Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2006

Featured list logedit
2005
June 13 promoted 10 failed
July 20 promoted 8 failed
August 14 promoted 9 failed
September 3 promoted 8 failed
October 7 promoted 2 failed
November 7 promoted 6 failed 1 removed
December 6 promoted 4 failed
2006
January 11 promoted 11 failed 1 removed
February 3 promoted 8 failed 1 kept
March 13 promoted 11 failed 2 kept
April 10 promoted 5 failed 1 removed
May 10 promoted 7 failed 1 kept
June 9 promoted 10 failed
July 10 promoted 9 failed 1 kept
August 10 promoted 7 failed 1 kept
September 5 promoted 7 failed
October 8 promoted 10 failed 1 removed
November 11 promoted 8 failed 2 kept
December 20 promoted 11 failed
2007
January 18 promoted 11 failed
February 11 promoted 11 failed
March 12 promoted 10 failed 1 kept
April 20 promoted 17 failed 1 kept
May 23 promoted 14 failed
June 22 promoted 9 failed 1 kept
July 29 promoted 20 failed 2 kept/1 removed
August 41 promoted 15 failed 3 removed
September 42 promoted 11 failed 1 kept/1 removed
October 43 promoted 17 failed 2 kept
November 40 promoted 18 failed
December 38 promoted 15 failed 2 removed
2008
January 46 promoted 18 failed 6 removed
February 34 promoted 16 failed 10 removed/3 kept
March 65 promoted 9 failed 4 removed/2 kept
April 48 promoted 25 failed 2 removed/2 kept
May 50 promoted 39 failed 1 removed
June 46 promoted 23 failed/2 quick-failed 4 removed/1 kept
July 85 promoted 27 failed/10 quick-failed 3 removed/2 kept
August 58 promoted 52 failed/7 quick-failed 4 removed/1 kept
September 59 promoted 33 failed/5 quick-failed 3 removed/1 kept
October 75 promoted 30 failed/2 quick-failed 5 removed
November 86 promoted 13 failed 8 removed/5 kept
December 70 promoted 11 failed 3 removed/2 kept
2009
January 63 promoted 16 failed 3 removed/1 kept
February 62 promoted 24 failed/1 quick-failed 4 removed/1 kept
March 47 promoted 14 failed 4 removed/1 kept
April 47 promoted 15 failed 13 removed/2 kept
May 28 promoted 19 failed 15 removed/2 kept
June 56 promoted 14 failed 16 removed/4 kept
July 45 promoted 21 failed 9 removed/5 kept
August 37 promoted 15 failed 8 removed/6 kept
September 25 promoted 11 failed 3 removed/4 kept
October 40 promoted 13 failed 2 removed/4 kept
November 26 promoted 9 failed 2 removed/1 kept
December 24 promoted 14 failed 4 removed/0 kept
2010
January 30 promoted 13 failed 2 removed/2 kept
February 39 promoted 23 failed 0 removed/8 kept
March 38 promoted 20 failed 2 removed/1 kept
April 35 promoted 10 failed 3 removed/1 kept
May 30 promoted 7 failed 2 removed/2 kept
June 33 promoted 6 failed 0 removed/2 kept
July 36 promoted 15 failed 1 removed/5 kept
August 31 promoted 10 failed 3 removed/0 kept
September 36 promoted 13 failed 1 removed/3 kept
October 23 promoted 13 failed 3 removed/0 kept
November 22 promoted 10 failed 2 removed/2 kept
December 26 promoted 7 failed 3 removed/2 kept
2011
January 16 promoted 13 failed 6 removed/2 kept
February 28 promoted 11 failed 5 removed/2 kept
March 21 promoted 6 failed 1 removed/1 kept
April 17 promoted 8 failed 6 removed/1 kept
May 21 promoted 14 failed 2 removed/2 kept
June 21 promoted 10 failed 0 removed/4 kept
July 29 promoted 9 failed 2 removed/1 kept
August 19 promoted 21 failed 0 removed/5 kept
September 22 promoted 8 failed 1 removed/0 kept
October 23 promoted 3 failed 3 removed/0 kept
November 13 promoted 2 failed 2 removed/0 kept
December 13 promoted 9 failed 1 removed/1 kept
2012
January 18 promoted 9 failed 0 removed/1 kept
February 21 promoted 5 failed 0 removed/0 kept
March 17 promoted 8 failed 1 removed/1 kept
April 11 promoted 4 failed 0 removed/0 kept
May 8 promoted 16 failed 3 removed/1 kept
June 14 promoted 15 failed 2 removed/1 kept
July 18 promoted 7 failed 5 removed/1 kept
August 42 promoted 6 failed 3 removed/2 kept
September 26 promoted 6 failed 1 removed/2 kept
October 28 promoted 15 failed 5 removed/0 kept
November 20 promoted 8 failed 2 removed/3 kept
December 16 promoted 14 failed 4 removed/2 kept
2013
January 19 promoted 12 failed 4 removed/3 kept
February 22 promoted 8 failed 0 removed/1 kept
March 19 promoted 13 failed 0 removed/3 kept
April 19 promoted 4 failed 0 removed/2 kept
May 17 promoted 7 failed 1 removed/1 kept
June 24 promoted 7 failed 0 removed/1 kept
July 23 promoted 9 failed 0 removed/0 kept
August 15 promoted 7 failed 0 removed/0 kept
September 26 promoted 9 failed 0 removed/0 kept
October 13 promoted 13 failed 1 removed/1 kept
November 12 promoted 7 failed 1 removed/0 kept
December 8 promoted 3 failed 2 removed/0 kept
2014
January 13 promoted 10 failed 0 removed/0 kept
February 12 promoted 10 failed 3 removed/0 kept
March 28 promoted 8 failed 0 removed/0 kept
April 16 promoted 5 failed 0 removed/1 kept
May 15 promoted 6 failed 1 removed/1 kept
June 11 promoted 6 failed 0 removed/0 kept
July 18 promoted 11 failed 0 removed/1 kept
August 12 promoted 7 failed 1 removed/1 kept
September 16 promoted 13 failed 0 removed/0 kept
October 9 promoted 12 failed 1 removed/0 kept
November 14 promoted 7 failed 1 removed/1 kept
December 5 promoted 7 failed 2 removed/2 kept
2015
January 17 promoted 9 failed 2 removed/0 kept
February 13 promoted 5 failed 0 removed/0 kept
March 15 promoted 11 failed 0 removed/1 kept
April 17 promoted 5 failed 11 removed/2 kept
May 15 promoted 9 failed 3 removed/0 kept
June 14 promoted 4 failed 6 removed/0 kept
July 22 promoted 9 failed 1 removed/1 kept
August 29 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/0 kept
September 26 promoted 4 failed 1 removed/6 kept
October 18 promoted 11 failed 0 removed/1 kept
November 23 promoted 8 failed 4 removed/1 kept
December 10 promoted 4 failed 1 removed/0 kept
2016
January 16 promoted 10 failed 5 removed/0 kept
February 8 promoted 4 failed 0 removed/0 kept
March 10 promoted 6 failed 1 removed/0 kept
April 12 promoted 6 failed 2 removed/0 kept
May 14 promoted 9 failed 0 removed/0 kept
June 16 promoted 6 failed 2 removed/0 kept
July 9 promoted 4 failed 0 removed/1 kept
August 17 promoted 7 failed 0 removed/0 kept
September 21 promoted 11 failed 0 removed/0 kept
October 8 promoted 5 failed 2 removed/2 kept
November 8 promoted 4 failed 1 removed/0 kept
December 10 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/0 kept
2017
January 14 promoted 9 failed 2 removed/1 kept
February 13 promoted 7 failed 1 removed/0 kept
March 10 promoted 3 failed 0 removed/0 kept
April 16 promoted 6 failed 3 removed/2 kept
May 16 promoted 1 failed 0 removed/0 kept
June 12 promoted 5 failed 1 removed/0 kept
July 10 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/0 kept
August 19 promoted 2 failed 2 removed/2 kept
September 15 promoted 6 failed 1 removed/1 kept
October 15 promoted 3 failed 0 removed/0 kept
November 19 promoted 3 failed 1 removed/0 kept
December 25 promoted 3 failed 0 removed/0 kept
2018
January 25 promoted 3 failed 1 removed/0 kept
February 22 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/1 kept
March 15 promoted 2 failed 1 removed/0 kept
April 16 promoted 6 failed 0 removed/0 kept
May 12 promoted 3 failed 0 removed/0 kept
June 16 promoted 1 failed 2 removed/1 kept
July 12 promoted 0 failed 1 removed/0 kept
August 14 promoted 3 failed 4 removed/0 kept
September 11 promoted 3 failed 0 removed/0 kept
October 14 promoted 4 failed 0 removed/0 kept
November 13 promoted 4 failed 0 removed/2 kept
December 10 promoted 5 failed 0 removed/0 kept
2019
January 10 promoted 7 failed 1 removed/0 kept
February 10 promoted 0 failed 0 removed/0 kept
March 17 promoted 2 failed 2 removed/0 kept
April 11 promoted 9 failed 2 removed/1 kept
May 15 promoted 5 failed 1 removed/0 kept
June 10 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/0 kept
July 12 promoted 2 failed 2 removed/3 kept
August 11 promoted 2 failed 1 removed/0 kept
September 7 promoted 0 failed 1 removed/0 kept
October 8 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/0 kept
November 13 promoted 1 failed 0 removed/0 kept
December 10 promoted 3 failed 1 removed/1 kept
2020
January 11 promoted 7 failed 0 removed/2 kept
February 10 promoted 2 failed 3 removed/0 kept
March 8 promoted 0 failed 1 removed/0 kept
April 21 promoted 2 failed 1 removed/1 kept
May 20 promoted 3 failed 0 removed/0 kept
June 25 promoted 4 failed 1 removed/3 kept
July 15 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/0 kept
August 26 promoted 4 failed 0 removed/0 kept
September 17 promoted 1 failed 0 removed/0 kept
October 15 promoted 4 failed 2 removed/0 kept
November 15 promoted 5 failed 1 removed/0 kept
December 21 promoted 4 failed 2 removed/1 kept
2021
January 24 promoted 4 failed 0 removed/0 kept
February 7 promoted 0 failed 2 removed/0 kept
March 21 promoted 8 failed 4 removed/0 kept
April 20 promoted 4 failed 2 removed/2 kept
May 14 promoted 6 failed 1 removed/0 kept
June 17 promoted 1 failed 0 removed/1 kept
July 15 promoted 1 failed 0 removed/0 kept
August 16 promoted 2 failed 1 removed/1 kept
September 11 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/1 kept
October 23 promoted 1 failed 2 removed/1 kept
November 10 promoted 1 failed 1 removed/0 kept
December 9 promoted 1 failed 0 removed/1 kept
2022
January 21 promoted 1 failed 1 removed/1 kept
February 10 promoted 2 failed 2 removed/2 kept
March 20 promoted 0 failed 3 removed/1 kept
April 17 promoted 2 failed 1 removed/0 kept
May 20 promoted 2 failed 1 removed/0 kept
June 2 promoted 3 failed 0 removed/0 kept
July 13 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/0 kept
August 22 promoted 5 failed 1 removed/0 kept
September 10 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/0 kept
October 10 promoted 4 failed 3 removed/0 kept
November 9 promoted 1 failed 0 removed/0 kept
December 15 promoted 2 failed 1 removed/0 kept
2023
January 10 promoted 3 failed 0 removed/0 kept
February 12 promoted 4 failed 0 removed/2 kept
March 19 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/1 kept
April 12 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/0 kept
May 19 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/0 kept
June 19 promoted 4 failed 1 removed/0 kept
July 16 promoted 5 failed 2 removed/0 kept
August 19 promoted 4 failed 0 removed/0 kept
September 24 promoted 1 failed 0 removed/0 kept
October 22 promoted 1 failed 0 removed/0 kept
November 14 promoted 1 failed 0 removed/1 kept
December 15 promoted 0 failed 1 removed/0 kept
2024
January 13 promoted 2 failed 1 removed/0 kept
February 17 promoted 2 failed 1 removed/3 kept
March 26 promoted 5 failed 1 removed/2 kept
April 27 promoted 4 failed 0 removed/0 kept
May 34 promoted 5 failed 3 removed/0 kept
June 29 promoted 6 failed 1 removed/0 kept
July 1 promoted 0 failed 0 removed/0 kept
  1. Wikipedia's best work: Provides information in a format that cannot be found elsewhere on the internet.
  2. Useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised:
    • Useful: Summarises information from 25 seperate aritcles, and allows visitors to easily compare results from successive general elections
    • Comprehensive: Covers every general election
    • Factually accurate: can be verified via Elections Saskatchewan
    • Stable: Will be only be updated every four years or so
    • Well-organised: Easy to find any required information
  3. Uncontroversial: no edit wars or disuptes of any kind, ever
  4. Standards / style manual: Layout is clear and concise
  5. Images: Sole image has approriate copyright status

This is the second time this list has been submitted for featured list status (first time) It failed due to lack of support, rather than opposition. The suggestions amde last time round ave been incorprated. The list was put up for peer review (read), anmd the few comments made have been acted on. Tompw 14:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks good. Labour-Liberal and Unity Party should be linked somewhere, though even if it is a red link. Rmhermen 16:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Red and blue links respectively. Tompw 17:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support Good list and more Hmains
  • Object. As I voted in the previous nom, I still object the chronoligical order of the list. CG 09:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you point out exactly which of the featured list criteria this list fails to satsisfy as a result of your objection? Crtieria 1f states that "the list is easy to navigate, and is annotated with additional information, as appropriate". This list satisifes that. Tompw 12:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A good list order comes under "professional standards of writing and presentation" and also "easy to navigate". So I think this complaint is technically valid but the closing editor should judge how important it is. Three editors questioned/opposed the reverse-chrono order in the last review. Personally, I think there are good arguments for reverse-chrono and think the presentation would be satisfactory in either order. Clearly, there are advantages for all the related Lists of XX general elections to be consistent in their order. Colin°Talk 13:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking the lists of general elections for the other Canadian provinces and territories where someone other than me fixed the order:
    So "latest first" is in the majority by six to two. Changeing SK's to earliest first would make it less consistent. Please note I'm *not* saying earliest first is wrong. I'm saying both are acceptable, so there is no need to change (like UK vs. US spelling). Tompw 14:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Rephrase the "click the year" bit. Colin°Talk 13:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Tompw 14:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. s d 3 1 4 1 5 talk contribs 19:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but consider replacing class="toccolours" with class="sortable toccolours" to the top row of the table; it's ideal for this sort of table, and allows users to sort the table automatically. Laïka 22:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    When I first saw this in action, I also thought it would be ideal. However, a few issues emerged:
    • class="sortable toccolours" doesn't allow any wikilinks in column headings. This means no party wikilinks, and no footnotes (see Renata's point below).
    • It sorts numbers alphabetically, not numerically. So, sorting by the NDP column puts the 1982 row (9 seats) ahead of the 1991 row (55 seats), and also puts the 1934 row (2 seats) in between the 1967 row (22 seats) and the 1938 row (10 seats).
    • Sorting by anything over than year means no nice alternate pale grey/paler grey row backgrounds.
    Consequently , I've reverted back to class="toccolours". If they ever get the numbers and wikilinks issues sorted out, I'll use it. Thanks for the suggestion though :-) Tompw 15:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now - I would prefer if the wording in the "Summary" section would be less self-refering. It can be done by adding a "Notes" section and using ref tags. For example, add a note to the heading colunm on Conservatives that "Results in Conservative column include all results for the Progressive Conservatives". Also spelling out CCF and NDP would not hurt. Renata 22:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now done a "Notes" section, and spelled out CCF and NDP. I think it's now sufficiently non self-referenceing. Tompw 15:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Change to support. That looks much neater! But when you find a second, learn to use <ref> tags. See Wikipedia:Footnotes. It is a lot easier and quicker. Renata 02:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not uncommon to use the old ref/note system with letter labels for true footnotes, and keep the <ref> system for numbered inline citations. This article has no inline citations. Colin°Talk 09:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer to keep footnotes and inline citations (even ones that don't exsist yet) seperate. See Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal for an example of why this is a good plan. Tompw 09:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very good- keep up the good work! As I said last time, I think that if the list were in chronological order, not reverse-chron it would actually be less useful. --G Rutter 13:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been brought to the quality level that the 2004-2006 NFL Drafts, all featured lists, have been brought up to. It is detailed with plenty of references, and the intro is also about as good as I can make it. --Wizardman 18:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else? --Wizardman 04:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first "External link" 2003 NFL Draft is clearly the general reference used for this list and so should be named as the reference (a bullet point at the end of the References section). Less sure about the second one – did you use it as a reference or is it just supplementary info?
  • The citations/external link formatting need to be improved. You need to give the full title of the web page/news article, the author (if available), the publisher and the date published. The {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} templates are recommended.
  • The Mr Irrelevant comment isn't a reference (it is a footnote) and isn't really required since it just repeats what the lead says.
Colin°Talk 09:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditions 1 and 3 met, I'll work on #2. --Wizardman 16:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We didn't mean for you to remove the footnotes, which I've new restored. All that is required is that the citations are as complete and accurate as possible. The templates help by prompting you for such attributes as author, date, etc and do some simple formatting. Some folk prefer to hand-format so don't like the templates – they aren't mandatory. Don't bother with "format" for HTML pages – it is only useful for uncommon document types like PowerPoint or Word. Colin°Talk 09:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wow, you referenced like every single one. Was that necessary? Maybe, I guess, I'm not one to judge on that. Doesn't look too bad, I'm leaning towards support but I'd like the lead to explain a little bit more about the list (such as which one was the first to win gold, the one with the most medals, etc.) --Wizardman 02:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I made the references section go into two columns so it looks a little better. There are a lot, but you well-researched and that's all that counts. Also, like above, a See also'd be nice. JARED(t)00:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added the following see also
{{portal|Swimming}}
Since I created the swimming portal, I may have a conflict of interest :) .Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The references needlessly gives the full citation for "Australia at the Olympics" for every single usage. Some other lists/articles separate the Notes (brief author(year):page) from the frequently consulted References (full citation) to avoid this. Colin°Talk 23:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list is based on List of Australian ODI cricketers which is an FL (nomination). The stats have recently been updated from Cricinfo and Howstat. Also the notes and refs have been placed in order. Thanks --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 12:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list meets all of the criteria for a featured list. Images used in the article have been checked for the approriate useages. Clearly defined criteria for inclusion on the list is outlined on the Talk page. This is a self-nomination. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Well researched. Comprehensive. Nice photos. --evrik (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The main reason being the lack on inline citations for each and every person. Have a look at the other FL of people (and the list of Telecaster players below) for how this can be done. I believe VegaDark is working on doing a similar transformation to List of Oregon State University people (currently in his own sandbox) – you might find it helpful to discuss with him due to the similarities of the lists. Other issues:
    • Images CFJ3.jpg, William Hanna01.jpg, TIME Magazine Dec. 12, 2005.jpg, Ray Suarez.jpg and Samwalton.jpg are copyright and a fair use claim is not supportable for this list. They should be removed or a free alternative found.
Thanks- the images in question have been removed. --Gadget850 ( Ed)
  • The Gold Eagle.jpg icon should really be a PNG. Saving it as a JPG has made it fuzzy. Have a look at the Help on images. Its size is a little intrusive. Consider making it smaller or just use some other indicator, perhaps just a coloured text character such as a golden .
How about this: --Gadget850 ( Ed)
Great. Colin°Talk 16:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK- I changed the first section just to see how it looks. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  How about this version? Its as small as I can get without losing the Eagle. I changed the B section of the article so we can compare. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the article with the 15px eagle. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the sources don't count as reliable. Personal (or local scout troop) web sites might be just about OK for the occasional citation here and there (where they give a bio for somebody for example) but the ones that have huge unsourced lists are not acceptable. NNDB is also not a reliable source, as it is largely reader-sourced. The official scouting web sites (.org addresses) are a better bet. Sorry if this means a lot of your names don't have reliable sources. Wikipedia is only as good as its foundation.
I removed NNDB- this is a known suspect source that I did not notice had creeped back in. --Gadget850 ( Ed)
The Troop 179 references are compiled from BSA information and are known to be reliable. --Gadget850 ( Ed)
So- we need a cite for each entry? We have ensured that each of the linked articles have a proper citation. --Gadget850 ( Ed)
Afraid so. See Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Oregon State University people/archive1 for a reason. I would think this applies to most {{dynamic list}}s, which need careful maintenance. A less open list such as List of Presidents of the United States, doesn't require this. See also Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Inline citations on lists of people after each name?.
Colin°Talk 14:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK- we will work that. Every article has been carefully cited, so it is just a matter of copying those cites to the list. Many are going to be duplicated from one of the canonical lists, so that cuts a bit of work. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update 13 Nov 2006

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Nearly there.
  • You need cites for all the incorrect names too. If you can't find some right now, move those to the talk page.
  • Your Troop & Pack 179 ref is repeated several times. Is it too long that it breaks wiki or do you just think it looks nicer in chunks? Some may think it devious to hide how often this ref is relied on ;-).
  • The statistics in the lead need citations.
  • The last sentence in the lead needs backing up with a good source - otherwise it just looks like your opinion.
  • It is a pretty long list, which makes it less interesting to browse IMO. I wonder if you would consider chopping it into chunks based on profession. E.g. Sports, Politics, Arts, Military, Astronauts, ... Then folk can get a feel for where these scouts ended up. Does anyone else think that's a good idea? It would be a bit of effort, but I think it might be worth it.
If you fix the citations, you've got my support (the grouping isn't a dealbreaker). Colin°Talk 22:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the are so many using the T179 ref that it breaks wiki, so we had to break it up. I built that page from a official hard copy from BSA. I think it's better in alpha order, otherwise, you'd have to look at each topic to find someone whom you weren't familiar with.Rlevse 23:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a look at the reference section in this older version, you will see that cite.php kinda blows up after the bz tag. Breaking it up was the only way I could figure to fix it- I welcome any other way to do this. The T179 reference is a known good cite, based on a compilation of BSA information. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead cites are complete.
I removed the last sentence as an unsourced opinion.
Splitting by profession... is Bill Bradley more famous as a basketball player or a politician? Most astronauts were/are military, many politicians were military. Many of the folks had multiple careers. I welcome any thoughts on this, but the only way I can see this is to split it into separate articles with a lot of overlap.
--Gadget850 ( Ed) 03:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either way would make it worse, just leave it as is, straight alphabetical. Rlevse 03:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think my serious objections have been addressed. Grouping has been done successfully on other people lists. I wouldn't get too worried if there is overlap. Just pick what you think it the natural group for what they were most notable for. Wrt finding someone you weren't familiar with: 1) If you don't know them well enough to know why they were famous, then why on earth would you be interested in whether they were an Eagle Scout and 2) All browsers have a Find feature. Colin°Talk 16:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grouping- can you give me an example? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I highly object to grouping. Alphabetical makes far more sense to me. Colin's item one only makes sense for an educated adult--what about a young Scout just learning of his famous predecessors and goes on wiki to find out and for item two, we shouldn't have to find what group they were put in, just go to their name.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rlevse (talkcontribs) 16:54, 15 November 2006.
Examples are List of people with epilepsy, List of HIV-positive people, List of notable brain tumor patients, and List of Oregon State University people (not yet featured and being extensively reworked on User:VegaDark's sandbox). I really don't buy the young Scout story. Nobody finds the telephone book fascinating, but it has a purpose if you already know the name and don't have a Find button. Why would this scout remember someone's name without being told why they are famous. Surely it would be more interesting for young/old to see how many astronauts, sports stars or politicans were once Eagle Scouts. This info is burried in a monolithic list. Grouping encourages research and learning since they will find other names who are famous for similar reasons, click on those links, etc, etc. Colin°Talk 22:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I really don't buy your side either, so I guess we'll just have to disagree-;). See ya around wiki. Rlevse 03:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The format (alpha or by group) is really like rearranging deck chairs. I think it looks fine as it is. --evrik (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support pending these three notes being addressed. (1) Make it clearer on the talk page guidelines that an eagle scout notable enough for a Wikipedia article must be included in the list (assuming the fact that they are an Eagle can be sourced). (2) Consider converting it to a table format with name, birth-death dates, profession, date of Eagle award, etc. although this wouldn't jive well with the current picture scheme (this is just a suggestion). (3) Fix the title. Eagle Scout is a disambiguation page between several awards. Does this list include all Eagle Scouts or (I suspect) only BSA Eagle Scouts? savidan(talk) (e@) 02:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1- Changed may to should.
2- We had long discussions about going to a table format and the consensus was against.
3- Will think on this. Given the project standard, I reckon it should be List of notable Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America)
I put a move tag on the talk page for discussion. If there is no opposition, I will speedy this. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 04:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Gadget850 ( Ed) 03:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll consider the first two concerns addressed. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update 16 Nov 2006
The incorrect Eagles have now been cited. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update 17 Nov 2006
The article has been moved to List of notable Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After weeks of review and improvement, I think that this list is worthy of featured status. In accordance with the criteria, it is useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed. Self-nom by Cliff smith 19:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A spoiler-free version of the list can be created in the near future. That sounds like a good idea. —Cliff smith 01:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree, the references/notes/external links aren't right. Put the full citation from your "references" into the linked "notes". Then move the "external links" you actually used as general references into the "references" section. Then ditch the external links. Colin°Talk 19:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. —Cliff smith 01:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I'm going to have to make my normal "one sentence paragraphs" objection. I still feel that episode summaries should be a full paragraph. Jay32183 22:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Conditional Support Based on the good faith effort I've seen in improving the episodes and noting that it is almost complete, I support if the remaining episodes are brought up to the standard as those that have been updated. Unaired episodes can remain in the state they are in, until a reasonable amount of time after the initial broadcast. Jay32183 19:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point. However, two other featured episode lists--South Park and Stargate SG-1--only have one/two-sentence episode summaries. There is no guideline on the length of an episode summary in a list, however one paragraph is a little excessive since each episode has its own article. —Cliff smith 01:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually feel both of those lists are insufficient and that a single paragraph is not too much as an individual episode article should have at least three paragraphs of synopsis, rather than one of summary. It doesn't matter how well formatted the list is if it's text is poorly written. Jay32183 21:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any evidence of the list being poorly written. The synopsis are concise and to the point. Qjuad 21:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Single sentence paragraphs don't represent the best work of Wikipedia. I will continue to object until this is fixed. Jay32183 22:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing, Jay--I understand your opinion, but your objection is rather inactionable because 1) There is no guideline on the length of an episode summary in a list (as previously stated); and 2) Your objection doesn't pertain to any specific aspect of WP:WIAFL, which is what is truly important here.
Cliff smith 23:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One problem. The definition of Featured List includes the phrase "represents Wikipedia's best work". This list does not, and there are two actions you could take to satisfy my object, therefore making it actionable. Expand the summaries to full paragraphs or remove the summaries completely. Neither of these actions are unreasonable as neither requires and overabundance of work or resources and both improve the overall quality of the project. If you do not take either of these actions my objection will not be dropped. I have not presented a request that is unreasonable, so my objection probably won't be ignored either. Jay32183 02:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This vote is for deciding whether this list meats the critera as laid out in the WP:WIAFL and as such "represents Wikipedia's best work" in its capacity as a list. As Cliff Smith stated, no where in those guide lines does it state a rule on the length of an episode summary. Your objection appears to be based more on personal preference than the guidelines. Qjuad 03:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote. I have presented an actionable case as to why this does not represent Wikipedia's best work. Any prose that is included must be up to the standards of prose for the encyclopedia. It's not a simple checklist, those are the general guidelines. Arguing with me will not change anything. Either follow one of the two actions I suggested or my objection will never be retracted. I've participated in enough FAR's and FARC's to know that arguing against a concern with a recommened, reasonable action never generates featured status. By the way, I'm not actually talking about the length of the summary but the quality of the writing. One sentence paragraphs are not good writing, they may not be bad, but any writing included needs to be the best. Jay32183 04:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have an idea for compromise. It is this--
  • The making of a spoiler-free LOE for The Sopranos; and
  • Expanding the episode summaries on this list.
Jay, your assistance would be very appreciated in the undertaking of the latter, since I think you know a great deal about matters of this nature. Also, as with the LOEs for Stargate SG-1, the spoiler-free version would be the exact same thing, minus episode summaries. Should this current FLC nomination fail, the new list could be nominated; and hopefully this one will reach the same status after its proposed expansion. What do you think? —Cliff smith 04:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can get behind that. I'll try to help anyway I can, but should inform you I haven't watched "The Sopranos" so I can copy edit, but I won't be able to comfortably write any new material for you. If you don't want any plot in the spoiler-free version that shouldn't be a difficult task, and I'll definitely help there if you like. Jay32183 04:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! Your help is valuable. Also, I made the spoiler-free LOE. —Cliff smith 04:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. I've gone ahead and wikilinked all the dates on the main page, I just noticed they weren't. Can't forget to respect users' date preferences. Jay32183 05:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Season one looks good, keep at it and you'll have my support. Jay32183 04:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reset indents. Jay, I actually went through and removed all the date links as part of the peer review. This was a suggestion of the automated peer review and I actioned it as I felt they add little context to the article. I don't quite follow you when you say "Can't forget to respect users' date preferences." Could you explain this a bit more?--Opark 77 22:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The automated peer review isn't worded clearly to reflect the policy. Whenever you have a complete date as in Month Day, Year or just Month Day, you are supposed to link it because of users date preferences. For instance, my birthdate can be March 21 1983 or 21 March 1983 or 1983-03-21. If you set your date preferences you saw all three of those as the same. When you have Month Year or just Month or just Year, you don't link unless it provides context. If Spring 2007 had been linked that would have triggered the automated peer review as it should not be linked. Jay32183 22:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jay that clarifies it. Good work on the spoiler free article guys, that looks great for something that has come up so fast.--Opark 77 22:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Fair Use - Film and television screen shots. For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. —Cliff smith 18:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a touchy issue right now. Some people complain that too many images are being used. Others complain that the contribution isn't significant enough. Some see no problem at all. It seems to be a discussion that won't resolve anytime soon. I can't predict how Renata's objection will be handled if it is the only objection left when this closes. I can say that images are optional, so it's really up to how willing you are to argue. I won't object to either an images list or a no images list, but that may just be me. Jay32183 04:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(To Renata's positon) Here's the thing about LOEs: They can either have images or not have images. Whether or not images are a part of the list doesn't really affect the quality of the list. However, images that are subject appropriate are part of the criteria for a featured list. Then again, the image of the title screen and the images of the DVD art would satisfy the criteria. So at this point, I am indifferent as to whether or not there are screenshot images on this LOE. If it is of greater than little importance, the future of the screenshots can be voted upon at the talk page for this list.
But note that if they end up being taken down, this opposition should be retracted (I only say this because I've seen instances when something is changed that would make a position inactionable, but the position wasn't retracted). —Cliff smith 04:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list has underwent a peer review, albeit with no constructive response.

This list is useful (vast majority of blue links), comprehensive (more so than the Norwegian version it was based upon), factually accurate (good references), stable and uncontroversial. I also reckon it is well-constructed, I hope the table is fully understandable. The lead section provides a good background and overview, hopefully not too long. Self-nom by Punkmorten 14:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list has come a long way from the almost random "fanlist" of guitarists it was before several dedicated editors began working on it. It is now a well-defined, stable, useful list of guitarists who have made notable use of the Fender Telecaster and related models. There are solid criteria for list inclusion, and every entry is properly sourced. Since the list is sourced from actual books about notable Telecaster players, it can be considered comprehensive and useful to someone researching the history of this instrument. Join me in recognizing this excellent list with FL status. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support An excellent reference list for a historical musical instrument. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 19:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A very impresive resource. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is a good list and I can tell that establishing a restrictive entry criteria has been hard. The result is that the lead spends most of its time explaining the rationale rather than just getting on with the facts. Words like "because" and "consequently" are give-aways. Just tell us how popular the guitar is, that thousands of musicians have picked one up and that this list only includes xxxx (your criteria). The first paragraph currently mentions the "lots of" fact and the criteria twice. The second paragraph is similarly pleading. If the two guitars are considered variants of the same model, then just say so (not "can be", just "are"). You could add a citation for this claim (one of your books, or Fender's web site perhaps). A few of your links are dead (fender.demonweb). I see you've got one from the Archive. Is there not a new web site with the info? If not, use the Archive for the others. Try to ensure all your web citations have author (if you can find it), date written (if given) and access date. The date ranges will look better with an ndash. You must provide a fair-use rationale for this list for the Fender, Steve Cropper, and Waylon Jennings photos. Colin°Talk 16:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the feedback! Will get to work on these items right away. I think the somewhat verbose lead section is a result of the almost-daily attempts at "drive-by" additions of various guitarists. Will work on pruning it, and the rest of your items. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. The lead section has been pruned to use more imperative language, and a citation added for the Esquire statement. I have changed the hyphens in lifespans to endashes. I removed all fair use images and all images in the article are from the commons. I fixed all the web citations to proper format using {{cite web}} and provided date and author where available. I found updated citations for the broken ones, or used the internet archive. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I checked this list out and was immediately impressed. Incredibly well-referenced; the alphabetization makes people easy to find. Great job. —Cliff smith 03:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Important topic, very well constructed list, clear and concise with a good use of colours, images and pictures. I think it definitely good enough for an FL.

Partial self-nom. I just made some final touch-ups on this list which looked good even before that. Well defined, useful and comprehensive list of the top football clubs of South America's confederation. The style and layout is based on the featured list List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries. – ElissonTC 17:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a companion list of List of Presidents of the Philippines, which is now featured. --Howard the Duck 07:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added access dates already for the references. About {{PhilippinesGov}}, it was originally a public domain tag, but it got all confusing (see Template talk:PhilippinesGov, several featured items maybe in danger because of this, FYI.) --Howard the Duck 15:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know about the tag. But I think the list has really got chance at being featured even without the images. It won't that pretty, but it is still very useful. I edited the lead a bit and got confused with this piece of info: "Note that the Presidents under the Commonwealth of the Philippines were under American administration, and that there was no vice president during the Second Republic, considered to be a puppet government of the Imperial Japan during the World War II." - could you explain it a bit more? Also, {{cite web}} has a lot more parameters than just access date. Renata 03:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this will pass with no pics? I've edited the lead already. And I'm really confused with how cite web works, the dates of access for me are good enough. What other field is needed? --Howard the Duck 07:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC) I removed the pics. --Howard the Duck 13:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]