Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Inductees of Canada's Walk of Fame

List of inductees of Canada's Walk of Fame
I changed the page completely during the previous nomination and thus decided to submit a new nomination. -- Scorpion 21:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

First nomination


 * Support as Nominator -- Scorpion 17:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point in the renomination, but I still oppose . The list still lacks complete remarks on achievements of each of the described people, and requires a reference to each bio page. The bios listed here are satisfying for this task, but please link each person separately. Styling concerns: What's the point in the reference in the lead? That is already is an external link. Unnecessary space before the "See Also" section and only the first word of the header should be capitalized per WP:MSH, same for the "External Links" section. Even if there is no "birthplace" for Crazy Canucks you should at least add the province where they originated. No such profession as "The Polka King", maybe a singer? ...there are currently 100 stars n the walk - change to 100 people in the walk, the word "stars" has a POV and is unencyclopedic. ...with eight being inducted in 2006 - Change to with eight of them. List of inductees at the Official website - "Official" shouldn't be capitalized. No interwiki links? How about this for example? Fix the above concerns and you'll get my support.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   22:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to include a reference to each bio page, that's why I tried to use as few notes as possible.
 * "the word "stars" has a POV" How so? It refers to the STARS that are put in the walk (Ie. Each stone with an honouree is in the shape of a STAR).
 * In most cases, I used the profession listed at the official website, and they list Walter Ostenak as "The Polka King" -- Scorpion 22:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that the stars are actual drawings/shapes on the sidewalk: if it's unclear, it should probably be reworded (maybe a photo?). The "Polka King" should be moved at remarks as nickname, the man is a musician. The title (bold words in lead) should not be wikified per WP:LEAD, you could move the link further in the paragraph. Louis B. Mayer and Jack Warner are producers, "Hollywood pioneer" should probably go to remarks. --Qyd 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well otherwise it fails criteria 1c of WP:WIAFL, the point is not to include as few references as possible, but rather to confirm each fact (including profession and birthplace) on the list effectively as the most of the individual article don't do it correctly.
 * I'm sorry, I thought it meant to stars as people, thanks for clarifying that.
 * Since Polka is a sort of music, it will be more understandable to list it this way. You might want to check other of his bio page to see if he's indeed a singer.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   22:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, Sennatt, Warner and Mayer were listed as Hollywood Pioneers (So is Fay Wray, but she's easy to group), but I couldn't figure out whether to call them directors, producers, studio founders or executives, so I kept Hollywood Pioneer. Changed Ostenak to "Polka Musician" and reworded lead. -- Scorpion 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "rather to confirm each fact (including profession and birthplace)" Like I said, every profession and birthplace listed is taken directly from the list at the official website. -- Scorpion 22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes but it's preferable to list each bio separately for easier navigation.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   23:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It would be usefull to list professions uniformly, i.e. singer/songwriter/composer/etc could all be listed as musician; this would help in sorting; don't worry if it's not verbatim as the cited official website. A few words as why they were inducted (where it's not clear) wouldn't hurt. --Qyd 22:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So you want me to change commas to /? So actor, comedian would become actor/comedian? -- Scorpion 22:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all, "singer" will become "musician", "polka musician" would become "musician, polka", "rock band" would become "musician, rock", etc. It's just a sugestion, feel free to disagree. Another sugestion: all professions should be in the same style (all Title Case or all Sentence case). The list is starting to look very good. --Qyd 00:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I came back to check progress, and I like what I see. Sadly, the references aren't formatted properly using the template and there are some capitalization issues, I formatted one reference as an example. The reference in the lead isn't used to confirm a fact, please get rid of it. Remarks are still sentences and require a period. Some POV, avoid using the word famous.   Michaelas10   (Talk)   16:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, okay. You tell me to assume good faith, and yet you automatically oppose the article after I completely overhaul it, AND your still complaining even after I added sources just because the format isn't the way you want to see it? I've already gone through and changed the entire article five times just for you AND I still have to add notes for 60+ other people, and you're STILL going to be a dick about it? -- Scorpion 16:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Scorpion, you might want to strike the above after reading No personal attacks. This nomination has only been active for a couple of days so you've got plenty time left to work on things. Already, suggestions by two editors have resulted in significant changes that have improved the layout and content. Getting featured is/should be difficult. It is quite common for an article to be worked on and improved during the nomination process. I don't think what you're being asked to do is extreme. The above suggestions by Michaelas10 on formatting the references, capitalisation and avoiding certain POV words are all issues that another editor would mention and may (esp. references) cause them to oppose. Whilst the cite web template isn't essential, it does help prompt for things like access date (which is considered important for web references). Michaelas10's comment about the reference in the second lead paragraph is correct but I'd go further in saying that that whole sentence is possibly redundant. The first paragraph is unsourced. Perhaps you could try expanding it a little with info from the various pages on the official site – there do appear to be pages on the history and gala events, etc. This list is definately heading towards FL status so don't dispair. If you think a particular comment isn't reasonable, ask politely for a second opinion. Colin°Talk 17:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There I'm done. I've completely reworked the article using everyone's suggestions. -- Scorpion 20:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really, references are still not formatted properly and lead needs work per Colin's suggestions.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   20:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. You don't call the transformation the article has undergone reworking? I'm not changing the reference styles because there's no need to, and I have reworked the lead a little. The main Walk of Fame page here already has a bit of history, but I can add more criteria. If not changing the references means I lose your vote, then so be it. -- Scorpion 20:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Manual of Style on Citations says you should include "the date you retrieved it if it is online". I've fixed the refs, punctuation and case for you. Colin°Talk 20:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Comprehensive, accurate, well constructed, stable, nice having an image. Important list for Canadian entertainment. --Qyd 20:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Has come a long way since nomination. Could still do with a ref for the lead. Colin°Talk 20:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Well-referenced, nicely put together. Just a few minor things that can be easily fixed:
 * Can the first occurrence of each occupation be wikilinked? You don't have to link every occurence of the word "actor," just the first.
 * The table doesn't stretch the width of my browser screen -- is this just me or are the percentages of the table funny? I'm not so good with tables.
 * There's just a little bit of continuity issues with sometimes "Winner of …" being used and sometimes "Won …". I'd opt for "winner of."
 * The title "birthplace" should probably be changed to hometown or something better, as John Kay and Kiefer Sutherland were both not born in Canada, as stated in their remarks. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 00:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed the table to 90% of the screen, birthplace has been changed to hometown and I'll work on the wikilinking (althugh none of the professions are linked as you mentioned) and continuity. -- Scorpion 14:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I switch to support. The list seems good enough now for FL status, but I still suggest that the lead would be expanded to at least two paragraphs, take a look at WP:LEAD.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   21:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll work on making the lead longer later on, I'll probably have to steal stuff from the main article.