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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 16:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply

This is a complete list of Amateur Achievement awardees. I think it fulfils the featured list criteria. Selfnomination: Jan.Kamenicek 20:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply

• Oppose Support, since it is now mostly blue-linked ( Circeus 20:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)) reply
  • Assuming the recipients are notable, there should be a majority of blue links.
    • I think the fact that many links are red is not a problem of this list, but is a result of the fact that Wikipedia is still growing. I will try to blue some of them. However, Wikipedia:Featured list criteria does not say anything about this. Jan.Kamenicek 09:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Not as directly as it should: 1(a)1: "brings together a group of existing articles" (emphasis mine).Since they are linked, I assume they are notable enough to have articles. Since they are red, the list fails criterion 1(a). Circeus 20:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I see. I have already started bluelinking some of them. I will blacklink those, for which I will not find any trustworthy sources to write an article. Jan.Kamenicek 21:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks for the support. As you have written, most of the links are blue, I'll try to bluelink the rest as well. Jan.Kamenicek 13:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Not "USA", "United States"
    • Fixed. Jan.Kamenicek 09:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Table design is unnecessarily complicated.
    • Can you explain this in more detail, please? Jan.Kamenicek 09:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Reference in a header?

• • • I thought that all information should be referenced. If this is a problem, the reference can be removed. Jan.Kamenicek 09:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Fixed. Sorry, my bad English caused that I misunderstood what you had meant: I thought you had been talking about references in the lead. Crzycheetah was so kind to fix it. Jan.Kamenicek 20:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
• Circeus 00:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Neutral for now
  • I think most of the redlinked recipients would not meet WP:Notability unless they were covered in multiple secondary sources (such as newspaper stories). I'd be prepared to support the list with blacklinks.
    • Or with bluelinks. :) Geraldk 23:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I have already started bluelinking some of them. I will blacklink those, for which I will not find any trustworthy sources to write an article. Jan.Kamenicek 21:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not sure if this is what Circeus meant, but the alternation of colors in the table is difficult for me to read. I think it would be better with solid white background and lines separating entries.
    • Fixed by Crzycheetah. Jan.Kamenicek 20:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
  • You could place reference 2 at the column headers instead of the section heading, which looks a little funny. Or you could separate notes and references sections, and put the overarching #2 in the references section.
    • Fixed by Crzycheetah. Jan.Kamenicek 20:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The last sentence of the lead is unreferenced.
    • When I wrote the list, I asked about the missing year at the ASP, and received a mail explaining it. Can this mail be considered as a sort of primary source? Jan.Kamenicek 20:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
      • I think that would fall under WP:OR. Instead, I would just have it say "The only exception...2002, when no award was given." That no award was given should be pretty evident from the existing sources and provides as much information as the current sentence (which, if kept the way it is, begs the question of why they chose not to award). Geraldk 23:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Sentence reworded. Now the sentence contains only information evident from the mentioned source, and so the sentence is put under the same reference. Jan.Kamenicek 21:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Where are the images? If there aren't pictures of some of the winners that can be run along the right margin, there should at least be an image of the award or the organization's seal alongside the lead.
    • Fixed. Jan.Kamenicek 20:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I think this table should be sortable, so readers can sort by country and topic.
    • Fixed by Crzycheetah. Jan.Kamenicek 20:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Geraldk 17:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I'll support when the remaining redlinks are dealt with, either by bluelinking or by blacking out as non-notable.

Most of the links are already blue, I hope to bluelink the rest soon. Jan.Kamenicek 13:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Geraldk 03:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

• Support -- Crzy cheetah 16:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
• I was reluctant to support earlier given the number of redlinks; well done for getting the numbers down. My only query now is whether "ASP" should be spelt out in full in the title. ASP is a dab page, not a redirect to the society's page, and I'd have to say that the page title meant nothing to me when I first saw it. So, conditional support, the conditions being that either the page name is changed or you can convince me that it's fine as it is! Bencherlite ^Talk 09:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I chose the society's acronym into the article's title for two reasons: it was shorter and I often saw it used in this way. However, it is true that it is usually used in this way in a context, where most readers know, what it means. I understand your problem with not understanding the title and I am going to move it. Jan.Kamenicek 14:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply

• • Fixed. Jan.Kamenicek 14:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply