Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/February 2012

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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 14:25, 28 February 2012 [1].

---

Papal tombs in Old St. Peter's Basilica

Nominator(s): Savidan 22:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. It is modeled after the already-featured List of extant papal tombs and List of tombs of antipopes, with the eventual intention being to create a featured topic. Savidan 22:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments (a few for now, and only format-related):

• I believe that the per-century table of contents would be better placed just above the tomb table.
• Use en-dash consistently in the pontificate date ranges.
• Could you use a less darkened gray shade in the table? It becomes hard to read the text in such a poorly contrasting background (it's even worse for the visually impaired).
• Where are the sources for the Gardner and Mann notes?
• Is note 68 correct?
• Note 56 should have an en-dash in the page range.

— Parutakupiu (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think my recent edits have addressed all these except the color. What color would you suggest? The table already looks perfectly readable to me, so, since its unclear to you, I'll go with whatever you suggest. Savidan 17:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Nah, leave it. This tool says it's a good background color. Must've been my eyes, yesterday... not functioning properly. The rest is fine; I'll review the prose soon. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 12:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments – In the table, remove the space before ref 14. Leo IV, O.S.B.: Some kind of punctuation is needed before ref 33. One thing I see across several note entries is that one ref is often used multiple times, when it's the only one being cited for that note. When that happens, it's fine to just have one cite at the end of a note. Ref 36 should have a p. instead of pp., since it's a single-page cite. Refs 65 and 66 could use a p. and pp., respectively, for consistency with the other Reardon cites. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks for reviewing. I have remedied these. Savidan 15:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Check alt text exists for each image.
• Second sentence in lead is mighty, could use one or two more splits.
• Sometimes basilica is capitalised, sometimes not, in the lead. What's the criteria?
• "a "monstrous" tomb" to whom is that "monstrous" quote attributed?
• Notes which have multiple sentences should end with a full stop.
• Why the use of bold in the pope name? I thought WP:MOSBOLD disagreed with the use of bold for emphasis.
• That column is "Common English name" but in most cases there are multiple names in there.
• Darkened background could probably use a symbol too, like a †.
• Pontificate col doesn't sort correctly.
• Check your image captions for consistency of use of full stops. (e.g. "The tomb of Pope Innocent VIII was the first to depict a live pontiff" needs one...)
• Why is O.S.B. in bold italics?
• Reardon publication year not in parentheses while other two are. Check consistent formatting.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I've taken care of a few of these. Is there no way to sort numbers as numbers? Savidan 04:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Numbers sort fine if the whole col is just made up of numbers. At least one entry is "text only" so in those cases you need to force the text to sort as an appropriate value using the {{sort}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay. I have been busy on- and off-wiki. You may archive this nomination, and I will address Rambling Man's comments before renominating. Savidan 13:48, 28 February 2012 (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 not promoted by Giants2008 23:22, 27 February 2012 [2].

---

List of New York Yankees captains

Nominator(s): – Muboshgu (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

My last FLC has three supports, so here is my next one. I have a question about how to present the officially recognized vs. unofficially recognized captains in the table, though, and I'm looking forward to that feedback. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• You should not apply boldface in the first sentence, as per WP:BOLDTITLE.
• Is "This is a comprehensive list of these captains." entirely necessary? Isn't it the primary purpose of the list?
• Apart from the first sentence, the remainder of the lede's first paragraph comprises a definition of what a baseball captain and an historical perspective of his function. It would sound great in Captain (baseball), but not that much (at least as detailed) in this specific list.
• 'Yankee captains' or 'Yankees captains'?
• It would be interesting to add a history section (short or not – up to you) explaining how the different captains came to be.
• Do not define specific column widths to the table, it leaves a lot of unaesthetic blank space.

— Parutakupiu (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – My major concern with this list on my favorite baseball team is whether it passes criterion 3b. The last time I remember a captains list at the FL process, it was delisted for failing 3b. That had a parent list (not multiple lists), but the number of entries in the table was very similar to this list (14 here, 12 plus one entry signifying the lack of a captain there). I want to gauge the community's reaction on 3b before reviewing further. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - In my opinion this fails 3b, the information could easily be included in either a players list or the main article (which is what happened to the list that Giants highlighted). NapHit (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure it'd survive 3b either. There exists New York Yankees all-time roster which could be enhanced to include this kind of information. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, forgot to put this page on my watchlist. I will address the above comments. First though, I feel this page meets the 3b guideline, as a notable role receiving a great deal of press attention. Another similar list, List of Boston Red Sox captains, passed FLC (granted that nomination was years ago). – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• It's been a few weeks since the last comment here, and I've done some work to the page. I want to see if people still feel this may not meet 3b. I feel it does, and does not benefit from being merged to a different page. But, if there isn't going to be consensus to pass this as a FL down the road, then this should close so that I can nominate another list. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2012 (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 not promoted by Giants2008 23:22, 27 February 2012 [3].

---

Surrey Central

Nominator(s): maclean (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I want a formal review to definitively ascertain whether these electoral district articles are list-class or not and to identify what is expected for a featured-class electoral district article. This was the simplest electoral district I could find: it is defunct and only held two elections, both in modern times. As seen in others (like Victoria (electoral district)) they can get quite long. The only other electoral district to undergo a formal review was Lorne (electoral district) which got GA-class in 2007. I propose these are actually list-class articles; they are lists of elections and politicians; the only reasons for the electoral district to exist are to hold elections and have a politician represent people within a defined geographic area. maclean (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments yes, I would tend to side with the idea that this could be a list-class article, just one with quite a bit of prose, which isn't unprecedented. You say "It existed from 1997 to 2004" but the infobox says it was created in 1996. The use of "electoral district" four times in consecutive sentences makes the prose rather bland. 36th Canadian Parliament is overlinked in the lead. "House of Commons again expanded." which was when? 152 km² -> convert to Imperial as well. "(Bill C-69)" not keen on this kind of inline linking, use a proper citation. " district in BC" if you want to use an abbreivation, use it consistently and put it (BC) after British Columbia for the avoidance of doubt. Why wasn't the 1996 census used to estimate electors at the 1997 election? diennial -> looks to me that the census happens every five years, not every ten. Last para of "History and demographics" is unreferenced. Member of Parliament section is unreferenced, and what do the colours mean? If it's the party, then the party name should be within the colour box (see WP:ACCESS). " 1997 election" is all wikilinked, "1993 election" just 1993 is wikilinked. Be consistent. Expenses -> table heading is Expenditures. Ref 1 should use an unspaced en-dash, not a spaced hyphen for the year range. Ensure MOS:DTT is met, row and col scopes etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your notes. I think I took care of all these issues with these edits: [4] Btw, the "decennial census" is a defined term in legislation referring to the census in 1991, 2001, etc. The mid-decade census is different (mostly in terms of scope). I don't know why Elections Canada didn't use the 1996 census for the 1997 election turnout calculations - it is possible the results had not been compiled for the electoral districts yet. maclean (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments – This is one of those hybrid article/lists that can go either way as far as FL/GA goes. I have no problem with it being at this process, and won't object on that basis. Quite a few prose issues lurking, though. Geography: "of the City of Surrey and the Barnston Island portion of the Greater Vancouver's Electoral Area A." Should either have the last "of" removed or be "of Greater Vancouver's Electoral Area A." History and demographics: Don't think multiple Surrey North links are needed in this section. One will do. "as well as increased the total number of seats in the House of Commons from 295 to 301." "as well as" → "and"? That's a little less wordy that the present version. Elections: Comma before "was an advantage" doesn't look like it helps the flow of the sentence. Consider removing it. "and Dysart accused the Reform Party of being bias in favour of seeing somebody from an ethnic minority group winning the nomination." "bias" → "biased"? Or would they say "bias" in Canada? Next sentence has two "being"s in four words, which looks really awkward. Can that be adjusted? The "and for struggling with an image of extremism" doesn't work that well with the rest of the sentence. I think removing "for" would be enough to solve the issue. "to avoid further splitting Indo-Canadian vote." Add "the" before Indo-Canadian? Would be nice if RCMP could be spelled out in its first use, and if the abbreviation was given in parenthesis immediately afterwards. "prevented active officers from being a candidate for political office...". Conflict between singular ("a candidate") and plural ("officers") elements. They should both be either singular or plural; mixing them like this doesn't help the prose. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks. I've made the suggested changes [5] What do you think of the article as a whole? Is there anything left wanting? or anything confusing about why its there? maclean (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Hard for me to say, since I'm not used to reading political articles (I'm more of a sports guy myself). The content seems reasonable to me, but as I said I'm perhaps not the first editor you should ask. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• I posted a notice asking for a review at WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada maclean (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • If, as I suspect, this is akin to a peer review where we may see considerable changes to the article in a short space of time, I would suggest you request archival of this nomination and a renomination, if appropriate, in future. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't expect fundamental changes. The wikiproject only has a couple of consistently active participants (but many incrementalists who update elections as needed) who can provide comments here. This article follows the standard template of all such Canadian electoral district articles. From the WikiProject perspective, the only deviations from the norm are that I filled in the Geography/History/Demographics section which usually have minimal content (like Fleetwood—Port Kells) and created a narrative for the local elections. From the FLC perspective, I expected a formal check on whether the referencing is clear and the structure optimal. But if someone does think fundamental changes are needed, then closing the review would be the correct move as it could have wide-ranging impacts. maclean (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Let's see then! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support: For what it's worth, I don't personally believe that the GA and FL processes are mutually exclusive, and would be quite comfortable reviewing this page or others like it at GAN; the "Note" parameter of the nomination template there can also be used to inform reviewers that you have an eye to bringing it to FLC in the future and to treat it as a prose-heavy list. On a more specific note, the phrase "Its dismemberment sent the western side..." doesn't sit right with me for some reason. Now, I know nothing about electoral districts beyond Belfast South and Upper Bann, so if "dismember" is actually the correct technical term that's fine, otherwise it seems too figurative a word to use in an encyclopaedic context. If the word is just being used figuratively then I might suggest replacing it with "reapportioning" or rephrasing as "The new delineation sent the western side...". Other than that I don't see an issue with this one. It's an interesting enough genre of article I'd never really encountered before. GRAPPLE X 07:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. Your point-of-view as someone who has not spent much time on these types of electoral district articles, beyond the two you mentioned, is valuable. The "dismember" was used figuratively, and "reapportioning" does sound much better. I made the switch here. maclean (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I think it's extremely odd that in a potential Featured List, the lists are hidden and the user needs to click the [show] button. From an WP:ACCESS standpoint, this is unreasonable, especially since the largest of these boxes is 15 rows by 10 columns. Let's hope no one wants a printed version of the page or has disabled javascript because they using a slow browser. Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed, the version I reviewed did not have this format, it was introduced here by a change of template. See WP:COLLAPSE. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I changed the template, so now the reader can collapse the content if he wishes. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Sorry for the delay in responding (busy out of town). It appears to have been a template edit that caused the automatic collapse, but GreatOrangePumpkin has made the box show as a default. Is this ok, or is there another action that needs to be done? maclean (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well it's better, for sure; but still, I don't know why you'd want to give the reader the opportunity or option to hide the very thing we're saying is what makes it stand out above the rest. <shrugs> I've stricken my oppose anyway. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:40, 21 February 2012 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 20:50, 20 February 2012 [6].

---

List of Queens Park Rangers F.C. seasons

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is now complete and I believe it meets the FL criteria. I've based this article off the recently promoted List of Brighton & Hove Albion F.C. seasons, although since this is easily my largest table to date. Unusually for these types of season articles it includes the wartime results since I had the results and tables for them (results in the cited book, and tables via RSSSF). Miyagawa (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments There are numerous incidents where the slash is used inbetween years (1907/08, 1975/76...) as opposed to a ' – ' dash. The slash is used several times as is the dash, which makes it inconsistent. Change all to dashes. '05/06' should be 2005–06. I think I caught them all and swapped out with the ' – ' dashes. Miyagawa (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Jack Smith is a dab link. Fixed. It appears to be a brand new Jack Smith, so it now links to Jack Smith (footballer born in Derby) as I don't have any information on when he was born, only where. Miyagawa (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC) "thier modern team strip of blue and white hoops" 'their' is misspelled. Found a whole bunch more of those typos, spellcheck must have been broken on the day I wrote this. Miyagawa (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC) "The team managed a mid-table placement", Is 'placement' the word you are looking for? How about "The team managed to finish mid-table..." Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC) "and reached the playoff final in thier second season" Playoff → 'play-off'. Another misspelling. Corrected. Miyagawa (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC) "Future England manager Terry Venables was appointed as manager on 14 October, 1980.", I'm not sure if including that Venables being the future England manager is really that relevant. Don't need to put a comma between October and 1980. Dropped the England part and fixed the comma. Miyagawa (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC) "old foes" → "London rivals" ? Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC) 'courtosy' → courtesy Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You missed an extra 'T' in Lakshmi Mittal. – Lemonade51 (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments – The semi-colon after "playing in the West London League" should be a comma instead. "which are not counted against player's official statistics...". "player's" → "players'". You removed the apostophe, when one should be at the end of the word (not before the s as before). Giants2008 (Talk) 23:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC) History: "The team's name was suggested by E.D. Robertson as compromise between the two sides". Add "a" before "compromise"? Remove the comma in "1 November, 1890". Do the same in other similar instances. "However, eight placed Tottenham were elected instead". "eight placed" → "eighth placed"? "The 1982–83 season saw QPR return once more to the First Division, and finished in fifth place with Venables leaving to join Barcelona." For the structure to be correct, "finished" should be "finish" here. 03–04 should be 2003–04. Surprised that their most recent promotion to the Premier League isn't included at the end of the section. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Made those edits as stated - although added the line about the Premier League which was an oversight. Miyagawa (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC) One more while I'm here: In "but lost 1–0 in the reply courtesy of a penalty scored by Glenn Hoddle" from History, is "reply" meant to be "replay"? Giants2008 (Talk) 23:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Yep, that was meant to be replay. Fixed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments "originated... originated..." reads poorly. Changed the second occurance to "were founded". Miyagawa (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC) "They have won two divisional titles at the third tier of the English football league system, and two at the second" would rephrase, and surely give more prominence to the second tier titles? Rephrased this and grave prominence to the second tier titles. Miyagawa (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Worth considering useful links to "replay" and "friendly" for our US readers. Added. Miyagawa (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC) "as a compromise between the two sides" what did St Judes get in that compromise?! That's a darn good question. The source calls it a compromise - although I would have only thought it would have been a real compromise if "Rangers" was dropped too! I've removed part of that line including the compromise part as well... it just doesn't seem right. Miyagawa (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC) "was followed in 1908 by winning the Southern League" perhaps "was followed in 1908 by the club winning..." Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC) "This put QPR in the unique position of playing in the first Charity Shield " not unique as Manchester United played in it too. Reworded and removed unique. Miyagawa (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC) "They drew 1–1, only to lose...." who? last club mentioned was Manchester United. Replaced "They" with "Rangers". Miyagawa (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC) a lot of noun -ing going on. In the past, it's been recommended to me for better prose to make it more active. Reduced the level of "ing"s quite a bit. Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC) "The normal fixtures list for the club resumed" don't think the "list" resumed, the fixtures themselves may have done. Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC) "when it was elected to join the Football League Third Division.[8] They finished third in their" from "it" to "they" in quick succession. This is always a sticky point, but that just reads too clumsily for me. Changed the "it" to "the club". Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC) "They were quickly promoted once more in" not really "quickly", just "were promoted once again in..." Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC) "only lasted for a single season" no need for "for" here. Removed. Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC) "The following season saw them...." reiterate the club here, last person you mentioned was Terry Venables. Rewrote the line. Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Is there a link for "away goals rule" you could use? Surprised to find that there is an article: Away goals rule. Have linked it as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC) "runners up" or "runners-up"? Made it "runners-up" as standard. Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC) "managed to avoid relegation" just "avoided relegation" is fine, "managed to" is redundant. Thats one of those annoying writing habits I have. I found another example of it in the paragraph prior to have, and removed both. Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC) What happened in 57/58 when they were "promoted" to division 2? Then subsequently relegated... This doesn't appear to be noted in the lead... Oops, they wern't promoted - that was a typo in the table. Miyagawa (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Page ranges, be consistent with year ranges and use unspaced en-dashes. Finally got ahold of the dash app and ran it through the article. Miyagawa (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC) "in 2000–01" vs "In 2003–2004 " be consistent throughout with how you format these seasons. Ok, I think it should all be full years i.e. 2003-2004 now. Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Perhaps you changed your mind, they all seem to be 2003-04 now, apart from in the references etc... In fact, maybe check again. Image caption is full year-full year for Taraabt, but prose is full year-year without century in general... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Yep, I switched it around following the comment by Struway2 below. Fixed the image caption. Miyagawa (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Suggest the round sorts by prominence, i.e. from earliest qualifying round to final. Right now, QF (quarterfinal) sorts before QRs (qualifying rounds)... I'm not even sure how the Result column is currently sorting, should be similar to my previous comment though. As it has multiple cups for some years, do you think the column should be sorted by the most prominent cup or by the highest round out of the multiple cups for that year? Miyagawa (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Highest round in my opinion. Not for us to decide prominence of cups at a given moment in time... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC) "Source:" should be "Sources:" The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC) "they set a record low score for the Division with only 21 points" odd turn of phrase, we don't tend to describe the number of points as a score. Not addressed? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Changed to "when they scored only 21 points, a record for the division" Miyagawa (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Sorry to be picky but I still don't like that! Perhaps "when they ended the season on 21 points, a record low for the division"? I'm just trying to avoid the concept of "scoring points" which I simply think we don't normally say in UK football... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Changed as suggested. Thinking about it really - in UK football you score goals, not points! Miyagawa (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

*History. Who's E.D. Robertson? if he's important, add his status (club captain? secretary? whatever) or replace the name with his status, or if not, just say "the team's name was suggested" Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC) wikilink "strip" Linked to Kit (association football). Miyagawa (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Think there's a bit too much detail about the recent money men: mention the club being bought out by Formula 1 owners Briatore and Ecclestone and steel magnate Mittal, but who joined/left the board and when is too much. I've removed the line " Lakshmi Mittal bought into the club shortly afterwards, with his son-in-law, Amit Bhatia, also joining the board." Miyagawa (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Not sure that WP:YEAR would encourage seasons having the closing year written in full, where there's no change of century. Though it does encourage sports seasons, as periods of twelve months or less, to be written with a slash and not an endash, which is a new one on me and contrary to general practice in football articles (I'm not suggesting you adopt that style). Changed to the closing year in two digits - I realised that I'd used that format in the table anyway, so I should make the way I was doing it in the article a standard approach. As for the slashes... if I get a consensus to make the change, I'll go do it - but its the first I've heard of that too. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Key to divisions. "principle" should be "principal". Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Key to colours. Probably, Rangers's should be just Rangers', on the basis that if you don't say it as Rangersis, you don't spell it like that either. Might be easier to change to QPR's. Changed to QPR's as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC) In the positions column, some of the wartime league positions sort wrong (3rd after 23rd). Fixed - I'd missed three sort templates. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC) In all the columns containing dashes, some dashes sort high and some low. Sorted them all to be the same. Miyagawa (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC) 1899–00 should be 1899–1900 Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Could you use the non-sponsored name for the ZDS Cup/Simod Cup. Don't think the Mercantile Credit thingy ever had a non-sponsored name, so that one's OK. Changed to the Full Members Cup. Miyagawa (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC) In the divisions column, where there's an arrow symbol, could you be consistent about whether you have a space before the arrow or not. Changed so that they all have a space before the arrow. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC) 1958/59 should be Div 3, not 2. You may want to re-check the count of seasons in each division in the lead. Fixed, and thanks for reminding me to check those numbers - they were off because of the typo. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Notes. What are the sources for notes f and h? Added. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC) In note k, wikilink goal average (or define it) Added the link. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC) References. Page ranges should have an unspaced dash: see WP:DASH. Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC) In Ref#4, lose the excess dot in Queens Park Rangers F.C.. Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC) External links. Official Website shouldn't be capitalised. Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC) What are the sources for seasons after 2009? Added sources for the league and the two cups. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC) And the top scorers? Struway2 (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Added missing citation. Miyagawa (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Where "Other competitions" have a season article (UEFA Cup, some Full Members Cup and FL Trophy seasons) could you consider linking the result to the season article, as with FA/League Cup seasons. I've implemented the change for the Charity Shield, UEFA Cup, Full Members Cup and FL Trophy. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Think I probably meant linking the entry in the result column to the appropriate season article, and leaving the entry in the competition column linked to the main article for that competition. Struway2 (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Fixed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Could you add publication dates (dates of last update) to the RSSSF references. Those pages do change from time to time, when new info comes to light. Done, although I haven't been able to do it for one of the RSSSF references as there isn't a date listed on the page. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC) The 1917/18 one's wrong (shouldn't be the same as the other three). Struway2 (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Note n is wrong (you've copypasted without changing all the bits that needed changing). Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Would it be helpful if the sources for the various columns were placed in the column headings, rather than as a string of links below the table? Moved the references into the table except for the general ref that covers most of the table. Miyagawa (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Table. Why does it only start in 1899? According to the history, they played their first competitive match in 1890 and entered the FA Cup in 1895. Because they only turned professional in 1899. Miyagawa (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Further note: The official QPR history doesn't even have details of those earlier amateur leagues, and the stats only start when they turn professional. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Not even the names of the leagues they played in? if they're really not available, then obviously they can't go in. But results in the FA Cup certainly are available. For completeness, as per criterion 3a, or as close to completeness as we can get in the absence of league information, don't you think those should be included? Struway2 (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC) I've searched and searched and added what I can find so far. I'll keep looking, but I have a feeling I might have to make a trip to the British Library to look at the computerised archives of the West London Observer which should contain the results from the earlier period (the newspaper created the cup and the league). Miyagawa (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Please don't feel obliged to go to that much trouble, and thank you for making as much effort as you already have. It was the absence of the readily-available-online FA Cup results that particularly bothered me. As to the Amateur Cup, did QPR enter in seasons other than the one you've added? because User:ChrisTheDude, who created the FL List of FA Amateur Cup winners, used to have access to a book with results from (I think) the first round proper onwards. I don't know if he owns the book or had it from a library, but if he still has access to it, he might be able to complete any other Amateur Cup performances for you if you asked him. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC) I would imagine they are in it in other seasons, I only included the cups where I could find them in the Times online archive. Unfortunately the whole Queens/Queen's thing tends to throw the search engine, and searching for "park rangers" alone is well... lets say it's hard pressed to find the football related stories. :) And searching for Queen's Park brings up the Scottish team as well. I've been meaning to head down to the library anyway, but I'll have to ask the wife which night the reading rooms are open late (she works there). I know the search engines in the library are a lot better as I pretty much sourced most of List of FA Community Shield matches through them (which also reminds me that I really ought to bring that up to FL at some point when I've improved the history section!). I've dropped ChrisTheDude a message on his talk page, but thanks to that FL I should be able to reserve the book used as a source to refer to at the library too if he doesn't still have it. Miyagawa (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Hope some of this helps. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your comments and apologies for the delay in responding to the remaining ones as I've been laid low with a virus for the last couple of days so my edits have dropped off considerably. I'm feeling a lot better today and so I'll be aiming to resolve these remaining issues over the weekend - particularly trying to find information on QPR's league results prior to going professional. Someone somewhere must have written about the West London League, as I know Fulham was the most successful club from that division. Miyagawa (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Sorting. The goals for and against columns have entries >99, which don't sort in the correct order. This should now be fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comments. Glad to see that others are reviewing the prose, so I haven't looked at it in detail. Apologies if I'm repeating points already made by others.

• For competitions that don't have a WP article, might it be worth a footnote saying what each competition was?
• And the Other competition Results column still sorts alphabetically rather than by Winner/Final/SF etc.
• Your bright green F* unfinished finals entries are begging for a note explaining why they were unfinished. Struway2 (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hoping to go and access the newspaper archives at the BL tomorrow, which should add a few listings to the other competitions - so I'll sort out the sorting after I've added those. Also hoping to create some stub articles for the competitions that don't have an article currently (created one for the West London League this morning). Miyagawa (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

So I took a trip to the British Library today and unfortunately the West London Observer isn't one of the papers they've current digitised. So I did some searches on what else they had and turned up one more year's results for the Amateur Cup, which I've added to the table. Also discovered that QPR were in a league called the Southern Football Combination during the same season they first entered the Southern League. Irritatingly though I've just discovered that I copied down the league table from the week before the end of the season and not the final standings. Also typically is that someone uploaded the final standings to the internet in 2010 and unfortunately its gone offline. I think there's a difference between an incomplete table and not knowing a table is incomplete. I know that there is information missing from this table now, especially the West London League results over several years. Therefore I would like to elect to close this nomination. I'll keep working on it and hopefully re-nominate it in a few months once I've tracked down the additional information that I know is out there. Miyagawa (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2012 (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 not promoted by Giants2008 23:21, 6 February 2012 [7].

---

List of India ODI cricketers

Nominator(s): Vyom25 (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the list is now updated and many changes have been made. It was a featured list in the past but lost it's place may be because lack of continuous updates. I have also added a new section for all the captains. An image is also added to this list. Vyom25 (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

* Could do with a link to Indian team in the lead -Done "India is among the ten Test-Playing Nations so India has permanent ODI status." Firstly this sentence needs a reference and secondly the sentence reads awkwardly so I would rewrite it -Done "He also holds the record of winning 62 Man of the Match awards, most by any player in the world" second part of the sentence is awful, needs rewriting. -have a look references should come after punctuation, so ideally there should be a comma before ref 10 -Done "India has highest score of 418/5 batting first and 347 all out batting second." so many things wrong with this sentence its scary. The more I read the more i'm unsure what it's supposed to tell me- have a look Link West Indies -Done Problem with player no 57, his cell is out of kilter with the table -Done As I mentioned on the t20 nom, i fail to see the benefit of the colours, they obscure sorting keys and its clear by the key what stats related to what discipline- Done It can be removed but colours are used on all other similar lists.--Vyom25 (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Maybe so but it has no benefit, its clear what stats relates to what discipline. Plus the reader at the moment is unaware that those fields are sortable, so I think its best its removed. NapHit (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Table needs to comply with WP:ACCESS, see MOS:DTT for more info in what manner please suggest. ---Vyom25 (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC) You need to add colscopes and rowscopes to the table so it complies with WP:ACCESS, have a look at some of other lists at FLC, they should have these. MOS:DTT explains how it should be implemented. NapHit (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC) it's done--Vyom25 (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Nearly the rowscopes need an exclamation mark before them, i've done the first cell as an example. FYI you can remove all the align centers that separate the players as I've added code at the top of the page which does this job, and the info needs to be on separate lines otherwise the whole table will be shaded. NapHit (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC) it's done have a look.--Vyom25 (talk) 10:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC) use sort dash instead of normal dashes Done This hasn't been done, you still have normal dashes in the table. NapHit (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC) now it's done initially I thought that sort dashes only used in year section and that was fixed by other editor. But now it's done have a look.--Vyom25 (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC) no, hs, balls, maidens, runs, wkt, ca and st columns don't sort properly -Done Don't force the width of the captain's table it leaves a lot of blank page which is not desirable -Done I put the table in the centre of the page as well, like the main table before it for consistency. NapHit (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Figures should be aligned centrally in the table -Done There are some discrepancies between the table headers and the key, e.g. mdns in key yet maidens in table -Done still one wrong you have ave and avg. NapHit (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC) yeah sorry missed one but now it's done.--Vyom25 (talk) 06:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Unclear what is referencing the tables Cricinfo is used for all the statistics. However, I can put reference next to every player like done here.--Vyom25 (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC) No just seen the references near the table, appears to cover everything, so this is fine. NapHit (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Just realised this list had a peer review before it was nominated, where some of the The Rambling Man comments were not addressed, in light of this I suggest you withdraw the nomination as hits pointless having a peer review and not addressing comments made by one of the directors and then nominating the list. NapHit (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Well sir I have addressed most of them. As for the suggestion on name sorting you can see here. Please let me make it clear that I don't mind withdrawing the nomination. But I would seriously like to work on your suggestions.--Vyom25 (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC) you haven't addressed any of them, if you're not going to bother listening to advice then what is the point of nominating the list? If you address my suggestions then fair enough, but at the moment saying you've addressed most of them when you haven't at all, doesn't look very good. NapHit (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC) there is some misunderstanding I haven't even started yet.--Vyom25 (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC) oh ok I was talking about suggestions given by The Rambling Man not yours.--Vyom25 (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Still Opposing. I'm still not happy with the prose, its shaky in a lot of places. For a start have a look at the difference between the opening sentence in this list and in List of India Twenty20 International cricketers. The sentence in that list sums up what twenty20 is much better than the sentence here which rambles in about ODIs. India should be mentioned in the first paragraph not the second as they are the focus of the list not ODIs. The readers doesn't have much idea of the success of the Indian team, have they won any ODI tournaments, e.g. World Cup, this should be listed, so the reader has an idea of the status of the team. The best thing to do is have a look at the T20 list and note the differences between the prose, because at the moment, its like day and night. NapHit (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

*Oppose – Unfortunately, I don't think this is that close to meeting FL standards. I see a reference before punctuation (should be after), multiple instances of spaces not provided between sentences in the Captains section, many hyphens in the tables that should be dashes, and a lack of sources for the captains table (even the main table's sources aren't that clear). Prose is also concerning; the worst bit I saw during a brief scan was "Ganguly,Azhar India's two most capped captains come close with 54% win rate." A lot of work is needed before this can reach the required level, and I'm not sure it's doable during this FLC. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC) please have a look now I have fixed most of things you have pointed out. more suggestions are welcome.--Vyom25 (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC) One of the first things I saw when returning to the list was this sentence: "India is a full member of International Cricket Council it has permanent ODI status[1]." Perhaps try "India is a full member of the International Cricket Council and has permanent ODI status.[1]" -have a look also added 'a' before permanent Ref should be after the period, not before. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Done--Vyom25 (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC) "India played first ODI in 1974 since then a total of 193 players have represented the team." Add "its" or "their" before ODI and a semi-colon before "since", and this may be okay. Until then, it's shaky. -Done Should be "its" without the apostrophe. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Done--Vyom25 (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC) "Since 1974 India has played 792 ODI". Last word should be ODIs. -Done Currently, Sachin Tendulkar holds the record for playing most number of ODI matches with 453." Add "the" before "most", and consider removing Tendulkar's first name since it was given earlier. -Done Add a space after reference 6. -Done "India's lowest total in an inning is 54 runs." "inning" → "innings"? -have a look What's Sehwag's first name? -Done Captains: "A total of 21 players captained Indian ODI team so far...". → "A total of 21 players have captained the Indian ODI team..."? -Done Add "a" in "Kapil Dev comes second with 56% win rate." -Done In a later sentence on Dev, decapitalize "First". -Done Add space in M.S.Dhoni (at least one). Done Add another space after reference 18. -Done "Azharuddin and Tendulkar and Dhoni" → "Azharuddin, Tendulkar and Dhoni". -Done Formatting of access dates in refs 13 and 14 are different from the rest. It would be better if this was made consistent. -Done Still needs more work before I'd be comfortable enough to drop my oppose. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Two more while I'm here: external links should go after notes and reference, and the hyphen in the title of ref 13 should be an en dash instead. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC) have a look--Vyom25 (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose due to the unresolved issues above, and generally bad presentation and language. Harrias ^talk 14:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

which ones if you point them out specifically it would be helpful.--Vyom25 (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per the above concerns. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

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