I wrote this solid article on the timeline of the Narnia series a couple months' back and feel it's pretty strong. I sent it through peer review where it received few comments: one was automated and the other said it looked in good shape; I took this to mean there were not too many objections from usual peer reviewers. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Talk page shows some serious concerns which I don't think are fully resolved. Rmhermen 06:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reread the entire discussion on the source of the material, and I've added a section to the bottom of the article. If it needs to be made more prominent, i.e. higher up in the page, in the lead, let me know. Thanks for the comment. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - oh, I am sorry I missed this before it was failed. For what it is worth, I think it is in pretty good shape. It would be good to add some visual interest - do we have any relevant images that could be added? Perhaps you should try again. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous Nomination: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Chicago Bears seasons/archive1

This list is a well archived record of all the professional seasons played by the Chicago Bears in their history. The list is detailed in giving the win-loss-tie record for each year including their playoff result for that year. I believe its a featured list. --Happyman22 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as per nomination --Happyman22 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments Support:
  • The first sentence in the second paraghraph is way too long, split it to at least 2 more sentences and try to remove unnecessary commas.
  • Add a "work" field to the references with the website name.
  • Add the fact that they also hold the record for the most regular-season victories for a NFL franchise to the lead.
  • Remove the 6th and 7th notes as it should be mentioned in the lead rather than in the notes.
  • Should "standing" be capitalized? Also misses period at the end of the sentence.
  • Why is the linking to the seasons different in the 2005 and 2006 seasons? Just because an article is missing it doesn't mean it shouldn't be linked. Either change it or the rest of the table. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Corrections:
  • Added the franchise victories to the lead and removed the 6th and 7th notes from the note section.
  • Uncapitalized the word "standing" and added a period at the end of the sentence.
  • Broke up the sentence in the second paragraph into more sentences.
  • Removed the linkages on the 2005 and 2006 seasons so they could reflect the other seasons in the list.

--Happyman22 00:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: what is a "work" field? Do you mean like a works cited reference? --Happyman22 00:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By work field I meant a "work =" in the references, which is either the name of the website or its address (wikipedia.org for instance). Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Corrections:
  • I added a "work =" field as asked.

--Happyman22 17:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, list is well written, organized, and informative --ShadowJester07 19:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Mind moving the team season column to right of the team season column? I've also given the lead some copyediting if you don't mind. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didnt understand your last comment..it seemed to repeat itself. --Happyman22 21:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nevermind, I misread it, I understand what you meant and I am doing that now. --Happyman22 00:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per WP:WIAFL 1a - "A useful list must be composed of a large majority of links to existing articles (blue links)." As this is a list of Chicago Bear seasons, the majority of the links to individual Bear seasons (in the column marked "Team") must be blue. However, only five out of 80+ are blue - the rest are redlinks. Even if you include the links in the first column, it's still barely more than half - which is not the large majority required. :-(
  It's a shame, as this is a nicely formatted list, and certainly fulfills the rest of the requirements. Tompw (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, What if I were to remove all of the inactive links for the time being so all the red links are gone and then start adding them again when each of the individual season page is created? If I do that can I squeak by that set of requirements? --Happyman22 04:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The trouble is that list wouldn't really be "bringing together a group of related articles" (1a again)... could you at least create stub articles for the red-linked Bear seasons? (The information in the list would make a good starting point for a stub). I ended doing somtihng similar for List of Nova Scotia general elections to get that passed as FL. This nomination still has a week to run, so time is on your side. As I said, once this gets sorted, the list will have my full support. Tompw (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support now the above has been resolved. Well done for your work on this :-) Tompw (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The list looks very good. Only problem ma be the redlinks in years, but not much yo can do abotu it. Unlink them for now and rlink them when the articles are made at a later date I'd say.
• Update I have removed most of the red links on the team season list as of now, but i have added the 1920-1932 season which are just stubs right now. At the time of this writting I am about to start creating the 1993-2003 team seasons...I would like to anyone who reads this and has time if they could try to help out by making an of the other team seasons. --Happyman22 19:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it looks like you are making a good effort to make all the red links blue, it looks good enough for me. Some other things that bear mentioning though, that you may or may not want to change, is that there are several repeated wikilinks on the page. For instance, Opponents faced in playoffs are wikilinked multiple times. Repeated wikilinks aren't necessary unless they are in a new section, and I'm not sure you could call each season a different section in this case, hence repeating the wikilinks would be against the manual of style. Also, I'm a bit confused about the 1942 season. It says their record was 11-0-0 and yet they lost the NFL championship game? How is that possible? Either their record is wrong, or postseason records are not counted on the win/loss record for that season. If that is the case there should be something noting this. VegaDark 09:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Improvements I have unwikilinked the articles that go to the same page, and I have added a disclaimer to the top so the list and the wins/loss records become more clear. --Happyman22 16:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I had to puzzle a bit over the color coding of the "finish" column. I'm still not sure I really understand it. The repetition of year in the first two columns seemed odd. Perhaps the league season link could be replaced by a word? In the lead, if something "should be noted" it can usually just be stated without that introductory phrase. Compare:
  • It should be also noted that the postseason records are added to the regular season records...
  • Postseason records are added to the regular season records...
  • Gimmetrow 01:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've attempted to copy edit the lead. Gimmetrow 15:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks liek a great list. My only problem would be with all the redlinks under years, but that could be fixed. --Wizardman 17:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this list is very accurate and is supporting a highly rated show. It is an list that is perfectly crafted, and easy to find the information that is offering. CJMylentz 08:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - references? Episodes not listed did not have any songs? "these songs are sometimes difficult to identify due to the fact that the snippets used are instrumental or include only generic lyrics. Songs that have been identified are as follows" → WP:OR. Lead is too short. I would work on better formating. In short, far far away from featured status. Renata 14:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - How do you reference something that has appeared on television. You watch the episode and hear the song. I don't get how you would reference that. CJMylentz 04:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your nomination is already counted as a support. Punkmorten 11:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There are many websites listing episode information for TV shows. Particularly for a show as current and popular as The Office there must be information on the soundtracks featured as well as other information related to the episodes. Once you find that information, referencing it is a simple matter of using the {{cite web}} template. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 00:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Perhaps some of the songs may be listed in the DVD's? Rmhermen 14:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The TV Show itself is the reference. You watch and listen to the show and you hear the songs. I still don't understand referencing it? CJMylentz 20:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because I feel the list itself is fancruft and not notable. It's not an example of "the best of the best". -- Ned Scott 19:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Needs more work, primarily on first season stuff. That and it's not as visually appealing as I'd like. Perhaps make a table per season? That may also turn out bad even though it sounds good. It really just needs to be complete before it can be even considered here. --Wizardman 02:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just so everyone knows, this is a complete . I've gone through every episode and have made sure that this is complete. When an episode is premiered on Thursday, all the music is up on this page by Friday night at the latest. So non-completion is not a reason to oppose this article. CJMylentz 06:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this list meets all the criteria and deserves inclusion. It's useful, comprehensive, well-written, accurate, has a nice intro, and is on a topic of interest to readers and bibliophiles. (Please note that the talk page for this list redirects to Talk:Fictional book, I'm not sure why, so the Featured List nomination has been placed on that page.) fixed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bookgrrl (talk • contribs) 04:32, 11 November 2006.

There was a redirect from Talk:List of fictional books to Talk:Fictional book. I've removed it but I haven't moved any text between the talk pages. Perhaps you are best placed to work out which discussions go where. Colin°^Talk 08:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose Doesn't have a single reference, has a very bad structure, and has a single image (without a fair use rationale). Michaelas10 (Talk) 12:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose - no references, no inclusion criteria, authors are only American or English, ugly ugly format... Renata 14:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of references are needed? Both authors and books are provided; does it need page numbers or something more specific? --Bookgrrl 16:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - poor layout, inconsistent linking, unclear inclusion criteria but I note that the list is not only American or English authors as Renata claimed (Borges, Lem, Eco, Nabokov, Rabelais, etc.). Rmhermen 18:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose: Certainly useful, but terrible formatting, no references, and not even that good of a list. I mean, when ou list "fictional books" and only list a few authors, you don't even mention the criteria of being on the list or anything. Tough to say if this kind of list could EVER reach featured quality. --Wizardman 18:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Portal List is a top-level reader navigation tool linked from the Main Page. As noted in the featured list criteria, it is useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed. It has all the essential style elements and uses images well. The primary objection probably will be that it is not in article space. However, because it links to portals, which themselves are high-level navigation guides to articles, this list is one of the most important Wikipedia article space navigation tools for readers. Rfrisbie^talk 18:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another objection probably will be that this list does not contain a reference section. The reply would be that links on this particular list are not appropriate because portal style does not require references. Such references will be in the articles for those portal sections that link to them. Rfrisbie^talk 18:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates. Renata 18:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a portal, it's a list. Rfrisbie^talk 20:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is in Portal namespace. Renata 20:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And?... The page functions as a list, not a portal. How does the namespace location disqualify it from being considered here? Rfrisbie^talk 21:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FLC is for lists in the article namespace. Please take this to Featured Portals. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the featured list ctriteria restricts membership to those in article space. Taking this to featured portals is pointless. Take a look at the page. It's not a portal. It's a list. It would be of abasolutely no value in illustrating what a featured-quality portal could look like. To illistrate the folly of that, if it became a "featured portal," it would be displaying itself in the featured portal box in the upper right-hand corner. Rfrisbie^talk 02:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks and feels like a portal for me, IMHO. --Howard the Duck 06:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Agree with the above. Here are some comments anyway: There are differences between this list and the Directory. A number of entries are in one and not the other (mostly there are more in the directory). The grouping/hierarchy is different and should be standardised. I think you should probably go for one more level of heading in the situations where there are many portals in one set of parentheses. The Natural and Social sciences have been split yet are just one portal - I think it give the impression there are two portals. Claiming "the references are in the linked articles" doesn't work for us FL folk. But it is irrelevant here since this portal/list isn't really claiming any significant worldly facts other than the hierarchy (countries in Europe, etc). Colin°^Talk 09:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, this nomination isn't going anywhere but out, so thanks for your input anyway. However, it's unfortunate people here have such a narrow conception of lists. IMHO, it indicates this process is flawed with little or no interest in addressing this shortcoming. Apparently, for the most part, this process can't tell the difference between a list and a portal. Nor can it get beyond summarily rejecting lists that contribute to article space that don't happen to reside there. Rfrisbie^talk 15:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate the nominator has such a narrow conception of consensus. IMHO, it indicates his logic is flawed, with little or no interest in accepting s/he may be wrong... This has come up before, refer to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Shortcuts where most of the same objections apply, and please bear in mind that pontificating will take you nowhere. Thank you. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 16:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rune.welsh. Actually, I read the link and other featured candidate material before I nominated the page. That's how I was able to anticipate the main objections before they were posted by others. My point is simply that I don't buy the consensus expressed here. That is not "pontificating" any more than any other minority viewpoint is "deviant." If I decide to continue playing this game, I'll simply adjust to the rules. But make no mistake about it, being disqualified from this process in no way establishes the lack of quality for many Wikipedia pages. Rfrisbie^talk 18:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There's much of high quality on Wikipedia which is disqualified from various types of featuring. That was the primary driver behind featured lists in the first place - because there was an awareness that there were many excellent lists which didn't qualify as featured articles. I agree with others that it looks and feels more like a portal than a list to me, but regulars at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates might disagree. Perhaps there's a need for Wikipedia:Other featured content, for excellent pages like this which don't quite fall under articles, lists, portals or pictures. (Good luck, though, drafting and getting consensus for Wikipedia:Other featured content criteria!) --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination. I think it's well-referenced, well laid-out, and fits with the criteria. ~ Gromreaper 07:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose - per excessive use of fair use images. Not to mention they don't have sources and rationales (which are both speedy deletion criteria). Also tiny lead, reference formating, ==Singles== does not have a single word in it. Renata 15:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns from the previous nomination have been addressed, and I think it's ready for featured status. ~ Gromreaper 03:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - it has a number of ^{[citation needed]}. Also tiny lead, bad reference format, better formating for song listing is needed (one list is in table, the other is not). Renata 15:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry, Grom, but it's not even close. There are sixteen "cite needed" tags, and as Renata pointed out, the lead is short and list formatting is odd. In particular, the "Songs not commercially released" section is not good at all; saying "All of these songs are confirmed. Most are listed on Yankovic's website." is not nearly enough. If we don't have physical proof that the song exists, we need citations for every song. If Weird Al's site mentions the song, link to the specific page of his site; otherwise, find a reliable source which notes the song's existence. Otherwise, there's no reason for anyone to believe that a song actually exists and is not misattributed. -- Kicking222 23:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the listing of references, the note about Straight Outta Lynwood should be made into proper references (i.e. 7a, 7b, 7c, etc.), and references 3 and 6 are the same article, so I don't see why they shouldn't be 3a and 3b. -- Kicking222 23:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference issues fixed. Michaelas10 (T|C) 18:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list is finaly well sourced and informative. As one of the co-contributors to the list, though a very good chunk of the credit goes to User:EEMeltonIV for his tireless work in adding proper citations, I feel it is adequately complete. --Cat out 22:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. First impressions are that it is well laid out, very comprehensive and detailed, clearly the result of a lot of effort and apparently thoroughly referenced. Then I notice all the references are Wikipedia articles. What a shame. Colin°^Talk 08:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  No. The referances are the TV episodes. Source is the primary source, show itself. Not wikipedia. --Cat out 10:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if I sat down to watch "Power Play", I could clearly note that the USS Essex is a Daedalus class ship, with registry NCC-173 and that it was damaged and crashed on Mab-Bu VI? As someone who doesn't follow this series, would I be able to work all this out, given I don't know what a Daedalus class ship looks like or what Mab-Bu VI is? Are you relying on other sources for some of this info? Colin°^Talk 12:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly you need to understand several issues on how this list was compiled. It sometimes takes a significant effort to identify just a single one of these entries.

On wikipedia I can use primary and secondary sources for info however primary sources are prefered. Information on sources may not always be avalible in a "conviniant" manner.

You are welcome to watch all 29 seasons and 10 movies frame by frame and dialouge by dialouge to verify the article. I believe that is too demanding of a task for a single individual so a collective effort would be more prudent and that's precisely what happened here.

You must understand that some of the information presented here may have appeared only for a few frames or mentioned in dialouge even if a good protion of the episode had taken inside the ship. You will need to identify that the ship that feried Dukat as Nebula class with one look since we only see the outside of the ship (which displays the registery and ship name) for a few seconds.

If you do not know how a Daedalus class ship looks like (actualy you cant since I do not believe it was ever shown on screen), you shouldn't be trying to verify that. The ship on that spesific episode was already destroyed over 200 years ago by the time enterprise arrived and that class had been out of service for 173 years according to Data on that episode. Chronologicaly that would be about 7 decades prior to Kirks command of the original enterprise so the ship should not have ever been seen on screen. In a dialuge between Riker, Picard, and Data the ship that crashed has been identified as a "Daedalus class - USS Essex" at the begining of the show. At time index 24:28 Picard inquires the now possessed Troi the designation and crew compliment of the Essex. She responds with "NCC-173, Daedalus class starship, crew compliment 229". While the ship itself is never seen the data presented in the article has been verified.

Please. "Complement" with an "e" and "compliment" with an "i" are two different words. Michael Hardy 02:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A person who knows nothing about Quantum Physics should never attempt to verify the contents of Neutrino which cites entier physics books as its sources.

--Cat out 13:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed reply. Perhaps I didn't phrase my question well, but you seem to have answered my questions. There are problems with relying solely on primary sources and I'm not aware of a preference for them (See WP:RS, definitions). The policy WP:NOR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources cautions:

"Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources... An article or section of an article that relies on primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions". (my italics)

You can see from this why I'm concerned that I can glean the info you list from the TV show and not have to rely on being a Star Trek expert with the "Atlas of Start Trek Starships" open on my lap. The guideline WP:WAF#What's wrong with an in-universe perspective? gives an example about starships that is very appropriate. Are you saying that USS Honshu is identifiable as Nebula class in that episode only if you know what a Nebula class ship looks like? What if there is a variant class that is very similar but with a subtly different underside that you don't see. The episode needs to explicitly state it is a Nebula class (as with the USS Essex example you give) or else you should really give an additional source for that fact, give a source that has an accurate description that one could use to identify the ship. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs here but I'm not yet convinced that all the facts in this list are extractable from the cited episodes without support from other sources/guides. BTW: The neutrino article's physics books are secondary, not primary sources. Colin°^Talk 17:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need a degree in quantum physics or star trek to verify the information. You just need to watch the episodes which can be done by any average adult. It just requires a lot of effort and time to watch all of it for the necesarry info.

No, the episode does not need to explicitly state that it is a nebula class (though I believe it had been identified as one in that particular episode anyways, I am not going to rewatch every star trek episode for the sake of this FLC). A circle is always a circle even when not stated explicitly. An analysis of the original "document" is more than acceptable. We do not require the analysis of the analysis or else primary sources would not be allowed. There is no known variant that remotely looks like the Nebula class starship which has several distinc features such as the inverse neceals and the module (generaly dome-shaped or triangular) suspended above the soucer section linked to the engineering section. Its simple common sense for a person with average knowlege on star trek. You can google for it if you must. I have no intention of further complicating the references section.

In Star Trek only a handful of models were built to minimise costs. Generaly only the text on the soucer section is replaced to create a "new" ship. If you investigate DVD quality still images you can easily read "Enterpirse" on other galaxy class ships. So I know what I dont see in that shot from post production. This is the off universe approach for you.

Yes they are secondary sources, I would prefer more primarly sources. Primary sources are preferable.

From my experience in "Featured list candidates" in general, nothing I say or do will convince you so I might as well stop trying. I am just tired of dealing with same redundent arguments why primary sources are "evil".

--Cat out 19:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion, not a vote that is cast and unchangable. I'm quite prepared to back down or change. I'm just trying to learn and apply Wikipedia guidelines/policy since Featured Lists are supposed to be the best and set an example. If you say the episodes contain all the details then I guess that's enough. It surprises me, that's all. There aren't many TV shows where everything is bl**dy obvious. I've withdrawn my oppose. I must have missed the "How to identify all 50 Star Trek starship classes from a few frames on DVD" lesson at school. Look. I've said already that I'm impressed with the body of the list. You could expand the lead a bit. Best wishes, Colin°^Talk 22:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose while the merge with Other Starfleet ship classes is not resolved. Renata 15:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not believe a merge would be wise. The original idea was to copy duplicate elements from that article to this one which has been already done. --Cat out 15:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]