Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:30, 13 October 2008

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 19:38, 28 October 2008 .

2002 NFL Expansion Draft

previous FLC (03:30, 13 October 2008)

This article was archived although every reasonable critique was being promptly addressed. I resubmitted it to keep it in the process. User:2008Olympian_chitchat 08:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This was the last open item that was posted less than 24 hours before the list was closed:

• "The 2002 National Football League Expansion Draft was the start of the Houston Texans new National Football League (NFL) team." Now that you've put the subject at the beginning, the sentence is not grammatically correct. For starters, "Texans" should have an apostrophe after it. How was the draft "the start" of the team? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Done The sentence is grammatically fixed and does not reference the draft as the start of the team.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat 08:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC) More comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "If a second player is taken, the existing team could then pull back its remaining two players." "is"-->was.

Done--User:2008Olympian_chitchat 18:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• External Links should be External links.
  • Ok, I am stuck on this one. One of these videos is the only source for the statement that there were 25 Pro Bowlers available to the Texans, and that the draft was coverred live in ESPN. Another commentator asked for them to be moved to an External Links section, so I did so. Please advise. --User:2008Olympian_chitchat 18:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Whoa, don't overthink this. All I'm saying is that Links should not be capitalized. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Done Oh, ok, lol.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat 18:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• "To become competitive with existing teams, the league had awarded the Texans the first pick in the 2002 NFL Draft and had given them the opportunity to select current players from existing teams." It sounds like the sentence is saying that the league is trying to become competitive with other teams. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• What makes http://football.about.com/library/weekly/bl_expansiondraft.htm a reliable source?

Done Removed as a source.

• Ref #6 is missing publisher info.

Done Removed as a source.

• What makes YouTube videos reliable?

Done The video are the original ESPN broadcasts of the draft itself. I noted that.

• Why is Pro Football Weekly italicized in some references, but not others?

It is based on a difference between how cite news and cite web function. Two of the sources are originally from their website, and one is from their print publication that was then reprinted on the web.

It's still on a website, so is there any way to make it consistent? –Juliancolton 18:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Done After looking at the citation formats, I realized that where I was using the "publisher" entry on some, I should have been using the "work" entry. I fixed all references to refer to the actual work from which the reference was found, and noted them as a website if such, so as to distinguish between Pro Football Weekly and the Pro Football Weekly website, for example. The two newspaper articles were actually in the paper, not just on the papers' websites, so I left them just as the paper's names without the website notation. I hope this is satisfactory.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat 05:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Otherwise, sources look good. –Juliancolton 16:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Review

• On October 6, 1999, in Atlanta, NFL owners had unanimously voted to award the 32nd NFL franchise and the 2004 Super Bowl to the city of Houston, Texas. - link to Atlanta, Georgia.

Done linked.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat 00:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• The draft was covered live on ESPN, and the Texans drafted nineteen players. - how about The draft was broadcasted live on ESPN,

Done Thanks, it's more accurate that way.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat 00:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• • This sentence stands out, it should be organized more like the 2008 WWE Draft.
  • Which sentence?--User:2008Olympian_chitchat 00:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The one about the draft was covered live on ESPN, in the 2008 WWE Draft there is a similar sentence, an FL, and reads more accurately.--S_RX 22:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Done I changed that sentence to more closely track the one in that article.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat 07:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• To me the colors in the name columns of the table is distracting and should just be in a regular color.--S_RX 23:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - my comment about changing the sentence about it's broadcast was never addressed but it's not major, so It can't prevent it from meeting WP:WIAFL.--S_RX 13:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Done I thought I had fixed it, but I think this is what you wanted? "The draft took place live and aired on ESPN." The sentence on 2008 WWE Draft reads: "The Draft took place live and aired for three hours on the USA Network." I don't know how long this draft was,but the rest of the sentence is almost verbatim from the other article.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat 21:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 20:26, 11 October 2008 .

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2003

I am nominating this list because I think is ready to achieve FL status. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - once again another great list, Jaespinoza you are doing a fine job on these Billboard albums of the year, you must know the FL criteria by memory :)--S_RX 00:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes http://acharts.us/album/12862 a reliable source?. Answer: I got rid of the reference, I did not needed it.
• Current ref 10 (Almas del Silencio) needs to not the language it is in. Answer: DONE! Jaespinoza (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Comments because of the items below

• capitalize Internet in the article
  • FIXED!
• "both physical and via digital downloads" – "both physical and digital" – is sufficient
  • FIXED!
• "in United States." – "in the United States."
  • FIXED!
• "the first album released by Spanish trio Las Ketchup" – does this album have a name?
  • FIXED!
• "colaboration" – "collaboration". Spelling mistake.
  • FIXED!
• be consistent; either "number one" or "number-one"
  • FIXED!
• "year, twice " – "year: twice " – or – "year – twice "
  • FIXED!
• "two times as" – "twice as" – can be twice as well; would be easier to read
  • FIXED!
• "the top spot of this chart" – "the top of the chart"
  • FIXED!
• "Mexican singer Luis Miguel released his fifth number-one album," – there's absolutely no context to this; at least give a date or something; is this his latest album? I'm assuming it is; but he could also very well have released, say, ten albums and then this sentence becomes pointless in that case
  • FIXED!
• "while fellow Mexican norteño music band Los Tigres del Norte peaked at the top for the fourth time." – same as above
  • FIXED!
• "Ricky Martin with Almas del Silencio" – "Ricky Martin's album Almas del Silencio" – or something along those lines; he did not debut with the album. The album debuted.
  • FIXED!
• "also hit the number one" – there are several verbs to use here; I don't think "hit" is a good one. Use different variations of "reach".
  • FIXED!
• generally I think "this chart" should be "the chart" as it's assumed you are talking about the page that we're currently looking at
  • FIXED!
• "Ednita Nazario, Bronco and Pepe Aguilar peaked at number one for the first time." – same as above; give some context. Dates, perhaps? This could very well be outdated fairly soon.
  • FIXED!
• The last paragraph doesn't seem to flow as well as the previous ones.
  • FIXED!

Gary King (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • All comments resolved. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Much better Gary King (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 20:26, 11 October 2008 .

List of Bleach episodes (season 4)

Nominating another episode list. sephiroth bcr 02:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

• "The Bount arc is the fourth season of the Bleach anime series." – Maybe it's just me, but I'm not familiar with the tradition of naming television seasons. Perhaps this could be rewritten like "The fourth season of the Bleach anime series is named "The Bount arc"."

• Fixed. sephiroth bcr 04:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• "This season, along with season five, is not an adaptation of the Bleach manga by Tite Kubo; the plot focuses" – "Unlike previous seasons in the series, this season and season five are not adaptations of the Bleach manga by Tite Kubo. Instead, the plot focuses" – I'm not sure if that's true or not, but you get the idea

• Fixed. sephiroth bcr 04:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• "on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim programming bloc," → "on Adult Swim," – the two are separate networks; the only similarity is that they share the same channel, I believe

• Hmm...I always thought that Adult Swim was part of Cartoon Network. Guess that was partially true. sephiroth bcr 04:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Think that's it. sephiroth bcr 04:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 20:26, 11 October 2008 .

List of Brazilian states by Human Development Index

Very well constructed list, clear and concise with a good use of colours and maps. I think it definitely good enough for an FL. Felipe C.S 01:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Felipe C.S 16:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose.
• Change compared with, not to, for contrasts.

The structure of this list was copied from the article "List of countries by Human Development Index" (a featured list), and in the list of countries: "to" is currently used. Felipe C.S 20:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Unsure what the "comparable country" adds to the reader's understanding. Likely nothing but confusion. "Hmmm ... I know Hungary's HID well."

The reader does not need to have accurate knowledge of the indices, the column "Comparable country" serves to establish a relationship between the Brazilian states and the countries of the world, leading the reader to compare the quality of life in Brazil and in the rest of the world. Felipe C.S 20:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• "officially not a state"—better "not an official state".  Done Felipe C.S 20:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Also" is idle.
• A region is not a country, but the equation is there in the lead.
• Accessibility guidelines breached in the use of colours in the text; and it's unclear what they refer to (the adjacent map? Nope).  Done Felipe C.S 05:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• So Apama's HDI went down from 2003 to 2004 ... is that what I gather? Could be more explicit.  Done Felipe C.S 20:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Why the italics for some regions/states?

Only the regions are in italics, and because are not states, it is important to differentiate. Felipe C.S 20:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Numerical ranges: unspaced en dashes, please. Tony (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - I do not answer the other questions because I do not understand. Please express it better. Felipe C.S 20:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

• References don't need to be marked as "in English". It is assumed.  Done Felipe C.S 05:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• I don't think the <small> tags are necessary for the table headers; the text is too small.

The structure of this list was copied from the article "List of countries by Human Development Index" (a featured list), and in the list of countries: "<small> tags" are currently used. Felipe C.S 05:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• The dark green color used in the "Education index" table makes the numbers hard to read. Lighten up all of the colors equally.  Done Felipe C.S 05:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• The orange background in "Income index" is too glaring, especially with green arrows; lighten up the orange.  Done Felipe C.S 05:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• "States fall into three broad categories based on their HDI: high, medium and low human development." is unnecessary now, no?  Done Felipe C.S 15:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• <Sigh> Not only do I review it, I have to argue with you.
  • Just because some other list uses the wrong preposition is no justification for using it here too. Compare to for similarities, compare with for differences.  Done Felipe C.S 02:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • GET RID OF "ALSO".  Done Felipe C.S 02:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You've equated region and country in one unweildy sentence in the lead.
  • "Comparable country" is absolutely ridiculous concept. I suggest you remove that column. Better to provide more information about the Br. states than hope (vainly, I believe) that a reader will go off and read about Hungary, just because it comes close on some index to a Brazilian state. That is discretionary browsing at its worst.  Done Felipe C.S 02:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you now tell us what the italics mean?

To highlight the regions between the states. Felipe C.S 02:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You might get a native English-speaker to help. Tony (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to strongly oppose until the random browse column is remove and replaced with either nothing or something more connected with the topic. Tony (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Random browse column? Felipe C.S 15:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's gone, and not before time. Wherever I look there are little glitches:

• "Increase", "steady", "decrease" in the key—they need to use the same grammar (increaseD ...); this is not an English-language issue, but one you have to get right in any language when listing.

Well, these are protected templates, I can't do anything. Felipe C.S 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Remove "actually". The ranking ties—are these an artifact of your construction? If so, I'd be inclined to GIVE them equal rankings where a few decimal places is required to differentiate them. The margins of error and the methodologies would involve much greater differences, so we're talking of meaningless (even misleading) distinctions here.

The rankings can be seen in the source. Felipe C.S 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Change from one year to the next is the theme of the table, yet there's nothing about how these measures have been changing over the past ... decade or so, in the lead. This would be a helpful part of the big picture. Tony (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If you see, my English isn't good. I'm unable to create an acceptable text for the lead. Felipe C.S 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 20:26, 11 October 2008 .

List of D.Gray-man chapters

And here's another chapter list (well, I've only done four, so this one is a harder line to throw out. Damn you Gary for making me want to do short nomination statements! :p) sephiroth bcr 08:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I did not check the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Perhaps wikilink "Exorcist"?
  • Fixed. sephiroth bcr 18:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• "over one-hundred chapters" Per MOSNUM, one hundred should not be hyphenated.
  • Fixed. sephiroth bcr 18:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Viz serializes the chapters in their monthly manga anthology Shonen Jump Advanced, with the first chapter appearing on May 2, 2006."-->Viz serializes the chapters in their monthly manga anthology Shonen Jump Advanced; the first chapter appeared on May 2, 2006.
  • Fixed. sephiroth bcr 18:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Recovering from his last mission, Allen meets Bookman, the chronicler of the war between the Black Order and the Earl of Millennium, and his successor Lavi." While recovering from his last mission...
  • Fixed. sephiroth bcr 18:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Jasdevi leaves the crumbling room, but is attacked by a mannequin of blood, Krory's new technique." False contrast, "but"-->and.
  • Fixed. sephiroth bcr 18:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Fo, disguised as Allen, battles the Akuma to buy some time."
  • Fixed. sephiroth bcr 18:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Eliade attempts to kill Allen and Lavi to keep him at her side." Who is "him"? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Think that's it. sephiroth bcr 18:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)))

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 20:26, 11 October 2008 .

Mark of the Year

I'm nominating this article, because I think it has reached FL status. This is what the article looked like prior to my working on it. Since then, I've re-written and reformatted most of the article, added relevant pics and template(s), and corrected POV and trivia sections. It was also peer reviewed. The article is now well referenced, comprehensive and aesthetically pleasing. If there are any minor issues remaining, I'd be willing to work on them, until the article reaches FL status. --Flewis 07:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.droppunt.com/

This site is dedicated to covering the AFL season, together with various other competitions within the afl. All the info here is accurate and also verifiable (feel free to cross check with http://www.afl.com.au/ {official AFL website} if you have any more concerns with this source) --Flewis 02:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Then it would probably be better to use the AFL site itself, no? That way you don't have concerns with possible bias, etc. on a self-published site. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if AFL maintains Mark of the Year history on its website. --Flewis 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Reviews/Reviews.asp?ID=3400

This source asserts the following claim: "Many of the best marks in the VFL/AFL were featured in a VHS/DVD named Miracle Marks." If you check up the "about us" page , the website states that "The site is dedicated to Australian DVD news and reviews of Australian DVDs. It is updated on a daily basis." Along with: We have almost 930,000 page views per month, and around 2,840,000 hits per month (March 2008 figures). Surely, a 'phony' site would not be as popular with people looking for a reliable plot synopsis and review? --Flewis 02:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This website is listed with the 'Australian Business Directory' . --Flewis 01:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• • the various YouTube videos

According to WP:YOUTUBE, there is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page. All the videos linked in the article are verifiable per my personal knowledge, the name of the video, and the comments (e.g. "That's not Tony Modra!!" - that video would not be included in the article). The only other possible way to assert whether or not these video's are in fact video's of the particular event, would be to request another wiki user to cross check them.

The entire reason videos were included in the article, was to enhance the prospective reader's knowledge on the subject (just as pictures aid visually, so to with video). --Flewis 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

See above about reliable sites. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.footystamps.com/ac_tony_modra.htm (ref is also lacking publisher)

Done --Flewis 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Done what? Did it get replaced? With what? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Footy stamps - Asserted as a reliable source in the Australian Footbal directory (Yahoo) --Flewis 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.footywire.com/ (refs are also lacking publisher)

Done --Flewis 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Done what? Did it get replaced? With what? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the disclaimer: "The statistics on this website are based on the official AFL statistics: --Flewis 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.elvis.com.au/gary_ablett.html (ref is also lacking publisher)

Done --Flewis 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Done what? Did it get replaced? With what? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This site may seem worrisome because it has not much to do whatsoever with 'Australian Rules Football, (It is in fact the official Elvis Presley fan club in Australia). Regardless though of the purpose of the site, simply based on the fact that this site is an official site directly trademarked under the "Elvis Corporation" is enough to assert verifiability. --Flewis 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.fullpointsfooty.net/fitzroy's_last_hurrah.htm (ref is also lacking publisher)

Done --Flewis 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Done what? Did it get replaced? With what? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This site lists a bibliography here: --Flewis 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 20 (2001 Mark of the year) is lacking a publisher

Done --Flewis 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Same for current ref 22 (Past Mark's of the year..)

Done --Flewis 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 34 (Nicky Winmar..) is lacking publisher

Done --Flewis 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Lists should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order.--Crzycheetah 21:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Done - Wikitable has been reformatted into earliest-latest chronological order --Flewis 02:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hey Flewis, in the future could you hold off on using the {{Done}} template. It's repeated use on one page (especially one this big) will start to affect load time for some reviewers. I changed all the instance of the template to Done, feel free to use that format or another one tha just incorporates text. Thanks a lot! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 06:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done No just kidding. In the future I'll be sure to use: done --Flewis 12:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not quite ready A featured list is supposed to be the best of the best Misplaced Pages has to offer. Here are some problems:

• The overall tone of the article is colloquial rather than formal. Featured content should be in a tone written for informing the audience, not entertaining it. This reads like a sports book for teenagers. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not the "professional standards of writing" I would expect from featured content. This is going to be the hardest of my objections to overcome, since just about every sentence of the lead will need to be tweaked.

I'm trying my best with this issue. So far I've re-written the prose--Flewis 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• The history section needs better information. Why was there no award in 1971 or 1972? Exactly when did journalists help pick the award?

I'm afraid that I'm able to find absolutely no information on this whatsoever. Google yields few results and Google Book Search doesn't fare much better. I think some parts of this section may have to be removed if they cannot be verified.--Flewis 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Update - I have removed all the unreferenced material in the "Selection Process" Section --Flewis 11:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Grammar and spelling errors like "Chris Tarrants mark" which should be "Chris Tarrant's mark" must all be identified and fixed before FL status is even considered. fixed
• No redlinks. Redlinks should be delinked or the target article should be created. Featured content should not have redlinks for any length of time.

Done --Flewis 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• The "Selection Process" should have 3 sections to mirror the history section. The reader should walk away with a high-level view of the selection process in the 70s/80s, the 80s/90s, and the current process. started a fix but expert needed - stub sections introduced

As above, my searches for reliable sources have turned up fruitless. Parts of this section might also need to be removed --Flewis 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

See Above - unreferenced material removed. --Flewis 11:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• The statement in the History section that "The current selection process was first used in the 1998 season" must be reconciled with the statement in the Selection Process section that "The system was modified slightly in 2006." Any other similar inconsistencies must be identified and fixed. fixed by rewording
• The article contains terms and references unfamiliar with non-football fans and/or non-Australians. Sentences like "The Victorian Football League also runs in conjunction, but only selected from the few games that are televised each year on ABC2." make little sense to my non-Australian, non-football-watching brain. I'm not sure what the best way to fix this problem is, but it needs to be fixed.

I've added explanations and links to other wiki articles--Flewis 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• In some browsers, the pictures overlap the table if the window is too skinny. This may be a limitation of Misplaced Pages, but knowing this limit, it might make sense to move the pictures to other places within the article or reduce their number. On the other hand, their current placement and number may be the best option. If it is the best option available, then this is not a block to featured list status.

Default thumbnail size is now used --Flewis 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• The pictures should be in the same order as the list defaults to - currently oldest first. Done --Flewis 11:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Using both colors and */#'s is unnecessary. Pick one. I'd go with the #/* because it is more friendly to blind and colorblind people. This is not a block to featured list status.

I used these together with symbols per WP:MOS#COLORS --Flewis 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Consider using color or other separators every 5 or 10 entries, to make the table easier on the eyes. This is not a block to featured list status.

• What I do like:
  • The list itself: This topic is a good candidate for featured-list status: It is well-known enough to not be trivial, yet not universally known and therefore the topic would benefit from the exposure that featured-content status offers.
  • The sortable table, kudos to whoever thought to make this sortable.
  • Links to the videos, provided they aren't pirated.
  • Bottom-templates, although the red links in them should be eliminated as well.

• There are probably more things I could think of that I like and more things that I could think of that would block featured list status, but I only have so many hours in a day. I'll spend a few minutes doing some minor fixups, so some of the things above may be gone by the time you read this.
• davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC) updated 00:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 20:26, 11 October 2008 .

List of D.Gray-man episodes

And here's another episode list. sephiroth bcr 06:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

• "The episodes are directed" – "They are directed"

• Fixed. sephiroth bcr 04:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• "The animation was produced by TMS Entertainment and Aniplex was responsible for the music production." – "TMS Entertainment produced the animation and Aniplex was responsible for the music production."

• Fixed. sephiroth bcr 04:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Think that's it. sephiroth bcr 04:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose

• No images at all? Disappointed....

• What would you have me put? I already have individual DVD images on List of D.Gray-man episodes (season 1) and List of D.Gray-man episodes (season 2), and I would be writing a much weaker FUR for an additional image here. — sephiroth bcr 17:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Not being difficult - just seems a little bland without an image. I understand the FUR issues though... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• A logo perhaps? — sephiroth bcr 00:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Amazon links are a little odd, almost like advertising. No way we can find this info out from other sources?

• Found the official Aniplex sources. — sephiroth bcr 17:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Episode ranges should use en-dash, not hyphen.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr 17:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe worth linking exorcist.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr 17:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• fifty-one->51?

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr 17:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "episodes save the thirteenth " - save->except?

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr 17:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• 1st stage, 2nd stage -> do you mean season instead of stage here?

• Names of the seasons. — sephiroth bcr 17:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Think that's it. — sephiroth bcr 17:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 20:26, 11 October 2008 .

List of universities in Quebec

The map was created by Matthewedwards! Thanks! Gary King (talk) 04:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Weak Support

• École de technologie supérieure, I think, should be sorted out as T, not U. Also with all of other Écoles starting with a "University".
• Université Laval is a disambiguation. The article is Laval University.

-- K. Annoyomous24 23:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The sorting and names are based on this. Also, the link is not a disambiguation, it's a redirect. Gary King (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for using the wrong word. It is a redirect, so shouldn't you just link the article to Laval University? -- K. Annoyomous24 06:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The article uses the French name of the university. Gary King (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you just put ]? I just want to fully support this list. -- K. Annoyomous24 00:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay done Gary King (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 20:26, 11 October 2008 .

List of S.H.E awards

previous FLC (16:20, 18 August 2008)

Table issues from previous FLC were finally resolved. Nominating the list for a third time because, again, I believe it fits FL criteria. Pandacomics (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - unable to evaluate the non-English sources for reliablity. Link checker tool shows several dead links. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Dead links resolved. Feel free to re-run the tool to check. Pandacomics (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

• I'm not sure why, but the tables are "broken". A lot of the rows in the tables don't have borders on the far right.

Gary King (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe browser cache? I mean, if the rows truly missed a " | " or something, the tables would be noticeably more wonky and wouldn't have the data neatly placed into its cells. I myself had to clear my cache quite a few times just to get the borders to show up. Pandacomics (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No Gary is right they are all messed up. I have fixed the one for the "HITO Radio Music Awards" section to show you the problems. Can you fix the rest please. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you list which rows have problems? Because, as mentioned above, I don't seem to have the table problems on my end, thereby making it enormously hard for me to see which ones you and Gary are having glitches with. Pandacomics (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed all the tables and the template. They were all being forced to work unaturally which caused odd bordering between rows (due to incorrect rowspans and extra row breaks). I've left a note on your talk page with details that might be useful in future. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Not sure about the odd bolding in the lead sentence. And what's the difference between an "award" and an "accolade"?
• What criteria have you applied to inclusion of awards/accolades in this list per WP:WIAFL criterion 3? Most of the awards you have have noted do not even have articles in Misplaced Pages - are they notable? If so I guess they should have articles?
• Still no solution for the predominantly non-English citations.
• Combination of linked and unlinked dates in the citations.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• None. Fixed.
• The criteria is that all the awards they've ever won are included. The ones with actual sections are the ones that "have been organized more than twice by either a government body or a media company . All other awards are shown in light blue." "All other awards" meaning ones that are currently sponsored or have been sponsored, and have had at least one iteration. Some sponsored awards have sections if the group won 4 or more total awards there. This "rule" is there to avoid having "one row wonders" for certain awards.

• As for notability, there are a few iterations of the Singapore Hit Awards on Misplaced Pages, and the other awards inherit notability from their organizers. If anything, mention of the awards should probably stay on their respective organizers' pages. Pandacomics (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• This link should help -
  • Yeah, funny. This is English Misplaced Pages by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I thought it was pretty damn brilliant. In any case, I've created a subpage with Google Translate translations (read: third-party, read: translations that are not mine) for 30 of the first 42 citations. If you want more translations, or want a specific source to be translated, I can run it through Google Translate for you. For those of you who can only understand English, I've even taken the liberty to make sure the translations are from Chinese to English. Pandacomics (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Converting the remainder to citeweb format. Pandacomics (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Done. Pandacomics (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Would be good to have the final table left aligned instead of centered. And suggest rephrasing the opening sentence. The problem is not so much a distinction between awards and accolades as with the verb won. Accolades and awards are not synonymous: awards are won, but accolades may be informal praise which are earned or received. Winning implies formal competition. Since this is a list of awards rather than accolades, suggest either revising to include accolades (which would be difficult to do with completeness) or revising the lead sentence description. Durova 20:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully it is a-ok. Pandacomics (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:44, 4 October 2008 .

North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball seasons

I think this list meets all the criteria for FL and I think it would be useful to get a college basketball season article as a FL so it can act as a template for other such lists. Remember (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose

• Lead
  • This is a list of seasons completed by the men's basketball team of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I. - FL's are discouraged to begin with "This is a list of ___"

Revised to state "The men's basketball team of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is referred to as the North Carolina Tar Heels and play in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I. The Tar Heels have played their games at the Dean Smith Center since 1986" in accordance with Los Angeles Lakers seasons page.

• • The North Carolina Tar Heels have a 73.6% all-time winning percentage, winning 1,950 games and losing 699 games in the 98 seasons from the team's first season in 1910–11 to the most recent season, 2007–2008. - why is the 1910-11 season in that format while the 2007-2008 is not like that (i.e. 2007-08)? Also are there articles about the seasons?

Someone changed some of the format of the seasons, but I have changed them to be consistent as well as refraining from using the n dash since these seasons do have page articles which do not use the N-dash. So yes, there are articles about the seasons, but they are slowly being put together. Let me know if there is any other inconsistent use of years.

I have now added links to all of the season years.

• • The Tar Heels also have the most consecutive 20-win seasons, with 31 seasons from the 1970–71 seasons through 2000–2001 season. - what is "20-win seasons?

A 20-win season is a season in which a team wins 20 games. I thought that was pretty self-explanatory, so I am a bit confused by the confusion. A 20-win season is a pretty big deal in college basketball given the fact that if you don't do well in tournaments (or don't go to them) you may only have about 28 games in a season.

• • No need to say "North Carolina Tar Heels" over and over, Tar Heels or even Heels will do just fine.

I will revise.

• • In 1921 North Carolina joined the Southern Conference. - the southern conference of what?

Changed to read - "In 1921 North Carolina joined the newly formed Southern Conference, a college athletic conference affiliated with the NCAA's Division I."

• • I'm not even going to review the rest of the lead because it is too long, more than 5 pargraphs, fails WP:LEDE and CR 4 and 2.

I will shorten

• Table
  • The table is also messy and some refs are used multiple times but are not in the correct format using {{nw|<ref name="(name goes here)">}}

I will reformat the references, but I don't know what you mean when you say the table is "messy."

Any more suggestions are welcome. Remember (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

--S_RX 01:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In my eyes its messy per the so many different colors representing a certain thing. Another thing is the totals, can they not be incorporated into a row in the table? Also it's appearance looks messy because in the column that has quarterfinalist, semifinalist, etc. some have links some dont, and most of the seasons are red links.--S_RX 00:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the totals section could use with better formatting, but I was at a loss on how to do it. I want the large table to still be sortable, and I believe all of the total information is useful. I just don't know how I should construct the total section to make it the most user friendly layout. Any suggestions are welcome.

I added a totals section at the bottom, but any further advice on how to make this work would be welcome. Remember (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the conference final section, the problem is that there are pages for the ACC Tournament for each year but not for the Southern Conference. I didn't know whether to set up webpages for each Southern Conference Tournament pages via redlinks or whether just to link to the page on the Southern Conference Tournament (even though it only shows the winners).

As for the various colors, I actually link them and think they are informative, but that is my opinion and others could easily differ. Remember (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• My first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. I will revise them. Remember (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Lead far too long - see WP:LEAD.
• Don't overlink North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball.
• Use en-dash for season year ranges, not hyphen, per WP:DASH.
• In order to meet WP:WIAFL and bearing in mind this a "seasons" list, you need to have articles about most, if not all of the Tar Heels seasons.
• There's plenty more but once you fix the above, I'll be happy to continue the comments.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the suggestions. I doubt I will have time to make all of these changes before this nomination closes out, but I will try to make them in the future. So any additional comments you could provide would still be useful. Remember (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:44, 4 October 2008 .

List of Gossip Girl episodes

I've been working on this list for quite sometime and I must say it has greatly improved from its state some weeks ago. The citations are formatted nicely and the programming history has been expanded, and everything that needs to be cited is cited. –Howard the Duck 17:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: This series only has 2 seasons yet. I dunno the exact parameters on when to divide to a Gossip Girl (season 2) subarticle but if it needs to be divided w/o sacrificing this FLC I'll do it. –Howard the Duck 17:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• remove bold from link per WP:BOLDTITLE
• ""Gossip Girl,"" → ""Gossip Girl","
• "from the CW" – link "CW", explain what it is, like "from the television network the CW"
• "The CW" – "The" is capitalized here but not earlier?
• "5 more episodes " → "five more episodes "

Gary King (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. –Howard the Duck 01:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: I've changed all instances of "The CW" to "the CW" except when it's at the beginning of the sentence. I honestly don't know what is the proper convention but I went safe and used "the CW". –Howard the Duck 04:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals.

The links in the references are what I'm referring to. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The ALL CAPS titles came from the CW press releases. I will make them appear in sentence case, and use the links from the CW.

• Current ref 1 is lacking a last access date.

Yes, it is okay to use todays date if the link is still live. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.thefutoncritic.com/home.aspx a reliable source?
• Current ref 9 is lacking a last access date
• Current ref 10 is lacking a publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source?

Actually, yes it does matter what website it comes from. The publisher of the information is the website, if they don't have a reputation for reliablity, how do we know that the press release is acurately reproduced? See below. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 11, you should give the author, as it is known.
• What makes http://entertainmentnow.wordpress.com/ a reliable source?

To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The ratings in the blog are identical to the numbers spawned elsewhere. –Howard the Duck 03:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look okay. Can't check links as the link checker tool is down. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't get this. What link titles? The titles of the episodes?
• I didn't add ref 1 so is it OK to use today's date? The link is still live.
• I dunno about the futoncritic website since it was there before I edited it but I'll find a new source.
  • I found new sources but finding sources on the listings of repeat airings would be next to impossible. –Howard the Duck 03:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• See bullet point #2.
• I'll find a better source for this.
• • This is a press release so I think it doesn't matter which website it comes from since all of the articles will look identical.
• I'll do that.
• The entertainmentpress blog is used in a lot of U.S. TV articles. Plus the ratings numbers it fleshes out correspond to other sources, and it is released by ABC so it is reliable.

–Howard the Duck 03:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• "This is an episode list..." boring. Kick off with something much more captivating.
• Probably worth linking blog.
• "first few " - not encyclopedic.
• Two of the three paras in the lead are way short. Merge or expand.
• "re-air" - is that actually English? Wild. I'd rephrase to "air again"?
• Should "the CW" be "The CW"?
• Move ref 7 to the end of the sentence, no real need for it to interrupt text.
• Season heading shouldn't use hyphen for year range per WP:DASH.
• Don't link individual years unless there's a really good reason to do so.
• Also, date linking is up for debate as to whether it's actually any use. Consider unlinking your dates.
• " 9:00/8:00c" - is that morning or evening? And what is "8:00c"?
• "one of the most buzzed about new shows on the internet" - prove it and phrase it encyclopedically - "most buzzed about" is hardly Britannica-esque is it?
• Title refs should be other side of the "
• "whose relationship " - with whom? I know what you mean but it's not clear.
• " the TV season " - television.
• Do Amazon not publish their own work? i.e. shouldn't Amazon be a publisher rather than a work in the references?
• The template doesn't seem to link to this list - it should.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Replies:

• I'd change "re-air" to "air again".
• I went safe and used "the CW". See the original comments above.
• Title refs are inside the quotations marks when you use the template. Either the reference would be removed or the template be changed.
• The others are pretty easy to do and I'll be doing them tomorrow. –Howard the Duck 14:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
• I actually linked the blog on the main Gossip Girl (TV series) article but it was promptly reverted so I dunno if I should do that. –Howard the Duck 03:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've done most of your suggestions except the questions above and:

• for the years, since most FLs link the years,
• the dates, since my preferences won't work if they're delinked,
• "most buzzed..." is a quote. I can't change that.
• and I dunno how to change "8:00/7:00c" although it makes perfect sense for me even though I don't live in a country split by multiple timezones. Maybe linking "c" to Central Time Zone? I dunno how to present this in a simply way. –Howard the Duck 04:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• I've edit the way of stating the time, I think it's understandable for everybody now. –Howard the Duck 14:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead has to say how many episodes have aired, alongside an "As of" date.
• I've never heard the network referred to as simply "CW", the "The" seems to be part of its name, "The CW". I think your decision to change "The CW" to "the CW" is wrong, based on The CW Television Network, http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,1152384,00.html, http://www.cbsrecords.com/news.shtml and http://www.tribune.com/pressroom/releases/2006/01242006.html, which all use a capital T.
• Provide context for the reader, especially the non-Americans as to what "The CW is". Is it a cable network, a digital-only network, a terrestrial network, etc.
• When referring to the series, "Gossip Girl" should always be in italics
• "and is developed for television" is the developing ongoing? I'd use past tense here.
• Don't begin sentences with "However". Use a semi-colon in place of the period and a lowercase h
• "the CW announced five more episodes to be produced and aired in April and May 2008." sentence seems incomplete. Simple change would be to replace "and" with "which"
• "Despite low ratings during the first part of the first season," reference, please, unless covers it
• "on early March 2008"?
• Entire lead needs a copyedit. Also see the lead sections of other episode lists, such as List of Lost episodes, List of Smallville episodes, List of The Simpsons episodes, List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes, list of Desperate Housewives episodes
• See same pages for how to do the season overview table
• "Repeats are also aired every Sunday on the CW at 8:00 p.m. Eastern (7:00 p.m. Central; on September 23 and September 30 only) before subsequently airing two hours earlier at 6:00 p.m. Eastern (5:00 p.m. Central)." present tense needs fixing, rest of sentence needs rewriting
• "key demographics" highly specialised term. Can this be wikilinked or explained?
• "is one of the most buzzed about new shows on the internet." present tense, WP:TONE on "buzzed", and reference
• "Its digital video recorder ratings were high, increasing the shows profitability." prove both
• "what's" contraction, and what exactly is shown on MTV? Links to series articles
• "still warned parents of several scenes in the pilot." such as?
• "After the last episode produced before the writers' strike was aired, the CW moved the series to Monday starting on January 28, with repeats of the first season until the first post-strike episode was aired, after which it continued to be aired on Monday nights." clumsy. Lot of unnecessary wording
• the references are not part of the title, and should not be in the quotes. Use the RTitle= field. Were the episode titles given on screen? If so, you don't need to reference them at all. Even if they weren't, you could instead use http://www.tvguide.com/detail/tv-show.aspx?tvobjectid=288136&more=ucepisodelist, from TV Guide, and put the reference in the table header, next to "Episode title"
• Production codes please
• Instead of "Original the CW airdate", just do "Original airdate", and use the original airdate (so when they premiered on CTV first, use that. You can do a footnote to say that these episodes aired on a different network in a different country.
• "Serena van der Woodsen's return ... is not warmly welcomed by her closest friend ... whose relationship with her has been competitive and difficult." doesn't seem like her closest friend then.. perhaps explain why
• "Serena receives an icy reception to Blair" to or from?
• "that she knows that she" -- that she that she, eugh
• "running off" Tone
• "As the students" what students?
• "Dan gets confused best friend Vanessa Abrams returns"
• "On Blair's masked ball" on or at?
• "Chuck contemplates on investing" there's one word here that isn't necessary
• "Blair is again devastated" when was she devastated the first time?
• "van der Woodsens" Dutch name convention is to capitalise the V when not using the first name
• "not knowing the romantic histories of Rufus, Alison and Lily, that causes them to be uncomfortable." who is uncomfortable? Rufus, Alison and Lily, or the Van der Woodsens?
• "Blair goes around" in circles?
• "Nate asks her to the cotillion ball making Chuck jealous." a comma is needed somewhere in here..
• "after she learns that Serena is not going to the ball." there's a word that isn't needed somewhere in here..
• "Convincing Serena and Lily that she is sick, she goes to the ball with Dan as her partner." who does?
• "Blair gets disappointed" --> "a disappointed Blair"
• "Serena, Blair, Nate, Chuck and their entourage" unwieldy. Perhaps pick one of them: "Serena and her entourage", "Nate and his entourage"
• "who turns out was not pregnant after all." missing a word, but Tone is awful
• Queen bee is the wrong link. You could be looking for Queen bee (subculture) which redirects to conformity
• "Jenny does something illegal to fit in with the in-crowd." what do they do?
• "Blair and Jenny take their popularity war to a whole new level." what level?
• "Blair finally takes matters with Georgina into her own hands," how?
• "The second season began to air on September 1, 2008" sounds like it was going to and then didn't. How about "The second season premiered on September 1, 2008"
• "on its previous Monday time slot" --> "in the same Monday timeslot as the final part of season one" perhaps?
• "The CW started the television season at the end of the northern hemisphere summer instead of the more conventional start in the fall along with other larger TV networks." needs rewording slightly
• As I said before, each individual episode title doesn't need referencing, you can use http://www.tvguide.com/detail/tv-show.aspx?tvobjectid=288136&more=ucepisodelist instead; however, that isn't the case for unaired episodes. They should be referenced since WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Same with summaries for unaired episodes. Best bet is to remove them completely though, and add them only after they've aired
• I'm not convinced "Gossip Girl Revealed" needs to be listed separately. You could just say in the prose for season one that "the pilot reaired on January 28, 2008, and included additional footage including deleted scenes, outtakes, interviews and a special commentary by the cast."
• Per WP:FOOT, don't do {{reflist|3}} because they are inaccessible to users with smaller/laptop monitors. 2 is fine.
• The entire WP:TONE is unencyclopedic, and the episode summaries do not summarize. They tease. Please read WP:Plot summaries and WP:PLOTSUM.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'd be doing the minor things tomorrow or in the next day but there are some things I'd like to clarify:
  • The reason I used "the CW" instead of "The CW" is that the capitalization hawks might come and instead demand to use "the CW". I'd be using "The CW" as per your suggestion.
  • No MTV series were explicitly stated on the source.
  • I don't know where to get production codes. I tried searching before (to replace the TV ratings) but I can't find any.
  • I prefer to use The CW's airdate since it is the network producing the show. CTV just buys them and airs it. I'll have to be convinced to use the date when it was first aired anywhere, otherwise, it's like saying CTV is the original network.
  • I read on the official Gossip Girl blog the blogger uses the "van der Woodsen" convention when referring to the van der Woodsens. I can't find it but I do remember it being used there.
  • The plot summaries are all cited from The CW's plot summaries, so several plot elements aren't included. I found this hard to deal with on episode 12 since The CW's plot summary was crap and I had to insert "she was not pregnant after all" even though it was explicitly said on the source (although it was implied). If they'll be uncited, the plot summaries would be slightly reworked and some elements will be added. The reason I used The CW's plot summaries is to prevent anons from adding their own favorite parts of the story.
    • Basically the teasing tone of the summaries has to do with The CW's plot summaries. If they will be un-cited the tone will improve.
  • I've consistently hidden cells for unaired episodes via HTML markup but the anons persistently remove it.
  • "Gossip Girl Revealed" was a special episode, it was 90 minutes long (30 minutes longer than a ordinary episode). I dunno if it deserves it own section at the bottom since there were several scenes that were shown that were previously unaired, and the actors hosted the show.
  • Was it even in three columns? I didn't noticed, when I cleaned this up there wasn't any columns. It's currently 2 anyway. –Howard the Duck 13:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think on your statement about "despite low ratings...", you were referring to reference 4. It's covered there. Nevertheless I transferred reference 3 at the end of the sentence right before reference 4. –Howard the Duck 13:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• In addition to the things mentioned above
• Fails Criteria 3 as it is not comprehensive. The webisodes were episodes of Gossip Girl so need to be included.
• Using The CW dates and not original airdates, doesn't put it from a worldwide perspective. Most episodes of season 1 aired in Canada first.
• The two stubby sentances at the end of the lead.
• The teaser style of the episode summaries. Even if they are from CTV of The CW this is an encyclopaedia and we should inform.
• Pilot was available on iTunes for free before the premiere, but this isn't even mentioned.
• Season 2 DVD release. "TBA 2009" unless you have a ref for being released in 2009 that is WP:CRYSTALBALL.
• It scares me how many refs on Entertainment Wordpress which isn't a WP:RS unless you have information that proves otherwise.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• I had been planning myself to get this to FL, but I haven't seen the whole series yet. Anyways, good job for now, but I don't think it's FL status just yet. Here are some comments:
• Your Entertainment Now wordpress is not very reliable, unfortunately. If other users have problems with it, try using the refs from List of Heroes episodes. Fortunately, most of the episodes aired in the same week, so all you have to do is copy and paste the refs for the appropriate date.
• The title sections do not need a ref, I think. Has there been a change in the FL requirements?
• As previously said, webisodes need mention. Again, have a look here: List of Heroes episodes
• Um... there are more issues, but I think most have been said by the above users. If this fails, and I catch up to the series, I will probably help to get it to FL status.

Sorry, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 07:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 16:39, 2 October 2008 .

List of Maryland hurricanes (1950–1979)

previous FLC (16:01, 11 September 2008)

Last one failed because of a lack of comments (hint). Cheers, –Juliancolton 21:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments all issues resolved; from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs). Hint taken ;)

• In the lead, I see this: "One storm—Hurricane Hazel—caused sustained hurricane force winds". However, in the next section I see this: "October 15, 1954 – Hurricane Hazel crosses the state, producing hurricane-force winds."
  • Not sure exactly what the problem is. :) –Juliancolton 00:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Should have been more specific—in the first instance, hurricane-force is not hyphenated, but the second time it is. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I see now, got it. –Juliancolton 01:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• "August 12, 1955 – Tropical Storm Connie makes a landfall in southern Maryland, dropping heavy rainfall peaking at 12.32 in (313 mm) in Preston. The heavy rainfall leads to severe flooding which causes $2.5 million (1955 USD) in damage. When the schooner Levin J. Marvel capsizes in high seas, 14 people drown." Repetition of heavy rainfall.
• "September 19, 1955 – Hurricane Ione makes landfall in North Carolina, with its outer moisture producing light rainfall across the state." It's that notorious with + -ing construction. Use a semicolon instead: "Hurricane Ione makes landfall in North Carolina; its outer moisture produces light rainfall across the state."
• "September 28, 1958 – Hurricane Helene is pulled well offshore from the Carolina coast..."—What does "pulled" mean?
• "September 9, 1969 – Hurricane Gerda intensified offshore, prompting a hurricane watch for eastern Maryland. Because the storm remained offshore, only light precipitation falls." Why is this the only bullet to start with the past tense?
• I'm getting "bad request" from two web links, current refs 4 and 17.

Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the comments. Done with everything except the first point. –Juliancolton 00:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • the first paragraph should be expanded a little. It's too short currently.
    • I merged the two. –Juliancolton 21:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • In the only note, the …and may be used interchangeably part should be cited because I am not sure it's correct.
    • I disagree. It is rather common sense that a tropical cyclone is a form of cyclone or a storm. –Juliancolton 21:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
      • What you're saying is that it will be fine to move Tropical Storm Doria (1971) to Hurricane Doria (1971). It's not about agreeing or disagreeing. It's about what is right and what is wrong. Tropical Storm Doria can never be mentioned as Hurricane Doria.--Crzycheetah 22:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
        • That's not what I said. "Hurricane" and "tropical storm" are different intensity classifications, and can thus not be interchanged. "Storm", "cyclone", "tropical cyclone", "hurricane" are not classifications, and in this case, are interchangeable. –Juliancolton 22:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
          • If a "tropical storm" can never be a "hurricane", then why are you mentioning "tropical storms" in the list of "hurricanes"?--Crzycheetah 06:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
            • As said before, "hurricane" is an all-encompassing term for Atlantic and Pacific tropical cyclones. The name is based on project consensus. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
              • As our Tropical cyclone featured article states, hurricane is a system with sustained winds of at least 33 metres per second (64 kn) or 74 miles per hour (119 km/h). Now, you're saying that this article is against a project consensus, so maybe we should de-feature that article? By the way, you even supported that article.--Crzycheetah 01:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
                • It's actually quite simple. A "hurricane", in a way, has two meanings. In the informal sense of the word, "hurricane" can refer to any tropical cyclone at any intensity, anywhere in the world, but usually in the Atlantic Ocean basin. In the technical, and meteorological sense of the word, "hurricane" does in fact refer to an Atlantic or Pacific storm with winds of more than 74 mph. As we're trying to keep the article title short and sweet, List of Maryland tropical cyclones (1950–1979 would be too bulky, and unnecessarily technical. –Juliancolton 17:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
                  • Is it encyclopedic to use the informal meaning that may mislead some readers? I think it's just lazy to keep the title "short and sweet". Plus, your sentence --Crzycheetah 02:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
                    • Actually, many readers don't know what a "tropical cyclone" is, but would know what a "hurricane" is. –Juliancolton 02:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
                      • Well, there is a link to "tropical cyclone" in the opening sentence. I always watch on TV meteorologists say this tropical storm may become a hurricane or something similar to that. They never say a hurricane hit Florida when in actuality a tropical storm hit the state. I believe we need to follow the technical meaning of the word because we are an encyclopedia and not a message board.--Crzycheetah 02:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • If No storms made landfall in Maryland at hurricane intensity part is correct, then the title of this page is very misleading and should be changed to "List of Maryland storms" or "List of hurricanes that affected Maryland".
    • "Hurricane" is an all-encompassing term for Atlantic and Pacific tropical cyclones, so again, I'm afraid I must disagree. –Juliancolton 21:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Please, explain to me how the following two sentences don't contradict each other, "One storm—Hurricane Hazel—caused sustained hurricane-force winds (winds of 75 mph (121 km/h) or greater) in the state, one of only two storms to do so. No storms made landfall in Maryland at hurricane intensity.". As I understand, two storms hit the state with hurricane-force winds, but no storm hit the state with hurricane intensity. Can you explain the difference between hurricane-force winds and hurricane intensity?--Crzycheetah 02:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Any reason why 1971 is wikilinked?
  • Where is the other list? Thee one from 1980 to present? I see the List of Maryland and Washington, D.C. hurricanes (1980–present), but I don't understand why someone combined Maryland and Washington, D.C.in the second list, but not the first. This inconsistency sould be fixed.
  • There are some pdf files in the references, so a format=PDF field should be added to the templates.

--Crzycheetah 20:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed everything else. Thanks for the review! –Juliancolton 21:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

SatyrTN comments

• "In all, tropical cyclones have killed..." - that probably needs a time qualifier, like "During this time period, tropical ..." That also needs a cite.
• Rm notes section if there aren't any notes.

Looks fine. I conditionally support this FLC. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed the notes section, and changed the wording in that sentence. That doesn't need a cite, it's simply a count-up of what's already in the article. Thanks for the comments! –Juliancolton 18:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That verges on WP:SYNTH. It's not a show-stopper for me, but I would feel much better if it were sourced in some way. Just an opinion.

• I Support this FLC. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments Oppose

• Make the table in "Deadly storms" sortable
• Make the "Number of deaths" column wider so it doesn't span two lines.
• Disambiguate "Mid-Atlantic"

Gary King (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The lede is poorly written and includes contradictions. "One hurricane, Hazel, brought hurricane-force winds to the state, one of two storms to do so." - is a flat-out contradiction, unless you're (as occurred to me after I fixed it) assuming qualifiers on the "one" and "two" that aren't actually given. This should be separated into two paragraphs, one giving general information and the other giving information just for the period, and making it quite clear which is which. Additionally, the list provides nothing useful in terms of navigation or sorting - it is simply an unhelpful chronological list of storms. In a featured list I'd expect to see an organized presentation like other hurricane lists (see List of retired Atlantic hurricanes) gives, particularly information on deaths, strength, and damages provided in sorted or sortable tables. Finally, the text (where there is any cohesive text) is neither engaging nor brilliant; wikilinks are missing and damages, when given, are not always converted into modern dollars. — jdorje (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Have you seen the numerous similar FLs? For example, List of New Jersey hurricanes, List of Delaware hurricanes, List of New York hurricanes, List of South America hurricanes, List of North Carolina hurricanes (pre-1900), List of Florida hurricanes (2000–present)? I'll try to address your concerns about prose and Wikilinking, but I don't understand why you're opposed to this format. –Juliancolton 00:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Yep, those all have the same problem - including for many of them confusion in the prose in the lede. I don't agree with citing them as "precedent", however. If those articles have the same problems as this one, they should be fixed. — jdorje (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, do you see any more specific problems with this particular article that I can fix? –Juliancolton 17:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 15:15, 1 October 2008 .

List of passengers on board RMS Titanic

This list has come a really long way since it first started and I believe it to be fully comprehensive and well-referenced --Thanks, Hadseys 19:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• A list of passengers aboard the RMS Titanic, which struck an iceberg in the Atlantic Ocean while en route to New York City on its maiden voyage, and sank. - bad introduction, if you mean "This is a list of ...etc., that is also discouraged. You should never begin an FL or any list in that way. Simply say that The RMS Titanic, was blah blah which blah blah and had blah blah passengers.
• A name in italics denotes a person who was saved. Note, included in this list are the nine-member Guarantee Group and the eight members of the ship's band, who were given passenger accommodations and treated as both passengers and crew. They are also included in the list of crew members on board RMS Titanic article. - this should go as a key and not in the lead.
• Passengers' names that are bolded indicates a middle name that the person was generally known by. A person generally referred to by a nickname is in quotes, while an alias is put into parenthesis. - so should this...
• Survivors were rescued from the lifeboats by the RMS Carpathia. Of the 711 passengers and crew rescued from the RMS Titanic, one, William F. Hoyt, died in a lifeboat during the night, and another five died on board the Carpathia and were buried at sea. - buried at sea? so they tossed the corpse into the sea?
• Numbers 324 and 325 were unused, and the six passengers buried at sea by the Carpathia also went unnumbered. - numbers? what do these numbers mean, who chose them? You say nothing about it.
• The three bodies recovered by the RMS Oceanic, numbers 331, 332 and 333, were occupants of Collapsible A, which was swamped in the last moments of the sinking. - what was the "Collapsible?"
• Several people managed to reach the boat, although some died during the night. - "some" is weasly, need to be precise.
• The superscript next to the body number indicates the recovery vessel that picked up the body.

   * MB - CS Mackay-Bennett (bodies 1-306)
   * M - CS Minia (bodies 307-323)
   * MM - CGS Montmagny (bodies 326-329)
   * A - SS Algerine (body 330)
   * O - RMS Oceanic (bodies 331-333)
   * I - SS Ilford (body 334)
   * OT - SS Ottowa (body 335)

- should also be in the key

• These are just examples of how bad the prose is, the table also needs cleanup. I strongly suggest that before FLC, this list should have been Peer Reviewed.--S_RX 20:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Speedily Closed According to this, you are not a regular contributor to the article and have only made 8 edits, all on the same day. Please read the rules next time before nominating. Also, there were over 3000 passengers on the Titanic but less than a thousand listed here so this list is nowhere near complete. -- Scorpion 15:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

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

• Featured list candidate log