Self nom. Completely lists all country 3-letter codes, 2-letter codes and links to the countries; although the articles for the regional country codes is not complete.... Bart l 20:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - it has been on my featured wishlist for ages. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Chanheigeorge 04:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: help completing the various ISO 3166-2 lists would also be welcome. Phil | Talk 12:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support but the redlinks need to go eventually. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral – good list, but the red links have to go. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very good list. Carioca 04:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another complete list with no red links, jguk 10:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't much like the map. It seems a bit parochial, as if to say "Namibia is a long way away and you probably won't have heard of it". I agree it might be useful to mention Namibia in the rubric, and link to it so that people can look it up if necessary. If you're keen to have a picture of some sort, maybe the Namibian flag would be sufficient. Stephen Turner 11:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the map to a flag now, jguk 12:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, support this list now. Stephen Turner 10:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Good stuff, but can we have some references? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The external links are references, I've now renamed them, jguk 10:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support although for some strange reason the flag overlaps with the table in Firefox 1.0.7 -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I have also replaced the png flag with an svg one. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion as to the quality of this article as a Featured List. This is a Former featured article that was recently demoted on Farc with the recomendation of nominating it for featured list status. No Vote --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. This list meets perfectly the standards of a FL: informative and clear, with some informations and a good illustration. CG 22:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment any reason why the article states "5 groups of provinces" while the map only shows 4? (I'm colorblind so I might be missing one color) -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You are. The colour in 5 is slightly different from that in 16. I would suggest another colour if that's a problem, though... Sam Vimes 22:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yikes! In that case Support. Although another color would be nice indeed... -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 17:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - although it would be nice to use another colour, if possible. It would also be useful for the lists of provinces to reference the colour (perhaps in the heading?). -- ALoan (Talk) 23:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Dsmdgold 10:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination was originally proposed in the Talk:List of U.S. states by elevation:
- This article is excellent. I trust that the authors are thinking of nominating it on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
... so I thought I would give it a try. -- hike395 14:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support though I thought the title was a bit strange - when I saw it, I immediately thought of this being a list of what years different states were elevated to the United States. Might be that I'm misunderstanding things as a second-language speaker, though. Sam Vimes 16:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The idiom is that states are "admitted" to the Union (the United States), rather than "elevated" [1]. hike395
- Support good looking tables, nice complimentary images, certainly something that lends itself to a list format, and certainly comprehensively covers the topic - i was expecting 1 table, i got four (i'm not sure the one i expected, likely the listed by highest point). well done. (also, the idiom could be states by ratification, if we're talking constitution, because i do believe that a state must ratify to be admitted).jfg284 21:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment can't you expand the lead a litte more? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 22:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanded with coordinate system (NVGD29), from a suggestion of User:Finlay McWalter. Not sure what else to add, open to suggestions (it's hard to rhapsodize about lists of elevation!) -- hike395 01:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object:
The image Image:USA topo en.jpg purports to be a topo map of the United States, but only covers 48 states.
- Fixed caption to wikilink to Continental United States hike395
The image Image:Rocky Mountains.aerial view.no snow.JPG has no source information.
- Asked contributor for source. In the meanwhile, substituted NASA satellite photo (from Commons, with known source) in article. hike395
- Do you withdraw your objection? -- hike395
- Looks good. Support. --Carnildo 20:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. -- Mwalcoff 01:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 13:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Two comments - (i) Would it be possible to update to the NAVD88 datum, if the data is freely available from http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/ ? (ii) I think the states' names should be wikilinked. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Getting a NAVD88 elevation out of NGS for one peak takes an average of about 5 minutes, it takes a lot of clicks and typing. So, it would take about 4-5 hours of tedious work. I don't think I have the time to spare.
- Wikilinking the states is comparatively easy: I can do that. -- hike395 15:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- weak object – the title is a bit odd but is a great list nevertheless. 1. The bold text in the lead should not be wikified. 2. Running text should not have an external link (National Geodetic Survey web site), as is done in the lead. 3) Please use − for values below zero instead of a hyphen. 4. The =Alphabetical list= looks bad on a std res: 800x600. Please set the table width to 100% or 600px and font size to 90%. 5. those right aligned images should be centered. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Implemented all of your suggestions, except kept image right aligned, which makes the page much more compact for users with screens larger than standard res. Still object? -- hike395 15:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like it fits the criteria to me. Its been on peer review here for close to a week, and only two comments have been posted. One said it looked good to be nominated, and the other said to maybe cut down on the images. Personally, I like the images as they are, so I haven't changed them at all, but if a consensus says to change them it's obviously an easy fix. In any case, I think it meets the criteria and should be nominated.jfg284 14:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: usually the peer review of an article runs for a month before it is delisted. As I understand it this guideline is not written in stone, but just over a week is not enough time to give the article sufficient exposure. So maybe you should have been a little more patient before nominating.
- That said, I have to agree with the comment in PR about the images in that they tend to clutter the page a bit. Also, you have not addressed the suppossed bias of the pictures by either removing them or explaining in a convincing way why they should remain in the article ("I like them" is not convincing). Finally, it would be nice if all the tables in the "NFL championships" section were of the same width. Hope this helps. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 15:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object
The images Image:George Halas Photo.jpg, Image:Ice Bowl Photo.jpg have no fair-use rationale.The image Image:Curly lambeau.jpg has no source information. It's not possible to claim fair use without knowing the source.Overall, the images clutter the list rather than adding to it. I'd recommend getting rid of everything except the NFL logo.
- --Carnildo 04:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the offending images. And all the other ones except the NFL logo.jfg284 12:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now. I'd still like to see those tables at the same width though. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 17:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is now done, thanks to Demcdevit.
- Support, not only because I created the list on which this one is based, but all issues above have been addressed. Phoenix2 22:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from peer review: An excellent page. I would separate out the last four championships and indicate that the winners played in the Super Bowl. Also, since the 1939 game was not played in Green Bay, I'd put the city in parentheses after the name of the stadium. Finally, some of the games have articles on them, so there should be links to them. -- Mwalcoff 05:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- The 1939 game was fixed on 6 November, and there has been a note about the last four games since then as well. However, I have just seperated the last four games into their own table and am beginning the process of adding game wikilinks.jfg284
- Edits performed as requested.jfg284 15:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Great. Support. -- Mwalcoff 01:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Query whether the bullet points between the tables should be turned into text with sub-section headings. e.g. "===Eastern and Western Divisions==="; "===American and National Conferences==="; "===Eastern and Western Conferences===". -- ALoan (Talk) 10:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Partial self-nom, though Stephen Turner and Sam Vimes deserves most <red> the</red> credit. Complete and up-to-date, jguk 18:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC) (Having looked at it again, my contribution is minimal - Stephen and Haakon did all the real work!)[reply]
- Thanks, jguk. Support if it's acceptable to support my own work. Stephen Turner 19:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A great list of some great cricketers. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Can see no fault here - except a date thing I just noticed and have corrected now. (I'd say Stephen did all the real work, so it's not a self-vote ;)) Sam Vimes 19:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - do we need a list of cricketers who played in only four one-day internationals? Yes, I suppose it satisfies the FL criteria (comprehensive, images, reference, links to articles, etc) but it seems to me quite cricket crufty. Given the number of cricket-related featured lists, on more and more obscure topics, I am concerned that there could be a perception that FLC is mainly for cricket afficianados. Next time, please would you brush up a deserving list in another subject area - there are lots of candidates around. </moan> On this list, it would be nice if the contents of cells of the table where there is no information were a bit more consistent - at present, there are blank cells, ones with "0" and othere with "-". Standardising on "-" or "n/a" would good. It would also be nice to add some visual interest (or clutter, YMMV) by adding the flagicons to the countries (see List of Test cricket triple centuries for an example). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "0", "-" and space are all different. If the player didn't bat or didn't bowl, he gets a 0 in the number of innings or balls, and the rest of the batting or bowling stats are blank. "-", on the other hand, means an average of something divided by zero. I agree about the flags. Stephen Turner 13:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You have sensibly ignored my moan :) If "0", "-" and " " are used in a technical manner (for example, " " being used where someone has no innings or balls, and "-" standing for "something is divided by zero") then it would be helpful for there to be a note saying so. Also, the link to Howstat is not all that helpful - would this be better? Are there any other places (Cricinfo? WIsden?) that would be useful links/reference? With only four matches, you could link the scorecards. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It is a very good list. Carioca 19:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pretty good! Very comprehensive, great layout. Has a great lead. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for the reasons stated by Ta bu shi da yu (particularly with regards to the layout). – Seancdaug 20:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object No references, jguk 20:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good work. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Hibana 02:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very informative, the prose is well written, and, put simply, it looks pretty. — WARPEDmirror 21:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks great and is a useful resource for anyone wishing for a brief run-down and portal to the various games. Can't see it winning this time around though, but I'll surely be supporting it in the next drive. --Vanguard 02:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Template is great-looking, is informative, and has every game. -- gakon5 (talk)
