The list was not promoted 02:25, 1 May 2008.
This is quite honestly the most comprehensive list I have ever seen on the subject. All full generals in the history of the United States Army are listed, with birth and death year, source of commision, date of promotion to 4 star rank, assignments held as a full general with dates, blood relation to other four star officers, relief of commands, and government service, if any, after retirement from the military. It is also extremely well sourced, and a quick look shows only one redlink for the subjects on the list.-- Nobunaga24 ( talk) 00:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
Noble Story ( talk) 02:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Phew, some list. Could do with having gone to peer review first in my opinion, as there are some clear WP:MOS violations. However, some comments...
That's a start, right now, since there's a lot to do here, it's an oppose. The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 22:28, 29 April 2008.
Based off of the 2003 Atlantic hurricane season and 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, I rewrote 2006 Atlantic hurricane season with the same format, splitting the storms section into its own list. While there might be very minor stuff that I can't see, I think after a few months of on-and-off work, this meets the FL criteria. If not, I will be happy to address any issues that come up. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Hello Julian, good work as usual, so my comments are here:
That's it for now, mainly trivial stuff. The Rambling Man ( talk) 06:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Actually "working" at the moment, I'll get back to you! The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC) More reply
The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 22:28, 29 April 2008.
Another NHL player list to nominate. It's fairly similar to List of Columbus Blue Jackets players in that both teams joined the league in the same year and have comparable numbers of players. Comments welcome. Kaiser matias ( talk) 01:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
That's all I can see. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 07:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
upright
as your size parameter. And put the images in the right section - the first goaltender overlaps a section boundary.That's all from me for the moment. The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose—Criterion 2a and the requirement for "professional standards of writing".
The list was not promoted 15:22, 26 April 2008.
User:Viriditas recently suggested that I nominate this as a featured list; it was created in support of Caroline Island, which has been a featured article since 2006. -- Sethant ( talk) 20:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments from - MILK'S FAVORITE COOKIE (Talk)
- MILK'S FAVORITE COOKIE (Talk) 21:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I have to oppose at the moment, it's a confusing list, it has a few MOS issues as above. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 15:22, 26 April 2008.
SELF-NOM For those people who are looking at this thinking, "isn't this already nominated?", the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is in charge of the law enforcement of Unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, and also for the many incorporated cities who have contracted the Department. They also provide Bailiffs for the courthouses in LA County, operate the county's jails, and have their own training academy, which is also contracted to train smaller police departments. In contrast, the LAPD is in charge of law enforcement in the city of Los Angeles only.
So this is another fallen officers list, comparable I think to the List of Los Angeles Police Department officers killed in the line of duty, which was nominated some days ago. As usual, all comments and concerns will be addressed. Thank you. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Collectonian ( talk) 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 15:22, 26 April 2008.
I am self-nominating this article. This article is based on List of acquisitions by Google, a recently promoted list that I also worked on. Gary King ( talk) 20:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments Just 2 little ones
-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply
That's it for me. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Collectonian ( talk) 16:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 18:08, 24 April 2008.
previous FLC (07:29, 25 February 2008)
Self nomination. I cleaned up the sections and made this more like a FL since the last nom. The lead has also been expanded, and I think this article is ready. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 12:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Much, much better, and much more what FLs are about. Some specific comments.
thumb
for landscape and thumb|upright
for portraits. Consider moving on of the images into the lead.Go Irish! 22:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
So, oppose for now, but these can all be fixed. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
Some more to deal with. The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 20:55, 23 April 2008.
Heres a list I worked on based on the List of Virtual Boy games format, which is featured. I used several different references including IGN, Gamespot, and Modojo.-- Coasttocoast ( talk) 01:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Support Awesome list! Very nicely done. I only have one small suggestions: the publisher values in the General references (IGN, Gamespot, etc), should be wikilinked. Drewcifer ( talk) 09:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
So I have to oppose at the moment with so many concerns. I'm sure they can be remedied and please let me know when you'd like me to look the article again. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 15:43, 23 April 2008.
Having successfully promoted Green Wing (series 1) to featured list, I am trying to do the same with the second series. I have followed the same prinicples as I did with the previous list and I believe that this list is now of the same quality. ISD ( talk) 11:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
That's it from me. The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 17:00, 28 March, 2008
The list was not promoted 00:36, 22 April 2008.
Self-nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because it meets the FAC criteria and is as complete as it needs to be to show the discography of mentioned artist. Lonelysoulq ( talk) 23:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose
That's all. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose For all of the reasons above, as well as a general disregard for established discography style. Check out any of the other FL discogs to see what I mean. Drewcifer ( talk) 00:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose Per all of the above. Burningclean [speak] 03:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 00:36, 22 April 2008.
My next lists were going to be season articles for Degrassi Junior High, but I'm getting really annoyed with that whole thing at the moment. Instead, here's something that isn't media or sports related.
So, yeah. A list of LAPD cops killed in the line of duty. Every cop is listed, some, especially the more recent ones, have specfic references, the others can be referenced by the three general references given. If I'm forced to I suppose I can make a trip to the county library in downtown LA, which has archived the Los Angeles Herald, but I'd rather not. I've tried to keep the Lead WP:Neutral, but let me know if it needs tightening, and as always, any other comments and concerns will be addressed. Thank you. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Support as nominator -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
class=unsortable
in the table heading.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replyThat's me done! The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose I dont think the entire list is encyclopedic, and I notice the FA nomination as I was about to list it for AfD. They have a web site for the purpose, referenced above. I do not think it needs a WP article. DGG ( talk) 03:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments from Collectonian Collectonian ( talk) 06:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC): reply
The list was not promoted 21:50, 16 April 2008.
I'm nominating this article because I feel that is an exemplary example of a season page. I know that the story blurs the line between serial and season a lot, as it's a season-long serial, but given that it was produced in three different blocks, and is considered by the exec producers and most fans as four closely linked serials, I'm leaning to nominating this as a season page, and am nominating it here to follow precedent. Sceptre ( talk) 20:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 21:33, 15 April 2008.
This list is based off of List of billionaires (2007), a list I submitted that became WP:FL a few weeks ago. Gary King ( talk) 17:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Support I delinked the word "billionaire" in the enboldened part of the lead, but apart from that, it's very similar to List of billionaires (2007). Congrats (once again!) on your hard work. PeterSymonds | talk 17:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply
SupportIt's been a long road, but the article's looking very nice! Great work.
Drewcifer (
talk)
07:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Abstain Since it seems I'm in the minority (see below), I'll just withdraw my vote. For my own piece of mind, however, I'd still like to bring up the topic at
WP:RS or something like that, but for now I'll let the cards fall as they may for this FLC. I'll try and keep everyone posted.
Drewcifer (
talk)
20:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Oppose For the reasons listed above (below). A list that is a direct transcription of information from a single source is unnecessary and largely unhelpful. As it stands, a single External link would accomplish just as much as the entire list.
Drewcifer (
talk) 17:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment The # column doesn't sort. That, and I don't think a column should be named by a symbol.
Drewcifer (
talk)
17:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
:It sorts for me. Plus, the column is small, so a whole word would widen the cells unnecessarily. The symbol # is widely known as a number, but that's just my humble opinion. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]]|[[User talk:PeterSymonds|<small>talk</small>]] 17:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
←Ohh, sorry. I thought you were referring to other Wikipedia articles. My fault. Yes, that would certainly be a good start. You could use the Forbes thing as a general resource, then have specific in-lines from wherever else. However, you said up above that "There are indeed a number of sources to get the net worth of each billionaire". Those other sources should definitely be used. Drewcifer ( talk) 05:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not much else to moan about though, besides the slightly excessive external links and the dependency on a single primary source. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
That's it. Mainly a lot of redirects to fix. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:59, 25 March, 2008 More
-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:04, 25 March, 2008
More comments
-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments Following the recent vandalism, there still seems to be a conflicting entry at 73. Where it used to be Beau Brady and Namco, it is now Phillip Knight and Nike. ( see the diff from the last known good edit on the 25th, to now). I don't want to change it though because I haven't verified it. Unfortunately, Criteria 1c (factually correct) and 1e (stability) are the problem right now, although 1c is easily fixed (see above), but the list is being vandalised, is currently edit-protected until April 10, and so I'm currently hesitant to support. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:18, 27 March, 2008
I'm not sure how I feel about this page now, since its move. I preferred it when it was "List of billionaires (2008)", as it met criteria 1a3 and 1e. As soon as February 2009 rolls around, somebody had better update this list immediately, or it will become unfeatured. Sure, we expect editors to update it, but it doesn't mean they will. I didn't see the harm in having it set to one year; season pages for TV shows do this, as do lists of hurricanes (albeit for a longer period of perhaps a decade). It's also still semi-protected, which since that's an automatic fail for a GA, it should be an automatic fail for featured status. When does the protect expire? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 21:33, 15 April 2008.
Self nomination All the concerns I think have been addressed since the last FLC. It no longer looks like a Skittleopedia, and has all the relevent information, with a suitable Lead section, and is fully referenced. All concerns/comments will be addressed. Thanks -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Collectonian ( talk) 00:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 21:33, 15 April 2008.
I believe that this list os worthy of being a Featured list. Please let me know if additional changes need to be made.-- Kumioko ( talk) 13:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
**Dates should all be formatted per
WP:DATE and date ranges should separate using an en-dash per
WP:DASH.
**Avoid links in bold sections of the lead per
WP:LEAD#Bold title.
**Why are there several sections which just link to other articles? If there are no medal of honor recipients for those campaigns they shouldn't be linked to here. If there are recipients for those campaigns then they should be included here otherwise this list will be incomplete.
Comments
Follow-up
Support though I had a thought last night. If you gave each section here their own page instead of having 5 or 6 lists and then redirects to all others, brought them all to FLC and passed them, you could use this page as the main one for a Featured Topic. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 14:24, 29 March, 2008
This along with the *, indicates that the Medal of Honor was awarded posthumously
Any reason to have both the background and *. I believe the background color is sufficient.
PG
Pirate
15:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments Definately a good list. I only have a few comments/suggestions. First, the wdith of the columns should ideally be kept consistent. This is an aethetic issue, but it also has ramifications for the content: the notes section in some of the tables gets really really squished. Take a look at Ross L. Iams' entry and you'll see what I mean. To solve this problem, you could probably shrink the name column(s) a bit. Additionally, the Korean Expedition table should be kept consistent as well, even though there's no images to its right. Also part of the problem is that some of the notes are very wordy, and at times POV. For instance: "desperate hand-to-hand combat", "selflessly hurled himself", "remained unflinchingly in this dangerous position and gave his soundings with coolness and accuracy under a heavy fire.", etc. Lastly, the posthumous awards is a good, but I'm not sure why you need the grey box AND the star. Just the grey background should suffice. Drewcifer ( talk) 20:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments by ERcheck:
— ERcheck ( talk) 14:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 21:35, 15 April 2008.
I'll withdraw this and come back after I fix everything below. Thanks - Milk's favorite Cookie 15:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC) I have worked hard on this list. It is well referenced, well written, the lead looks good, and is very informative. It overall looks like a good featured list. Thanks. - M ilks F 'avorite C ookie 22:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
Alaney2k ( talk) 20:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I think that applies to this article, which has links to articles of Oilers' seasons. As for your second point, it may pre-date the WP:SAL and is easily cleared up. Alaney2k ( talk) 20:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC) replyStand-alone lists and "lists of links" are Wikipedia articles that contain primarily a list. The list usually consist of links to articles in a particular subject area, such as people or places or a timeline of events.
Comment Unlike the Carolina Hurricanes season article up for FL, this one does include the WHA years and should be applauded for having it there. It is not the standard for WP:HOCKEY though why couldn't it be the standard for WP:HOCKEY? Alaney2k ( talk) 22:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 21:24, 15 April 2008.
Self nomination I've been working on this periodically for a while now and really got into it about a week ago. It's ready now. I left out the b-sides because they are all demos, live, and covers. There are no actual non-album tracks. If you want to see them, they can be found here. I'm welcome to any comments and suggestions. Thanks, Burningclean [speak] 21:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Support Cool man. Drewcifer ( talk) 02:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments Looks pretty good. I do have a few suggestions, however:
<br
/>
<br /
>
. Such as "Top Music<br
/>
Video peak" and "RIAA<br
/>
certification". Those cells are already tall enough to allow a second line, might as well use it.
Drewcifer (
talk)
05:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Until the above three are featured in the discography, it's incomplete. LuciferMorgan ( talk) 12:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Other than that, looks pretty good, dude, good work! Skeletor2112 ( talk) 05:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Hey, looking at some of the demo pages for the band - there are quite a few more recordings, (some I've never heard of) but there are some well known ones, like Hit the Lights (album), Power Metal (Metallica album) and No Life 'Til Leather. I'm not up on discogs, but if the Metal Massacre "Hit the Lights" is included, these probably should, too. Skeletor2112 ( talk) 06:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Garage Inc. should be listed as a compilation. WesleyDodds ( talk) 06:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Withdraw nom I'm am going to with draw the nom. I've been busy lately and I need to rewrite the lead. Not much time on my hands to do that. I'll work on the lead as well as any other issues listed here, and then renominate. It shouldn't be too long until it is back up here. I'd say maby a week or two. Thanks for the reviews everyone. Burningclean [speak] 19:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 15:50, 14 April 2008.
I *believe* this is a FL. I have reviewed other FLC and fixed most of the mistakes. I do believe it needs a picture, but I haven't found a free photo yet. This can be added later. PG Pirate 14:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
comments
So, as per Matthew, I have to oppose primarily over concerns with this list not actually being what it says it is. The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Which says in the lead that the "Carolina Hurricanes franchise was founded in 1971" and I believe the list should contain the seasons for the franchise. Otherwise it's the list of seasons for when the franchise was known as the Carolina Hurricanes. It should be per the NFL lists. Chicago Bears seasons deals with different leagues as well. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
In short, it proves that the NFL is not exactly uniform when concerning its relocated teams. One team moves and acts as an expansion team, while a true expansion team gets to pretend its been around for 50 years. If anything, this helps to explain that relocated teams are in effect different than the former team it was. Kaiser matias ( talk) 07:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 15:50, 14 April 2008.
Self-nomination. This is a list of all releases by British rock group Bloc Party. The list meets all of the criteria, is well sourced and has a comprehensive lead section, it is accurate and detailed without going overboard with useless trivia. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 18:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
"—" denotes releases that did not chart.
Good work so far! Here's a few more (much minor) suggestions/concerns I have:
Comments
Otherwise it's okay. I was actually going to work on this about a month ago and nom it myself, but I got sidetracked! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I've done most of those things now, if you'd like to check. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 10:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose
The list was not promoted 06:09, 13 April 2008.
It has recently gone through a major renovation and is a very clean list. — ComputerGuy89010 0 Talk to me What I've done to help Wikipedia 21:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
-- Crzy cheetah 21:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose
-- Holderca1 talk 22:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
That's all. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I made the list, and I don't think it's ready. I'm not going to try to improve it to FL status, but I would like to comment on a few of the objections:
-- NE2 19:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 04:02, 8 April 2008.
Complete list of medals per country for the 1928 Summer Olympics, with a comprehensive lead section to introduce the data. – Ilse @ 18:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
I'm not sure I can help much with the Olympic-related stuff as while I enjoy the games it's not something I'm knowledgeable about. I'll try to help with the Wikipedia and language-related stuff instead.
That's it. Sorry I can't be of more help cause I like the idea of this --
ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:38, 25 March, 2008
Comments Let's try again...
Oppose, regretfully. I have followed these 45 pages for a couple of years, so I was intrigued at the possibility of promoting them to feature lists. However, in good faith I cannot support the nomination of this list in its current form. I think it fails criteria 1d of
WP:Featured list criteria, as the inclusion of the art competitions is controversial disputed. Art competitions are given undue weight in this article, as they comprised only one of fifteen competitions at the Games yet the sub-total for them is given the same weight as the combined total for the other fourteen. Equally important, there is no contemporary source that can be used as a secondary source that includes these totals. I strongly feel that nothing more than a "see also" reference is appropriate. —
Andrwsc (
talk ·
contribs)
16:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Kind regards Doma-w ( talk) 23:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
To be honest, I haven't read much of the above, but just looking at the list another time, I feel as though its quality has just gotten worse. There are hardly any citations, there is a separate medal table (which, as mentioned above, should not be there, in my opinion), and the information written out in prose is generic information not particularly about these games. Sometimes information in pages has to overlap, and I think that it is crucial for a medal count to explain the medals won at these games. I'm not seeing any explanations here. I am still not going to oppose this nomination, but as much as I would want WP:OLYMPICS to have another FL, I don't feel as though this is quality work, and accurately represents the depth that this page should theoretically have. I am certain there is information out there. Perhaps starting with a more recent medal page would make for an easier time getting the page to FL status. It would then serve as a good model. Jared (t) 20:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 04:02, 8 April 2008.
An extensive list of sales, EVERY claim is sourced. There are no tags requiring citations although there is one dubious tag. Despite this one dubious tag there doesnt seem to bee too much controversy surrounding it as it hasnt sparked too much debate on the talk page. The article is stable as a result of the semi protection i requested. Realist2 ( talk) 01:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose Definitely a good start, but there's a couple somewhat major issues I see:
That's about it for now. There's still a few more minor things I've noticed, but I'll stop here to avoid piling it on. Drewcifer ( talk) 05:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I have done most of then now. I cant format sources however. I need help on that. Realist2 ( talk) 12:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
So oppose for now. The Rambling Man ( talk) 12:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Is there a GOOD list candidates page , maybe i applied at the wrong place, i only wanted to get it up to the equivalent of GA. I was redirected to you guys by a fellow wiki.... lol.... Realist2 ( talk) 12:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Na you cant do lists there. Realist2 ( talk) 14:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Feel free to remove this article if you dont think it comes close to reaching FA, I cant resolve the issue of formatting citations. Realist2 ( talk) 18:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
These wierd {{ cite web}} template things need using. I cant do it. Realist2 ( talk) 19:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
url
, title
and accessdate
parameters (although there are many other parameters you can use as well). Hope that helps.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
07:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replyThe list was not promoted 07:07, 6 April 2008.
Nominating this list in tandem with List of billionaires (2008). Both lists are based off of List of billionaires (2007), a recent WP:FL. Gary King ( talk) 21:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply
CommentsSupport Thanks.
PPR links to a dab page. I'd write
TWA in full.
Ray Ban should be hyphenated. The only thing I would suggest is making it clear that people made their money through investments, because when I first went through it I thought it was a company! There was one (
Schaeffler Group) that linked to the founder, which I don't mind too much, but presumably if it made them billions then the actual group would warrant an article of its own. Anyway, great effort.
PeterSymonds |
talk
22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments
-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:21, 25 March, 2008
Oppose For same reasons already mentioned in the 2008 nomination. Drewcifer ( talk) 01:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 18:56, 3 April 2008.
The list is well formatted, and easily accessable for changes. Links are provided to seasonal pages for expanded information, and individual episode pages where necessary. Information that needs to be cited is. The lead paragraph may need some work which can be adressed her if needed. Despite season five still airing having future episodes symbolizes the incompleteness of the show rather than the list itself and episodes are only added once they appear on the shows official site, one week before broadcast. The list is also simular to
List of Smallville episodes and
List of The Simpsons episodes
Russell
[ Talk ]
18:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments
-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Ep # | Title | Writer(s) | Director(s) | Airdate |
---|---|---|---|---|
23(1) | "The Desperate Kingdom of Love" | Mark Schwahn | Greg Prange | September 21, 2004 |
23-201 | "The Desperate Kingdom of Love" | Mark Schwahn | Greg Prange | September 21, 2004 |
Russell [ Talk ] 13:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I prefer:
Season # |
Series # |
Title | Writer(s) | Director(s) | Airdate |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 23 | "The Desperate Kingdom of Love" | Mark Schwahn | Greg Prange | September 21, 2004 |
-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 19:52, 3 April 2008.
This list has gone through a peer review following which I feel the list meets the criteria for listed status. Peanut4 ( talk) 02:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
That's it. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 01:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments I participated at the peer review. One or two more bits.
That's all I can think of, cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 17:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Further comment Please would you explain why you've removed the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup from the table. Perhaps this has been discussed somewhere, but I haven't seen it.
It's not entirely accurate to say it's not "recognised" by UEFA. It never was a UEFA competition; they took over the running of it in 1971, so it's not surprising that they don't consider it as part of clubs' European record, which they presumably define as "record in our competitions". In your reference #14, they do list the results of all the ICFC finals, so they recognise that when people look up all-time UEFA Cup finals, they'll expect to find the Fairs Cup ones as well. Their UEFA Cup history page devotes the first three paragraphs (of seven) to it, and says In 1968 Leeds United AFC became the first northern European club to win the trophy, heralding a run of six successive wins by English clubs. The fifth of these was in 1971/72, won by Tottenham Hotspur FC, and the first to be known as the UEFA Cup. The change of name was recognition of the fact the competition was now run by UEFA. I don't see any evidence there of the ICFC being any less "major" a trophy than its successor. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 07:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment - not wishing to be too controversial but there appears to be a miniature witch-hunt going on for vaguely ambiguous list titles (see the List of Arsenal F.C. players delist debate going on) - while there may be a generally agreed WP:FOOTBALL version of "major honours", it won't stop a non-WP:FOOTBALLer popping up to tell you it doesn't cut the mustard (although probably not in such an Imperialist tone!). I'd think long and hard over the title of this if you wish it to succeed. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 02:25, 1 May 2008.
This is quite honestly the most comprehensive list I have ever seen on the subject. All full generals in the history of the United States Army are listed, with birth and death year, source of commision, date of promotion to 4 star rank, assignments held as a full general with dates, blood relation to other four star officers, relief of commands, and government service, if any, after retirement from the military. It is also extremely well sourced, and a quick look shows only one redlink for the subjects on the list.-- Nobunaga24 ( talk) 00:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
Noble Story ( talk) 02:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Phew, some list. Could do with having gone to peer review first in my opinion, as there are some clear WP:MOS violations. However, some comments...
That's a start, right now, since there's a lot to do here, it's an oppose. The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 22:28, 29 April 2008.
Based off of the 2003 Atlantic hurricane season and 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, I rewrote 2006 Atlantic hurricane season with the same format, splitting the storms section into its own list. While there might be very minor stuff that I can't see, I think after a few months of on-and-off work, this meets the FL criteria. If not, I will be happy to address any issues that come up. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Hello Julian, good work as usual, so my comments are here:
That's it for now, mainly trivial stuff. The Rambling Man ( talk) 06:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Actually "working" at the moment, I'll get back to you! The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC) More reply
The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 22:28, 29 April 2008.
Another NHL player list to nominate. It's fairly similar to List of Columbus Blue Jackets players in that both teams joined the league in the same year and have comparable numbers of players. Comments welcome. Kaiser matias ( talk) 01:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
That's all I can see. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 07:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
upright
as your size parameter. And put the images in the right section - the first goaltender overlaps a section boundary.That's all from me for the moment. The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose—Criterion 2a and the requirement for "professional standards of writing".
The list was not promoted 15:22, 26 April 2008.
User:Viriditas recently suggested that I nominate this as a featured list; it was created in support of Caroline Island, which has been a featured article since 2006. -- Sethant ( talk) 20:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments from - MILK'S FAVORITE COOKIE (Talk)
- MILK'S FAVORITE COOKIE (Talk) 21:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I have to oppose at the moment, it's a confusing list, it has a few MOS issues as above. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 15:22, 26 April 2008.
SELF-NOM For those people who are looking at this thinking, "isn't this already nominated?", the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is in charge of the law enforcement of Unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, and also for the many incorporated cities who have contracted the Department. They also provide Bailiffs for the courthouses in LA County, operate the county's jails, and have their own training academy, which is also contracted to train smaller police departments. In contrast, the LAPD is in charge of law enforcement in the city of Los Angeles only.
So this is another fallen officers list, comparable I think to the List of Los Angeles Police Department officers killed in the line of duty, which was nominated some days ago. As usual, all comments and concerns will be addressed. Thank you. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Collectonian ( talk) 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 15:22, 26 April 2008.
I am self-nominating this article. This article is based on List of acquisitions by Google, a recently promoted list that I also worked on. Gary King ( talk) 20:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments Just 2 little ones
-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply
That's it for me. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Collectonian ( talk) 16:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 18:08, 24 April 2008.
previous FLC (07:29, 25 February 2008)
Self nomination. I cleaned up the sections and made this more like a FL since the last nom. The lead has also been expanded, and I think this article is ready. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 12:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Much, much better, and much more what FLs are about. Some specific comments.
thumb
for landscape and thumb|upright
for portraits. Consider moving on of the images into the lead.Go Irish! 22:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
So, oppose for now, but these can all be fixed. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
Some more to deal with. The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 20:55, 23 April 2008.
Heres a list I worked on based on the List of Virtual Boy games format, which is featured. I used several different references including IGN, Gamespot, and Modojo.-- Coasttocoast ( talk) 01:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Support Awesome list! Very nicely done. I only have one small suggestions: the publisher values in the General references (IGN, Gamespot, etc), should be wikilinked. Drewcifer ( talk) 09:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
So I have to oppose at the moment with so many concerns. I'm sure they can be remedied and please let me know when you'd like me to look the article again. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 15:43, 23 April 2008.
Having successfully promoted Green Wing (series 1) to featured list, I am trying to do the same with the second series. I have followed the same prinicples as I did with the previous list and I believe that this list is now of the same quality. ISD ( talk) 11:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
That's it from me. The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 17:00, 28 March, 2008
The list was not promoted 00:36, 22 April 2008.
Self-nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because it meets the FAC criteria and is as complete as it needs to be to show the discography of mentioned artist. Lonelysoulq ( talk) 23:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose
That's all. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose For all of the reasons above, as well as a general disregard for established discography style. Check out any of the other FL discogs to see what I mean. Drewcifer ( talk) 00:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose Per all of the above. Burningclean [speak] 03:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 00:36, 22 April 2008.
My next lists were going to be season articles for Degrassi Junior High, but I'm getting really annoyed with that whole thing at the moment. Instead, here's something that isn't media or sports related.
So, yeah. A list of LAPD cops killed in the line of duty. Every cop is listed, some, especially the more recent ones, have specfic references, the others can be referenced by the three general references given. If I'm forced to I suppose I can make a trip to the county library in downtown LA, which has archived the Los Angeles Herald, but I'd rather not. I've tried to keep the Lead WP:Neutral, but let me know if it needs tightening, and as always, any other comments and concerns will be addressed. Thank you. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Support as nominator -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
class=unsortable
in the table heading.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replyThat's me done! The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose I dont think the entire list is encyclopedic, and I notice the FA nomination as I was about to list it for AfD. They have a web site for the purpose, referenced above. I do not think it needs a WP article. DGG ( talk) 03:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments from Collectonian Collectonian ( talk) 06:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC): reply
The list was not promoted 21:50, 16 April 2008.
I'm nominating this article because I feel that is an exemplary example of a season page. I know that the story blurs the line between serial and season a lot, as it's a season-long serial, but given that it was produced in three different blocks, and is considered by the exec producers and most fans as four closely linked serials, I'm leaning to nominating this as a season page, and am nominating it here to follow precedent. Sceptre ( talk) 20:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 21:33, 15 April 2008.
This list is based off of List of billionaires (2007), a list I submitted that became WP:FL a few weeks ago. Gary King ( talk) 17:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Support I delinked the word "billionaire" in the enboldened part of the lead, but apart from that, it's very similar to List of billionaires (2007). Congrats (once again!) on your hard work. PeterSymonds | talk 17:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply
SupportIt's been a long road, but the article's looking very nice! Great work.
Drewcifer (
talk)
07:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Abstain Since it seems I'm in the minority (see below), I'll just withdraw my vote. For my own piece of mind, however, I'd still like to bring up the topic at
WP:RS or something like that, but for now I'll let the cards fall as they may for this FLC. I'll try and keep everyone posted.
Drewcifer (
talk)
20:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Oppose For the reasons listed above (below). A list that is a direct transcription of information from a single source is unnecessary and largely unhelpful. As it stands, a single External link would accomplish just as much as the entire list.
Drewcifer (
talk) 17:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment The # column doesn't sort. That, and I don't think a column should be named by a symbol.
Drewcifer (
talk)
17:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
:It sorts for me. Plus, the column is small, so a whole word would widen the cells unnecessarily. The symbol # is widely known as a number, but that's just my humble opinion. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]]|[[User talk:PeterSymonds|<small>talk</small>]] 17:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
←Ohh, sorry. I thought you were referring to other Wikipedia articles. My fault. Yes, that would certainly be a good start. You could use the Forbes thing as a general resource, then have specific in-lines from wherever else. However, you said up above that "There are indeed a number of sources to get the net worth of each billionaire". Those other sources should definitely be used. Drewcifer ( talk) 05:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not much else to moan about though, besides the slightly excessive external links and the dependency on a single primary source. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
That's it. Mainly a lot of redirects to fix. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:59, 25 March, 2008 More
-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:04, 25 March, 2008
More comments
-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments Following the recent vandalism, there still seems to be a conflicting entry at 73. Where it used to be Beau Brady and Namco, it is now Phillip Knight and Nike. ( see the diff from the last known good edit on the 25th, to now). I don't want to change it though because I haven't verified it. Unfortunately, Criteria 1c (factually correct) and 1e (stability) are the problem right now, although 1c is easily fixed (see above), but the list is being vandalised, is currently edit-protected until April 10, and so I'm currently hesitant to support. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:18, 27 March, 2008
I'm not sure how I feel about this page now, since its move. I preferred it when it was "List of billionaires (2008)", as it met criteria 1a3 and 1e. As soon as February 2009 rolls around, somebody had better update this list immediately, or it will become unfeatured. Sure, we expect editors to update it, but it doesn't mean they will. I didn't see the harm in having it set to one year; season pages for TV shows do this, as do lists of hurricanes (albeit for a longer period of perhaps a decade). It's also still semi-protected, which since that's an automatic fail for a GA, it should be an automatic fail for featured status. When does the protect expire? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 21:33, 15 April 2008.
Self nomination All the concerns I think have been addressed since the last FLC. It no longer looks like a Skittleopedia, and has all the relevent information, with a suitable Lead section, and is fully referenced. All concerns/comments will be addressed. Thanks -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Collectonian ( talk) 00:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 21:33, 15 April 2008.
I believe that this list os worthy of being a Featured list. Please let me know if additional changes need to be made.-- Kumioko ( talk) 13:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
**Dates should all be formatted per
WP:DATE and date ranges should separate using an en-dash per
WP:DASH.
**Avoid links in bold sections of the lead per
WP:LEAD#Bold title.
**Why are there several sections which just link to other articles? If there are no medal of honor recipients for those campaigns they shouldn't be linked to here. If there are recipients for those campaigns then they should be included here otherwise this list will be incomplete.
Comments
Follow-up
Support though I had a thought last night. If you gave each section here their own page instead of having 5 or 6 lists and then redirects to all others, brought them all to FLC and passed them, you could use this page as the main one for a Featured Topic. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 14:24, 29 March, 2008
This along with the *, indicates that the Medal of Honor was awarded posthumously
Any reason to have both the background and *. I believe the background color is sufficient.
PG
Pirate
15:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments Definately a good list. I only have a few comments/suggestions. First, the wdith of the columns should ideally be kept consistent. This is an aethetic issue, but it also has ramifications for the content: the notes section in some of the tables gets really really squished. Take a look at Ross L. Iams' entry and you'll see what I mean. To solve this problem, you could probably shrink the name column(s) a bit. Additionally, the Korean Expedition table should be kept consistent as well, even though there's no images to its right. Also part of the problem is that some of the notes are very wordy, and at times POV. For instance: "desperate hand-to-hand combat", "selflessly hurled himself", "remained unflinchingly in this dangerous position and gave his soundings with coolness and accuracy under a heavy fire.", etc. Lastly, the posthumous awards is a good, but I'm not sure why you need the grey box AND the star. Just the grey background should suffice. Drewcifer ( talk) 20:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments by ERcheck:
— ERcheck ( talk) 14:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 21:35, 15 April 2008.
I'll withdraw this and come back after I fix everything below. Thanks - Milk's favorite Cookie 15:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC) I have worked hard on this list. It is well referenced, well written, the lead looks good, and is very informative. It overall looks like a good featured list. Thanks. - M ilks F 'avorite C ookie 22:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
Alaney2k ( talk) 20:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I think that applies to this article, which has links to articles of Oilers' seasons. As for your second point, it may pre-date the WP:SAL and is easily cleared up. Alaney2k ( talk) 20:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC) replyStand-alone lists and "lists of links" are Wikipedia articles that contain primarily a list. The list usually consist of links to articles in a particular subject area, such as people or places or a timeline of events.
Comment Unlike the Carolina Hurricanes season article up for FL, this one does include the WHA years and should be applauded for having it there. It is not the standard for WP:HOCKEY though why couldn't it be the standard for WP:HOCKEY? Alaney2k ( talk) 22:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 21:24, 15 April 2008.
Self nomination I've been working on this periodically for a while now and really got into it about a week ago. It's ready now. I left out the b-sides because they are all demos, live, and covers. There are no actual non-album tracks. If you want to see them, they can be found here. I'm welcome to any comments and suggestions. Thanks, Burningclean [speak] 21:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Support Cool man. Drewcifer ( talk) 02:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments Looks pretty good. I do have a few suggestions, however:
<br
/>
<br /
>
. Such as "Top Music<br
/>
Video peak" and "RIAA<br
/>
certification". Those cells are already tall enough to allow a second line, might as well use it.
Drewcifer (
talk)
05:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Until the above three are featured in the discography, it's incomplete. LuciferMorgan ( talk) 12:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Other than that, looks pretty good, dude, good work! Skeletor2112 ( talk) 05:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Hey, looking at some of the demo pages for the band - there are quite a few more recordings, (some I've never heard of) but there are some well known ones, like Hit the Lights (album), Power Metal (Metallica album) and No Life 'Til Leather. I'm not up on discogs, but if the Metal Massacre "Hit the Lights" is included, these probably should, too. Skeletor2112 ( talk) 06:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Garage Inc. should be listed as a compilation. WesleyDodds ( talk) 06:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Withdraw nom I'm am going to with draw the nom. I've been busy lately and I need to rewrite the lead. Not much time on my hands to do that. I'll work on the lead as well as any other issues listed here, and then renominate. It shouldn't be too long until it is back up here. I'd say maby a week or two. Thanks for the reviews everyone. Burningclean [speak] 19:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 15:50, 14 April 2008.
I *believe* this is a FL. I have reviewed other FLC and fixed most of the mistakes. I do believe it needs a picture, but I haven't found a free photo yet. This can be added later. PG Pirate 14:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
comments
So, as per Matthew, I have to oppose primarily over concerns with this list not actually being what it says it is. The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Which says in the lead that the "Carolina Hurricanes franchise was founded in 1971" and I believe the list should contain the seasons for the franchise. Otherwise it's the list of seasons for when the franchise was known as the Carolina Hurricanes. It should be per the NFL lists. Chicago Bears seasons deals with different leagues as well. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
In short, it proves that the NFL is not exactly uniform when concerning its relocated teams. One team moves and acts as an expansion team, while a true expansion team gets to pretend its been around for 50 years. If anything, this helps to explain that relocated teams are in effect different than the former team it was. Kaiser matias ( talk) 07:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 15:50, 14 April 2008.
Self-nomination. This is a list of all releases by British rock group Bloc Party. The list meets all of the criteria, is well sourced and has a comprehensive lead section, it is accurate and detailed without going overboard with useless trivia. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 18:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
"—" denotes releases that did not chart.
Good work so far! Here's a few more (much minor) suggestions/concerns I have:
Comments
Otherwise it's okay. I was actually going to work on this about a month ago and nom it myself, but I got sidetracked! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I've done most of those things now, if you'd like to check. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 10:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose
The list was not promoted 06:09, 13 April 2008.
It has recently gone through a major renovation and is a very clean list. — ComputerGuy89010 0 Talk to me What I've done to help Wikipedia 21:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
-- Crzy cheetah 21:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose
-- Holderca1 talk 22:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
That's all. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I made the list, and I don't think it's ready. I'm not going to try to improve it to FL status, but I would like to comment on a few of the objections:
-- NE2 19:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 04:02, 8 April 2008.
Complete list of medals per country for the 1928 Summer Olympics, with a comprehensive lead section to introduce the data. – Ilse @ 18:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
I'm not sure I can help much with the Olympic-related stuff as while I enjoy the games it's not something I'm knowledgeable about. I'll try to help with the Wikipedia and language-related stuff instead.
That's it. Sorry I can't be of more help cause I like the idea of this --
ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:38, 25 March, 2008
Comments Let's try again...
Oppose, regretfully. I have followed these 45 pages for a couple of years, so I was intrigued at the possibility of promoting them to feature lists. However, in good faith I cannot support the nomination of this list in its current form. I think it fails criteria 1d of
WP:Featured list criteria, as the inclusion of the art competitions is controversial disputed. Art competitions are given undue weight in this article, as they comprised only one of fifteen competitions at the Games yet the sub-total for them is given the same weight as the combined total for the other fourteen. Equally important, there is no contemporary source that can be used as a secondary source that includes these totals. I strongly feel that nothing more than a "see also" reference is appropriate. —
Andrwsc (
talk ·
contribs)
16:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Kind regards Doma-w ( talk) 23:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
To be honest, I haven't read much of the above, but just looking at the list another time, I feel as though its quality has just gotten worse. There are hardly any citations, there is a separate medal table (which, as mentioned above, should not be there, in my opinion), and the information written out in prose is generic information not particularly about these games. Sometimes information in pages has to overlap, and I think that it is crucial for a medal count to explain the medals won at these games. I'm not seeing any explanations here. I am still not going to oppose this nomination, but as much as I would want WP:OLYMPICS to have another FL, I don't feel as though this is quality work, and accurately represents the depth that this page should theoretically have. I am certain there is information out there. Perhaps starting with a more recent medal page would make for an easier time getting the page to FL status. It would then serve as a good model. Jared (t) 20:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 04:02, 8 April 2008.
An extensive list of sales, EVERY claim is sourced. There are no tags requiring citations although there is one dubious tag. Despite this one dubious tag there doesnt seem to bee too much controversy surrounding it as it hasnt sparked too much debate on the talk page. The article is stable as a result of the semi protection i requested. Realist2 ( talk) 01:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose Definitely a good start, but there's a couple somewhat major issues I see:
That's about it for now. There's still a few more minor things I've noticed, but I'll stop here to avoid piling it on. Drewcifer ( talk) 05:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I have done most of then now. I cant format sources however. I need help on that. Realist2 ( talk) 12:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
So oppose for now. The Rambling Man ( talk) 12:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Is there a GOOD list candidates page , maybe i applied at the wrong place, i only wanted to get it up to the equivalent of GA. I was redirected to you guys by a fellow wiki.... lol.... Realist2 ( talk) 12:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Na you cant do lists there. Realist2 ( talk) 14:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Feel free to remove this article if you dont think it comes close to reaching FA, I cant resolve the issue of formatting citations. Realist2 ( talk) 18:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
These wierd {{ cite web}} template things need using. I cant do it. Realist2 ( talk) 19:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
url
, title
and accessdate
parameters (although there are many other parameters you can use as well). Hope that helps.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
07:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replyThe list was not promoted 07:07, 6 April 2008.
Nominating this list in tandem with List of billionaires (2008). Both lists are based off of List of billionaires (2007), a recent WP:FL. Gary King ( talk) 21:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply
CommentsSupport Thanks.
PPR links to a dab page. I'd write
TWA in full.
Ray Ban should be hyphenated. The only thing I would suggest is making it clear that people made their money through investments, because when I first went through it I thought it was a company! There was one (
Schaeffler Group) that linked to the founder, which I don't mind too much, but presumably if it made them billions then the actual group would warrant an article of its own. Anyway, great effort.
PeterSymonds |
talk
22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments
-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:21, 25 March, 2008
Oppose For same reasons already mentioned in the 2008 nomination. Drewcifer ( talk) 01:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 18:56, 3 April 2008.
The list is well formatted, and easily accessable for changes. Links are provided to seasonal pages for expanded information, and individual episode pages where necessary. Information that needs to be cited is. The lead paragraph may need some work which can be adressed her if needed. Despite season five still airing having future episodes symbolizes the incompleteness of the show rather than the list itself and episodes are only added once they appear on the shows official site, one week before broadcast. The list is also simular to
List of Smallville episodes and
List of The Simpsons episodes
Russell
[ Talk ]
18:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comments
-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Ep # | Title | Writer(s) | Director(s) | Airdate |
---|---|---|---|---|
23(1) | "The Desperate Kingdom of Love" | Mark Schwahn | Greg Prange | September 21, 2004 |
23-201 | "The Desperate Kingdom of Love" | Mark Schwahn | Greg Prange | September 21, 2004 |
Russell [ Talk ] 13:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I prefer:
Season # |
Series # |
Title | Writer(s) | Director(s) | Airdate |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 23 | "The Desperate Kingdom of Love" | Mark Schwahn | Greg Prange | September 21, 2004 |
-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted 19:52, 3 April 2008.
This list has gone through a peer review following which I feel the list meets the criteria for listed status. Peanut4 ( talk) 02:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
That's it. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 01:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments I participated at the peer review. One or two more bits.
That's all I can think of, cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 17:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Further comment Please would you explain why you've removed the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup from the table. Perhaps this has been discussed somewhere, but I haven't seen it.
It's not entirely accurate to say it's not "recognised" by UEFA. It never was a UEFA competition; they took over the running of it in 1971, so it's not surprising that they don't consider it as part of clubs' European record, which they presumably define as "record in our competitions". In your reference #14, they do list the results of all the ICFC finals, so they recognise that when people look up all-time UEFA Cup finals, they'll expect to find the Fairs Cup ones as well. Their UEFA Cup history page devotes the first three paragraphs (of seven) to it, and says In 1968 Leeds United AFC became the first northern European club to win the trophy, heralding a run of six successive wins by English clubs. The fifth of these was in 1971/72, won by Tottenham Hotspur FC, and the first to be known as the UEFA Cup. The change of name was recognition of the fact the competition was now run by UEFA. I don't see any evidence there of the ICFC being any less "major" a trophy than its successor. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 07:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment - not wishing to be too controversial but there appears to be a miniature witch-hunt going on for vaguely ambiguous list titles (see the List of Arsenal F.C. players delist debate going on) - while there may be a generally agreed WP:FOOTBALL version of "major honours", it won't stop a non-WP:FOOTBALLer popping up to tell you it doesn't cut the mustard (although probably not in such an Imperialist tone!). I'd think long and hard over the title of this if you wish it to succeed. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply