5.

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• List
  • Some of the linked articles have images that are not included on the list.

• True, but the copy right status, at least to my knowledge, does not allow them to be used on lists. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

--DavidCane (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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