Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 2009

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 21:15, 10 February 2009 [1].

---

List of Olympic medalists in short track speed skating

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²²

Based on the List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing and List of Olympic medalists in freestyle skiing, except with many of the kinks and flaws already worked out. This is a WikiCup submission. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) The first Winter Olympics, held in 1924, included Speed skating, but the first official short track speed skating events were not held until the 1992 Winter Olympics in Albertville, France. - 1)decapitalize Speed 2)In the "city, country" link, France shouldn't be linked since its a common country Done. The results of those events are not considered official and are not included here. - instead of here, how about "in this list"? Done. For the 500 metre and 3000 metre table, how about using a format with the bullets and indented bullets (like the country in the first bullet and the medalists with indented bullets) I gave it a try with the 5000 table below. What do you think? That's perfect.--TRUCO 19:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Is it possible to add who the first medalists and most recent were for each event?--TRUCO 03:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC) I'm assuming you mean in the lead, and I don't think it's really necessary (especially since we would have to list at least 16). -- Scorpion0422 19:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC) That's fine then.--TRUCO 19:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Experimental medal table with bullets Games Gold Silver Bronze 1992 Albertville  South Korea (KOR) Kim Ki-hoon Lee Joon-Ho Mo Ji-Soo Song Jae-Kun  Canada (CAN) Frédéric Blackburn Laurent Daignault Michel Daignault Sylvain Gagnon Mark Lackie  Japan (JPN) Yuichi Akasaka Tatsuyoshi Ishihara Toshinobu Kawai Tsutomu Kawasaki 1994 Lillehammer  Italy (ITA) Maurizio Carnino Orazio Fagone Hugo Herrnhof Mirko Vuillermin  United States (USA) Randy Bartz John Coyle Eric Flaim Andrew Gabel  Australia (AUS) Steven Bradbury Kieran Hansen Andrew Murtha Richard Nizielski 1998 Nagano  Canada (CAN) Eric Bédard Derrick Campbell François Drolet Marc Gagnon  South Korea (KOR) Chae Ji-Hoon Lee Jun-Hwan Lee Ho-Eung Kim Dong-Sung  China (CHN) Li Jiajun Feng Kai Yuan Ye An Yulong 2002 Salt Lake City  Canada (CAN) Eric Bédard Marc Gagnon Jonathan Guilmette Francois-Louis Tremblay Mathieu Turcotte  Italy (ITA) Michele Antonioli Maurizio Carnino Fabio Carta Nicola Franceschina Nicola Rodigari  China (CHN) An Yulong Feng Kai Guo Wei Li Jiajun Li Ye 2006 Turin  South Korea (KOR) Ahn Hyun Soo Lee Ho-Suk Oh Se-Jong Seo Ho-Jin Song Suk-Woo  Canada (CAN) Eric Bédard Jonathan Guilmette Charles Hamelin Francois-Louis Tremblay Mathieu Turcotte  United States (USA) Alex Izykowski J. P. Kepka Apolo Anton Ohno Rusty Smith

• Support - problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.20:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)TRUCO

Comment "South Korean Yang Yang (A) is one of six athletes to win five medals in short track speed skating." should be "Chinese Yang Yang is one of six athletes to win five medals in short track speed skating."—Chris! _ct 19:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that she is from China. In regards to the (A), it is used to differentiate her from her fellow speed skater Yang Yang (S). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Good, I support.—Chris! _ct 22:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. I found it interesting that the German version was also featured. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Prior to"-->Before.
  • Done.
• "The men's and women's 1500 metres was" "was"-->were, we are talking about two things here (men's 1500 and women's 1500).
  • Done.
• "A total of" Redundant.
  • Done.
• "Eric Bédard"-->Éric Bédard
  • Done.
• "Francois-Louis Tremblay"-->François-Louis Tremblay
  • Done.
• "Ahn Hyun Soo"-->Ahn Hyun-Soo
  • Done.
• " Jin Sun-yu"--> Jin Sun-Yu
  • Done.
• "Chun Lee-kyung"-->Chun Lee-Kyung
  • Done.
• "Kim Yun-Mi"-->Kim Yoon-Mi Dabomb87 (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done.

Sources

• Ref 4 needs format=PDF added to the citation template. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose, there is no need to change the style of the medalists in the relay events! We have hundreds of Olympic pages which list the medalists in team competitions NOT in this style. All Olympic page had and have an established style up to now... Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not exactly a major issue. What's wrong with it? I think it makes the table neater, more organized and easier to read. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you prefer something like this instead:

Experimental medal table with indents

Games	Gold	Silver	Bronze
1992 Albertville	South Korea (KOR)      Kim Ki-hoon      Lee Joon-Ho      Mo Ji-Soo      Song Jae-Kun	Canada (CAN)      Frédéric Blackburn      Laurent Daignault      Michel Daignault      Sylvain Gagnon      Mark Lackie	Japan (JPN)      Yuichi Akasaka      Tatsuyoshi Ishihara      Toshinobu Kawai      Tsutomu Kawasaki
1994 Lillehammer	Italy (ITA)      Maurizio Carnino      Orazio Fagone      Hugo Herrnhof      Mirko Vuillermin	United States (USA)      Randy Bartz      John Coyle      Eric Flaim      Andrew Gabel	Australia (AUS)      Steven Bradbury      Kieran Hansen      Andrew Murtha      Richard Nizielski
1998 Nagano	Canada (CAN)      Éric Bédard      Derrick Campbell      François Drolet      Marc Gagnon	South Korea (KOR)      Chae Ji-Hoon      Lee Jun-Hwan      Lee Ho-Eung      Kim Dong-Sung	China (CHN)      Li Jiajun      Feng Kai      Yuan Ye      An Yulong
2002 Salt Lake City	Canada (CAN)      Éric Bédard      Marc Gagnon      Jonathan Guilmette      François-Louis Tremblay      Mathieu Turcotte	Italy (ITA)      Michele Antonioli      Maurizio Carnino      Fabio Carta      Nicola Franceschina      Nicola Rodigari	China (CHN)      An Yulong      Feng Kai      Guo Wei      Li Jiajun      Li Ye
2006 Turin	South Korea (KOR)      Ahn Hyun-Soo      Lee Ho-Suk      Oh Se-Jong      Seo Ho-Jin      Song Suk-Woo	Canada (CAN)      Éric Bédard      Jonathan Guilmette      Charles Hamelin      François-Louis Tremblay      Mathieu Turcotte	United States (USA)      Alex Izykowski      J. P. Kepka      Apolo Anton Ohno      Rusty Smith

Sorry no, I would not prefer the change to this style. To bring this list to featured status there is no need to change the style which is used on (all?) other Olympic pages. If we want to change the style we had to discuss this topic not only for this page but for all Olympic pages (and these are hundreds). And I think we had to do this on the WP:Olympics talk page? Up to now I have never read that the common Olympic style is not neat, organized and easy to read? Please see e.g. Athletics at the 2008 Summer Olympics. I think it is necessary and desirable that all Olympic pages have the same style? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I never said the common style is bad, I just think this version is an improvement. Is there any reason why you are against the current style other than maintaining the status quo? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason is that I think it is not to prefer to have different styles on the Olympic pages. It was and is a hard work for only a very few editors to bring all the Olympic pages in line. To establish a new style on only this page destorys a long work and makes confusion. And again, I don't think that there is a need to add dots or spaces. So please allow me again to ask to reestablish the common style. Kind reagards Doma-w (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How about just one space then for the individual athletes? That way it would be similar to the old style (but still not a huge difference) but still differentiate between the nation and the athletes. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

:) First I still do not think that this is the right place for this discussion. Second I am sure that I can not decide this alone! And if there is not a huge difference why we do not keep the established style? Isn't the flag shown in front of the nation enough difference between the nation and the athletes? Please see also e.g. Athletics at the 2007 Pan American Games or 1930 British Empire Games. All these pages had to change the style? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've reverted for now, but I do think you are over-reacting to this. If you think about it, 4 of 57 medalist pages are now within FL standards, but would that not make them inconsistant with the old standards? Should you ever not make potential improvements simply to maintaining the status quo? No. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not involved with this, but quality always trumps consistency or maintaining the status quo. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Scorpion! Every improvement is welcomed. But is it an improvement? Is it better quality? Again, if you want to change the style please discuss this on the WP:Olympics talk page. I remember that one of the members of the WP:Olympics started last autumn a guideline for these kind of pages. As far as I know the work is still in progress. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Due to the list being currently wrong (I guess this may have been accidental from when you were fiddling with what tables to use). I noticed the one capped above didn't match the article's list. Looking at the 5000m for example the reference does not state the names listed currently in the article. It lists the ones capped earlier in this FLC. I didn't check any further than that but I urge you to double check the information as we don't want to go featuring the wrong stuff! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC) As a side note I personally prefered the stylistic change to the table suggested earlier.

This is a simple but pretty embarassing case of human error. When I went back to the old version of the table, I decided to do it the easy way and copy and paste the table from an old version. Long story short, I accidentally copied the results of the women's 3000 metre relay into the section for the men's 5000 metre relay. It has been fixed now. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I guessed as much, anyway no harm done I just figured the best way to get your attention and stop the wrong version being promoted was with an "oppose". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Support

• The only questionable thing I could find is listed is should "Chun Lee-kyung" be Lee-Kyung? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

  Chun Lee-kyung is Korean and they list their names in reverse (Korean name), so Chun is her family name and Lee-kyung is her given name. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry I'll clarify, I knew that what I meant was should the K be capital like it is for their main article? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, you are correct. Fixed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Good work, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 21:15, 10 February 2009 [2].

---

Rumford Medal

Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk)

Another of my Royal Society lists. To anticipate a query about the use of numbers (3) rather than words (three) in the nationality section of the lead; the biggest numbers are large enough that using words isn't appropriate, and I didn't want to apply two different standards to the same area of the list. Ironholds (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "First awarded in 1800" Comma after this phrase.

  Done. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Since its creation" Comma after this phrase.

  Done. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• The source link for File:Benjamin Thompson.jpg is dead.

  and by source link you mean..?

  [3] Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  Oh right, the external thing. It was uploaded in 2005, so that isn't suprising; it is currently hosted directly at commons, although I suppose that doesn't count. Ironholds (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  We need a source link to verify the image, just as we do with content. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  I have replaced the source at commons with a working one (diff). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Concur with some of what Truco says below, especially on finding third-party sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  The best I can do with third-party sources is to find notices of individual awards from whichever institutes the winners work at; would that be acceptable? Ironholds (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  Sure. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

All fixed. Ironholds (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Spell out abbreviations such as IOP, NNB and NNDB.
• Italicize publications such as The Daily Telegraph. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  Done. Ironholds (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) For one the article needs to be broken into sections (the list itself) Can you explain why? Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Because of WP:SECTION, the table should be in a section called "Recipients" or something like that.--TRUCO 00:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Oh right; I thought I had that, it must have got lost in the moves from article to sandbox and sandbox to article; my apologies. Ironholds (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC) The Rumford Medal is awarded by the Royal Society every alternating year for 'an outstandingly important recent discovery in the field of thermal or optical properties of matter made by a scientist working in Europe'. - the marks you're using should be quotation marks "", in addition the period should be inside the quotes First awarded in 1800 it was created after a 1796 donation of $5000 by the scientist Benjamin Thompson, known as Count Rumford, and is accompanied by a £1000 gift. - 1)Comma after 1800 2)Since this is an international list, the currencies should be linked 3)The last part about the gift should be a new sentence because it doesn't tie in with the rest of the first part of the statement Since its creation the medal has been awarded to 100 individuals, including Rumford himself in 1800. - comma after creation The medal has been awarded to citizens of the United Kingdom 53 times, Germany 17 times, France 14 times, the Netherlands 7 times, the United States 3 times, Italy twice and once each to citizens of Australia, Hungary, Luxembourg and New Zealand. - 1)Well regarding your comment above, the numbers below nine should be spelled out if its going to be like this 2)Unlink the countries, they are too common On the first point, Ironholds specifically said that he wrote them out that way to make the comparable quantities the same (per WP:MOSNUM). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC) I get that, but per MOSNUM, if its gonna be like this, number 0-9 should be spelled out because they are relatively smaller.--TRUCO 22:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Done. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The most recent winner was Edward Hinds in 2008, a physicist from the United Kingdom who was awarded the medal 'for his extensive and highly innovative work in ultra-cold matter'. - quotation marks should be used Done. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The lead needs to be substantially expanded to summarize the list more and more about the history of the medal and how it is regarded, and a summary of what professions the medal was awarded to. Dividing it by profession wouldn't work; they're all 'scientists' of some sort of another. There isn't much of a 'history'; unlike the Royal Medal which has gone through various stages, this one has stayed stable. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Gotcha.--TRUCO 23:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The quotation marks need to be added instead of ' marks. Done. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC) You need to fix this on another couple of your FLs also. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Shouldn't Ångström still sort with A? Take that up with the mediawiki people, not me. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Why? You can fix it, use the {{sort}} template.--TRUCO 23:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC) I can? How, exactly :S. Ironholds (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Like that :) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Thanks! This is your domain, as it were :P. Ironholds (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Unlink the countries in the table, maybe the use of {{flag}} would be better. Will unlink now. Ironholds (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The image caption needs a full stop No it shouldn't, that is not a complete sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC) I believe for the purpose of sorting, the entries where no award was given, the colspan should be avoided and columns for the No award should have emdashes instead, because the nationality doesn't sort properly like this. Done. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC) There should be at least one third-part source, not just one primary source. Good luck finding it? Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, I meant third party source.--TRUCO 23:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Oh I know, I just meant they are rather thin on the ground. The discussion above with Dabomb has set out a way to get them. The citations for individuals; would you like me to create a 'notes' column to stick em in? Ironholds (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC) What the new refs?--TRUCO 00:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Indeed; I was thinking I could find news posts and whatnot to stick in and verify that person X won the award. Now that I think about it I am unlikely to be able to find most of those on the net; would it instead be alright if I linked them to the main text of the article as additional verification that the medal is awarded for X, worth Y, sponsored by Z, so on? Ironholds (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC) You don't necessarily have to find it for all of them, just some, at least to have diversity, and the ones that you can't find will be fine sourced with the general reference.--TRUCO 00:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC) In addition, those references may work better as general references instead of specific ones to source the table.TRUCO 22:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Mm, I'm now thinking my second idea was better, if that is alright with you. Ironholds (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC) What needs to be done is make the original sources from the primary sources into general references like they are in this FL reference section. Then in the new notes column, add emdashes (the longer dash) to all entries that don't have a specific ref. In addition, the notes should not be sortable.--TRUCO 22:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Mhm, I meant to do those but got slightly distracted, I'll be on it in 20 mins. Ironholds (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Done. Is there anything left for me to do? All the different lines and indents has me confused as to what is left. Ironholds (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC) You have to add the dashes to all blank entries in the notes column.--TRUCO 19:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Done. Is it support/close off comments time yet? :P. Ironholds (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC) I love this process; every time I get told something different :P. Last time I was told 'you must have them in the column for the rationale, general sourcing just isn't good enough!' Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Well first let me ask you, is the entire list sourced by those 4-5 references?--TRUCO 23:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Indeed; it wasn't a criticism of you but rather of the system. Ironholds (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Followup:Add emdashes to the remaining blank columns in the notes.--TRUCO 03:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - someone was eager for this support :P (All problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.TRUCO 04:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

  Well I just find that if the contents of each section aren't capped when they are dealt with I get confused. My first FL had about 2 pages of that stuff, and by the end I was so confused over what had/had not been done it failed like a bitch. Ironholds (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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

*Oppose for now - per my concern with NNDBs reliability (originally raised at Hughes Medal FLC). NB. This is a good reason not to have many lists from one topic as candidates, as many of the problems may apply to all lists. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Will do in the afternoon. Ironholds (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Other comments Check your nationality demonyms. I believe "Luxembourgian" refers to the language. I think the nationality is "Luxembourger" (have a look in the Luxembourg infobox) I'd prefer more information in the references (e.g. ref 25, I had no idea what Mimas was, so had to search, eventually found that is was a data center. Try using work and publisher fields and wikilinking them more (e.g. work=[[Archives Hub]] |publisher=[[Mimas (data centre)|Mimas]]) The names are the most important thing on this list. I'd widen the name column so that they don't wrap onto two lines. List 1986: "Wilhelm Röntgen and Philipp Lenard" as "Philipp Lenard and Wilhelm Röntgen" for two reasons. First it is alphabetical, and secondly that is the order they are listed by the Royal Society. Rationales: they should be consitent with the caps they start in – currently "For", "for" & "In", "in". I recommend lower case them all. Well I'm quoting them, so the caps situation is the caps situation on the RS listings. Ironholds (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Righto, all done but the quotes. Quotes are quotes and all; they should be verbatim. Ironholds (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Further comments For "No award" I'd sort it as zzz, so it always appears at the bottom. I'd still add more fields/info to some of the refs as it can help establish reliability/notability Ref 20: "

• Support. All my issues (and minor nitpickings) have been resolved. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment. This is the main article for this award, not a "List of winners", yes? I am suprised that there is so little to write about a 100+ year old award. I really think the introduction should be longer and give more information, or this should be retittled to "List of...", so that a future article on the award in general can be written.Yobmod (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• There really isn't any more information available, either from the royal society or elsewhere. It isn't like the Nobel or the Turner; while a highly respected set of awards it is an "internal" set; the only coverage comes from news reports of the organisations who employ the winners, and even then it is normally parotting the Royal Society website. Ironholds (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 21:15, 10 February 2009 [4].

---

List of ECW Tag Team Champions

Nominator(s): TRUCO

I am nominating this list for FLC because I believe it meets the FL criteria, and is modeled after the List of WCW World Tag Team Champions FL. Any concerns will be addressed, co-nom with User:ThinkBlue.--Truco 16:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Note that there are two dab links: script and Middletown, New York. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Thanks.--TRUCO 17:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC) "a promotion which had numerous subsidiaries" "which"-->that. Fixed,--TRUCO 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC) "mid–2003" Should be a hyphen, not an en dash. Fixed.--TRUCO 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC) "The title was won in Japan and in 8 American states, and was won mostly at live events."-->The title was mostly won at live events in Japan and in eight American states.**Fixed.--TRUCO 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC) "were the final wrestlers to hold the championship"-->were the final wrestlers to have held the championship Fixed.--TRUCO 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC) "while the Dudley Boyz' eight reign" Do you mean "eighth reign"? Yeah, silly mistake. Fixed.--TRUCO 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC) "while the championship was vacated five times due to decisions made by ECW. " What does this have to do with The Dudley Boyz holding the most reigns as a tag team? Very true, removed.--TRUCO 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC) "Overall, there 51 reigns." Missing a verb. Verb added.--TRUCO 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Can you make the tables in the "List of top combined reigns" section sortable? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Done.--TRUCO 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Spell out "WWE" in the general ref.
  • Done.--TRUCO 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• The book ref is missing a title.
  • Title added.--TRUCO 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Ref 2, add format=PDF to the citation template. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done.--TRUCO 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Quick comments For "Wrestler name (#) The number represents the amount of times the wrestler has held the title individually" -> this is a bit confusing as if they regain the title with the same team again their number doesn't increase. Reword to something about how many teams the individual has won it with. Can you make N/A in "Days held" sort to the bottom not the top. ("*" might work) Your change wasn't what I meant so I eventually fixed it myself. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC) (I apologise, re-reading that comment it sounds really arsey, it wasn't meant like that at all, I just meant that I didn't know how to fix it myself. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)) Its okay =)--TRUCO 01:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Similarly with the other N/A fields can you sort them to the bottom under sorted text ("zzz" or something) In ==By wrestler==, shouldn't "A.J. Petrucci" sort by Petrucci, not A.J. This still needs doing for the two summary tables at the bottom, you just did this on the main one. Oops, fixed.--TRUCO 01:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC) I saw a note on your talk page from Dabomb87, I will try and review this fully later. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks so much, and I'll be awaiting that review, but these quick comments are now fixed.--TRUCO 21:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Comments The lead says "different tag teams, a duo of wrestlers using ring names," but I notice one of the winners was a trio (Chris Candido, Johnny Hotbody, and Chris Michaels) Fixed. --TRUCO 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Entry 39: What was the event the singles match took place at? Event added.--TRUCO 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Entry 43: "Buh Buh Ray and D-Von<br/>(TheDudley Boyz)" -> need a space after "The", but also all the others are just "Dudley Boys" so is the "The" meant to be there? I forgot to remove this one.--TRUCO 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Not needed - but you could modify {{ECW Championships}} to include this (and other winner lists) by making it say "Tag Team (winners)" Done.--TRUCO 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Question: Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer spelled-out phrases to abbreviations says that abbreviations should be spelled out if they are not well know. So this page should possbily be moved to List of Eastern Championship Wrestling Tag Team Champions. I realise that this goes against the existing FLs but I can't find anything that says it should be abbreviated, as it is not a commons abbr. Not necessarily because per WP:ACRONYM, if the said subject/topic is best known by their acronym (In order to determine the prominence of the abbreviation over the full name, consider checking how the subject is referred to in popular media such as newspapers, magazines, and other publications.), which it is per [5]. In addition, in wrestling, promotions are strictly referred to by their acronym on most occasions. Also, the official name of the stated championship is "ECW Tag Team Championship" not "Extreme Championship Wrestling Tag Team Champions" [this is the literal version, but not the accurate version].--TRUCO 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Glad this conforms with guidelines, as I thought we might have to move it for policies sake. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Yeah.--TRUCO 01:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC) More comments Entries 25, 27 say "(The Dudley Boys)"; 29 says "The (Dudley Boys)"; 35, 37, 39, 41, 43 say "(Dudley Boys)". - be consistent Fixed. I thought I removed those already before the FLC, I guess not.--TRUCO 21:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 45 says "(Impact Players)", 48 says "(The Impact Players)" - consistency again Fixed. I thought I removed those already before the FLC, I guess not.--TRUCO 21:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 31, "Little Guido and Tracy Smothers<br/>(Full Blooded Italians)" and 50, "Little Guido (2)and Tony Mamaluke <br/>(Full Blooded Italians)" should probably sort together by name. Fixed.--TRUCO 21:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 50, "Little Guido (2)and Tony Mamaluke - space after (2) Done.--TRUCO 21:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Random linking for events. Lots of events link to Extreme Championship Wrestling#Tradition. Why? Examles being "Bloodfest: Part 1", "Double Tables", "Return of the Funker", "Three Way Dance", "Gangsta's Paradise", "Hostile City Showdown", "As Good as it Gets", "Better than Ever" Because in sortable tables, linking is an exception to WP:OVERLINK. In addition, those events don't have respective articles because they were random events held by ECW before it produced pay-per-view events, so they are un-notable to have an article. The link to their tradition covers these events as being random named live events before ECW produced pay-per-view events.--TRUCO 21:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Its not the overlinking I'm worried about, its linking to a section that has no mention of any of these events. I suggest just using the names of the events not linked to anything. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Done.--TRUCO 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) An overall issue it consistency with sorting names. It seems to be a bit random. I'm don't think sorting by wrestlers real names instead of their wrestiling names is a good idea, as this is not what a would reader expect. I fixed what appears to be the rest of the sorting issues. They are sorted by their ring name, some wrestlers used ring names, others did not, so they sort by their real name while others did with their ring name. See how it works at List of WCW World Tag Team Champions.--TRUCO 21:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Following up on this. Entry 43 sorts differently to the other Dudley Boy ones because it is missing a sort tag. Done.--TRUCO 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Even more comments Why is it "Lance Storm (3)" as his third win is the same pair as his second, so it is covered in reigns (maybe it should be (2) instead) Because Storm won a separate title reign with Chris Candido at entry #33, making it 3 reigns individually in total.--TRUCO 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Yes, but the note says "The number represents the amount of times the wrestler has held the title individually with different tag teams." and this number is 2. So it should be changed accordingly. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Why do "Cactus Jack (2) and Mikey Whipwreck (2)" have twos after their name. Same pair as won it the first time so it covered by reigns. Done.--TRUCO 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Umm. No its not, I think you may have forgotten. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC) I guess I did.--TRUCO 503 01:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Entry 38: "Sabu (3) and Rob Van Dam" - no (3) after Sabu as only won with 2 different tag teams - also reigns here should be 2 not 3 i think. No because Sabu won his first reign with The Tazmaniac at entry #13, thus 3 reigns individually.--TRUCO 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Yes, but the note says "The number represents the amount of times the wrestler has held the title individually with different tag teams." and this number is 2. So it should be changed accordingly. Additionally it is the second reign of the pair so reign coumn should be 2 not 3. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC) "The Tazmaniac" won in entry 9 & 13 - second occurance needs a (2) Done.--TRUCO 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Umm. No its not, Did you forget to press save? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC) I guess I did.--TRUCO 503 01:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC) You forgot this again. :s Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Entry 49: "Yoshihiro Tajiri and Mikey Whipwreck (3)" - it should be (2) after Whipwreck pending the above change, about him being double listed for a pair. Whipwreck won his first reign with Cactus Jack, and his second with Jack, and this is his 3rd overall. This (#) represents their individual reign overall.--TRUCO 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) No the note says (#) represents reigns with different pairs. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Title "Reigns" should possibly be "Reign" - as Reigns seems to mean how many the pair have had (i.e. 8 for all Dudley Boys entry) whereas Reign gives a better feeling of what regin it was. Changed to "Reign"--TRUCO 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Please check the numbers: I only checked one but it was wrong - the combined days of " Buh Buh Ray and D-Von" add up to 291 for me. Please go through all these and check them. Okay, I fixed them.--TRUCO 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Additionally 46: Should be Tony Dreamer (3) 5: Should be Johnny Hotbody [without the (2)], and then 7: becomes Hotbody (2) not (3) Entries with "New Jack" have a double space before his name. What do you mean?--TRUCO 503 16:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC) It was easier to fix myself. Basically an additional sort key gave an additional space (as shown in here). Anyway this is done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Oh, I see now. Thanks.--TRUCO 503 19:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC) For 30: It is New Jack (2), because it is his 2nd reign with different pairs (but third overall) Similarly Kronus should be (2), because it is his 2nd reign with different pairs (but fourth overall) 42: "Balls Mahoney (3)", it is not the third different pair he won with (third overall), it is the second pair he won with so should be (2) Combined days, By team: " A.J. Petrucci and Doug Stahl" 283+0 is not 284. Done.--TRUCO 503 01:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC) "Sabu and Rob Van Dam" 119+125=244 not 243 Done.--TRUCO 503 01:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC) "Buh Buh Ray and D-Von" ranked fifth, but 291 is bigger than both 284 and 243, they should be second. You mean third? =P--TRUCO 503 01:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Yes I did. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC) I've checked the "By team", please check the individual ones. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry you had to go through all this trouble, but I meant that note to be as "individually" (in general), so that should resolve your comments on that. In addition, I didn't create the table, so I'm not to aware of the way it was formatted. --TRUCO 503 01:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC) I oppose this change. This changes the entire meaning and brings a whole heap of different problems. It would mean you would have to also change all the pairs who won multiple times to "Buh Buh Ray (8) and D-Von (8)" for example. This would cause lots of changes to be required. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Sigh. That's not what it means, this is a standard for all tag team championship lists, like List of WCW World Tag Team Champions. The number represents the amount of times the wrestlers has held the title individually overall, however, it is only noted when he has won it with a different tag team partner. For instance, lets say D-Von (of the Dudley Boys) won it 7 times with Bubba, but then won it with Tommy Dreamer (his first different tag team partner), it would read like D-Von Dudley (8) and Tommy Dreamer, and then if he won it again with Bubba it would read like Bubba Ray (8) and D-Von (9) because as a tag team they have differentiating number of reigns, do you understand?--TRUCO 503 16:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry but if that is the existing standard it doesn't work and needs to be changed. The note in no way conveys that information to the reader. If you explained a scenario, gave someone the desciptive note I am sure they would have no idea when and where to use the numbers. You can't use one set of rules for people in multiple tag teams and a another for those winning in only one team unless it is explicitly clear. I appreciate that you have worked hard on this list (trust me after all my reviewing I don't really want it to fail) but this needs resolving. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Oops. I didn't save the correct revision, how about now?--TRUCO 503 16:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Ok, I now think I understand fully the system you are trying to use. I would reword the note though. How about "The number represents the individual reigns of a wrestler, when this is distinct from the tag team's reigns". If this is what you meant please let me know and I can recheck all the numbers (although please allow me time as this is not the most interesting job in the world :P) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC) That's exactly what I meant. Note reworded. Okay =) (I'm really sorry you had to go through this trouble, it would have been less errors if I created the table, but I did not, ThinkBlue did.)--TRUCO 503 19:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Okay, I've struck all the issues that no longer apply. There are two issues remaining in the at the top of the "Additionally" section. After those are resolved I will cap all this (basically reset my review) and go through the numbers again. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Okay, those are now done. Thanks, again.--TRUCO 503 22:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Second review of numbers 33: "Chris Candido (2)", third individual title - should be 3 18: "Raven (2) and Stevie Richards" - no 2 after Raven as it is the pairs second win and the reigns coincide I am happy with all the numbers after these fixes :) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Done all.--TRUCO 503 23:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC) By individual Lance Storm: 203+48+31=282! Nowhere near 417. Grunge, Rocco, Saturn, Rocco are correct Chris Candido 42+46+203=291 A.J. Petrucci 283+0=283 Stahl 283+0=283 Sabu & Van Dam are correct For these I am assuming that the "days held" column has the correct numbers. If there is a cite for these tables then maybe those are wrong, either way something is. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Done all. I didn't make that table either, so I'm not really aware of that, the "by individual" and "by tag team" tables were added during this FLC, so I'm not aware of their stats. Sorry about all the issues.--TRUCO 503 23:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. This is probably the most thorough FLC review I have ever done (click show!) and every issue was resolved to my satisfaction. The only thing I haven't checked explicitly is the numbers for the "days held" column. However using this tool I checked a random sample and all were correct. Therefore I will now support this nomination. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Gimmetrow 23:50, 7 February 2009 [6].

---

Leverhulme Medal (Royal Society)

This was an easier one; I've tried to fix problems that were raised in my earlier nomination of the Rumford Medal. Enjoy. Ironholds (talk)

Resolved comments from Truco

Quick-Fail/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) The Leverhulme Medal is awarded by the Royal Society every three years 'for an outstandingly significant contribution in the field of pure or applied chemistry or engineering, including chemical engineering". - the name of the article should be bolded not just part of the name, either write its entire name and bold it or just don't bold it all. In addition, why is this article called ____ of the Royal Society" and the other medal list doesn't have that name. See my reply to Chris below. Ironholds (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC) The lead needs to be expanded like it was in the Rumford Medal list. Tried to do so; anything else? Ironholds (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC) First/most recent winner/significant winners?--TRUCO 03:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Most recent was already there; I've added in the Nobel Prize winners but not the first winner, since he was also one of the Nobel winners and I'd be repeating myself. Ironholds (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC) The table should be formatted correctly as it was in the Rumford Medal list. How is the table not formatted? Ironholds (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC) See the notes column of your other FLC and this one.--TRUCO 03:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC) They appear identical to me. I've got a bloody massive screen, though, so most things look different. Could you be a bit more specific? Notes section check, refs in it check, em dashes check, 3-column referencing check.. what is wrong?Ironholds (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Yeah, now they do :P--TRUCO 04:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC) The references should be formatted correctly as it was in the Rumford Medal. Done. Ironholds (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC) This list was just expanded, it is unstable for FLC at the moment.--TRUCO 19:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)}}

• Support - I did a general copyedit and my problems were fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 04:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)--TRUCO 04:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent! Just to keep you on your toes I'll be posting another one in about an hour :P. Ahh, the joys of being a student post-exam season.Ironholds (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with all that Truco has to say except for the last. Articles are only considered unstable if "It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, ". However, the lead needs significant expansion, an image also would be nice. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; significant expansion is not something that makes it 'unstable'. Significant expansion followed by an edit war with a user who doesn't agree with said expansion would be unstable. Ironholds (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment Why is "of the Royal Society" a part of the article title for Leverhulme Medal? Shouldn't it just Leverhulme Medal, similar to Royal Medal, Darwin Medal etc?—Chris! ct 02:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC) There is another medal called the Leverhulme Medal, so Leverhulme Medal acts as a disambig page. I'd be quite happy to move this to the 'proper' title since we don't have an article on the other one. Ironholds (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Then I suggest you move it to Leverhulme Medal (Royal Society); so that the name remains as ____ Medal with a disambiguation at the end.—Chris! ct 03:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Done and done. Ironholds (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support looks good —Chris! _ct 19:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Support In this edit, I fixed everything that I would have normally commented on here. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [7].

---

List of foreign-born United States Cabinet Secretaries

Based on my experience with this FL, I believed this list fulfills the FLC criteria.—Chris! _ct 00:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• I made a few copyedits, and, as with the female list, you've done an excellent job! All you need to do is make the tables centered; just add style="text-align:center;" to the head of the tables and then remove the align="center" from within them. Also, in the cells listing two presidents, please add a semicolon or comma to separate the links. Reywas92^Talk 21:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make everything in the table centered?—Chris! _ct 21:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Everything shouldn't be pushed over to the left. It would also be nice if the column order was the same as the Female list: Party to the right of the administration. In addition, not a single article links to this list. I recommend you add links from the people listed to the list, as well as a See Also from the Cabinet and Female articles. And if you wanted there's nothing wrong with more pictures. Reywas92^Talk 21:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty busy right now and will probably get to your comment later today/tomorrow. Thanks—Chris! _ct 23:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Done all except centering every column. I try to do that (using preview) and I don't like how it look with everything in the column centered. I want to see what other think first.—Chris! _ct 02:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "who were born outside of the present-day United States." Anytime you have "outside of", always delete the "of", as it is redundant. What do you mean by "present-day"?

"Present-day" means today.—Chris! _ct 05:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• i.e. anyone born in an area which was at the time outside of the union is included, provided it has since joined as a state (or commonwealth). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.146.140 (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Irish-born James McHenry, who was appointed by Washington as Secretary of War in 1801 and served the same post in John Adams's administration" Comma after here.
• "Albert Gallatin, born in Switzerland, became the third foreign-born members" "members"-->member.
• "including German-born Oscar Straus and Mexican-born George Romney, father of former Governor of Massachusetts and the 2008 Republican U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney." Needs a citation because it is WP:BLP information.

Will get to this tomorrow.—Chris! _ct 05:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• "The Department of Treasury has had the most foreign-born Secretaries" Comma after here.
• "each have had two."-->have each had two.
• "while the others"-->and the others
• "Since most foreign born Cabinet members are not natural-born citizens, meaning that they were not born in the United States or born aboard to American parents," Use em dashes (—) instead of commas.
• Explain the italics. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think note d is pretty clear at explaining that.—Chris! _ct 05:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Done all except those that I have responded to.—Chris! _ct 05:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• I Support, but the list definitely shoudl have more pages linking to it. Only one article links here. Reywas92^Talk 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [8].

---

BBC Sports Personality of the Year Helen Rollason Award

This is my third list for a BBC Sports Personality of the Year topic. I believe it now meets the criteria. Per this I think I'm also meant to mention I am participating in the WikiCup, but I had already started this topic before entering so that fact is largely insignificant to this submission. Thanks in advance for comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Personally, I'd like to see the name column sorted properly by surname, not by nationality first then surname.
• Perhaps have a separate column for nationality, then drop the "by nationality" section as redundant.
• Also, the "by sport" is redundant to the main table, and I'd drop that as well.
  • Sorted the sorting. Sorry it was an old issue from when nationality and name columns were combined. I am reluctent to immediately unmerge those columns as I merged them following a suggestion by Chrishomingtang at another FLC. If people really want them unmerged I can do it, I'd just like to see what the consensus really is first. The "by sport" section is there for consistency across the topic, as while it may be easy to count them here, other awards that have been given a lot more times would be difficult to count (e.g. this award). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Bencherlite^Talk 23:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Since then nine of the ten winners have been British; the exception being South African Paralympic sprinter Oscar Pistorius, who won the award in 2007. - if horse trainer is linked before this, why not paralympic sprinter? Unlinked horse trainer to avoid 4 consecutive blue links of "South African Paralympic sprinter Oscar Pistorius" which looks bad. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC) What you could do is just unlink South African and leave the other links, its not as bad.--TRUCO 00:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Done, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Two recipients have not played sport professionally, they are Jane Tomlinson who won in 2002, and Kirsty Howard who recieved the award in 2004 aged nine years old. - 1)Wouldn't it be a sport? 2)Typo on "received" 3)remove the aged part since its not really important since there isn't an age limit, if you have to leave it, reword it to make it seem notable Done, Done and Removed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC) How about expanding the lead a bit to add more on the other recipients who actually played sports? Will do tomorrow. Done, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Not that its a hassle, but the "by nationality" table doesn't need it since there are only 3 entries and they are already in descending order This is for consistency again as it is part of a topic. WP:FT? recommends "The structure of the articles is similar, with the same section titles and order where possible". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Oh, I'll let it go this time then.--TRUCO 00:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Jane Tomlinson was an amateur athlete who competed in Marathons, and Triathlons – these represent sporting disciplines of Athletics, Swimming, and Cycling. - no need to capitalize Marathons or Triathlons--TRUCO 23:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Done, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.TRUCO 22:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Helen Rollason was the first female presenter of Grandstand and after being diagnosed with cancer helped raise over £5 million to set up a cancer wing at the North Middlesex Hospital where she received most of her treatment." Split these sentences: "Helen Rollason was the first female presenter of Grandstand. After being diagnosed with cancer, she helped raise over £5 million to set up a cancer wing at the North Middlesex Hospital, where she received most of her treatment." -Done
• "Since then nine"-->Since then, nine -Done
• "the exception being South African Paralympic sprinter Oscar Pistorius"-->the exception is South African Paralympic sprinter Oscar Pistorius -Done
• "Two recipients have not played a sport professionally, they are Jane Tomlinson who won in 2002, and Kirsty Howard who"-->Two recipients have not played a sport professionally: Jane Tomlinson, who won in 2002, and Kirsty Howard, who -Done
• "Geoff Thomas, who won the award in 2005, raised money by cycling the 2,200 miles of the 2005 Tour de France course in the same number of days as the professionals completed it." If he is not a professional cycler, what does he do? -Done, well spotted
• The different notes systems are confusing (n 1 and n 2, then a) -Standardised
• "both Cricket and Rugby union at a professional level." Are you sure that these sports should be capitalized? -Uncapitalized
• "for fundraising and raising awareness of multiple sclerosis, since being diagnosed with the disease in 1999." Comma not necessary. -Done

Dabomb87 (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I have now fixed the above. Regards, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [9].

---

New York Islanders seasons

iMatthew // talk // 13:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) The New York Islanders are an American ice hockey team that compete in the National Hockey League (NHL). - the statement about the competing in the NHL should be in the following sentence, this should state where they are based, considering its never mentioned in the prose Since 1972, the team has played its home games in Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum. - this sentence makes it seem like there was a previous venue, how about stating that 1972 was their inaugural season, or along the lines of that In 36 completed seasons, the team has won four Stanley Cup championships and has qualified for the playoffs 21 times. - is there a specific link to the NHL playoffs? They have played more than 230 playoff games, and won more than 130 of them. - repetition of more than, replace the second occurrence with "over" As of the end of the 2007–08 season, New York had won more than 1,200 regular season games, the 14th-highest victory total among NHL teams. - link to this season? The Islanders were founded in 1972, and won their first out their four consecutive Stanley Cup championships in 1980. - needs rewording to "The Islanders were founded in 1972, and won their first out of four consecutive Stanley Cup championships in 1980." Since then, the team went as far as losing the Conference Finals in 1993 to eventual Stanley Cup champion Montreal Canadiens. - wouldn't it be "champions" not champion? Since then, the Islanders entered a period of decline, qualifying for the playoffs once from 1994 to 2001. - 1)reword the first part of the sentence, its too repetitive with the previous way the sentence began. 2)the from should "between" and the to should be "and" What I meant in 1)Was that both consecutive sentences began with "Since then" which is repetitive.--TRUCO 22:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC) The Islanders have never won the Presidents' Trophy, although they led the NHL in regular season points three times before the league began awarding the trophy, winning the Stanley Cup in two out of the three seasons. - the last clause of this sentence needs to be a new sentence or in after a semi-colon and beginning with "they won the..." What's verifying Note C? See one down. iMatthew // talk // 19:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Are the notes in the tables verified by the general references? Yes. iMatthew // talk // 19:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Note: GP = Games played, W = Wins, L = Losses, T = Ties, OTL = Overtime Losses, Pts = Points, GF = Goals for, GA = Goals against, PIM = Penalties in minutes - why is this needed if the table key does the same thing? In addition, some of these should be placed in the key--TRUCO 18:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Done with everything. iMatthew // talk // 19:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Some of the things in the key I placed above are not in the table key.--TRUCO 22:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Done with your comments. Thanks! iMatthew // talk // 12:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 17:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Note A: "The Rangers were placed in the Clarence Campbell Conference's Patrick Division." Did somebody copy that note from the Rangers list I worked on, by chance? Also, the general reference for Hockey Database has a typo: "Hockey Datebase". Good luck! Giants2008 (17-14) 03:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Done with your comments. Thanks! iMatthew // talk // 12:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "the team has won four Stanley Cup championships and has qualified for the playoffs 21 times." Comparative quantities should be written the same way.
• "their first out four consecutive" What does "out" mean?
• "Since then, the team went as far as losing the Conference Finals in 1993 to eventual Stanley Cup champions Montreal Canadiens. Since then, the Islanders only qualified for the playoffs once between 1994 and 2001. " Very choppy prose; repetition of "Since then" is annoying. "went as far as" is ungrammatical.
• "regular season points"-->regular-season points
• "The Islanders last qualified for the playoffs in 2007, while their most recent playoff series victory was in 1993. "-->The Islanders last qualified for the playoffs in 2007; their most recent playoff series victory was in 1993. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good although note Giant's comment on the typo. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Done with your comments. Thanks! iMatthew // talk // 12:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [10].

---

List of World Series of Poker Ladies Champions

Ok, let's see how well I learned my lessons from my first FLC attempt. Here is my second go at an FLC. Tell what I need to do to get this to the next level.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment from -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c]
  • I still suggest you remove the infoboxes, since, well, they're infoboxes. I don't think WP:MOS negates this, but it just looks kind of bad on the article. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 07:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily opposed to it, but let's see what others think... I kind of like them because it gives a little more info about the champions... but if the consensus is to remove it, then I'll take them off.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Removed---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
        • You can still have pictures... -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 07:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Truco asked to have them removed...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
            • No, I said remove the infoboxes, the images could remain with subcaptions.--TRUCO 15:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
              • Added back in---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
                • The second one should be removed, it messes up the format. One picture is fine.--TRUCO 19:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
                  • I moved it, howz it look there?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
                    • Its irrelevant there, but its better.--TRUCO 20:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - many prose and content issues The World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet is considered the most coveted non-monetary prize a poker player can win. - the name is already spelled out before this, no need to spell it out again Done---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Since 1976, a bracelet has been awarded to the winner of every event at the annual WSOP but titles won prior to 1976 are still counted as "bracelets". - comma before but Done---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Remove the infoboxes, they are not representative of the list, the same can be said with images and subcaptions Done---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC) The first World Series of Poker was not a freeze out tournament, but rather an event with a set start and stop time with the winner determined by secret ballot. - 1)Use acronym 2)link to freeze out tournament? Both Done---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC) In 1973, five-card stud was added. - link/explanation as to what this means per WP:JARGON Done---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC) In 1977, an the first Ladies only event event was introduced in the form of $100 buy-in Stud Poker Tournament. - 1)"a" not an 2)link to buy-in or elaboration? Both Done---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC) By 2007, the popularity of the Ladies Event had grown to the point that it became the first Ladies only event to have a prize pool greater than a million dollars. - before this, the currency was represented with numbers and the US dollar sign, be consistent with the formatting of money Done, but I'd like other people's input here... I'm not sure I like this change.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC) The Ladies played Seven Card Stud for the event's first two decades, but have been playing Texas Hold'em since 2001. - link to Texas Hold'em Done---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Between 1991 and 1997 Isaacs set an event record by finishing in-the-money five times. - 1)comma after 1997 2)Explain/link finishing-in-the-money? per [[WP:JARGON] done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Due to complaints from mothers the event was moved to a different day in 2004. - comma after mothers done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Potential conflicts with Mother's Day, no longer exist as the WSOP's new owner, Harrah's Casino moved the event from late spring to the summer. - 1)Remove the first comma 2)comma after Casino 3)Well is it "early, mid, or late" summer, since you stated that it was move from late spring done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) This week long event is held at Caesars Palace and is designed to equip women with the tools compete at the World Series of Poker. - add "to" before compete at the done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) In 2007, Sally Anne Boyer, the Ladies Champion similarly participated in the camp. ---> "In 2007, Ladies Champion Sally Anne Boyer similarly participated in the camp. done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The women who have attended the camp have done well at the Ladies Championship. Patty Till finished in third place at the 2008 Ladies Championship. - how about merging these like so.."The women who have attended the camp have done well at the Ladies Championship, including Patty Till, who finished in third place at the 2008 Ladies Championship." done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The person who won the Ladies Event. - should be "Ladies Championship event" done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Remove the periods in the first, second, third, fifth, and seventh entries in the key, they aren't complete sentences done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Each year is linked to an article about the WSOP World Series for that year. - this should be a footnote not in the key done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Tournament Prize is the amount of money they won for winning the Ladies Event that year. - should be "The amount of money they won..." done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The ref column should not be sortable done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The money columns should be center aligned done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Jennifer Tilly was nominated for an Academy Award for her role in Bullets over Broadway.[36] Tilly is known as the Unabombshell because of her dating Phil "Unibomber" Laak.[37] - how is this relevant to the list? Removed Unibombshell and tightened up her being an academy award nominee.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Svetlana Gromenkova, the 2008 winner, borrowed Anthony Rivera's "lucky" sunglasses. Rivera had won the Half Omaha/Half Stud Championship earlier in the week.[5] - once again, how is this relevant? Removed---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC) On June 10, 3 events awarded bracelets, including the Ladies event. This was the first time in WSOP history that 3 people living in the same city, New York, won bracelets on the same day.[5] It was also the first time that a new "excessive celebration" penalty was implemented to minimize disruption from exuberant players. - numbers 0-9 should be spelled out not in # form Done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC) How reliable is the pokerroom.com?--TRUCO 19:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC) It's not one of the pages I regularly visit, but it is one of the older and larger poker cites on the web. I would say that it would be on par with a PokerStars/FullTilt/UltimateBet websites, as that is what it really is, an online casino. For this, I would trust it (plus, it is a fairly well known story that is often cited on poker shows.)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The ref is fine, but the images should come back (only the images not the infoboxes).--TRUCO 23:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Added images back in.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 20:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GaryColemanFan

Comments from GaryColemanFan

• Is it necessary to show who participated in the 2008 tournament? Won't this information be outdated soon? I'm not sure what it adds to the article.

????I'm not sure where/what you are referring to here? The only place where somebody from the 2008 tournament is mentioned other than the winner, is when I'm talking about the "WSOP Academy Ladies Only Poker Camp," which is a camp designed to coincide with this tournament.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the section in the key that states: "† Denotes player who participated in the 2008 WSOP." GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Reworded, what I was looking for was something to indicate which players were still active. So I changed the wording to reflect that.

I don't know if I'd consider it necessary, but I'm sure some people would find it helpful. It certainly doesn't hurt anything, so I'll cross that out. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Nani Dollison's lifetime winnings need a second look. They should be consistent, and I'm assuming that lifetime winnings shouldn't be lower than the winnings from a single tournament.

Fixed---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a new problem here, as it now states that she won $622,904 in both 2000 and 2001. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooops, was rushed due to my son waking up from a nap... he's in bed now, so I fixed it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a reason that Barbara Enright's name can't be centered?

Fixed---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• The list of men's champions gives additional information (winning hand, number of entrants, etc.). Would that information be appropriate here? There is some extra space in the table, which would allow this to fit. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The women's event has been as well documented as the Main Event. It has only been in the past few years that it has started to emerge as one of the pre-eminent events at the WSOP. When it was first added, it was added as a gimmick to get more women to play poker (I wish I could find the source where I read that!) But anyway, the first tournament was only a $100 buy in, and frankly the WSOP doesn't even know how many people were in the earliest tournmanets let alone the winning hands. I could add a column for the number of participants, but about half of them would be empty and I figured it would be better not to include it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean that the women's event has not been as well documented as the Main Event. I was expected that was probably the case, so feel free to ignore this comment. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I meant. Not as well documented. Many of the earlier Ladies events we don't even know who the runner up was or how many people were in the event.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• The "Notes" section has a formatting problem. The notes read a,[b],c. There should be consistency. The corresponding "a" seems to have been removed when the infoboxes were taken out, so it doesn't link to anything in the prose or table. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The World Series of Poker (WSOP) is the "the oldest, largest, most prestigious, and most media-hyped gaming competition in the world".[1] It is held annually in Las Vegas." I think that there is a way to merge these sentences: "The World Series of Poker (WSOP), held annually in Las Vegas, is the "the oldest, largest, most prestigious, and most media-hyped gaming competition in the world".

done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• "prior to"-->before.

done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• "but rather an event with a set start and stop time with the winner determined by secret ballot" Is there a way to eliminate the "with ... with" repetition?

done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• "the first Ladies only event"-->the first Ladies-only event

done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Jackie McDaniels won that event to became the first Ladies Championship." A couple things wrong here: wrong verb tense, and one can't become a "Championshiop".

done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• "only three players"

done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• "of color," Check your logical punctuation here, the comma should be outside the quotation marks.

done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Traditionally" Comma after here.

done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• "The women who have attended the camp have done well at the Ladies Championship" Can you verify this?

reworded---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Sally Anne Boyer similarly" "similarly"-->also.

no longer applicable, reworded section---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• See WP:CAPTION, images that have captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods.

done Made into sentences.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.pokerroom.com/newsroom/news/592/ reliable? We may have discussed this last time, but I didn't check.

Yes we did, the poker room is an established gaming casino and one of the oldest/largest poker cites on the web. I would not rank it as reliable as a magazine, but for this story, which is pretty well known in poker lore, I believe it is reliable. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 36 (the last one) needs a last access date. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [11].

---

Timeline of the 1992 Atlantic hurricane season

I am nominating this timeline article for featured list candidacy because I feel it satisfies the criteria. While not being a great follower of hurricanes/tropical cyclones I've based this of many similar lists, capturing the same comprehensiveness. I believe the lead is sufficient, the timeline image accurate, and the timeline itself to be complete, also accompanied by images. Cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TRUCO

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) The season officially started on June 1 2007, and finished on November 30; however Subtropical Storm One formed outside the official timeline on April 21. - 1)remove the comma before and 2)I don't think the season began in 2007?? Done - Removed comma and really can't believe 2007 wasn't brought up at peer review. It produced a total of seven storms, less than the average of ten usually formed throughout an Atlantic hurricane season; while four of the storms went on to become hurricanes. - the semi colon isn't right, it should be a comma Done - Changed to comma. Tropical Storm Danielle made landfall at the Delmarva Peninsula on the Virginian coast on 25 September causing minimal flooding. - 1)consistency with the date formatting (Day Month) (Month Day) Done - Changed to month-day. Its not clear in the prose which was the first storm formed "officially" (not Subtropical Storm One), and the last one formed. What I meant by this is that you should add in which was the first storm to "officially" begin in the season, and the last storm to "officially" finish the season.--TRUCO 15:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC) I understand what you meant. However, how doesn't subtropical storm one count as an official cyclone? Sunderland06 (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Subtropical Storm One counts as the first tropical cyclone. However, Andrew was the first named storm. 17:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Right, I've added Hurricane Frances to ending the season, but I think I've made it clear which one started it. Cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC) But, Subtropical Storm One formed outside the official timeline on April 21. - so the first storm of the official timeline should be noted.--TRUCO 18:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Right, I know what you mean now, I've added it in. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Tropical Storm Bonnie strengthens to Hurricane Bonnie - "into" not to Done - Changed to that. The season officially ends in November, but the reader is left in question as to what happened to Tropical Storm Frances after it becomes extratropical, since it formed in the 1992 season. Done - Added disspated after becoming an extratropical gale. Why not add the 1992 Pacific season in the See also section? Done - Added. --TRUCO 03:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 19:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Jason Rees

A very well written timeline but the only thing i can see wrong with the timeline is that there are brackets obscuring the UTC times eg (1800 UTC).Jason Rees (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed these. Sunderland06 (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Local time needs to be added in to the timeline Jason Rees (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added all these times in now. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Theres was just one mistake with the local times so i have changed it and i now Support this article -Jason Rees (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "started on June 1 1992" Comma after "1". Done - Added comma.
• "however Subtropical Storm One" Comma after "however". Done - Added comma.
• "It produced a total of seven storms" Done - Removed redundancy.
• "caused severe flooding over southwestern Florida and Cuba" "over"-->in. Done - Changed to "in".
• "When Andrew struck Florida and Louisiana through April," What do you mean by "through"? Comment - In the month, simply changed to "in".
• "to hit the United States with damages estimated around $26.5 billion, while killing 68 people."-->to hit the United States. Damages were estimated to be about $26.5 billion and 68 people were killed. Done - Changed to that.
• "coast on September 25 causing minimal flooding" Comma after "25". Done - Added comma.
• Inconsistencies, sometimes you say "weakens into " but other times it is "weakens to". Done - I've changed all "to"s to "into"s. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 3 needs format=PDF added to it. Done - Did that. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Cyclonebiskit 18:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Cyclonebiskit (talk)

Comments from Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs) Comments

• Several of the storms don't have where they formed in relation to land. Comment - While reading the reports on the NHC website, some did not mention where they formed.
  • I'll give you the locations shortly. Cyclonebiskit 17:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    • That would be brilliant thanks. :) Sunderland06 (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

TD One- formed 220 mi (355 km) northwest of Havana, Cuba

TD Two- formed 305 mi (490 km) southeast of Bermuda

Andrew- formed 775 mi (1,245 km) southwest of Brava, Cape Verde

Bonnie- formed 345 mi (555 km) east-northeast of Bermuda

Frances (as an EX-low)- formed 475 mi (765 km) southeast of Bermuda

Hope that helps :) Cyclonebiskit 18:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers a lot for that Cyclonebiskit, I've added them all in. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Some of the units are in nautical miles, which is generally discouraged. The units for an Atlantic based article should be in imperial with metric conversion in parenthesis Done - There is miles with kilometers in brackets.
• I'm just wondering as to why there are so many wind speeds compared to other timelines, not that I find anything wrong with it, it just seems strange Comment - Not sure really, I saw it in a timeline NuclearWarfare was working on and decided to use it, as I'm not very common with the usual method.

Other than those few things, this is a very well made timeline, especially since it's your first WPTC article. I hope to see more of your articles in the future for the project :D Cyclonebiskit 00:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [12].

---

NWA Hall of Fame

Another professional wrestling hall of fame list, its pretty much based off its sister list. Any comments will be addressed.--TRUCO 23:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments The following comments have already been addressed pre-FLC, but I will post them here for convinience:

• "National Wrestling Alliance (NWA)" You already defined the abbreviation in the bolded phrase.
• "The Class of 2005, the inaugural inductees into the Hall of Fame did not have a formal induction ceremony," Comma at the end of this phrase should be a semicolon.
• "There were no inductees in 2007 due to the NWA planning an international expansion to the promotion." The noun + -ing structure ("NWA planning") is ungrammatical. Reword.
• "which also included"
• "Kai is the only woman to be inducted into the Hall of Fame."-->Kai is the only woman to have been inducted into the Hall of Fame.
• "Overall, there were 21 inductees; two managers, commentators, and promoters, and fifteen wrestlers." "21"-->twenty-one.
• "The NWA Hall of Fame logo (2008-)" Hyphen should be an en dash.
• Fix the dab. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Done all.--TRUCO 22:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good, but reviewers' opinions on this one would be welcome. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Publications should be in italics (The Sun, Ref 4). Also, what makes this a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Well, The Sun is a tabloid, which is generally not reliable on Wikipedia. But the author Paul Heyman is a prime and reliable individual in the world of professional wrestling. He is the former owner of Extreme Championship Wrestling, worked for World Wrestling Entertainment for many years, and now reports for The Sun, so I find his work reliable. He also has connections with people in WWE, as he states in other reports.--TRUCO 23:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Could you provide a source or something that says Hayman did all that you said he did? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• About him and ECW, its in his book The Rise & Fall of ECW. About him in WWE, he states it in his report.--TRUCO 23:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Seems to meet WP:SPS, but I would still like other reviewers' input. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• I think the source meets the requirement on WP:V.—Chris! _ct 19:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/Bios/heyman_paul.html gives a good biography of Heyman, and it confirms that he has been a major player in the WWF, WCW, and ECW. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments For some reason, there is a large white space above the table. I think the images are too large and they push the table down.—Chris! _ct 05:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? I don't see that on my browser [Firefox 3], are you referring to the white space due to the table of contents box creates, if not, then it must be your browser.--TRUCO 15:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I know why this happen. The table width is set to 80% and the images don't have enough room, pushing the table. Do you mind removing the set width on the table?—Chris! _ct 00:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay, done.--TRUCO 00:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, I support—Chris! _ct 00:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris, could you comment on the above source issue? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:58, 3 February 2009 [13].

---

List of Atlanta Hawks head coaches

Been a week since my last active FLC. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 02:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) The team began playing in 1946 as a charter member of the National Basketball League (NBL), and joined the NBA as part of the NBA-NBL merger. - doesn't the NBA-NBL have a link to its merger? Nope. Only the ABA-NBA merger does. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC) I was gonna say redirect it to a specific section, but there is none available in any of the related articles.--TRUCO 03:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC) The Hawks won their first and only NBA championship in 1958, but has never returned to the NBA Finals in 47 years. - since its already elaborated that they have only won their only title in the NBA, reword the second part of the sentence to ", and they have not returned to the NBA Finals since then" or ", and they have not returned to the NBA Finals in 47 years" Done own rewording. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC) There have been 26 head coaches for the Hawks franchise. The franchise's first head coach was Roger Potter, who coached for seven games. - repetition of franchise So? I don't get what you mean here. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC) I mean reword the second franchise to like "team" or "organization", franchise is too repetitive. Reworded second one to team, though I kind of regret it because on the NHL head coaches article, I use team since WP:HOCKEY split their franchises by name (ie. List of Dallas Stars head coaches). -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Red Auerbach, Red Holzman, Hannum and Lenny Wilkens are the only Hawks coaches to have been elected into the Basketball Hall of Fame as a coach. - 1)comma before and 2)So these individuals are the only coaches to have been inducted in the Hall of Fame for their position as "coach" in entire NBA history? That's how this sentence reads Done first one, but I don't get what you mean on the second. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC) I mean that by the wording, it sounds like the coaches in that sentence are the only coaches in NBA history to be elected into the Hall of Fame as a "coach"--TRUCO 03:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC) It says right on the sentence that, "[they] are the only Hawks coaches to have been elected into the Basketball Hall of Fame as a coach." -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Okay calm down sir.--TRUCO 15:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Achievements column: 1957–58 NBA champions - should be "NBA Championship (1957-58)" Both way works. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Per consistency with other FL's.--TRUCO 03:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC) I don't think it matters, though some of my featured lists also have this wording. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC) They may have passed before this new format began, because the column reads "achievements", which infers that the individual won a specific achievement, which is not "NBA Champions" but the "NBA Championship"--TRUCO 15:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC) In the refs, the Basketball Hall of Fame is linked, yet the National Basketball League is not, consistency is needed I think you meant National Basketball Association, so I think I done what you requested. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Yeah, that's what i meant.--TRUCO 03:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC) --TRUCO 03:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 18:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The Atlanta Hawks are an American professional basketball team based in Atlanta, Georgia. The Hawks play"-->The Atlanta Hawks are an American professional basketball team based in Atlanta, Georgia. They play...

Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• "names since its inception; they were called"-->names since its inception; it was called

Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• "The Hawks won their first and only NBA championship"

Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Alex Hannum is the only head coach to have ever won an NBA championship with the Hawks"

Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Auerbach, Holzman, and Wilkens were also named one of the top 10 coaches in NBA history in 1996."-->Auerbach, Holzman, and Wilkens were also named as 3 of the top 10 coaches in NBA history in 1996.

Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Fix the dab.

Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Both image captions need rewording:
  • "Current head coach of the Hawks, Mike Woodson, has coached the Hawks since 2004."-->Mike Woodson has coached the team since 2004.
  • "Hall of Famer Red Auerbach coached one season for the Blackhawks."-->Hall-of-Famer Red Auerbach coached the Blackhawks for one season.

Done both, though Hall of Famer is usually spelled without dashes. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support
  • NBA-NBL merger? There was no such merger. Reword a little.

• Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 03:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• He's referring to the BAA-NBL merger. The resulting league was called the NBA. Zagalejo^^^ 07:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• The leagues weren't merged, the NBL just defunct. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 23:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• • ...as 3 of the top 10 - ...as three of the top 10?

It should be "three of the top ten" or "3 of the top 10", though I prefer the second choice. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 03:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 03:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice seeing you back on Wikipedia. Hope you'll get your Wikiholistic ways back. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 03:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry to complicate things, but the Hawks actually started out in the NBL as the Buffalo Bisons. They moved to the Tri-Cities midseason. The Hawks' website doesn't mention this for some reason, but here are a few sources: [14], [15], [16]. Zagalejo^^^ 07:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add that part because I didn't have a reference, and they never played as the Bisons. I'll clear up the sentence just in case someone is gonna comment on that again. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 07:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Added. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 07:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure they never played as the Bisons? Where did you read that? Zagalejo^^^ 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the sentence. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 23:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK. Zagalejo^^^ 05:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• A few more comments

• The Hawks won their only NBA championship in 1958, and they have not returned to the NBA Finals since the 1960 NBA Finals. Why not just say, "they have not returned to the NBA Finals since 1960"? I don't like the repetition of NBA Finals.

• Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 08:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK. Zagalejo^^^ 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Did Roger Potter coach the Hawks while the team was in the NBL? If not, the article should clarify that he was the first head coach after the team joined the NBA.

• Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 08:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK. Zagalejo^^^ 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Why not include the NBL seasons in the list? This might require some more research, but I'm pretty sure the book Total Basketball contains that information. Zagalejo^^^ 07:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Because the potential featured topic that I will be working on is List of NBA head coaches (now a redirect, so no bother wikilinking the article). If WP:NBA agrees on adding the NBL seasons, I'm fine with that, but right now, consistency is what I, and maybe the WP:NBA, want. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 08:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's not that important, I guess, but other articles (eg List of Indiana Pacers head coaches) do include ABA seasons. Zagalejo^^^ 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think it was maybe because the ABA was merged into the NBA. Also, they have an internet source for ABA seasons. If you can get references for the NBL seasons, I'll put it on the list if you really want it on the list. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 20:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• The second paragraph (especially the fifth sentence onward) seems a little choppy to me. Is there any way to improve the flow? Much of that information is already available in the list, so perhaps we can simplify things. You could just say, for example, that five Hawks coaches have been elected into the Hall of Fame, rather than listing all of them in the lead. Thoughts? Zagalejo^^^ 20:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's four by the way. Listing them aren't that bad, as long as it doesn't list like more than five at max. How is that going to improve the "flow" though? I'm not very experienced with the creating sentences (barely passing my English class), so any help from you would be great. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 20:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, my bad. There are five Coach of the Year winners. Anyway, we wouldn't automatically improve the flow by doing that, but we would reduce the wordage and make it easier to merge similar ideas into single sentences. I'll have to think about this a little more, though. I don't have any quick fixes in mind. Zagalejo^^^ 20:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• I took a stab at it. Did I remove too much? I deleted the sentence about the coaches who have spent their entire careers with the franchise, since that's not a particularly meaningful statistic. Many of them were just interim coaches. Zagalejo^^^ 05:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• I still think game wins is better than games won. ;b It doesn't really matter, as long as it has featured list criteria. Thanks for being dedicated to trying to make Wikipedia better! -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 05:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:58, 3 February 2009 [17].

---

List of tallest buildings and structures in Tokyo

I have been working on this list for quite awhile. I overhauled it substantially a few months ago and have been tweaking it ever since. Based off of similar tallest buildings featured lists, I think it meets all FL criteria: it's comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. Let me know of any concerns so I can address them ASAP! --Torsodog^Talk 17:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Prose More doubling the height of Japan's previous tallest building—the 17-story Hotel New Otani Tokyo—the Kasumigaseki Building is regarded as Japan's first modern high-rise building, rising 36 stories and 156 metres (512 ft) in height. - Remove More and start the sentence with "Doubling" Oops, weird typo. Corrected. A 610-metre-tall (2,003 ft) tower known as the Tokyo Sky Tree is also under construction in the city. - comma before known and after Tree Done. When completed, the structure's height will surpass Tokyo Tower's by 277 metres (909 ft) making it the tallest free standing structure in Tokyo and Japan. - comma before making Done. This list of the tallest buildings and structures in Tokyo ranks skyscrapers and free-standing structures in the prefecture of Tokyo, Japan by height. - FL's are discouraged to begin as "This is a list of ____" or "This list of _____" The tallest structure in Tokyo is Tokyo Tower, a lattice tower that rises 332.6 metres (1,091 ft) in Minato and was completed in 1958 - and was should be , which was (notice the comma) Done. Tables/List This height includes spires and architectural details but does not include antenna masts. - comma before but Since the second clause after the but is not independent, I don't think a comma should be used here. Also, I copied directly from other FLs (e.g. Vancouver). Although a link is present, a small sentence should be given to explain what Ward means in the prose. Tallest all residential building in Tokyo and Japan. - is the all suppose to be there? Yes, though I think it should probably be "all-residential" (as in it is the tallest building that is completely devoted to residential housing). The notes like 16th-tallest building in Japan. - need to have the full stops removed because they are not complete sentences and are fragments. I was a bit confused on the rule here because other FLs kind of change what they use. Thanks for letting me know though! All removed. Tallest free-standing steel structure in the world. 20th-tallest tower in the world. Tallest structure in Japan. Tallest structure in Tokyo. - these type of notes should either be in a full sentence format or need to be separated with commas/semi-colons I opted for the semicolon. In the first section, one of the images needs to be removed because it leaves too much white space in between the next section This is really very dependent on your resolution. In the resolution I use, they fit perfectly, much like the List of tallest buildings in Vancouver. Image caption: The Kasumigaseki Building was the first modern office skyscraper to be built in Tokyo and was the city's tallest building until 1970. - well when did it first become the tallest building? Added year built. The existing structures in the first section should sort by rank in the same way the others do, like using the {{sort}} template, have it sort according to its height with the others in the # column. Wow, I didn't even realize this! It got all messed up when I threw those pesky mdashes in. Thanks and fixed. I would make the references into one column because not all browsers support 3 columns, see {{reflist}}.--TRUCO 22:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC) The reflist was too long with only one column, but I did removed the 3 in favor of 2 columns instead. Thanks for all the help! I still have to go back and add a few things to the prose (namely reword the first paragraph and add the bit about what wards are), but other than that I think I addressed all of your other points. Let me know if you have any thing else! --TorsodogTalk 19:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC) My comment about the intro sentence that states "This list of ____" needs to be addressed. Once you're done with the prose comments, notify me.--TRUCO 00:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.TRUCO 22:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

We don't start lists out as "this is a list of..." anymore. Take a look at List of tallest buildings in Vancouver for a suggestion. Also, in the title, "structures" seems redundant and isn't consistent with other similar lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Odd, almost all of the tallest buildings FLs start out with the "this is a list of...", but I will happily change it. Also, the structures portion is consistent with lists for cities that contain tall structures. See:London, Salford and Manchester. If this is also changed for some reason, however, let me know. --Torsodog^Talk 22:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

We have moved away from that robotic repetition of the article's subject in the past half-year, most of those tallest-building FLs were promoted before. On your second point, no need to change it if it is consistent with others. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well I've switched up the first paragraph quite a bit and added a few more bits into the lead. I hope this addresses your concern! --Torsodog^Talk 02:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "second tallest overall structure"-->second-tallest overall structure
• "Overall, of the 25 tallest buildings and structures in Japan, 18 are located in Tokyo."
• "height limit of 31 metres until 1963 when " Comma after "1963".
• "in favor of a floor area ratio" Shouldn't it be "Floor Area Ratio"?
• "Doubling the height "-->Double the height
• "Tokyo is broken into two sections" I think "divided" would be better here.
• "are located within"
• "tallest free standing structure"-->tallest free-standing structure
• Add a note about the equal signs in the list, as in List of tallest buildings in Vancouver.
• "42th-tallest building in Japan"-->42nd-tallest building in Japan
• "42st-tallest building in Japan"-->42nd-tallest building in Japan Dabomb87 (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• All done! --Torsodog^Talk 17:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• Quite a few of the sources need publisher information. Examples only: Refs 93, 95, 99, 100.
• Ref 104, add format=PDF to the citation template.

• Added PDF tags. Removed refs in question in favor of more reliable sources with publishers. --Torsodog^Talk 17:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Excellent buildings list comparable to others. Reywas92^Talk 01:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:58, 3 February 2009 [18].

---

List of Muni Metro stations

My first FL nomination or maybe in a featured process of any sort. This is a continuation of the trend of bringing San Francisco Bay Area rail station lists here for FL consideration. —kurykh 08:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 19:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

I helped write this list and am satisfy with it, but I still have some comments. 9 subway stations -> nine subway stations Done. —kurykh 06:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC) The opening year of Balboa Park Station needs a ref Done. Should the refs be shortened somehow? —kurykh 01:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Consider adding more info about stations to the lead (eg. ridership in stations) I have looked far and wide, and this information isn't even available. There is ridership per line, but not per station. I will keep looking though. —kurykh 06:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC) It is more helpful to order the metro lines based on years open rather than alphabetically. And add a note to explain this similar to List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations. (just ignore the first part if lines are already ordered based on years open) The problem is that unlike many other systems, Muni Metro line names have remained constant for the past century or so. The other articles seemed to have it sorted by years because of their names changing after every extension. Many descriptions regarding Muni Metro, formal or not, are done alphabetically, and it would be strange to do otherwise. —kurykh 06:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Ok—Chris! ct 00:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC) —Chris! ct 19:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - boy oh boy I love metro stuff. So, some comments, from overcast Cusco...
  • Any reason that the Castro line is excluded from the map?
    • The official Muni Metro map that the list's map is based off of does not have the S Castro Shuttle line on it. —kurykh 06:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • ¨...stops that consist from a traffic island or a sign painted on a telephone pole..." doesn´t read well to me..
    • Done. —kurykh 06:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • BART should be explained before being used as an acronym.
    • Done. —kurykh 06:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Why is Castro stuff in italics?
    • Because the Castro line is a line with limited service.—Chris! _ct 21:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Fine, but forgive my ignorance, where is that stated in the key or in the text? The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Added—Chris! _ct 22:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • No need to superinflate the image sizes of the stations - i think you´re forcing the image sizes to 270px, no need.
    • Fixed by Chrishomingtang. —kurykh 06:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Surface stations Platform col does not sort correctly.
    • Fixed by Chrishomingtang. —kurykh 06:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• Good work, not too far off I reckon. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed, good work. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, Rambling man basically read the review in my mind :P. I have the same concerns raised by TRM, I can support once those are done because this is excellent, but those few problems.--TRUCO 22:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Support - meets WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 22:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Muni Metro is a light rail system serving San Francisco, California"-->Muni Metro is a light rail system that serves San Francisco, California.
  • Done. —kurykh 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Muni Metro serves 173,000 passengers a day, making it the second busiest in the United States" Secpnd-busiest what?
  • Done. —kurykh 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "The system consists of nine subway stations, 24 surface stations" Comparable quantities should be written the same way. Either make them both numerals or both written out.
  • Done. —kurykh 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Four of the stations"
  • Done. —kurykh 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• The backgrounds should not cover the whole row, only the "Station" column. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Um, other similar FLs have backgrounds covering the entire row. Leaving this the exception would be strange. —kurykh 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
    • So then, we change the others. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. —kurykh 19:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• On several refs, you spell out abbreviations, which is good, but you never actually use the abbreviations by themselves. I think that those parenthetical abbrevations should be removed.
  • Done. —kurykh 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• Refs 1, 8 and 15 need format=PDF added to them.
  • Done. —kurykh 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• What makes http://world.nycsubway.org/us/sf/muni-streetcar.html a reliable source?
  • Removed; other sources suffice. —kurykh 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:58, 3 February 2009 [19].

---

List of number-one albums of 1999 (U.S.)

I am nominating this list for FLC because I believe it meets the FL criteria. Thank you. Frcm1988 (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Efe

Comment(s) by Efe You still failed to include the longest-running album of this year. --Efe (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC) I found this reference on Billboard [20], but I think it refers to "Smooth" on the Billboard Hot 100. Frcm1988 (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Like this. "Hey Ya!" continued its pole position in 2004, but is credited as one of 2003's longest-running singles. --Efe (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Ah! Here is a better proof. Jagged Little Pill first topped the chart in 1995, and reappeared at number one the following year. Billboard credit it as 1995's longest-running album by a female artist. --Efe (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC) I didn't understand your point at first, but then I realize that you refer to the longest-running "number-one" album of the year. First I thought that you were refering to the number of weeks in total the album spent on the chart and I thought that some of the other albums spent more weeks on the chart: Spears and the Backstreet Boys. Sorry my mistake. Added Sorry for the vague comment. --Efe (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC) "The Billboard 200, published in Billboard magazine, is a weekly chart that ranks the 200 highest-selling music albums and EPs in the United States." Its kind of redundant. --Efe (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Removed 200 "There were 23 number-one albums on this chart in 1999, including Garth Brook's Double Live, which spent a consecutive run of five weeks at the top of the chart starting in early December 1998." Wondering why you first mentioned the album? I mentioned it first because is the first number-one album of the year, and the only one that started its chart run at number-one in 1998. OK, no probs. --Efe (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC) "debuted at number one with 670,000 copies sold in its first week". The significance of this, too. --Efe (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC) It's the second biggest sales opening for an album in 1999, but I can remove that part. Removed "Pop singer Britney Spears peaked at number one with her first album ...Baby One More Time" Maybe a little bit rephrasing because it seems that Spears is the one who peaked on the chart. Maybe "Pop singer Britney Spears' first album ...Baby One More Time peaked at number one". --Efe (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Changed "I Am…, the third studio album by rapper Nas, was originally planned as a double-disc concept album comprised of autobiographical material, but was scaled down and released as a single disc after some of the tracks were leaked." This should not be here because the intro is the analysis of the list. --Efe (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC) I added that part for a little context on the album, but it can be removed, what did you suggest: I Am…, the third studio album by rapper Nas, stayed at the top of the chart for two weeks and has been certified double platinum by the RIAA.? Much better. --Efe (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Done Frcm1988 (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Issues addressed. --Efe (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose w/ Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) There were 23 number-one albums on this chart in 1999, including Garth Brook's Double Live which spent a consecutive run of five weeks at the top of the chart starting in early December 1998. - comma before which Done Flesh of My Flesh, Blood of My Blood by American rapper DMX, debuted at number one with 670,000 copies sold in its first week,[3] making it his second album that debuts at the top of the chart. - 1)unlink American 2)Remove American since the list is American 3)debuts should be debuted Done American pop singer Britney Spears peaked at number one with her first album ...Baby One More Time for six non-consecutive weeks. - remove American Done TLC's third album, Fanmail, which was the year's top selling hip-hop album,[6] stayed at number one for five weeks and won the Grammy Award for Best R&B Album at the 42nd Grammy Awards. - 1)unlink hip-hop, common genre 2)stayed would sound better as "remained" Done I Am…, the third studio album by rapper Nas, was originally planned as a double-disc concept album comprised of autobiographical material, but was scaled down and released as a single disc after some of the tracks were leaked. - 1)unlink rapper, for one it is too common of a genre and two it should have been linked earlier 2)A link to leakage in this context is needed. Done The album stayed two weeks at the top of the chart and was certified double platinum by the RIAA. --> The album stayed at the top of the chart for two weeks and was certified double platinum by the RIAA. Done Certified as diamond by the Recording Industry Association of America,[5] it made her the youngest artist to reached the ten million sales mark and the top selling female act of 1999. - the acronym is needed for the Recording Industry Association of America in a (RIAA) form. Shouldn't the full name be mentioned at least one time? Ricky Martin's eponymous set achieved sales of six million copies, making it the year's top selling album by a solo male artist. - other singlers have their genre listed, why not Martin? Done Millennium by American boy band Backstreet Boys spent ten weeks at number one on the chart, selling 1,130,000 copies in its first week of release, - 1)Remove American 2)unlink boy band Done American nu metal band Limp Bizkit, released their second album Significant Other, which debuted at number one and sold over five million copies by the end of the year,[9] also helping push Limp Bizkit's first album past the platinum mark. - 1)Remove American 2)The link to this genre can stay since its not as common 3)the comma should be made into a semi-colon and the other part of the sentence should go after with the rewording of ..."this helped push Limp Bizkit's first album past the platinum mark. Done Christina Aguilera self-titled debut album was released in the summer of 1999, the lead single "Genie in a Bottle" shot to the top of the singles chart for five weeks, helping the album reach the number one position in September,[15] and selling five million copies by January of 2000. - 1)Genre for Aguilera 2)the link to her self titled album should be piped linked as "self-titled album" not just album 3) Full stop after summer of 1999 Start next sentence with "its lead single" 4)shot is wordy, "ranked" works better 5)the helping should be "which helped" 6)Remove the of between January and 2000 Done Fly by the country music group Dixie Chicks peaked at number one for two weeks, making them the first country group to reach the top of the Billboard 200; - remove the link to country music, common genre Done Human Clay, the second album by American post-grunge band Creed became a hit, entering the charts at number one and selling ten million copies over the next two years. - 1)Remove American 2)comma after Creed Done Santana peaked at number one for three weeks with Supernatural, his first number-one album in 28 years. - genre for Santana? Done Breathe, the fourth album by country artist Faith Hill, entered the charts at number one upon its release in late 1999, and its title track became Hill's biggest hit, topping the country and the adult contemporary singles charts;[20] the album sold five million copies by the end of 2000 and won the Grammy Award for Best Country Album at the 43rd Grammy Awards. - 1)full-stop needed after in late 1999 2)late 1999 needs a dash in-between 3)Start the next sentence with "It's title track..." Done Born Again by The Notorious B.I.G. was the second posthumous album by the rapper to reach number-one on the albums chart, and the seventh posthumous title to reach the top during the 90's - the 90's should be spelled as "1990s" Done The list needs to be renamed to "List of Billboard 200 number-one albums of 1999" or "List of number-one albums in 1999 (United States)" or "List of number-one albums in 1999 (U.S.)" The change is alredy being discussed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Charts. The see also section belongs before the references. Done With this amount of prose errors, a peer review would have worked better here, FLC is not a substitute of PR.--TRUCO 22:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC) The article had a Peer Review, unfortunately it didn't receive much feedback. Sorry for the inconveniences. Frcm1988 (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Its sad to see that PR don't get enough attention.TRUCO 00:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - comments resolved to meet WP:WIAFL. I would still like to see the article renamed.--TRUCO 00:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "which spent a consecutive run of five weeks at the top of the chart starting in early December 1998."-->which, starting in early December 1998, spent a consecutive run of five weeks at the top of the chart.

• Changed

• "TLC's third album, Fanmail, which was the year's top selling hip-hop"

• Removed

• "in the summer of 1999" Don't use seasons; use months instead.

• Done

• "late-1999" No hyphen necessary.

• Removed

• "making them the first country group to have reached"-->making them the first country group to reach

• Changed

• Spell out RIAA.

• Is it necessary to spell the name again, I already put the complete name: "Pop singer Britney Spears's first album ...Baby One More Time peaked at number one for six non-consecutive weeks. Certified as diamond by the Recording Industry Association of America." Frcm1988 (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 3, change the title to sentence case. Web page titles should not be in all caps.

• Changed

• Spell out lesser-known abbreviations such as RIAA.

• Done

• Ref 19 should have Billboard linked since all the other instances are linked. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:58, 3 February 2009 [21].

---

List of New York Islanders award winners

iMatthew // talk // 20:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Weak oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Nice to see a different type of sports list, but there are many problems. These are just from the top:

• I'm not sure about the title of this article. How about: List of New York Islanders awards and accomplishments, a la Portland Trail Blazers accomplishments and records?
  • There is already a List of Calgary Flames award winners. I think it's fine. iMatthew // talk // 13:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "The team has won the Clarence S. Campbell Bowl trophy"
• "Denis Potvin, Bryan Trottier, and Mike Bossy are the team's most decorated players, with all three winning the Calder Memorial Trophy once." You say they are the most decorated and then you say that they have won a trophy? What is the criteria for "most decorated"? Instead, say how many awards/achivements that they have won. The sentence construction is also awkward with the noun + -ing.
• Prune this redundancy-plagued phrase: "In addition, they have also won other various awards"
• "Other management personnel to be inducted"-->Other management personnel who have been inducted
• "General manager" Why is this capitalized? Also, it would be more useful if you pipe linked this to the "Sports teams" section in that article.
• Whenever a year range is preceded by "from", do not use an en dash. Example: "from 1972–1992"-->from 1972 to 1992.
• "In its history" Another redundant phrase; when else could they have won these awards?
• "Bryan Trottier, Denis Potvin, and Mike Bossy are some of the Islanders' most decorated players" In the lead, you say they are the most decorated. Now you say that they are only of the most decorated players. Which is it? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• I will come back for more comments later. One thing: Fix the dabs. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "The New York Islanders have retired six numbers. Of the six retired numbers, five players have been inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame." Confusing. Readers who don't understand these things will be confused over retired numbers and players.
• "One of these is for Al Arbour, Islanders head coach for 19 seasons."-->One of these is for Al Arbour, who was the Islanders' head coach for 19 seasons.
• "Another banner is for Bill Torrey, General manager of the Islanders from 1972 to 1992."-->Another banner is for Bill Torrey, who was the general manager of the Islanders from 1972 to 1992.
• "Potvin recorded 310 goals in 1060 games for the Islanders, while Bossy recorded 573 goals in 752 games." "while"-->and.
• In the "All Star Games selections" "Year" column, change the header to "All Star Game" or something like that.
• "33 All-Star Games have been held since the Islanders arrived on Long Island, with at least one player representing the Islanders in each year, but the 2001, 1999, and 1979 games." Don't start sentences with numerals; the noun + -ing ("player representing") structure is awkward.
• "The All-Star game has not been held in various years" "various"-->several.
• "Mike Bossy played a franchise high"-->Mike Bossy played a franchise-high

Still not there yet. Find a copy-editor (User:Maxim or User:Resolute) to look at it. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done. I'll ask Maxim later. iMatthew // talk // 16:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've done a copy-edit this morning on request. Resolute 16:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: This article needs to be linked on the navbox (no need to stall promotion over it though). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• For the Hockey-Reference sources, Hockey-Reference is the work and Sports Reference LLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Sure, thanks for the comments. Will get to as soon as possible. iMatthew // talk // 23:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done with everything. Thanks. iMatthew // talk // 13:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Is it just me or is this article uncategorized? – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Its uncategorized.--TRUCO 23:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. iMatthew // talk // 13:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Several teams offer internal team awards; i.e.: The Molson Cup for the Canadian franchises. Do the Islanders have any such awards? Resolute 16:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of (or could find, anywhere). iMatthew // talk // 16:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Just kidding! I found one, and added it in. iMatthew // talk // 18:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, good add. Support meets WP:WIAFL, well written. Resolute 06:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Following league realignment in 1981, they then captured the Prince of Wales Trophy as Wales Conference playoff champion consecutively from 1982 to 1984. - wouldn't it be "the" Wales Conference playoff champion? Denis Potvin, Bryan Trottier, and Mike Bossy have won four to five awards each, with all three winning the Calder Memorial Trophy as rookie of the year in their first NHL seasons. - have won four to five awards is badly worded. How about saying, "have won at least three awards"? Other management personnel who have been inducted include Al Arbour, who coached the Islanders for his entire career, and Bill Torrey, who held the general manager position from 1972 to 1992. - be consistent, state from what years Arbour coached Trottier and Bossy have both won the Conn Smythe Trophy once, awarded to the most valuable player of the playoffs. - add "which is" before awarded The All-Star game has not been held in several years: 1995 and 2005 as a result of labor stoppages, 2006 because of the Winter Olympics, and 1979 and 1987 due to the Challenge Cup and Rendez-vous '87 series between the NHL and the Soviet national team respectively. - comma before respectively--TRUCO 17:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Done. iMatthew // talk // 18:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL, in addition, I participated in this article's peer review, so I find it up to standards.--TRUCO 19:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - One minor thing though, in the table for Individual awards there seems to be a stray cell between the Seasons header and the 1978–79 cell. I tried to remove it but couldn't. Perhaps it could just be colspan/rowspan playing up. This however doesn't effect my support. Sunderland06 (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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