Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/July 2009

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 06:02, 31 July 2009 [1].

---

Evaluation of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics

Nominator(s): Felipe Menegaz 03:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has a complete content and is an unprecedented list. Felipe Menegaz 03:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Is this a list? There are several tables, but there are not sets of listed items. I think this is an article. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There are not sets of listed items? Felipe Menegaz 14:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think what DB87 means is that the focus of the information presented in this piece is in the prose, not in the tables. The tables are summaries, but they are not the main/sole method of information presentation. I gave the article a quick look, and I concur. This is an article with embedded lists, not a list in itself. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, now I understand. Well, it was to be a list. The paragraphs were added to complement the tables and provide, to the reader, information about the reason for low or high evaluation. Should I remove the prose to form an Stand-alone list? Regards; Felipe Menegaz 01:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I say no, because, as you said, the prose provides information to readers.—Chris! _ct 19:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this should be at GAN or even FAC. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose even for a FAC. The article digresses waaay too much into the other bids, and imo fails to emphasize the points of the actual bid. Nergaal (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not know if this article is good enough to become a FAC. I think that the prose should be removed, and all tables must be merged into one major and complete table. Focusing only on the application of Rio de Janeiro. Information provided before by the prose can be found in the articles Infrastructure of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics, Finance of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics and Politics of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics, which will be elaborated later. This will make a list... Regards; Felipe Menegaz 17:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Felipe Menegaz 18:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose -- I don't know but I see this more of an "article" than a "list".--Truco ₅₀₃ 19:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How? This "article" just display a list of scores. Felipe Menegaz 19:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Mainly because this type of list does not fall under the definition of a "list"--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If 2008 Summer Olympics medal table is a Featured list, Evaluation of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics should be a Featured list also; is the same type of list. Felipe Menegaz 16:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. Thats about the medal count, a summary (stand alone) type of list.--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment I asked the good people at GAN about whether this is a list or an article. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment The way information should be organized in Wikipedia is to maximize value for the reader and certainly not in order to jump through hoops in content review/recognition processes. This same article could be copied and pasted with virtually identical content in order to serve as "Evaluation of SomeOtherPlace bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics" ... we'd end up with many articles that basically convey exactly the same information. This would be a nightmare for readers to navigate. Please stop and think about all of the information Wikipedia provides on 2016 bid evaluations, and how that content should be organized across articles. Don't think about "which content evaluation process will give us the nicest result, and therefore how should we target this article at reviewers", think about where readers will expect to go in order to find certain information, what information they would like to see presented at each location, and how it would most usefully be presented (too many tables makes for poor reading, but some information is best presented in tables, for instance). Bear in mind the need to avoid redundancy between articles. Readers will certainly benefit from editors thinking holistically rather than focussing purely on getting one specific article through a content recognition process. TheGrappler (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

After comments by User:TheGrappler, I propose move the name from Evaluation of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics to Evaluation of the bids for the 2016 Summer Olympics, making it available for all bids. Felipe Menegaz 01:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose – To begin with, I don't understand why pertinent background information was removed to force this page into a list format. The table is going to confuse anyone unfamiliar with the IOC bid process; items such as IBC/MPC and Sports concept & legacy beg for further explanation. If it works better as a regular article, present it that way and go for GA in the future, not FLC. The writing needs work before that point, however. In the lead, I see "to assist the IOC Executive Board in determine which of the seven Applicant cities". (use "determined") and "where these refer to Summer Olympics' planning" (add "the" before Summer), to name a couple examples. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been closed as a failed nomination, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 06:02, 31 July 2009 [2].

---

List of ATP number 1 ranked players

Nominator(s): 03md 10:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has undergone a peer review and I feel that, with a few improvements, it could be promoted to FL. Thanks. 03md 10:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Oppose

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Because this table is sortable you need to link the names/countries every instance (that means country names have to appear in every row, also) Linked all the countries in the table Need a key section above the table to explain color/symbol Done Only need to color the name Done Boldface shouldn't be used as an indicator (see WP:MOSBOLD) Removed bolding —Chris! ct 18:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I have responded to all the queries. 03md 10:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed my !vote to oppose because of the citation need tag. Also, one image is missing caption.—Chris! _ct 01:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Check the toolbox, there is a dab link and a couple of dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

*For future reference, don't use wikilinks in alt text. Also, avoid referring to a person by name since a person who can't see wouldn't be able to verify this or draw any conclusions from the name. For example, in this article, instead of "Tennis player Pete Sampras holds...", you would use "A tennis player holds..." (I already fixed this, but keep in mind for future reference) "has changed several times over the years." Changed "Currently it is calculated by totalling the points from the 13 mandatory tennis events (4 Grand Slams and 9 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 tournaments) and the player's best five results from all eligible ATP World Tour 500 series tournaments. " Comma after "Currently" and remove "all". Done "Tennis Masters Cup" Link? Done "can add the points won there."-->can include points won there. Done "Since the Association of Tennis Professionals began producing computerized rankings in 1973" I think "using" is better than "producing". Changed "Pete Sampras holds the record for most weeks (286) as top ranked male player while Roger Federer holds the record for the most consecutive weeks (237) as the top-ranked male or female player." For the first phrase, you only tell us the record for men, while in the second, you tell us the record for men and women. Why the inconsistency? Changed "Only two players have reached the World Number 1 ranking without having won a Grand Slam tournament." Done "Czech player Ivan Lendl achieved the feat in February 1983, not winning his first Grand Slam until the 1984 French Open[4] having lost out in the 1981 final. " Trivial info. Removed the trivia "youngest ever number one" Done "He also won the Wimbledon singles title in 2002." Not important. Removed "Jimmy Connors holds the male record for longest period of time between first attaining the #1 ranking and last holding it: 8 years and 11 months between July 29, 1974 and July 3, 1983." Not sure what this referring to. Is "male" necessary? After all, this is the ATP, so what else could we be referring to? Changed "Marcelo Rios"-->Marcelo Ríos Done "Ilie Nastase"-->Ilie Năstase Done "As of July 20, 2009." But today is July 18! Also, no period at the end, and this should probably be moved up above the table. "during the calendar year." "calendar", as opposed to what? Changed

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Glad to see a tennis list over here, but issues need to be worked out.

• "The Number 1 ranked player" In the article's title, you use a lowercase "number". Then it's "World Number 1". Later on in the article, I see "Number-1". Any reason for the inconsistencies?
  • Made consistent as "number 1". Please let me know if I have missed any.
• "He won his first Grand Slam title at the 2001 U.S. Open and won the Masters Cup at the end of the year and replaced Gustavo Kuerten at the top of the rankings."-->He won his first Grand Slam title at the 2001 U.S. Open and won the Masters Cup at the end of the year, replacing Gustavo Kuerten at the top of the rankings. what date did he reach the top?
• "Andre Agassi, in contrast, is the oldest ever number one, " "in contrast" is unnecessary, remove "ever".

Dabomb87 (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• What makes http://www.all-about-tennis.com/jimmy-connors.html reliable?
• Likewise http://www.tennistours.com/event_pages/nasdaq100/history.asp?
  • These are probably not reliable - removed
• Ref 2 and 13, the publishers should not be in italics.
  • Done
• Ref 6, add "The" to "Washington Post" and newspaper names should be in italics.
  • Dabomb87 (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • Do I need to add some more references now? Thanks for all your comments. 03md 11:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comment -- My review was basically what Dabomb has pointed out above, many issues need to be resolved. Once his review is resolved please contact me so I may give this a second review =]--Truco 503 01:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead The Number 1 ranked player is the player who over the immediate cumulative past 52 weeks has gathered the most ATP Rankings points. -- 1)The title has it as number 1, here its capitalized as Number 1 -> be consistent 2)I see no need for the past Changed; removed "past" The method of calculating a player's Ranking points has changed several times. -- Is it proper and/or necessary to have Ranking capitalized? Removed capitalisation on "ranking" Czech player Ivan Lendl achieved the feat in February 1983, not winning his first Grand Slam until the 1984 French Open -- A period is needed Done Lleyton Hewitt holds the record for being the youngest number one, reaching the top ranking when 20 years, 268 days old. -- Again with the consistency (number one/Number 1/number 1) Changed . Andre Agassi is the oldest number one, holding the top spot when 33 years, 4 months, 9 days old (on September 7, 2003). 1)Consistency again with the number one. 2)Remove the period at the very beginning, its an extra one. Changed for consistency; removed period Number 1 ranked players Is the (record) needed in 237 (record) under Federer's entry? ATP #1 Roger Federer, #2 Rafael Nadal, #3 Andy Murray, and #4 Novak Djokovic all currently do not plan on participating in any ATP or ITF tournaments prior to the 2009 US Open except the Canada Masters and Cincinnati Masters. -- What is ATP #1 suppose to mean? Does it mean ATP #1 ranked player? Also, comma before except. I recommend having this be a footnote instead, with the use of templates or the method use for footnotes. What about this?--Truco 503 02:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Done Why does the note under the table say As of July 20, 2009.? Removed Images The Carlos Moya image should have the period removed from its caption, its not a sentence. Done Year-en Number 1 I recommend making this key just like it is in the Weeks at the number 1 key. Do you mean take out both the table and infobox under "Year end Number 1" and adding symbols to "Weeks at number 1" table? I see no purpose of explaining in the prose the way the key works when the key basically does the same thing, its redundant. Removed redundant sentences.--Truco 503 22:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC) No I mean convert the key to make it look like the key used in the Weeks at number 1 table. Done --Truco 503 02:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Dabs and external links check out fine.--Truco 503 22:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your review - I have addressed nearly everything apart from one query that I have noted. 03md 22:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC) My question now is why is the table with the summary of year-ends floating all the way to the right?--Truco 503 18:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC) I didn't create the extra table. It was made as an infobox by a previous editor so naturally floats to the right. I can change this. Done, but how do I sort the problem over the tables positioning? They have moved down the page now I have addded images. 03md 09:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Hmm, have you tried using a different way to create columns? Because the column templates you are using are creating a breakspace between the content and the images, so you may need a different system that allows you to set specific column widths.--Truco 503 20:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Something is going to have to be done about that problem, its very unappealing.--Truco 503 16:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Fixed the problem. 03md 00:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Awesome.--Truco 503 19:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 19:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 22:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments – "Currently, it is calculated by totalling the points from the 13 mandatory tennis events...". The use of "tennis" is quite redundant here. What other sports would they be playing? Done "Players who qualify for the year-end Tennis Masters Cup can include points won there." The sentence makes it sound optional, when the source indicates otherwise. Clarified sentence There's no need for two ATP links in the lead. Anyone interested will have already clicked on the first link. Removed wikilink "reaching the top ranking when 20 years, 268 days old." It doesn't read that well. Try "reaching the top ranking at the age of 20 years, 268 days" or similar. Another sentence later needs a similar fix. Done The Agassi sentence at the end of the lead could use a similar edit to this one. Giants2008 (17–14) 15:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Done Could link the 2001 U.S. Open. and that year's Tennis Masters Cup. Done Weeks at number 1: "with Roger Federer leading the way on 237 weeks." This type of sentence has an awkward structure; the best way to fix it is to have a semi-colon lead into it, followed by "Roger Federer leads the way...". Done A few cites are needed for facts in the captions. Borg's 11 Grand Slams, Safin and Safina's family ties, and Rios being the only No. 1 without a Grand Slam all could use references. All referenced - let me know about any other things that need cites. A couple of formatting tweaks are needed for the new cites. The spacing is incorrect for the Borg ref; move it back to only have a space afterward. Also, reference 11 goes to Yahoo! Sports, not ESPN. Giants2008 (17–14) 15:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Fixed the links and spacing I see "number 1" and "Number 1" in various spots. Please make it consistent throughout. There's also "U.S. Open" in the lead and "US Open" in a note. Done Images by the side of the tables need alt text. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Done All complete 03md 19:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • "... is the player who over the immediate cumulative 52 weeks has gathered ..." -> " ... is the player, who over the immediate cumulative 52 weeks, has gathered ..."
    • Done
  • "It is calculated by totalling..." timeframe (i.e. As of ...) since you've said it's changed a few times.
    • Done
  • "Players who qualify for the year-end Tennis Masters Cup include points won there." - no, the player's don't include points, their ranking includes the points.
    • Done
  • "Since the Association of Tennis Professionals..." already abbreviated it so use ATP here.
    • Done
  • "computerized rankings" - what happened before then? Non-computerized? It's unclear from this sentence. I guess they've always been computerized based on the table, so perhaps introduce that concept a little earlier on in the lead.
    • Reworded the sentence and added "computerized" earlier in lead section
  • "20 years, 268 days." vs "33 years, 4 months, 9 days old" - consistent age format please.
    • Made the date format consistent
  • Not clear (to me) what "Position in historical rankings" means.
    • I'm not quite sure how to explain. I basically mean that Ilie Nastase was the first unique number 1, therefore is (1), while Nadal was the 24th different player since the beginning of the ranking system (24).
  • "top rank" or "top-rank"
    • I have left all cases as "top rank" (without dash) - I'm not quite sure.
  • The very last table (I think) is not required. That information is already in the preceding table.
    • Removed unnecessary table
  • Note A is unreferenced. It makes a number of claims so cites please.
    • Referenced Nadal's inactivity.
  • Although not mandated, I see it as preferable to have reference date formats in the same style as the article date formats, so mdy. Right now your refs use dmy.
    • Done, I think. 03md 22:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Is there any reason this is "number 1" rather than "number-one"? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• • I was following the format of the article's title. 03md 15:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Couldn't the somewhat intrusive and big "Country" row in the first table just be the flag? If they're all coded the same the sorting should work, though I guess they might not be alphabetical. I dunno, it just seems like a very awkward table where you see country name before the athlete from that country. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I will wait for the views of other editors before changing it. 03md 15:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I sort of agree with User:Staxringold. What about using the abbrevations instead of the full names (ROU instead of Romania) ? --Don Lope (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from Don Lope (talk · contribs)

Resolved comments from Don Lope

• "The ATP ranking is" → should be "The ATP Rankings are".

• Changed

• "the ranking of men's tennis players" → isn't "men's tennis players" incorrect ? It should probably be "the ranking in men's tennis".

• Done

• Same paragraph, both "top ranked" and "top-ranked" are used.

• Made consistent

• It's probably not necessary to say "male record" if the intro already says we're dealing with men's tennis.

• Removed "male"

• "Feat" doesn't seem to be the right term to talk about Lendl/Rios reaching No. 1 w/o any Grand Slam.

• Reworded

• Is it necessary to mention what finals Rios lost ? It would probably be more interesting to say he remains the only Grand Slam-less No. 1.

• Removed bit about titles and added suggested sentence

• I understand what you mean with "Position in the historical rankings" but I believe it's too confusing to be kept in that way.
• The order of accession to the No. 1 ranking could also be used in the table. What do you think about something like this ? (note that I'm not entirely convinced by my own proposal here):

• That was what I meant by "Position in historical ranking"

#	Country	Player	Start date	End date	Number of weeks	Accumulated total
1	ROU	Ilie Năstase	August 23, 1973	June 2, 1974	40	40
2	AUS	John Newcombe	June 3, 1974	July 28, 1974	8	8
3	USA	Jimmy Connors	July 29, 1974	August 22, 1977	160	160
4	SWE	Björn Borg	August 23, 1977	August 29, 1977	1	1
	USA	Jimmy Connors	August 30, 1977	April 8, 1979	84	244
	SWE	Björn Borg	April 9, 1979	May 20, 1979	6	7
	USA	Jimmy Connors	May 21, 1979	July 8, 1979	7	251
	SWE	Björn Borg	July 9, 1979	March 2, 1980	34	41
5	USA	John McEnroe	March 3, 1980	March 23, 1980	3	3

• I like the proposal but having already altered the table several times it would be great if you could complete the proposed table and put it into the article

• The "As of July 27, 2009" note is in italics and with a bullet over the first table, and not in italics and without a bullet over the "Weeks at number 1" table. There should be only one format.

• Made the format consistent

• The green color in the "Weeks at number 1" tables is a bit too aggressive, I think. Why not take the same blue used in the other tables to denote active streaks ?

• Changed to a slightly lighter tone; changed pink to blue for consistency

• I might have missed something in the review but why did you remove the symbols in the "Weeks at number 1" tables ?

• What symbols were there before - I think someone else must have done it

• "although it has always been computerized." → Perhaps it's just me but that bit seems awkward here. Perhaps the mention of computerized rankings (vs. non-computerized rankings) should come in the first paragraph.

• Moved sentence - hope it's ok

• The whole second paragraph describes the way rankings were calculated in 2008, not 2009. And the "Tennis Masters Cup" is now called "ATP World Tour Finals".

• Done I think

• "Since the ATP began a ranking system for the first time in August 1973". The precise date of the rankings' inception could be mentioned. I think all the text about the rankings' history should come earlier, maybe in the first paragraph, with a bit about how rankings were made before the ATP computerized system, and a link to the World number one male tennis player rankings article.

• Done

• "He won his first Grand Slam title at the 2001 US Open and won the Masters Cup at the end of the year, replacing Gustavo Kuerten at the top of the rankings on 27 November 2001." → Is it necessary to mention the highlights of Hewitt's 2001 season in this article ?

• Removed

• User:The Rambling Man mentioned in the List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions's review that there might be a guideline against using flags w/o country names. You should use the Flagathlete template, as well as the Sortname one ({{flagathlete|{{sortname|Pete|Sampras}}|USA}} → Pete Sampras (USA)).
• "Pete Sampras holds the record for the total number of weeks at number 1 with 286 weeks, indicated in the table on the left. The table on the right shows the figures for the most consecutive weeks that players have spent on top of the world rankings; Roger Federer leads the way on 237 weeks." → Is it necessary to repeat records that are already in the list's lead, in the first table, in the "Weeks at number 1" tables, and in the captions ? (it's a genuine question, not sarcasm)

• I have trimmed the section to leave only the important points which aren't already covered.

--Don Lope (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for all your comments Don Lope. I have answered most of them and raised a couple of points. 03md 13:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've put the resolved comments under a header to make room on the page. I'll come back later with answers to your points, and further comments. --Don Lope (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been closed as a failed nomination, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 06:02, 31 July 2009 [3].

---

Timeline of the 1977 Pacific hurricane season

Nominator(s): Anhamirak 16:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I have checked the article and I feel that it meet FLC criteria. Also I have made sure that the issues put up in my previous FLCs are addressed. Anhamirak 16:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Images need alternative text per criterion 5b. Also, image captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods at the end. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Done Added alternative text. --Anhamirak 13:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Each formation/dissipation needs a location.done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• The problems begin in the first sentence:
  • "The 1977 Pacific hurricane season has" "had", as the season is not ongoing. done
  • "producing 17 tropical depressions; only eight of which became tropical storms or hurricanes." Comparable quantities should be formatted the same (17 and 8 or seventeen and eight). The semicolon use is wrong; use a comma instead. Remove "only". done
• "The timeline also includes information which was not" "which"-->that done
• "September was the most active month, producing only three named storm storms" Remove "only". done
• "of which one was Hurricane Florence, the strongest of the season." Awkward. Try "including Hurricane Florence, the strongest of the season" done
• "Tropical Depression Seventeen, the last storm of the year" Comma after here. done
• "Starting in the 1978 season, the naming lists included male names as well as female names." Remove "as female names", you've already told us this. done
• As Julian said, please provide locations. Giving only the date and name of storm is vague and not as helpful as other TC timelines. done
• "Timeline of Events"-->Timeline of storms done
• UTC should be linked, too. done Dabomb87 (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Working on it (Anhamirak) --67.87.69.243 (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Will do the locations now.--67.87.69.243 (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Meets Criteria. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home :::I will finish the locations later today when I can get back on my desktop. --Anhamirak 14:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC) OK. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

I finally finished the locations. --Anhamirak 19:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose
• The season officially started on May 15, 1977 in the eastern Pacific, designated as the area east of 140°W, and on June 1, 1977 in the central Pacific, which is between the International Date Line and 140°W, and lasted until November 30, 1977. - Very choppy, almost unreadable. done
• This timeline documents all the storm formations, strengthening, weakening, landfalls, extratropical transitions, as well as dissipation - Why plural "formations" and "landfalls", but singular "strengthening", "weakening", and "dissipation"? **see below**
• The timeline also includes information that was not operationally released, meaning that information from post-storm reviews by the National Hurricane Center, such as information on a storm that was not operationally warned on, have been included. - Several issues with this sentence. First, it's not that the information was not operationally released; the information was simply not known at the time, so that statement is misleading. Second, "information ... have been included"? Finally, this sentence is rather long and unwieldy. done
• . June, July, and August each had one named storm form during the month. - "each had one name storm form" is poorly worded. done
• September was the most active month, producing three named storm storms, including Hurricane Florence, the strongest of the season. - Unnecessarily choppy. done
• This season was the last to use the old naming lists that only had female names. Starting in the 1978 season, the naming lists began to include male names. - Needs a source. done
• "Tracking map" → "Track map" in the image captions. done
• Alt text needs work; for example, "Monochrome infrared satellite photo of Tropical Storm Ava" is useless to the visually impaired who use screen readers. Alt text should describe only what can be seen from the image itself; in this case, 99% of readers wouldn't know what a monochrome infrared satellite or Tropical Storm Ava is. done
• The 1977 Pacific hurricane season begins. - The entire Pacific, or just the eastern Pacific? Needs clarification. done
• Tropical Depression Three dissipates just 2 miles from where it formed while 352 miles (565 km) west of the Honduras–Nicaragua border. - 2 miles needs a metric conversion. done
• Tropical Depression Four strengthens into a tropical storm and is named Bernice while reaching its peak intensity of 40 mph (65 km/h). - This would be better I think: "Tropical Depression Four strengthens into a tropical storm and is named Bernice; simultaneously, it reaches its peak intensity of 40 mph (65 km/h)." done
• Tropical Depression Claudia dissipates 1385 miles (2230 km) west of Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. - Needs a source. done
• Why is Cabo San Lucas, Mexico linked a million times? done
• Atlantic Tropical Depression Anita (formerly Hurricane Anita) moves into the Pacific Ocean and is re-designated as Tropical Depression Eleven. - Unnecessarily complex. Try this: "Former Hurricane Anita in the Atlantic moves into the Pacific Ocean and is re-designated as Tropical Depression Eleven." done
• Tropical Depression Twelve strengthens into a tropical storm and is named Emily while reaching its peak intensity of 40 mph (65 km/h). - Same thing as above. done
• Hurricane Florence strengthens into a category 2 hurricane and reaches its peak intensity of 105 mph (170 km/h). - "Category" should be capitalized. done
• Tropical Storm Heather strengthens into the fourth—and final—hurricane of the season. - No need for dashes. done
• The 1977 Pacific and Central hurricane seasons end. - Eh? This is inaccurate, not to mention misleading. "The 1997 eastern and central Pacific hurricane seasons end". done

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC) :Comment- What do you mean by 1997 eastern and central pacific hurricane seasons end? --Anhamirak 20:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, isn't strengthening and weakening plural as well as singular? --Anhamirak 21:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely sure; perhaps you could ask Tony1 (talk · contribs)? Also, alt text still needs significant work throughout. For help with that, you'd want to consult with Eubulides (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Alt text still needs work. Please describe only what information you can obtain by looking at the image itself. What colors do the Saffir Simpson Hurricane Scale use? 99% of readers wouldn't know that. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Juliancolton asked me to take a look at the alt text. It's weak, as it mostly duplicates the captions, and it gives information that is not immediately verifiable by a non-expert who can see only the image. Please read WP:ALT #Difference from captions and WP:ALT #What not to specify. Then please reword the alt text. The following phrases are OK: "Satellite image", "storm", "Map of the path", "Much of the Baja Peninsula is obscured by the storm". Please remove all phrases not on that list, and then add other wording that would be appropriate. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Make the lead image bigger, up to 300px per the WP:MOS#Images. Right now it's imperceptible. done
    • Where did the caption go? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "The season officially started on May 15, 1977 ..." then "It began in the Central Pacific Ocean on June 1, 1977...", then "The first storm of the season, Tropical Storm Ava, formed off the southwest coast of Mexico on May 26" very, very confusing. done
  • Consistency with full stops is required, e.g. May 26 has different usages. done
  • "dissipates just 2 miles " remove "just". done
  • Ref 1 needs an en-dash. done
• The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Question- What do you mean when you saw consistency with May 26? --Anhamirak 16:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • On May 26, first sentence has no full stop, second sentence does. Check others. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Found and corrected all of the sentences w/out a period. --Anhamirak 17:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been closed as a failed nomination, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 06:02, 31 July 2009 [4].

---

Timeline of the 1987 Atlantic hurricane season

Nominators: Cyclonebiskit (talk) and Jason Rees (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets all FL criteria. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Disclosure - Im a particpant in the Amazing Race Wikipedia. Jason Rees (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Fix the one disambiguation link: Saint Vincent Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC) External links check out fine. Lead The 1987 Atlantic hurricane season was a below-average season that resulted in little impact throughout the Atlantic basin; the United States recorded no hurricane-related fatalities, making the 1987 season the fourth to do so since 1967. -- 1)Is the pipelink at Atlantic basic correct, wouldn't it be better if it were piped to the Atlantic ocean or something along those lines? 2)Did the US record no fatalities in the entire Atlantic area or just the US? The piped link is correct, the Atlantic basin refers to the Atlantic north of the equator and as for the second point, I'm not sure what you're trying to ask. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I'm asking whether the sentence is stating that the United States recorded no fatalities in the United States or in the Atlantic area itself like all the countries in the Atlantic?--Truco 503 03:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC) In the United States, not any other country. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Oh okay.--Truco 503 16:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC) The timeline includes information which was not operationally released, meaning that information from post-storm reviews by the National Hurricane Center, such as information on a storm that was not operationally warned upon, has been included. -- 1)In addition the the strike-through, change the first The -> This Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC) This season had 14 tropical depressions of which only seven intensified into tropical storms—an average season has ten tropical storms—three became hurricanes and one, Emily, became a major hurricane, i.e. those that rank as Category 3 or higher on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. -- I think this would read better if it were split into two sentences, and I would remove the i.e. and format what follows with the emdash like you did at the beginning. That sentence has always been kept as a single sentence, I just removed to i.e part, is that OK? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC) It would read better IMO if the comma between hurricane and those was replaced with an emdash.--Truco 503 03:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Timeline A lot of use of roughly, use synonyms. Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Hurricane Emily further intensifies into a Category Two hurricane. Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Tropical Storm Emily re-intensifies into a hurricane while located about 235 mi (380 km) southwest of Bermuda]]. -- Were you trying to link Bermuda? Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Tropical Storm Floyd makes landfall in extreme western Cuba near Guane. -- extreme? Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Hurricane Floyd tracks over the Florida Keys with winds of 75 mph (120 km/h). -- I don't see a need for the overlink of Florida Keys here Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC) References There is an inconsistency with the linking of the publishers.--Truco 503 15:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comment A couple of the images need alternative text per criterion 5b. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Doing –Juliancolton | Talk 17:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC) done where it's feasible. It's surprisingly hard to describe satellite images ("A big, spinny thing over water. The clouds are white."?) –Juliancolton | Talk 17:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks JC Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Yes, I was mostly referring to the track maps. :) Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The first sentence conflicts with the main article, which claims that the season was average. Fixed the main article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC) "led to the season starting"-->led to the season's starting Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC) "information which was not operationally released"-->information that was not operationally released Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC) "This season had 14 tropical depressions of which only seven intensified into tropical storms" Comma after "depressions", remove "only", and make the numbers either both words or both numerals. Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC) "an average season has ten tropical storms" Is there a source for this? Sourced Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC) The usage of all three em dashes is awkward. I'd recommend putting some material in parentheses or perhaps a footnote. Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC) "spent 14.5 days as a tropical storm" So, exactly 14 days and 12 hours? Specified it was roughly that length Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Not a big concern, but it would be nice if the inline citations were in numerical order (example: Tropical Depression Five tracks over the southern Cape Verde Islands with winds of 35 mph (55 km/h).[9][7]). I know there's a script for this, but I can't recall which one. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) Might be my bad grammar or a Br/AmEng thing but shouldn't led to the season's starting on May 25 be "led to the season starting..." Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC) No, the use of the possessive is correct grammar. I changed it back. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Should of the seasons storms be "of the season's storms" Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Three fatalities occurred, I'm guessing in the Dom. Rep. because you open with the United States recorded no hurricane-related fatalities but you should clarify if this is the case. Clarified Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Isn't the timeline usually linked to the individual hurricane/storms (à la Timeline of the 1982 Atlantic hurricane season) Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Timeline should use ndashes for wind speed ranges too. Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Timeline seems to have a something after "209" and before "km/h" which shouldn't be there. Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose/More Comments

I was about to support and then thought I should just randomly check facts were verifiable. The first think I checked wasn't correct which concerned me, and digging deeper I found more problems.

• Three fatalities occurred in the Dominican Republic due to the storm and damages amounted to $80.3 million. Okay unrelated to the verifiability this sounds like all the monetary damage was only in the Dominican Republic.
• Checking refs [1][4] on the above statement, [4] says it caused estimated $30m in Dom. Rep., and initial estimate of $35m in Bermuda, with no mention of the 15.3m difference. [1] on p946 says damages were over $75m of which estimates as high as $25m in Dom. Rep. and upto $50m in Bermuda, so where you get $80.3m from seems like complete synthesis. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't make any numbers up, I chose the most commonly used ones in reports, $50 million in Bermuda, $30 million in the Dom. Rep. and $300,000 in the Lesser Antilles. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• You provide 2 references, so it can't be the most commonly used, as neither have coinciding figures. Also I can't find that $300k for Lesser Antilles in either ref. If you are taking the highest estimates, that is fine but I think you should say so. e.g. "and damages estimated as high as $whatever. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• The ref you added says "For Hurricane Emily, the amount was $191,000", also where do you get your 2009 conversion from. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• The article Hurricane Emily (1987). The infobox automatically converts the damage from the year of occurrence to the latest year. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• You can't just reference other wiki articles, I'm looking for the references for that figure. And as for the 2009 value in USD, it is calculated by the use of {{US Inflation}} within {{Infobox Hurricane}} but the inflation template hasn't been updated since 2008! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ive updated the template to 2009 figures and referenced the inflation calculator in the timeline Jason Rees (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• The citations values still only give $80.191m at most, so you still have a discrepancy, if this is changed please also update the 2009 value. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Not really, it gives $80.291 million, since the two Lesser Antilles sources are for separate islands. I just rounded it up to $80.3 so it's easier on the eyes. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't really understand led to the season's starting on May 25, you have said that the season starts on June 1, and the annual season summary (ref 1), makes no mention of TD1, making me think that the season didn't start early and it was just an off-season storm.

• The depression marked the beginning of the season, a few days before the official start. Also, unless the depression caused significant damage (like Fourteen) it's not included in the annual summary. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks for explaining. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• I was a bit confused by ref 2 as the text didn't mention ten tropical storms, however I guess you are getting your average from this, because reading up on it, I gather that tropical storms are when names are first assigned to systems, hence "named systems" curve being about 10. If this is the case I recommend directly referencing the gif.

• If you look right below the image you're talking about there is a table with the average number of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, gotcha, I had misunderstood that table. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Where on earth do you get location names from? The 24 May storm is only sourced by lots of numbers (ref 4). I'm struggling to see how you get times, locations, distances from these numbers.

• Once you have latitude and longitude stats, the distance in relation to other locations is easy to calculate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• I now think I understand the times. I'm guessing the four unheaded column blocks are 0000, 0600, 1200, 1800 in the day. But I'm still interested to know how and when you choose to insert locations (is it just what is near the coords), and (I might be being thick), but I'd have thought the distance calculations involve spherical coordinates which doesn't sound easy to me. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• I used the nearest locations to the respective coordinates using Google Earth. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Okay I'm getting the prelim reports to work, but I can't get the ftp one to work. For example I was trying to check 8:00 pm AST (0000 UTC August 14) – Tropical Depression Four forms about 840 mi (1,350 km) east-southeast of Barbados.[6] The coordinates 155 540 from that ftp source seem to put me north-east of Barbados, or am I misunderstanding those coords. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• 150 540 = 15.0N 54.0W, that gives you a location east-southeast of Barbados. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've done this on Google Earth and it puts me ENE of Bermuda with a completely different distance figure. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Try looking at the line above that one, the coordinate you're talking about is on the second line for the depression's track. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Okay the coord above that (140 540) gives your direction of ESE, but I get it to be almost half the distance away from Barbados. Also wouldn't that be at a different time or do the ftp columns not correspond with UTC times? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• They're in UTC format but in the timeline I used local time zones also, if UTC goes into the next day, I put that date in the same parenthesis as the UTC time. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• No I meant the column/row combination of the coordinate you directed me to doesn't seem to coincide with the time you list in the timeline. There is also still the difference in our calculations for distance (and not a minor difference). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• This concern follows through to other systems, which seem to have a similar data file. Most of them are backed up with a second ref (in the case of TD2 ref 8). This gives the times, but are you working out locations from coordinates and are you roughly approximating winds speed from knots, e.g. 40 kt -> 46.03 mph ~ 45 mph and 25 kt -> 28.76 mph ~ 30 mph. Also how are you knowing when they "make landfall", estimating from co-ords again?

• I'm not sure what you mean here. Winds, coordinates, and landfall times are all covered in the preliminary reports such as the one you linked to. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry if I'm misunderstanding here. Winds: are approximations from converting knots into mph & km? The point about landfall times, is that all times are given in 6 hr intervals. Do you look at the co-ords for each time and see which is the first set of co-ords to be over land. Also, couldn't these storm have hit land, for example, five-and-a-half hours (i.e. <6) before a storm's first lot of co-ords are over land? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Surprisingly enough, many of the landfalls were at the six hour points, for storms that didn't make landfall at that mark and were not included in the MWR, I put exact time unknown. As for the wind speeds, it's knots converted to mph to the nearest five, same for km/h. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I realise quite a few of hurricane timelines have got through before, but this is the first one I've reviewed and I consider all these things as legitimate (possibly serious) concerns. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If it has any bearing to this discussion, the National Hurricane Center also rounds to the nearest 5 unit (mph, or km/h) as evidenced by this: [5] --Anhamirak 00:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

All RSMCs and TCWCs do that btw.Jason Rees (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm now off wiki so I won't be able to stike any outstanding comments I have. I trust that the FL directors/delegate will consider my remaining concerns, check if they have been resolved and in-/exclude as appropriate when the candidacy is closed. Sorry for the inconvenience and good luck, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm afraid the use of (current) reference 7 is very troubling. It means absolutely nothing to just about anyone, I would imagine. The references we use, along with supporting text if needed, should be able to be accessible to the general public and right now, that swathe of numbers is anything but. Is there a way in which alternative references (which are human-readable) could be used, or is there any kind of explanation that could be offered as to how someone with zero understanding (e.g. me) of this reference can go from those numbers to, say, "Tropical Depression One passes over the Berry Islands with winds of 35 mph (55 km/h)."? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no alternative reference for Tropical Depressions as they are never included in the Best Track folder of the season produced by the RSMC/TCWC's. But i have found a guide to hurdat here but i think its better if i explain it in my own words.

We will use Tropical Depression 14 Tracks as an Example

11530 TD - Strength on SSHS

11540 10/31/1987 M= 5 7 SNBR= 184 XING=0 - Card number, Date of formation, the number of days the storm was above Tropical Disturbance strength for.

                         0000UTC            0600UTC             1200UTC           1800UTC 

Card No. Date. LONG(N) LAT(W) Wind

11550 10/31* 0 0 0 0*0 0 0 0*0 0 0 0*165 775 30 0*

11560 11/ 1* 175 785 30 0*184 793 30 0*195 799 30 0*201 803 30 0*

11570 11/ 2* 203 805 25 0*207 808 25 0*211 811 25 0*214 814 25 0*

11580 11/ 3* 223 818 25 0*232 822 25 0*240 829 25 0*249 836 25 0*

11590 11/ 4* 257 839 25 0*267 835 25 0*275 830 20 0*285 820 20 0*

11600 TD

The winds are in knots - I hope this helps. Jason Rees (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It makes a little more sense now, but as you can see, this source will need explanation to a non-expert otherwise, in my opinion, it isn't really a useful source. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If i remember correctly there was some talk about making an article on Hurdat a while back, i dont know what happened to it though.Jason Rees (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the reference needs to be explained as it's simplest form is used in the article. We've never had an issue with using HURDAT before, this is the same format but a different file, it has depressions instead of named storms. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As Rambo's Revenge pointed out above, sure several of these lists have gone by with similar references, but it was down to his diligence that we've uncovered a reference that is effectively meaningless to 99.999% of our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What does the readers understanding of a reference have to do with the actual article? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core policies. If the vast majority of readers cannot understand the information and thus verify that the information is correct, what use is the reference? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite so. And what would be the point of a reference that no-one could understand, especially one which is used to derive other information using undefined techniques? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Because otherwise we could not be comprenshive and cover all the depressions - I dont know if there is a way of citing that guide to Hurdat, which is located on their website.Jason Rees (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is we're not comprehensive, even now, as it's impossible to determine how you get from that swathe of numbers to "Tropical Depression One passes over the Berry Islands with winds of 35 mph (55 km/h)". The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes we are because we type the position into Google earth or watever and that tells us weather its passed over the Berry Islands. Jason Rees (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Obviously, this requires a WikiProject-wide discussion. One idea is to create a reader-friendly guide to the source, much as Template:Railway line legend is used for railway line diagrams. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont know how we would go about doing that though.Jason Rees (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents on the whole "source is too complicated" issue. I personally think you're way off here, we strive to make the wikipedia articles accessible, not something you need to be an expert to understand. But the same cannot be said about the sources, if there is the need for an "expert source" that may be hard to understand for people in general well that's unfortunate for the people reading the article but I don't see it as something to be held against the article. Next we'll be saying that printed sources are unacceptable because the reader cannot immediately verify content themselves. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. The printed source is still accessible somewhere. And the printed source should immediately be able to verify the claim in the article. In this case we have absolutely NO way of getting from that swathe of numbers to "Tropical Depression One passes over the Berry Islands with winds of 35 mph (55 km/h)". It is impossible for anyone other than the author of the list to verify the claims using this reference. That makes the claims unverifiable. Which means I believe the reference is inappropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, there is nothing wrong with printed sources. Many times, they are more reliable than web sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There is someone working on an article all about hurdat and i believe his intention is too put a guide in with it. Also we can go from that swathe of numbers to saying that "Tropical Depression One passes over the Berry Islands with winds of 35 mph (55 km/h)" by plotting the postion on a map. and converting the knots to MPH/K/MHJason Rees (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can do that because you know exactly what you're doing. How does an average reader verify what you're claiming? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

By plotting the postion on a map - or using the guide thats provided by NOAA or even the trackmap that was made using the data for the season article. Jason Rees (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not being clear. From this timeline list, and that reference, how does a reader know how to get from your list of numbers to a location and a windspeed on a map? Is it explained within this list exactly how to do this? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Im sure most readers are intellegent enough to say oh thats a location thats a date etc if theyre not then they can use the guide thats located on the same website.Jason Rees (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're assuming far too much. I looked at that list of numbers, saw no sign of any guidance whatsoever, and no indication of what consitituted a location, a windspeed, etc. It simply is not accessible to a regular reader and as far as I'm concerned, impossible to verify the information you've derived from it without extensive notes. Perhaps one solution is to cite each set of relevant numbers, then explain in each citation what they mean and how they relate to your derived text. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There is [6], which serves as a viewer of HURDAT data, but it doesn't produce referenceable URLs, so I'm not sure what to do about that one. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- I'm trying to decipher the main concern here, as I see Rambo's comments were resolved IMO about the sourcing and now its about a key explaining some of the terms, or what am I missing?--Truco ₅₀₃ 15:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- How about we use easy HURDAT for the Atlantic? See here: [7] --Anhamirak 17:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

We cant it doesnt include depressions.Jason Rees (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm really surprised that HURDAT or HURDAT-like references has never come up before during FAC. The reviewer is right...unless there's a guide, the layperson won't know how to interpret it. How many articles do we have which source HURDAT at FA status? Dozens? I agree that the creation of the HURDAT article would explain away the issue. Who's writing it, out of curiosity? And if this is needed to get this article to FA, it should be posted as a wikipedia article NOW if it's in a sandbox, regardless of its class. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Its Seddon whos working on it - I will see if i can get in contact with him somehow. Jason Rees (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I managed to contact him and he agreed to its publication and so ive added a guide and published it Jason Rees (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment I know that I said otherwise, but as the guidelines on alt text have developed, it turns out we need alt text for every image. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - "Category One" should be "Category 1". Same goes for "Category Two", etc. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Done Jason Rees (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been closed as a failed nomination, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:40, 30 July 2009 [8].

---

Nashville Xpress all-time roster

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all criteria of a featured list. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per 3a of the criteria. More info for the players is needed. The table looks very thin at the moment. Research a little more on the players.--Crzycheetah 06:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • What kind of info? Position? (Keeping in mind that minor league players usually move around instead of sticking to one spot like the majors.) I can't think of anyother info that wouldn't seem extraneous or trivial. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- I'm gonna have to agree with Crzy. The list doesn't really say much about the roster itself. Why no info about their positions? Any relevant notes? Etc. I think a great way to format this would be like it is in the Worcester Worcesters all-time roster FLC.--Truco ₅₀₃ 19:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. I was thinking of exactly the list Truco mentioned, the Worcester Worcesters. They existed for basically the same length of time, and did so a century ago, yet that list has positions, notes for every player, and 63 refs to the 9 for this list. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for providing an example of additional information. I'll get right on it. -NatureBoyMD (talk)
    • Comment - may I suggest you withdraw the nomination until you're ready to renominate it? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Request for withdrawl - As nominator, I request the withdrawl of this nomination to give me adequate time to improve the list. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:23, 25 July 2009 [9].

---

List of music releases from Fame Academy contestants

Nominator(s): 03md 10:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...it has already received a Peer Review which I have responded to and corrected queries. I want to take this list to FLC as the first of a set (including Popstars, X Factor and Pop Idol releases). Thanks. 03md 10:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment A couple of the images need alternative text per criterion 5b. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Note to reviewers I can see alot of these types of lists going through WP:FLC in the future, please take the time to review it properly and reach consensus. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose from Truco (talk · contribs) General Dabs and external links check out fine. Lead Fame Academy is a British television programme that ran for two series, in 2002 and 2004. -- Unlink British per WP:OVERLINK Delinked UK Singles Chart The show was produced for the BBC in a reality television format and aimed to find a new singing star. -- 1)Is the BBC correct? Isn't it just BBC 2)I don't like the use of singing star, can something else be found to replace this? I think after the preposition, the BBC should be used. I have changed "singing star" to "musical artist". The winners of the show, David Sneddon[1][2] and Alex Parks [3] were both awarded music recording contracts to allow them to release music and live like stars for a year. -- 1)Comma after Alex Parks 2)See the word stars again is just misleading, first question that comes to mind is what defines a star and what makes a star in this context. I think something like like top recording artists for a year would be better or something along those lines. Changed Sneddon had a run of three top 20 hits, including his debut single "Stop Living the Lie", which peaked at number one in the UK Singles Chart in January 2003. -- in the --> on the Done Parks' debut single, "Maybe That's What It Takes", charted at number three in November 2003. -- Be consistent, so remove the commas before and after the name of the single Done The runner-up from the first series, Sinead Quinn, signed a record deal with Mercury Records,[7] the same company as Sneddon, and released her debut single "I Can't Break Down", in February 2003. -- Remove the comma before in February 2003. Done The song charted at number two in the UK Singles Chart. -- 1) in the --> on the 2)WP:OVERLINK of UK Singles Chart Changed to "on the" and delinked UK Singles Chart Her second single, "What You Need Is..." peaked just inside the top 20 in June 2003. -- 1)Remove the comma before the name of the single 2)reword: peaked just inside the top 20 in June 2003 --> peaked in the top 20 in June 2003. Removed comma, reworded section Ainslie Henderson had a UK number five hit single with "Keep Me A Secret" in February 2003. -- Reword, this can be better written like it has with the previous sentences. (eg. Ainslie Henderson's [#] single "Keep Me A Secret" ranked number five in February 2003.) Changed The song charted at number 13 in the UK charts in April 2003 and Fox scored 29 points for his Eurovision performance. -- 1)in the --> on the 2)What UK [?] charts? Changed to "on the; clarified chart. He released his first single, the number two hit "Dance (With U)", in August 2003 and has since recorded a further nine top 40 hit singles, including six which charted in the top 10. --> He released his first single, "Dance (With U)", which charted number two, in August 2003; he has since recorded nine further top 40 hit singles, including six which charted in the top 10. Reworded He has also released four studio albums, with the most successful, "The Truth About Love", charting at number three in the UK album chart in 2006. -- 1)in the --> on the 2)The link to "The Truth About Lover" is not related to this singer at all 3)UK album chart --> UK Albums Chart Changed to "on the"; corrected links The lead should state a summary of the list, eg. number of releases in total, number of releases by each artist, how many artists to reach the top 10, etc. Added section to lead Albums You may as well add the column about show position into this table for consistency, or remove the series column since the Singles table already does that. Fame Academy albums At the end of both series a compilation album was released featuring cover versions from the contestants. -- Comma after series Done The first album reached number two in the UK Compilation Chart. -- 1)in the --> on the Done A third album, Bee Gees Special was released during the show's broadcast and featured cover versions of Bee Gees songs. -- 1)Either remove the comma after album or add one after the name of the album Added comma Other releases Malachi Cush has released four further albums that have failed to chart: , Celtic Heartbeat (Where the Heart Is) (2005) and Two Sides of Malachiand New Day (both 2007) and Timeless (2009). -- Remove the comma after the colon Removed comma Alex Parks released "Looking for Water" as a download-only single but the song only peaked at #250. -- Inconsistency with the rest of the article, should be number 250 not #250 Done Images David Sneddon won the first series of Fame Academy. His debut single, "Stop Living the Lie" was a UK number-one single and his album was a top ten hit. -- 1)Either remove the comma after single or add one after the name of the single 2)Remove the UK from UK number-one, we know already 3)replaced the and with while 4)it would be better worded as while his album charted in the top ten. Added comma; removed "UK"; changed to "while"; reworded Alistair Griffin had a top five hit single with "Bring It On/My Lover's Prayer". He also penned Ainslie Henderson's "Keep Me A Secret". --> Alistair Griffin's "Bring It On/My Lover's Prayer" charted in the top five, while also penning Ainslie Henderson's "Keep Me A Secret". Done References Per WP:ACCESS, do not use three rows, use only two or one. Changed to 2 rows --Truco 503 02:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. I have addressed them all. 03md 18:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Um, you say you addressed them but I see no changes to the article at all.--Truco 503 19:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC) I did the edits before logging in - the alterations have been made under an IP address. 03md 22:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Please make sure to add the alternative text to images, like Dabomb noted above. Done --Truco 503 16:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Several prose issues, but I'm opposing mainly for verification reasons and because I'm unsure if ChartStats is reliable.

• "The show was produced for the BBC in a reality television format and aimed to find a new musical artist." What do you mean by "aimed to find a new musical artist"? How does one define a "new musical artist"?
  • Reworded
• "The winners of the show, David Sneddon[1][2] and Alex Parks, [3] were both awarded music"
  • Changed
• "three top 20 hits"-->three top-20 hits
  • Done
• "a number of the other contestants"-->several other contestants
  • Done
• "Malachi[7] and Alistair Griffin both released self-penned songs in 2003 but both were subsequently dropped from their record labels." Remove both "both"s :)
  • Done
• "James Fox was also chosen as the United Kingdom's representative for the the 2004 Eurovision Song Contest, where he performed "Hold Onto Our Love". The song charted at number 13 on the UK Singles Chart in April 2003 and Fox scored 29 points for his Eurovision performance."-->James Fox was chosen as the United Kingdom's representative for the the 2004 Eurovision Song Contest; he sang "Hold Onto Our Love", which charted at number 13 on the UK Singles Chart in April 2003, and received 29 points for his performance.
  • Done
• "has been by far the most successful"
  • Done
• "which charted number two"-->which charted at number two (what chart?)
  • Clarified the chart
• "nine further top 40 hit singles"-->nine more top-40 hit singles
  • Done
• "including six which charted in the top 10."-->including six that charted in the top 10.
  • Done
• "He has also released four studio albums, with the most successful, "The Truth About Love", charting at number three on the UK Albums Chart in 2006."-->He has released four studio albums; The Truth About Love is the most successful, charting at number three on the UK Albums Chart in 2006.
  • Done
• "19 singles reached the top twenty and of those, 12 were top ten hits. "-->Of the 19 singles that reached the top twenty, 12 were top-ten hits.
  • Done
• "Lemar is the only artist that it is still active on the charts." Use "who", not "that", for people. What do you meen by active?
  • Clarified my expression
• Image caption: "Lemar, who finished third in the first series of Fame Academy, has had ten top 40 singles."-->Lemar, who finished third in the first series of Fame Academy, has had ten top-40 singles.
  • Done
• Note B needs an inline citation; I couldn't find a general reference that verified it.
  • Done
• "He released a single "Higher" in 2008." Couldn't find this in the general ref. Please make sure that anything that isn't backed up by a general ref is backed up via inline citation.
  • Done

Dabomb87 (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• The general references need to be formatted (publisher, accessdate)
  • I'm not quite sure how to format a general reference when it is not an inline citation
    • Same as always, but don't put <ref> tags around it. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• The Guardian should be in italics (ref 8)
  • Done
• What makes the following sources reliable?
  • http://www.tourdates.co.uk/news/3237-uk-charts-michael-jackson-goes-top-in-scandal-hit-week
    • Changed to a BBC reference
  • And, the backbreaker: http://www.chartstats.com/songinfo.php?id=30551, although I'm willing to back off if there's truly no alternative. Could http://www.theofficialcharts.com/ be used?
  • No, it only lists complete chart entries back until 2005. top40 charts is not reliable and there are no other reliable alternatives.
    • Sure there are. There's Guinness Book of British Hit Singles & Albums, The Virgin Book of British Hit Singles, Music Week, and ChartsPlus. TOC also license a number of daily newspapers to publish the Top 40 on a Monday morning. Doesn't NME do them too? You could also use {{cite episode}} for Top of the Pops and the Top 40 radio show on BBC Radio 1.

Matthewedwards :  Chat  09:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your comments. 03md 20:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I might need a little bit of help with sourcing all the songs then. The suggested books can be used as general references but unfortunately I'm not sure of page numbers. 03md 16:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
      • My oppose stands until the sourcing issues are resolved. If you cannot get your hands on the books/magazines soon, I suggest that this list is withdrawn so that can be done without any worry about finishing fast. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:23, 25 July 2009 [10].

---

Young Divas discography

Nominator(s): Alex Douglas (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the featured list criteria. Please note that Young Divas has only charted in Australia. I'm willing to address all concerns and will check this candidacy several times a day. The music video director's name(s) have not been found in reliable sources. They are not on the liner notes to the singles or any of her subsequent releases. Unless, consensus has changed, a previous precedent made in the successful featured list candidacy of Paul Kelly discography and upheld recently in the successful featured list candidacy of Paulini Curuenavuli discography stands that a list can become featured, if it does not contain the music video director's name(s) for up to two music videos, by using a footnote stating that the "Director name for these music videos has not been found in reliable sources." The most recent reliable sources have been referenced in regard to members working on upcoming solo studio albums. The only source that cites that DeAraugo is working on her second studio album is a YouTube video. The only source that cites that Williams is working on her debut studio album is used. I ask you to consider, all of the above, before reviewing this discography. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment A couple of the images need alternative text per criterion 5b. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There is only one image in the article. To my knowledge, no other discography has alternative text on the image placed within the infobox. I would be more than happy to include alternative text, however, ("The Young Divas' 2006 line-up, from right to left: Kate DeAraugo, Ricki-Lee Coulter, Emily Williams and Paulini Curuenavuli performing live." for example) but I cannot find a way to include it in the image, perhaps because of the limitations of Template:Infobox artist discography. Please help me sort this out. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, alt text has always been in the FL criteria, but nobody ever paid attention to it until recently. The infobox has been updated to support alt text, see Template:Infobox artist discography. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I always knew alt text was part of the criteria, but I couldn't include it until today when Template:Infobox artist discography was updated to include the field. I have happily added alt text to the image, which reads "The Young Divas' 2006 line-up, from right to left: Kate DeAraugo, Ricki-Lee Coulter, Emily Williams and Paulini Curuenavuli performing live." Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have changed alt text to the image, it now reads "Color photograph of four women standing upright, with the rightmost woman singing into a microphone. In the background children wearing santa hats back-up the woman's singing." I hope this is more appropriate? Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Dabs and external links check out fine with the checker tools. Great. Lead They have released two cover albums and four singles, in addition to four music videos on Sony BMG. -- I would add to the sentence to state the Sony BMG is a record label, (in addition to four music videos on the Sony BMG label) Changed to "in addition to four music videos on record label Sony BMG." Coulter placed seventh on the second season and released two studio albums, her eponymous debut album in 2005 and Brand New Day, in 2007. --> Coulter placed seventh on the second season and released two studio albums: her eponymous debut album in 2005 and Brand New Day in 2007. I had trouble wording this; I strongly prefer your wording. :) Curuenavuli placed fourth on the first season and released two studio albums, One Determined Heart, in 2004 and Superwoman, in 2006. --> Curuenavuli placed fourth on the first season and released two studio albums: One Determined Heart in 2004 and Superwoman in 2006. I had trouble wording this; I strongly prefer your wording. :) The group released their eponymous debut album on Sony BMG, in 2006. -- Its redundant to state that they released it on Sony BMG when you state above that all their work has been on this label. Would be better stated as The group released their eponymous debut album in 2006. That's true about Sony BMG. Fixed. In 2007, Coulter left the group and was replaced by Jessica Mauboy, who placed second on the fourth season. -- you're going to need to state that this is Australian Idol again Understandable, changed to "second on the fourth season of Australian Idol". Later that year, the group released their second cover album, New Attitude on Sony BMG. -- Same thing like I said about above the label, reword to Later that year, the group released their second cover album New Attitude. Fixed. List Did their work not chart on any other charts but the Australian one?--Truco 503 01:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Nope, none of their releases charted on any other notable or national chart. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.Truco ₅₀₃ 19:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Weak Oppose A decently constructed list, but I have some issues with it. Namely, it's size is borderline, I think. Technically there are 12 distinct items, but 4 of those are music videos, which are basically just repackaging of the singles. It's no coincidence that the singles table has the exact same four items as the music videos table. So, what we really have here is 8 items, below the rule-of-thumb 10. Granted, the total is based on how you look at it, whether you count the music videos or not, but it is definitely borderline. Such a small list could easily be merged into the main Young Divas page, especially since the massive lead would no longer be necessary. And since it seems the group is currently on hiatus, it doesn't look like the list is going to grow anytime soon.

• • I count the music videos, you do not. It's a difference of views and so I cannot resolve this issue, for a difference of views in editors creates consensus. Alex Douglas (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, though look at it this way: the whole point of a list on Wikipedia is to provide an organized list of links to other articles, ie, the items of the list, so that the viewer can view these items within context of each other (in the list), and find out more if they want (via the link). Music videos do no have their own pages, they are usually relegated to a section of the single page. Thus, they are a product of the single, and not really an item in and of themselves. Like has already been said, it's a matter of perspective, but this seems to fail the basic functionality of a list. Drewcifer (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I understand your reasoning, but I do not agree with it. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, the lead is huge, especially compared to the small list following it. I could see such a huge lead fitting the Metallica discog or something like that, but 6 paragraphs for a group that has released two albums within a year's time is overkill.

• • Agreed. I have removed two paragraphs that refer to the member's solo releases. Alex Douglas (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Definitely better. Drewcifer (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Beyond that, I also have an issue with the un-sourced music video directors. Previous examples of FLCs getting by or not (see WP:WAX), that does not make a set-in-stone rule/allowance that all other FL candidates can also get away with. A true consensus would be something that is, say, brought up at MOS:DISCOG and discussed amongst the greater DISCOG community, rather than isolated to a few FLCs, which may or may not get everyone's attention. (I was absent from both of those FLCs, for example, and I surely would have contested such omissions). Unsourced information is still unsourced information.

• • I assume this is in regard to 3(a) of the FL criteria.. hmm how would you suggest that I practically find references to the music video director(s) name? Alex Douglas (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm not sure if I have any fool-proof solutions for you. A suggestion would be to find out the director's name even if via a unreliable source. Just to get a lead. Then search for that name, say the director's website or even the production company. May or may not work, but it's worth a shot. It's got to be out there somewhere. Drewcifer (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Have you considered emailing a reliable website that might have this information? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I have not been able to find out the director's name even if via a unreliable source. I have emailed Sony BMG numerous times in the last few weeks and am yet without response. I will attempt phone calling them now. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
          • I have just called Sony BMG now, on the weekend, outside business hours, I will need to wait until Monday to call them back in operating hours. I would like to request that this candidacy remains "open" atleast until I can get into contact with Sony BMG to find the name(s) of the music video director(s), and try to find out if the Young Divas have made other appearances or released any other music, promotionally or otherwise for inclusion in the discography, as this will increase the size of the list, hopefully resolving length objections, aswell. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have some other smaller content/style issues, but I'll wait on those until the above is resolved/adressed.Drewcifer (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Thankyou very much for your concerns, please get back to me. Alex Douglas (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Regarding the alt text, just putting the names isn't sufficient. Readers wouldn't be able to identify the people by name alone. Physical descriptions would go a long way. It's harder than it looks!
  • I have changed the alt text to the image, it now reads "Color photograph of four women standing upright, with the rightmost woman singing into a microphone. In the background children wearing santa hats back-up the woman's singing." I hope this is more appropriate? I think I need some help. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• "The album failed to achieve the commercial success of their first album, despite peaking at number 10 and receiving gold certification."-->Despite its peaking at number 10 and receiving gold certification, the album failed to achieve the commercial success of their first album
  • Fixed. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• "concentrate on their respective solo careers." "respective" is redundant, I think.
  • Fixed. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• What makes http://www.bandit.fm/poparazzi/youngdivas a reliable source?
  • This source is the official website of Sony BMG, a major record label. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• The Herald Sun-->Herald Sun Dabomb87 (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose since the list is extremely short. I strongly suggest merging this with the band's article which is really short anyways. Nergaal (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Thankyou for expressing your opinion. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I have just called Sony BMG to try to find out if the Young Divas have made other appearances or released any other music, promotionally or otherwise for inclusion in the discography, as this will increase the size of the list, hopefully resolving your objection. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 07:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose fails the 3b criterion. This page is not long enough to be a stand-alone list.--Crzycheetah 23:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose

• Having seen the dismissive way comments about the size are dealt with I must however still make a comment about the size of this, feel free to address it or not like before.. First of all 10 is a "guideline", it does not mean "ding! 10 it meets the requirement", it means generally "don't even think about it before there are 10 items in the list". This is very short, it's a list of lists really, lists with a maximum of 4 entries, a list of 4 lists.
• Put the abbriviation ARIA after Australian Recording Industry Association, makes it clear what the table refers to.
• The lists are so short they're not even sortable, makes you wonder.

• I'm sorry but it's just really not long enough IMO to fullfill the criteria. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [11].

---

List of awards and nominations received by 30 Seconds to Mars

Nominator(s): Matthew Riva (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a great page and I think that it could be on featured list. Matthew Riva (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from Truco (talk · contribs)

General

• Dabs check out fine
• There is one dead external link.
• All punctuation should come before the references not after it.

Lead

• "A Beautiful Lie", the fourth single from the second album, was nominated for "Best Video" at the Kerrang! Awards and wins for "Video Star" at the MTV Asia Awards[1], "Playlist Generation" at the TRL Awards[2]and at the MTV Europe Music Awards[3], and it received the "MTV Gold Video Plays Award" from MTV International[4][5]. -- 1)and wins for--what does this mean? Are you trying to say and won? 2)There should be a space between ref 2 and the word and
• 30 Seconds to Mars' songs and albums have received recognition at the Kerrang! Awards, the MTV Europe Music Awards, the MTV Australia Awards, the MTV Video Music Awards, the Fuse Awards and other many. -- 1)Overlink of Kerrang! Awards and MTV Europe Music Awards 2)Its not proper to state the MTV awards as the [so and so awards], remove all the the's, plus the one the at the beginning covers the rest. 3)other many -> many others.
• I would word that their single "The Kill" is one of their most successful ones, as it garnered a lot of recognition.
• Be consistent, use either from the or at the when referring to the awarding body.
• The lead should state the overall number of awards.
• There is a lot of overlinking, go through the prose and unlink articles that have already been linked once.

List

• It proposes the 30 Seconds to Mars among the best rock artists. -- HuH?
• The Fuse Fangoria Chainsaw awards should state why they are given.
• They wins for "Fuse Best of 2007" -- Is they wins a English variant? In addition, this should be consistent with the other wording as in "they won so and so out of so and so nominations.
• The Hollywood Life's Breakthrough of the Year Awards they recognizes the most beloved people of Hollywood. In 2006 Jared Leto wins for "Crossover Artist" [4]. 1)Remove the they 2)Comm after 2006
• I'm not gonna review each section, but at a glance the list needs a lot of work. Each section prose should have an explanation as to why the awards are given. The following sentence should state how many awards they have won from their amount of nominations. See WP:FL#Awards and nominations for FL examples.

Poll

• Why is this section called Poll?

References

• Link all publishers that have articles, such as KROQ
• Ref 16 is lacking a publisher.
• There is an inconsistency with the date formatting, use one date format.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [12].

---

Ferrier Lecture

Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Another medal from moi. Disclaimer: this is being submitted as part of the Amazing Race. Ironholds (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • References: refs 3, 5, and 8 have issues, and as for the bullet pointed "specific" references after 15, I'm not sure what's going on there at all...! The last 8 "specific" references appear to be general (because they're not specifically used anywhere in the list?). You also need to watch out for pp. (single page number) and also different date formats there in the refs. And all web links should have accessdates (e.g. ref 11)
    • Fixed problems with the bullets. Not sure about your pp point - do you mean it should or should not be used for single page numbers? Dates should have been standardised, weblinks have accessdates. Ironholds (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah, often people use pages= instead of page= for a single page reference. The former gives you pp. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Ahh, gotcha. Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Where is the lecture given?
    • No idea, sorry :(. None of the sources I can find give a location. Ironholds (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
      • From the first page of a Google search: This indicates it is delivered to the Royal Society, and then at a second venue of the lecturers choosing. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I would have thought we should be using Brit-Eng on this, so honour, not honor, etc.
    • Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Tessier-Lavigne is not linked in the lead but is linked in the table.
    • Links in the table are mandatory, but I felt that adding a redlink to the lead made it needlessly ugly. If you disagree, I'll change it. Ironholds (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I would make sure the lecturer's name col doesn't wrap around otherwise it could look as if there's more than one lecturer for a given year.
    • Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Um, no it hasn't been. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
        • It has in my screen. Obviously it'll be different in different resolutions. What sizing are you using? Ironholds (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
          • 1400x1050. I assume that this is the fix you attempted. I think removing forced widths and using {{Nowrap}} should work. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

General

• Dabs, external links check out fine.

Lead

• In 1971 the lecture was given by two individuals (David Hunter Hubel and Torsten Nils Wiesel) on the same topic, with the title "The function and architecture of the visual cortex". -- Comma after 1971

• Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• I know you said that you can't find in sources where these are held, but it really leaves a gap in this list because it leaves the reader [like me] in confusion because we don't where its held. There has to be some source out there, hopefully?

• As you will know by now from previous submissions, information on the Royal Society medals/awards/lectures is very hard to come by, with the official pages serving as the only decent source. As of yet I've been unable to find anything reliable elsewhere. Ironholds (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hm, someone found some below...--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm guessing those sources below don't have locations, correct?--Truco ₅₀₃ 15:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Why are quotation marks and italics being used for the titles, is that how the Royal Society officially titles the titles? [same thing for the ones in the list]

• Just something I saw in other lists. Really they're the titles of essays and academic works, since the things were published, so they should be italicised in the same way that book titles would be. Quotation marks are commonly used in many lists like this, several of which you signed off on. Ironholds (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• It was just a question, no need for the hostility.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I apologise - I honestly didn't intend for it to come out in a hostile manner. Ironholds (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

References

• The link to the Royal Society should be in the general ref instead of the specific one.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Done.

Oppose from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

• I'm sure you can find missing references if I could find them easily on Google you haven't looked hard enough. 19351950, 1986 all found within a minute of searching makes me think every one could have refs.
  • Actually on further investigation I think it might be possible to use the JSTOR front page of every lecture 19321935193819831986 - I think searching this with Ferrier Lecture and clicking on "Electronic Refereed Journal Article (HTML)" will give you most if not all.
    • P.S. I have access to JSTOR; if you need anything, holler. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• The lead seems a bit short, I suggest adding
  • How the winner is selected? Also is this based on set criterion?
    • No idea. I know they're selected by the B-sides awards committee, but not if there are set criterion or what those criterion might be. Ironholds (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Additionally this also states that the 1950 lecture was delivered to the Royal Society at Burlington House, Piccadilly, London, on Wednesday June 29 at 4.30 p.m. 2007 was also in June but 2004 was delivered in November, 1986 delivered in April in London. All the JSOR links I gave, and the other ones you can find will give places and dates. This leads me to two questions:
  1. Is the lecture always delivered first in London (where Royal Society is based), I suspect it is, can you ref this.
  2. What is the timeline. When is the winner announced? Dates of lectures seem to vary from April to November, has a lecture ever been delivered the following year, for example.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• No idea as to the answer to the second question. I would say that they're probably all given at the RS headquarters (headquarters in 1950 was burlington house, headquarters currently is Carlton House, so on) but I can't find a ref specifically saying that. Really any conclusions drawn would be synthy OR. Ironholds (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  Okay but there are things you could add to the lead if you look. For example the lecture open to the public,[13], actually on further investigation Royal Society Publishing allows you to read the full content of some of the lectures here. This should give more information about times/places and if you can find this for every lecture then it is no longer OR. :) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment per the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rumford Prize/archive1, this list may be excessively using copyrighted text. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually in this case I disagree with you. The "copyrighted text" you speak of are the titles of the lecture publications, and these are fact. Well almost (because I found one I think is wrong). According to the 1938 lecture itself the title was The Localization of Activity in the Brain not "Some problems of localization in the central nervous system". The others need checking. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Nevertheless Ironholds, this is something you need to address in your Royal Society medal lists. Also, why are only the first words of the lecture names capitalized? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Because they were capitalised on the RS website - we've done this discussion to death on other list FLs. Why do I have to address this? You address problems, and I'm not seeing one. If there's no problem with this list there shouldn't be any problem with the others. US copyright law allows the fair use of quotations if they're used to aid the understanding of the article and don't comprise a substantial portion of the work. Now, these are being used to aid understanding, are in quotation marks and are fully attributed. The same is true on all my lists. So where is the problem, exactly? Ironholds (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I agree with Dabomb here. We have the official lecture typescripts on JSTOR and the Royal Society's page. It seems commons sense that the official typescript is right, as the RS will just be copying that, hence you'd put "The Actions of Parasympathetic and Sympathetic Nerves in Human Micturition, Erection and Seminal Emission, and their Restoration in Paraplegic Patients by Implanted Electrical Stimulators" instead of The actions of parasympathetic and sympathetic nerves in human micturition, erection and seminal emission, and their restoration in paraplegic patients by implanted electrical stimulators per it's typescript. As for the copyright, Dabomb has retracted his comment on this FL, however other medal lists may have a problem because, for example, in Gabor Medal the quotations do make up a substantial portion of the work. He's just giving you a heads up that the copyright discussions will be worth keeping an eye on. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment to all points raised above: I'll be dealing with them this evening. Sorry for the delay, I've been having some RL problems that have somewhat cut into my time. Ironholds (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment just to remind us all, we need to consider Wikipedia:ACCESS#Resolution, which says we should consider 800px width as being the lowest supported resolution. In other words, if the list looks okay at 800x600, you're in the clear... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [14].

---

List of New York Mets managers

Nominator(s): Mm40 (talk), Blackwatch21

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. The lead (and rest of the article) was modeled off of List of Philadelphia Phillies managers, a FL. I am leaving on Wednesday, and Juliancolton has agreed to deal with any issues that come up after I leave. Mm40 (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Uhh... Shouldn't User:Blackwatch21 also get the nomination credit? From the article history, it looks obvious that he is the initial contributor. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• I wrote the lead and added the general managers section, but I suppose you're right, I'll notify him and add him as a nominator. Mm40 (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support-Looks great, and has suitable references. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Dabs, external links check out fine. Lead Of those 19 managers, none have been "player-managers";[1] Yogi Berra did, however, play four games while he was a coach for the 1965 Mets. -- 1)No need for the quotation marks for player-manager 2)This sentence contradicts itself, since Berra was actually a player-manager. Quotes removed. Actually, this isn't a contradiction, because Berra was only a coach at the time, not a manager. A bigger problem is that Joe Torre actually was a player-manager in 1977, but I think I've fixed that. Rlendog (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC) That works =]--Truco 503 22:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC) This was the beginning of seven losing seasons,[1] a season where the winning percentage is below .500, and the most losses by a post-1900 MLB team. -- This is should be a was Done Gil Hodges and Johnson are the only Mets managers to win a World Series: Hodges in 1969 against the Baltimore Orioles; and Johnson in 1986 against the Boston Red Sox. -- The semicolon should be removed Done The longest-tenured general manager is Frank Cashen, with 11 years of service to the team as the general manager, from 1980 to 1990. -- This is optional but how about The longest-tenured general manager is Frank Cashen, with 11 years of service (1980-1990) to the team as the general manager. Done The manager with the highest winning percentage over a full season or more was Davey Johnson, whose .588 winning percentage gives him a 595–417 record, good for first on the all-time wins list for Mets managers. -- 1)You should only mention Johnson by his last name 2)I don't understand what good for first on all the all-time wins list for Mets managers. means, its a bit confusing and POV-ish. Done and reworded. I would add in the lead the most/least GMs. Can you clarify? Most/least what? If it's winning percentage, I don't think it's preferable because GMs don't have as direct an impact on the team's performance as managers, and the actions of past GMs affect the team's success after their tenure is over. Oh I'm sorry, I meant Games Managed (GM)--Truco 503 22:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Added. Mm40 (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC) References Either link all the publishers that have articles, or remove the one link to Baseball America.--Truco 503 22:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Unlinked Mm40 (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

*"a season where"-->a season in which Done. Jamie☆S93 21:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC) "Five managers have taken the Mets to the postseason, with Davey Johnson and Bobby Valentine both leading the team to two playoff appearances"-->Five managers have taken the Mets to the postseason; Davey Johnson and Bobby Valentine have led the team to two playoff appearances each I agree. Changed to suggested wording. Jamie☆S93 23:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC) "Mets managers to win a World Series" The article on [[win {baseball)]] concerns the pitcher, not the manager. Delinked. Jamie☆S93 21:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC) "The longest-tenured general manager is Frank Cashen, with 11 years of service (1980–1990) to the team as the general manager."-->The longest-tenured general manager is Frank Cashen, who was the general manager of the team for 11 years (1980–1990). Reworded. Jamie☆S93 21:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC) "The manager with the highest winning percentage over a full season or more was Johnson, whose .588 winning percentage gives him a 595–417 record, which is first on the all-time wins list for Mets managers"-->The manager with the highest winning percentage over a full season or more was Johnson; his .588 winning percentage gives him a 595–417 record, which is first on the all-time wins list for Mets managers Yes, less run-on, done. Jamie☆S93 23:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC) "Johnson also managed to most games" Delete "also", and I don't think "to" is the word you're looking for. Done. Jamie☆S93 23:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC) In the key, there is no explanation for "W", "L", or "PA". Dabomb87 (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC) I added explanations for "W" and "L", but I'm honestly not sure what "PA" means in the context of post-season playing. Jamie☆S93 21:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Looking at the Phillies list, I'd say "playoff appearances". Dabomb87 (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Ah, thank you. Done. Jamie☆S93 23:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "In contrast, the general manager controls player transactions" I'm not really seeing the contrast.
• "with 1,003 games of service over eight seasons "-->with 1,003 games of service over 8 seasons

• To my understanding, all numbers under 10 should be spelled out (similar to "seven" and "five" in the article, etc.), so I would disagree on that point. Jamie^☆S93 23:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• From MOSNUM: "[c]omparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Alt text should be added to the images. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• What makes http://www.ultimatemets.com/awards.php reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn't look like that source is particularly reliable, but given the uncontroversial nature of the information, I think it should be fine. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• We should use reliable sources whenever possible.

• Replaced with a New York Times ref; there are several NYT sources available. Jamie^☆S93 20:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/051221gmround.html reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's part of the fairly major baseball magazine Baseball America. I'd say that's reliable. Jamie^☆S93 20:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments –
• "his .588 winning percentage gives him a 595–417 record". Would have thought it would be the other way around.
• In the table, the colors only need to be used in the manager column; using them in all columns is a bit much.
• Speaking of colors, George Weiss is a Hall of Famer and should be indicated as such. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [15].

---

Rumford Prize

Nominator(s): ResMar 19:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meats the criteria. ResMar 19:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It certainly seems to "meat" criteria... hehe. Anyway, Resident Mario is leaving for vacation today, so I'll be taking this over until he is back, unless it is promoted/archived before then. ceranthor 19:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm back. It's 11:34 here so I can't take this on today, but thanks for it Cer. I owe you one. ResMar 03:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment Notes column seems unnecessary when there are only several notes. Couldn't that be placed in the rationale column? Done. ResMar 23:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Sorting doesn't work due to the use of rowspan in the year column. Removing the rowspan should fix the sorting Fixed. ResMar 00:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Too many image used, causing large white space at the bottom. Either shrink the images or remove some of them Shrunk to 120px. ResMar 23:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC) —Chris! ct 22:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Sorting is not going to work if rowspan is used. So if you have to use rowspan, then sorting has to be removed.—Chris! ct 02:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Removed completely. Should work fine now. ResMar 13:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 21:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Weak Oppose General Dabs, external links check out fine. Lead 'The endowment was created by a bequest of $1000 to the Academy from Benjamin Thompson, or "Count Rumford," in 1796.' -- Is this US Dollar? If so, link to that instead of the article of the symbol itself. Done. ResMar 00:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 'The prize is given roughly biannually, with many stops and starts.' --> The prize is mainly given biannually, with various exceptions. Done; I used "roughly" instead of "mainly" though. ResMar 00:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 'The award has been given out a total of 62 times to 79 different individuals, and once to a tri-group committee of 21 persons.' -- Is 'persons' an English variant for people? Fixed. ResMar 00:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 'As the prize is awarded by the American Academy of Arts and Science, all of the recipients are American, except for one, John Stanley Plaskett, who is from British Columbia.' -- 1)'As the prize' --> Because the prize 2)Why was he an exception? Grammer fixed. It doesn't say why he was the exception. ResMar 00:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC) No reason can be found with research?--Truco 503 00:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Lemmie see what I can find on the guy. ResMar 00:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC) There's plenty on the guy, and a few mentions of him getting the award (under "awards" and such), but nothing of why he, a Canadian, got it. The award itself doesn't have any large references, either. ResMar 00:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Oh, okay then.--Truco 503 19:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I would expand the lead a bit to explain and summarize the list a bit more, i.e. describe the contributions of some of the significant winners, note some notable winners such as recurring winners in a certain field, etc. This list follows the model set by the list Rumford Medal, which actually has a shorter lead. Moreover, there's no more informtion about the prize itself to add, and I'm not sure what to add by way of statistics. ResMar 12:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Okay its fine then.--Truco 503 19:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC) List I agree with Chris, remove the ref column and just add the note in the rationale column. Done. ResMar 00:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC) The table does not sort properly, mainly due to the rowspan fields that the table has. Done. ResMar 00:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Images Remove at least four images, too much white space towards the end of the article. I've shrunk the images down twofold to 120px. I hope it suffices, because removing images means removing all of them, and I truly think that it adds something important to the article. ResMar 00:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC) That won't suffice, you need to manually remove the images. There is still a lot of white space.--Truco 503 00:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Define "whitespace." Do you mean the part that's leaning out of alignment with the table? ResMar 00:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I've removed one, the last one. ResMar 13:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC) You need to remove at least 3 more. Whitespace is the empty space that is left by the excess of images towards the bottom of the article. For one, its leaves the white space. Second, there should be no images in any other section than those in the section where the table is located. Removing images will not hurt the list in any way.--Truco 503 19:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Took out a few more. References The work for the general references is used incorrectly, it shouldn't be used to explain what the link is about.--Truco 503 23:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Moved out. ResMar 00:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- On my screen resolution, which is pretty wide, the images run past the section in which the table is in, but others say it doesn't, so it may just be mines. Other than that, previous issues resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 14:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I checked the previous version (with the extra photos) and it looked fine at 1024x768 but three photos were stacked far beyond the last section at 1440x900. If the photos must go I suggest trading some of the current photos with a more recent recipient or two, just to even things out. Currently, the last photo is of the 1976 recipient.

Right, well, it's supposed to match up with the recepient's column in the table on the side. That is, John Hare's photo matches John hare's entry. ResMar 22:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, I was just suggesting you exchange a few older recipients with a few recent ones for a little balance. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 14:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not a big fan of the sort feature, in order to get it to work properly, sometimes you have to make cosmetic or other concessions. I think it would look better with each name within its own row, followed by hometowns in their own row, and having a single row for the year. We need some sort of separator between the names and hometowns in years when there was more than one recipient, it would look better.

I think I've arrived at a decent comprimise. How do you deal with having to write the same reason, for example, 4 times? ResMar 14:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You could've used a multiple rowspan, but I think I have found a solution. Horizontal rules do not interfere with the sort feature and it still separates the multiple entries and makes it look nice and neat. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 16:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Very nice! Works well. ResMar 17:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why are the current recipients "hometowns" listed as "Stanford University" and "Nuclear Threat Initiative"?

For the 2008 awards, it tells not of their hometown but of their afflications. What should the header be changed to?

I suggest a little research into the hometowns of the recipients. Otherwise, if this info in unavailable, then I would suggest a note of some kind indicating an affiliation with these institutions. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm, looking into their bios these towns seem to be where they worked/lived when they recieved the award; so it might change after. I decided to change "Hometown" to "Location" and add a note saying that this is their afflication. I think location embodies the universities as well, though not the Nuclear Threat Initiative. ResMar 14:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• "See also" sections are for related links which are not currently present within the article. From what I see, all of these links are already present, I suggest you delete this section.

Issue resolved. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

--ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 22:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• As far as the gaps are concerned, I assumed the gaps were due to a lack of breakthroughs during those years. Also I have found this book, page 217-218, which seems to almost support my suspicion. It says "Though the prize was founded in 1796, it was not until forty three years after that the Academy, in 1839, found anyone who was in its judgment worthy of the award." Which also seems to contradict the introduction which states it was founded in 1839. Your source says it was "established" in 1839, but then it goes on to say that the fund was "created" in 1796. So I'm not sure what the big difference is. It also says the prize was founded with $5,000 not $1,000, and I am unable to locate the source of your statement. The citation given has no mention of $1,000. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 16:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

AWESOME!! ResMar 16:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I am proven my comical ineptitude to find stuff. I really should learn how to use Gbooks. Anyway, 1,000 was certainly a typo.ResMar 16:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support All my concerns have been addressed. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 03:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. It would be interesting if you could add some explanation on why there are gaps in the award (especially between 1996 and 2008). Eklipse (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It would, wouldn't it? I wonder too. Alas, there's nothing the light of solid resourses on the award on the net; all the information I have is the paragraph describing it on the Academy page. ResMar 13:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

ErgoSum's found the answer; see above. ResMar 18:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Other than the interesting find by ErgoSum (ResMar, read over the article before you send it to FAC/FLC), this meets the FL criteria. Good work. ceranthor 01:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "given by the" I prefer "awarded by"

Fixed. ResMar 21:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Because the prize is awarded by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, all of the recipients are American, except for one" Do you mean to say that the Academy specifically looks out for American recipients?

Yes. It is the American academy, after all. ResMar 21:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please check your logical quotation; "for their efforts to reduce the global threat of nuclear weapons." should

not have the period before the quotes.

Fixed. ResMar 21:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• None of the quotes in the "Rationale" column should have periods at the end because they are not complete sentences. Same with the image captions.

Uh, none of the images have periods. ResMar 21:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No, but one of the rationales did, incorrectly, which I corrected. ceranthor 19:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• The last external link doesn't seem to be especially relevant. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I decided to remove the section altogethor, as the same links appear under "General" in the references section. ResMar 21:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Plagiarism concern:
  • Article:"The endowment was created by a bequest of US$5000 to the Academy from Benjamin Thompson, or "Count Rumford", in 1796."
  • Source:"The endowment was created by a bequest to the Academy from Benjamin Thompson, Count Rumford, in 1796." Dabomb87 (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed. ResMar 01:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

All of your concerns have been fixed. ceranthor 19:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support – (iMatthew • talk) at 02:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• I'm getting into these prize lists and it's great that we're developing a set of non-forked featured lists. So, to my comments.
• I think that, since so many of the recipients have free use images, we should consider adding a column to the table with their image embedded, rather than the few you've selected which run down the right-hand side. It's a bit more work but the list would really benefit from it (in my opinion).

Actually I perfer the current format. That would make the table a lot longer and squeeze the table cells way longer then they aught to be. ResMar 18:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• "...is one of the oldest and most prestigious scientific prizes ..." is there any evidence to support these claims?

Well, its age for starters - 1798 was a long, LONG time back, and at the time America was a "new" country of only 20 years. ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand it's one of the oldest, but what makes it prestigious? What benefit does it bestow on its recipients for instance? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

A gold and silver medal and bragging rights :) ResMar 13:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• 5000 ->5,000

Done. ResMar 18:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is an Awards infobox - consider its use along with Thompson's image within.

Is this a requirement? Rumford Medal, for instance, has none (soory for overusing that example). ResMar 18:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not requirement, just a suggestion for a more comprehensive and visually appealing list. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• "wasn't given " was not, "couldn't find " could not, avoid contractions.

Done. ResMar 18:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• "43 year later" redundant.

Fixed. ResMar 18:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Another 23 years - A further 23...

Done. ResMar 18:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• "30,000 dollars" -> $30,000.

Fixed. ResMar 18:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• signifigant->significant.

Fixed. ResMar 18:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• "The prize recognizes contributions by scientists to the fields of heat and light" and then "recognizes a signifigant acheivement to the fields of heat and light" - repetitive.

Well, this is really what happens when I modify the lead to include more information; in this case, when the award is given and why it is so sporatic. Fixed, hopefully. ResMar 18:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• "a total of " redundant.

Can you explain what you mean? It's only used once.ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The words "a total of" are redundant in the sentence. You can remove them and the meaning will remain exactly the same. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 13:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• "has won both the Rumford Prize and the related Rumford Medal, both in 1886" both, both - repetitive, and perhaps tell us what he won it for here?

Camerawork. ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Because the prize is awarded by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, all of the recipients are American," can you cite this causal relationship between an American Academy and the winners? For instance, BAFTA is a British Academy but regularly awards non-British actors.

Yes, I beleive so. That's understandable, but look at the statistics; only one award was awarded to a non-USA resident, and even then they were from neighboring Canada. When Count Rumford awarded the grant for the prize, he simotaneously gave a second grant to the Royal Academy, which awards an award of the same specifications on an international level. (see Rumford Medal) ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You need to cite this. You're saying that the reason all recipients (bar one) are US because the prize is given by a US organisation. I think this needs proof. I can see the recipients are, indeed, mainly from the US, but it could be because that's where most of the work in this area of science is conducted. Alternatively, you can remove this sentence which I believe is really just original research. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This is from one of the PDFs dabomb sent me:

Fellows of the Royal Society may, however, not be aware that Count Rumford made at the same time an identical gift of $5ooo to the Honorable John Adams, President of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, to be devoted in the same manner to the authors of discoverie's in any part of the Continent of America, or in any of the American islands . . .

I will add it to the article shortly. ResMar 13:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 14:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent use of markup to keep sorting working with those vertical spanned rows!

Thanks. ErgoSum found a nice way to do it :) ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• What does Location mean in the table? Where the prize was given? Where the scientists worked?

it waqs originally Hometown, but concerns were raised about how in the last row, it easn't their hometown but their place of work/association. ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You need to make it clear somewhere in this list where that "Location" is referring to. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. ceranthor 20:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• "List of recipients " and "List of prizes given by the academy " in general refs not needed.

What makes you say that? The table originally had a notes column, but it used almost exclusively one ref, so it was recommended to me to move it under a "General" subheading in the Refs, and later to remove the column altogethor. ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The references are fine, it's the italicised text afterwards which is not required. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed. ResMar 14:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Several of the issues require information I don't have. There's next-to-nothing by way of information on the prize on the web, and I don't have access to print material (if there is any). So I am unable to address them. ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have JSTOR access. Is there anything in particular that you are looking for? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. 22, No. 3 (January 1969), pp. 8–9, it was the oldest science prize in America. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, lemmi see; information on the founding of the prize, why Samuel Pierpont Langley got both the prize and the Rumford Medal in the same year, why the Canadian John Stanley Plaskett got an award that is typically American...ResMar 19:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I sent you an email; can you email me back so that I can email you material? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 20:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I ran this article through AWB and there where no suggested edits.
• There appear to be a couple of DAB pages for John Hare and Tuscan
• There are a couple of references that I recommend be moved up to the notes section. They are refs 4, 5 and 6.
• The references look good although 1 requires registration so most users will not be able to access it. Not sure if this is ok from a verfication point of view but wanted to mention it anyway.--Kumioko (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

• is one of the oldest and most prestigious scientific prizes in the United States. - "most prestigious" needs a citation.
• "authors of discoverie's in any part of the Continent of America, or in any of the American islands.", this needs a citation. If it is JSTOR, then put a citation directly after the quote, then reuse the citation again at the end of the sentence(s) being cited.
• by which time the grant had increased to $30,000.[3], that was in 1862. Is the grants still 5k or has it increased to match inflation and other factors?
• In the lead Previous prizewinners include Thomas Alva Edison, for all the reasons that follow for the different winners are direct quotations and copies of the table quotations. If they are there they should have quotation marks, however I believe that you are really pushing your luck here. I think this list is on very shakey copyright grounds. Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text says "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited", and would say this list does extensively use quotations.
• Where is note [d]?
• in fact I have a much more general concern about copyright infringement (see here). Basically for each entry you've copied from the Rumford page, e.g.

  1915

  Charles Greeley Abbot, Washington, DC, for his research on solar radiation.

  then just put | in between things to give

  1915||Charles Greeley Abbot||Washington, DC||for his research on solar radiation.

  Then wikilinked some terms and added a sortname coding. Basically you have copied the "creative presentation of text" and that is also copyrighted by the American Academy. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  This is a serious issue that affects more than a few FLs. I've contacted Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), one of the authors of the plagiarism dispatch for the Signpost, to provide guidance. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  My opinion here is that the chronological list of award recipients is not a problem, as this is straightforward fact. I do think that the quotation of text exceeds both WP:NFC and fair use, as it is extensively taking from the website. I acknowledge that it would be a right pain in the neck to use original language for the rationales, but I think we must. For example, perhaps the rationale of John Ericsson (1862) might be altered to read: "Although he was honored generally for improving heat management, Ericsson's 1858 developments to the caloric engine were specifically singled out." The real pain comes in with individuals live Carl Barus (1900). "for his research in heat." And that means what, exactly? I'd recommend rewriting what you can and saving the quotes for non-informative text like that. Alternatively, rather than quoting or using full statements, might you simplify the final column to something like "area of research"? Then for John Ericsson you might say Heat management (specifically, his 1858 developments to the caloric engine). Then for somebody vague like Carl Barus, you could give the one word note: Heat. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  Given that this may have wider implications than this single list, I believe I'll seek additional feedback at WT:NFC and a copyright page or two. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  This is a tough one. First, you can't copyright facts, so such-and-such winning of so-and-so in year YYYY is both factual and necessary. So the question is down to the reasoning and this is where I think that the language has to be changed - that rationale for the winner is the creative part of the Acadamy's input to this, and restating out of the web page is excessive. Now, for 90% of those, they could simply fixed by citing just the field of work, eg for the 1996 award, just say "cosmic microwaves" with appropriate linkage; for more complex ones, just put in lists (eg 1973: "symmetry in polyatomic molecules, microwave spectroscopy") That's the easiest way to avoid the issue while still keeping key information in the list. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  I think that's a fair compromise to get on with things. In the meantime, it's still a useful exercise to determine a guideline on what constitutes too much direct quotation. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  I'd suggest that when the quote is the actual citation for the award, that should be considered factual. Secondly, it is (probably) too short an element of text to be considered a substantial taking. The "original work" in this case (I think) is each individual citation, taken separately; rather than any subsequent compilation of them (unless it appears that we have selected from the original citations in the same way as the compilation).

So, I don't see a need for any changes. Jheald (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If the text being pulled was only being used to describe the honor of the award for one of the winners on their article page, sure, it's likely short enough that a cite avoids any issue. Using them all is a problem. As there's a way to replace the potentially-creative reasoning for granting the award with free use text (simply citing the field(s) it was won for, and not the whole quote) it avoids any possible copyright issues. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're seeing my point. If those are simply the original citations, we're making a lot of small quotations from different original works, not an extended quotation from one work.

Secondly, IMO the formal citation should be seen as part of the facts of the award, which I think we should be at liberty to report verbatim, as facts. Jheald (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the individual statements of reason are likely compiled from other source documents that the awards body generated when granting the award, and their list is only a summation of those. However, our WP article only cites one additional source in addition to the list in the body of the list (that for the most recent award); if it instead cited each individual document, I'd be less concerned because as it is, it smells and acts like a copyright issue. But this is centered around the question of whether the reasoning that the award was given is a non-copyrightable fact or not (if its the former, then there's no question that the table, overall, is not copyrightable like a phone book, and inclusion in the list article here is fine). My concern is that those statements of reason are opinions of why this person was recognized, and thus, even if they are short snippets, are still copyrighted. This is certain far from outright copyright violations, but it is not in the clear. Which is why a cautious approach, including only the fields that were listed for the reasoning of each award, is a safer option than wholesale copyright. But again, I point out that if each of the quotes in the table as they are now were actually sourced to the documents that announced the winner, I'd see less a problem with that. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

<unquote>
I know I'm going with the minority here, but I do not think this is not a copyright infringment. The descriptions given are the original citations given by the Academy. Although I can certainly modify it to the fields of work, it wouldn't be the same. To Masem, this article has gone through so many changes and shifts, but at the point of nomination it did in fact have a citation for each year, person, and date, in a Notes column. It was seen as too bulky, so the notes was removed and replaced with a single citation under General. Then the column itself was removed as it seemed too big for the few scattered notes within.

This kind of sucks to tell you the truth, I started this as a side project playing second fiddle to Loihi, but it's made the bottom of the list...my first FLC made the bottom of the list...now that's an acomplishment. ResMar 03:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• "There is no implication of literary merit, but the work must be of a minimum length. This means that single words or a single sentence do not have copyright (for advertising - words, logos and sentences are ‘trademarked’). Also individual facts do not get copyright, e.g. address details, telephone numbers. This is a common sense approach in that although individual facts do not acquire copyright, collections of such facts do acquire protection".[16]

• "Copyright protection under the copyright code (title 17, section 102, U. S. Code) extends only to “original works of authorship.” The statute states clearly that ideas and concepts cannot be protected by copyright. To be protected by copyright, a work must contain at least a certain minimum amount of authorship in the form of original literary, musical, pictorial, or graphic expression. Names, titles, and other short phrases do not meet these requirements."[17]

It would seem the US and the UK have differing opinions on this, I dunno, I'm no copyright lawyer. But I have serious doubts about any "infringement" upon copyrighted material. This is a collection of facts, and no real authorship went into the original list. Having said that, I do believe the proposed changes would actually improve the article, so I can't say I'm against them. I think a less vague explanation of why these people received the medal would be an improvement. Although I'm not sure "Towards his concern" is better than what was there before. I also think anything would be better than reading "For his" ninety times. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 04:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [18].

---

List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all the criteria. Kumioko (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Weak oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Normally I wouldn't say this, but I think there should be a link to World War I.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "World War I (the First World War, the Great War), was a global military conflict from 1914 to 1918, centered in Europe." I'd recommend using the wording from the main article, with a few amendments: "World War I (also known as the First World War and the Great War) was a global military conflict that embroiled most of the world's great powers, assembled in two opposing alliances: the Entente and the Central Powers." If necessary, you can borrow the references from the main article too.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Over 40 million casualties"-->More than 40 million casualties

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Over 60 million"-->More than 60 million

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'd recommend moving the second and third sentences to the end of the first paragraph.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States" Missing period after this.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "frequently it is presented posthumously"-->it is frequently presented posthumously

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "One hundred twenty four men"-->One hundred twenty-four men

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "who later became the basis for a movie by the same name" Ref?

Done. I reworded this a little so Let me know if I still need a ref. --Kumioko (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "and Edward Rickenbacker who became a famous flying ace. " I think a reference is needed for this, and comma after "Rickenbacker".

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "and was the first Marine aviator to received the Medal of Honor."-->and was the first Marine aviator to receive the Medal of Honor.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "When all the officers with his platoon had become casualties" Don't mince words. Were they killed?

Done. This was a quote from the citation. I clarified it. --Kumioko (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• "beyond our lines, under constant machinegun fire, and rescued 2 wounded officers." Who is "our"? Per MOS we shouldn't use first-person language (we, our, us etc.)

This was a quote from the citation.--Kumioko (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• The notes need to be proofread. I'll see if I can come by later this week and clean it up, but am not making promises. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• http://www.jimmyatkinson.com/papers/versaillestreaty.html deadlinks, and what makes it reliable?

Done. I replaced this with another ref. --Kumioko (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/casualties.htm and http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/F/firstworldwar/index.html reliable? Considering the info being sourced, it shouldn't be hard to find high-quality sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. I replaced this with another ref. --Kumioko (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the items you mentioned above I fixed several other things, added images and cleaned up some notes. Please feel free to goo back through and or proofread the notes. --Kumioko (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the quoted material in my comments above, please remember to put anything directly taken from the source in quotes. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The first one mentioned, ref 2, is still present. By the site editors own admission "it is not recommended that this site be used for academic reference purposes" however there is a lot of listed sources. I think this source is borderline, what about you Dabomb? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

• Can you fix the image in the Infobox as it is not aligning to the centre properly and I think it looks really unprofessional.

Done. not sure I see what you are seeing but I measured it and it was a little off center to the left so I made a change that brought the image to center. --Kumioko (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• The quote "conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States" ref 1 mentions gallantry etc. Quotes need cites.
• One hundred twenty-four men were awarded the Medal of Honor for their actions in World War I, I know it is following MOSNUM by not starting sentences with numbers but actually a reword would be better. e.g. "The Medal of Honor was awarded to 124 men ..."
• Try and integrate "Thirty-three of the awards were posthumous." into the previous sentence for 2 reasons, one to avoid spelling out 33, and because it is a comparable quantity so should be consistent with the others.
• american flying ace -> American

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Concerns in notes, now I won't pretend to have looked at them all but here are 3 examples I did look at and comments on them:
  • John H. Balch: Risked his own life to provide medical care to soldiers and Marines wounded in fighting, a good paraphrasing of the source
  • Harold L. Turner: After his platoon had started the attack Cpl. Turner assisted in organizing a platoon consisting of the battalion scouts, runners, and a detachment of Signal Corps. As second in command of this platoon he fearlessly led them forward through heavy enemy fire, continually encouraging the men. Later he encountered deadly machinegun fire which reduced the strength of his command to but 4 men, and these were obliged to take shelter. The enemy machinegun emplacement, 25 yards (23 m) distant, kept up a continual fire from 4 machineguns. After the fire had shifted momentarily, Cpl. Turner rushed forward with fixed bayonet and charged the position alone capturing the strong point with a complement of 50 Germans and 1 machineguns. This has no quotation marks and is copied verbatum from this. This is highly concerning and above all else copyright violation.
  • William B. Turner: "[L]ed a small group of men to the attack, under terrific artillery and machinegun fire, after they had become separated from the rest of the company in the darkness. Single-handed he rushed an enemy machinegun which had suddenly opened fire on his group and killed the crew with his pistol. He then pressed forward to another machinegun post 25 yards (23 m) away and had killed 1 gunner himself by the time the remainder of his detachment arrived and put the gun out of action. With the utmost bravery he continued to lead his men over 3 lines of hostile trenches, cleaning up each one as they advanced, regardless of the fact that he had been wounded 3 times, and killed several of the enemy in hand-to-hand encounters. After his pistol ammunition was exhausted, this gallant officer seized the rifle of a dead soldier, bayoneted several members of a machinegun crew, and shot the other. Upon reaching the fourth-line trench, which was his objective, 1st Lt. Turner captured it with the 9 men remaining in his group and resisted a hostile counterattack until he was finally surrounded and killed." Similar to the above in copying this verbatum, but in using quotations it does not give the impression that it is your work. However is the whole quote really needed, could it not paraphrased.

Summarising, you need to be very careful of copyright violations. Many of the notes can be paraphrased and unnecessary taking of text as wrote from here does not constitute fair use.

As far as the issue of being a copyright violation thats a non issue here because they are the actual Medal of Honor citations which is a freedom of information act and is fair use. But I agree that they should be paraphrased or in quotes if it cannot be easily paraphrased. I thought I took care of them but I will go back through again and look at them again starting with the ones you identified. --Kumioko (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure the Freedom of Information Act does not by itself guarantee that the works of the government are public domain. It gives people the right to know what information is in government files, but it does not imply that any government work can be used by anybody without permission. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I made some changes to the citations as work fields were being confused with title fields and I standardised date format.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose until alternative text for images is added. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand could you give me an example of an article that has it? --Kumioko (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Priestley. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this a new requirement, knowone has ever mentioned this before? I have not done this to ANY of the other MOH lists that have been approved nor have I seen it in any that I have reviewed recently.--Kumioko (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I know. See this discussion. That the images in this list don't even have captions make alt text necessary, I think. Sorry for bringing this up now. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [19].

---

Glossary of trucking industry terms in the United States

Nominator(s): ErgoSum•talk•trib 05:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is as comprehensive as its gonna get. I have been heavily editing the list for the past month or so, and all the definitions are referenced. ErgoSum•talk•trib 05:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - the lead is too short IMO. Perhaps adding a paragraph about the background of some of those trucking terms. (also not sure if this violates 3b as merging this with Trucking industry in the United States is doable in my opinion)—Chris! _ct 20:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I was apprehensive about the intro as well, but there isn't much that can be said about it. Its a glossary of terms, what else needs to be said? The "history" of these terms is nonexistent. Most of these terms are self explanatory, "motor carrier" or "fifth wheel". Other terms are also self explanatory but documentation of their development is nonexistent due to their obvious nature, "glad hands" are a reference to the way they couple together like a pair of hands during a handshake, "lowboy" is pretty obvious but who knows where the "boy" came from, as is "portable parking lot". I will keep searching and see if I can dig up anything but I'm skeptical.

Are there any other featured glossaries that I can draw examples from? Also, this was originally part of Trucking industry in the United States, but was split due to length, and the split was also recommended by other users. Do you really think it can be added back? TIITUS is still being expanded, and it is already long as it is. Adding the glossary would make the article well over 70kb, which is not unheard of, but I think the glossary deserves its own article. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 22:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying absolutely that you have to merge with Trucking industry in the United States or this fails the criteria, but I am posting these questions here for others to think about since the length of the lead and whether this warrants a stand-alone list are both parts of the FL criteria.—Chris! _ct 23:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, I understand. This is my first attempt at a featured list, so I'm not exactly an expert... but I saw no mention of introduction length in the FL criteria. I realize the intro is sparse, I don't disagree with that assessment. However, given the nature of the subject matter (this being a glossary), I wasn't sure if the introduction should include anything more than an explanation of the content. I do however think this warrants a stand-alone list, as per WP:SIZERULE. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria does have something on introduction length. 2 says that lists need to have "an engaging lead that introduces the subject." 5 requires lists to conform with the MOS. Wikipedia:Lead section, which is a part of the MOS, has a section on length.—Chris! _ct 00:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (glossaries) "If the glossary would be 25 terms or more, it is probably better to create a stand-alone glossary list article." I counted 87 terms. It also says "For a glossary list article that consists of a simple lead and a glossary, the form Glossary of subject terms is preferred... For an article that mostly consists of a glossary list but has well-developed material on the history and use of the terminology, or other such information (several paragraphs worth), the form Subject terms is preferred". I can expand the intro, but it will just be a summary of the terms, as history is not covered in the article. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, not sure if I agree with you entirely because the lead is too short according to my experience reviewing FLs. But there is no point for the two of us to debate this since it is not up to me or you to make the final decision. :) I am going to let others weight in on the lead issue before !voting. Though, I am now convinced that this should be a stand-alone list. Good work on the list, though.—Chris! _ct 23:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm quickly glancing over this an one thing strikes me as very strange for a vocabulary-centered article: Why isn't is in alphabetical order? Circeus (talk) 05:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I could quickly change it, I just never got around to it. Should I get rid of the sections? I could alphabetize the whole list, and have each alternate/slang version with its own entry directing it to the standard term. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind the sections. It's really just the random order that seems weird. Circeus (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well it wasn't really random for me, as I suppose I organized it in the manner that pleased me most (from most commonly used to rarely used terms). But it is all alphabetized now, and I changed the links to use the {{main}} template, cuz thats what WP:Manual of Style (glossaries) said to do. But as it turns out, it is only a working draft so I'm not sure there is much precedence for the styling of glossaries. Although I think it looks better. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 02:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Jargon used within the trucking industry in the United States" "within" could simply be "in".
• "terms which describe"-->terms that describe
• Sentence fragments should not have periods at the end.
• "utilizing"-->using (shorter is sweeter)
• "A method of shifting gears which optimizes"-->A method of shifting gears that optimizes
• "A method of inventory control where warehousing"-->A method of inventory control in which warehousing Dabomb87 (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Done, done, and done. I assumed that all the definitions should have periods at the end, but if you could tell me which ones or just delete the offending periods that would be fine with me, as I'm not sure which ones are too long to be considered fragments. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 02:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's more of a grammar thing than length, really (any phrase without a subject and a verb, simply put). I'll fix it myself.

Sources

• Journals, newspapers and magazines should be in italics. I fixed The New York Times and Modern Tire Dealer Magazine, but there may be more.
• What makes the following sites reliable?
  • http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/private-carrier.html
  • http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tandem?o=100074
  • http://www.worldtraderef.com/WTR_site/Truck_Trailers/Guide_to_Truck_Trailers.asp
  • http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/18729188_1.html Dabomb87 (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• This one is run by a bunch of companies, see here. It seems legitimate enough.
• This site gives sources, and offers numerous different definitions. It is one of the best dictionaries I have seen on the web, and if you know of a better site then feel free to substitute another.
  • I assume you're referring to dictionary.reference.com. I've asked Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) about it, as she's the source guru at FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• This is a magazine see here. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 00:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Truco 20:05, 10 July 2009 [20].

---

NHL Entry Draft

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton | ^Talk and iMatthew ^talk at  16:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it should meet the FLC criteria. iMatthew ^talk at  16:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Lead image can be bigger per MOS, up to 300px, so we can actually see what it's about.
• What does "collective meeting" mean here? Is it different from just "meeting"? Is it something specific?
• "within two–three months" - what happened to prose - two to three...
• Link Stanley Cup first time, not third or fourth time.
• "The Entry Draft was known as the "Amateur Draft" up until 1979. The first draft was held in 1963, and has been held every year since. " seems like this info could be reversed - the timing of the first draft is much more important than the name of it.
• "and a televised event in 1984" - you really mean that it's been televised since 1984, not just a televised event in one specific year.
• "The first NHL Entry Draft (originally known as the "NHL Amateur Draft") ..." citation? and is it NHL Amateur Draft or just Amateur Draft (per the lead)?
• "and was not already sponsored by an NHL club was " - was overdose, lose first one, and put a comma after club (in my opinion).
• "In 1969, the rules were changed so that any amateur player under the age of 20 was eligible to be drafted. Only 84 players were selected that year." I think you should elegantly merge these two sentences.
• "This rule change was made to facilitate the absorption of players from the now defunct World Hockey Association. This caused ..." This... overdose.
• "The 1980 draft was held in the Montreal Forum. The first draft outside of Montreal was held at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre in Toronto, Ontario in 1985." elegant merge again please.
• In the table, 'cos it's sortable, relink everything you've linked.
• 1993- what's "Le Colis?e"?

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Done with everything except re-linking everything. A different judge, User:Mitchazenia, told me to only link things once in the table per WP:OVERLINK. :/ iMatthew ^talk at  18:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. In lists like this we even allow overlinking with unsortable tables, just in case the table is really long. Wouldn't want our readers to go searching for the link etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the review. Done! iMatthew ^talk at  18:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - You know...this can be a good article if the history section was expanded more. Some sentences like which draft had the most hall of famers, all-stars, etc. can be added onto the article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This is being nominated as a list, though. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but what I'm trying to say is that it could be a good article. Sorry if this comment was unnecessary, but was just trying to point that out. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per 3a. This page is not comprehensive enough. The first two sections are very poorly written lacking important information. Currently, they both look like rough draft documents. When the necessary info is added, you can nominate it at either WP:GAC or WP:FAC. This subject should not be considered a list.--Crzycheetah 09:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Well like Julian said, it's being nominated as a list. By that reasoning, would you say Royal Rumble and WWE No Way Out shouldn't be featured lists? iMatthew ^talk at  11:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Please review this according to the FL criteria. Thank you. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • As far as I can see, it's more list than article, so this review (per Julian) can continue. Thanks. If we could add constructive and helpful criticism rather than sweeping generalistations, that would really help nominators address concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Julian, I did review this page according to WP:FL?, hence my first words were "per 3a". I meant this page does not pass the criterion 3(a) of our beloved criteria. The 3(a) states It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. I believe this page is not comprehensive. The criterion states that pages need to be comprehensive, but this one is not comprehensive; therefore, this page fails that criterion. I really thought it would be obvious, but apparently I was wrong.
        • The defined scope, as the title of the page suggests, is not a list of NHL Entry drafts, but rather NHL Entry draft, so readers come to learn about draft rules and draft history as well as see the list. Currently, there are a ton of unanswered questions after reading the page about NHL Entry draft.
        • This article is missing information about why NHL decided to hold drafts in the first place. I mean, why so late? Why some drafts needed more than one day to complete?
        • Did the 1979 rule change that allowed foreign professionals to be picked cancel the age limit that was passed by the 1969 rule? A 21 year old Swede could just go and sign with the team without going through the draft process? There's a huge room for assumptions while explaining the eligibility rules.
        • There's no info about why the number of players selected is different every year. How many rounds are there? Can teams waive their rights to draft?
        • There's no further info about trading draft picks. Can you trade picks for cash, i.e. sell picks? Can you trade picks for players or just for other picks? Can you trade all of your picks? Are you allowed to trade all of your picks for the next 10 years? or is there a limit?
        • As for the draft order, I understand the lottery decides the order for the first round. How about round two? three? I just skimmed through individual drafts and noticed the order for each round is different.
        • A section about "reception" is missing, as well. What is the opinion of NHL experts about the drafts? Were there any drafts that just changed the league? OR were they all boring and monotonous? Were there any players or teams that disrespected the process by their actions?
        • The second sentence in the History section is the exact copy from the reference, that's copyright violation!
        • All of your references are from NHL, you need third-party sources.

--Crzycheetah 22:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

General

• Dabs, external links check out fine

Lead

• Checks out fine

History

• Any amateur player that was 17 years of age and older, and was not already sponsored by an NHL club was eligible to be drafted. -- Comma after NHL club
• In 1979, the rules were again changed, as they now allowed players who had previously played professionally to be drafted. -- Can the beginning be reworded a bit, because the previous sentence before this starts as In 1969, .... (its too similar)
• From 1987 through 1991, 18 and 19 year old players could only be drafted in the first three rounds unless they met another criteria of experience which required them to have played in major junior, U.S. college and high school, or European hockey.[4][1] -- Change the order of the references
• Prior to this year the Entry Draft was conducted in Montreal hotels or League offices, and was closed to the general public. -- 1)Comma after to this year 2)Is there a specific reason as to why they were close to the public before?

Selection order

• However, teams are permitted to trade draft picks. -- This would be better states as... Teams, however, are permitted to trade draft picks.
• In all cases, the team considered is the original holder of the draft pick, not a team which may have acquired the pick via a trade or other means. -- I'm confused, the team considered for what? A trade?
• A single selection from the lottery pool is made, with the winning team eligible to improve its draft order by up to four places, and no team eligible to drop more than one place. -- is before eligible to drop more

List

• Some of the entries have just the state or muninipality listed, eg. Florida or Quebec: are the cities not available (for states?) and isn't Quebec in Montreal?

• Montreal is in the province of Quebec. Laugh out loud. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Eh, you get my point =P--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've fixed these up. Resolute 23:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Is the 30th pick regarded highly more than the first pick? Because that's how I'm reading it. If so, I think a column should be made for it. If not, then ignore this.

References

• Ref 6: The publisher is the NHL while the work is from the Lightning.
• Is there any third party sources available? You only have primary sources in use from the NHL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Possible source, although it might be a bit outdated (I don't know) Dabomb87 (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have a couple histories that will make mention of the draft and significant moves. It likely will not be today, but I'll see what I can add from secondary sources. Websites like tsn.ca should have Entry Draft pages that could be added as general references. Resolute 17:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose This should not be at FLC, as there exists enough information in reliable sources to make a separate article about the draft and about the list of drafts. A section in an NHL history article (History_of_the_National_Hockey_League_(1967–1992)#Entry_Draft) has only two paragraphs less on it than the article. I did a very quick scan through one book, Arthur Pincus' The Official Illustrated NHL history (2006), and I found a part, around a page long in a chapter dedicated about the draft, and the small text, on the page, which is bigger than your standard A4 or 8.5 by 11 in sheet of paper wasn't particularly illustrated. If that book, which doesn't really cover NHL history in great detail, can provide that much, other, more comprehensive NHL history books, such as the ones used in the NHL history articles as a source by me and Res, will have even more on the draft, which will allow you to write a decent article. Maxim_(talk) 21:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Same reasoning as Maxim. This is not a list, but rather an article with a list. The draft, being one of the league's showcase events, has a considerable history that is not documented here, so cannot be considered comprehensive. Off the top of my head, I can think of the 2005 draft lottery, the Eric Lindros saga, the controversy in Montreal over drafting Doug Wickenheiser, Taro Tsujimoto, possibly a controversy about Gretzky not going into the 79 draft (not sure if that actually existed at the time), dueling drafts with the WHA. Much has been written about famous draft busts, i.e.: Wickenheiser and Daigle being first overall picks that bombed. The league moving in recent years to a prime time format for the first round to help draw more viewers. This is a topic that deserves much more than is presented here. I agree with a comment above. We can develop this article into a GA or FA with enough work. Resolute 23:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose – I find myself agreeing with the previous opposers that GA or FA should be the goal. This is apparently a page that would be better-suited in regular article form, instead of just being a list. NFL Draft, Major League Baseball Draft, and NBA Draft aren't trying to be lists, so I don't get why this should be mainly a list, especially when the page has such great expansion possibilities. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't realize this was still open. Withdraw it please. iMatthew ^talk at 00:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Truco 19:59, 10 July 2009 [21].

---

List of human-based units of measure

Nominator(s): Cybercobra (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the necessary criteria or is at least quite close to meeting them. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment I think this article still needs a lot of work. The lead needs expansion, there are absolutely no references, and what is the inclusion criteria for this? See recently promoted lists or even other lists in the FLC list for examples of lists that are up to standard, or at least closer. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, encourage withdrawal per Dabomb. I encourage you to take a look at other Featured Lists, as Dabomb said, and see if you can't base the list off one of those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearWarfare (talk • contribs) 17:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Too many things need to be done to even be close to meeting the criteria.--Crzycheetah 03:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Snowy Oppose/Suggest Withdrawal -- Far from WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Withdraw - The lede requirement is longer than I thought. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Rambo's Revenge 12:07, 9 July 2009 [22].

---

Ralph Bakshi filmography

Nominator(s): Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This filmography was significantly improved during its last FLC. The current revision should address any remaining concerns of the FLC. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

General

• I reviewed and supported this FLC in the past, but I have a few things to say.
• Dabs, external links check out fine.

Lead

• The lead lacks now that I really see it, this lead can be expanded greatly. Take Gene Kelly filmography as an example.

• I took a look at that page and rewrote the lead. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC))

• I also find this (Listed here is the entirety of Bakshi's credited work as an animator, director, writer or producer.) unnecessary.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Removed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC))

Comment My concerns were resolved last FLC, but I'd like to see if any other reviewers have suggestions before I support. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Could this not be merged into the main article seeing as it is not that long and it would put everything together (i.e. the lead here will repeat stuff stated in that article). I realise there are FAC ambitions for the Ralph Bakshi article, so I've asked there too. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it could be merged. The main article is not that long, and there are only two tables that are not overwhelmingly large. As Rambo said, nothing in the lead would need to be merged as it would have been said in other parts of the main article. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I was planning on holding my tongue on this issue until I heard some more opinions, but I changed my mind considering that, including myself, there are three editors who feel that the articles could be merged, so I did just that. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

Since nominator has turned the list into a redirect after the above discussion I'm going to withdraw this nomination. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 05:40, 8 July 2009 [23].

---

List of living Band of Brothers veterans

Nominator(s): Nick Ornstein (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...My article has a clear, understandable opening paragraph. The information completely relates to the subject. References have been sited, as well as external links, categories all relate. Birth Place, Name, Birth Date, Age, Residence, and some Notes on most of the veterans are listed. User:NickOrnsteinNick Ornstein (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"The following is a list of verified living Band of Brothers veterans (1942-1945) of whom have served during World War II." FLs don't begin like this; see recently promoted lists for examples of more engaging starts. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose and perhaps combine with main article. The list is self-deleting. See List of surviving veterans of World War I (FLRC). I suggest making a list of all members of the E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States), since there were only 139/162 according to the article. Reywas92^Talk 17:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - I had the same thought as Reywas, that this is a self-deleting list. Otto4711 (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment we could make it meet WP:WIAFL but it will eventually disappear per List of surviving veterans of World War I. Not sure this is good approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose -- I agree with Reywas92.--Truco ₅₀₃ 22:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:17, 6 July 2009 [24].

---

WWE Backlash

Nominator(s): Samgibbs (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets the FL criteria quite well. It is fully referenced and is presented and laid out to Wikipedia standards. Samgibbs (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: Not a list article. It should be taken to GAN.--WillC 18:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Not a list. Agree with Will, should be taken to Good Article Nominations should be taken to peer review. Bmg916^Speak 18:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I also agree that this is not a list hoever I recommend it go to Peer review prior to submission to GAN. I think that the article needs a little more content and the wording needs to be tightened up a little. Some of the sections seem choppy. Also:
• I ran this article through AWB and made a small change to a reference.
• There are no DAB links.
• There are several dead links that generate 404 errors that need to be fixed. --Kumioko (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose it's an article and really needs work before being submitted for Good Article, I second the comment about "Peer Review", I've been helped greatly by it. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not a list, and not ready to be featured to say the least. AfroGold - Afkatk 17:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Snowy Oppose/Close-Suggest withdrawal -- In this format, it is not a list nor does it meet WP:WIAFL. In addition, it suits better over at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, though it needs work.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:17, 6 July 2009 [25].

---

30 Seconds to Mars discography

Nominator(s): Dear87 (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because am working to elevate their standard that quality. Since now, I thank anyone who devotes a little time to give me suggestions on this discography. Dear87 (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• "This is a comprehensive listing of official releases by 30 Seconds to Mars" FLs don't begin like this. See Dream Theater discography as an example of a more engaging start. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from Truco (talk · contribs)

General

• This needs a lot of work to compare to other discographies
• Fix the 1 disambiguation link found with the tool at the right (first link)

Lead

• Like Dabomb stated, do not start lists out like that.
• Do not bold what is not the title of the article: most of these can't do that so don't bold anything at all per MOS:BOLD and WP:LEDE
• The lead needs to be expanded and formatted a bit further like other FL discographies.

Albums

• Why is there a Band column? With the expansion of the lead there will be no necessity for this.

Singles

• What verifies the last 8 chart rankings?
• What verifies the 2002 single?

Other sides

• Aren't these more like remixes or mixtapes?

B-sides and other tracks

• Both of these sections need to be in a table format

Podcast and Music Videos

• Do not use small font for table column headers.

Soundtrack

• Capitalize show

References

• The references need to be formatted properly and there is an inconsistency with the linking of publishers.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I ran this article through AWB and found a couple of minor errors that I fixed. I will come back and look at it closer soon. --Kumioko (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggest withdrawal The nominator is not a significant contributor, and the article is clearly not ready for FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - A peer review would be much more appropriate for an article to this standard. It has many, many issues. I'll see what I can do to help out if you start a PR. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 10:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Now the page is okay, right? I improved the page and now it can be on featured list.--Matthew Riva (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on improving it. It still has many issues though. The lead section for example, is much too short. Things like "Debut studio album" in the tables are useless, titles of albums should be boldfaced with ''''' on either side. EP should be Extended play. Labels go in the same column as Album details. Tributes are not notable, per MOS:DISCOG, etc. I recommend you Withdraw this and take it to peer review, it will be much easier. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:45, 6 July 2009 [26].

---

Devin Townsend discography

Nominator(s): Gendralman (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am renominating this for featured list. The first nomination didn't get very far, but I think the article's been improved quite a bit since I originally nominated it. I'd like to give this another shot. Gendralman (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- I support based on my original review, but I'm still curious and puzzled about the inclusion of the discography of his other project. --Truco ₅₀₃ 00:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The webcitation links don't work; check the toolbox to your right (external links). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The whole site is down. This should be temporary; see WebCite#Outages. —Gendralman (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• My comments were resolved at the previous FLC; however, I am witholding my support due to concerns brought up by Drewcifer3000 (talk · contribs). I've contacted him, and when his concerns are resolved, I will support. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I ran this article through AWB and found a couple of minor errors that I fixed. I will come back and look at it closer soon. --Kumioko (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"{{DEFAULTSORT:Devin Townsend Discography}}" What does that do? —Gendralman (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

In this case Nothing I don't even know why it added it so I removed it. --Kumioko (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for now—Only releases issued under the moniker "Devin Townsend" should be listed in this discography. The Strapping Young Lad stuff should go (that's meant for the SYL discography). indopug (talk) 06:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - SYL discography should be separate, the mention of the band in the lead is enough to show his involvement. No sources for music videos, Other collaborations or Production credits and involvement on other albums sections. All Notes sections are entirely unsourced - of course some don't really require sources, such as the band's release name. If you went for a SYL discography FLC, you'd have a better chance in my opinion. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Just to put this in perspective, an SYL article would only have 17 entries, and List of awards and nominations received by Sam Roberts (a featured list with 24 entries) was delisted and merged for being too short. I'm totally willing to split it off, but I need an argument a little more substantial than "that's the way it should be". If I split off an SYL discography, I'm going to take that to FLC too, and I'd like to be reassured that it's not going to be deleted six months later like the Sam Roberts list was. —Gendralman (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is that discographies are more deserving of stand-alone lists than awards lists are. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• OK, consider this a withdrawal for now. I'll split the article and nominate it again soon. Thanks for being patient with me, everyone. —Gendralman (talk) 23:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 14:54, 24 July 2009 [27].

---

List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions

Nominator(s): Don Lope (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've done some work on the four Grand Slam men's singles champions pages, adding leads, refs, reorganizing all the tables, and adding plenty of images. I've based my work on golf majors champions FL like List of The Open Championship champions or List of PGA Championship champions. The tennis project doesn't really have any Featured content, and it would nice to start with these four important lists. Don Lope (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment Color should be accompanied with a symbol; see the golf lists for example Only need to color the name, instead of the entire row Obviously, the same applies to all your tennis lists. (I am not adding the same comments to all nomination pages)—Chris! ct 20:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Done on all four articles. I've also separated general and specific references, again on all articles. --Don Lope (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Well, what about the other tables?—Chris! ct 20:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Done. What is "walkover"? Need to put a note there to explain jargons Linked "walkover" to the Glossary of tennis article. Score column doesn't need to be sortable, IMO I would have preferred to keep the sorting option, but since you're the second person to say it shouldn't be sortable - Done. While we're at it, I've also made the "Years" column of the "Multiple champions" table unsortable, as it wasn't absolutely necessary there either. The dashes in empty cells should be emdashes Done. How is grandslamtennis.freeukisp.co.uk a reliable source? —Chris! ct 20:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Well, it probably isn't. I've removed all mention of the website on the French Open and Australian Open articles, and have tried to find other sources. I'll have to continue searching for the US Open and Wimbledon articles as none of the main tennis websites (neither Wimbledon's nor the ATP's nor the ITF's) publishes the early draws. "grandslamtennis.freeukisp.co.uk" seems to be based on several tennis books though, namely 100 Wimbledon Championships for the Wimbledon draws, and Tennis Observed for the US Championships draws. Would it work if we had the books as references instead of the website ? --Don Lope (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Books would definitely work.—Chris! ct 22:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Done that. I've replaced the "grandslamtennis.freeukisp.co.uk" refs by the original sources, John Barrett's 100 Wimbledon Championships: A Celebration for the Wimby list and William Talbert's Tennis observed: The USLTA men's singles champions, 1881-1966 for the US Open list. --Don Lope (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Chidel (talk · contribs)

Oppose This article has many problems (refer to my edits, most of which were reverted by the nominator). Chidel (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• This is my revert of User:Chidel's edits : first, I don't agree with any of his edits in the first paragraph : we should not replace The Championships, Wimbledon by "Wimbledon", the former being the real name of the event and of the name of the tournament's article, we should not remove England, Great Britain of the line about the location (not the most important thing, I reckon, but it could prove useful to a reader), and we certainly should not remove the line mentioning The Championships is part of the Grand Slams, when it takes place, where it takes place, and when in history and why it didn't take place. All this info is perhaps obvious to Chidel, but it will prove very useful to readers who don't know anything about Wimbledon. Chidel also wanted to remove a couple of important references, which was perphaps a mistake. The rest of his edits is about rephrasing, and replacing a word by another ("to" by "through", "tie-break" by "tiebreak"). I don't think my text was incomprehensible and made comprehensible by these edits, so I guess it's a matter of Chidel preferring his prose to mine. Nothing wrong with that, but unless there are some needed clarifications in the lead, I don't think every user should change the text to his preferences. Of course I won't be stiff, and if these style changes appear necessary to others, I'll just accept them. I just wanted to discuss all of that before doing anything. --Don Lope (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• To User:Chidel: Please list the problems in detail when you !vote oppose, thanks—Chris! _ct 19:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Within the last 12 hours, I made 18 edits of this article that were promptly reverted by Don Lope. The purpose of those edits was to illustrate the problems I see with the article and why I believe it is far below standard. Either Don Lope is exercising improper ownership of the article or there is an unwritten rule prohibiting edits of featured list candidate articles. Which is it? Chidel (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • If you involve in a content dispute with Don Lope, please take it to talk page. What I am saying is that it is conventional for reviewers to list issues here, so that the nominators can try to deal with them.—Chris! _ct 05:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      • You asked for the list of problems. I gave it to you. If you can't be bothered to look at it, well, there's nothing more I can do. The bottom line is that this article is far below featured article quality, and Don Lope won't allow any improvements. He says to discuss the problems here instead of editing the article. You say to edit the article instead of discussing them here. Classic catch-22! Chidel (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, I never told you to edit the article. I told you to list the problems here on the nomination page, just like everyone else has done (look at my list above or other nominations for example). This is just a friendly advice. You don't necessarily have to follow it if you don't want to.—Chris! _ct 05:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Chidel, as I wrote twice in edit summaries, and a third time here, I just think that some of your changes need to be discussed to find consensus about what to have in the article. This is not even a special FLC guideline, this is Wikipedia 101. Please list all the problems you have with the article, and perhaps write something more precise about why you think the article is "far below featured article quality" and we will address every issue. --Don Lope (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
            • As you know, I made 18 edits with detailed edit summaries, all of which you summarily reverted. That is my "list" of "all the problems" I "have with the article". Re-reading the list might prove helpful to you. Chidel (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

To be clear about everything, Chidel has left me this message :
"I think you should study WP:Own because repeatedly and summarily reverting others' edits just because they don't agree with the version you created in your sandbox is not a valid reason. The reverts are disruptive and counter-productive."
I have answered with this:
"No need to get testy. Re-read Wikipedia:Consensus : "When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on article talk pages". As User:Chrishomingtang told you, in the case of a GA, FA of FL reviews, "it is conventional for reviewers to list issues [on the review page], so that the nominators can try to deal with them." You should go through the featured list candidates page to see how the process works. Continuing to make major edits (including the removal of sources) while ignoring the review and/or refusing to take part in reviews or discussions as you did is counter-productive. Now, since you refuse to follow conventions and list your issues with the article on the review, I'll try to address your edit summaries, but we will get nowhere, and certainly won't be able to improve the article unless you accept to participate in a regular review/discussion process."

I don't know if he will eventually take part in the review, but I'm going to address his edits anyway. First I have to point out that Chidel's edits are inconsistent, as he has changed the wording of some sentences first, before removing them altogether. He also removed some references, and hasn't addressed that in his edit summaries.
I'm going to write "OK" where I have no problems with the edits, and add comments elsewhere: --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Apart from the removal of big parts of the text at (17), Chidel's issues are not extremely severe, so he has yet to say why he thinks the list is "far below featured article quality". I believe Chidel should have been the one listing his own problems with the list here. I did it in his place only because I want this candidature to move forward and his refusal to take part in the discussion while continuing to edit the page was counter-productive for this FLC process. I hope we can make progress from here. --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(1) The text of all Wikipedia articles refers to this tournament simply as "Wimbledon". Avoid stilted language.

• How can you say all Wikipedia articles use "Wimbledon" when the main article is named The Championships, Wimbledon ? By using both the real name (The Championships) and the common name (Wimbledon) in the lead, I was only trying to avoid repetition. --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Please read carefully what I said. I said that the "text of all Wikipedia articles use 'Wimbledon'". I am not talking about the titles of those articles. Using "The Championships" instead of "Wimbledon" is stilted and overly formal. Chidel (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Changed two occurences in the lead, not because "The Championships" is stitled (I don't think it's a good reason), but to follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions. I've left the first, as it is a link to the main article, which is named The Championships, Wimbledon. --Don Lope (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(2) Really don't need "London, England, Great Britain, United Kingdom".

• OK. I removed "England" but kept "Great Britain", as most sources, including the ATP, WTA and ITF websites locate the tournament in "London, Great Britain". --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom" are different names for the same thing. Chidel (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It's not the same thing. Great Britain is an island. United Kingdom is a state. From the Great Britain article : "the term Great Britain is sometimes used inaccurately to refer to the United Kingdom." --Don Lope (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Assuming your are correct, why do we need to refer to the island? All we need is either "London" (my preference) or "London, United Kingdom". The rest is superfluous, just as "London, England, Great Britain, United Kindom, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Local Group" would be. Chidel (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, I hope I'm correct because I'm only quoting the Great Britain and United Kingdom wikipedia articles here... Anyway, I see this is controversial so let's go for "London, United Kingdom". --Don Lope (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(3) "First week of July", not the "first of July".

• OK. I think we end up with some repetition: "the last week of June and the first week of July", but I admit the previous wording was perhaps confusing. --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(4) Fix various comma problems.

• OK. --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • You didn't fix all of them. There is an extra comma in the sentence beginning with "Wimbledon is currently played each year". Chidel (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    • OK. --Don Lope (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(6 (no No. 5)) Eliminate ambiguities resulting from imprecise usage of "between" and "to".

• OK for the ambiguity around "between", but how is "through" different from "to"? --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "To" is ambiguous because it is uncertain whether the last date is included. For example, "John worked for Wimbledon from 1969 to 1972" is ambiguous because it is uncertain whether John worked there in 1972. No ambiguity results from, "John worked for Wimbledon from 1969 through 1972." Chidel (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't believe there is an ambiguity with "to". I have made some research, and found serious sources using "from...to" : The Guardian : "From Wimbledon 2005 to the US Open of 2007, Federer won eight of the 10 grand slam tournaments", The New York Times : "Sunday’s victory gave Federer his sixth Wimbledon title to go with the five he won from 2003 to 2007", The New York Times : "Bjorn Borg won Wimbledon from 1976 to 1980 without playing a warm-up event." - I'm not saying "through" can't be used, but it appears "to" can be used. --Don Lope (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Then let's use "through". Chidel (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
        • The use of "through" in this context is very American English. Since we're referring to Wimbledon, we ought to be using BritEng, and we'd say "from ... to" or "between". Not ambiguous. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Could you provide a source for those two statements (use British English on a Wiki article dealing with a British subject and that in Britain, the "from ... to" or "between ... and" construction is used instead of "from ... through")? Yes, it is ambiguous. Chidel (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Certainly for the first, by reading WP:ENGVAR, we get "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." As for a citation that British English seldom uses "from ... through ..." well, slightly harder as we all know the rules of English are pretty flexible, but having spoken British English for decades, I can assure you we never use that construction. And if, perchance, it appears on occasion, it would be down the Americanisation of the language, which is a great shame. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Perhaps something worthwhile, though, is a quick glimpse at a few British WP:RSs, such as the BBC- "from ... to", the Daily Telegraph - "between ... and", The Times - "from ... to", Financial Times - "between ... and", The Guardian - "between ... and". It seems that British-based reliable sources are more than happy to use either of these phrases so I don't see an issue with it being used here in an article which ENGVAR suggests should be using British English. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
              • The policy also says, "This is primarily intended to avoid the (unlikely) case in which an article that will be overwhelmingly read by one nationality has been written in another national dialect." Wimbledon obviously is an international event, and I'd wager that there are many more non-Brit, English-speaking readers of this article than otherwise. Chidel (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
              • Thanks, The Rambling Man, for getting my account blocked via an email to User:YellowMonkey. Why would you do that, in secret? 190.146.244.52 (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
                • You were blocked for using open proxies. I very much expect this IP to be blocked also. If you need more advice on why this happens, please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Open proxies. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
                  • It is you that doesn't understand the open proxy policy, which is somewhat surprising for an administrator. Assuming Chidel was using an open proxy, here is the policy that applies: "Open or anonymising proxies ... may be blocked from editing for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked." Thus, the policy does not call for registered users to be blocked. 190.146.244.52 (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
                    • Take it up with the blocking admin. And "assuming Chidel was using an open proxy"... you are Chidel. You have admitted this. So you know you were using an open proxy. How odd. But this is irrelevant to the FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
                      • The Wiki Ombudsman has been contacted about this chain of events. I suspect you'll be hearing from him or her soon, given your role in this. Cheers. 190.146.244.52 (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
                        • Okay, thanks. Now can we get back to the FLC? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(7) Grammatical problems with usage of "due to".

• What's wrong with "due to"? --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Let's avoid this problem entirely by substituting the following language (or something very similar): "World War I prevented the tournament from being held from 1915 through 1918, and World War II prevented the tournament from being held from 1940 through 1945." (It's probable that those wars do not need to be linked.) Chidel (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • We could do that but "Due to" or "because of" is more simple, I believe. "due to" is in the wiktionary. --Don Lope (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
      • When to use "due to" versus "because of" is controversial and confusing. That's why I suggested language that omits both. Chidel (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Nothing controversial of confusing here. There's a grammatical rule surrounding the use of "due to"/"because of" and we should just follow it : actually you got it right with "because of" as it seems "due to" can't be used if the sentence is written that way. Changed from "due to" to "because of". --Don Lope (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(8) Grammatical problem with "constitute".

• This is connected to (1). No problem here if we keep "The Championships". --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(9) Fix awkward phrasing with the winner of the all comers' singles competition automatically winning the tournament.

• Changed to version proposed by Truco (talk · contribs):"Six editions, (1879, 1887, 1891, 1895, 1907, and 1908) crowned the winner of the All Comers' Singles as the defending champions were absents." --Don Lope (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Editions" do not "crown" a winner. In fact, the winner is not "crowned" by anyone. A gentleman simply wins the tournament. This is why the following sentence is better: "The winner of the "All Comers' Singles" competition was automatically the winner of the tournament in 1879, 1887, 1891, 1895, 1907, and 1908 because the defending champion was absent." Chidel (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Changed to "The All Comers' winner was awarded the title six times (1879, 1887, 1891, 1895, 1907, and 1908) as the defending champion was absent." to try and address both your issues and Truco's. --Don Lope (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Would be better to avoid the parenthetical, something like this: "The All Comers' winner was awarded the title six times, in 1879, 1887, 1891, 1895, 1907, and 1908, because the defending champion was absent." Are so-called "Easter-egg" links permitted in featured articles? 190.146.244.52 (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(10) Fix awkward phrasing concerning the abolishment of the challenge round.

• What's awkward with "The challenge round was eventually abolished"? --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Eventually" is unnecessary. Just say, "The challenge round was abolished with the 1922 edition." Chidel (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Alright. --Don Lope (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(11) Clarify the chronological order of the Grand Slam tournaments.

• OK for "chronologically" but why use "but before the US Open."? --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(12) Fix another comma problem.

• OK. --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(13) It's "tiebreak" or "tiebreaker", not "tie-break".

• The source used at the end of that sentence uses "Tie-break" (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis-fast-fan-friendly--but-full-of-faults-1169793.html) --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • So? We're not quoting the source, are we? 190.146.244.52 (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(14) Misplaced "only".

• It is really misplaced ? I'd like another point of view on that. --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Your placement of "only" illustrates a common error in writing. Your location of "only" implies "he played and did no other action" when you are actually trying to say "he played only certain persons". This is why "only" must precede "against" instead of "played". Chidel (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • OK. --Don Lope (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(15) Fix very convoluted sentence concerning the introduction of the tiebreak.

• I removed the "modified version"/"regular version" things. Changed to "until the tie-break was introduced at 8-games-all in 1971 and at 6-games-all in 1979, in every set but the last", per comment by Truco (talk · contribs). And why did you remove two good references to add one from "grandslamtennis.freeukisp.co.uk", which, as Chrishomingtang pointed out on this page, is not a reliable source? --Don Lope (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Better wording: "All sets were decided by a two games difference from 1884 through 1970. In 1971, the tiebreak at 8-all in every set except the fifth set was introduced, with the tiebreak taking place at 6-all beginning with the 1979 event." (Fix the sources as appropriate.) 190.146.244.52 (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(15-again) Fix awkwardly phrased last paragraph

• OK for the first part, except I changed to "and he only won the event twice", per comment by Truco (talk · contribs). Probably not important, but what's wrong with "Without the challenge round"? --Don Lope (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(17) Wimbledon is the main article. Thus, we don't need repetition in this article, which is just a list.

• Those bits about what the tournament is, when it takes place, why it didn't take place from 1915 to 1918, etc., or what it the prize of the champion are no different from what you can find on the List of The Open Championship champions FL. Why should we remove information useful to the readers? --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Featured list criteria 2 requires that "[the list] has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria." 1 and 3 may also apply here.—Chris! _ct 17:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • There's a significant difference between those criteria and a mere list article that unnecessarily duplicates a main article. 190.146.244.52 (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(18) Delete extra quotation mark.

• It was not an extra quotation mark but an possessive apostrophe (All Comers' Singles). But OK, I removed the real quotation marks to avoid confusion. --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(20) The table needs to specify which score the table is talking about, e.g., "Score in final".

• OK. --Don Lope (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(21) The sentence about the trophy needs to be fixed by substituting "has received" for "receives" and deleting the space before the colon.

• Done. --Don Lope (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(22) The prize money sentence needs to be simplified to read as follows: "The gentlemen's singles winner in 2009 received prize money of 850,000 pounds sterling."

• Changed to "In 2009, the gentlemen's singles winner received prize money of 850,000 pounds sterling."

Comments from Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs)

I tried a more subdued color choice. I kept your hues and simply cut the saturation by 75%. It looks more professional and easy on the eyes to me but after taking a look revert it back (or not) and comment. Otherwise on first pass I do like your work. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've got no problems with that. I've only changed the "no competition" color, because it looked too close to the "Challenge round" one after you cut the saturation. If you agree, I'll change to these colors on the other three articles - but tell me what you think of the red/pink used in List of French Open Men's Singles champions, you may want to cut the saturation there, too. --Don Lope (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This color issue was resolved on Fyunck(click)'s talk page, by the way. --Don Lope (talk) 08:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

General

• Dabs, external links check out fine.

Lead

• The Championships, Wimbledon is an annual tennis tournament, created in 1877, and played on outdoor grass courts[1] at the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club (AELTC) in the Wimbledon suburb of London, Great Britain, United Kingdom. -- No need for the commas before and after created in 1877 and unlink the countries per WP:OVERLINK

• Done. --Don Lope (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• The Championships are currently played each year in the last week of June and the first week of July, and constitute the third of the four Grand Slam tournaments, after the Australian Open and the French Open, and before the US Open. -- is the after the part listing the priority in which The Championships fall in?

• Changed to "The Championships are currently played each year in the last week of June and the first week of July, and are chronologically the third of the four Grand Slam tournaments, after the Australian Open and the French Open and before the US Open." --Don Lope (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• It would be best, for length's sake, to cut the sentence after of the four Grand Slam tournaments. No need for the rest of the info.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Done. --Don Lope (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• The gentlemen's singles draw at Wimbledon has expanded from 22 players in 1877 to 128 today. -- The link should come earlier, not here to the 1877 event

• Placed the link at the first occurence of 1877. --Don Lope (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Six editions, in 1879, 1887, 1891, 1895, 1907, and 1908 crowned the winner of the All Comers' Singles as the defending champions were absents. --> Six editions (1879, 1887, 1891, 1895, 1907, and 1908) crowned the winner of the All Comers' Singles as the defending champions were absents.

• Done. --Don Lope (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• From 1877 to 1883, the system used to score sets, in every match but the All Comers' final and the challenge round, was to award the set to the winner of the next game at 5-all. The commas are throwing me off, needs rewording, also what is 5-all?

• Removed the commas and changed to "5-games-all". --Don Lope (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Add a comma before and the challenge round and do you mean 5 games in all?--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Added the comma, and linked "5-games-all" to the Glossary of tennis. --Don Lope (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• All sets were eventually decided by a two games difference starting in 1884, until the tie-break, in each set but the last, was introduced in 1971, at 8-all, and at 6-all in 1979. -- The commas are once again throwing the sentence off, reword

• Removed the commas, changed to "until the tie-break was introduced at 8-games-all in 1971 and at 6-games-all in 1979, in every set but the last." --Don Lope (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm still confused, if the tie break was introduced in 1971, what's the point of mentioning 1979? In addition, what does in every set but the last mean, I see no relation to it with the rest of the sentence. It could be me, but the wording is just throwing me off.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• The tie-break was introduced in 1971. From '71 to '78 it was used at 8-all, and since '79 is has been used at 6-all. "in every set but the last" means it's used the first four sets but not the fifth. I'm going to try another wording : "until the tie-break was introduced in 1971 for the first four sets, at 8-games-all until 1978, and at 6-games-all since 1979." --Don Lope (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Since 1949, the gentlemen's singles champion receives a miniature replica of the event's trophy, a silver-gilt cup created in 1887, with the engraved inscription : "The All England Lawn Tennis Club Single Handed Champion of the World". -- Remove the comma before with

• Done. --Don Lope (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Renshaw's wins, however, from 1882 through 1886 came within the challenge round format, and he only twice won the event after going through a complete draw, in 1881 and 1889. -- The links should come earlier when they are first mentioned (the 1886 link). Reword the and he only twice won --> and he only won the event twice

• Done. --Don Lope (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Table

• What's the purpose of the bold for the names?

• This is the common practice in the tennis project. The winners' names are bolded so that they catch the eye better than the runner-ups'. --Don Lope (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• The bolding is neither necessary nor desirable. Chidel (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have to agree because per MOS:BOLD, there should be no other boldface text in the article except in some circumstances: this is not one of those. Now, if the boldface stood or meant something, then that would be different, but it serves no real purpose.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• OK. --Don Lope (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• In the stats, I see no purpose of bolding the entire row, the name will suffice.

• OK. --Don Lope (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Images

• American Pete Sampras won a record seven titles without the challenge round -- 1)Needs a period 2)Unlink American per WP:OVERLINK

• Unlinked and changed text to "American Pete Sampras won a record seven titles without the challenge round, from 1993 to 1995 and 1997 to 2000." --Don Lope (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Some of the captions are complete sentences so you need to go through and fix that accordingly

• What do you mean here ? All captions should have a period ? --Don Lope (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Some of the captions need periods, not all.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Done. --Don Lope (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

References

• Some of the publishers are not correct, the publishers are not the URL of the website. Take Wimbledon.org for example, the work field should be Wimbledon.org but the publisher would be.. IBM Corp., AELTC

• What do you mean ? "wimbledon.org" is in the work field. None of the references, except the citebook one, use the publisher field. --Don Lope (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Then you need to add the publisher fields.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's OK now. --Don Lope (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Link all publishers with articles or don't link them at all.
• I see no need to have 2 columns for these refs.

• OK. --Don Lope (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment A couple of the images need alternative text per criterion 5b. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Done. --Don Lope (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Pawnkingthree (talk · contribs)

A couple of points:

• I'm unhappy that the Titles By Country section misleadingly has the United States above the United Kingdom because of User:Don Lope's insistence on distinguishing between United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and thereby listing Fred Perry's three wins separately. It's been raised by a number of editors on the talk page, including myself, but has not yet been resolved. I really do not see the problem with using "GBR" throughout - it's the same country, no matter what the political status of Ireland at the time.
  • I actual agree with this. Perhaps a note can be add to clarify that 3 wins are from the time when United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland still exists.—Chris! _ct 23:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I also agree with Pawnkingthree. In either time period, the country was the United Kindom. It's geographical boundaries don't matter. Chidel (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
      • As I wrote on the article's talk page, we can't change from GBR to BRI for the early winners simply because that would be going against the main source. On the subject of adding up British Isles and UK in the champions by country table (which is a different problem), I'm perfectly willing to do it, and add a small lead to the Statistical info section to explain all that, but then what should be done with the Western Germany and unified Germany, with Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic & Slovakia. What should be put together and what should be kept separate ? --Don Lope (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Just a small note : I have added a version of what could be done with the table should we have several state forms in the same row in Rambo's Revenge's comments. --Don Lope (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
      • On second thought : I've just seen that the Wimbledon website separates the UK wins from the British Isles wins ! --Don Lope (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
        • We don't have to slavishly follow what the Wimbledon website does. They're just presenting the same data in a different way. You ask further down if we can "go against the sources" on this, and I believe we can, because it is a style issue rather than a content one. Original research doesn't apply in this case: we can present it how we like. I would say, present in a way that isn't pedantic and confusing! I think your first table is ok, as at least it shows the US correctly in second, although I still think that Rambo Revenge's initial idea of using the modern day equivalents is the best one. I don't like your second attempt I'm afraid -- it's way too complicated. I'm afraid I've had to come out and Oppose because it's clear that the Titles by Country column is going to have the US with the most titles, which is just incorrect.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• A minor issue perhaps, but the image of Sampras is clearly not from Wimbledon as he's not playing in all-white. Is there any way to get hold of an image of him actually playing at the tournament? (I appreciate there may not be a free image available).--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Not only is that picture not from Wimbledon, it's not even from the time period that Sampras played on the regular tennis tour. The picture was taken in 2008 while Sampras was playing on the old man's tour. Chidel (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Oppose from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) Apologies if I have repeated anything above, but it fell under WP:TLDR. Very picky but you could argue that Centre Court is no longer strictly an "outdoor grass court" True. But then most the players never get to Centre Court, and most players on Centre Court don't get to play under the roof (who did it this year ? Safina/Mauresmo, Murray/Wawrinka). I suspect there will be tough discussions about that on wikipedia the day a final is played indoors. For the moment I think we can agree Wimbledon is still an outdoor grass court event. --Don Lope (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Alright. For very picky readers, I added a (referenced) note: Since 2009, Centre Court features a retractable roof, allowing indoor and/or night-time play. --Don Lope (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC) of the single-elimination phase, you haven't mentioned what the "single-elimination phase" is. I assume it is the "knockout format" bit, but it isn't clear what do you think of "the event started with a knockout phase, the All Comers' Singles, whose winner then faced the previous year's champion in a challenge round" Yes, that would be better. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Done. --Don Lope (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Should gentlemen's singles be "Gentlemen's Singles" if not, why is it capitalised in the title? I have no clue was the title is spelled that way. I think it shouldn't be capitalized, but there might be a consensus for the capitals amongst tennis editors so I have left a message on the tennis project discussion page. Waiting for answers now. --Don Lope (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Still no answers, even though there is activity on the page. I'm all for moving this list to "List of Wimbledon gentlemen's singles champions". --Don Lope (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Given your lack of response at the project, I've looked into this a bit. Wimbledon and other news sources seem to use the capitalisation, therefore I recommend you capitalise it in the prose as well. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Done. --Don Lope (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Am I right in thinking in 1880 John Hartley was victories in one match to retain the title, whereas the following year William Renshaw had to win a knockout tournament, then beat Hartley. If so, it seems a bit misleading to use the same notation for their wins, because one involved more matches. You're probably right, though what you said could be true in many, many tennis events, even today, as you often have seeded players who have one less match than the others. Perhaps we could have a symbol, like a (D), next the defending champ's name, so that readers can see more clearly who played through several matches, and who was just waiting for the challenge round. What do you think ? --Don Lope (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Would it be difficult to switch to a tri-colour system. 1) For won All Comer's Singles & Challenge Round. 2) Just won Challenge Round (i.e. defending champ) and 3) Won All Comer's Singles (and was overall winner because lack of defending champ meant no Challenge Round)? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Very interesting. I had applied the (D) idea to my sandbox version of the Wimbledon list to see how it would look but your option seems much better. Done that. (and will do it on the List of US Open men's singles champions, that also used a challenge round system for a while) --Don Lope (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I tweaked one colour to give more contrast, but I think that this is a much better system of doing things. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I don't think we should be using IOC codes but the more generic ones. So I think TCH -> CSK Is it necessary ? Because IOC codes are the ones used nearly everywhere on the tennis project, not only in articles but also using the 'flagicon' template, and some sources (including this very article's main source). --Don Lope (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I was getting confused as for some reason I thought SUI was ISO and I knew that SUI looked correct. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Please fix the bunched-up edit links. I think it's OK now, but actually my browser didn't show any problem in the first place, so I can't really see if it's solved. --Don Lope (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Yep that looks okay now. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC) This is just observation, and probably doesn't have the backing of WP:TENNIS but I'm interested in some discussion. To me 6–7(10) is completely ambiguous, unless you know the convention. I think the confusion is added because in 7–6(9) the bracket refers to the opposition score (i.e. won 11–9) and in 6–7(10) it refers to overall winner's score (i.e. lost 10–12) yet the bracket is in the same place. This is confusing to a newcomer: Wouldn't 610–7 7–69 be clearer. I notice this is what this years tournament bracket does. This is what the bracket does, but we would not use the "sup" thing in prose, and we wouldn't have the tie-break score after the "6", as in your "610–7" example. 6–7(10), 7–6(9) would be the format used in all articles, and, as far as I can tell, in every reliable source. I don't think wikipedia should come up with a way of writing score different from everything readers could see in sources, so the best I can propose would be to link the "Score in the final" column to the Tennis score article. --Don Lope (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Actually the Wimbledon RS uses the whole tie break score in parenthesis following the set score. My point is someone could easily think that in AvB, 6–7(10) would mean B got 7 sets and 10 points in the tie-break. But it doesn't, the parenthesis following players B score is actually player A's score. This is quite unnatural so would be confusing for those unfamiliar with the system. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC) You're right, the Wimbledon article writes things differently. So let's say most sources would use 6–7(10), 7–6(9). I completely agree with your point, this system can be confusing if you're unfamiliar with the convention - but that is true of many, if not all types of sport scoring systems. Using 6–7(10), 7–6(9) is still the most common form of writing TB scores in sources and on wikipedia so I believe we should keep that. I saw that the List of The Open Championship champions FL had a link to par so that's why I proposed having the "Score in the final" header linked to Tennis score to help readers. What do you think ? --Don Lope (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Um, a link to Tennis score#Scoring a set might help, however if you adopt the Wimbledon source method, and give the complete tie break score that would eliminate any ambiguity. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC) I prefer to keep the current score system. Doing otherwise would probably create inconsistency within the tennis project. I've linked the column header to Tennis score#Scoring a set. --Don Lope (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC) No offense, but I think being unambiguous is more important than what the Tennis WP uses, as lets face it, WP:TENNIS doesn't have any existing featured content to set a precedent. Again if consensus is against this I'll back down. TRM do you have a view on this, because I know you review featured content and are active at WP:TENNIS? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC) No offense taken. I thought we should follow the tennis project's most common practice, but if we can go against it then I guess wimbledon.org's option is the best. I was looking at a USTA document about US Open champions yesterday and saw that the early 70s tie-breaks were not stopped at 7 w/ a two-points diff, but at 5 w/ a two-points diff, and I realised that the List of US Open Men's Singles champions had "2–6, 6–4, 7–6(2), 6–3" for the 1970 final score, which could lead a reader to think the 3rd set TB was won (7–2), when it was actually won (5–2). So perhaps full TB scores is the best option. --Don Lope (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I think that would be best. I've asked The Rambling Man to comment, but in the light of your revalation about tie-breaks previously going to 5 that makes me more against the existing format and in favour of full tiebreak scores. Also, as the first (potentially) featured tennis content I think we should set a precendent for these things. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Let's set a precedent then. I've written all TB scores the way it's done on the Wimbly website. What do you think ? --Don Lope (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I've always been concerned by the assumptions tennis articles make with non-expert readers when it comes to tie-breaks. I think the current solution is by far the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC) That's what I hoped you'd say. Striking this and, to Don, keep going because there is some really good progress being made despite the mass of comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I think for "Champions by country" the better method would be to only use current countries i.e. Czechoslovakia -> Czech Republic, West Germany -> Germany, British Isles -> United Kingdom. This is especially because the same player, Borg, represents both Germany & West Germany in this table. I don't think we should replace former countries by current countries in the table. What could be done, on the other hand, would be to stack two names, like this: Country Amateur era Open era Combined First title Last title British Isles ¤ United Kingdom 35 0 35 1877 1936 United States 18 15 33 1920 2000 But even though I can imagine having "British Isles" and "UK" together, or even "West Germany" and "Germany" in the same box, I really believe we shouldn't have "Czechoslovakia" and "Czech Republic" in the same row. It would make no sense, should Wimbledon have Czech and Slovakian winners in the future, to have their wins counted together. --Don Lope (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC) On second thought : I've just seen that the Wimbledon website separates the UK wins from the British Isles wins ! --Don Lope (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Yes but that Wimbledon source combines W Germany & Germany. I agree that you shouldn't have Czechoslovakia and Czech Rep. in the same column. What I'm saying is for "By country" you should attribute the Czechoslokia win to what that country has become, the Czech Rep. (and if the had been a Czechoslovakian winner from what has now become Slovakia it would be attributed to Slovakia). Just like West Germany is accredited to the county it became, German. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC) I understand how West Germany and Germany could be in the same column, as FRG and GDR "merged", if you could say that, into one country. But it's not exactly the same thing for countries that "split". I believe it would be a little misleading (and confusing) to imply that Jan Kodeš won a title for the Czech Republic, or, had his opponent, Tbilisi-born, Soviet Union competitor Alex Metreveli won that year, to have it count for Georgia. Take Martina Navratilova : there is already a heated discussion on the tennis project to determine if she was playing for Czechoslovakia, for the United States, or was stateless when she won Wimbledon. It would become even more confusing if her wins were listed for Czech Republic in a "Champions by country" table. I thought that my system was the most simple : Arthur Gore won for the British Isles so that's one title for the British Isles, Fred Perry won for the UK so that's one for the UK, Becker won in '86 for West Germany so that's one for West Germany, and Stich won in '91 for Germany so that's one for Germany. I never thought it would be so controversial. In the end, I think that Czechoslovakia winners, and eventual Czech and Slovakian winners should be counted separately, I can accept the idea that FRG and Germany wins can "merge", and for the British Isles/UK problem, well... I've found plenty of references (see Andrwsc's comments below) showing the British Isles as a clearly different entity from the current United Kingdom so I'd be inclined to do what WP:No original research says : "stick to the sources". What do you think ? --Don Lope (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC) I still think going with present-day named countries is the best option. (For your Georgian competitor they still had the Georgian SSR back then). I've always thought go with the then country when you're in the year-by-year table, but when you're summarising I'd have taken modern-day equivalents, however if consensus is against this then so be it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC) I'm happy with the current compromise, but for future reference (and possibly FLCs) here is my closing view. In this example, if a player from the Czech Republic was to win a title in future, I'd hope to see a similar sort of note and grouping explaining past winners represented Czechoslovakia etc. But that's something for another day. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Nothing you can do, but it is a real shame File:Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions.jpg doesn't contain the whole board. I agree. I still think the picture is useful, but I'll be looking for a better (and updated one) if possible. --Don Lope (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay I've capped my initial comments. All stuff now from me should be minor and easy to fix. Good work so far, because you've been give alot to deal with at this candidacy.

More Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

• Any refs that are PDF (e.g. 2nd general, [1] & [9]) should have format=PDF in the citation template.
  • Done. --Don Lope (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• Please read Wikipedia:Captions#Wording and add periods to image captions where appropriate.
  • Done. --Don Lope (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I think there are a few where there shouldn't be now, but hopefully another reviewer has the time to explain, or do it themselves. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• According to the key you've provided the 1913 in the second table should be italicised because of Title defended in the challenge round. I don't think that is sensible because the second table gives no context for the challenge round, so the key probably needs a reword.
  • I'm not sure I understand. 1913 is italicised in the second table. --Don Lope (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    • No I meant the "Champions by country" table. The key aplies to both those tables but I'm not suggesting you italicise the year in the latter table, just reword or split the key. 19:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
      • The key's now split. --Don Lope (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There might be a tiny bit more tweaking needed to the lead's wording but other than that it is looking really good. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm off on a break now so won't be able to see this come to fruition and support, but I give you moral encouragement while I'm away. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from Andrwsc (talk · contribs)

Oppose for now, as long as "British Isles" (and the invented country code of "BRI") appear on the page. Yes, I see that the Wimbledon web page uses those terms, but I have never seen "British Isles" listed as a nation anywhere else. I think that either "United Kingdom" or "Great Britain" is acceptable, with an explanatory footnote that lists the totals for the UK of GB&I and UK of GB&NI periods. As for the other country codes (per comments above), I am certain that tennis is a sport that consistently uses IOC codes (e.g. SUI instead of CHE), so I am comfortable with those (including historic codes for URS, FRG, TCH, YUG, etc.) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Another comment: I think it would be better to swap the player name and country columns in the main table (name first), as currently there is more emphasis on the country, but these are individual players. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, the subject of British Isles/Great Britain is quite complicated. Can we go against the sources ? Wouldn't it be original research ? (these are genuine questions by the way, I don't know what the policy is when it comes to questioning the sources)The entity "British Isles" and the code BRI seem to be common in tennis : they were also used in Davis Cup (see this of this). --Don Lope (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Other reliable sources using "British Isles"/BRI : an article from CBC, a champions list from CNN/Sports Illustrated, a document about Davis Cup from the USTA, an article from The Guardian, using the info from wimbledon.org. For what it's worth, here is a discussion at the tennis-warehouse forums (not a reliable source, of course) in which BRI-G (for British Isles-Great Britain), and BRI-I (for British Isles-Ireland) are used, and a two-year old wikipedia discussion, apparently based on a reliable source, also using BRI, BRI-G and BRI-I. --Don Lope (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I am aware of the "British Isles" designation for Davis Cup competition from my editing there—indeed, I made this edit to {{DavisCupbox}} specifically to support the display name of "British Isles" for the wikilink to Great Britain Davis Cup team. But that's the difference: the "British Isles" at the Davis Cup were (retrospective) team names, not the name of any nation. I cannot support a wikilink to the British Isles article (especially with all the turmoil associated with it!) in the "Champions by country" table. I would prefer something like {{flagicon|United Kingdom}} [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|British Isles]], with an appropriate explanatory footnote, if those totals must be kept distinct from the current "GBR" totals. But as written now, showing "British Isles" as a "Former country ¤", is entirely inappropriate. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Point taken. So you would agree to something like that ?

Challenge round win

Active player

Former country ¤

Country	Amateur era	Open era	Combined	First title	Last title
United States	18	15	33	1920	2000
British Isles ¤	32	0	32	1877	1909
United Kingdom	3	0	3	1934	1936

• • • Perhaps we can add "entity" next to "country" in the key and/or in the first column header to avoid possible confusion ? The only thing is I'm not sure what the term "British Isles" exactly covers, tennis-wise. I first thought that is was only the UK of Great Britain and Ireland, but if it includes the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, then a link to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is not entirely accurate. This is why linking to British Isles seemed appropriate to me. What do you think ? --Don Lope (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Better, but I think it needs a more detailed explanatory note than just the "¤" link to the legend note calling it a "Former country" (which isn't accurate). Take a look at the footnotes at All-time Olympic Games medal table to see how we handled this sort of thing there (esp. #17 for GBR). I'm looking for something that says to the reader that "British Isles" is a term used by Wimbledon (and Davis Cup) to denote the UK of a century ago, for whatever reasons. It's just too "bare" and incorrect to display "British Isles" with the only explanation that it is a "Former country". Footnotes could also help explain why FRG and GER are not combined. I also think that something ought to be done to the top table to explain the unusual "BRI" abbreviation, as that is undoubtedly a "country code" that many readers would be very unfamiliar with. I've spent countless hours on Olympic articles, flag articles (using country code templates), etc. and this is the first time I've seen that one!! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Alright. What about a note saying "Entity used by tennis players from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands until 1922, and represented by the abbrevation (BRI)." ? We could put a link to the note next to "British Isles" in the "Champions by country" table and next to the first occurrence of "BRI" in the main table. --Don Lope (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Yeah, something like that. But "British Isles" is a name or label, not an "entity", and it is used now to refer to those players, but I doubt it was used at the time. Also, I think it is pedantic overkill to mention the Isle of Man or Channel Islands since none of the players listed in the table came from either of those locations. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
            • No "Isle of Man" ? OK, what about "Label used for tennis players from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland until 1922, and represented by the abbrevation (BRI)." ? --Don Lope (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
              • Yeah, that will work. I had checked all player articles for "BRI" to confirm all birthplaces, and none were outside England, Ireland, or Scotland. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
                • Done. Other users currently dispute the use of Czechoslovakia, West Germany and Germany, so I'll wait to see what's decided and eventually I'll add similar notes for these countries. --Don Lope (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
                  • I think it would be much more preferable to use "GBR" throughout and then add a footnote to say, "known as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland until 1922, and then "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from 1922 onwards" or something like that. This would solve the problem of the Titles By Country totals being incorrect. Like Andrwsc, I have never seen "BRI" anywhere else, and like he says, "British Isles" is not a nation, never has been never will be - it refers to two land masses, the island of Great Britain and the island of Ireland. Just because the Wimbledon website uses this bizarre label, does not mean we have to. Just keep it simple. 99% of our readers will not care about the pre and post 1922 distinction, and for those who do we can put in a footnote. Believe me, the country that I am from in 2009 is the same country as Fred Perry in the 1930s and William Renshaw in the 19th century. It's ludicrous to have it listed as a "former country."--Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
                    • Pawnkingthree, I think I understand the problem: we're simply not talking about the same thing. I'm talking about what country/team/label/entity the players are representing, while you're talking about what country they are from. These are two entirely different things, which explains why we can't seem to find common ground. Of course Renshaw and Perry both came from the UK, but one represented the "British Isles/BRI" label (like other players represented the "Australasia/ANZ" label), and the other represented the UK. I have no doubt that the main table should mention what countries/labels the players were representing, but perhaps the "Champions by country" table should be different. If this table reflects what countries/labels are represented (the way it is done on the Wimbledon website), then it should stay the way it is now, with 33 wins for the US and 32 for the British Isles. If, on the other hand, this table simply says are countries were the champions from, then I guess we do have 35 players from the UK, and the question shifts to the status of Becker's late eighties wins, and of Jan Kodes' '73 title. Becker was from West Germany before being from unified Germany, and Kodes was definitely from Czechoslovakia. So, should go for that type of table, and should we have UK-35, West Germany-3, Germany-1, Czechoslovakia-1 ? --Don Lope (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
                      • OK, I think I get where you're coming from now. I'm not sure your argument really holds up, as tennis isn't a team sport (Davis Cup excepted) and certainly at Wimbledon the the players aren't "representing" anything other than themselves - especially not in Renshaw's day when all the players were from the same country anyway. Their nationality is an interesting bit of extra information but not anything official. Hoever, in the interests of getting this resolved, if we go with your UK-35 West Germany-3, Germany-1, Czechoslovakia-1 suggestion, in the Champions by Country table, I'll strike my Oppose. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
                      • I would agree with this. My preferences are:
                        1. Use "GBR" exclusively (i.e. {{flag|GBR}}) in the table of winners. For the first instance, it is ok to add a footnote that says the Wimbledon website uses "BRI" to refer to "British Isles", meaning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
                        2. In the summary table, show both the country names and country codes. This serves as a sort of legend for the upper table, especially if the page is printed and the wikilinks aren't available. For example: {{flag|United Kingdom}} (GBR). Again, this entry ought to have an explanatory footnote stating that these totals include both pre-1922 and post-1922 winners, and that the Wimbledon website refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland era as "British Isles (BRI)".
                        3. I would not be opposed to combining West Germany (FRG) with Germany (GER), and this is probably consistent with the UK. (It's the same country, but with different territorial limits in different eras.) But if you keep them distinct, that is ok with me. But in either case, it is essential to have explanatory footnotes to say that totals are combined or not. A simple "former country" legend key is insufficient.
                        4. Kodeš win for TCH must remain listed as such. There are no Czech Republic champions to combine with (or not), so it wouldn't make sense to use anything other than Czechoslovakia. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
                        • I've changed the table to have "UK-35, West Germany-3, Germany-1, Czechoslovakia-1", and added country codes and footnotes similar to the ones from the all-time Olympic Games medal table. I still think keeping "BRI" in the main list with an explanatory footnote is a more accurate option. I've kept Germany and West Germany separate but I would not be opposed to combining them too. --Don Lope (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
                          • Could you change footnote 'e' from:
                            Thirty-two wins by players representing the British Isles (BRI, 1801–1922), three wins by players representing the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (GBR, 1922–present).
                            to:
                            Thirty-two wins by players representing the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1877–1922), designated "British Isles" (BRI) by the AELTC, plus three wins by players representing the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (GBR, 1922–present).
                            I think combining FRG with GER would be uncontroversial here (unlike the Olympic pages, where GDR results get in the way of doing that), as that would be cleaner, and more consistent with the UK treatment. I also don't think you need to say much about Czechoslovakia, especially about not combining results with those of CZE and SVK, as there aren't any! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
                            • Changed to "Thirty-two wins by players from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801–1922), plus three wins by players from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (GBR, 1922–present)." They represented "British Isles" so we if mention the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in the footnote instead, I think it's better to switch from "representing" to "from" and remove the bit about "British Isles". I merged Germany/West Germany, updating the footnote, and removed the Czechoslovakia footnote, which is probably unnecessary until a Slovakian or a Czech wins this. I think it's good now, and it shouldn't be too controversial. I'll adopt the same system on the US, Australian and French Open champions lists. --Don Lope (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
                              • Great, this is really close!! I think it might be good to also attach footnote 'b' to the UK row alongside footnote 'e'. Perhaps change the text of footnote 'b' to: The AELTC uses "British Isles" (BRI) to refer to tennis players from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801–1922), distinct from "Great Britain" (GBR) for players from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1922–present). I think that last change would make everything crystal clear for the reader. You could remove the need for "GBR" to be mentioned in footnote 'e'. The other thing I see on the AELTC abbreviation list is that they do not use FRG to refer to West Germany, and combine that era into "GER". So perhaps we should use {{flag|West Germany|name=GER}} in the upper table, and omit the country codes from footnote 'f'. I think that would complete the task from my perspective! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
                                • I'd rather keep FRG in the main table, I believe it's more accurate. Done all the other UK/BRI/AELTC/GBR things (except I changed The AELTC uses "British Isles" to refer... to "British Isles" (BRI) used for players... - I thought mentioning the AELTC made it sound like only Wimbledon uses British Isles/BRI. --Don Lope (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
                                  • This is all fine by me. Oppose now struck.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 00:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Oppose – As a longtime tennis fan, it greatly excites me to see a drive to get tennis-related pages featured. Unfortunately, I saw many problems and confusing elements when I read the list. Any page that does something original is going to have rough edges, but the FL standards must be upheld either way, and I don't feel that this meets them at the moment. "The gentlemen's singles draw at WImbledon has expanded from 22 players in 1877 to 128 today." Try to avoid having a time-specific element like "today" in here. I removed the sentence, which I don't think was necessary. It didn't give sufficient information about different draw sizes over the years, and I don't think a list's lead is the right place to give the number of competitors year-by-year for 122 editions. --Don Lope (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC) "The All Comers' winner was awarded the title six times as the defending champion was absent." When the parenthetical bit is removed, it becomes clear that "as" doesn't work well here. What do you think of "in the absence of the defending champion" ? --Don Lope (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Sounds good. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Done. --Don Lope (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC) "In 1968, Wimbledon entered the Open era, allowing both amateurs and professionals to compete." Who wasn't allowed to compete beforehand? I know that it was an amateur-only tournament, but the general reader will be confused. You're right. Would it be clearer with "In 1968, Wimbledon entered the Open era, allowing professionals to compete alongside amateurs" ? --Don Lope (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Is it worth mentioning that Wimbledon is the only major that has no tie-breaks in the fifth set? That's come into play a few times recently. Actually the Australian and French Open have no TB in the fifth. It's the USO that's outside the norm, being the only major with a fifth set tie-break (it will be worth mentioning it on the USO champions list). --Don Lope (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC) This is what happens when you bring a tennis list here so soon after Federer–Roddick. :-) Giants2008 (17–14) 02:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC) "at 8-games-all until 1978, and at 6-games-all since 1979." Change numbers to words per WP:MOSNUM. Done. --Don Lope (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Remove space before colon in third paragraph. Done. --Don Lope (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC) "850,000 pounds sterling." Usually, dollar amounts are given in this form: $850,000. Changed to £850,000. --Don Lope (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Not sure if two columns with the same header (Country) is acceptable. What would be the problem created ? --Don Lope (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC) I believe it creates accessibility issues, but I could be wrong on that. On the other hand, I'm certain that having multiple sub-headings titled Key does create accessibility issues. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Removed the Key sub-headings. --Don Lope (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Old images need to be checked. For example, the person who uploaded the Anthony Wilding photo had his facts wrong; the given license demands publication before 1923, not creation.
  • All the others seem fine. I'm going to see if I can find further info about that Wilding photo. --Don Lope (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I knew I had seen that Wilding photo elsewhere. It is part of the George Grantham Bain collection of the Library of Congress, on which there are no known restrictions. So I've uploaded this version, and switched to it on the Wimbledon list. --Don Lope (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I looked at the images myself and found a couple of concerns. The William Renshaw image lacks evidence that the author has been deceased for more than 70 years. The same applies for the Doherty brothers photo, and there's no proof that the Fred Perry image was made publicly avaliable more than 70 years ago. The Bjorn Borg photo has a speedy deletion tag for lack of source info, and it looks like a copyright violation. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I haven't found anything confirming we can use the Renshaw/Doherty/Perry pics, and unfortunately the Borg pic does seem to be a copyright violation, so I've removed the four problematic images, and added four new ones, from the Bundesarchiv (René Lacoste.jpg, Henri Cochet.jpg), in Australian PD (Jack Crawford 01.jpg), or under CC-BY license (Jimmy Connors cropped.jpg). --Don Lope (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• In the captions, I see informal words like "recordman" and "Grand Slammer".
  • Removed these. --Don Lope (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Why was there a walkover in 1931? That might be worth explaining in a note.
  • I added a footnote, which is itself referenced, and I did the same thing for the 1911 final, in which a player retired because of fatigue. --Don Lope (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Cites needed for the photos of the court and last year's final. The lead has no verification of either.
  • Done. --Don Lope (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• There should be a note saying that year links go to articles on tournaments. Otherwise, readers may assume that the links are only for years, which aren't useful.Giants2008 (17-14) 14:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The FLs on which I have based my work (the golf majors lists like List of The Open Championship champions) don't have notes like that. Is it really necessary ? (perhaps am I so used to having such links in tables that I don't even see the potential confusion) --Don Lope (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • First I've ever heard of this idea Giants2008. Not sure it fits in with our regular way of linking things. Is this a precedent? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • There is most certainly a precedent. See the lists at Template:NBACoach for example. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Some do, some don't. I think it's optional. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Perhaps a more elegant solution would be to rename the column "Championship" rather than "Year"? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Most that have been promoted in the past year are. Your second option is a good alternative. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
            • "Championship" is a good idea but it would make the column really wide for its content. What about having a note next to the first occurrence of a year link ? It's more elegant than a link in the header, and less disturbing for the column width than using "Championship". I did that in my sandbox version of the page. --Don Lope (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
              • Perfect, but I would put the note in the header of the column rather than the first occurence. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
                • Alright, I tried something else in my sandbox version: the note is in the header, and I've centered all year links, the way it's done in the golf majors lists, to avoid having unelegant blank space. What do you think ? --Don Lope (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
                  • Fine with me. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
                    • Done that. --Don Lope (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I got a beef with the US Open one, which since you have Agassi-Australia, Borg-French, Sampras-Wimbledon, then the US one needs to highlight the open era at the top with Federer-US Open because he is the only one to win five consecutive in the Open Era, which I assume and is the standards for the other ones because their was greater champions pre-open era. Thanks, I will and have changed it! Furthermore, I added an open era sentence because it is relavent in the opening like the pre-open era.TW-RF (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to ask for a withdrawal of this nomination, per suggestion by The Rambling Man, only to restart the process immediately and give a new boost to this list's review. --Don Lope (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, withdrawn (even I had an attack of the WP:TLDRs).... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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