Wikipedia:FLC.html
 
| ca | de | en | es | fr | it | nl | no | pl | pt | ru | ro | fi | sv | tr | vo |


 

Featured lists in Wikipedia

This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.
Here we determine which lists are to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FL criteria.

Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FLC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list prior to nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. A list should not be on Featured list candidates and Peer review at the same time. Please do not split FL candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings).

One of the FL directors, either Scorpion0422 or Matthewedwards, determines the timing of the process for each nomination, but each nomination will last at least 10 days—longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved; or
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

Gimmebot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating.

Nominations will be removed on Tuesdays and Saturdays, just prior to User:Gimmebot's scheduled run at 00:00 UTC Wednesday and Sunday mornings.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents – #wikipedia-en-FL
Shortcut:
WP:FLC

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Toolbox

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that Peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list. If resubmitting a list, do not delete the old {{FLCfailed}} template.
  1. From there, click on the "leave comments" link to create a new sub-page for the nomination.
  2. If you are resubmitting a list, use the Move button to rename the previous nomination sub-page to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations → Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations/archive1. Find where the previous discussion is listed in the featured log and update the link there, as well as on the {{FLCfailed}} template of the list's talk page.
  3. Place ===[[name of nominated list]]=== at the top of the new sub-page, write your reason for nominating the list below the heading, and save the sub-page. Please make sure you sign your post.
  4. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated list. While adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary.

Supporting and objecting

Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the list nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page).
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by the reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used sparingly, because it can cause the FLC archives to exceed template limits.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
  • Graphics are discouraged (for example, Y Done or N Not done), as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
Nominations urgently needing reviews
· history · watch · refresh

The following lists were nominated more than 10 days ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:

Contents

Nominations

List of Governors of Bombay

I am nominating this List because I think this List satisfies FL criteria. Thanks, KensplanetTC 09:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

List of first women to hold U.S. Cabinet Secretaryships

After working on this list, I believe it fulfilled the FL criteria.—Chris! ct 20:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment I find the title a little awkward. Has there been any discussion about how this list is named? Jkelly (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
No, but I am open to any suggestions that would make the title less awkward. I am not sure how to make it less awkward.—Chris! ct 21:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Very nice read. I also found the title to be a little awkward though. "First women" had me thinking that the First Ladies had held Secretaryships. Couple of things: why are the Party and Administration columns not sortable; and the prose in the Postmaster General and SECNAV rows needs fixing -- it's wrapping very strangely. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, I am open to any suggestions that would fix the title and make it read better. I am not sure how to make it less awkward Also, the reason Party and Administration columns are not sortable is that the sorting function is not working and I don't know how to fix this glitch. Lastly, how do I fix the wrapping of the proses? I don't see anything wrong.—Chris! ct 06:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
"List of first female U.S. Cabitnet Secretaries"?
File:FFCS table.JPG is a screenshot of the page, with the line breaks circled in read.
The sortability glitch is if you're using Firefox with Twinkle or WikEd.. The linking for the other three columns works right; there's no reason Party and Administration shouldn't either. No big deal though.
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Second Boer War Victoria Cross recipients

It has been a while since I was here, but another Victoria Cross recipient list for your perusal. I think this meets all the criteria and follows in the wake of other lists in the campaign topic. The Second Boer War is actually covered quite well in Wikipedia, but South African villages isn't. I have created a large number of stubs for them, but there are still a few redlinks. I don't think that is an issue though, nor is it covered by any FLC criteria. Thanks for your time. Woody (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - it was my understanding that the award to Frederick Hugh Sherston Roberts was also posthumous, yet this is not reflected in the list. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment, depends exactly how you define posthumous I suppose, he didn't die during the action that won him the VC, surviving for a couple of days after the battle. It appears from the despatches published in London Gazette: no. 27157, pp. 506–507, 26 January 1900. that he was recommended for the VC by the CinC, Redvers Buller, before his death. The Royal Warrant and procedures then in force meant that an action directly observed by a CinC and duly recommended for a VC was almost certain to be confirmed, though interestingly, Buller declined to recommend Harry Norton Schofield for the VC for this action, but he was later awarded it. The actual citation, in London Gazette: no. 27160, p. 689, 26 January 1900. records him as "since deceased". David Underdown (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Tokio Hotel discography

I am co-nominating this with User:AngelOfSadness; it is her first FLC nomination. We think it comparable to other Featured discographies. All comments will be addressed. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I happily co-nom this article with Matthewedwards as for reasons already mentioned. It is quite comprehensive as it lists all official releases, known certifications/chart positions etc., all of which is easily verifiable through the reliable sources cited and I believe it meets the WP:WIAFL critera. Cheers. AngelOfSadness talk 16:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • Zimmer 483 was released on 23 February 2007, and hit the top spot on the German albums chart. - how about instead of "hit" use reached?
  • done
  • On 4 June 2007, Tokio Hotel released their first English language album, Scream throughout Europe. - Either remove the comma before the album name or add a comma after it
  • done (added)
  • "Ready, Set, Go!" was released in the United Kingdom though it failed to enter the Top 40; it spent just one week at Number 77 before dropping out of the charts. - comma before "though"
  • done
  • "Don't Jump" was released in 2008 as Scream's final single. - this makes it seem like the band is no longer together, is it suppose to sound this way?
  • The band are Tokio Hotel, the album is Scream. This just means it was the last single taken from the album. I've reworded and I'll try to find a reference for their yet-to-be-released new album to emphasise the fact that the band is still together.
  • Punctuation should be within quotation marks, unless I am wrong.
  • Only if the punctuation is part of the title, or part of a quote, AFAIK. Which one are you referring to?

--Truco 22:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Girls Aloud discography

This was at WP:PR for 8 days and got no feedback. I can only hope this means it's as good as it can be. Thank you for your consideration. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • They have also provided eleven original recordings for other albums, and appear on three more non-music DVDs. - from the context, "more" isn't required in the sentence
  • done
  • Their second single, "No Good Advice" was released in both CD and DVD single formats in May 2003. - either add a comma after the single's name or remove it the comma before it
  • done
  • A week later, the girls released their debut album Sound of the Underground, which was certified platinum by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI). - since it is also their name, capitalize Girls, because if it was a male group you wouldn't say the "guys"
  • done -- changed to "group"
  • The third single to be taken from the album was "Life Got Cold". - period should be within the quotation marks
  • not done - the period is not part of the single's title.
  • They released their debut single "Sound of the Underground", which reached the coveted Christmas Number 1 on both the UK Singles Chart and Irish Singles Chart. - comma should be within the quotation marks
  • not done - the period is not part of the single's title.
  • Their fourth single, "Jump", a cover version of "Jump (for My Love)" by The Pointer Sisters, was taken from the soundtrack for the film Love Actually, and appeared on the re-issue of Sound of the Underground. - comma should be within the quotation marks
  • not done - the period is not part of the single's title.
  • What Will the Neighbours Say?, the group's second album, was released in November 2004 and produced four singles, "The Show", "Love Machine", "I'll Stand by You", and "Wake Me Up". - commas and periods need to be within the quotations marks
  • not done - the period is not part of the single's title.
  • Preceded by the singles "Long Hot Summer" and "Biology", their third album, Chemistry, was released in December 2005. - like above, commas within quotation marks
  • not done - the period is not part of the single's title.
  • Basically, punctuation should be within the quotation marks, unless I am not aware of them being outside of the marks.
  • I don't believe this is true. The punctuation is not a part of the title, it is part of the commentary.
  • Sources for notes 4 and 5?
  • done

--Truco 22:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Megadeth discography

The early work done on this list was made by Burningclean. Later I improved, until reach here. I had a type of deal with Burningclean, was to be he nominating this list (or a co-nom between us), but he nearly left wiki or in a vacant period, I don't known. Now this work is better and waiting for your comments, that's all. Regards, Cannibaloki 03:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • In early 2002, Mustaine suffered several injuries, that led him to announce in a press release which Megadeth had disbanded. - how about In early 2002, Mustaine suffered several injuries, which led him to announce in a press release that Megadeth had disbanded.
    • Done. (swapped and not saw)
  • Two years later the band was reformed, and released The System Has Failed, which was supposed to be a solo album released by Mustaine, but due to outstanding contractual obligations with the band's European label EMI, he was forced to release one more album under the "Megadeth" name. 1)Comma after "later" 2)(Opt.)Remove comma before "and released"
    • Done. (just slipping to the wrong place)
  • Why is it that there is nothing noting the singles in the lead? Or other releases, like live albums, etc.?
    • This informations are written in the band's article, the discography is only a summary.
      • Yeah, but other discographies list singles and other types of albums released, I mean like a summary of them, but this one doesn't.--Truco 02:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Tables check out fine.--Truco 21:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Great, thanks. Cannibaloki 00:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Dido discography

previous FLC (07:07, 22 August 2008)
I think this discography about the British singer is comprehensive and well referenced. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all done. Cannibaloki 06:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • The following year, rapper Eminem sampled the song "Thank You" in his song "Stan", which reached number one in the UK. - the sentence is making clear which one ranked in the UK, Dido's or Eminem's song.
  • In 1997, she began composing solo material and signed a recording contract with Arista Records in the United States. - delink United States, to common country.
  • No Angel, composed of pop, rock and electronica songs,[1] reached number one and went nine times platinum in the UK. - should be ...and went platinum nine times in the UK
  • Spell out UK on its first occurence
  • In the US, the album reached number four and was certified four times platinum. - should be ...and was certified platinum four times.
  • The album reached number one and went seven times platinum in the UK - should be ...and went platinum seven times in the UK.
  • Life for Rent sold nine million records,[10] and produced four top forty singles. - no need for the comma
  • Source verifying the video albums, or is covered by the general references?Truco 21:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The video albums are covered in the general sources section. Hopefully fixed everything else. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

110th United States Congress

This article was previously nominated to be a featured list in September 2007. That proposal failed because the article was deemed to be not stable enough. See discussion here: previous FLC.

The Congress has ended and this article is ready to become a Featured List. This is a well-reviewed and highly-edited article. It's useful, pretty, and part of a long chain of articles about the U.S. Congress. Frankly, I really believe it could be a Featured Article, but when I proposed that for the 109th Congress, I was told it was a List not an Article.—Markles 11:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose Too early. Let time pass.ABC101090 (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Why? Is that part of the requirements of a Featured List?—Markles 14:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with the timing, but there is much much more that can be done to make the article better. One is that the map of Senate mebership belongs in the Senate membership section, not the House leadership section. If it pushes down the list then write a longer section lead. I see that the only problem with the entire article is that all section leads need to be much longer, which is necessary for those who don't know much about US Congress. Reywas92Talk 22:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Popotan episodes

List has been said by Goodraise and, a bit ago, Scorpion0422 to be FL worthy. I cleaned up the few remaining issues Goodraise mentioned.じんない 03:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Quick source comments I do not have time to do a full review of the article with regard to prose and such, but I scanned the sources and have comments:

  • The titles of web pages should not be in all caps.
  • IMBD is generally not considered a reliable source.
  • Ref 16 needs a publisher.
  • Publications should be in italics; you can accomplish this by putting the publication (New York Times) under the work= parameter in the citation template.
  • Anime News Network is inconsistently formatted; sometimes it is in italics and other times it is not.
  • The formatting of ref 6 is messed up. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
IMBD was used to back up ANN for Akio Watanabe's alias being Poyoyon Rock only. If you still believe it should be removed, I can easily do so. I think i've fixed the rest of the issues.じんない 03:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

List of San Francisco Giants Opening Day starting pitchers

I believe this list meets the Featured List criteria, along the lines of List of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day starting pitchers and others in the series. Rlendog (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

German football champions

After addressing issues which caused the list to fail last time I feel it now meets the criteria necessary to be a featured list. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, number of teams in the infobox is clearly wrong. Secondly, the introduction text states that German football champions are the winners of the Bundesliga. This is not correct for any championship before the 1963-64 season (when the Bundesliga was established). Team names do not correspond to their respective Wikipedia article. Personally, I feel that the East German champions should be included here as well. Table formatting is partially ugly, especially the first table is unnecessarily wide. There is a surplus |} before the 1963- section. Adding the number of titles in brackets next to each champion would add depth to the information. Overall, I feel the article has deteriorated since his last nomination. Madcynic (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Fixed the number of teams, the German champions are winners of Bundesliga, it is stated that the bundesliga came into existence in 1963 which clears up any confusion. Team names don't have to correspond to wikipedia articles, if this was the case in English football there would be F.C. in every line which is a nonsense. The names represented in the tables are the names commonly used in England. The table is markedly better since the last nom, this had been stated at WP:FOOTY. Look at List of FA Cup winners this has a table with full width. Removed the surplus |}. The number of titles in brackets is unnecessary and makes the table look cluttered. The East German champions should have a separate article as this was a different list and would confuse readers as it confused me. NapHit (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment

  • "German football Championship" should be "German Football Championship" since it is a proper noun
Done NapHit (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Kaiserslautern are the only club to hve won the 2. Bundesliga and Bundesliga in successive seasons.": fix the typo on "have"
Done NapHit (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Also this sentence is very confusing to me before I realize "2. Bundesliga" is a different thing. Add a brief explanation on 2. Bundesliga and add "the" in front of Bundesliga in that sentence.
Done NapHit (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Change all "n/a" to emdash
The n/a is fine and the key explains that the match was not played it should remain. NapHit (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Why did you include third place winner in the second table? I think score should be included instead.
No. The second table is about the Bundesliga, a league competition. Therefore there is no score to include. OdinFK (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

—Chris! ct 23:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments they have all been addressed. NapHit (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment

  • "...the first recognized national championship was staged in Hamburg in 1903...": The first final was played in Altona. Altona became a borough of Hamburg in 1937.
  • "Prior to the formation of the Bundesliga in 1963, the championship format was based on a knockout competition involving the winners from each of the country's top-flight regional leagues.": That wasn´t the case from 1934 to 1941 and again from 1951 to 1963 when there were group stages and then a knockout competition. --Hullu poro (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, they have all been addressed. NapHit (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment

  • Table width is still an issue for me. The List of FA Cup winners full-width table uses 6 columns, whereas the one used here only has 4, and not one column is even close to being filled. Refer to the second table in the FA Cup winner article, you will see this is not full-width. NB: This applies only to the first table, the second table is sufficiently densely populated to justify full-width.
If there is a source which states where these matches were played I could include the venue, if there is a reliable source. NapHit (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Gruene's Crown Prince to Bundesliga. I have the book and can provide info. Wiggy! (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
That would be great, cheers. NapHit (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
If there is not a source, how about you reduce the table width? Madcynic (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeh I will see what others have to say first though. NapHit (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
See rsssf.com? Madcynic (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Club names: If I remember correctly the article names are based on the "common name" principle. I therefore fail to see why you'd choose Hamburg over Hamburger SV or FC Nuremberg over 1. FC Nuremberg. Same thing applies to FC Köln which has the article at 1. FC Köln.
  • Inclusion of East Germany. This should be decided, I don't quite see the point of mentioning BFC Dynamo without including a 1948-1991 championship table. I think the table should be in here, because I see the East German championship on par with the West German one, and ignoring it feels like passing judgment to me. Also it should be noted that Bundesliga champions have been regarded as national champions in West Germany, while the national champion in East Germany was the winner of the DDR-Oberliga as is well documented by the various East German participants in the European Cup. (first paragraph) You also don't want to get into the issue of whether East Germany was Soviet-controlled or not, I'd suggest removing that verbiage at this position.
Its not an issue or bit of POV. It is an historical fact and key to understanding why a separate football competition emerged in East Germany and why there were two championships. Wiggy! (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and no. The sentence "while a second national championship was contested in Soviet-controlled East Germany under the auspices of the DFV (Deutscher Fußball-Verband" relates to the entire period of the two championships, and I do not think this is appropriate.Madcynic (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I will just create a separate list for the East German info, and will remove reference to BFC Dynamo. NapHit (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The East German championship deserves its own page, but hte material currently on this page puts that championship in the broad context of the country's history as a whole. I don't see a need to delete the short references - principle of least surprise.
  • Sourcing of introduction. The intro needs more sources, esp with regard to the 1904 championship. Madcynic (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Hardy Gruene has a couple of books that'll be useful 100 Years of German Championships and From Crown Prince to Bundesliga. One of these is already identified at the project page. Tor! and CPtB both have info on the missing 1904 and 1922 championships. Wiggy! (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Well it was sourced properly before the lead was reworked, I'll sort it out soon. NapHit (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned in my comment at the project page that it would need to be resourced. Wiggy! (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that a 5-sentence lead can be properly sourced but still not enough. So please do not remove information just because -you- cannot readily find a source. Wait if there are others who can. Madcynic (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Now you got that part about promotion and relegation wrong. 16th place has to play against 3rd in the 2. Bundesliga for a spot in the BL in the next season. OdinFK (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed NapHit (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
You're drifting guys. This is about the national championship, not about qualifying for different levels of play. Focus. You can't on one hand complain about the length of the thing and then drop in material that's not relevant. Wiggy! (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it's relevant it shows how the league works, and is brief. Anyway with the history section the lead needed beefing up a bit. NapHit (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What is "They competed in Germany as the thrir was no national football federation in the Austro-Hungarian Empire." in the introduction supposed to mean? I guess it's just a typo, but then there might be a deeper meaning, I don't get... OdinFK (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ye it's a typo, fixed now NapHit (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • I think the number of titles, which used to appear in brackets next to each champion, should be re-included, whether in a bracket as before or in a separate column. It's informative, something a reader might well want to know, and IMO rather more relevant to a list of German football champions than the third-placed team or the number of goals scored by the division's leading scorer.
That information appears in a separate table that follows the group of era-based lists. I agree that the third place and scorer info might be out of place, but will leave it set pending discussion. Wiggy! (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean the total number of titles won by each club. I meant the bracketed number of titles against the winner of each year's championship, as in this old version, which informed the reader that, say, Bayern Munich won their fifth title in 1974. Struway2 (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Table headings are inconsistent: should be either Champions and Runners-up (both plural) or Champion and Runner-up (both singular).
Resolved. Wiggy! (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • In the prose, names of football clubs shouldn't be in italics ...
Resolved. Wiggy! (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • ... and there are a number of hyphens which should be endashes.
  • Not sure what the point is of making the leading scorer column sortable when some years have multiple scorers, so it sorts only on the first-named of joint top scorers.
  • In general, as the structure and content of the list are being very actively changed as I type, it's quite hard to make sensible comments as they might be irrelevant by the time I next view the article. Perhaps it might be an idea to withdraw the nomination temporarily until the various editors finish their work, and then possibly put the article up for peer review before re-submitting? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep. Work in progress. But what you've posted here so far is still quite useful. Wiggy! (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment

  • Club names should be consistent. For example Schalke is used as well as Schalke 04 or Hamburg and Hamburger SV are also both used. Also the table of total tiles won occasionally uses different names as the other tables. I would change that myself, but I'd like to keep out of this naming business as my preferences for which names should be used are quite different.
    • I see the inconsistency and have started to correct it preferring more complete names. I have been using "Hamburger SV" in place of "Hamburg" for example to disambiguate things - there are a lot of Hamburg clubs. In the case of VfB Leipzig vs. Lok, the club won the titles as VfB, Lok was an East German appellation. Etc. Wiggy! (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I wonder if FC Köln, VfR Mannheim and similar club names should be sorted as such. Shouldn't these sort as "Koeln, FC" and "Mannheim, VfR"?
    • Mmm. Hadn't considered that. Any experts out there on managing the sort tool? Wiggy! (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
      • If you check the tables before User:NapHit got involved, you will see they had exactly this funcionality. Hope that helps. Madcynic (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the tip. I'll look. Wiggy! (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Still "-" is often used where an ndash should be (in years and results especially). I fix these on occasion, but there are still more.
    • Speed typing. The m dashes will have to be added after. Sorry. Wiggy! (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I like the introductions to the tables, but they are totally devoid of refs.
    • As I mentioned above, I'm focusing on the prose side to start. Almost all of the material is from Vom Kronprinzen bis zur Bundesliga or Tor!. The later Bundesliga material will come from another source. After I read up on ref formatting I'll add the cites. Wiggy! (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Finally I wonder why the actual titles were removed from the Total titles won table. In my opinion that was quite useful to see at a glance when a certain club had successful periods.
    • Overzealous editing? Just a mistake. Oops?
    • Its coming along. I'm a little concerned about the length, but I think the general treatment of the thing is working out and its not a hard fast rule, so I'm not worried about it as the thing is still readable. Some of the longest articles on en:wiki are lists.
    • Will add a "see also" link for the East German championship as part of that section. May do the same for the Saarland and will probably say something in passing about the German amateur championsghip introduced in 1956(?). Other comment? Wiggy! (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

OdinFK (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Ah My Goddess episodes (season 1)

Hello, all. This is my first FL attempt. I originally split List of Oh My Goddess episodes into three separate lists because they were so long, and I am almost sure that this part was originally what caused List of Oh My Goddess episodes to become a featured list. Therefore, I am nominating this for FLC after having written a lead and peer reviewing it. There are some unaddressed points in the peer review, which I simply cannot answer, and are frankly irrelevant. I must warn, however, that I did not write a single of these episode summaries. I can rewrite some of them if need be, but I think they're fine as is. Thanks! NOCTURNENOIRtalk 02:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment As the peer review is only recently closed by yourself, this FLC seems very premature. The issues raised there should be answered as the ones I see that are not answered seem pretty relevant. Then look at FLC.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • To the first peer review comment, I created the lead following a recently created FLC and not List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 1). I was told several times that the format that older lists followed was improper (such as the bolding). Second, to "I would make clearer the connection between the manga and the episodes - are they new material or an adaptation of the books?", the light novels appeared AFTER the anime. I'm pretty sure the lead is clear in saying that the series is based on the manga. For "How did the events in them affect the second season? Why were they made?", they simply had no affect and I couldn't find a single source as to why they were made. Finally, the peer review only garnered one review after it hit the backlog, so I doubt it'll find more reviewers. If you would like to review the list, I would be happy to fix the list per your comments, but I don't see a reason that this should not go through FLC at this time because I doubt many others will be improving it. NOCTURNENOIRtalk 03:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as Dabomb87 noted, article is in very bad need for copyedit and seems in complete. He made a better list than I could, but one very basic error I see is claiming the series was released to DVD in the US. DVDs are released in North America, not the US alone (Region 1 covers the continent not the country), and its never even actually stated that Media Blasters only that they released it (and yes, it should be stated explicitly). Also, Season One isn't a proper noun. I do not feel some of the peer review comments have been adequately addressed, particularly with the need for the lead to follow recent FLs (rather than FLCs) for anime episode lists, the need to better clarify the relationship with the anime/manga - as the manga is on-going, how much does the anime episodes actually cover? What are the general references supposed to be for? The airdates already have a specific reference, so those seem to have no function. Why is the second season not even mentioned at all in the lead? What about other licensing? It was released in the UK, but the article isn't mentioned. What about other language releases? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
FLC... I meant FLs. List of Bleach episodes (season 6), the most recent FL to pass, was what I based my lead off of. Working on the issues now... NOCTURNENOIRtalk 01:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Alright, I think I've fixed all of the issues you brought up, Collectonian. Let me know if anything else is missing! By the way, I'm not entirely sure how relevant non-English releases of this would be on the English Wikipedia... If other FLs are any measure, that information is not included. NOCTURNENOIR ( m • t • c ) 19:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Many FLs do include that information. Looking just at the Bleach season pages isn't fully representative of the anime FLCs as a whole. Part of the issue with this one is its really a blend of a season list and a standalone list because of the way the "season" is split, including between English licensors. I did some tweaks to the lead to reorder and reword some (actually using Bleach Season 6's list as a guide). When the episode summaries have been checked and CEed, pop a note here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there no better source for the DVD releases and airdates than ANN? While it is a reliable source, it should be the last resort for that information if the official sites has the same info. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have replaced every single ref and I have answers the questions. Anything further? NOCTURNENOIR ( m • t • c ) 05:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) If you don't want to see the article go through a complete peer review, that's fine, but the article needs a third-party copy-edit before FL status can be attained.

  • "The season was released to DVD"-->The season was released on DVD...
  • I don't quite think that the tone of the first episode summary is encyclopedic. Phrases like "has a long and miserable day" "But even when things are going so poorly" are rather subjective and read like a story rather than a concise synopsis.
  • "After returning to the dorm just in time to receive the expected phone call"—"the"-->an.
  • "Keiichi tells Belldandy that he wishes for "a goddess like [her] to stay by [his] side forever," almost jokingly"-->Keiichi tells Belldandy jokingly that he wishes for "a goddess like [her] to stay by [his] side forever".
  • "The wish is actually granted and Belldandy reveals that she will be staying with Keiichi."
  • "Finally, Keiichi and Belldandy settle down for the night and spend the time talking as they begin to get to know each other. "-->Finally, Keiichi and Belldandy settle down for the night and get to know each other through conversation.
  • Generally, these are the main problems with the writing:
    • Tone, a result of being too close to the topic and the prose.
    • Verbose sentences that try to integrate too many thoughts, which inhibit the natural flow of the writing. Example: "So the two search for a place to stay until morning, a process complicated by the "System Force," which comes into effect whenever they are likely to be separated, effectively making it impossible for them to remain apart even for brief periods of time." I would suggest ending with a full stop (period) after "morning", and then starting, "However, their search is complicated by the "System Force", which..."
    • Excessive use of idle additive terms that, ironically, make the prose choppier. Examples: "So the two search for a place to stay until morning" and "Finally, desperate to defeat Belldandy, she takes Keiichi for a drive, only to fail when Keiichi reveals that he knows that Sayoko is only pretending to care about him. " Dabomb87 (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
doing By the way, it wasn't that I didn't want the article to go through a complete peer review. It was peer reviewed, and seeing as it did not garner any comments until it hit the PR backlog, I did not think it would be further reviewed. Would a large-scale rewrite of the episode summaries be suggested here? As these episode summaries were not written by me, I cannot vouch for their content/style. NOCTURNENOIRtalk 01:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
If you did not write the episodes, you should have probably consulted the person who did before nominating for FLC. Not all the episodes are "beyond repair" so to speak; however, a couple probably do need a reorganization—episodes 1 and 18 jump out at me on a quick look-over. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I did the best I can, so could you take another look over the episode summaries please? Thanks! NOCTURNENOIR ( m • t • c ) 06:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Nashville Sounds no-hitters

I am nominating this list because I believe it meets all FL criteria. It appears well-written and provides full coverage of the subject. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Table only has six items; although the lead is quite substantial considering. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

CommentQuick-Fail - like Dabomb said, the table is too short because it is not listing enough information. FLC's must have at least 10 items, excluding vacancies; exceptions to this are lists that present substantial information in the tables. This, I'm afraid, isn't one of them, however, the lead is well written. --Truco 19:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy fail Sorry, the list does not have enough items.—Chris! ct 20:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Length is not an excuse for featureability. Either it should have a chance to become featured or it should be merged (I'd point it to Nashville Sounds team records). Reywas92Talk 04:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually it does because this list isn't saying much, now if it were about a list on historic landmarks, that would be different because other notes and columns are added, but here only statistics are listed. I'd also point to a merge to Nashville Sounds team records.--Truco 21:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Moons of Uranus

I am nominating the list of Uranian moons for featured list, because I think all FL criteria are met. This will be the second featured list of planetary moons (after Moons of Jupiter). Ruslik (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment while resisting the temptation to make the obvious lowbrow joke - In the image, the second moon from the left looks screwy (half of it appears to be solid grey), is that an error or intentional? It's also a tad wider than I'd like. Imagine what it would look like on small screens. -- Scorpion0422 18:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    Intentional, see NASA photjournal. The second moon (Ariel) is actually slightly larger than the third (Umbriel). Ruslik (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Comments
  • "The five major, spherical moons of Uranus compared, at their proper relative sizes and brightnesses." does not need either comma.
  • "all of which were named" -> "all of which are named" They still have the Pope/Shakespearean names.
  • "respectively" is not needed in the second sentence.
  • "the thirteen inner moons" -> "thirteen inner moons". The other two groups listed don't use "the".
  • "dark small bodies" -> "small dark bodies"
  • "endogenic resurfacing and tectonics" needs to be wikilinked, explained, or removed.
  • "is at 1578 km in diameter the eighth largest moon in the Solar System" -> is 1578 km in diameter and the eighth largest moon in the Solar System"
  • (most being retrograde) -> (mostly retrograde)
  • "of a further ten inner moons" -> "of ten further inner moons"
  • "last giant planet with without" -> "last giant planet without"
  • "but since 1997, nine" -> "but since 1997 nine"
  • October of 2003 -> October 2003
  • continuing the "airy spirits" theme -> continuing the airy spirits theme
  • discoverer, Gerard Kuiper, after -> discoverer Gerard Kuiper after
  • The Rape of the Lock (a poem by Alexander Pope) — Ariel, Umbriel, Belinda -> *Poems by Alexander Pope ** The Rape of the Lock: Ariel, Umbriel, Belinda To be uniform with Shakespeare
  • Wikilink albedo
  • varies in the range 30–50% -> varies in the range of 30–50%
  • All major moons (except Miranda, which is made primarily of ice) comprise approximately equal amounts rock and ice. -> All major moons comprise approximately equal amounts rock and ice, except Miranda, which is made primarily of ice.
  • ovoid 'race-track' like -> ovoid race track-like
  • between Miranda and Umbriel, as well as a past 4:1 -> between Miranda and Umbriel and a past 4:1
  • eccentric (~0.2), namely: Francisco, -> eccentric (~0.2), namely Francisco,
  • As of 2008, Margaret's current eccentricity -> As of 2008, Margaret's eccentricity
    • Very informative and well-referenced. Reywas92Talk 21:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
      Thanks, I will fix them tomorrow. Ruslik (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
      Already got them fixed. Thank you for the copy edit! SkarmCA (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
      I clarified "endogenic resurfacing and tectonics". Ruslik (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
      Support Excellent, informative article! Reywas92Talk 17:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Comments
  • "the combined mass of the five major satellites would be less than half that of Triton alone." - You should explain what Triton is, maybe say that it is the seventh largest moon in the Solar System?
  • "Margaret is the only known irregular prograde moon of Uranus and has one of the most eccentric orbits of any moon in the solar system. As of 2008, Margaret's eccentricity is 0.7979.[31] This temporarily gives Margaret the most eccentric orbit of any moon in the solar system, though Neptune's moon Nereid has a higher mean eccentricity."
  • Maybe the diagram of the irregular moons should be explained in the caption and not in the text? Well, I dont know.
  • Otherwise a nice list. --Skizzik talk 23:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the review. I fixed all issues above. Ruslik (talk) 08:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - Having looked over the FL criteria, I think this more than satisfies it. Ruslik and Serendi have done it again, good luck with your task. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 22:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing

For those that don't like the table format, there are some alternatives listed Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing (although they don't seem to be too popular). Anyway, all concerns will be addressed by me. Enjoy! -- Scorpion0422 16:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support Excellent list; all of my concerns on the Wikiproject review have been addressed. Reywas92Talk 20:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


  • (1) Maybe it is possible to add also the "Image:Alpine skiing pictogram.svg"? These pictograms are added to nearly all Olympic articles and I think it is good to "mark" all Olympic articles on English wiki with these pictograms?
    • I don't know, I can't really find a convenient place to put it, maybe in the see also section?
  • (2) Same more useful images: "File:Ann Heggtveit 1960.jpg", "File:Olympic medal Lake Placid 1932.jpg", "File:Olympic medal Garmish 1936.jpg", "File:Olympic medal Grenoble 1968.jpg", "File:Olympic medal Innsbruck 1976.jpg", "File:Olympic medal Sarayevo 1984.jpg", "File:Olympics medal Salt Lake 2002.jpg"?
    • At the moment, there is only have room for one image, but if a spot opens up, the Heggtveit would be a good option.
  • (3) The FIS and also the IOC call the "Super giant slalom" only "Super G" so I think we should also use this name?
    • I'm not sure, I'll see what the WP:OLYMPICS convention is.
  • (4) What about: The oldest/youngest male medalist? The oldest/youngest male gold medalist? The oldest/youngest female medalist? The oldest/youngest female gold medalist?
    • I have Aamodt listed as the oldest medalist and I would like to add the youngest, but I haven't been able to find out who that is yet.
  • (5) The first who was able to repeat his/her title? Or the biggest gap between two medals?
    • Okay. I added some more firsts too.
  • (6) Is it of interest, that Liechtenstein is the only country to win medals in Winter Games but not in Summer Games and they won all their medals in Alpine skiing?
  • (7) Maybe we can add a list which country was the most successful in every year?
  • (8) Maybe we can add medal tables for men/women only? Or we can add medal tables per disciplines?
    • I have an idea for that. Give me a bit of time and I'll see what I can do.
  • (9) About the text: "..., although some Austrians decided to compete for Germany." Maybe we can add that one of them the Austrian-born Gustav Lantschner won silver for Germany? This is why Austria failed to win a medal only in 1936...
  • (10) About the text: "...and have been won by athletes from 24 nations." Maybe it is better to write alpine skiers or competitors and not athletes? Isn't there a different in the meaing of the word "athlete" in British and American English? And maybe it is better to write NOC's and not "nations"? Maybe West Germany - Germany and/or Soviet Union - Russia are not different "nations"?
    • Done.
  • (11) What about triple wins for countries? E.g. Norway in men's combined in 1994?
    • Added.
  • (12) What about families? Mahre, Fernández-Ochoa, Wenzel, Frommelt, Kostelić? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I think that's a bit too trivial for here.
    • Thanks a lot for your comments! -- Scorpion0422 22:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


(1) Like on the other pages this <div class="tright">[[Image:Alpine skiing pictogram.svg|100px|border|Alpine skiing]]</div> is added at the top right corner.
(3) Please see e.g. [1] and [2]
(4)
  • Youngest female medalist: Traudl Hecher bronze downhill 1960 - 16 years and 145 days
  • Youngest female gold medalist: Michaela Figini downhill 1984 - 17 years and 315 days
  • Oldest female medalist and gold medalist: Michaela Dorfmeister gold Super G 2006 - 32 years 332 days (Alexandra Meissnitzer who won bronze in the same race is the second oldest medalist - 32 years 247 days)
  • Youngest male medalist: Alfred Matt bronze slalom 1968 - 19 years 281 days
  • Youngest male gold medalist: Toni Sailer giant slalom 1956 - 20 years and 73 days (two days later he won gold in slalom - 20 years and 75 days and again three days later he won gold in downhill - 20 years and 78 days)
  • Oldest male medalist and gold medalist: Kjetil André Aamodt - 34 years 169 days (Aamodt is also behind Sailer's three gold medals the second youngest gold medalist (Super G 1992 - 20 years and 167 days)
(11) The triple wins are not added?
(13) Janica Kostelić is the only female skier to win three gold medals. Kjetil André Aamodt won his first gold medal in 1992 and his last in 2006 - span of 14 years.
Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I gave the pictogram a try, and it really didn't look that good as a second image in the lead. I changed the name to Super G, and mentioned that Traudl Hecher is the youngest medalist. I decided not to add triple wins to the lead, and I'm in the process of adding a table of the most medal-winning athletes. Thanks a lot for your comments, is there anything that I haven't addressed? -- Scorpion0422 20:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - excellent list after the resolved comments by Dowa, however, World Championhips is WP:OVERLINK (overlinked) in the prose.--Truco 19:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
(6) Liechtenstein: there is no decision up to now
I'd have to say no, I don't think it's really worth mention here.
(9) Gustav Lantschner: there is no decision up to now
Had Lantschner planned to compete for Austria prior to the announcement of the boycott?
I am not sure, Lantscher won medals for Austria in the FIS world championships in 1932 and 1933 and get German citizanship in 1935. If the reason was the boycott or political is unknown to me... Doma-w (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(13) Correction: Janica Kostelić is the only female skier to win three gold medals at the same Olympics (2002) like Sailer (1956) and Killy (1968).
The reason Sailer and Killy are mentioned is because they won every available gold medal and swept ther events. Kostelic won three, but she didn't sweep.
(14) Marielle and Christine Goitschel: They were the first sisters two finish one-two at the Olympics ever - Slalom February 1, 1964 and they repeat their one-two finish only two days later in the gia