Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Wikipedia:FLC -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

Featured lists in Wikipedia Here we determine which lists are to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FL criteria. Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FLC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list prior to nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. A list should not be on Featured list candidates and Peer review at the same time. Please do not split FL candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings). One of the FL directors, either Scorpion0422 or Matthewedwards, determines the timing of the process for each nomination, but each nomination will last at least 10 days—longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews: actionable objections have not been resolved; or consensus for promotion has not been reached; or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Gimmebot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. Nominations will be removed on Tuesdays and Saturdays, just prior to User:Gimmebot's scheduled run at 00:00 UTC Wednesday and Sunday mornings. Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents – #wikipedia-en-FL	Shortcut: WP:FLC Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists ← Featured pictures Featured sounds Featured portals Featured topics Featured list tools: Featured list criteria Featured list candidates Featured list removal candidates Featured list log Former featured lists Removal candidates log Toolbox Dead links (updates daily)
Nomination procedure Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that Peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list. If resubmitting a list, do not delete the old {{FLCfailed}} template. From there, click on the "leave comments" link to create a new sub-page for the nomination. If you are resubmitting a list, use the Move button to rename the previous nomination sub-page to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations → Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations/archive1. Find where the previous discussion is listed in the featured log and update the link there, as well as on the {{FLCfailed}} template of the list's talk page. Place ===[[name of nominated list]]=== at the top of the new sub-page, write your reason for nominating the list below the heading, and save the sub-page. Please make sure you sign your post. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated list. While adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary. Supporting and objecting Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the list nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page). To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by the reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used sparingly, because it can cause the FLC archives to exceed template limits. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider. Graphics are discouraged (for example, Y Done or N Not done), as they slow down the page load time. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.

Nominations

Gaylactic Spectrum Award winners and nominees for best other work

Just the same as the one for novels that passed last week. Table isn't so nice looking as there is more variation in creators & titles, as the list contains numerous media types. But that cannot be helped, so it meets all the criteria of a FL imo, same as the others.Yobmod (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments Inconsistancies: -capitalisation of Other works -Bolding of titles -The titles in quote marks don't sort alphabetically -Publishers should be linked every time in a sortable table, not just first time.Dillypickle (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The Cure discography

I have recently brought this discography up to standard and believe it could be a featured list. I will of course address any concerns reviewers have as soon as possible. I've searched high and low through sources (reliable and otherwise) but can't find any reference to the directors of the last four music videos. Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments Mostly looks fine, except the recent music videos. They need directors, or a good reason why the info cannot be found. At the moment they don't even have citations to prove they exist.Dillypickle (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added references for the existence of the last four videos. I'm afraid the directors will remain blank until a reliable source sees fit to say who they were. But I can't see that being a reason for the list not to be featured as WP:WIAFL #3 does say complete "where practical". --JD554 (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks better, although i am still not sure that finding out the directors publicly released videos is sufficiently "impractical". I was suprised that even sites that officialy show the video do not show any information about it (Eg. MTV), so in light of that i will remain neutral. Featured lists do seem to have very low standards compared to other featured content, so it is as good as other FLs.Dillypickle (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Washington Capitals head coaches

Though I just 5x expanded this article 30 minutes ago (or less than that), I do believe that this article is ready for this promotion. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 04:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 07:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day starting pitchers

I believe this meets the Featured List criteria, similar to other featured lists of this type, such as List of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Opening Day starting pitchers and List of Kansas City Royals Opening Day starting pitchers. Rlendog (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose from SRX

• The second and third paragraphs need to be merged into one.
• Drysdale would make seven Opening Day starts for the Dodgers in the 1950s and 1960s, a team record. - how about, ..would make seven more Opening Day starts In addition, why not give an actual exact time, i.e. 2004-2008 or from 2004 to 2008.
• Drysdale would make seven Opening Day starts for the Dodgers in the 1950s and 1960s, a team record. Fellow Hall of Fame pitcher Don Sutton shares this record with seven Opening Day starts accumulated during the 1970s. merge these. a team record shared with Don Sutton, who accumulated them from (exact time)
• The other Los Angeles Dodgers pitchers with at least four Opening Day starts are Fernando Valenzuela, who made six such starts in the 1980s, Ramon Martinez, who made five such starts in the 1990s, and Orel Hershiser, who made four Opening Day starts from 1987 through 1994. -> Fernando Valenzuela, Ramon Martinez, and Orel Hershiser have had at least four Opening Day starts, with 6, 5, and 4, respectively.
• Merge the last 3 paragraphs into one instead of small individual ones.
• Can a different symbol be used instead of #? Like a dagger or something.
• The color coding should only be on the players name due to the unappealing appearance, see List of New Orleans Saints head coaches.
• Who is the publisher for the general ref?--SRX 22:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Addressed all but the color coding comment. I addressed the "merge the last 3 paragraphs into one" slightly differently than suggested, in a manner that I think flows better. With respect to the color coding comment, personally I don't find the appearance unappealing, but will revise if there is a consensus to do so. But I don't think there is, since all the other Featured Lists of this type use the color coding used here. In additon to the lists listed in the lead, there are also List of New York Mets Opening Day starting pitchers, List of New York Yankees Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Seattle Mariners Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Minnesota Twins Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Boston Red Sox Opening Day starting pitchers and others. I think the color coding suggested works well for List of New Orleans Saints head coaches since the information subject to the color coding is very specific to the coach, while in this case the color is related to the team performance in the season. Rlendog (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

List of ECW Television Champions

Co-nominating with IMatthew: This article follows the examples of the FLs, List of WCW World Tag Team Champions and List of WCW Hardcore Champions, and as a result has a comprehensive prose and list the content in a comprehensive manner. Any comments, however, will be addressed by Matt or myself.--SRX 23:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• No bolding of the article title in the lead?

• WP:BOLDTITLE isn't necessary if it doesn't repeat the title verbatim Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Exactly what Matthew said :)--SRX 21:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • That's good to know. Thanks. Nikki♥311 22:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure if there is a way to fix it, but the Google Books url is visible in the references. ETA: This might be because it is also lacking the book's title.
  • I added the title, its fixed now.--SRX 21:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Why did Osbourne have to vacate the title and WWE not acknowledge his reign?
  • Its unknown per official records, so I added that it was unknown for both instances that you mentioned.--SRX 21:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Nikki♥311 03:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "ECW was a subsidiary for the National Wrestling Alliance (NWA)," -- surely a subsidiary of?
  • I knew it read weird, I couldn't think of the right term. Fixed.--SRX 21:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• "ECW, however, withdrew as a subsidiary of the NWA in 1994, and as a result, ECW gained ownership of the copyrights to its championships." --> "ECW withdrew as a subsidiary in 1994 and gained ownership of the copyrights to its championships."
  • Fixed.--SRX 21:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• "The championship remained active until April 2001, after ECW filed for bankruptcy." I think "after" is the wrong word here, perhaps. Does it mean it "remained active until April 2001, even after ECW filed for bankrupcy", or "remained active until April 2001, when ECW filed for bankrupcy"?
  • Changed to when.--SRX 21:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• "mid–2003" hyphen, not dash
  • Fixed.--SRX 21:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• "The ECW Championship was the only former ECW title reactivated by WWE for the new brand.[4] The ECW Television Title history was, however, published by WWE on its website, although it excluded various reigns after edits by WWE.[5]" --> "The ECW Championship was the only former ECW title reactivated by WWE for the new brand,[4] although the ECW Television Title history was published by WWE on its website; however, it fails to include various reigns.[5]"
  • Fixed.--SRX 21:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• "Hoynou legitimately injured his ankle" who?
  • Woops, I meant Hotbody (the previous champion).--SRX 21:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• "ECW forced Osbourne to vacate the title." why?
  • I added that it was for unknown reasons.--SRX 21:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Joking Apart episodes

Self-nomination. The article seems to fulfill all of the criteria. Any objections should be minor and easily addressable. Article is well-referenced and not controversial. The only image is free. This is a companion article to Joking Apart, which has recently been promoted to FA.
Constructive criticism is always welcome when it is offered in a polite, collaborative manner. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment Please note that we do not start lists "This is a list of..." anymore. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments. From where were the airdates sourced? If one extensive source, could be cited in the column header. Otherwise each date needs a cite. The episodes didn't have titles?Dillypickle (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, both in lead and the column headers for each series. And, nope, the episodes didn't have titles. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration

This list is an attempt to provide context to the growing number of Antarctic expedition articles within Wikipedia. Although individually organised, with their own objectives, the 16 expeditions of the "Heroic Age", listed here, were part of a common endeavour – the discovery and opening up of the continent of Antarctica, in a concentrated period of activity. A subsidiary list provides details of the explorers who died during this endeavour. This could possibly be hived off and linked to the main list, but I would prefer not to do this if possible. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "an era which extended from the close of the Victorian epoch to the years immediately following the end of the First World War." Could you give dates so that the readers unfamiliar with one or both periods?
  • It's difficult to give actual dates, because opinions differ over the start and finish, but I have altered the text to read "...close of the 19th century to the early 1920s." Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• I'm a bit concerned over comma usage. It seems a bit excessive in places:
  • "a lecture given to the Royal Geographical Society in London, in 1893, by Professor John Murray of the Challenger oceanographical expedition, 1872–76." --> "a lecture given to the Royal Geographical Society in London in 1893, by Professor John Murray of the Challenger oceanographical expedition (1872–76)."
  • "In August 1895, at the Sixth International Geographical Congress, also in London," first comma is unnecessary, I think
    • I've adopted your punctuation for the first sentence and rewritten the second to eliminate commas altogether! I've also checked the rest of the text; I can't see any more obvious overuse of commas but I'll keep looking. (Trouble is, some editors like commas and complain I don't use them enough.) Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• "Most histories consider that the era extended for the quarter-century until Shackleton's final expedition in 1921–22, although some define it more narrowly, as between 1901 and 1917." Ref 4 supports the claim that it began in 1901, and ended in 1922.. Where are the references to support 1917? Where are the sources to support "most histories"?
  • Changed "most" to "some" - too difficult to prove "most". I've also chopped this section, which deals with the origins and beginnings of the Heroic Age and shouldn't be concerned with when it ended. That discussion belongs in a later section, where I have reorganised the text and added to the references.
• Are the flags necessary for country? What do they offer, besides colour, that the words themselves don't?
  • I suppose they are not absolutely necessary, but that is true of most images, isn't it? Flags appear on almost every featured list I've seen that has an international content. In this case, since the expeditions were very much flag-carrying affairs, I think there is every justification for keeping them. Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• "This was the first expedition to winter", "The first expedition to overwinter": What does "to winter"/"overwinter" mean?
  • They mean the same thing - to spend the winter in a particular place. I've changed "winter" to "overwinter" for consistency, and linked the term. Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Full stop and the end of the sentence of the first expedition summary.
  • Fixed
• "United Kingdom" in the first table, "U.K." in the second. It would be nice to have consistency. If not, it should be "UK", per Wikipedia:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations and MOS:ABBR.
  • The flag template produces "United Kingdom" in full and I assume it can't be changed. So for consistency's sake I've changed UK in the second table to United Kingdom .Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• There are 6 deaths listed for the Terra Nova Expedition, but the expedition summary box says "Scott and four companions". Where did the sixth guy come from?
  • The "deaths" table indicates that he drowned in New Zealand, where the expedition ship was overwintering. Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• "Slicing the Silence: voyaging to Antarctica" I think "voyaging" should be with a capital V, no?
  • Yes. I've also added the book into the list of sources. Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Referencing:
  • Ref 4 needs formatting correctly
    • Done'
  • Refs 3, 6, 20, etc, give "www.south-pole.com" as the website name, but according to the site it should be "South-Pole.com" ***Fixed
  • Same with "www.anta.canterbury.ac.nz" --> "University of Canterbury"
    • Fixed
  • "www.coolantarctica.com" --> "Cool Antarctica"
    • Fixed
  • "www.norway.org.uk" --> "Embassy of Norway"
    • Fixed
  • "www.ast.leeds.ac.uk" --> University of Leeds
    • Got rid of it - site content seems to have changed
  • What makes http://www.south-pole.com a reliable source?
    • I have some reservations myself, which is why I only use it in conjunction with other sources, neber as the sole source. On the face of it, it is an admirable resource, covering every significant Antarctic expedition since before Captain Cook, with excellent pictures, good suplementary reading lists and some admirable material, particularly that relating to postal services in relation to Antarctic expeditions. My main reservation is that I can't find out who's behind it. Also, its prose is a bit journalistic and sensational at times. I'd be sorry to lose it altogether, but I suppose it could be demoted to External links? However, as I say, everything cited to it is cited to somewhere else. Brianboulton (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • What makes http://www.coolantarctica.com a reliable source?
    • Another multi-purpose site, but this time we know who's behind it - Paul Ward, a teacher and marine biologist, a former member of the British Antarctic Survey Team. The site is very well regarded, having been selected as the "world's best Antarctic website" (see here) I'm not sure of the status of this accolade, but the site is used as a source on other sites, for example this and this. I have no doubts about this site as a reliable source. Brianboulton (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Note: I have not been checked any other references for reliability.

Looks good, but not there just yet, I think. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I believe I have answered them all; please let me know if there are still points outstanding. Brianboulton (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments. List look OK. I would use UK throughout, especially in the second table, where united on one line, then kingdom, looks poor. Most of the improvement is needed in the introduction, which needs more extensive citing. If the lead is not summarising the article text, then it should be cited, which generally means leads for FLs should always be cited, as thelead is an introduction instead of a summary.Dillypickle (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• On your first point, I had "U.K" in the second table, but changed it for consistency's sake. I could only have "U.K" in both tables by giving the flags up, because the template yields "United Kingdom". As explained above, I don't want to lose the flags, so if consistency is required, it's got to be the longer form in both tables. Personally, I would see nothing wrong with reverting to "UK" in the second table and leaving the main table alone. On my screen display, incidentally, the words "United Kingdom" do appear on a single line.
  • Technically, you could use Template:Flagicon: UK. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you - I wasn't aware of this. I have now used U.K. in both tables, so there is consistency, and no reason to ditch the flags. Brianboulton (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Second point: I have added citations to sentences in the lead which I thought were not covered, or not covered adequately, by the citations in the text. Please let me know if you think there are other statements in the lead that require similar specific citation.

Thank you for your helpful comments. Brianboulton (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1993, 1994 and 1995

Previous FLC for the pre-merged 2005 list (2 December, 2008)

Since the lists of 1993, 1994 and 1995 have only 1, 3 and 4 albums, respectively, a merged list was the best choice to present them, and now I think is ready to achieve FL status. Jaespinoza (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• comment Are the 1993, 1994 and 1995 lists going to be redirected here? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC). Yes, Jaespinoza (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Support as before. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Before you supported at the pre-merged 2005 FLC, which did not take into account 2003 or 04. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - meets WP:WIAFL.--SRX 00:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• WP:ACCESS - remove links from headers,
  • DONE! Jaespinoza (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endashes for date range.
  • Could you be more specific? Jaespinoza (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • • • I already did this. Dabomb87 (talk) Today, 2:22 pm (UTC-8)
      • Sure. It was fixed in this edit, but for future reference, WP:DASH says that date ranges should use the endash, not emdash (July 10 – December 25, not July 10 — December 25). Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Who translated the album titles? Is it WP:OR?.
  • I took some from the albums articles, and the other I did the translation, should I delete it? Jaespinoza (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • If the website for the record label gives it, or the artists' official websites, that is okay. Otherwise I would be wary, even though they probably are correct. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• When did the Top Latin Albums chart begin? 193? If so, the lead should say that I think.
  • Yes, the chart began in 1993, I will put some remark about it, Jaespinoza (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • OK Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC).

List of states and union territories of India by population

Nominating this list as I think this meets all the FL criteria. I have completed a peer review from Nichalp and done significant changes as per the suggestions. I have used List of Canadian provinces and territories by population (a FL) as guideline. This is my first nomination for FA/FL so please excuse me for my mistakes. I would try to address any objections to the best of my capacity. Please list down any objections in bullet points as it would help me address them individually and update the status when they are addressed. --GPPande talk! 14:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support-Good --Irmela08 21:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment We do not start lists as This is a list of ... anymore. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the initial line and clubbed the entire introduction of Census of India into a small paragraph below first one. --GPPande talk! 08:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Kirby media

This list is based off of List of Castlevania titles, List of Harvest Moon titles, List of F-Zero media, and other video game featured lists. This is my first FLC, but I believe that the list is up to the FL criteria. All concerns will most likely be reviewed by me, and have a good time reviewing it. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 23:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments Oppose The lead is not large enough, please see List of One Piece video games as a guide. Also, Featured Lists no longer start "This is a list of..." anymore. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• "This and other subtle changes in gameplay" Changes from what?
• "The games have been developed by Japanese based HAL Laboratory"-->The games have been developed by Japan-based HAL Laboratory...
• "To date, over twenty million Kirby games have sold worldwide."-->Over twenty million Kirby games have been sold worldwide.
• The game consoles are overlinked.
• Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose from me too; lead is too short. But shouldn't take too long to expand (make sure the prose is in tip-top shape!) Gary King (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've expanded the lead a bit more now, but I'll continue to expand it over the next couple hours. I addressed the "This is a list of..." sentence and replaced it with a sentence based on examples from other FLs. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 00:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Does the current lead address some of your concerns? -- Nomader ^(Talk) 22:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Better. I'll strike my oppose. Gary King (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Better from me also, hopefully I will be able to provide a full review today or tomorrow. Striking oppose. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. As soon as you add a review I'll get to work on fixing up the article; much obliged. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 23:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - the table itself checks out well, however, the prose in the lead needs work and expansion, I strongly recommend using List of Harvest Moon titles and List of WWE SmackDown video game titles as a template/guide in working on the lead.--SRX 23:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I added a little bit to the lead, changed the wording around a bit. Right now however, I'm basing the three paragraph format off of List of One Piece video games; if you feel that one paragraph would be better for the article, I'll work the prose together as such. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 02:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged the lead into one paragraph and tried to word it a bit better. Is this more along the lines of what you were looking for? -- Nomader ^(Talk) 02:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Guyinblack25

• The lead
  • Instead of linking "video game" and "series", I would just link "video game series" to avoid overlinking.
  • Maybe wikilink "levels" to Level (video games) to provide some info to laymans.
  • Some prose suggestions
    • Tweaking for grammar, redundancy, and punctuation:
      "The gGames in the series have all been developed by the Japanese based company, HAL Laboratory, a Nintendo second-party developer."
    • Expand and clarify:
      "A common gameplay element is Kirby's is ableability to copy enemy abilitiesskills, allowing..."
    • I would mention the TV series originated in Japan, as the lead implies it is a North American show. I know the word anime implies otherwise, but this may not be apparent to a layman.
    • "based off of" → "based on"
  • I would put ref 7 at the end of the sentence with ref 8.
• Format and content
  • I would put the mid-sentence refs at the end with the other refs.
  • Since it's split between video games and other media, wouldn't it make more sense to have those be the two main sections and the other video game related sections be subsections of the first?
  • The section for "Sequels" seems out of place to me. What makes these two titles so different from the rest that requires a separate section?
  • What type of games are the "Other titles"? I would include the type in the notes sections.

The list looks really good and is well sourced. Once these issues are addressed, I'll be happy to support. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

• I went ahead and moved all the mid-sentence refs to the end of their sentences. I added in all of your prose and wikilink suggestions for the lead, and I went ahead and re-formatted the sections so it was by genres instead of the ambiguous titles that were up there before. I removed the "sequels" and moved them into the main list as well; does this address most of your concerns? -- Nomader ^(Talk) 21:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks better. My only remaining issue is including some gameplay description in the "Other" games. Like mention in the notes sections that Kirby's Dream Course is a golf game, Kirby's Block Ball is a Breakout clone, Kirby Air Ride is a racing game, etc.

Also, should Kirby Baseball be in the "Other" section? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

I went ahead and added it to games where the genre wasn't in the title (i.e. Kirby's Pinball Land) and the ones which you named above. If I didn't add it, it was because I couldn't find any refs for it (i.e. BS Kirby no Omotya Bako Baseball). Also moved Kirby Baseball. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 22:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

After looking over the list again, a few more issues stood out me.

• Kirby Super Star should mention it is a compilation of smaller games and minigames.
• The remakes should say what made them different from a regular system port. If they feature improved graphics and new content, mention it.
• Why does Kirby no Kirakira Kizzu have its own entry? If it was released at the same time as and is essentially a port of Kirby's Star Stacker, shouldn't it be listed under the "System release" of Star Stacker?
• The IGN link for Kirby Baseball gives a description of it a bit down the page, so you could use this describe the gameplay.

The list has really shaped up. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

I added in all your comments except Kirby no Kirakira Kizzu; I can't find any reliable sources about the game itself... I can only seem to find separate pages that say it existed, so it's in the list. If you can find a source that says it's a re-make of Kirby's Star Stacker (as it most likely is), I'll merge it into the list. For the record, I'm looking for one right now; if I find a source I'll mark it on this page. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 23:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Found a source, merged the two games together. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 23:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support: All my concerns have been addressed. The list is well-sourced, well-structured, and comprehensive. Good job Nomader. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for reviewing. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 00:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of the Adriatic campaign, 1807–1814

Hi, I've been working on this for months, but I think its finally ready. This is a tricky one, and I haven't seen anything like this elsewhere on Wikipedia, let alone at FLC, so its slightly virgin territory. As described at the top, the timeline covers the events of one specific campaign on the left, contextualised with important events in the wider Napoleonic Wars on the right. Hopefully this article fulfills the criteria. (Redlinks are being steadily filled in by myself and another editor and should be mostly completed in a couple of weeks.)--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

List of current Canadian senators

I'm back to my favorite type of list - the kind without 50+ images. Even if I wanted, an image for every entrant, my guess is that maybe 5 at most actually have free images. Anyway, all concerns will be addressed by me, have fun reviewing. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support - excellent list that meets WP:WIAFL.--SRX 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Don't begin sentences with numbers per WP:MOS
  • Fixed.
• "legislation, the" – "legislation; the"
  • Done.
• "thought."" – "thought"."
  • Done.
• "the prime minister and Cabinet" – "the Prime Minister and Cabinet" (bump the Prime Minister link from the bottom to the top, here)
  • Done.
• Should "lower house" be "Lower House"?
  • Fixed
    • I don't think it should be. The word "House" by itself can be capitalized because it is short for the full name "House of Commons", but "lower house" is just a description of House of Commons, not a name in and of itself. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Should every mention of "house" be capitalized?
  • Fixed.
• capitalize "Prime Minister" throughout
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Titles, it should only be capitalized when talking about a specific person (ie. Prime Minister Stephen Harper).

Gary King (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Support since all of my comments seem to have been taken into account. BomBom (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Support from KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!. Cheers!

List of Cleveland Cavaliers head coaches

co-nominating with Chrishomingtang. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 06:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support - excellent list that meets WP:WIAFL.--SRX 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Support from KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Support Great work NapHit (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Support Everything seems to check out! Good work. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

List of premiers of Nova Scotia

Gary King (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)