Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/January 2010: Difference between revisions

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 23:10, 26 January 2010 [1].

Nominator(s): Mister sparky (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because i have been working on improving the article, its formatting, sourcing, prose etc and i believe that it is of good quality. have also had the article peer reviewed and actioned any suggestions Mister sparky (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks solid. I made a few super-minor edits of my own, but other than that, this looks great. No complaints; happy to immediately support its nom. Nice work! Drewcifer (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 12:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

those dab links came from a section that a very annoying ip added without me noticing, been removed so dab links no longer exist. Mister sparky (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Thus far, all attempts at convincing me that Chart Stats holds up to our standards for sources have failed. I suggest you look for another source. Goodraise 17:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

replaced with everyhit.com and chartsplus. Mister sparky (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose stricken. Switching to neutral. Goodraise 01:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose again. After researching everyHit.com, I fail to see how it meets the criteria. Goodraise 19:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how it would fail WP:RS by the about section. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 19:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the BBC regularly uses everyhit.com as a source for its music articles one eg here, the BBC would not use a source which is unreliable. Mister sparky (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

also, everyhit.com has been cited by British MPs during policy discussions: [2]. Mister sparky (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

also by Reuters and even in Norway. Mister sparky (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced that we should be using everyHit.com, especially since better sources do exist. Sadly the reliable sources noticeboard thread on the source has not produced any feedback that could persuade me. Remaining opposed. Goodraise 03:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh well. if its use in various undoubtedly reliable sources will not alter your opinion then i fail to see how anything will. nevermind. Mister sparky (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I have no outstanding issues with this, looks solid. Afro (Not a Talk Page) ^{- Afkatk} 15:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 23:10, 26 January 2010 [3].

Nominator(s): ^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 00:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the standards of other featured lists, as well as the criteria neccessary to be featured. So here goes. ^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 00:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good to me. Happy to finally support. Drewcifer (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS, If you feel like bringing up the Other appearances thing at WP:DISCOG, let me know and I'd be happy to contribute to the conversation. Drewcifer (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question—Does a live performance video even count as a music video?—indopug (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well a music video is surely just a promotional video for a single or even a piece of music (the latter applying to No I in Threesome, I think we've discovered), and on that basis I don't think that what the work can be is restricted in any way. On top of this, its listed on Muzu, NME and a few other websites as an "official video", and I can remember them playing it on MTV2 and NME, despite the fact I can't really get a source for that. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 06:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Thus far, all attempts at convincing me that Chart Stats holds up to our standards for sources have failed. I suggest you look for another source. Goodraise 17:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed - I have removed all references to ChartStats. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 03:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell, Zobbel and Alpha Charts also don't meet the criteria. Goodraise 19:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am unsure about this also, so I have added a note to a discussion already going over at WP:RS to clear it up for me, as I don't know where to look for answers. Despite this, aCharts is listed under WP:GOODCHARTS, suggesting its a good chart. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 00:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restarted this discussion here. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 00:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been told here that ChartStats / everyHit fall under WP:GOODCHARTS, while Zobbel and aCharts do not. All of the aCharts references have been removed. I think that all of the Zobbel references can be replaced with ChartStats references (Haven't done this as of yet so i could get a response here first). --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 18:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just read that discussion. Nothing substantial has been said there. Aside from everyHit.com (which I am almost willing to accept per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Usage by other sources), all of these sources fail our criteria. Let me remind you that not some obscure guideline but WP:RS and WP:V are what we use to determine the reliability of sources. Remaining opposed. Goodraise 03:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you consider GOODCHARTS "some obscure guideline"? Surely this is the most appropriate guideline in terms of record charts. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 07:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as a style guideline that focuses on record charts, it is the most appropriate guideline when it comes to record charts related questions of style. However, reliability of sources is a question of content, which is handled by content guidelines, specifically by WP:RS. Even if source reliability was within the guideline's competence (which it isn't), would the sources it deems reliable have to meet the requirements of our policy (perhaps in a way outlined by its accompanying guideline). Goodraise 09:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

←After further discussion of the sources, I agree Zobbel shouldn't be used (since it includes disks which are ineligible to chart) and I will side with you on ChartStats, as its reliability is still in question. I have removed references to the above two with the exception of two citations, which I am leaving in for just now purely for flagging. I am currently waiting on an answers to a further question which i have asked RS, so I ask again that this is put on hold until I am given an answer. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 13:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Its official, Zobbel is gone! After looking through one of your more recent FLC's, I found ChartsPlus in the Ashley Tisdale discography article. As such, I've replaced all Zobbel references with ChartsPlus references. This satisfies WP:V per WP:PAYWALL. Took me a while to find that. Can I have your support now? --20:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• EveryHit.com, on which discussion is still ongoing at WP:RSN, is still being used, so no, I'm still opposing. By the way, looking at the main article, it seems that this discography fails the featured list criterion 3. (b). Goodraise 00:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't understand why you've added the {{nl icon}} template like its French template counterpart, when the |language= field is much better suited for the {{cite web}} template. #47 is in Caps also. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 20:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this was a straight copy from another FL, I didn't think any more to remove it than to include it. I've removed all copies of {{* icon}} and replaced them with the language field. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 00:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Ref #6 "2002--04-26". #2, 5 and 7, the Internal link is listed as Allmusic but the reference title is listed in lower case which one is it? #39, 47 is in Caps. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 15:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed the typo. For the references, the title of the page is written as "allmusic", but the wikipedia page itself is "Allmusic", which is why it was written this way. Do you object? The pages with capitals is a similar typing situation, in both, the articles themselves are titled in capitals. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 00:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The allmusic I accept, I think if the programming with Wikipedia was weird the Wiki page itself would be Lower case, though per WP:ALLCAPS the refs need to be changed. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 12:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thought there was probably a rule on this which i had missed. I've fixed it now. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 03:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just wondering since there are only 2 columns for the extended play Chart positions, why are the widths for the Chart Positions so small? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 13:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

←It was added this way by Cannibaloki, so I don't want to talk for him, but I think it was because we had a discussion above about the widths remaining constant across all tables. Its the same as the widths for the albums and singles. Is this a problem? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 13:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nah it isn't a problem as such it just seems weird since there are only 2 columns. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 13:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would be more suited for you to give your support? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 13:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• it just looks weird since its 2 columns but the way it sounds with your above comment it seems like there was some sort of Consensus on it. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 14:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 23:10, 26 January 2010 [4].

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 18:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria, and I have improved the list based on feedback received during a peer review session. Thanks! Another Believer _(Talk) 18:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: This list should be up to par as far as reference formatting, disambig links, external links, and alt text go. A few things I am uncertain of myself:

1. Is "Historical context" an appropriate section title, or would something subject-related like "History of cannabis use" be better, with "Pre-prohibition" and "Post-prohibition" subheadings (or something along those lines)?
2. Also, I cannot find birth years for two of the politicians. How should I make this clear in the blank cells?
3. This list is specific enough that I am not sure it belongs in either of the templates currently displayed at the bottom of the list ('cannabis resources' and 'legality of cannabis in the United States'). Should the templates be removed?

Thanks so much for the suggestions and feedback, and for taking the time to review this list. Much appreciated! --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• No Disambiguous pages, external links look fine, article seems well written with a good lead and a clean and organized table. Alt text seems clear, I checked it through AWB and removed a couple of date related links but nothing major. In summery other than my skepticism of the encyclopedic value of the article I think it looks good and support. In regards to the 2 cells missing dates due to the politicians being living I would put a dash in the cell as in List of African-American Medal of Honor recipients.--Kumioko (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. However, the problem with the blank cells is not that the politicians are living, but that I cannot find the years of birth. I am sure other reviewers will have additional ideas as well. --Another Believer _(Talk) 07:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment – Try shortening the Reference column to just Ref. It removes some whitespace in the table, and all the entries have one cite each anyway. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 08:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks good. The only suggestion I have is that {{Dynamic list}} should be above the actual list. But that is really not a big issue. As for the missing years of birth, you may need to add a footnote to explain that they can't be found.—Chris!_c/t 02:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and moved the dynamic list tag, and will work on a footnote as soon as possible. Any suggestions for wording, or are you aware of an example I can look at for similar "missing information"? Thanks! -Another Believer _(Talk) 08:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of an example.—Chris!_c/t 18:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. This list just uses question marks. I will insert these symbols, which I think are self-explanatory, and see if another reviewer has a problem with this or suggests an appropriate footnote to be used. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While topic is a great idea for a list, I think the List of politicians itself suffers from a lack of specificity. I'm not sure how useful it is to lump honest hemp farmers like Jefferson in with potheads/coke fiends like Obama. I'd like to be able to see from the table whether or not Michael Bloomberg for example smoked marijuana, rather than having to dig through the references section. I suggest adding a sortable column to the table for type of use; recreational/medicinal/agricultural would be one way to divide it. On another point, the captions for the Jefferson image parrots that of the Washington one; it would be best to change one of them so as to make reading them more worthwhile to the reader.  Skomorokh  15:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is difficult for me to take your feedback seriously when you are calling Obama a pothead and "coke fiend". My problem with adding a column for type of use is that we cannot be certain that someone used for just one reason or all of the three you mentioned. Also, I think reading the prose informs readers that the Founding Fathers listed grew likely for agricultural purposes, and modern politicians used for recreational purposes. I did remove the duplicate caption. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The type of use ought to be specified in the sources; without this information differentiating farmers from habitual recreational drug users, this is list of people of a certain occupation from a certain country who have used a certain plant, which is about as useful as a List of Kazakh electricians who have encountered palm trees. In its current state I do not think the list meets criteria 3 [a] ("comprehensively covers the defined scope...has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items") or 4 ("easy to navigate through and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities").  Skomorokh  23:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skomorokh, please see my comment below regarding type of use. I tried addressing your concerns and Staxringold's concerns at the same time. Feel free to respond directly below this line if you would prefer to keep your section separate from Staxringold's comments. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Ignoring Skomorokh's rather... Odd comments above I have a big question about this list. Given the nature of cannabis history in the US isn't there a serious lack of pre-Civil War entries (when, according to the list, it was still domestically produced)? I realize that this list, like List of brain tumor patients (I always use that as my example of non-completable lists), can never really be completed but it comes off very thin to have twice as many entries for the past 70 years then for the near-200 years before that (particularly when growth and therefore probably use was more common). As such I too take issue with the idea that this list "comprehensively covers the defined scope" as the FL criteria require. Again, as with the brain tumor list I understand that you can't get every mayor who ever toked up once with a reliable source. But surely there's information on more than 9 pre-1900 born political users? Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And as a sidenote, I realize that the illegality makes the use more likely to be documented and therefore source-able (Obama using pot will be far more notable and written down then some governor smoking it in a pipe when it was legal in the 1830s), but if that's what this list is going for then it should be under List of United States politicians who admit to cannabis use after 1937 or 1952, or 1956, or whatever. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, the background information has some pretty weighted sentences like "However, a wave of conservatism during the 1980s allowed President Ronald Reagan to accelerate the War on Drugs during his presidency, prompting anti-drug campaigns such as the "Just Say No" campaign of First Lady Nancy Reagan." (emphasis mine) With absolutely no source. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previously, the list was separated into two sections, distinguishing pre-prohibition use from post-prohibition use. However, at one point or another it was suggested that I combine them into a single table. If you feel the separation would be better, I'd be happy to revert to the previous version (leaving the edits made since then). Like List of recessions in the United States, I think having the pre- and post-prohibition sections makes the article flow better, and this would solve Skomorokh's concern with not stressing the type of use. While I do not like the idea of adding a 'type of use' label to each politician, as we cannot be certain that Old Abe's smoking was recreational or to help his bad back (I made up an arbitrary example), the two sections will certainly help to distinguish hemp/industrial use from modern recreational use. Thoughts?

Oh, and the source for the 1980s comment follows the next sentence. I didn't see the need to use the same citation after every sentence. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A prohibition divide would be a good step towards clarifying the ambiguity of the links. As to your Abe example, even if we do not know his motives for using cannabis, it ought to be clear his mode. Smoking it in a pipe is categorically different to wearing it as your trousers or growing it in a field.  Skomorokh  17:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I separated the list into two separate sections. Prose in the pre-prohibition section clearly focuses on hemp and industrial use, and mentions a hint of recreational use for Lincoln. Similarly, prose in the post-prohibition section focuses on recreational use by modern politicians. I think this works well in that it distinguishes industrial and recreational use, but still illustrates the "universality" of cannabis--the prose explains how use has changed over time. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I definitely like a pre/post prohibition composition better, it brings the text into the list in a nicer way than before. But still my bigger issue remains. Were there really only 9, even if you only talk about those notable enough for Wiki, politicians who used cannabis prior to that prohibition? Labeling it as an incomplete list is correct, since you'll never know 100% about everyone, but that just seems too incomplete for me to say this meets FL criteria for completeness. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as an example, 10 seconds of Google'ing found this John Adams quote that certainly suggests he had connections with hemp. Not a really RS, but there just has to be more info out there. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like the pre- and post-prohibition sections better. I've done quite a bit of research for this list, searching for any notable politicians who are known to have grown cannabis or used marijuana recreationally. As for John Adams, I have been unable to find a reliable source that confirms he did either. I have come across that quote numerous times, but I did not feel it warranted inclusion in the list as a confirmed grower/user. I've done a lot of searching, but of course we can assume there are more politicians that belong on the list, hence the "incomplete" tag. If you can come across any other politicians that need to be added to the list, I'd be more than happy to add them. The list as seen currently represents as many as I could find, though I will continue to research this subject in the future as it interests me greatly. As for the concern that the list is not complete, if someone could find many more politicians that should be added, I would certainly be very impressed with his or her research skills. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I won't oppose and be annoying, since I don't know of anyone else, but I just can't support the list with that short a group of entries for that wide a period of time. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your decision. I just feel helpless, as I wish there were more I could do to lengthen the list. I can only go by what the reliable resources tell me. :) Thanks for the comments and feedback! --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• While I commend Another Believer's valiant efforts here, I cannot support a list whose main list-content (the tables) only address half its topic (i.e. the politicians but not the cannabis use). The 3 (a) criterion has not, unfortunately, been met.  Skomorokh  22:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree that including an additional column would be helpful. Would it be reasonable for that column to including uses found in reliable sources (Lincoln smoking it, Washington growing it) and explain this in the prose? Just tell the story that is found in the sources, and use the prose as an opportunity to explain to readers how much value we give to reliable sourcing.--otherlleft 16:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But here is the problem with defining the type of use. Cannabis can be grown for industrial purposes, grown and ingested for medical purposes, smoked for medical reasons, grown and ingested or smoked for recreational purposes., etc. For me, the point of this article is to detail the history of cannabis in the U.S., highlighting how use has changed (generally speaking) over time. At one time, it was grown for industrial purposes, then used in many common medicines, then recreational use spread during the 20th century. When sources do not specifically mention why cannabis was used (medical vs. recreational, or smoking vs. ingesting), I don't see the purpose in expanding on that for the list. The list simply contains politicians who admit to using the plant, regardless of method or reason. Besides, the sentences just prior to the tables mention the type of use ("...politicians known ti have used cannabis for recreational purposes include..., or something similar). If this is not specific enough for a featured list, I understand. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't intending to suggest that the list should include things that aren't in the sources - in fact, just the opposite. Only include what's in the sources, and use the paragraph of prose to explain it. "Between 19xx and 20xx the primary use of cannabis was recreational, with a secondary use being medical. Following is a list of politicians known to have used cannabis during this period." Add a note to the use column that says something along the lines of, "Only verifiable uses are mentioned for each politician." Take it as a suggestion only; I am trying to see if there are solutions to the concerns raised by other editors.--otherlleft 02:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 22:54, 20 January 2010 [5].

Nominator(s): Blackknight12 (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked on this list for hundreds of hours and it is very hard to find information on the monarchs of Sri Lanka all in one place. It has come a long way and in my opinion has reached the standard of List of French monarchs which is the only other featured list on monarchs. Blackknight12 (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great work Blackknight12, what is missing is the list of Kings belonging to Jaffna Kingdom. Any reasons Taprobanus (talk)

Oppose Good work Blackknight12, but as Taprobanus says , where is the list of Kings belonging to Jaffna Kingdom. Please explain what motive behind to not to include or deleted the list of Kings belonging to Jaffna Kingdom. --Jai Kumara Yesappa (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Taprobanus. Yes the list of Kings belonging to Jaffna Kingdom is missing but so is the list of kings belonging to Ruhuna, Maya Rata and Dhakkinadesa (and maybe more). The monarchs belonging to these monarchies only ruled a small region of the island of Sri Lanka and were not a dominant force. In the absence of these monarchies I have created a separate article for them: List of Jaffna monarchs, List of Ruhuna monarchs, and List of Maya Rata monarchs. However the first monarch of Jaffna did rule the island with most of the power but later established the Jaffna kingdom in the north which I assume you already know.--Blackknight12 (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following books on Sri Lankan history definitely mention the Kingdom as an important part of the country's history.

de Silva, K. M. (2005). A History of Sri Lanka. Colombo: Vijitha Yapa. p. 782. ISBN 9-55-809592-3.

Peebles, Patrick (2006). The History of Sri Lanka. USA: Greenwood Press. p. 248. ISBN 0-313-33205-3. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading Jaffna kingdom, which I believe you wrote, and it seems to me that I may have missed something. It says "for a brief period, in the early to mid-fourteenth century, it was an ascendant power in the island of Sri Lanka when all regional kingdoms accepted subordination. However, the kingdom was eventually overpowered by the rival Kotte Kingdom, around 1450." I haven't heard of this anywhere else but if you can get me some sources on it I could probably include the Jaffna kingdom somewhere. Thanks--Blackknight12 (talk) 08:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the status here? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Transcluded by Dabomb87 (talk) on 16:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I think that the list looks very good and is very well written but I have a couple concerns that should be addressed before I support.

• There is 1 disambiguous link
• The images need alt text
• There are several external links that are locking structure such as access date and publisher.

Once these are corrected I will support. --Kumioko (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Sorry mate, but this has too many problems.

• The actual list is unreferenced. There are a few inline citations for some facts regarding the confusion of dates, but the rest of the article has none.
• The "Relationship with Predecessor" column has other information as well in some cases.
• Invaders from India have managed to seize the throne several times. Only Elara and Magha are mentioned, and a reader has no way of knowing who the others were unless they already know the history very well. In short, it's not really possible to recognize who are invaders and who are local rulers.
• What happened to the lineage of Sri Lankan kings during those invasions? Where were they and what were they doing when foreigners were in control of their country? Did they manage to keep at least some part under their control?
• "the list only includes monarchs who had possession of most of the island and the power at any one time". Then why are local rulers from the time of Rajaraja I's invasion to Vijayabahu I mentioned? The Chola kings were, in effect, rulers of the country during this period and the local chieftains has little power even within Ruhuna. So if they are mentioned, the rest of the rulers of Ruhuna (such as Kavan Tissa) and Jaffna should be mentioned as well.
• "the Dipawamsa and Mahawamsa are the primary sources for ancient South Asian chronology". How come? Both are Sri Lankan chronicles and talk about Sri Lankan history. None of them significantly deal with South Asian history. Please clarify this.
• Why are British monarchs mentioned from 1948 to 72? After the country gained independence in 1948, why did it continue to regard the British monarch as its own? Also, they did not have any control or power over the country itself, which, as you have mentioned, are the requirements for inclusion in this list.
• The king resided in Colombo after the Kandyan Kingdom ended (mentioned in infobox)? How is this possible when the British monarch became the ruler?

≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Fails most of the FLC. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 10:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 22:54, 20 January 2010 [6].

Nominator(s): Dfwcre8tive (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the new list was created to highlight Landmark structures and districts in Dallas that were previously not mentioned. I created the list to better categorize and distinguish Dallas Landmarks from other historic designations. Dfwcre8tive (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Transcluded Dabomb87 (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - suggest this is withdrawn and reintroduced when, as a minimum, the following is fixed:

• All references should use the {{cite web}} template, or similar, not just be bare URLs.
• The lead is expanded appropriately. One short paragraph is insufficient for a list with this many entries.
• The table is fixed (and probably made sortable) - look at line 2 (starts Structure...)
• Images need alt text.
• Disambiguation links need to be fixed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Is there a reason why some of the words in the "Current Use" column are in italics?
• The "Designation Date", "Current Use", "NRHP Date" and "RTHL Date" look incomplete, is there a reason as to why there are so many empty columns?
• Redlinks seem to be overused.

Afro (Not a Talk Page) ^{- Afkatk} 08:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I'm going to oppose this article as no effort has seemed to be made to improve this article at all since December 29, the only addition to this article has been a bot. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 10:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 22:54, 20 January 2010 [7].

Nominator(s): DragonZero (talk · contribs) 11:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list. I realize that my grammar has a lot of issues and this being a mystery episode list can be confusing so all criticisms appreciated. I have a lot of time to fix up the mistakes. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 11:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The image does not have a proper WP:ALT. FUR looks line. (how would someone who is blind and unfamiliar with the series know what "Conan Edogawa" looks like. The Alt should be generic. The summary of ep 494 is too long (over 300 words and longer than all the rest). The rest of them seem fine, at under 200 words each on a quick check. A copyedit really should be done before an FLC is started. A few points from the lead that I noticed:

• "In Japan, the series is titled Meitantei Conan (名探偵 コナン?, Detective Conan) but was changed due to legal issues with the title Detective Conan" - was changed where? when? by who? not very clear. Also, the kanji/romaji seems unnecessary. Since it is licensed in English, what about the English release?
  • Fixed it. Well I just know that episodes 104 and up are not licensed by Funimation, so I left it blank.
• it states it is based on the manga, but not which part? Can it be limited to chapters X-Y or does it jump around too much to say much more than based on?
  • I could probably limit it between two volumes, but it might seem like original research.
• "The episodes' plot covers the adventures of teenage detective Shinichi Kudo who was turned into a child by a poison called APTX 4869. He continues to be a detective under the alias Conan Edogawa. The episode plot covers the FBI's confrontation with the Black Organization, a mysterious Criminal Syndicase and is then followed by Conan's usual adventures." - episode plot said twice. Suggested alternative: "The series focuses on the adventures of teenage detective Shinichi Kudo who was turned into a child by a poison called APTX 4869, but continues working as a detective under the alias Conan Edogawa. At the start of the season, he works with the FBI as they confrontation with the criminal syndicate, the Black Organization, before the episodes return to a more episodic formula."
  • Thank you
• "Episodes 491 to 523 were later collected into ten DVD compilations by Shogakukan. They were released between September 26, 2008 and August 28, 2009 in Japan" - makes it sound like only a partial release was done, yet it seems like that is the entire season. Why not just say, "The thirty-episodes were released in Japan across ten DVD volumes by Shogakukan between September 26, 2008 and August 28, 2009." should probably also note that the episodes were not released in the same order they aired.
  • I think I fixed it.

Did not check the episode summaries grammar. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comments. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 00:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments – Also haven't looked at the episode summaries.

• Near the end of the first paragraph, is the FBI what I think it is (Federal Bureau of Investigation)? If so, spell it out fully and link it.
• Space needed after first sentence of second paragraph.
• "by Mai Kuraki starting episode 521 for the rest of the season." Grammar here leaves something to be desired. Try "by Mai Kuraki starting episodes 521 through 523"?
  • Fixed this time? DragonZero (talk · contribs) 02:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In several of the references, I don't believe an external link to the Japanese Wikipedia is needed for Being Inc. If this is a notable entity, I see no harm in having red links, or just not linking the publisher if red links are a concern. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, did all those. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 05:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Refs 3-6 need to have the language specified. Afro (Not a Talk Page) ^{- Afkatk} 07:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did it, Cite episode template doesn't have Languages section though so I can't add it on. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 08:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah my bad then. Afro (Not a Talk Page) ^{- Afkatk} 08:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{ja icon}} - I was thinking if it'd be good to add this template at the beginning of those templates. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 09:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ja icon shouldn't be used in front of any reference nor behind it. It was discussed on the cite ep template to add a language and it had support...but no one apparently wrote the code or did the edit protected request. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well I thought I'd throw that idea out there anyway. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 18:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 17:23, 16 January 2010 [8].

Nominator(s): ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the last nomination went stale / had a lot of editors that were arguing with me in another context that came to simply oppose it, and since the holidays are all but over. While I have created my own format in this road list, I feel its essentially as complete as possible (Minus a completely unavailable history of the system), and provides a more visually pleasing article.

A few notes for reviewers:

1. No, I am not prepared to remove the Google Map references. They are there for the reader to visually see each route, as it is not possible to add visible numbers to the city map without distorting the thumbnail. The only information on the article contrived from Google Maps is the 0.1 kilometre accuracy of route lengths (I used a government made topographic map to measure distances to the nearest kilometre).
2. Please don't oppose simply on the basis of the shields in the table. They add a nice touch for the 99.99995% of us that do not use Lynx.
3. History is important, especially in this case. The province of Ontario downloaded most provincial and secondary class highways to the regions/counties they were within in 1998. The County of Victoria was restructured as the single-tier municipality of Kawartha Lakes in 2001, causing all Victoria County Road X to become Kawartha Lakes Road X. This little switcharoo can make things a bit confusing, but bare with it.
4. I have tried to contact the city, the road maintenance department, and the Ontario Ministry of Transportation regarding a history of the system. According to them, the information is "too spread about in various archives and offices, and not available at hand".
5. I fail at grammar (I'm about as qualified as the checker in Microsoft Word), so if anybody is a wiz with it, please fix any nuances. The article has been peer reviewed twice and a FL candidate

twice before, so I'm certain most of it has been caught, but second eyes are always appreciated. Cheers - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Imzadi1979

Second Review by Imzadi1979

Third Review by Imzadi1979

I collapsed the second review and pulled the follow remaining items here into a short list.

1. Google/Bing Maps: still an issue. Consensus is against them in this article. You have yet to present a compelling reason to convince the three reviewers of the article otherwise. This is an actionable oppose, and must be rectified to remove three opposes.
2. Shields on map. It's a minor detail, and one that takes time, I know.
3. You cleaned up the reference formatting nicely, but there's still "Government of Ontario" vs. "Ontario Provincial Government" in the article though.
4. Overlinking is still a major issue. The King's Highways table doesn't have much left, except all the Communities links, several of which are duplicated. All three usages of the word causeway are linked. That's a bit excessive.
5. The King's Highway table looks great. The City roads table though is a sea of blue and red. Please remove the redundant links.
   1. You don't need to use {{jcon}} to create a link without the shield to an article. A wikilink works just fine by itself. I would hope that when you remove the links from the two termini columns that you use plain text instead of relying on a template to generate plain text. I know you're proud of the template, but there's no reason to ask the servers to parse a template when plain text or a plain wikilink will do. The reason so many US roads editors use {{jct}} now is that it simplifies calling the correct shield graphic, adding the |link=|alt= parameters and formatting the correct wikilink, with abbreviation. We don't have to remember the naming convention for 50+ systems of roadways' shields and links. Having said that, if I'm linking to another road in the prose of an article, where the shield will not be displayed, I enter a wikilink, not a template. If I'm not linking the text, I wouldn't use a wikilink either. It just makes editing the article that much easier for others.
   2. Are all the road names needed for all of the intersecting roads in the various terminus listings? In the listing for Highway 7, you give the first terminus as "Kawartha Lakes Road 2 (Simcoe Street)", when KLR 2 would suffice.
6. Abbreviations: use them and embrace them. Safari will not tell me the exact usage of the phrase "Kawartha Lakes"; it just tells me "more than 100 matches"". For List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan, a current FL, there are 17 matches for "Marquette County". Shortening "Kawartha Lakes Road 8" to "KLR 8" is perfectly acceptable. Shortening "Highway 7" and "Trans Canada Highway" to "Hwy 7" and "TCH" once in a while is also acceptable.
7. The organization of the City roads table needs to be revamped yet. There's no need to have anything in that table except # and length sortable.
8. References columns in the tables would be a good thing as well. This was something that was suggested when my FL when through an FLRC.
9. City roads table Comments:
   1. Fix the confusing comments for KLR 2
   2. KLR 3 comments: "Hartley Road exists as Kawartha Lakes Road 3 for just under one kilometre as it crosses Mitchell Lake by causeway, making it the shortest numbered road in Kawartha Lakes" could be shortened to "Shortest city road in Kawartha Lakes" since the length and both names are listed in other cells of the table already.
   3. The comments for KL 6: "Prior to 1998, the portion of Kawartha Lakes Road 6 between Kirkfield and Sebright was designated as Highway 503[10][11]" could be shortend to "Prior to 1998, was Highway 503" or ""Prior to 1998, was Hwy 503"
   4. KLR 47 has its comments in the Communities column.
10. References:
    1. Ref 2 doesn't specify where in the resulting link the information being cited is located.
    2. Ref 4 has a URL in the template that doesn't lead directly to the source. Either remove the URL, or use [13] as the url since that will cause the reader's browser to download the file. (I'd recommend erasing the link completely as unnecessary though.)
    3. Concerning Ref 6, I can't find the standards being referenced at that link.
    4. Ref 9 needs a page number
    5. Ref 12 should give a page number, or a schedule table number or something to aid in verifying the information in the source.

I've done a lot more than most reviewers in reviewing this list. I've researched better sources to clear up your SPS issues, and created the sandbox to illustrate what this list should look like. You still have a lot of work though to get this up to the quality that's expected of the bronze star. I'm still going to oppose until it's complete. Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Floydian

1. Like I said, I'd like to come to some compromise. This provides useful information to the readers, which is too detailed to include in the article, and which could only become more difficult to locate as I move it away from this article. Most of the roads are far from notable enough to have their own article in which to put a drawn map.
2. Coming very soon
3. Will go with Government of Ontario, as thats how they more frequently refer to themselves.
4. My thoughts on the causeway issue are that if its linked ONCE (will remove the second) in the article, and then once in the picture description, it lets people click that link instead of searching the prose for the link.
5. I have yet to do the city table, but that will be done sometime tonight likely.
   1. The reason I use it is so that I can make rapid changes. For example, if you really insisted on using abbreviations, and I wasn't stubborn enough to say "no", then I could simply open up template:jcon, and change two or three pieces of text, and have all 100+ uses change immediately. Bandwidth is not an issue, and the template is certainly well documented (much more so than jct is, as I found out numerous times when I tore apart the template). Also, the code I use to display a plaintext road name is shorter than the name of the road itself. It is for this that I plan on making every instance of a road name in every Ontario article use jcon.
6. I'm sure you saw my rather passionate ranting in regards to abbreviations on the US road talk page. I also notice that close to 100% of the featured "list of roads in x" do not ever explain what the various abbreviations stand for. For this one, I must stick with accuracy and fore-go the abbreviations. I insist on being left on this, as it a personal style choice which I am allowed to make.
7. Thats not true. The terminii sort properly and in numerical order, with the township roads all grouped together at the end, and the King's Highways grouped at the beginning. I have removed the sorting of the names column, as that was unnecessary.
8. Wouldn't that cramp things more by pushing more columns in?
9. City maps table
   1. Fixed
   2. Fixed
   3. Yes, but only a portion in the centre of route 6 was part of Highway 503.
   4. Fixed
10. Refs
    1. How would I go about adding that into the citation?
    2. The URL for the pdf file appears to be a session ID that changes day-to-day. Having no link is a step backwards, since the onus is then on the user to track down the information. The URL currently leads to the summary information for that source.
    3. OPS volume 1 deals with most of it. Grading, general specs, drainage, electrical, watermains, etc. However, the entirety of that page deals with the specifications for the construction of King's Highways.
    4. The whole document is the source though. It is the final report ordering the creation of Kawartha Lakes out of Victoria County.
    5. Fixed

Thank you very much for the continued reviews. I've revamped the City Roads table, removing many instances of 'Kawartha Lakes' from the comments, removing repeated route names from the names column, eliminating the links from the terminii columns, cleaning up the comments, using {{ntsc}}, and shifting things around. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

1. Guess what, three other editors have decided to the contrary; you continue to argue against consensus here and consensus still doesn't change.
   1. If an road is not notable enough to get its own article, it should NOT have a redlink in this list. I'm sure at a minimum, a writer like yourself could craft an article for each of these city roads that contains:
      1. An infobox with map
      2. A lead
      3. A route description of the named streets that comprise the road
      4. A history of the road in question, even if it's to state that before the change over, it was Victoria County Road #, or before 1998, it was Hwy #.
      5. A junction table of some sort.
   2. Look at M-212, a highway in Michigan that's less than a mile in length. It has a good article rating even though the highway is 0.732 miles (1.178 km) long. The presence or absence of the articles for the linked roads has no bearing on the quality of this list, but continuing to shoe-horn content into this list that best appears in a different article does. Consensus is still against you on this one. List of highways in Warren County, New York does not include such usage of an online mapping service. County routes listed there that are notable enough to have an article, like County Route 7 (Warren County, New York) exist, and a map if created, could be added to the infobox in the route article. If things like M-212 and the 1.06-mile (1.71 km) Interstate 375 (complete with its unsigned 884.2-foot (269.5 m) business spur) can receive article treatment, then some of the roads listed here deserve the same in the future. It's those articles that are the best location for a map of their routing, not this list. It is in that respect that I will continue to oppose the inclusion of the 49 separate links to Google or Bing when you already have a single paper map source used to calculate the lengths. The Warren County example doesn't even give lengths for county roads rather than calculate them off Google/Yahoo/Bing. The CR 7 article does use Yahoo Maps for its length reference, but that's in another article separate from the list.
2. I'm patient about this point, but if I didn't include it here, it would have been lost in the shuffle when I collapsed Review 1 and restarted in Review 2, or collapsed Review 2 and started Review 3.
3. Looks good.
4. It only needs to be linked once. It's fairly common enough of a word, and its plain meaning should be apparent by its usage.
5. There's no reason to resort to code when plaintext will suffice. In other words, if some other editor came along, and {{WP:AGF|in good faith]] attempted to correct an error in your article, you'd have them potentially correcting template code that doesn't do anything except general plaintext. Your abbreviation argument doesn't hold because: 1) if you claim the advantage that the code is shorter than the output in cases without links and without shields, then it will be longer than the output if the template was changed to output abbreviations. Unlike {{convert}} which normally outputs only plain text, {{|tljcon}} in this usage only outputs the text as a non-default usage. Convert has the benefit of actually generating the converted value. {{inflation}} has the benefit of generating a value adjusted for inflation that's updated annually without further intervention by the writers. Your template in these instances takes text that looks like gibberish and outputs good looking text, when the desired output can be simply generated by entering the intended text in the first place.

   We're both partially correct here in different respects, but why type {{jcon|KL|2|Simcoe Street|ot=yes}} which involves for another editor, dealing with the code in the edit window, a template that generate the same finished output as Kawartha Lakes Road (Simcoe Street). Why take two steps figuratively (template + ot parameter) when one step (plain text) would suffice?

6. Abbreviations: use them, embrace them, love them. Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but if you notice at List of state highways in Marquette County, you can't find an explanation of what M-28 means. It is the sum total of that highway's number. In this case, as it is for all of Michigan, and this is a major misunderstanding with a lot of roadgeeks out there, the M- in Michigan state trunkline highway numbers doesn't actually stand for anything. In other words, there's nothing to explain. It was felt that the section on U.S. highways implicitly explained the abbreviation, but in retrospect, I've added the appropriate parenthetical notations. See the prose in the articles on M-28, M-35, US 41 for appropriate examples. Prose examples from FAs have been better guidance for me in my experience than prose examples from FLs. You've yet to state anything in this forum about why abbreviations would be a detriment to this article. I've given you a reason why they would be an enhancement. After about the 50th usage of an uncommon word/place/name, it begins to look misspelled. Fifty or more iterations of an abbreviation don't carry that effect because my brain intuitively knows that the abbreviation is valid. The repetition does not enhance the quality of the writing in this article.

   As a side note, standards continue to evolve and change at FAC and FLC. As an editor that has contributed nominations to both forums, I follow future nominations that are similar to my own, if not actively review them, in order to keep up with any major or minor changes in standards and preferences since the passage of my last nominations. Then I can easily update the FAs and FL I've produced to keep them as current as possible. I will not speak for other project members, nor will I attest to their FLs, but if you check, I've made minor edits to the FL I nominated as comments and discussions have taken place here. In some cases, it's because I didn't know of something, like the utility of the {{ntsc}} template when that list was nominated, and now that I do, I can implement it.

7. Sorting those columns is not beneficial. That sorting function was removed from the King's Highways table. The columns each contain two cardinal directions "Western/Southern" or "Eastern/Northern", meaning that you're mixing in separate concepts (western terminus, southern terminus) arbitrarily and sorting on that basis. Why not combine the other combination (western/northern, eastern/southern) for sorting purposes. Either way, the grouping is purely arbitrary. The sorting should be removed here as well.
8. It won't cramp things if the names column and the comments column are merged. If you look at the sandbox, the References column is no wider than the title, the Names column is wider than the title, and wider than the References column.
9. City roads table comments:
   1. Good
   2. Good
   3. Yes, but the sandboxed version says that same thing in shorter, more concise prose.
   4. Good
10. References:
    1. As for Ref 2, {{cite web}} has the at= parameter that works similar to the page= parameter, but doesn't prepend the "p." From the documentation, "When the page prefix is unwanted. "at=Table 5" produces Table 5." You could use that parameter to reference the exact location inside of the reference, such as at=Part III, Section 26 or even use the internal anchors and change the link directly to [14] if that is the section you are specifically using. (The first method would look better though.)
    2. Ref 3: Newspaper articles no longer or never yet archived online don't have URLs. Books typically aren't cited using Google Books links (although they can be). This is a traditional publication that is sold by Publications Canada as well as freely available online. It is nice to point a reader to a copy of the source online, but in this case, the ISBN link in the reference does the same already.
    3. For Ref 3 the very least you could do is include volume and page numbers. Where in that link does it say that provincial highways generally have "generally have wider lanes, smoother curves with greater banking, and exceptionally well maintained pavement"? (The word "exceptional" here is POV if the source does not state it.) Where in the source does it discuss maintenance items like plowing, salting and repairs? If the referenced items are in separate volumes, consider breaking the reference into separate references by volume, and then linking directly to the PDF as appropriate. For instance, the Vol. 1 index PDF is available at [15]. Please note though, that MTO has established in OPS User Notes, April 2005 that the hard copy supersedes the online copy where there is a discrepancy, so maybe dropping the online link here would be a good idea as well?
    4. Ref 9 could be reformatted using {{cite report}} instead of cite web. (I know that the documentation on that template is atrocious, but it does have page= and pages= parameters. It doesn't prepend the p./pp. though, so you'd have to add that manually if you switch over.) Where in all of that text is the information that specifically supports the claim: "The City of Kawartha Lakes was formed on January 1, 2001, and was known as Victoria County before that"? A page number, range of page numbers, etc. is needed. This could be in the form of "p. 1", "pp 2–4", or "pp. 2, 5–6" as needed, but whatever the situation, the pages numbers are necessary to complete this reference. Additionally, you now state here that this report ordered the creation of the merged municipality. It looks like the final draft of a study report into the feasibility of merging the county and it's constituent municipalities. Wouldn't there actually be an act of the provincial legislature that accomplished that task?

Some final comments:

1. You still have overlinking in the table. Each community does not need a link in either table. As it stands now, if I resort the King's Highway table by length, in increasing order, Lindsay is not linked until the third entry in which it appears. Reaboro isn't linked at all. Just simplify things and remove all the linking.
2. You've actually unlinked on the KLR 6 entry the text "Simcoe County Road 52". That should remain linked because SCR 52 is not an entry line in the table, unlike the other KLR references in the termini columns
3. The lead sentence needs work. I've been putting this off until the very end.
   1. The bolding is wrong.
      1. Option 1: Unbold everything except "numbered roads". Wikilink Kawartha Lakes, since that is the VERY first mention of the term in the entire article.
      2. Option 2: Leave the bolding as is, but find the next reference to the City of Kawartha Lakes in some form, say "municipality" and wikilink there to the article on Kawartha Lakes, piping the text to fit the sentence. (This is the option used at List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan.)
   2. The sentence doesn't offer that Kawartha Lakes is a city. That fact isn't included until the History section below, but it's a big omission for the lead.
   3. The mess about concurrencies needs to be cleaned up. Try rewording it like the following:

Sample lead

The numbered roads of Kawartha Lakes account for 901.9 kilometres (560.4 mi) of roads in the City of Kawartha Lakes in the Canadian province of Ontario.^{[note 1][1]} These roads^{[note 2][2]} include King's Highways that are signed and maintained by the province, as well as the Kawartha Lakes Roads under the jurisdiction of the city. The third type of existing roadway in the single-tier municipality is that of locally-maintained roads that are also called concession roads and sidelines. A fourth category of roads, Secondary highways, existed prior to 1998, but no longer exist within Kawartha Lakes.

The 49 numbered highways provide year-round access to the mostly rural municipality. The longest of these roads is Highway 35, which stretches 86.7 kilometres (53.9 mi) across the municipality from the south to the north. The shortest numbered road is Kawartha Lakes Road 3, Hartley Road, a causeway just less than a kilometre long crossing Mitchell Lake.

Before 1998, several additional King's Highways and Secondary highways were located in what was then known as Victoria County. These were downloaded to Victoria County in 1998. All Victoria County Roads, including the former provincial highways, were renamed when Victoria County was abolished in 2001 and replaced with the City of Kawartha Lakes.

Note: I'd rewrite the other two explanatory footnotes as ^{[note 3][note 4]} if not combine them all as ^{[note 5]}. If you use the <ref group="note" name='' "></ref> these shorts of noes are reusable, like reference footnotes.

Notes

References

This sample lead flows better, has all the important stuff linked, and it summarized the whole article better

You'll notice that I substituted a different map for the lead. I'd move the existing map down to the top of the first section, "Types of roads", left-aligned. I've just realized that the King's Highway photo is left-aligned under a third-level heading, which is a violation of the MOS. You could add a brief into paragraph about the types of roads, link to the MTO and explain that they maintain and sign the provincial highways, explain who maintains and signs the city roads (CKL Dept. of Public Works?) and then move the photo to right. The second photo should be moved down into the City roads section, because that what classification of roadway is shown in the photo.

I hope this helps. Imzadi1979 (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

1. If you are saying that every road is notable so long as there is verifiable information concerning it, then I have no problem creating the remaining road articles and taking out the google references. My concern is not that they cannot be notable, but that an article I could create with the information I have would not. I have no historical information regarding these roads.

1. Understood
2. Cool
3. Fixed
4. Yes but consistency is key here, especially when there are well over 100 instances of road names. I know a plaintext link simplifies things on the editors end, but it also opens up a greater possibility of a mess being made and inconsistencies propping up. What it comes down to, however, is that it doesn't affect the appearance of the article. Many users use templates to simplify highly repetitive tasks, and this is one of those cases for me. As a side note, there should not be any changes made by other users to the table as it already has every road correctly entered, unless the city changes routings.
5. My main issue stemming from abbreviations is that there are no documents that use abbreviations. Its always either Kawartha Lakes City Road X, or City Road X. There is no KLR-X or cKL-X. Otherstuffexists goes both ways in this case. I'd rather trim out the term 'Kawartha Lakes' where possible, than to change it to an abbreviation anywhere.
6. I removed sorting from the Kings Highways list because there were only 5 entries, and every entry was different. In the city table, 3/4–7/8 of the routes end at another route. Sorting works and is not detrimental here, so why does it matter?
7. Perhaps just merging the names into the comments column? The refs at this point are solely in regards to the comments.
8. City Roads table: I'll take a look at road 6. I did reword mine as well yesterday, but I'm guessing you've already taken a look at it.
9. References
   1. Fixed
   2. Fixed. I removed the url, added that it was in volume 1, and changed the sentence it supports. Exceptional is a rather subjective word. In this case I meant it in a comparison sense; the construction of King's Highways is superior to that of the city or local roads. However, I've reworded it as to not make any sort of... exceptional... claim.
   3. Fixed. The kitchen report essentially orders the creation, but I'm certain that another piece of legislature would have actually authorized it / made it official.

Final comments:

1. Each community should be linked only once in the tables. An odd one here or there may be also linked in the prose, and I'm trying to spot them out right now.
2. I did that with every case of "continues Xward into nieghboring county as foo road X", as none of those road articles exist. I found it unappealing in appearance, but will insert those links when the articles exist.
3. With regards to the lead, I chose option 2 (it makes no sense to bold only 'numbered roads' since the article title indicates it's the numbered roads of Kawartha Lakes. I haven't mentioned that it is "a city" because I can't confirm that it is. There is no concrete evidence as to whether Kawartha Lakes is a city, or if its a municipality named "City of Kawartha Lakes". The Kitchen report definitely suggests the latter of the two, but aside from that all the sources indicate the former. I have made use of your sample lead, but have two points on it:

1. You cannot nest references using your standard <ref name="" group=""> tag. This is why one note uses a tag template.
2. I personally find the new image placement cramps things in, and doesn't look as nice. I placed the images where they fit in the best, and where they interfered the least with the section edit links. I can move the shields up to the second level header if that's a MOS breach, but the map fits so much better at the top (plus one can generally assume someone knows where Kawartha Lakes is before they are interested in the roads in it. If not, they can click on the Kawartha Lakes link and see it in that article.

Now get this! I removed all the google maps from the City Maps table. At this point I ask that it be permitted to keep them for the King's Highways. Why are they an exception? Because there will never ever be an article titled "Highway 7 in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario". The King's Highways have their own articles with maps of the complete route, but would become rather disorderly if they had maps of the route through each jurisdiction. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Rschen7754

• Oppose solely on alt text, and Google maps citations. I'm sure there's other stuff that needs to be changed, but I refuse to look further at the article until those two issues are resolved. [16] is the tool - it indicates there is no alt text. --Rschen7754 21:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still hold that there is nothing wrong with the Google Maps citations, as they do not cite anything, and are only there to help the reader in visualizing everything. The alt text is definitely there, regardless of what the tool says. The map at the top has the following code:

[[File:KL Road Map.svg|thumb|200px|alt = "A map of the entire city of Kawartha Lakes. The lakes, rivers, and roads are shown, each represented by coloured lines, except lakes which are coloured shapes. Lakes and rivers are light-blue; roads are either black, representing numbered city roads, or dark-blue, representing highways maintained by the province of Ontario. The outline of the city is a much thicker, partially transparent grey line."|A map of Kawartha Lakes. Highway 115 crosses to the lower right, King's highways are deep-blue, city roads are black.]]

The causeway image is as follows:

[[File:Hartley Road causeway.jpg|thumb|alt = "a dirt road crosses the centre of a lake on a clear day."|Hartley Road (Kawartha Lakes Road 3) crossing [[Mitchell Lake (Ontario)|Mitchell Lake]] by [[causeway]].]]

Perhaps the space is making a difference. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have images turned off on Wikipedia sites, and I can't see the alt text. Alt text does no good if it doesn't work. --Rschen7754 22:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but its hard to fix when the reason it isn't working isn't apparent. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's the quotation marks. The examples at WP:ALT don't use quotes. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed it. I believe it was the spaces before and after the = . - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to have fixed the ALT text issue with regards to the tool page. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I renamed the Route maps section to External links, would that be satisfactory? There is a citation (to the paper map) at the top of the Length column that is the actual reference to the length of each road. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's still too many (now redundant) external links. --Rschen7754 07:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So basically the idea is that I cannot have this useful functionality for readers because of some policy (which I'd like to see come to think of it), and that I may scrap it for A) a redundant list of external links that's really the same thing with a different section header name, or B) a redundant single link to google maps which shows a satellite photo with outdated information. This stinks of WP:IAR. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all a) is incorrect. That would not be acceptable either. Secondly, it's not necessarily a matter of policy - if the consensus is that the Google Map links are clutter, then they need to go. WP:CONSENSUS. So far three people have been telling you they need to go. Nobody else has said otherwise. So far, that's consensus. --Rschen7754 08:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Because I only count you, who is opposing solely on the basis of this. Dough and Imzadi both said to avoid using it as a source, and to clean it up. However, you are the only one making a big deal about it. I'm sorry, but I am not going to remove the maps. They are useful to the reader, and thats what matters. I will accept your oppose and focus on the other editors who are picking at important details with regard to content and sourcing. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, I originally said that they should be combined together. So count me in the same camp as Rschen on this one. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way FAC and FLC work is that you have to resolve *all* actionable opposes in order for the article to pass. This is an actionable oppose, meaning you can do something about it. --Rschen7754 20:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then the article fails. I'm not removing information that is helpful to the readers because a few editors dislike the appearance. No policy against it, no change. I said that from the get go. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, lets give it a go and see where it heads. The Google Maps references are almost 100% gone (save a last few from the King's Highway table that I mention in the review with imzadi above). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Dough4872

• Oppose - The article still has issues that have not been addressed since the last FLC, such as uncited information in prose and the overuse of Google as a source. There clearly needs to be more sources than Google that discuss these routes. ---Dough4872 01:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google is a convenience link. Most of the information is sourced to my 2010 Ontario Back Roads Atlas. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still, is there a different source that can be used for the mileage other than Google? ---Dough4872 04:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly wish there was. I would certainly use it if it existed, but as I mention, the Ontario government doesn't keep track of things, and the Kawartha Lakes website has next to no information, besides a snow plowing schedule that lists out every road in sections. Ontario road atlases show the kilometres between certain points (a major intersection or a town) on the King's Highways, but there is nothing that just lists the routes and the length of them, as NJDOT or MDOT do. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My oppose still stands with the issue of uncited information. ---Dough4872 04:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out which information you contest? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following excerpts need citations:

1. In the comments for Kawartha Lakes Road 3, there is a wikilink that needs to be fixed.
2. Most of the Kawartha Lakes Road articles redirect back to this list, making the links unnecessary. ---Dough4872 16:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now is it really necessary to provide a source for the third one? I'm describing a sign for which we have a picture. A source for "these signs are sometimes referred to as shields, or reassurance markers," maybe... but for a description of a sign is overkill for the sake of making a point. Alos, which part of the first one is necessary to source? Most of it is a written out version of the information, which is sourced, that is provided in the King's Highways table. The rest I will delete, as there are no sources besides a satellite map or going there that could verify the information (Though I've never understood what the difference is between citing an obscure book that isn't available anywhere, and citing a physical location that can be verified by just going to it (which anybody can do). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if there was a non-primary reliable source that discusses the signs. In the first part, "Highways 7 and 35 together measure 140.0 km (87.0 mi) and account for 83.8% of the length of numbered roads. The remaining 27.1 km (16.8 mi) comprises Highway 115, a RIRO freeway in the southern corner of the city; and Highway 7A, an alternate route to Highway 7 around the Lindsay are." needs to be sourced to verify the statistics concerning the numbered routes. ---Dough4872 01:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would. It would also be nice if there was any type of source regarding the current state of the system, or an article anywhere that mentions the passing lanes that are there. Can a satellite shot not serve as a reference to any of those statements though (without regard what-so-ever to the other Google maps references)? I added a legitimate reference for the statement regarding the lengths. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could use a sattelite shot to reference the lengths, but I would prefer if another source could be found. However, a sattelite image would work in the absence of another source. ---Dough4872 17:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to show that passing lanes exist, but otherwise the highways are generally two lanes, and that Highway 115 is a four lane dual-carriage freeway. The distances I can (and have already) source to a proper hardcopy atlas. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the information you mentioned above now has a source, or has been removed. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only caveats I have now is the overuse of Google links and the removal of redlinks in the list. ---Dough4872 18:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the redlinks, WP:RED and WP:Build the web cover things. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what about the Google links? ---Dough4872 19:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a compromise should be reached on that. As it stands, I have three editors now objecting almost solely on that, for aesthetics. I feel I at least offer a valid rationale in that they offer a lot of information that simply cannot be contained within the article, and would like to find some way of still providing that information to readers in the simple way that I have. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the google references. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

• Comment I am considering closing this FLC soon. I had asked at the previous FLC for this not to be re-nominated until the major disputes had been resolved and a director notified. I see no evidence of a director being notified, and not surprisingly, the disputes have not been resolved. I might keep this open until the weekend, but no longer if there is not a sea change at this FLC, which has already become one of the longest on the nomination page despite being only four days old. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed 95% of the problems at this point, and it seems to be down to only having the complaint over the Google Maps at the bottom (pending responses. Most of the disputes have been fixed, and only the lone issue remains, which as you can see above your comment, I am looking to come to a compromise about. I apologize for not contacting a director. If you had mentioned it to me, I have since forgotten over the course of the past month and change. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. It's a bit hard to see what and what has not been done by simply looking at this mass of text; could the reviewers please strike/cap their resolved comments? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 17:23, 16 January 2010 [17].

Nominator(s): —User:GroundZ3R0 002_c/t 23:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating List of Saw media as per the new featured list criteria and that I based the article formatting and style off of List of Metal Gear media, another featured list with similar multimedia scope. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Does this list violates criterion 3b? It seems to me that this list can logically be merged to Saw (franchise).—Chris!_c/t 02:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think merging it would create a monster. The franchise article is large as it is, without adding in all of this detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I tend to agree. I think that the Saw franchise will continue in the future, so the main article will probably be even longer.—Chris!_c/t 22:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, even as it is now it's pretty lengthy and there is simply too many media pieces to conveniently mention everything. As of now, the major media pieces have mentions on the franchise page and it is labeled with the "Main article: List of Saw media" tag, plenty sufficient. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Big comment Unless I'm mistaken, IMDb is not a reliable source. Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources reads: "Trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia should not be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence." They make an exception for WGA-provided credits, but I would try to replace those cites (particularly for the comic book, which is unaided by another source currently. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to Wikipedia's policy, I think an exception could be made for this since it is the only source available for the comic, other than YouTube (the Animated Comic was uploaded on YouTube). I mean we know the comic exist, that's verified. It contradicting the Saw IV storyline, that's also verified. I think the author added IMDb because Wikipedia requires sources for verification. I don't know what else could be added in place of IMDb, nothing? --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 04:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Ok I added the official Saw; Rebirth site (via archive.com) I hope that is good enough? --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 04:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comments –
• I was about to ask you why the VH1 reality show wasn't included, but just saw it under other films. My question then becomes why this isn't listed among other media instead. This is the format used in List of The Legend of Zelda media.
• "Saw has evolved to encompass numerous media forms including video games, comics, as well as mazes and a roller coaster." In a case where there are only two elements before "as well as", I would go with "video games and comics", eliminating a comma.
• Capitalize friday in the second paragraph?
• "as well as a seventh film, entitled Saw VII." This is the second time this film is mentioned in the lead. Perhaps try "as well as Saw VII"? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done all of these. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The success of the films have inspired...". "have" → "has". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that have is the correct word tense as there are multiple films. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way this is worded, the success (singular) was the inspiration, not merely the films (plural). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, success=sing, so "has" is correct. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay changed to "has". GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fixed—Mike Allen 23:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The problem I have is a possible overlinking of words, such as DVD, Theatrical release, Internet browser game, etc. Or is it acceptable in this format? Mike Allen 03:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In addition to Mike Allen's comment about overlinking, the media types are inconsistently capitalized. For example, I see "Television series" and "Television Series". Dabomb87 (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • The only inconsisant caps I noticed was the o television series, which I fixed. Is there any more? As for the overlinking, should each media type only be linked once in the list and once in the lead? GroundZ3R0 002 19:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 17:23, 16 January 2010 [18].

Nominator(s): Pedro J. ^{the rookie}, GageSkidmore, Qst

I am nominating this for featured list because after it faild the first nomination i was ocupaded by another FLC but now i am able to give this nomination a lot of atention. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, it hasn't changed at all since the previous nomination. Ωphois 23:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it failed because it did not have enough reviewers--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only somewhat true. It was unsuccessful because there was no consensus, among the reviewers who did look at the article, that this list should be promoted to FL. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

As requested. Article needs some improvements, especially in sourcing. Cheers, The Flash ^{talk} 16:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Issues taken care of; article meets requirements in my eyes. The Flash ^{talk} 23:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support also - Per previous nomination, which should have passed. Gage (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominators' supports are assumed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I point out that the reception section is extremely lacking. Many of the scant reviews it does have just say "such and such were great episodes" without giving any indication as to why they were great (which pretty much makes them useless, IMO). Anyways, again I will leave it up to Dabomb87. Ωphois 15:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the prose in the production section could use some work. The info related to Brian's girlfriend is confusing in its current wording. Ωphois 15:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i guessed youed say that ohpios but i will not object, will see if i can re-word it--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i think he did not see that--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I will be on vacation for three weeks and there's a good chance that I will not be closing this FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good to now--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was requested to review this list, which puzzles me a bit, since I do citation formatting over at FACs, and there's no requirement for consistent formatting of citations here, other than MOS. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  IGN is cited in multiple ways (3), it is a publisher, or a "newspaper" type title. Parents Television Council (of where? The world is larger than the US) is cited in 3 ways. BBC Three is incorrectly cited, BBC has multiple stations. Plus you'd need to make clear that they're programme guides, not the object itself. Same with the IGN objects with titles identical to the show. "^ "FAMILY GUY". The futon critic. Retrieved 2009-10-03." is unnecessarily duplicated given that you're using refnames, unless it relates to the different broadcasting dates, in which case you could say that in the cite, "Family Guy: [episode name] broadcast: broadcast date"... Speaking of MOS regarding titles in all caps. Generally, your citations are misnamed. Is Amazon referring to the object of FG season X, or to the advertising material and cataloguing information... But as I said, FLCs have a different criteria. Check your MOS for perfect details, this is simply what I'd point out at FAC if it were held to FAC standards. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I was asked on my talk page to review this list, and so I come bearing comments. However, I am concerned about some of the repetitive phrasing I'm seeing after reviewing the first part of the page.

• Blind Ambition links to a disambiguation page.
• "before being released as a DVD box set and in repeat broadcasts." It says later in the article that there were two box sets, so why does this say one?
• "the first episode was 'Stewie Loves Lois' and the season's final episode 'Meet the Quagmires'." Missing "was" after "final episode".
• The quotes in the second paragraph of the lead should be cited. Normally content doesn't need to be cited in the lead if it is in the body, but it's better to be safe with quotes and very controversial statements.
• "Season five won one Annie Award at the 35th Annie Awards for storyboarding and was nominated for three other Annie Awards including for writing and voice acting." Very redundant use of Annie Awards; three times in one sentence is a bit much. Also don't like the "including for" part, which is not great grammar. How about "included those for"?
• Consecutive sentences start "Season fice" and "Season 5". Pick one and be consistent. Per WP:MOSNUM, I'd go with the first option.
• "There were 18 episodes produced for the season." This is repeating information from the second sentence of the article.
• "Thirteen of the total eighteen episodes are included in the volume." Another redundant word, this time "total". Removing it harms nothing; in fact, it makes the sentence tighter as a whole.
• Production: "As the fifth season began production, (long list of names) ... ,". Something is clearly missing from the end of this sentence.
• "before leaving the show to create his own series, entitled Phineas and Ferb, a series which has since been nominated for three Emmy Awards." Again, the struck words represent repetitive phrasing.

I'll come back to review more at a later time. Meanwhile, please consider finding an outside copy-editor to take a look at the page and clean it up. I'd hate to see a bunch of problems in the episode summaries, which are usually a problem spot for similar FLCs. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Gage (talk) 07:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note before I make these comments that I left one unstruck above.

• "Other guest stars who made multiple appearances as recurring characters from previous seasons, comprised...". I don't think the comma should be there. It seems like a minor point, but I would quickly check for similar punctuation issues elsewhere to ensure the best possible writing.
• "The decision to end the fifth season before the 100th episode was made due to Fox executive's desire to show...". Move the apostrophe to after the last letter of "executives". Otherwise, it reads like it was one executive's call.
• The first paragraph of Reception contains an overload of "also"s. I don't think these add anything to the text, and believe they should be dropped. The previous section has a few as well, with varying degrees of necessity.
• In the quote from Gord Lacey, there is a hyphen in the text where we would normally have an en dash. I believe we are allowed to adjust a quote in this fashion, so it would be worth it to make this confirm with our style standards.
• Episode 1: "While attempting to receive one from the Dr. Elmer Hartman". Remove "the".
• Episode 3: "she demands that Peter and Lois to allow her to buy a car." Remove first "to".
• "Despite showing an interest in a station wagon, Peter uses her money to buy a military tank." This makes little sense. Did Meg show the interest?
• Episode 5: "so he requests Lois to do his work for him". Should this be similar to "so he requests that Lois do his work for him."? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done and not sure where the 18 episodes is mentioned outside the lead and the DVD information. Gage (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Episode 6: Comma after Doug.
• Episode 7: Another comma after Rupert.
• "he leaves the house in anger, but decides to set fire to it". I don't see the contrast in this sentence that "but" implies. Perhaps this should be "and" instead?
• Episode 12: Space in "airtraffic" for "Quagmire eventually contacts Peter, Cleveland and Joe via airtraffic control".
• In some of the summaries, I detect a few unnecessary links, such as pornography and boyfriend in episode 6 (fairly common terms). In contrast, the episode 16 summary could contain links for Swan Lake and the No Child Left Behind Act, since those are more specialized and useful.
• DVD release: "The remaining five episodes of the fifth season, along with the first seven of the sixth season, were also released under the title 'Volume 6' by 20th Century Fox, in the United States and Canada on October 21, 2008, five months after it had completed broadcast on television." A couple of picky prose items here. First, the comma after 20th Century Fox should not be there. Second, "it" should be changed to "they", since the item in question is the number of episodes, not a season.
• Regarding the 18 episodes, I'm commenting about the information being repeated in the lead itself. The second sentence says "It includes 18 episodes", and the third paragraph says "There were 18 episodes produced for the season." They are heavily repetitive of each other, which is glaring since they are both in the lead. As I should have said above, why not chop the second one to avoid this?
• The general reference should be formatted like the others, with publisher and date of access. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support —Terrence and Phillip 01:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the status on Giants' comments? More importantly, has an independent copy-editor looked at the prose as per his suggestion? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No we have not got to that, he looks neutral for now, good to see you back--Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 23:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 22:50, 12 January 2010 [19].

Nominator(s): 03md 01:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has gone through peer review and I feel the list is ready to become featured. I am not sure whether a table for doubles players is needed. 03md 01:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per criteria 3a and 3b. For 3a, you would need the doubles. Also, given that we have complete lists of finalists from 1905 and 1922 for men and women respectively, I don't understand why this only goes as far back as the start of the slam era. Surely we should be consistent? But my main issue is 3b. I just don't see the need for this list. I don't see why it couldn't reasonably be incorporated into List of Australian Open champions (or vice versa, given the superior quality of this list in terms of referencing and prose). WFCforLife (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and Support Merge I also fail to see how this must be a separate article from List of Australian Open champions and its five subarticles. That lisst is not terribly long so this table should be trimmed and merged there. Reywas92^Talk 19:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The 3b criterion was created to avoid lists like this. It is reasonable to merge this list to the main list.--Cheetah (talk) 08:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 17:30, 11 January 2010 [20].

Nominator(s): Loveable Daveo (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. Although short, it will extend as time passes, without changing the current design/layout of the article. It is incomplete, but the only new information to be added will be the future number-one albums and current top 10, which will be added after they are revealed every Sunday. Many other similar lists have been given featured list status when still incomplete, such as List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK) Loveable Daveo (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There has only been 1 number-one album in the 2010s. It's vastly premature to say that this is an example of WP's finest work. Bencherlite^Talk 21:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Further comment) List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK) was promoted in Feb 2009, so over 90% of the decade was over by that point. 2/520ths (to use Reywas's figures) is a completely different order of magnitude. Bencherlite^Talk 22:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but Oppose. We're only two weeks into a decade of 520. Although I'm generally an advocate for short lists, this one is much too premature. It will surely and steadily grow and perhaps be great in at least a few months. Reywas92^Talk 22:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. A list of something ongoing is one thing, but this is just silly. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - there is no reason for the current top 10 to even be in there, and removing that just leaves a list with one entry, which is obviously far too short for a FL -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 18:31, 2 January 2010 [21].

Nominator(s): Mephiston999 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets FL criteria and deserves featured status. Mephiston999 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KV5

• Lead is very short; 1 paragraph isn't enough. Perhaps some of the prose from later into the article could be incorporated into a longer lead.
• The key should be made into a table.
• Not a huge fan of the giant green checkmarks in the first table. There's gotta be a better way to effectively present this information, such as a "Notes" column or symbols/colors.
• Why do the later lists only use a bulleted format instead of a tabular format?
• Quite a few redlinks in the second section.
• I don't have time to copyedit right now, but there are some grammar, capitalization, and punctuation errors. Two examples that I saw are "Higher Education institutions" (higher ed isn't a proper noun) and "South-West London" (southwest is the proper spelling).

I suggest recruiting an experienced copy editor. This list probably should have gone to peer review before coming here, and I wouldn't be opposed to its withdrawal to be put through peer review before a re-nom. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose.

1. I agree that the second section should be converted into a tabular form. I also think that the list should provide more information: street address, number of students, year of foundation etc. See, for instance, List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_New_Hampshire.
2. I do not understand what are inclusion criteria? Some of the institution mentioned in the list do not look like universities. The list should be either renamed to List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_London or the inclusion criteria should be rectified.
3. The lead should be expanded. It should, for instance, list the inclusion criteria which I mentioned above.

Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, a bit of this is said above, but my main concern is the rather subjective presentation of and lack of crucial information. In addition there are some style and grammar issues.

• What is the difference between a "major university" and "specialised universities and higher education colleges". For instance, I was under the impression that London School of Economics was a business/economics university and not a full-range university, and was sort of expecting it in the second section. Is there any reliable sources that can be sited for this divide?
• The second list needs to become a table. By merging the two sections, a full, sortable list can be created, which is much more useful for this kind of information.
• What I expect from a list like this is: name, location (for instance borough or similar), no. of students, public/private and perhaps notes. Maybe there are other things too, for instance year of establishment, faculty size etc. Rankings and accreditation actually say very little about a university, and there is academic dispute whether the rankings actually measure the quality of a university at all. There also becomes the discussion of which rankings to include.
• Why are some of the universities in italics? The key should be above the list in table format (what is the point of reading a table without having read the key, just to discover it after the table was read), and not use italics for indication.
• There seems to be an undue attention (in amount of prose) given to future universities. Why is a qualitative discussion of them worth while, where only a bare mention of the current in Name (type) format.
• Don't use relative terms like "within the next few years".
• Lots of statements are unreferenced.
• The lead should perhaps be five times the length. It also seems subjective, over-focusing on the University of London.

Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 18:36, 2 January 2010 [22].

Nominator(s): Notorious4life (talk) 06:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list, because the list is fully complete, well structured, very accurate, easily navigable, and is categorized very well with an extensive amount of information. My only real concern is that the article may be too long at 115 kilobytes to meet specific criteria without being split into multiple articles (though the maximum length of an article is not really mentioned in the criteria). —Notorious4life (talk) 06:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support In my opinion the article is very user-friendly and easy to navigate.Mephiston999 (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from KV5

• There are absolutely no references anywhere in this article. Two external links are simply not acceptable.
• Featured lists no longer start with "This is a list of...". See recently promoted featured lists for examples.
• The FLC hasn't been initiated properly, as there's no banner on the talk page.
• Some em-dashes are spaced; em-dashes should not be spaced per WP:DASH.
• All images need alt text.
• All of the colors in the tables need to be united in a single key and accompanied by a symbol per WP:ACCESS. I have no idea what the orange means right now.
• "Michigan also has 64,980 inland lakes" - I don't see that many in this list; what are the criteria for inclusion that makes this list smaller than the claimed number?

Some serious issues here that need to be fixed before I could considering supporting. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I added the talk page banner. To nominator: please follow the nominating instruction when nominating a FLC.—Chris!_c/t 18:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per the lack of references. Ruslik_Zero 19:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this list is a nice starting point and has potential, but some critical elements are still lacking. The most obvious is the complete lack of references. Some other comments:

• When I clicked on the link, I was expecting to see the island, location and coordinates (that is all nice), but also the size (in both metric and imperial unit) and the populations. Frankly, a list like this is not much worth if not details like this are provided. Because of the information in the lead and section leads, I feel that information is being withheld because data is being provided for a limited number of the islands.
• If the above mentioned information was added, I would have preferred to see a column for 'body of water' added and make a single table that then could be sorted.
• The maps are nice, but I would have liked to have seen a few images to increase my feel for the topic.
• The lead fails to mention the number of islands, even though it mentions the number of of lakes and ponds.
• It is better to use the {{convert}} template for conversion, among other things because the text uses ² instead of <sup>2</sup> that produces ².
• There is no key; obviously there is some color coding system, and this needs to be explained. Also, the colors need to be supplemented with a symbol for accessibility.

Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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