Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/June 2012

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 20:09, 27 June 2012 [1].

---

List of accolades received by Ed, Edd n Eddy

Nominator(s): Khanassassin ☪ 18:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. :) Khanassassin ☪ 18:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Considering the series is already over (and hence likely already received all of its accolades), I think the list violates Criterion 3b ("...and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.") Both the lead and the table could easily fit in the parent article. Ruby 2010/2013 18:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• I withdraw this candidate. --Khanassassin ☪ 12:56, 27 June 2012 (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 Giants2008 20:32, 18 June 2012 [2].

---

List of Sym-Bionic Titan episodes

Nominator(s): Khanassassin ☪ 19:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria. :) Khanassassin ☪ 19:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments — Leaning to Oppose

• Lead image is dull, and there is no caption. What it is? Is it a poster, or what?
  • Ah, there's no need for the image. It's purely decorative. Removed. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Why is this list in Sym-Bionic Titan article? Unneeded. Remove from there.*
  • Done. --Khanassassin ☪ 16:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• created by Dexter's Laboratory, Samurai Jack and Star Wars: Clone Wars creator Genndy Tartakovsky. → Genndy Tartakovsky. We don't need to no everything he created before
  • Done. --Khanassassin ☪ 16:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• It concluded on April 9, 2011 → The first episode was almost a year long? Re-write to explain better. For example, it aired its last episode.
  • Done. --Khanassassin ☪ 16:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• and similar? What does that mean?
  • etc... But, it's not needed. Removed. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Note that is American
  • Done. --Khanassassin ☪ 16:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• It animated, yes? What type of animated show. For example, animated science fiction television series
  • Done. --Khanassassin ☪ 16:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That's the lead. Have you taken this to peer review? TBrandley 16:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• I withdraw this nomination. --Khanassassin ☪ 18:42, 18 June 2012 (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 Giants2008 20:32, 18 June 2012 [3].

---

List of West Virginia Mountaineers in the NFL Draft

Nominator(s): Swcrowe^message 08:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets Wikipedia's FL Criteria Swcrowe^message 08:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose some work to do here.

• I thought there were something odd looking here, your headings are all one level too low...
• You could expand the lead, for a list this long it could easily be doubled in size, three sizeable paragraphs.
• The list is a list of people but no people are mentioned at all in the lead.
• Talley caption needs a period.
• Follow WP:HEAD, e.g. External Links -> External links.
• Please use {{dagger}} and {{double dagger}} for WP:ACCESS rather than just the plain symbols.
• All tables should comply with MOS:DTT for screen readers with respect to row and col scopes, and captions where applicable.
• When sorting by round, the players with equal round number should then sort by pick.
• Sortable table so all instances of linkable items should be linked every time.
• Some players don't have articles, but aren't redlinked, why not?
• Not much point in having the Notes col sortable.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – May I ask what is citing the table? I don't see a general reference, or specific citations for players who don't have notes. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:24, 7 June 2012 (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 Giants2008 20:32, 18 June 2012 [4].

---

List of number-one singles of 2006 (New Zealand)

Nominator(s): Till 07:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I think it meets the Featured list criteria. Till 07:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments quickies...

• I've seen some of these lists merged together, something to consider, e.g. "singles of the 2000s" or "singles of 2006–09".

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

*Three dab links, Chris Brown, Fergie and James Morrison. Done. Till 03:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC) While the image captions are interesting, they're a little wordy. Would tone it down a bit. "During this year" just "the" year. Done. Till 03:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC) The lead is pretty dull, just a re-working of the table. Perhaps someone got something certified? Perhaps someone broke a record? Perhaps something interesting happened like that? I've rewritten the lead, there are a couple of achievements etc. in there. Till 07:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC) "English girl group Sugababes (pictured) earned" no need for "pictured", kind of obvious, and I'm not sure about "English", I think we'd normally refer to them as British. Done. Till 03:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC) ""Nelly Furtado (pictured)" again, no need for "pictured". Done. Till 03:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC) "Crazy"* - what's the * for? Removed Till 03:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC) S'ok as a list, just not amazing. The refs reflect that, you've just about used nothing but primary sources to do this. I'd look to include some imagination (encyclopaedically of course) into the lead as a minimum. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC) This is only a New Zealand list not like Billboard or the UK. NZ is a very minor music market. Till 03:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose under 3(b) principles. It's exactly the same situation as Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one singles in 2009 (New Zealand)/archive1, which was thought not to be viable by itself. The 2009 list is now a redirect to List of number-one singles from the 2000s (New Zealand), and I don't see what this 2006 list adds to the decade list. Bencherlite^Talk 09:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh really, and how come the lists for United States get to stay? What makes them so special and absolved of being merged into a decade list? (Yeah, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but still). Till 08:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2002 (U.S.)/archive1, to take the first example I found, was promoted in March 2009. In April 2009, the FL criteria were changed, inter alia to introduce what we now know and love as 3(b). Whilst it was nominated for delisting on other grounds in February 2010, no-one raised the 3(b) point. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one singles in 2009 (New Zealand)/archive1 is from July 2010. In other words, if the US year lists predate the criteria change then standards are now different, and they would be vulnerable to a delist nomination at FLRC. The fact that they haven't been (yet) doesn't mean that this list gets a free pass on 3(b) grounds. Bencherlite^Talk 08:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The commenter on the 2009 list highlights a short lead as the problem, while also stating his personal preference to have a decade list. But the lead in this article is much longer and with more depth/clarity. There is also an extra table in this article. The year is also notable for containing the #500th chart-topper in New Zealand. Till 11:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

sigh he expresses a view based on point 3(b) of the criteria, and backs it up with links to other nominations where year lists haven't been promoted when the same issue has been raised. Just because the lead for this list is longer than the other one was, or there's a minor piece of trivia about the 500th no.1 single in NZ, doesn't mean that you're going to convince me that this couldn't reasonably form part of another list - the content is there in the decade list already, as indeed is the factoid about the 500th single! Bencherlite^Talk 12:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Read his entire statement. The lead is short and the whole table could concievably go into 11 single lines. Therefore I don't think it is large enough (3b). In other words, he doesn't think it meets 3b because of the short lead and the overall size of the article in general. Looking at the other links, reviewers seem to note the shortness of the lists as reasons for opposing. Look at this featured list and it's same length as this one. Your oppose is ignorant and superficial. Till 13:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Please, try to remain calm and civil. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, Bencherlite also. Clearly if his opinion is as you describe, the remainder of the community will find a consensus in disagreement with him and in favour of your opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

My apologies if I came across in an impolite way; I have struck the opening word of my reply. That 2006 US list, like the 2002 list I mentioned earlier, was promoted in 2009 when standards and indeed the criteria were very different; OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good line here, really, because the 3(b) issues about the 2002/2006 US lists have never been raised by anyone. Perhaps it's time to bring them to FLRC, I don't know. Let's see what anyone else has to say about the 3(b) issue, and in whose favour consensus falls. Bencherlite^Talk 14:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, the claim in the lead that "During 2006, fifteen artists earned their first number-one single in New Zealand, either as a solo or featured artist: [list of names]" is unreferenced and not immediately obviously backed up by any of the content in the table. Yes, they had number ones, but you would need to show that these were their first no.1s in NZ. Bencherlite^Talk 14:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Till 13:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Content fork of List of number-one singles from the 2000s (New Zealand) (3b). Goodraise 23:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Content fork, 3b violation. NapHit (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Mmm there's definitely consensus that the article violates 3b. Can someone close this please? Till 03:29, 19 June 2012 (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 Giants2008 20:32, 18 June 2012 [5].

---

1964 Summer Paralympics medal table

Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it think that it meets the criteria. Thanks. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A few Comments

• The image requires alt text, (an image of a medal winner would be nice too, understand though if none are available)
• Refs 9-11 are not found (dartchery, snooker and table tennis)
• Why are Ireland and Fiji listed when they didn't win a medal? This doesn't appear to be standard practice on any other wiki pages.
• Why were there more gold medals awarded than silver (there is an explanation for bronze, but I don't see a corresponding one for gold/silver discrepancy)
• "The Paralympics are run in parallel with the Olympic Games." the dates given for the paralympics are Nov. 3-12, while the 64 olympics were October 10-24. I'm confused about this (is it a general statement, or Tokyo specific?)
• Why the link to the 1964 Summer Olympics medal table? Are the Paralympics really dependent on the Olympics? Do they not stand out as an event in itself? Perhaps a better link would be "See also: Olympic medal table" as is done on 2008 Summer Paralympics medal table or simply getting rid of it.
• Dick Thompson doesn't appear to be the same one who won medals that paralympics.
• Link United States at the 1964 Paralympics in the second paragraph (mention of most medals one), not the third (mention of Dick Thompson as multiple medalist) Ravendrop 04:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

All Done. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Support Ravendrop 07:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Support, looks OK to me. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 13:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose unless I can be convinced why this cannot be reasonably included in the main article, i.e. 1964 Summer Paralympics. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to tell, This list has 17 NOCs. Generally, if there are more than 10, we keep the top 10 in the main article (as in 1968 Summer Paralympics, and a separate list for the complete tally. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't need a separate list if the main article is even smaller than the list itself... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

In that case, 1968 Summer Paralympics and 1972 Summer Paralympics are also smaller than their lists, however both the lists are FLs. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, as ever, just because that's the case then, it doesn't mean it's the case now. Let's see what others think. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comments from Crisco 1492

• If this was actually an IWAS World Games, shouldn't it be made explicit that only wheelchair users were accepted (if true)?
• The paragraph with persons who won multiple medals should have a lead-in sentence, to improve flow.
• Why is the information about the US repeated?

Also, I'd like to note (in response to The Rambling Man above) that just because an article is a stub now, that doesn't mean it always will be; should the article ever be properly developed, I think a full medal table would be too much on top of all the text. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that articles can be expanded, but there's really no justification now for a separate list article. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Prose looks fine (although a more skilled copyeditor may find issues), referencing looks okay, I couldn't find any flaws with the table itself. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Really concerned about some of the writing I found. The non-free image in the lead doesn't have any rationale for this article. Even if it did, you don't need a non-free logo to help understand a list better, so it would fail to meet the non-free content criteria anyway. I strongly suggest removing the image, even if it is the only one avaliable for the list. "The Paralympics are run in the the same city...". Repeated word here. Not sure why three editors are supporting if something like that went undetected for all this time. Could move the Japan link up a sentence to where its performance at the Paralympics is discussed. "Athletes with outstanding performance included Margaret Harriman of Rhodesia won two gold medals in archery, Serge Bec of France won two individuals gold medals". Needs a full-scale rewrite due to a disturbing number of prose issues. How was this not found before? Could add "the" in "Dick Thompson of United States". "United States's Ron Stein...". Should start with "The", and the "s" after States' isn't needed. The apostrophe is still desirable, and is now needed after States." Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Medal table: Might as well use the NPC abbreviation here, since you gave it earlier. This wasn't done, but it's a minor point so I won't push too hard on it. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Reference 5 needs a publisher. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Forgot to say that it should be italicized. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Done. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Left responses above. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Done. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I have to agree with TRM that this is a 3b violation: given the short size of the main article, this list could reasonably be included in that table. Until the parent article is longer, this can't be a FL, and if the same is true for 1968 and 1972, we may need to re-visit those and consider merging them into the parent articles. Harrias ^talk 16:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have expanded the main article a bit, maybe it meets the criteria now. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: This needs to be merged into 1964 Summer Paralympics, not promoted to FL status. Goodraise 23:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Mainly because of the 3b criterion. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 02:58, 14 June 2012 (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 14:26, 17 June 2012 [6].

---

List of Awake episodes

Nominator(s): TBrandley • talk • contributions 20:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets criteria. TBrandley • talk • contributions 20:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

• Minor concern that this couldn't just be included in the main article. But that's a borderline concern.
• Avoid bold links in the lead per WP:CONTEXTLINK.
  • Done
• Lead image is dull, and the caption more so because it just repeats some of the lead.
• Perhaps find a suitable link for "separate realities".
  • Done
• "where he wears a green wrist band" perhaps move that to before the crash portion, i.e. in the green reality where he wears...
• "Michael doesn't know " avoid contractions.
  • Done
• You then swap the order of the realities. No need.
• "In the United States, the first episode of the series originally..." -> "In the United States, the first episode of Awake..."
  • Done
• "It concluded on May 24, 2012"... the first episode was nearly three months long? Rephrase.
  • Done
• " It concluded on May 24, 2012, after it was canceled after eleven of thirteen produced episodes were aired, on May 11, 2012.[2" very poor grammar and odd to read, suggest a copyedit.
• Don't overlink NBC etc.
• "Despite the series' relatively short life span, it has had large fan support campaigns who teamed up to create the "Save Awake" campaign, and it was well received by television commentators, particularly episodes "Pilot" and "Say Hello to My Little Friend", and various cast members, particularly Jason Isaacs's performance.[5]" huge sentence with far too many run-ons. Re-work.
  • Done

That's the lead, too much now to even consider supporting. Please address, or perhaps better still, withdraw, take it to peer review and then return when it's been seriously looked at. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Okay. I will withdraw and have it for peer review. Hope to see you there! TBrandley 04:48, 17 June 2012 (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 09:23, 15 June 2012 [7].

---

List of SRI International people

Nominator(s): Disavian (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it to fit the featured list criteria. I initially created it in order to clean up the people section of SRI International; I also created the relevant people category and did an extensive check of Special:WhatLinksHere/SRI International to ensure that the list and the category includes all prominent biographical articles about the subject. While there are surely other notable people that have worked for SRI, I believe that they will have to be added over time as relevant articles are created. I'm looking forward to your feedback on how I can improve this list. Thanks, Disavian (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from --GoP_T^C_N 15:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Why not merge every table into one, like eg here?
    • I'm not opposed to using that style... is that typical of more recently promoted featured lists? Disavian (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The dynamic list template belongs to the very top.
    • I moved Template:expand list to the top. Disavian (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Do not begin with "this is a list of"; instead introduce the subject.
    • Did you have something like this in mind there? Disavian (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "Of its researchers, many notable ones were involved" - why not simply "Many notable SRI researchers were involved..."?
    • That's much clearer, thank you. Implemented. Disavian (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I thought Engelbart invented the mouse?
    • He did, and William English (computer engineer) actually built the first one. I've clarified it in the lead. Disavian (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • How about an external link section?
    • I added one with a link to SRI and to their alumni association. Disavian (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • --GoP_T^C_N 15:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comments. I'll look into implementing these in the next day or three. :) Disavian (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support--GoP_T^C_N 15:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose a few too many things to deal with right now...

• Lead images are all very well but who are they and why are they so relevant that they appear in the lead? Useful captions would be good.
• Any reason the Ref column is so wide in each table?
• "SRI, based in Menlo Park, California, was established " would be better as "Based in Menlo Park, California, it was established .."
• Explain AI.
• "produced notable researchers and engineers long before computing was mainstream." prove it.
• "produced notable names including" no it didn't. This is an encyclopaedic article, not tabloid junk.
• Hate the fact you're using Carlson's image twice in quick succession.
  • Yeah, I don't like that either. Fixed. Disavian (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• The "Notability" column really is more of a "notes" column. Also, check that you don't use periods for incomplete sentences.
• Similarly check the image captions for incomplete sentences.
• Harman has no reference. Check this and any others.
  • I have no idea how I missed that. I added one ref, and ideally I'll find at least one other. Disavian (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• Avoid SHOUTING in the ref titles.
• Author names in refs, is it first last or last, first? Be consistent.
• Don't mix "Retrieved by" date formats in the refs.
  • I believe that I have fixed that. Disavian (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. I'll have a look at implementing some of these changes. Disavian (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that I haven't gotten to these yet, I was at A-Kon this past weekend. Disavian (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2012 (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 Giants2008 21:22, 11 June 2012 [8].

---

Interstate Highways in Alaska

Nominator(s): Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 07:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, after improving this list and comparing it to List of Interstate Highways in Texas, a similar article of Featured List quality, I feel that this list has fully covered the topic and deserves to be a featured list. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 07:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments—I made several changes to the article which were necessary to be up to the level of writing needed. For the benefit of the nominator, I'll detail the changes here with my rationales.

1. I added the formal title of the national system to the infobox.
2. I unlinked U.S. state and linked Alaska. The latter is much more valuable to the reader.
3. The department does not include "Ak" in their abbreviation, nor does anyone else. (The postal abbreviation for Alaska uses a capital "K" while the Associated Press, which uses the older, more traditional abbreviations, would not abbreviate the state name at all.)
4. I merged the two sentences about the length and number of highways, which are both short, together for better flow.
5. Interstate as an adjective or shorthand for the highways of the "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways" is always capitalized. The word interstate when not capitalized means that a highway crosses state lines, which is not the case here. When used together, the word highway should also be capitalized to emphasize this distinction. For this reason, I capitalized all of the lower-case usages.
6. The system wasn't created in 1976; that occurred in the 1950s. Rather, the system was expanded to the state that year.
7. There weren't non-breaking spaces between the words and numerical components of the legal citation. Should "Title 23" fall near the end of the line, the number could have been separated from the word; MOS:NUM advises against that by requiring non-breaking spaces.
8. Also, the article never specified what it was Title 23 of. I fixed that oversight. (It's the U.S. Code, by the way.)
9. There wasn't a link to our article on Interstate Highway standards, another oversight.
10. The direct quotation to the legislation was missing a footnote. All direct quotations need citations.

Having said all of that, I wonder if this list has enough items to justify standing alone as its own article. It might be possible to merge this content into List of Alaska Routes as a section without making that article too long. I'll leave it to other reviewers to comment about that, but this means that the article may or may not meet criterion 3b of the Featured List criteria. Imzadi 1979 → 08:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, the recent addition of the individual maps takes up a lot of individual width in the table to little benefit since all four highways are included on the map in the infobox. Because of this recent addition, the "Highway names" column is now one-word wide, displaying roughly similar to:

Glenn
Highway,
Richardson
Highway,
Tok Cut-
Off, Alaska
Highway

on my display. My web browser is set at a width that approximates a printed sheet of paper, and we can't assume that all users a) have wide-screen displays, or b) use them at full width. The pace of recent changes to the article is pushing what I'd expect of a "stable" article brought to FLC. Others may disagree, but I personally would expect a nominator to "finalize" how s/he wanted to set up the article before starting the nomination, and then make only changes after the nomination in response to the reviewers' comments, barring minor typo corrects and the like. I await the comments of other reviewers on the criterion 3b issue, and I'm prepared to oppose on that basis. Imzadi 1979 → 22:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment hmm, well four items in a table which would easily fit into the parent article (List of Alaska Routes). It's an oppose on 3b for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose on the same basis as The Rambling Man: the list does not have the scope of a stand-alone list and all current content could easily be included in List of Alaska Routes. Perhaps there is sufficient to write about the Interstate system in Alaska, but that would be an article, not a list. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose on criteria 3b. This can easily be covered in List of Alaska Routes. Dough4872 21:26, 9 June 2012 (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 Giants2008 21:22, 11 June 2012 [9].

---

List of Formula One polesitters

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that the list meets the criteria. I look forward to addressing any comments, cheers. NapHit (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• I see "pole position" and "pole-position" in the lead. Which is it?

all should now read pole position. NapHit (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• What makes StatsF1 a reliable source? Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I anticipated this would come up so i left a message at WP:F1 asking whether the project deemed the source reliable, unfortunately no one got back to me. There is not much on the site in the way of clarifying reliability, all I can say is that is regularly updated and the information is correct, that in itself does make the site reliable, but its the best I've got. Unfortunately, I'm yet to come across an alternative reliable source which offers all the information this site does. NapHit (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments Should "The F1 world championship " be World Championship (since you have "Formula One World Champion" in the key...) "Starting from pole position is important, as a driver has a greater chance of winning from pole than a driver who has qualified in a lower position on the starting grid." I think this is generally true although it sounds like original research. I know I've seen races where starting in second place was considered advantageous because of the layout of the circuit or because of dirty track on one side etc. In light of the stats I've removed this sentence as I can't verify it. NapHit (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Funnily enough "the driver that has qualified on pole position has gone on to win the race 347 times" means that less than half the races were actually one by the polesitter so statistically it's best not to be on pole...! Yes, it's statistically better to be anywhere in position 2-24 than on pole; however, it's [probably] statistically better to be on pole than any other individual slot. That's like saying a politician who won an election with 40% of the vote didn't win just because 20 people split the remaining 60%. :P --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC) "in as little as half the amount of races" -> "in as few as half the number of races..." Perhaps worth mentioning that the qualifying sessions are currently referred to as Q1, Q2 and Q3? For Raikkonen, shouldn't that be 2012–? Similarly for Hulkenberg... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Cheers for the comments TRM, I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose (with regret) on sourcing, nothing else checked. Unfortunately, under WP:RS, it's for nominators to show that the site is a reliable source, rather than for others to show that it isn't. I too checked the site and found nothing that could help. Can you find reliable sources that use StatsF1 as a source themselves, or discuss it in a way that shows it's reliable? If not, I don't think it cuts the mustard at FLC. Bencherlite^Talk 20:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it can't be proved to be a reliable source, unfortunately the folks at WP:F1 didn't get back to me when I brought it up at FLC. I have stumbled across this site, which does at least acknowledge its sources, most of which scan be deemed reliable. Another option would be to use the official f1 site, as although it doesn't list the poles in the way that statsf1 does all the information is on the site its just not collated. Would either of those be a better option? NapHit (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The Silhouet site suffers from the same problem, really - saying that you use reliable sources doesn't mean that your output is reliable. The writer info is here. It's effectively a self-published source, and doesn't seem to pass the relevant test of WP:RS "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The official site would be best, although I guess that means some work... (to put it mildly!) Bencherlite^Talk 14:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, have you tried the reliable sources noticeboard for their views? Bencherlite^Talk 14:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I left a message there and they confirmed your doubts about the reliability of the site. The only option now is to source the list individually, from the f1 website and some books that I have. There is this site which is run by Autosport, and a user in the f1 project has confirmed the information is correct. The only issue is that it is subscription only, not sure if that would pose a problem or not? NapHit (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

As long as it's a reliable source (which I haven't checked), it doesn't matter if it's subscription-only. Would it be better to archive this now and to come back when you've revamped the sourcing? Bencherlite^Talk 12:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've replaced the general ref with one from Forix, so that's sorted, its just the inline citations from statsf1 which are now the problem, as I can't find this info reliably sourced elsewhere elsewhere. So unless I can source it reliably within 24 hours then it would be best to archive the nom. NapHit (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2012 (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 19:42, 5 June 2012 [10].

---

List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes

Nominator(s): Khanassassin ☪ 16:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, after all the hard work, the list is finally ready. Khanassassin ☪ 16:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Is Cartoon Network the US one or the Canadian one? If US, is there a reason why it premiered there before the country it was produced?
• Don't start a sentence with "However". Semi-colon works here
• 'On April 6, 2012, the series received another ability to air re-runs on the revived block "Cartoon Planet."' is this on Cartoon Network? Put the full stop outside the quotes, the series doesn't have the ability to air reruns. It's not a physical thing. The network has the ability to air reruns, but why? Is this syndication or something else?
• "in which the Eds would appear" is "Eds" the correct spelling?
• "apart from their regular series airings." Apart is probably the wrong word here, unless they appeared in other series
• "who hang around" -- is too colloquial
• "make money off their peers" -- "take" and "from" perhaps?
• Not sure why the article uses US spellings for a Canadian show (favorite)
• "However, their plans usually fail," -- starts with However
• "With a viewership of 31 million households and aired in 29 different countries," -- poor grammar
• "amongst" is chiefly a Commonwealth word, whereas "among" is American, so this conflicts with "Favorite"
• "longest running" hyphenate
• "It is considered to be one of Cartoon Network's best works." by whom?
• "He resolved, however, to ensure" no need for however
• "in a way" unnecessary
• "Antonucci spent months designing the show, before trying to sell it to Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network." no need for comma
• "however they each" --> but
• "A deal was ultimately made for Cartoon Network to commission the show, after they agreed to let Antonucci go in his own direction." remove comma
• "Antonucci is a strong advocate of hand-drawn animation." unsourced
• "The wobbling animation in Ed, Edd n Eddy is an homage to the hand-drawn cartoons with a style that harkens back to cartoons of the 1930s to the 1950s." -- previous paragraph said 1940s t0 1970s. And it's either "harks back" or "harkens" without the "back", but note this is a chiefly US term
• "Ed, Edd n Eddy uses shimmering character outlines similar to Squigglevision;[2]" describe what Squigglevision is, so readers don't navigate away from the article
• "The crawling lines are not nearly as active as those in Dr. Katz, Professional Therapist, but are still visible,[2] and Antonucci likens it to cartoons of the 1930s." -- Assumes the reader is familiar with Dr. Katz, capital T follows a comma, "likens it" refers to something similar, but "lines" is plural
• "According to Danny Antonucci,"
• "The Three Stooges, who were a comedy trio"
• "whose various characters they portrayed in each short subject film often try to create money-making schemes, but their plans end up backfiring near the end of their films." --> "whose characters often try to create money-making schemes, which end up backfiring towards the end of the films."
• "The cul-de-sac children and the Kanker sisters were all based on children he grew up with." --> state who "he" is
• "Antonucci also stated that he believed it was important to add Plank, a board of wood, to the show, stating that he "thought it would be really cool to do the show with Plank taking on a character of his own" and to cause Jonny to do things he would usually never do." --- "stated that he believed ... stating that he thought" is too repetitive. Who is Jonny? He hasn't been mentioned until now.
• "The series' finale movie, Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show aired on November 8, 2009, officially ending the series." -- were there other movies? Was there an unofficial ending? If no, lose the apostrophe and change "movie" to "a television film", and change "officially ending" to "which ended"
• "However, reruns continued to air on the network until July 1, 2011." -- However starts a sentence
• "the series received another opportunity to air re-runs" --> "the network (state which) started to air reruns"
• "Ed Edd and Eddy were voiced" the rest... change "were" to "are"
• "Ed Edd and Eddy were voiced by Matt Hill, Samuel Vincent and Tony Sampson." who did which?
• Jonny (referred to in the credits as "Jonny 2x4") was voiced by David Paul Grove, Rolf was voiced by Peter Kelamis, Jimmy by Keenan Christenson, Sarah by Janyse Jaud, Kevin by Kathleen Barr, and Nazz by Tabitha St. Germain in season 1, Jenn Forgie in season 3 and Erin Fitzgerald in season 2, 4, 5 and 6. May is voiced by Erin Fitzgerald, who also voices Nazz in seasons 2, 4, 5 and 6, except for season 3, when she was voiced by Jenn Forgie, who also voices Nazz in season 3." --- sentence is waaaaaayy tooooo looooonnnnngg. Some of the commas should be semicolons. Why does the reader need telling that Erin voices Nazz in seasons 2, 4, 5 and 6 twice? And why does the reader need telling that Jennie voices Nazz three times??
• "Marie is voiced by Kathleen Barr, who also Kevin, and Lee is voiced by Janyse Jaud, who also voices Sarah." -- "what does "who also Kevin" mean? I can assume, but since you've already told us in the previous sentence, you don't need to say it again. We also don't need telling a second time that Janyse voices Sarah twice
• "Eddy's brother is mentioned frequently throughout the series, however, he does not appear in the series until the debut of Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show, where he is voiced by Terry Klassen." -- "change "however" to "but". But seriously, why in a main cast list for the series are you telling us who voiced a character that appears once in one episode?
• "With a viewership of 31 million households and aired in 29 different countries," poor grammar. 31m households where? Worldwide, the US?
• "Ed, Edd n Eddy was popular amongst kids, as well as adults." -- "kids" is too colloquial. "Amongst" again. Choose the language for the article. "...amongst both children and adults" sounds a lot better
• "Receiving several of awards and nominations, it remains" -- grammar
• "It is considered to be one of Cartoon Network's best works." by whom?
• That entire paragraph sounds extremely similar to the one in the Lede. A Lede is supposed to summarize the prose in the body of the article, not be the same
• "Terrence Briggs of Animation World Magazine argued that every second of the show is "filler" and that the main characters are drawn as "products from the school of acid-trip caricature."" doesn't sound like a generally positive review
• "pile up" -- colloquial
• For a six-season show, can you only find three reviews from two sources?
• Series overview table does not meet WP:DTT
• Series overview table uses colour that does not coincide with WP:DEVIATIONS
• Series overview table states that the specials are a season
• Series overview table states that the film is a season
• Have you got production codes and viewing figures for each episode to include in the tables?
• The season 6 article is too small to require splitting from this list. Also, there's no reference anywhere to show that this one episode is actually a season, and not a special or an episode delayed from season 5.
• All content in a Featured list should be featured, which means anything transcluded should be featured too.

Oppose This article is so not ready. It needs a major copy edit and peer review. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 04:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• See List of Family Guy episodes, that is a featured list
• Remove the unneeded infobox from the side
• Per above. Oppose. TBrandley • talk • contributions 14:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Might I add, List of Family Guy episode articles was actually my "model article."

Comment looks like this has descended into peer review territory already. Suggest the nominator withdraws this, works on the many good points that Matthew has raised, take it to PR and then bring it back here once it's polished up a bit. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Deal, I withdraw this list and will bring it back once it's polished up. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 19:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Khanassassin, good luck and look forward to seeing you back here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2012 (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 14:25, 4 June 2012 [11].

---

MercyMe albums discography

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 00:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria. It contains a lengthy and engaging lede and solid prose; all charting albums are covered, with less notable or minor albums listed in an 'other albums' criteria. All media and visual criteria are met and the material is not being warred on. Toa Nidhiki05 00:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

One FLC at a time, please - see the instructions on the FLC page. Pick the one you want to withdraw for now. Bencherlite^Talk 07:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so you're withdrawing MercyMe singles discography. Per the question at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/MercyMe singles discography/archive1, why not combine these two discographies into one page, as per the example of David Bowie discography (a FL)? Bencherlite^Talk 20:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

One, because both are fairly large and can exist seperately. Two, the lede would be gigantic and would inevitably have to focus primarily on albums - my work on Casting Crowns discography essentially had to favor albums. Three, I like the format better with two discography pages. I think it is smoother and more focused, allowing proper attention to be paid to both. Toa Nidhiki05 21:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

One, the test is could they reasonably form part of the one article? (3(b) of the criteria) I think at the moment that they could. Two, no it wouldn't have to be a gigantic lead. You're just summarising the tables, remember, so the information is there already. If the Middle Ages can be summed up in four paragraphs and in under 500 words, I'm sure the works of MercyMe can be too. Three, I'm not convinced that those are reasons why the criteria shouldn't apply. So oppose on 3(b) grounds alone, nothing else checked. Four, thanks for the example of Casting Crowns discography, a FL discography about a band with 9 albums and 14 singles as opposed to 9 albums and 18 singles for Mercyme. Bencherlite^Talk 21:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Bencherlite here, there seems no real reason to split the albums from the singles, many featured discogs have them combined in such numbers. Suggest you withdraw this nomination as well and work on the merged list? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a sample one I am working on, yes, as apparently this won't work and the content can be included. I should be done with it today or sometime soon so this can be withdrawn, I guess. Toa Nidhiki05 17:39, 3 June 2012 (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 17:16, 2 June 2012 [12].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Chris Gayle

Nominator(s): Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 07:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A developed list of international centuries by Chris Gayle. It meets the criteria. I am the creator of the article. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 07:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose and possibly quick-fail. The entire lede is an unattributed copy-paste from Chris Gayle. Most of it has no relevance to this list and almost nothing within the list is not already included in the main article. FLC #2, #3a are not met and likely fail of #3b also. In addition WP:V is also not met -- except the first paragraph of the lede, no other part is referenced. —SpacemanSpiff 07:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Get to see the attribution. First revision. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 07:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• That does not begin to cover the plagiarism in this. There's hardly any unique or created content on this list at all. —SpacemanSpiff 07:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Creative Commons says that once you modify it; you need not provide attribution to others. I've modified it, made change in the tables, added tons of references, added links.... Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 07:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• In which case you'll need to read up about the Creative Commons license as well as plagiarism. —SpacemanSpiff 10:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – Potential victim of criterion 3b. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. All this information exists in the main article. What's the point of this list? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

What it doesn't have is the references, and more detailed review of the table. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 10:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Well since it fits perfectly already into the main article, maybe you should just add those refs there. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, apart from all the other concerns, this also doesn't even come close to following the format of the other similar lists, which have got to have formed something of a precendent for how these should be laid out by now. Harrias ^talk 17:09, 2 June 2012 (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 Khanassassin 16:14, 2 June 2012 [13].

---

Ed, Edd n Eddy (season 1)

Nominator(s): Khanassassin ☪ 12:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel the article meets the criteria. :) Khanassassin ☪ 12:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose – At Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes/archive1, another FLC you initiated, I noticed instances of plagarism from articles not used as sources. Well, I've been looking around and found more problems in this list.

• Episode 4: "When sifting through the treasures lurking up in Eddy's attic" is ripped from here.
• Episode 5: "Sarah falls in love with Edd and begins to pursue him..." is from here.
• Episode 6: "Edd receives a psycology manual in the mail" is from here.

I'm not checking any more for now. It's frustrating to me that after what happened at the previous FLC linked above, more such instances of plagarism were found. I'm starting to wonder if there's an issue here that needs to be addressed in a different venue than FLC. Either way, this fails the requirements and should quickly be archived, unless there's a very good reason why the content matches what's in the links. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Let me add that the problem that needs addressing isn't necessarily yours. I noticed that the problematic content was in the episodes list well before you joined Wikipedia, so the plagarism didn't come from you. That said, splitting all of the content from the original list into this one without rewriting anything may not have been the best idea, knowing what had been found at the episodes FLC. It would have been better if you had re-writen everything there, and then the problems would have been solved. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, I re-wrote the summaries now. I hope the problem's solved. --Khanassassin ☪ 13:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not convinced that changing some words around here and there is enough to fix the underlying structural issue and would have been happier if all of the summaries had been rewritten from scratch. Let's see if anyone else has something to add. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• • I withdraw this nomination. --Khanassassin ☪ 16:01, 2 June 2012 (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 10:10, 2 June 2012 [14].

---

MercyMe singles discography

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 00:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria. It contains a lengthy lede; all singles are covered, with information such as release date and peak positions included. Songs which charted but were not singles are also included in a separate section. All media and visual criteria are met and the material is not being warred on. Toa Nidhiki05 00:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Any reason why this and MercyMe albums discography need to be separate? Considering that David Bowie discography is all one article, I can't see any compelling reason why a band who've released about 150 fewer recordings needs to have two separate articles..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawing this one so the albums one can be reviewed. Toa Nidhiki05 14:09, 31 May 2012 (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 10:02, 2 June 2012 [15].

---

List of people from Park Ridge, Illinois

Nominator(s): Dkriegls (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because there is a lot of these "List of people from..." pages and I think getting some consensus on what they should look like would be a good move. I chose this list because it's the best example I've seen, with all names cited and relation to town made clear. Relevant consensus besides WP:Lists (stand-alone lists) include WP:USCITY#Notable people. Note: this nomination could set precedent for similar pages. Dkriegls (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose not sure if this is ready for FLC yet, especially if you think it should set a precedent for similar pages. Some quick stand-out comments.

• You don't even link Park Ridge until the end of the lead which is odd.

• Done Dkriegls (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• That lead image is curious too, far too big for the resolution it could support and no caption, nothing... what is it?

• Removed Dkriegls (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• We don't use IMDB as it's not a reliable source.

• Gone Dkriegls (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• You could use some intro in the lead as to what/where Park Ridge is.

• Done Dkriegls (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• What makes someone "equally recognizable"?

• Gone Dkriegls (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Some people in the lead are linked, some aren't. Why?
  • Question - None of the people in the lead are blue linked. Am I missing something?Dkriegls (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• A lot of these kinds of lists are tabulated rather than bullet pointed. Any reason this should be different? (
  • Comment - Of the 177 lists at the US Category page, only 12 are fully tabulated. The biggest city being Las Vegas. I think bullets look better for these lists and are easier for new editors to edit. These are gateway list to new editors and ease of access should be encoraged, even if some are vandals. Dkriegls (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment how many of those 177 lists are featured lists? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• I don't recall a need to capitalise Art in Fine arts.

• Done Dkriegls (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• I guess this should be tagged with {{incomplete list}}, right?

• Done Dkriegls (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• "seven MLB teams; born in park ridge[51]" explain what MLB is before using it, and stick to consistent capitalisation of Park Ridge.

• Done Dkriegls (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Make sure ref titles comply with WP:DASH in the titles.

• Done I think... Dkriegls (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 10 has "blog entry (please read WP:RS). " eh?

• Done the author is an expert in architecture, no need for warning Dkriegls (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• "OTHER FAMOUS RESIDENTS" avoid SHOUTING.

• Done Dkriegls (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• New York Times is actually The New York Times.

• Done Dkriegls (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

A way to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the peer-review, I will get right on it. I can't believe I missed an all caps. Dkriegls (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm tracking what's done at the talk page. Dkriegls (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm done with my effort at addressing the above issues. I guess it's ready for another peer review, including the question and comment I added in-text above. Also, the citation connecting Chuck Russell to the city is a bit ify. It appears to be an independent film review zine. I thought it was better than IMdB, but if we can find something else we should. I gave up looking. Dkriegls (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose – Sorry, but the sourcing quality is not good enough to meet FL standards. What makes any of the following reliable sources?

• http://www.swamppolitics.com/ (ref 14 – looks like a blog to me).

Comment, The Swamp is a Chicago Tribune blog, and the piece is written by two expert journalists who are knowledge experts on the topic (where famous people live). Nara Schoenberg (lifestyles reporter) and Patrick T. Reardon (urban affairs reporter). See WP:NEWSBLOG Dkriegls (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• http://chicagogaysports.com/ (ref 15)

Comment, this is a website of and interview conducted by Windy City Times. A perfectly legitimate news source. There's a second reference from the Chicago Reader, so I am not sure what is in question here. Dkriegls (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• http://www.thehorrorzine.com/ (ref 18)
• http://www.makeitbetter.net/ (ref 20)
• http://www.askactor.com/ (ref 26)
• http://www.moviesmademe.com/ (ref 32)
• http://www.figure-skating.com/ (ref 61)

That's a lot of questionable sources covering many different entries. Add to that my opinion that the list would be better off tabulated, and that's enough for me to oppose. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment I'm not against tabulation, I am just looking for some justification for going against the norm. Given that of the 177 lists at the Lists of people by city in the United States Category page, only 12 are fully tabulated. If we are going to set a standard here by making this the first Notable people list to receive FL, we should have a reason. Also, I will have those citations cleaned up in a jiffy Dkriegls (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the rest of the above references

• http://www.thehorrorzine.com/ (ref 18) Proposed article for deletion, no better source could be found Dkriegls (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• http://www.makeitbetter.net/ (ref 20) Dana Olsen was edited out due to a lack of a better reference Dkriegls (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• http://www.askactor.com/ (ref 26) Danny Corkill was edited out due to a lack of a better reference Dkriegls (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• http://www.moviesmademe.com/ (ref 32) Chuck Russel was edited out due to a lack of a better reference Dkriegls (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• http://www.figure-skating.com/ (ref 61) Found U.S. Figure Skating news cite for replacement Dkriegls (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Drive-by comment two fair-use images removed from the list (including the logo) as their use was purely decorative. Bencherlite^Talk 06:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I turned the list into tables. Please review. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 09:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

New Peer Review

I've done everything that was suggested except where I made questions/comments. Listed below are those outstanding questions/comments.

• Some people in the lead are linked, some aren't. Why?

Question by Dkriegls - None of the people in the lead are blue linked. Am I missing something?

• http://www.swamppolitics.com/ (ref 14 – looks like a blog to me).

Comment by Dkriegls, The Swamp is a Chicago Tribune blog, and the piece is written by two expert journalists who are knowledge experts on the topic (where famous people live). Nara Schoenberg (lifestyles reporter) and Patrick T. Reardon (urban affairs reporter). See WP:NEWSBLOG Dkriegls (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• http://chicagogaysports.com/ (ref 15)

Comment by Dkriegls, this is a website of and interview conducted by Windy City Times. A perfectly legitimate news source. There's a second reference from the Chicago Reader, so I am not sure what is in question here. Dkriegls (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Please note, WP:FLC is not a peer review mechanism. For that, please take the article in question to WP:PR. I believe this nomination should now be archived, and any subsequent work performed at a peer review, before being renominated. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Bencherlite's view

• Thanks for putting it in table form, but columns that no-one will need to sort by (References, and probably Association) should have class="unsortable" added to them; see the example I've done for you at the Media subsection
• "The city is home to several notable people. Among the most notable is ... The following list includes notable people who were born or have lived in Park Ridge, Illinois." (1) Avoid the word "notable" (2) Avoid phrases such as "this list".
• Names should sort by surname, not first name, using {{sortname}}.

I don't think that vast quantities of work are needed to get this through FLC, so I'll say weak oppose, but a polish through WP:PR should see it sail through next time. I think TRM's suggestion of archiving and renominating after a peer review is a good one. Let me know when it's at PR and I'll stop by to help. Bencherlite^Talk 19:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay with me. I should have started at WP:PR anyways. It's my first time through a Featured effort. But now I know and knowing is half the battle. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

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