After the last FLC, the list has gone a major overhaul, and I now feel it is ready to be scrutinised by the community on regards to whether it is to become a Featured List. I feel it meets all the criteria and hopefully you will feel the same. Cheers NapHit (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The Years Won column doesn't sort correctly (and I wonder if it needs to sort at all?)
Am I right in thinking that the two of you mean "rows" and "rowspan" instead of "columns" and "colspan" ? If yes, I've updated the table to (hopefully) do what you had in mind. Otherwise, sorry, I missed the point. Schutz (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overall I'm not too keen on the continual use of the sortable tables, particularly in sections which simply don't need tables (like where you have only two rows).
Thanks for the comments TRM, I feel the prose is useful in the player record section, but if you feel it necessary I will delete it in the club record section, as I'm not sure if it's needed. Thanks for your time NapHit (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As stated by The Rambling Man, I'm not sure on the large usage of tables. I'm sure just using the "*..." layout of other lists, like in the featured Ipswich list, would be fine. For example, the table for youngest and oldest appearance holders.
Could the International section be expanded?
"Record Victory" - no need for victory to be capitalised.
The fees in "Transfer fees" could do with being right aligned, so they match up correctly.
I'd say the Honours section feels a little incomplete with only links shown for created articles. Articles need creating for the remaining Leauge Cup finals and UEFA Super Cup, assuming they're notable.
"Most appearances" table needs a reference.
Captions for images need full stops.
Sorry to butt in. Captions need full stops if the caption is a whole sentence, but if it isn't, e.g. "Fernando Torres, Liverpool's record signing", it shouldn't have a full stop. See WP:MOS#Captions. Struway2 (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer fees need to be correctly aligned, which could be done using {{0}}.
Could any more firsts be found? Such as the first match in Euorope?
Comments This list is well-referenced and has appropriate images. It does need a bit of work on the layout, particularly with the use of (sortable) tables where a bulleted list or no list/table at all might be preferable. Some comments:
Lead para 2. In sentence 1 Liverpool are one of the most successful clubs in England, in the 3rd sentence they're the most successful. You need to decide what this paragraph needs to say, and then probably rewrite it from scratch.
Lead para 3. Have a look at the Ipswich para 2, it works quite well.
Honours prose. In "domestically and in European Cup competitions", cup wants a small 'c'. If the number of times Liverpool have won any of the cup competitions is a record, then mention that in the prose, otherwise listing the number of times they won various cups only duplicates what appears in the table.
Honours table. In "Years Won", won wants a small 'w'.
Another way round the Notes column problem would be to close your prose section with a sentence introducing the table, saying something like "Liverpool's honours include the following:", and then put the reference at the end of that sentence. Then return the Notes column to one line per comp and use for specific notes.
You may want to explain why the Lancashire League win is worthy of notice.
Some of your links go to redirects (the League Cup finals are generally of the format yyyy Football League Cup Final rather than Football League Cup Final yyyy) which you may want to fix if you're going in there anyway.
Appearances section. Your prose bits (apart from Elisha Scott) just duplicate what appears in the tables, which seems a bit pointless. If you don't like the bulleted format as used in the Ipswich list, I'd lose the tables and just keep the prose.
Goalscorers section likewise.
Top scorers table needs a reference.
Club records section might work better as a bulleted list.
Sortable tables in general. They don't necessarily render or sort properly if the table contains cells extending over multiple rows or columns, apparently even if the offending column is unsortable. See Help:Sorting#Limitations. For the transfer fee tables, you could work round it with an introductory All transfer details are sourced from LFChistory.net followed by the specific reference, then you can lose the Notes column.
Transfer fees ought really to align on the decimal point. (Adding a {{0}} spacer before the single-digit-million amounts, like {{0}}£6m, seems to work, and doesn't affect the sorting in Firefox or IE6). Struway2 (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could add an external link to the club website.
Hope this doesn't sound like I'm saying rip it apart and do it again (though it probably does). I just had a look back at the appearances and goalscorers sections in the version I peer-reviewed, which was before you added all the small tables; thought it looked better then. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matters arising
Sorting the transfer fee tables. For some browsers, if any cell of a table covers more than one row, it does mess up the sorting. Perhaps it isn't a problem on your browser, but what happens for me using Firefox 2.0 when I sort any column of those tables, is that a line appears dividing the Notes column into two sections, the footnote number appears in the centre of the lower of these two sections, and the bottom border of the notes column disappears. In IE6 the same happens except the bottom border remains intact.
Also, the number column doesn't sort numerically if you start with a cell containing an equals sign in the top row.
Top goalscorers table. It needs a reference - or probably more than one - that covers all the entries in the table. The book source supplied probably covers the older players, but the more recent ones, certainly Steven Gerrard, must have come from elsewhere. And as Matty says, the appearances table needs a reference/references as well.
Arising from that, you've got a problem with anons updating. A featured list shouldn't really need updating every time Liverpool have a game. Don't know what can be done about that. (Incidentally, you may want to check last night's anon edits, I'm not convinced they got it right.)
I took the liberty of adding your Lancashire League win (first ever trophy) to the prose in the Honours section. I see why you took it out of the major honours table but it deserved a mention somewhere. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More comments from The Rambling Man (talk·contribs) - I've done another run through since NapHit contacted me to say a lot of rework has taken place.
Please add punctuation (full stops) to notes.
"Most Overall『 - small o(verall).
』Phil Neal, 417 (From" (et seq) - make it f(rom).
Link hat trick on it's first use (and make sure you get the right hat trick!!).
"(During" (et seq) - small d(uring).
Fastest hat-trick versus whom?
Link Wales to Wales national football team. Check all other first instances are linked to appropriate national teams.
Consider relinking things like European Cup if in a new section.
"Most league wins in a season: 30 wins out of 42 games (Duri" - cap D again! I won't say it again - there are more so check for them all.
Most and fewest league wins - which league?
Same with defeats, which league?
"Fewest goals scored in a season: 42 in 34 and 42 games (During the 1901–02 and 1970–71 seasons).[18]" - I'd say 42 in 34 games (during the ..) and 42 in 42 games (during the...).
Use the {{sortname}} template in the transfers tables - it currently sorts by first name.
This list was based on another featured list I had promoted, The Corrs discography. I believe this article satisfies the criteria as it is well sourced, the information is extensive although she has only released two albums. Please take a look and voice your opinions. Cheers. σмgнgσмg(talk)11:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved Stuff from Drewcifer
Comments Looks pretty good. I do have some suggestions though:
The first table gets squished by the infobox. There are two solutions to fixing this problem, both of which I would recommend doing anyways. First, epxand the lead a bit. Second, remove some of the unnecessary rows in the infobox summary thing. Specifically, the "No. 1 singles" should go (overly positive, POV kind of thing), as should collaborations and b-sides. Also, whatever you do leave, make sure the links are working properly.
"Chart Positions" should be renamed to "Chart peak positions" or "Peak chart positions", since you're really only mentioning the peaks.
Certifications should be wikilinked to Music recording sales certification, RIAA should be changed to US and CRIA to CAN. But only in the first table. That would help make things clearer to the layman.
Along the same lines, the "RIAA" column in singles is too vague. Replace it with "RIAA certifications".
All chart position titles should be abbreviated. Take a look at other FL discogs to see how to abbreviate each one. Along the same lines, that wouldn't require so much horizontal space for each chart row. Where releases didn't chart, there should be a『—』rather than an ugly blank space. Then at the the bottom say "『—』denotes releases that did not chart."
There should be a little bit more info concerning the albums. When did it come out? What label? What formats? etc.
The citations need to give full and proper attribution. ie. Title, date, author, publisher, etc. Some of them do, but some don't. To help you in this, I'd recommend using citation templates, as that does most of the work for you, but those aren't required.
Definately looking better. Still a few things that haven't been addressed however: the citations need to give full attribution. The certification column should link to the certification agency (RIAA and CRIA). Also, I'm not so sure about the label column. Can't that stuff go in the beullet pointed notes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewcifer3000 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Citation templates have been added but to be honest, it is quite a bother, particularly the chart references, as they only have the publisher, ie. acharts.com or RIAA or CIAA. In regards to the label column, User:I7114080 was unhappy with the layout and we compromised on the talk page. σмgнgσмg(talk)05:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still no links in the tables to RIAA or CRIA. Also, the citations still need a bit of love. #7 has an errant ]. RIAA/CRIA should be spelled out here, and wikilinked the first time. allmusic.com should be All Music Guide. Citation #16 needs a publisher. Arista Records in #15 can be wikilinked. I guess I can deal with the label column, though you realize that no other discography does that, right? Seems like an odd bit of data to create an entire column for. Drewcifer (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, to be honest, I didn't like that compromise as well as it seemed a bit wierd so, I've got rid of it as there was sort of consensus to it. Finished the citations problems as well, so all done.=) σмgнgσмg(talk)09:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting closer... still, RIAA/CRIA should be spelled out in the citations, and wikilinked the first time. Inside Your Heaven certification cell is a little crazy. Also, the "Chart positions" in non-chart singles should match the others. Drewcifer (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, this is getting silly. Take another look, it's still not all there. Maybe look twice this time. CRIA should be spelled out. Publishers should be wikilinked only the first time (Arista). I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. Drewcifer (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, another minor thing, why are some of the chart positions blank, while some have the —? I understand that some don't apply, but some that you would think would are blank. Also, the fact that a particular chart wasn't applicable isn't really sourceable. So, could you replace all the blank cells with the dash, to take care of both problems at once? Drewcifer (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - some are left blank because of several reasons: a) the single was not released to that particular radio station or b) the Canadian Hot 100 was only established in mid-2006 to 2007, so some singles could not have been released to that station. σмgнgσмg(talk)09:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - leaving them blank without explanation is a little concerning. You may know why there's nothing in there, Drewcifer and I now know, but what about our humble audience? I would somehow denote it, but not leave it blank. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the dashes onto the mainstream singles table but I'm not sure about other charted songs, considering they were not officially released. σмgнgσмg(talk)07:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still see some which are confusingly blank. Like the CAN Hot 100 column, why doesn't that apply? It's just very odd to see blank spaces. Again, I think you should just put dashes in for all the blank cells. If a release didn't apply to a particular chart, then it didn't place on that chart, right? So the dash still applies. Drewcifer (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right, you did say that. My fault. But what about the other charted songs table? And the "Some Hearts" US country cell? And actually, I just noticed that there's four columns in the Other charted songs table with no data at all. Why are those even in the table? Drewcifer (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but you've got a nasty habit of only listening to one part of a suggestion, so I've got to keep repeating myself. I think the blank cells should be replaced with a —, for all the reasons outlined above. I think this is the third/fourth post concerning this. Drewcifer (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did do it... as with the CAN Hot 100, see the subscript in the article. But with the dashes in the singles table (excluding other charted songs) I had added them in. σмgнgσмg(talk)01:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Undent)Well then why are there still a ton of blank cells in the other charted songs table? I don't get it. And why is there still the CAN country column (with no data in it?). Drewcifer (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
::::Okay. Firstly, there are blank cells in the CAN Hot 100 before mid-2006 because the radio station chart had not established then. So, the single could not have been released to that particular radio station chart. The dashes in the article represents denotes releases that did not chart. There should be no dashes as it wasn't even released to that radio station.
Secondly, the blank cells in the other released songs table signify that the single was a) not officially released and b) it had received enough popularity in particular radio stations to continually play it and hence, qualify the entry for that particular chart. σмgнgσмg(talk)01:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Canadian Country chart in the other released songs, there are some songs that qualified for the charting, but was not that popular to make it on the chart. Hope I made sense. σмgнgσмg(talk)01:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That does make perfect sense, and I assumed they were blank for a reason, but I still think dashes would make more sense. The little legend thing doesn't say『— denotes releases that were given to particular radio stations but did chart』and it doesn't say "— denotes releases that were official releases but did not chart". It just says『— denotes releases that did not chart』which takes care of all the bases. If a single wasn't given to a radio station, then it didn't chart. If it wasn't an official release, then it too did not chart. I think you're making things too complicated. The legend is worded broadly to cover all the bases, so that you don't have to worry about things on a per-radio station/per single basis. If it charted, put the number, if it didn't, put the dash. It's pretty simple. The only exception I could imagine is one like the CAN Hot 100, where the chart didn't exist. And the footnote explains that quite clearly. Does that make sense? Drewcifer (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how about I just put『— denotes releases that were given to particular radio stations but did chart』on the other charted songs? Would you prefer that or have the whole table filled with dashes? σмgнgσмg(talk)02:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer dashes all around (except for the CAN Hot 100) and no CAN Country column, since that's how literally every other FL discog has done it so far. Drewcifer (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's been a long road, but all of my suggestions have been taken into account or shown to be stupid suggestions in the first place. Definitely a great list! Drewcifer (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have been reverted, so I un-reoppose. Or re-support. Or something like that. And for the record, Scorpion has a good point (about citations in the table headers), though this isn't a deal breaker for me. Drewcifer (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Most of the stuff I'd included already but someone reverted it. It is now there will further suggestions that you've made. Also, not sure about the source attribution, some sources don't have enough information on their attribution. σмgнgσмg(talk)23:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
We don't need album informatiom. If anybody wants to know album info, they can see in their pages. It doesn't look good and it is unnecessery.
How do you know that a song did release in some formats, but fail to chart?
Comment Firstly, although the article is a discography, it still requires information on the discographies mentioned, particularly albums as it is the basis of the artist's work. Secondly, the songs that failed to chart are verified by the sources that I've provided at the table. It is kinda obvious for example in Bless the Broken Road was a digital download, hence it qualifies for the digital charts, although it did not make the chart. σмgнgσмg(talk)03:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Music Videos section should be Music videos, per WP:HEAD
"During the first week it sold 527,000 copies, making it the most successful female solo country artist since Shania Twain." - surely "...making Underwood the most successful..."?
"Singles weren't..." - "...were not..." for featured content.
""—" detonates releases that did not chart" - what does blank mean? Not even released in that country? Needs to be stated (in my opinion).
"Platinum" or "platinum"? Be consistent.
It may be me but I'm confused by the Independence Day row in the table - it shares Gold with the row above and then has "Inside Your Heaven Single" in the album column. I'm sure it makes sense to discography aficionados but not to me!
The Gold certification is not cited while the platinums are. Why?
"During the first week it sold 527,000 copies, making Underwood the most successful album by a female solo country artist since Shania Twain's Greatest Hits.[3]" still doesn't make sense - Underwood isn't an album, she's a performer!
Some Platinum, some platinum - consistent capitalisation.
Does "w/" mean with? just say with if it does, if not then what does it mean?
Repeat again.
About All the Changes
I really appreciate Omghgomg who work very hard on this discography. But I ought to point out the things I don't like.
compare these 2. in the second one the notes make every row spacious. that is not a good thing. so I suggest several ways to avoid this, but Omghgomg did not listen.
the label: I suggest that we can move to a new column, like Reba McEntire discography. or if the artist has only a label at this time period, we can mention at the top. but it seems like that Omghgomg didn't allow any notes at the top, and he thinks repeating things is good, like his model example, The Corrs discography.
the format: this part is deleted, but I have to mention it again. most albums release in CD format, and sometimes in digital download form. they are similar in every album, so we don't have to repeat again and again. I think the best solution is add a note at the top.
the release date: like I've said, we can briefly know when a album is out by looking at the year column. month and date is not very important because most country artist do not release 2 albums in the same year. it is not really necessery. and, do we have to do the same thing to singles too?
the certifications: for this part, I prefer the first one because it is clearer than the 2nd one.
if over 90% of discographies are edited like that way, I won't argue again. I know some featured discographies did that way, but that is not a rule. we don't have to skick to other pages. if we can save some space, why don't we? and a my point is to factorthe same things out, and don't repeat the same thing so many times.
2.Singles & Other Charted Songs
I like the note system very much. it works much better. one day I will make a change in all country discography.
one thing I want to point out is the horizontal lines. the note says, ""—" denotes releases that did not chart." what do you mean? is it release to all formats but fail to chart some of the formatsorrelease to that format but fail to chart? Like "Some Hearts", the song release to pop and AC format only. hot 100 contains any format of music, so I don't know if the song fails to chart. but it didn't release to country radio, the song don't have to chart. it is the same thing in other charted songs. the songs there didn't even RELEASE. the lines there should be deleted.
3.Miscellaneous appearances
I think the chart positions of "Do You Hear What I Hear" and others should be move to this section, either merge or create a new box. they are the same, but separated into 2 different sections. it is weird.
4.Music videos
it is an irony here. Omghgomg created another column to denote directors but didn't allow me to put label in a new column. what reason is that?????
5.Making Changes
since Omghgomg have come, making changes become more difficult. I've suggest a way to change this: "change first, then leave a message, and we can discuss keep it or kick it." I think it is better than "discuss first, change later," in that case we might never change a thing because no one answer to it at all. we should also copy the messages to the featured list discussion, so everyone can see them.
there are too few poeple to response to making changes, and because of the old way, we can never change a thing. compare to these 2 pages, 2006 in country music and 2008 in country music, you can see that the 2008 one is not worse than 2006 one. and please don't say "no other pages do that". it is ridiculous.
Okay, I will aim to address these issues one by one:
A column should only be used if it is discussing another aspect of information, in other words, looking at the topic from a completly different view. The label column is not necessary as it only provides a few information about the CD itself. Mind you, I've simply using other featured list discographies' templates to create this one. Out of all the featured discographies, only Hilary Duff discography, Wilco discography and Red Hot Chili Peppers discography don't have this format because they don't mention the record label at all. Remember, this article must comply with the WP:WIAFL criteria, and in that, it must be comprehensive. Being comprehensive means that it covers the defined scope by including every member of a set, or, in the case of dynamic lists, by not omitting any major component of the subject. This also applies for the format and release date(s), as the article needs to be thorough. So what if it takes extra space, it doesn't matter. As for the table on music videos, the extra column for directors is necessary as it is showing another aspect of the information, the director. If you think it is hypocritical of me, then we can delete the column and place the director of every music video in every row. I don't mind.
The certifications do not need to be in the way you proposed. Sure, you may like it, the users that have reviewed the article were fine with the current layout.
As for the dashes, I will quote from User:Drewcifer3000 who has had much more experience in writing discographies than me (he mentioned it in the discussion above):
"The little legend thing doesn't say『— denotes releases that were given to particular radio stations but did chart』and it doesn't say "— denotes releases that were official releases but did not chart". It just says『— denotes releases that did not chart』which takes care of all the bases. If a single wasn't given to a radio station, then it didn't chart. If it wasn't an official release, then it too did not chart. I think you're making things too complicated. The legend is worded broadly to cover all the bases, so that you don't have to worry about things on a per-radio station/per single basis. If it charted, put the number, if it didn't, put the dash. It's pretty simple. The only exception I could imagine is one like the CAN Hot 100, where the chart didn't exist. And the footnote explains that quite clearly."
I've already explained to you the differences between the miscellaneous appearances and other charted songs. Let me reiterate that: "There is still a very big line that seperates these two. Other charted songs are songs that have garnered attention to be popular enough to have airplay on the radio. Miscellaneous appearances are songs which Carrie Underwood has collaborated with, that are featured in other albums. These two can sometimes inter-twine, but their differences are still evident."
The layout did not work... let us make this simplier, the table of Other Charted Songs contains the peak chart position of songs that are from Miscellaneous Appearances and songs that are not her miscellaneous appearances but still weren't offically released as a single. σмgнgσмg(talk)07:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sick of all the disputing, so I've requested third opinions from other users. Feel free to voice what you think should be addressed in terms of the layout. σмgнgσмg(talk)07:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support - just add the album for "Bless the Broken Road". (Also, consider having the relase date of label of albums as seperate columns). Tompw (talk) (review) 20:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The lede is a little short for my tastes, but it's well-cited, which is good enough. The layout is pleasant and easy to understand, and the color coding beneath the artist picture is a particularly nice touch. Citations check out as reliable, and everything looks good from the point of view of someone who knows absolutely nothing about the music industry. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like some of the format edited by Omghgomg. I'm going to hold a vote. the catigories include: notes under albums, certifications, dashes, the position of albums in single and song table. I need everybody's opinions.
Please see WP:Voting, in particular the quote "Voting is not a substitute for consensus." My own opinion is that the scope of this particular discussion has gone beyond this single FLC. I would recommend closing this FLC with the intention of renominating it later, and posing the question of formatting elsewhere (Wikipedia:WikiProject Music or the WP:FLC talk page would probably be the best place to start). That way, a discussion (rather than a straw poll) can be started beyond the scope of Carrie Underwood fans. Drewcifer (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We can't have blanks in an article because in the article, there is a table with blanks in it already. That is in the singles table. The blanks represent the fact that the CAN Hot 100 was not established at the time of the single. σмgнgσмg(talk)05:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear (to me, at least) that there is no consensus whatsoever on any of these formatting concepts. This FLC is not really the place to discuss a manual of style for these - I suggest (as I believe Drewcifer did above) you centralise this discussion at WP:MUSIC and close this FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Self nomination. I have worked on this a lot over the past week or so and after reviewing the featured list criteria, believe this qualifies as a featured list. STORMTRACKER94GoSox!11:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at the moment. It's a monumental piece of work and I have a few comments:
Lead is very short indeed. I know there is prose further on but a couple of summary style paragraphs at the beginning would do no harm.
Bold, italicised and normal fonts for the seasons - I understand what they're for on a second reading but a key (or explanation, possibly in the lead) would be useful.
This is a good piece of work but I think that the post season tables etc look really messy and horrible. I think it would be better to get rid of them or to dramatically clean them up. 02blythed (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not familiar with baseball, so what is “post-season” performance? Sports I’m familiar with (soccer, rugby, cricket), there isn’t usually any post season games unless they involve the national team.
Remove the comments from the headers, such as “The curse begins”, “the slump continues”, “Ted Williams and World War II” et al. Only the years are needed.
What is Major League Baseball? – professional, semi, etc? Look at the first 3 paragraphs in the lead for Boston Red Sox for an idea of what I’m getting at.
The term “charter member” and “upon its arrival as a major league” are utterly confusing to me and without explanation.
In the ‘’’Key’’’ section, it may be worth saying “American League champion” instead of “AL champion”, as AL hasn’t been explained.
A reference is needed for “Before the team was called the Boston Red Sox, they were the Boston Americans.”
"As the Americans” – is it “Boston Americans”, or “Americans”?
Merge the third sentence re 1907 with the first.
Curse of the Bambino , Harry Frazee and Babe Ruth need expanding. I don’t want to click another link to find out, so even one sentence each would be better than nothing.
I’m pretty sure “Legend has it” are WP:Weasel words and the sentence also need a reference. I’m skeptical on its encyclopaedic value, also.
I don’t understand “Games behind” well, but I’m assuming it means how many game wins the Red Sox had versus the winner of that year. But how do you get to a half a game?
The years in the headers should be en-dash, not dash.
References are needed for each section’s paragraphs.
”era of the team sometimes called the "Ted Sox."” – is this WP:OR or can you find a reference?
"Yawkey would acquire Lefty Grove, one of the greatest pitchers of all-time, Joe Cronin, an outstanding shortstop and manager, Jimmie Foxx, the slugging first baseman, and Wes Ferrell, a pitcher.” Is Lefty one of the greatest pitchers, or Joe Cronin? Is Joe an outstanding shortstop and manager, or is Jimmie? Etc. And also seems like original research and WP:Peacocky. References also needed.
”Williams is generally considered one of the greatest hitters of all time, because he consistently hit for both high power and high average.” ”Stories of his ability to hold a bat in his hand and correctly estimate its weight down to the ounce have floated around baseball circles for decades. His book The Science of Hitting is widely read by students of baseball.” Says who? The whole paragraph sounds OR, weasely and peacocky, and needs references.
I’ve stopped at the 1940s, because there’s already too much that needs fixing before I continue. A peer review would probably help if it hasn't gone through one already. -- Matthew|talk|Contribs01:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Comments again, not an area of expertise for me, but I'll comment in general terms nevertheless.
The lead is far too short for me.
Also, the article seems a little dry, very little in the lists themselves to describe the relevance of the selection of each symbol.
"A red saltire (diagonal cross) on a white background, with the seal of Florida superimposed on the center." is formatted strangely - does it have <br> in the table for a good reason? DoneFixed by using fixed pixel values for columns.
Suggest a separate column for notes and references.
I think some of the images could be cropped to improve their appearance at the low resolution you have in the table.
You have the same image for Orange blossom and Orange. Could you not find another suitable image for either just to break the repetitiveness? DoneChanged Orange photo using image from Commons.
"...although the basic elements have remained consistent..." quantify this statement. DoneQuoted statute and linked.
"1913-1935" - use en-dash for year range. Done
Not sure you should have a See also with Florida in it - I'd expect a link in the opening sentences to Florida! Doneby Crzycheetah. See also section deleted.
I've gone through and fixed several of the issues. The lead is short, but all three of the other featured lists of this variety (List of Kentucky state symbols, List of Indiana state symbols, and List of Maryland state symbols) have leads of similar length, as does current FAC List of Alabama state symbols; all of these articles follow a fairly standard template. That is why there are no descriptions in the list, because none of the featured lists are written in that way.
For the flag text, I broke it into lines because of a formatting issue; without the breaks, that one table expands all the way across the screen to fit, and no longer lines up with the other tables. I am not sure how to fix that, other than using fixed widths for the tables (which is to be avoided), and while there is no requirement for all the tables to be the same size (look at List of Kentucky state symbols, where all of the tables are different sizes), it certainly looks much better. The other option would be to delete the descriptive text entirely, as at the Indiana and Alabama lists. Horologium(talk)17:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely opt for either fixing the width of the columns (don't know why that's to be avoided really) and while there's no requirement for them to be the same size, it would look pretty poor if they didn't. I haven't looked at the other featured lists of state symbols, while I'm sure that's how they've done it sounds like a reasonable argument, I'm reviewing this completely fresh so I'm not swayed by previous promoted articles. The same really applies to the lead for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Using fixed width columns is an issue for people whose screen resolution is rather low; if the fixed width is larger than their horizontal resolution, they end up with a horizontal scroll bar, which is a huge annoyance. I'll take a look at fixing the total width at ≈500 px, which should be both wide enough for the text/pics and still fit in a VGA display. Horologium(talk)17:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that seems reasonable. I'm using a 12" iBook so I have a horizontal res of around 1024 pixels which I reckon is close to the min. These days I would expect 99.99% of folks to be operating 800 pixels or above horizontally... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I went ahead and fixed all of the column widths at 100px. 200px, 100px, and 100px (total 500 px), so that old displays will not have a horozontal scroll bar. FWIW, my laptop display is 1920x1200, so it's sometimes a bit difficult to gauge how it will look on a lower resolution display. Horologium(talk)18:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We might as well close this now, as the standards have obviously changed (since the Alabama list just failed, and it was structured largely along the same lines as this one, albeit with some redlinks). Horologium(talk)14:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Title really ought to be en-dash rather than hypenated, and most year range articles drop the century on the second year unless it crosses a century boundary so I'd expect to see "List of members of Stortinget 2001–05".
"September 10 2001."- needs comma for WP:DATE consistency throughout the article.
"Norwegian parliamentary election, 2001 of September 10 2001." - use a piped link on the election link to drop the first 2001, avoid repeating the year.
"4 %" - why the space?
" 8 seats " - eight (words for numbers below 10).
"37,5 %" - "37.5%".
b) Is ref [1] supposed to reference all of the Voting section? If so then move it to the end of the paragraphs, if not then more citation is required.
c) " candicates " - typo.
d) "This has happened several times in Norwegian history." - evidence?
e) "(see women in politics)." - yuck, wikilinks are designed to avoid this. Either put it in a See also section or intelligently link it into the prose.
f) I'm no expert so I need to understand more clearly what a leveling seat is.
g) I think for candidates with comments you should have a citation.
i) References are strange mix of bullets, indented bullets and numbers.
j) The category is "Members of the Storting", the title is "members of Stortinget"... my Norwegian is non-existent but I just wondered over the discrepancy?
Just because there's little consistency, it doesn't mean we can't try to get this page correct. I'm no expert and my preference ought not be part of it, it's whichever title correctly describes the article and if this is the right one then that's just fine, I was curious about the discrepancy, that's all. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I guess I could {{sofixit}} but I'm busy reviewing a number of articles as well as working on ones that particularly interest me which have enough things that need fixing. As someone nominating an FLC, it's usually good form to conduct the corrections as suggested rather than just tell me to do the corrections myself (after it took a good 30 mins to read through the article)... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand, altough it probably took you longer to type "4 %" - why the space? than for me to correct it.. But as of my writing I had alread conducted the corrections - in a satisfactory manner I hope. Punkmorten (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it's worth noting that when I proof read it's a real pain to keep editing sections, previewing, saving and getting back into the flow again. Plus, when I review I'd like people to understand what I believe is wrong rather than just change it for them, so that next time the get to FLC, the same errors are not in evidence. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I'll go with whatever the manual of style suggests for the title, both in year range and hyphen or en-dash. This is supposed to represent the best of Wikipedia and if we have a MOS, we should stick to it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a) done - except for Kvakkestad whose bio was not available at the moment
b) I don't know... they could be linked once, but then that link won't always show up if you sort the columns by party or name. On the other hand, if all instances of the constituency are linked, that would be redundant...
c) fixed two of them, but I think Karita Bekkemellem Orheim should sort by Bekkemellem. Reason: She was born Karita Bekkemellem, then married Karita Bekkemellem Orheim but has now reverted to just Karita Bekkemellem.
d) to "meet" is to be present in a parliament session. When someone is away, the deputy meets in place of that person. Could be reworded?
b) since the list is sortable I would link them all. I know there's an issue of redundancy as you point out but in general, sortable lists with repeated wikilinking is fine (in my opinion)!
c) I'll take your word for it!
d) Yes, I think a footnote or something similar for the non-expert (like me) if you don't mind.
During the wind-down of 2007, I expanded and greatly improved this article by filling out missing info, adding pictures, and referencing it. For example, before I started, it had no references. Now it has over 100 inline cites. I also put it on peer review, but there were no comments other than the automated stuff. Hence, I feel that this list is now ready for featurehood. That's why I nominating it. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline17:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - the writing could use a little copyedit. Those two things - thing is one of those words that should be avoided. On average, the eastern north Pacific sees an average of - redundancy. I'd like if the units in the rainfall section had some consistency in units. IMO, if the original source was XX.XX, that is, four significant digits, then the converted units should also have 4 significant digits. The station for Hurricane Kathleen and Tropical Storm Norma is a redlink, but it doesn't specify what state. For tables that cite Hurdat, I'd like if there was merely a column that said Source: Eastern Pacific Best Track<ref>hurdat</ref>, as that would help cut down on how many times it is cited. Just a little tidbit - the "earliest storm forming by number" says "only storms forming... NHC, EPHC, and United States Fleet Weather Central". However, there were no storms on that list prior to 1970, which is when the United States Fleet Weather Central operated. Was that intentional including it? Also, the section on "Earliest system by Category" includes some of the latest storms; either the title should be changed or the latest storms should be moved elsewhere. Adolph in 2001 needs a pressure. In the "Listed by intensity" - should Ava and Ioke be tied? I think "Greatest Duration" should have a mention that John 94 had the longest duration worldwide. Do off-season storms only include storms that form in that basin? If not, then Carmen in 1980 should be included in the Central Pacific, as it was included in the strongest storms by month section. In the damages section - "$84 million (198 USD) in damage". Which year was it? All in all, it's mostly minor things that need fixing up. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have followed your suggestions. Also, the senmtence about the forecasters was supposed to make it clear that systems moving in from elsewhere are not included. Since you interpreted that sentence completely differently than intended, I have made that more explicit. And yes, off-season storms only include those that form in the basin. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline00:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support now, but there's still a few other things. How come Costliest Eastern Pacific hurricanes adjusted to 2005 USD is not in 2007 USD? Given that Unisys gets their data from HURDAT, I'd rather cite the best track, rather than using Unisys. I have a slight qualm that Carmen is counted as a CPAC system (in the pressure section), but it is not included in the off-season storms section. A few aspects were still unaddressed. First, shouldn't Ava and Ioke be tied, since they both had a pressure of 915 mbar? I'd like a mention of John in the "greatest duration" section, given that it was the longest-lasting cyclone worldwide, which is pretty notable. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2007 numbers are now given. John was mentioned in the greatest duration secion. Ava and Ioke should now be tied. I don't think using Unisys is a problem, especially since other featured lists use it, and it is easier to look at a map than plot coordinate in an atlas. The CPHC does not call Carmen an out of season storm but does include it in its climatology. That's why Carmen is the way it is. Should an EPac May system cross into the Atlantic or CPac and be called an out-of-season storm, rest assured I'll change Carmen when that happens. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline01:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose because it just looks and feels extremely disjointed, like a list of facts thrown at a wall and presented in the order they fell down in. I'm not quite sure how best to remedy it, but I do think it needs it. There's a lot of small tables here separated by small bits of text, with different styles and formats throughout. It just looks a bit sloppy IMO. --Golbez (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although the headings were originally based on those in List of Atlantic hurricanes, I have added another level of headings and reordered sections into what I hope are more logical groups, eg all location sections are under one heading now. The small bits of text provide context for the following tables. For example, the bit of text before the off-season storms sections provides info about why those systems are out of season; namely, when hurricane season is. It's unreasonable to expect someone bumping their way through the encyclopedia to know out of the blue when hurricane season is. Without that bit of text, readers may have difficulty knowing why the out of season storms are out of season. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline05:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. There are a few issues here, I can't help but feel.
There's probably a reasonable answer for this - but why is the article called the "List of Pacific hurricanes" when it's actually about notable ones only? Have you considered renaming it?
Shouldn't the caption to the lead image end in a full stop, seeing as it comprises a complete sentence?
I personally don't much like using the Retired Pacific hurricanes template in-line with text; it's kinda cool to be able to, but just seems lazy. The article is over-run with tables, and some prose might help tidy it up.
"These killed 100 or more people." - maybe this should be "the following storms" or something, something a little nicer on the ear.
Surely it would be sensible to make the vast majority of tables sortable, or at least the pertinent columns sortable?
For sections like "Seasonal activity and records", it might look nice to centrally align some of the cells in the tables.
"Except for a one system,[36], tropical cyclones" - what's going on here?
The first paragraph in "Named named storms per month" is exactly the same as one in "Seasonal activity and records#Lowest". That's just criminal!
"Earliest and latest systems by Category" - any reason you capitalise "category"? I'm sure there is, to be honest.
As for the "Earliest and latest systems by Category" tables, WP:MOS says you should fully link the dates. Also, why not merge the rows for each storm?
There's a "catehory" to be found.
Gawd, I don't have time to read on. This article's a behemoth. I can't even comment on the content, seeing as I know nothing on the subject, but style-wise it still needs beautifying and tweaking. Seegoon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The offending sentence has been reqritten to indicate that one system in the best-track during the period in question had a name (C) while the rest don't.
The paragraphs are the same because they provide necessary context to enable readers to know why the tables are the way they are. Is it really necessary to vary the expression of the same information just for the sake of doing so?
"Category" is capitalized because it is being used as a proper noun. See for example the NHC's FAQ. I have changed the heading and rewritten part of the paragraohs to make it clearer why "Category" is a proper noun.
Comment My main objections are the huge TOC and the short lead. There's a huge amount of info in here, so making the list easy to naviagte in more important than usual. Tompw (talk) (review) 21:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Complete list of all 100 individuals that have played for the Melbourne Storm club over the past 10 seasons, with an appropriate numerical summary of their respective careers provided next to each and every player. The list meets all of the featured list criteria. mdmanser (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The lead is far too short for me.
Are there any images at all which could be used to brighten the page up?
In my opinion, there are too many red links. If this is trying to meet FLC criteria 1-a-1 then it needs to bring together a set of existing articles which this does to a degree but not sufficiently in my opinion.
Statistics correct as of October 1, 2007? It's now Feb 2008.
It's probably a good idea to set some criteria for inclusion (e.g. 50 appearances, club record holders etc) rather than include all players - that's what a category is for. Plus, this list could become unmanageably big in years to come.
Multiple spells are clear from the multiple date ranges, no need for asterisk.
Names should sort by surname, not first name, see the {{sortname}} template.
The appearances, T, G, FG, P columns do not sort correctly.
Check all articles linked to are correct. A random check found...
I have done the easy stuff (ie fix refs, captions etc) I am working on getting refs for the internationals. I personally don't see the need for a tranfer fees received table. I don't see them as that important for the club. Woody (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A couple of other comments to add to the above
v for versus is inconsistent, sometimes in italics sometimes not. I'd rather see it without, but it needs amending either way
Comments hey guys, guess it's partly my fault we're here (you'll be glad to hear if you haven't already seen ITFC stats made FL last night), so here are some comments...
When you're in there editing, bear in mind that articles such as 1888 in football (soccer) have now changed to 1888 in association football so it'd be neat to reduce the redirection (but only if you're editing something else as well!).
European honours - paragraph is cited with [7], Intertoto cup is cited with [7] but nothing on European Cup and Super Cup... appears anomalous to me.
What does "(1*)" signify in the Charity Shield? I guess shared but you state that afterwards so is it necessary?
Shouldn't Year in the appearances table be Years?
Try to get the top appearances and top tables the same widths...
Wikilink the foreign teams to national football team pages rather than just countries.
"This section lists all players who have played in a World Cup Finals game." - no other sections have a "this section..." - try a sentence or two about Villa's euro heroes and let the table speak for itself thereinafter! Also, centrally align the year in that table. Probably also worth wikilinking to FIFA World Cup somewhere around there.
Comments This list is well-constructed – the basic format was used in a similar recently promoted list – and has plenty of appropriate images. Still needs a bit of work though. (Sorry about the amount of comments, though many are minor. Since peer-reviewing this list, my ideas about how these lists should work have solidified rather.)
Lead needs a bit of a copyedit.
Honours. In "domestically and in European Cup competitions", cup wants a small 'c'.
The club article MoS recommends including second places while accepting that For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places, so you wouldn't include runners-up spots in the corresponding section of the main club article. However I do think it would be appropriate to include them here.
Charity Shield doesn't need the asterisk as well as (shared).
Appearances. You may want to add the division/competition in which your youngest and oldest players made their appearances.
Goalscorers. Likewise for Mr Waring's league record. "Most League goals" wants a small 'l', and that line doesn't need to wikilink Waring and the season again.
International. If you lead into this with a sentence saying something like This section refers only to caps won while an Aston Villa player, it'd save having to repeat the club name in every record.
For Brown and Vaughton, could add their opponents.
Each of these records needs a reference.
As do World Cup participants.
I'd expect to see record transfer fees received as well as paid.
Goals. League wants a small 'l'. Consider adding fewest scored and most/fewest conceded.
Matches. Consider adding first league match, first match at Villa Park. Add divisions to record league anythings.
Record defeats. What's the difference between the 0-7s and the 7-0?
Some records in this section are unreferenced.
Aston Villa in Europe. Consider making two columns for the scores in the two legs. Either way, clarify what the scorelines refer to.
Consider noting how Villa qualified for each competition.
The counties in "formed from" are linked; in the other lists I've seen lately, they haven't been, probably because they're redundant links with the first column, just in different places. Since there appear to be no defunct counties, the lack of such a section is no problem; so I vote Support, except that maybe we don't need width=100%. --Golbez (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "...groups of proprietors" seems a funny term to use for the governing bodies of the two original provinces. Is it correct? MeegsC | Talk10:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not from New Jersey, but I believe that "proprietors" is accurate. See Proprietary colony. Remember that this was the 1600s. These weren't governing bodies in the modern sense; they were owners.--Orlady (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Really can,t find much to nitpick. I don't like decorative coloring in tables much, but I've hardly had much success in arguing against it here. Circeus (talk) 05:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no expert in New Jersey or US counties but getting better at lists. So, my thoughts...
The lead has a single citation which relates to FIPS county codes. What about all the other claims in the lead?
A number of references in the header of the table appear after line breaks. Why?
What I meant to say is that when the footnotes are behind the line breaks, a horizontal scrollbar appears, which is very irritating (to me at least).--Crzycheetah23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made some tweaks to the table formatting, including eliminating the fixed column widths and replacing the line breaks with spaces. That way, the column width adjusts to the content. The resulting appearance looks better to me, but your mileage may vary. --Orlady (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why there's a distinct lack of full stops in the "Named for" column? I guess it's possibly because the text in that column could be a fragment. What it does do is make the reference placement look odd.
Your primary source for this information is www.getnj.com - I need to be convinced this is a reliable source (e.g. it looks like a student HTML project with plenty of advertisements...)
Surely the population column should be referenced to the census source?
I agree that census should be used instead. I am guessing the reason he provided 2005 estimates is that the census was done in 2000 and a long time has passed since then.--Crzycheetah23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since decennial census values are more stable than census estimates (which have a habit of getting revised), I prefer to see the 2000 values listed. Would it be sensible to list both 2000 and 2005? (That would add value to the table...) --Orlady (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made several changes to the table format in hopes of improving appearance on various display sizes. One change that people may object to was eliminating the setting that reduced the table font size to 95%. That improves its appearance for me by reducing the amount of blank space in the table cells, but others of you may object. --Orlady (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. I'll probably change my mind if there's a better introduction (see my comment above) and if the http://www.getnj.com/ citations are replaced by reliable sources. (That source may be OK, but it looks pretty insubstantial to me -- sort of like citing another Wikipedia article...) --Orlady (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - well done. My only remining comment would be that the lead could be a little more comprehensive, but it's on par with the other FL state symbols lists. Geraldk (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I think at least some of the redlinks should be changed to bluelinks (e.g. Alabama State Bible) or retargeted in the absence of any relevant article (e.g. List of U.S. state quilts --> Quilt, perhaps). A little too much red towards the end of the list for my liking, but otherwise looks good. BencherliteTalk09:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the lists, I have changed the redlinks to bluelinks. However, with regards to a lack of articles on such things as Johnstone's Junonia, there is no alternative to creating them, in my opinion. Keilana|Parlez ici22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could always turn them to black text if you conclude that there's no valid encyclopaedic article to be written on Conecuh Ridge Alabama Fine Whiskey, for example. I've written a stub on the Alabama State Bible to help, as that was the one that was annoying me the most (and added a couple of categories) and will change to a neutral. This is not because of the quality of the list or the amount of work that has gone into preparing and presenting this list - praise is due for both - but because I think there needs to be a decision whether this is an (a)(1) list ("group of existing articles") or an (a)(3) list ("complete set of items not sufficiently notable for individual articles"). The amount of redlinks looks like a compromise!
One other thing (to be boring): some of the references have "update" dates (e.g. the State Bible's page says "Updated: November 15, 2007") and this information should be added to the citation using the "date=" parameter. BencherliteTalk23:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I am also wary of the redlinks under "Culture", I suspect half of them will eventually go black anyway. I'd have considered just using the main page instead of having a separate source for all but that's more of personal taste. Circeus (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Whilst it adheres to WIAFL, I think it could do with a little jazzing up. An image by the lead, or expanding the lead, perhaps. At the moment it just seems to lack that special something, that sparkle. Ya know? One easily fixable issue – works, such as plays, should be in italics. I can see a couple. Seegoon (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing yet again to support. A few of the redlinks have been retargeted or switch to black text, and I have added the dates to the {{cite web}} myself as this hadn't been done. Agree that the lead could be longer, or an image could be used up there (the state quarter, perhaps?) but won't oppose further. BencherliteTalk01:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose as I came here I was reminded that "Featured content" should be Wikipedia's "finest work". This just doesn't cut it for me I'm afraid. I know the list is comprehensive but the lead is really weak. And before someone directs me to another List of X state symbols which is already a FLC, I know they do but it doesn't make it right. Six red links in such a brief list isn't good either. If this was an article rather than a list, it'd just about make GA, so perhaps this is a candidate for the currently non-existent Good Lists? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My main issue with the currently is that it's very "bare bones"... I reall feel lists like these should include information about why a particular item is significant in Alabama. (i.e. it's not annotated with aufficient additional information, as required by WP:WIAFL 1f). Tompw (talk) (review) 21:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI agree that we need more information in "state symbols" lists. Most of the editors take similar FLs and model after it, so maybe we should nominate other FLs, such as List of Indiana state symbols, for removal. At the same time, there is a problem of finding the necessary references to explain why each symbol is important.--Crzycheetah21:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this list because it is complete and encyclopedic. FLC is a good place for feedback for this list since peer review does not accept lists. My biggest concern is whether I should attempt to further link the names. The first half dozen names I was able to link were quite notable. I have begun to try to link more and the notability has been marginal. Feedback here would help I am sure.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick read, and my comments are pretty random... Your essay on notability and celebrity (and/or lack thereof) left a bad taste in my mouth. The content about g-test results definitely does not belong. However, I wondered why the intro or table did not provide information on the Byers Scholars who later received Rhodes scholarships (including the red-linked Brad Henderson). --Orlady (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Henderson was under construction when you saw the redlink. It now exists. I took out the g-test controversy. Is the notability section still in bad taste? I added some commentary about other major awards.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have concerns about criteria 1a1, which is sometimes excuseable if it meets 1a3, but I'm not entirely sure if a list of winners of a scholarship is a "significant topic of study". As well, since there is no "Walter Byers Scholar" article, the list should be moved there. Even if it is mainly a list, the article is predominantly about the scholarship. -- Scorpion042221:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The list was originally at "Walter Byers Scholar," but I felt it was more of a list. The fact that it has a solid list does not really make it an article. I am fairly certain if I took it to WP:PR they would say it is a list. I feel it passes 1(a), but am not sure what your point is on what constitutes a topic of study. It is as much a topic of study as may episode lists or chapter lists that have passed 1a3, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scorpion is right. If there's no article about the program (apparently correctly titled Walter Byers Postgraduate Scholarship Program, according to this link), then there's no purpose in a separate list of recipients. Rename the article. --Orlady (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I personally think forking a list out of this would be wrong because persons who want to know about the scholarship will generally want to know about its past winners and people who want to know about past winners want to know about the scholarship, IMO. However, a fork would be easy to do.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree. This is an article that includes an embedded list. Because the article is fairly short, there is no reason to split the list off as a separate article. This is a good thing; it is an informative article that does not need to be split due to length constraints. Isn't the the creation of useful content (not the accumulation of Wikipedia "trophies") main purpose of contributing to Wikipedia? --Orlady (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a debate about trophies. I am just stating that the only reason I can see for the article to be rejected as a featured list is that there may be a problem with the fact that only half of the the two most important columns have linkable articles. I think debating whether it is an article or a list with a thorough lead is a bunch of malarkey. I have seen lists that were only partly linkable make it and I have seen lists with leads this long make it. For example, a list I created List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry has a lot of unlinked content and an equally long lead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to illustrate the foolishness of calling this an article by comparing it to the my successfull WP:FLC noms in terms of text before the main table:
Since this format is meaningful to you, I've taken the liberty of adding two more columns to your table (identifiable by different background in the header row) that I think highlight some of the key differences between the Walter Byers article and your earlier successful FL nominations. My issue is not the length of the introduction but topical focus. This Walter Byers article is a topical article that appropriately includes an embedded list. Those other lists were extensive sidebars branched off from parent articles into which the lists could not reasonably be embedded (with the possible exception of List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry, which I think could be merged into National Recording Registry). --Orlady (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree. Those are articles. If they are to achieve featured-like status, it would be as Good Articles, not as Featured Lists. --Orlady (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the list of 'other awards' needs cleaning up, it's poor form to just list last names like that I think, and it implies that these are the only people to be on both lists - make that explicit if true. --Golbez (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I tried to puzzle out a way to add the year they won they Byers scholarship to the list of multiple winners, but that doesn't seem possible. Circeus (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm struggling with the whole "significant topic of study" yet despite winning this award, these people are (generally) utterly non-notable and have, by and large, gone on to non-sporting careers. Some of the linked names are just two-line stubs that look destined for AfD. OK, it is a national award, but college scholarships aren't exactly uncommon. BTW: peer review does look at lists. Colin°Talk13:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, a lot of concerns above but should they (somehow!) be addressed, the list doesn't work for me as follows:
Self-nomination I came across this article about two weeks ago by accident, and it's layout was really nice. Kinda similar to the Lost DVD releases and Smallville DVD releases pages, but without all the fair-use images of DVD covers. The information was all there, I just spent three hours or so today expanded the introduction and adding references (It looked like this beforehand).
I'm just testing the waters with this nomination. As far as I can see, no list of DVD releases has ever been promoted to FL, or even tried to be, and I'm interested in what is necessary to make such a list Featured. All comments are therefore greatly appreciated. -- Matthew|talk|Contribs07:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, It is nicely laid out and all, but I can't see that it meets WP:FICT for even existing. How is a television series' DVD releases notable enough that that they need to be in a separate list apart from either the episode page (where the basic info is already included)? I suspect that is why none have ever been nominated, because of the issue of notability. Collectonian (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. And if it was tagged and/or deleted, it wouldn't bother me too much. 3 hours from my life is nothing to cry over. I'm not sure how people involved with the articles concerning this (and every other TV show with a DVD release page) would feel, though. -- Matthew|talk|Contribs09:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yeah, I'd have to agree. There's a real question over notability of this, and while I'm happy to set precedents, I can just imagine the swathes of articles which could be generated about DVD releases of TV shows.... Nice article but not sure that's enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as the topic is about DVDs, I don't see how FICT applies. It certainly fails WP:N, though. I suggest that you either find some kind of reception on the overall DVDs or merge it somewhere. TTN (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to all the comments about notability, then, other than sales figures and reception, what else would be good to include in order for another attempt for such a list to be promoted? -- Matthew|talk|Contribs17:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, unless there was something really unique about the release or it had extraordinary sales, I don't think notability can be established for DVD releases apart from the series or the episodes. Collectonian (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd support with that info, and I can't think of anything else reasonable to include; still, the others might be right that this would be better merged into the list of episodes. No information would have to be deleted, just combined with more data about the individual episodes. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did look for the info, but there was nothing on the internet that I could see. Anyway, I've now merged each DVD "table" into the relevent season article and redirected One Tree Hill DVD releasestoOne Tree Hill (TV series). Thank you to everyone who looked and commented.
Needs quite a bit of work, I would have suggested a Peer review first.
On first glance, needs a WP:LEAD section that summarises the list. Needs an image as part of the FL criteria. It needs ndashes for the date ranges per WP:DASH. It needs a link from the Rangers template at the bottom.
I'd go along with that. While there's a discussion going on right now at WP:FOOTBALL about "notable players", for the time being it's a good idea to be able to justify players who don't meet the criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, dashes fixed, image added, link from template added, bullet points integrated into lead, update date added, emboldening fixed, notes for <100 appearance player added. Regarding the acronyms, there is a key which is linked to from the top of the column. Any further input or suggestions? WATP(talk) • (contribs)14:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead needs a bit of work to describe the list. Have a look at some of the other featured list of players for some ideas. Good work so far though. Peanut4 (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment okay, the list is now in a much much better state. Some further comments before I can support its promotion:
"first-class matches " - a term which probably needs explanation. Especially when you go on in the second paragraph to say " competitive first-team matches only"
"Nine In A Row years" - this needs a further explanation (e.g. just add something like "when Rangers won the title for nine consecutive seasons..." or similar).
"A player's name in bold denotes that player is inducted into Hall of Fame." - this is just as well placed at the end of the lead and not in small text.
Eliminate the red linked articles by writing stubs.
Consider adding club record holders and colouring them.
Consider colour coding internationals (unless that's most of them, which I suspect it may be!)
I'm not keen on the key for the positions, I use the full position and wikilink it accordingly.
I have been editing this list since yesterday, and I'm edited it so much to make it resemble a featured list. I will add more citations, and, hopefully, it will become featured! — Cuyler91093 - Contributions02:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Fair-use images in a discography is a major no-no. Also there's alot of unsourced stuff (chart positions, sales, etc). Drewcifer (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update on my Strong Oppose: As detailed below, I still have strong reservations with the list. Namely, some of my suggestions have been taken into account, but only in part of the list: so now the list isn't consistent with itself. Unfortuantely, I have been unable as of late to help Cuyler to the extent I did earlier, and it appears he is also unable to work on the article for the near future. Drewcifer (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking much better! Now that that's taken care of, here's my more nitpicky suggestions:
My main suggestion is to take a look at some other FL discographies, to see how tables are formatted, chart positions cited, etc. Nine Inch Nails discography is good, but there's plenty of other good ones too.
As far as format/style goes, I think the tables in general could be squished a little better, so that they take alot less space vertically. What I mean is that, if you go by other FL discogs table formats, you could probably make each release take up maybe 3 lines, rather than 6. If you want me to be more specific let me know.
I actually don't see a difference at all. At the risk of sounding like I'm piling it on, here's a few tips to get you started: remove the width properties form the charts columns. Provide a reference for each chart column, in the same cell as the country abbreviation so that it covers the whole column. You can do the same with the reference for the certifications, instead of having the same citation in each row. Rearrage the general info to the following columns: Year (which just says 1988, or whatever it happens to be), Titl(which include the title, full release date, label, and formats), chart positions, certifications. Remove the "Carpenter's # album" as it's pretty obvious what the 1st, 2nd, 3rd is etc. Doing that should help alot. It's not required that you do things exactly like that, but that's just my suggestions to make things work a little better. Again, take a look at Nine Inch Nails discography as a good example. Drewcifer (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Take a look at my sandbox. That's how I would suggest doing it. Not necessarily the only way to skin a cat, but it's how I like to format them, and takes care of some existing issues with the list. Do you think it's better? Drewcifer (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we've still got a ways to go, I think. That one section is looking good, but I was thinking the whole article should be formatted like that, obviously taking into account the different sections and what they would require. Would you like me to do that too, or do you think you can handle it? Either way let me know how I can help. Drewcifer (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate it if you could do it (I have finals coming up). 02:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuyler91093 (talk • contribs)
Unfortunately I myself am busy pretty much all day for the foreseeable future. If it really seems undoable at the moment, you can always renominate the article at another time. Drewcifer (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the change to "and videography" was really neccessary. I mean, I know those video things are videos technically, but really all they are just recorded concerts, right? I'd say it still fits within the scope of a discography. That, and most other discogs with video/DVD stuff have tended to stick with just "discography."
Double platinum doesn't necessarily denote 2 million units sold, so you would need a source for the sales as well. Are these RIAA certifications? Please specify that.
Why does Ticket to Ride have 2 UK chart dates? Might want to make a note of that. And it's also not necessary to specify what year the album charted in the US.
Y Ticket to Ride was a weird one, because it didn't immediately chart. It wasn't until they became more popular that people started buying their records, so it only sold two to six years after its primary release. I'll take care of that. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions22:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to have the dash in the certifications column. Just leave them blank.
Comments about the lead section - The lead (introductory) section needs work. Here are a few quick comments about some of the issues I see:
If I didn't already know who the Carpenters were, the lead sentence would not help me much: "The discography of the American group Carpenters..." Can you insert an adjective between "American" and "group"? (And is "group" the right noun for a duo?) I'd be inclined to call them something like "pop vocal duo".
Technically, they're not a duo. The popular members of Carpenters were Richard and Karen, but they weren't the only people in the band, so it would be unfair to say that they are only a duo. There were many other musicians as well. I understand the confusion, though, as many people only think that Karen is Carpenters. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions04:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Later, the lead section says "This list also includes the Carpenters' videography as well." Notwithstanding the redundancy of "also" and "as well," I wonder if the article should be retitled "The Carpenters discography and videography". (How is this handled in other Wikipedia discographies?)
The next sentence after that says "Their monstruous musical career spawned Carpenters hit album after album." Should "monstruous" be re-spelled "monstrous", or is some other word intended? If "monstrous" was intended, does this mean that the Carpenters were monsters? (My point is that an encyclopedia article needs to follow higher standards of word usage than a fan site would... I also object to the verb "spawned" and informal language "album after album.")
The last paragraph of the intro section includes a statement about "their posthumous two-disc compilation," which implies that both members of the group had died. Isn't Richard still alive? --Orlady (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Speedy Close According to the edit history, you have made exactly 0 edits to the page since the last FLC failed. You can't just keep resubmitting FLCs until they pass. -- Scorpion042219:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to learn how the FLC process works. There were concerns about the sourcing in the article, and you haven't addressed that at all. Perhaps you should withdraw this nom and get in touch with Colin so you can address his concerns. Once this is done, THEN the article should be resubmitted. -- Scorpion042219:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Buc, you had 5 people who commented on the last one. It was closed because you had not resolved the issues with references, and it had come on top of another nomination. You cannot keep pushing this through until you get the result you want. This should be closed. Woody (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Colin expresses himelf far more eloquently than I can in the last FLC. Read his comments carefully, then read them again. Woody (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Buc but as I've said, a peer review can do no harm. Be constructive and humble - ask the community to spend their time helping you get this article up to scratch. A good PR and this will fly through FLC, just look at what happened to Leeds United A.F.C. seasons with the help of WP:FOOTBALL... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, perhaps I can clarify. You need to take this article to a peer review where the community will discuss what they expect to see. It precludes an individual from making an article their own and helps to produce an article which everyone will support. Does that make it clearer? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken it upon myself to adopt this nomination, as Buc appears not to understand how this works - you don't keep throwing it at the wall until it sticks, if people don't support then oh well, come back later, but don't keep badgering us. It doesn't work. That said, I'm attempting to correct the issues brought up in the previous FLCs; please direct any complains to me. Thank you. --Golbez (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the following reasons:
Click to see my reasons
Three FLC's in one month. Do I have to say anymore? Well I am :-)
Yes, and perhaps you have some more suggestions as to how I can improve it for FLC. I went through the previous noms to find problems brought up, and I worked on the ones that hadn't been fixed. --Golbez (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on procedural grounds, this nom should be failed. Trying to push a nom through is opposite to what we are trying to do here, which is make quality lists.
Ignore all rules - I opposed the last one on procedural grounds, then actually looked at the article and thought, well ya know, maybe it COULD be a featured list if someone who knew what was going on fixed it. That's me. Direct all concerns to me, please. --Golbez (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Over the span of the three FLCs (one month), there have been 34 edits to the page, with only 17 of those by the nom, showing no interest to try and work on the page based on the suggestions by the community. WP:FLC says nominators must "make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised." Obviously none of our objections have been addressed by this nominator.
Golbez, if you are adopting this nomination, then this one should be failed, and a new one started after objections have been addressed. I would be totally ok with this, but this nom should be failed first and we start anew after past objections have been addressed.
I'm lazy. And, past objections have been addressed, where I found them. If I missed one, instead of saying "not addressed", please bring it up here. --Golbez (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot believe this has been allowed to go on like it has. I dont know about the community (it seems they agree here) but my patience is starting to get exhausted. It is no fair to the hard-working editors who put a list here, have it failed, and then go to work for a while, trying to address the issues, and then trying for FL again. Thus I oppose this nomination. Gonzo fan2007talk ♦ contribs06:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are free to leave the FLC, though I point out that your concerns may then not be acted upon. What concerns do you have about the list? --Golbez (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to explain. I was about to vote 'speedy close', as I did on the previous FLC. But I decided to see just what issues were outstanding, and see if I could repair them, and I decided, yes, I could. So, instead of speedy closing it without getting any valid input, I'd like to know what further issues there are with the list. You claim the older ones were not fixed; I challenge that assertion. So please, help me improve the article. Maybe this belongs in PR, but since you folks have said that the issues remain outstanding, please go one step further and say which issues those are. It's highly unlikely that this nom will succeed, but at least something good can come of it instead of you people ignoring what I'm trying to do and just throwing it back at Buc. I'll keep it from being nominated again so long as the issues remain unresolved, but first I have to know what those issues are. --Golbez (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining myself.
Basically, as far as I could tell the last nomination failed because there was no reason for it to pass. Now, normally with FAC Raul will re-start a nom where there is no consensuses to pass it, for whatever reason that wasn’t done here. This didn’t really bother me because I though re-nominating it would work just as well. Evidently I shouldn’t have done that, not entirely sure why but I will keep this in mind in the future and I apologies. But now this nomination is here we may well use it. This page is for discussions on how to get this article to FL status not having a go at me about why this nomination should or shouldn’t have been made. Please go to my talk page if you want to discuss that further.
Now can we please get back to the matter at hand: what needs to be done to get List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks to FL status. Buc (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on Buc, the reason the last two nominations failed was because of your unwillingness to work with other's objections and suggestions. People would give you suggestions and you would make excuses on why their suggestions were wrong. It was either your way or the highway. A lack of support is just the same as opposition. And you would think that after the second nomination where 2-3 users asked for a close due to procedural grounds because you nominated right after it failed the first, this being after you canvassed for support in the second nom, that something would tell you not to immediately nominate the list again, especially after making 0 edits to the page. And FLC is not the place "for discussions on how to get this article to FL status," that would be WP:PR, where a bunch of editors have said you should brings this list. WP:FL is where we determine if a list meets the criteria to be featured, it is not a peer review forum. But whatever, Im tired of reviewing these nominations. Ill let others decide this one. Buc, for future reference, dont repeat what youve done here and be open to other's suggestions. Golbez, good luck on the nomination. Gonzo fan2007talk ♦ contribs04:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you've let your formatting get the better of you but please refrain from SHOUTING and talking in bold. It is easily perceived as aggressive and not conducive to constructive criticism. I would suggest you read the comments provided here and act on them. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I'm not an expert on the draft process, but does it have to have come from somewhere? Looking at the 1967 draft, there were 26 first round picks but only 25 eligible teams, 9 in the AFL and 16 in the NFL. Is it possible New Orleans was given the first and last pick of the draft since they were an expansion team? Though the Oilers are shown as having two picks, neither of which is shown as being acquired from another team... There appears to be no other sources about this, though perhaps someone could contact the Saints organization directly and ask. --Golbez (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brought up before. Couldn't find anything. But I only have the net at my disposal, someone might have a book that explains it. Can only hope.Buc (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- This FLC has been nominated twice already in the last month. The creator has canvassed, and issues still haven't been resolved. I'm not saying it's not a good article, but I don't see any way that this will pass now. Send it through a peer review, wait at least two months, and then resubmit it. -Mastrchf91-00:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why two months? Also I can't resolve issues if people don't piont them out to me. No one, apart from Crzycheetah, has given me feedback. Buc (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get over this feedback thing Buc, the community has been patient enough to give you two FLC noms before this one. We justify this as enough feedback. Basically, no one really wants to deal with you. Everyone here notices that any suggestions they make are going to be shot down if you don't agree with them. You keep on asking for feedback, yet when people give you constructive feedback (and Im not only talking about this nom) you rarely ever concede any changes. People don't want to take the time to review a list and then have everything they say get shot down or receive an excuse not to make the changes. Gonzo fan2007talk ♦ contribs18:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I agree with a suggestion I'm happy to put it in. If I don't agree with a suggestion of course I'm not going to compile, but I'm happy to try and come to a compromise of some sort. But if you don't say anything there is nothing I can do. Buc (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why 2 months? Well...I was originally going to suggest 4 or 6, but I knew that you'd probably not wait that long anyway. So, by saying 2 thought that'd be something you'd think was reasonable. -Mastrchf91-21:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Buc, I suggested a few pages above that you should take this to a peer review. Why not do that? There's no time limit or prize for rushing things through to FA or FL. You should be thankful and, more importantly, respectful to the people who are generous enough to spare time to provide comments and suggestions on your various nominations. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You want suggestions, and I'll give them. First, find out how the 1967 pick was attained. Look at a local library if you can't find anything on the net. Second, highlight any players that were Pro Bowl/elected to Hall of Fame, and create a key to detail this. That's all for now, I guess. -Mastrchf91-01:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off thank you for istening to me. Ok there are no Hof players in this list and do you mean any player elected to the Pro Bowl at least once in there career or in there rookie year? Nothing I can do about the 67, all I have is the net and I can't find anything on there. Buc (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
good, but Remarks column in the main table should not be a sortable field. Sorting these remarks is a meaningless exercise. Hmains (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems to me as though the map in the upper-right corner needs to be altered a bit. Several of the parks are shown as being in Lake Superior, and several others are shown as being in other states (Wisconsin and Iowa). Skudrafan1 (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked the positions of some of those coordinates so they'd actually appear to be in the state. (Jay Cooke State Park and Saint Croix State Park were the ones that looked most obviously like they were in Wisconsin.) Several of those parks are actually on the borders you described, as there are several parks on Lake Superior and the St. Croix River, the borders of the state. (Then there's Interstate Park, which actually does span the border between Minnesota and Wisconsin.) --Elkman(Elkspeak)16:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Parks such as Hayes Lake, Minneopa, Sakatah, Myre-Big Island, Great River Bluffs, and others all appear to be located 6-10 miles or so south of their actual positions; some also appear to be shifted slightly to the east. Kablammo (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they are only 6-10 miles off then color me happy. I manually guessimated their position based on this map which has a different projection and no county outlines. Feel free to move them where they need to go I don't think the s-e thing is systemic. -Ravedave (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Looks pretty good, but three things bother me. First, the external links in the park name column. Second, the gallery doesn't add much at all. I'd say those pictures are better left for the park's pages. Third, I think the year column should be center aligned (typically, columns with data, ie numbers, are center aligned). Drewcifer (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. #1 Is there some better place for the links? They are extremely useful, so I'd like to keep them but they could be moved. #2 I can go either way, so if someone 2nds removing pictures I'll do it. #3 really? the lists that I have seen here usually have the left or right aligned. -Ravedave (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I like the gallery as it is -- the pictures help to illustrate the content. If the article does its job, then everyone will want to come to Minnesota to see our state parks. (Well, maybe that's not the point of the article, but there are other reasons to visit Minnesota besides the Megamall.) --Elkman(Elkspeak)04:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could go either way with the pictures. It's just that there is so little of them, it doesn't seem to add much. Whatever you think is best. As for the external links, I would expect that if a reader really wanted to find out more about the park, they'd go to the park's main page, where an external link would be more appropriate. Per WP:EL we should avoid external links in the main prose/content of the article. As for the dates column, after looking through a bunch of other FLs, it doesn't seem to be as uniform as I made it sound. Most county lists do it, but some others don't, so whatever you think is best. Drewcifer (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. Not essential, but you might consider creating a separate column for the external links.
2. While I like the images, I don't think they should be in a separate gallery section. I think List of Pennsylvania state parks gets it right by interspersing them throughout the article.
3. The facts section must be eliminated. There is no reason at all to have a separate list of facts lacking context, and it would be relatively easy to fold those facts into portions of the lead or of the 'History' section.
4. Again, take a look at how the Pennsylvania article separates an overview of the current park system from the history of the system. A more in-depth overview than what you provide in the lead would be helpful, though not absolutely essential.
5. The history section stops at 1935. Surely there must be more recent history that is important to the topic. Were more parks or more acreage created at certain times than at others?
6. There's no mention in the lead of the Former parks.
Support - i like it. btw, i wanna learn how to make maps like that (where does one start?). very nice, even if dots are wandering off the edge a bit. doncram (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Done NapHit (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Y STORMTRACKER 94 GoSox! 23:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Y Done! — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 17:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]