Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 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 promoted by Dabomb87 21:56, 29 April 2012 [1].

---

List of amphibians of Michigan

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Presenting my latest effort in the list genre...we have (drumroll)...amphibians! I've been playing with this list over the last couple of weeks, and am at the point where I can't find further aspects to improve. Courcelles has been kind enough to take a quick look, and I think that (with his help) the issues of table formatting and accessibility have been addressed. There wasn't a lot out there to base this list on, so it's pretty much just off-the-cuff - please let me know if there is further information that should be included. Dana boomer (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Since you have "binomial name" shouldn't the other column be "common name"?

• De-capitalize "Name" in "Binomial Name"

• I'd like it if the subheadings under the "references" section were semicolons instead of subheaders, producing:

General references

instead of what it is now; looks cleaner

• More information can be added. See for example a list I've been working on List of reptiles of Minnesota. The notes column can be expanded for all amphibians, including size and color.

• One species is considered to be threatened and two species are considered endangered care to say who they are, I think that's an important detail hinted at but not elaborated upon; violates wp:LEAD.

Albacore (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Albacore! I think I have addressed everything above. I had been waffling on adding a description column, so having someone ask for the inclusion of one helped me to make up my mind. On your last point, could you please elaborate on why this was a violation of WP:LEAD? I have added the information to the lead, but it was already present in the body, so I think the lead was a proper summary of the body previously - now it's just slightly more detailed. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 17:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments – This is just the prose critic inherent in my blood at this point, but I wish there was something less redundant than "The United States state of Michigan" at the start. Is something like "Michigan, one of the fifty United States" acceptable? The hyphen after "considered endangered" should be a dash of some kind, either a spaced en dash or unspaced em dash. I'm not a big fan of sentences that have multiple semi-colons, like the one that is in the second paragraph. It's a strong indication that a run-on sentence is present. There is an easy fix, however; make the "however" into "but" and swap out the semi-colon right before it, and it should be all right. "In Michigan, wetlands protection legislation is in place that protects wetlands". Not saying this is a redundancy in the writing or anything, but I'd hope that wetlands protection laws protect wetlands. :-) Giants2008 (Talk) 01:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC) I think I have addressed all of your comments. I really like your solution in the first point - I didn't really like the way it was worded either, but hadn't been able to come up with anything else. Thanks for the review! Dana boomer (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments' picky ones... Minor point but I would say "all members of the class" so as to make it clear you don't just mean the toads. I think I would also prefer to see "twelve" "ten" and "two" rather than the digits... "considered to be threatened " do you have an appropriate link for "threatened", e.g. IUCN or similar? We normally advocate the use of non-breaking spaces between values and their units. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the review, TRM! I think I have addressed all of the above - we actually have an article (which I just found) on Threatened species, with a section specifically on the US definition...pretty cool. I also linked "endangered" to the proper definition. On the last point, I found the spot that I think you were talking about, but if I missed something obvious, please let me know. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments "The majority of the world's over 3400 species..." this doesn't make much sense and I'm struggling to come with an alternative. The sentence would be fine were it not for the use of "over". Perhaps change to "The majority of the world's 3400 plus species..."? Lead image could do with alt text, alt viewer has the file name of the frogs as alt text, not sure if that is intended or not, would consider adding more informative text to those images as well. NapHit (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the comments, NapHit. I've changed the first point to your suggested wording - I'm still not completely happy with it (I wasn't before either), but I like your solution better than what I had. On the second point, I added alt text to the first image. On the remainder of the images, I'm not seeing how alt text could really be very informative ("a small frog on a log", "a small frog on a human finger", "a small toad on a leaf", "a salamander in water", "a salamander on a leaf", "a salamander on a log" and various repetitions thereof), or at least any more information than the scientific name of the animal, which is what most of the image names currently are. Dana boomer (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Sasata (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments Comments by Sasata (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Amphibia should not be italicized Of course it shouldn't. Blond moment. Dana boomer (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC) are there any amphibian species endemic to Michigan? Not that I have found. Dana boomer (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC) would it be possible to include a short paragraph about what kinds of habitats this class of organisms is typical found in? (see below for possible resources) I've added another paragraph to the lead, although it didn't turn out exactly short... Let me know if this is what you had in mind, or if you were looking for something else. Dana boomer (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC) "There are no federal endangered species of amphibians native to Michigan." This sounds a bit funny to me ... can we say something like "There are no amphibians native to Michigan that are included in the Federal Endangered Species Act"? Done. Dana boomer (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC) possibly useful links: tropics; hibernate; water pollution; destruction; wetlands; chemical pesticides Done. Dana boomer (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC) technically, there's some trinomial names in the binomial name column; how do you feel about changing the heading to "Scientific name"? Done. Dana boomer (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC) This source says Eurycea bislineata is found in the state: Title: Eurycea bislineata (northern two-lined salamander). USA: Michigan. Author(s): Soderberg Nicole; Yoder Teresa; Szuch Ernest Source: Herpetological Review Volume: 40 Issue: 1 Pages: 106 Published: March 2009 I don't have access to this source, but I found another source with the same information and added it in. Dana boomer (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC) This source says that Tremblay's Salamander (Ambystoma tremblay) is present Title: Amphibian species richness across environmental gradients Author(s): Werner Earl E.; Skelly David K.; Relyea Rick A.; et al. Source: OIKOS Volume: 116 Issue: 10 Pages: 1697-1712 DOI: 10.1111/j.2007.0030-1299.15935.x Published: OCT 2007 Added. Dana boomer (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC) have you seen this (to check for any missing species): Muzzall, P.M., 2005. Parasites of amphibians and reptiles from Michigan: a review of the literature 1916–2003. Fisheries Research Report 2077, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Accessed. No new species. Information this detailed on parasites is too specific for a general list, I think. Dana boomer (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC) some of the following literature might have extra information that could be used to buff up the intro (this last article in particular looks like it would be useful in adding some general information about the types of amphibian habitats in Michigan): Title: Distribution of reptiles and amphibians on the Islands of eastern Lake Michigan: summary and analysis. Author(s): Bowen Kenneth D.; Gillingham James C. Source: Michigan Academician Volume: 36 Issue: 2 Pages: 213-223 Published: Summer 2004 Checked. No new species, not much about habitat. Dana boomer (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Title: Island life: A study of the land vertebrates of the islands of eastern Lake Michigan Author(s): Hatt R.T.; Van Tyne, J.; Stuart, L.C.; Pope, C.H.; Grobman, A.B. Source: Cranbook Institute of Science Bulletin No. 27. Bloomfield Hills, Michigan: Cranbrook Press Don't have access to this...was there anything specific that I should see? Dana boomer (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Title: New herpetological records for High and Hog Islands of the Beaver Archipelago, Charlevois County, Michigan Author(s): Placyk, J.S.; Seider, M.J.; Gillingham, J.C. Source: Herpetological Review Volume:33 Pages:230 Don't have access to this...was there anything specific that I should see? Dana boomer (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Title: Biogeography of the herpetofauna of the Beaver Archipelago: A synthesis and reevaluation Author(s): Placyk, J.S.; Gillingam, J.C. Source: Bulletin of the Chicago Herpetological Society Volume:37 Issue:12 pages:210–15 Don't have access to this...was there anything specific that I should see? Dana boomer (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Title: Herpetological assemblages of the Michigan Regional Landscape Ecosystems. Author(s): Holman J. Alan Source: Michigan Academician Volume: 36 Issue: 2 Pages: 165-190 Published: Summer 2004 Used this source to add a paragraph on habitat. Dana boomer (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC) from what source(s) are the common names and the description information obtained? This should be made clear. Unless otherwise noted, all information in the table comes from the two general references. Dana boomer (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the review, Sasata! Dana boomer (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC) I think I've addressed everything above. Please let me know if there is further work to be done. On the sources I don't have access to, if there was something specific in them that you were interested in seeing in the article, please let me know and I will try to access them elsewhere. You say that you think they would be useful to buff the lead, so if there was specific information that you were looking for answers on in the lead, please let me know and I can try to find the information someplace else. Thanks again for the review, Dana boomer (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I didn't have any specific additions in mind for those papers I mentioned, just wondering if you had seen them. The paragraph on habitat is great addition that definitely enhances the article—thanks. I'm satisfied the article meets FL criteria, and am happy to support. Sasata (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, Sasata - I always appreciate your reviews, especially the lit searches that always seem to find something I missed :) Dana boomer (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Image review

Things that should be addressed:

• File:Acris crepitans blanchardi.jpg – Source website?

• I can't find this image anywhere on the Ohio gov website. What should I do? Dana boomer (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Can't find it there either. Three other websites using it ([2] [3] [4]) make no contradicting copyright claims. We can't expect online sources to stay alive indefinitely, so I suppose this should be fine. Just add a link to the ODNR website.

• Link added. Dana boomer (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• File:Hyla versicolor.jpg – Description page names an original uploader, but leaves it unclear whether that person is also the author.

• This is a bit confusing. Apparently, the author (User:Dawson) uploaded the image to en.wp in May 2006 (see this, search for Hyla versicolor). It was then uploaded to zh.wp in August 2007, and that has somehow become the "original upload". So, the author is the one who originally uploaded it, and the tag is wrong. Am I allowed to just going in and change the tag to the correct "original upload"? Dana boomer (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, you're allowed. It's a wiki after all. Important is not who uploaded it, but who took the picture (see commons:Template:Information/doc for what goes where).

• OK, I think I've dealt with this. Dana boomer (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• File:Pseudacris maculata.jpg – Requires cleanup.

• I've removed the duplicate tags. If there is other cleanup that is required, please let me know. Dana boomer (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Same as above. And there's still a duplicate.

• Removed another redundant license. Now have I got them all? :) Dana boomer (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• File:Grenouille1.jpg – Requires date, author, and, if possible, a source URL.

• I can't find this image anywhere on the US government website. What should I do? Dana boomer (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• See below.
• Replaced and tagged for deletion. Dana boomer (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• File:Fourtoedsalamander.jpg – Requires author, source, and general cleanup.

• I can't find this image anywhere on the US government website. What should I do? Dana boomer (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• As far as FLC is concerned, if you can't add the information necessary to comply with our image use policy and Common's own requirements, you shouldn't use the image. Beyond that, you might want to nominate the image for deletion on Commons.

• Replaced and tagged for deletion. Dana boomer (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Things that would be nice:

• File:Pseudacris crucifer01.jpg would benefit from cropping.
• File:Western chorus frog.jpg would benefit from cropping.
• File:North-American-bullfrog1.jpg would benefit from using {{information}}.
• File:Necturus maculosus maculosus.jpg would benefit from using {{information}}.
• File:Siren intermedia 2.jpg would benefit from using {{information}}.

• The way I understand it, Steinhart Aquarium in San Francisco is not the source, but the place where the image was taken.

• Whoops, fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise, all used images appear to be free and properly tagged. Goodraise 20:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've added individual responses to the need to have section. For the nice to haves, I'm horrible with cropping and don't have good programs to do it with, so I'll probably leave that for someone else. I've added the information templates to the last three. Please let me know what you would like me to do with the need to have stuff - I'm afraid I wasn't too successful at finding sources for the three images that need them. Since I haven't been able to find these sources, should the images be removed from the list and tagged for deletion? Dana boomer (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Replied individually. Goodraise 12:23, 19 April 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 promoted by Dabomb87 21:56, 29 April 2012 [5].

---

1936 Summer Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Another Summer Olympic medal table from me. Hopefully I haven't repeated any mistakes that I've made previously in the three other Summer Medal articles, but you never know! Certainly one of the most notorious Games out there, being "the Nazi Games". Miyagawa (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments' Linking to countries is frowned upon per WP:OVERLINK, perhaps link to the 1976 article about East and West Germany at 76 olympics? Would link Nazi regime on first mention "Jesse Owens became one of the more successful athletes at these Games,[1] winning four gold medals for the United States, and going down in Olympic history by reportedly frustrating Nazi Germany leader Adolf Hitler after Owens won the men's 100 metres." very long sentence and not keen on a number of things here. Owens was one of the more successful athletes, more than who? was he the most successful? the way it reads now leaves too many questions. not keen on the use of winning either, would put a semi-colon, where the first comma is and change start of second conjunction to "he won..." the bit about Hitler is also ropey. "Reportedly" is nt very encyclopaedic did he or didn't he frustrate Hitler? the Daily Mail article is not exactly forthcoming about it either, and I think the but about going down in olympic history is bait POV, although I appreciate where you're coming from, perhaps change to "he won four gold medals for the United States to the ire of Nazi Germany leader Adolf Hitler." "Sohn Kee-chung, competing as Kitei Son, did so and became the first Korean to win an Olympic medal,[5] taking gold in the marathon, also making him Japan's first gold medallist." Not keen on the use of taking, why not use won? Would also restructure the sentence so it reads: "Sohn Kee-chung, competing as Kitei Son won gold in the marathon, which made him Japan first gold medallist and the first Korean to win a medal." Sentence after change took to won ref 6 needs the author adding Also would replace the daily mail ref with this one from the guardian, not a fan of the daily mail and the guardian is more reputable new outlet in my opinion. Also the bit about Hitler is less POV than the Mail article. NapHit (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC) I think I've addressed all of those issues now. Miyagawa (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• File:WoodRuff 1936 Olympics medal front.jpg is tagged as "own work". I'm willing to believe that the uploader took the picture himself, but I doubt that he is also the artist who designed the medal.
• File:Ibolya Csak.jpg should not use {{self}}.
• I may be wrong about this, but I don't believe that merely cropping an image meets the threshold of originality. Thus File:Berlin, Olympiade, Tilly Fleischer.jpg should not use {{self}}. Furthermore it cannot be licensed under the GFDL, as the image it was cropped from is not available under that license.

Aside from these issues, all used images appear to be free and are properly tagged. Goodraise 11:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I've switched out the licences on commons for the Tilly Fleischer and Ibolya Csak images for the licences on the original images rather than the cropped versions. As for the medal itself, it was designed by Giuseppe Cassioli and was used from the 1928 Olympics onwards. The artist himself died in 1942. Miyagawa (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Who holds the copyright to the design of the medal? Goodraise 00:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I've asked that question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Once I get a response there, then I'll respond here. Miyagawa (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Dissapointingly I didn't get a response and the query has now been archived. I've looked into it in some more detail and I would argue that the medals don't qualify as a two dimension piece of art being that they are indeed three dimensional. Therefore such copyright wouldn't apply to them. Photographs of them then fall into the general realm of copyright, which means that if the photographer themselves uploaded it on a CC free use tag, then they're ok. It's certainly not the only image of olympic medals uploaded, and there are photographs of more recent ones too (including the Games from the period after this design was no longer used). Miyagawa (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Extremely minor prose nit-pick, but in the second sentence I think "been" and "previously" should be reversed in order. Germany's setting a medal record in 1936 isn't cited anywhere. In the third paragraph, why is "Gold" capitalized? "which made him Japan first medallist and the first Korean to win a medal." "Japan first" → "Japan's first". The comma after Nam Sung-yong should be removed. Medal table: Again minor, but you could consider using the NOC abbreviation from earlier in the prose. Again, why is Gold capitalized here? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Fixed as noted. The Germany numbers were originally from the general reference, but I found a second resource which showed the tables over multiple years and added it as an inline citation. Miyagawa (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments Just reading "were an international "... seems odd to me all of a sudden, like it should be singular, i.e. "was an international"... Fixed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC) "These Games ..." the last Games you mentioned were the 1916 Games, so this is potentially confusing. Changed it to state the 1936 Games. Miyagawa (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC) "would stand until the 1976 Summer Olympics when East Germany won 90 medals, and West Germany an additional 39" does that really count since presumably the East German NOC was just that, for East Germany, and not for a unified Germany? Changed it to confirm that is it a record for a United/Unified Germany, although I made mention that East Germany alone beat that record on three occasions. Miyagawa (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Could you explain why some countries had threatened to boycott the games? I moved up the Nazi regime explanation from the middle of the paragraph to the lead sentence. Miyagawa (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Don't mix date formats in the references. That should be fixed - when I added the new citation it defaulted to the wrong format. Miyagawa (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Two dead heats with their one extra medal each, but yet there are 2 more golds and bronzes than silver, or am I not seeing something? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC) There should have been 129 medals of each type, but the dead heat in the weightlifting increased the number of gold medals to 130, and decreased the number of silver medals to 128 as it wasn't awarded in that event due to the two gold medals. Then the dead heat in the gymnastics increased that to 130 as well, causing the 2 medal gap between gold/bronze and silver. Thinking about it now, I'm going to explain that silver gap in the article right now. Miyagawa (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC) You know what, I even had to write down what I thought so I could add it all up! confusing, so any clarification you could offer would be cool. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments - overall, looking quite good. Just a couple of comments before I support:

• "cancelled at the last moment after the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War after the athletes had already begun to arrive." - after...after, any way to remove repetitiveness?
• "While no NOCs eventually boycotted the Games", "eventually" sounds a bit off here. Perhaps "ended up boycotting" or "In the end, no NOCs boycotted" or something similar would be better.
• "to the ire of Nazi Germany leader Adolf Hitler after Owens won the men's 100 metres." Why was Hitler particularly upset about him winning this event? Also, giving a bit more explanation as to why Hitler was upset that Owens was winning medals (because of his race, yes?) might be interesting.

Other than that, things look good. I looking forward to supporting. Dana boomer (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I've rectified each of those points. Miyagawa (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I made one small tweak, but other than that everything looks good. Happy to support. Dana boomer (talk) 22:33, 12 April 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 promoted by Dabomb87 21:56, 29 April 2012 [6].

---

Casting Crowns discography

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 14:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it recently underwent a peer review and I feel it is up to FL-quality. I am a fan of the group and found the process of improving this discography enjoyable, and it would be nice to have my first FL. Toa Nidhiki05 14:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments Lead image caption doesn't need a period. Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC) No mention in opening sentence of lead/infobox of holiday/independent albums. Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC) "and has peaked at number " no need for "has" Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC) "it has sold 1.2 million " similar. Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Link "certified" appropriately. Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Where in ref 4 do I find that Casting Crowns album peaked at 59? This link appears to be to the Christian charts... Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 00:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Is there a reason for the discrepancy in release dates, i.e. Billboard has Peace on Earth dated October 25, 2008 while Allmusic has it October 7, 2008? Billboard's is a peak position date, not necessarily the release date. Toa Nidhiki05 00:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC) YouTube is not generally accepted as a reliable source (since anyone can upload just about anything to it). Yes, but the links either on the Casting Crowns VEVO account or their main account; both are reliable since they are self-published by the band. Toa Nidhiki05 00:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Most discogs have the director(s) for each music video. I've tried to find info on that but it just isn't out there. Christian music videos tend to get little media coverage, even in the Christian music industry; it just isn't that big of a deal. Toa Nidhiki05 00:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Ref 3 needs an en-dash for the page range. Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• The "one holiday albums" part needs to have the last word be singular, not plural.
  • Done. Toa Nidhiki05 14:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• The photo could use alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. Toa Nidhiki05 14:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick comment

• The music videos and other appearances tables do not comply with MOS:DTT. You need to add row and col scopes to these tables so they do comply. NapHit (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support NapHit (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Image review: All used images appear to be free and are properly tagged. Goodraise 00:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Problems appear to have been solved. What a pro (talk, contribs) is on fire. 11:06, 1 April 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 promoted by Dabomb87 21:56, 29 April 2012 [7].

---

Timeline of the 1990 Atlantic hurricane season

Nominator(s): 12george1 (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

After some unsuccessful FACs, I have decided to attempt an FLC. I am nominating this article for featured list because I firmly believe that this meets the criteria for FL; it was edited/revised in accordance to the standards used in the Timeline of the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season and the Timeline of the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season (two very recent FLC candidates). As always, if you disagree with my assumption that this should be an FL, please comment about what needs to be done below. Finally, I would like to note that this is a nomination for the WikiCup.--12george1 (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Prose still needs considerable work: I'm still seeing some prose errors, but as I don't have time to resume reviewing I will strike my oppose. Cheers, Auree ^★★ 18:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• "with 14 tropical cyclones becoming named storms" is sloppy construction. You can either remove "becoming" or rephrase to something like "during which 14 tropical cyclones became named storms."

• Done--12george1 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Although Tropical Depression One formed on May 24, the season officially began on June 1 and ended on November 30, dates that conventionally delimit the period of each year when most tropical cyclones develop in the Atlantic basin." In this sentence, grammatically, "although" contrasts both "began on June 1 and ended on November 30," while it's supposed to be in contrast with only "began on June 1."

• Why didn't you say that for the FLC of the Timeline of the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season? The sentence is worded the same way, but you didn't have a problem with it then.--12george1 (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Because reviewers learn and grow, and as such they identify new mistakes. I'm not sure what it is you're accusing me of here. Auree ^★★ 04:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Wikilink major hurricane (it redirects but it's still useful).

• Done--12george1 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Why do you mention deaths and damage totals? Those are not discussed by the timeline.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• "formed roughly halfway between the northern coast of Honduras and Cape San Antonio, Cuba" Honduras' northern coast is pretty big. Anything more specific?

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Tropical Depression One attain its" grammar

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Tropical Depression One made landfall near Guasimal, Matanzas, Cuba with winds of 30 mph (45 km/h)." Needs a comma after the country (Cuba); check for consistency throughout.

• Fixed every occurrence throughout the article--12george1 (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• "0000 UTC (8:00 p.m. EDT May 31) - The 1990 Atlantic hurricane season officially began." Why the change in tense? It switches to present tense again at the end of the timeline. Please be consistent and per convention change everything to present tense.

• Better?--12george1 (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'd much prefer present tense since that's conventional in timelines. Auree ^★★ 16:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Everything in this article is now in present tense.--12george1 (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm seeing inconsistencies in the ways numbers are rounded and estimates are given. If converted from nautical miles or knots, please round to the nearest 5 digit, and when rough estimates like 1,000 mi are given, converting to a more precise value of 1,610 km (rather than 1,600) is rather inconsequential.

• I tried to be as accurate as possible, without using decimals. Would you rather I say 1,609.334 km?--12george1 (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• No, quite the contrary. 1,000 is an estimate, so the kilometers value should be an estimate too (1,600 rather than 1,610). Auree ^★★ 05:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I checked the TCR again and it actually wasn't 1,000 miles, it was 1,000 nautical miles. So 1,000 nautical miles is approximately 1,150 statute miles. In conversion, that would be near 1,850 km. So I corrected this.--12george1 (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• If this one had the problematic conversion, you should check if others might too. Auree ^★★ 16:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hyphens are used in the timeline throughout, when really they should be replaced with en dashes.

• I have used & nbsp;-, just like it is on the Timeline of the 2002 AHS--12george1 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• No, you need en dashes (–) here, not hyphens (-). Please change this in the table as well, where wind speed ranges are currently denoted with hyphens.

• Alright, now I have it for sure.--12george1 (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sources could be formatted more professionally. Please see Timeline of the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season, and rather than indicating page numbers in brackets after the title, make use of the page parameter. Auree ^★★ 02:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• But they aren't PDF files--12george1 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• So? Auree ^★★ 05:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Okay; fixed--12george1 (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Image review: All used images appear to be free and are properly tagged as such. Several of the File: pages might benefit from some clean-up though. Goodraise 13:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments "The 1990 Atlantic hurricane season had the most named storms at the time, during which 14 tropical cyclones became named storms." -- Would prefer "featured" in place of "had" "Although the season was the most active Atlantic hurricane season at the time, it featured only a few notable storms, since most of the tropical cyclones were either weak or remained at sea." -- Would prefer "primarily because" in place of "since" and "many" in the place of "most" Make sure that all units are rounded and not approximated, such as "1200 UTC (8:00 a.m. EDT) – Tropical Depression One is absorbed by an approaching cold front while located about 44 miles (71 km) west of Key West,Florida" "0800–0900 UTC (4:00–5:00 a.m. EDT) – Tropical Storm Arthur passes through the Windward Islands between Grenada and Tobago." -- I am not sure why this is needed?? "0600 UTC (2:00 a.m. EDT) – Hurricane Bertha weakens to a tropical storm while it makes landfall near Sydney, Nova Scotia, with winds of 70 mph (115 km/h). Simultaneously, Tropical Storm Bertha transitions into an extratropical storm." -- "while making" in place of "while it makes"

TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have resolved all of your issues--12george1 (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Support. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• First sentence: "The 1990 Atlantic hurricane season featured the most named storms at the time, during which 14 tropical cyclones became named storms." The part before the comma doesn't flow at all with what comes after it (most at the time, during which?), and there's a prose redundancy with "named storms". Needs a rewrite.
• The "most named storms at the time" part appears later in the lead, which is a bit redundant in itself. At least vary the language a little.
  • Still needs an "of" between "number" and "named". Giants2008 (Talk) 18:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Ok, now it should be fixed--12george1 (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• October 5, 1200 UTC entry: "Simultaneously, the attains its peak intensity...". Was this supposed to have "storm" in it? Giants2008 (Talk) 02:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have fixed those three issues. On the first one, I decided that it would be best to split that sentence in order to prevent the redundancy and "most at the time, during which" thing.--12george1 (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments "16 tropical depressions, of which fourteen intensified " 16/14 or sixteen/fourteen, not a mix. I don't follow you here; I have to say that 14 of the 16 tropical depressions intensified into a tropical storm (named storm).--12george1 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Either always use words or always use numbers in a paricular sentence. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Oh, I see now. At first I thought you were wanting me to remove either just the number 16 or 14, and not both. However, I fixed it now so that it is the same, and not one in numeric form and the other spelled out.--12george1 (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC) "featured only a few notable storms" vague. I don't know if I can get more specif than that; do you have any suggestions?--12george1 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Surely you can be more specific than "a few". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Better?--12george1 (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC) "of loss of life and damage" reverse "damage and loss of life" (so it can't be confused with "loss of ... damage" Fixed--12george1 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Lead image is virtually pointless at its current size, I can't make anything out of it. Better?--12george1 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC) "1200–1800 UTC (8:00 a.m.–2:00 p.m. EDT) – Tropical Depression One makes landfall " it took six hours to "make landfall"? I don't specifically when landfall occurred, but it was between 1200 and 1800 UTC on that day.--12george1 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Under August 2, you have "0000 UTC (8:00 p.m. EDT August 2)" twice, should that be "0000 UTC (8:00 p.m. EDT August 1)"? Fixed--12george1 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC) "after emerging into " reads odd to me, most things emerge "from" somewhere not "into" somewhere. We almost always say "emerging into" or "emerged into"; would it be better if I said "entering"? Who is "we"? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC) The other members of the WikiProject Tropical Cyclones--12george1 (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Is it Saffir–Simpson Hurricane scale or Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale? Fixed--12george1 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments: There is a discrepancy between the text and the image caption on the conversion for the distance of Hurricane Klaus to Barbuda — it's either 12 mi (20 km) or 12 mi (19 km), but not both. On TRM's comments about having a number spelled out or expressed in digits in a sentence, that particular sentence still uses a mix (16, 14, eight, one). It's one or the other (as I've been told many a time myself, as much as I dislike using digits for numbers below ten). As this isn't FAC but rather FLC, shouldn't you have citations in the introduction for the key facts? —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 18:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC) I think fixed all three of your issues with this article--12george1 (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 12:36, 15 April 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 promoted by Giants2008 20:05, 25 April 2012 [8].

---

Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play

Nominator(s): Albacore (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Meets FL criteria, based on Tony Award for Best Featured Actor in a Play, another FL. Albacore (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Ruby2010

• No DAB links, and images look good
• "In 1976, when the award's name changed to its current name..." Perhaps change one of the words for flow

Changed

• "Supporting actress in two of three plays in Neil Simon's Eugene trilogy (Brighton Beach Memoirs and Broadway Bound) were nominated for the Tony..." Should that be "actresses"?

Yes, fixed.

• No refs for the omitted ceremonies (1948, 50)?

Do I need them?

• Maybe not, but I am curious why they weren't held. Perhaps a footnote? Ruby 2010/2013 02:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Added a note. Albacore (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The footnote looks good, but perhaps you could add more information than merely noting a ceremony wasn't held? Why did two years not have a ceremony? Has this been difficult to find reliable sources for? Ruby 2010/2013 22:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can't find any sources saying why the award wasn't held. Is the note necessary then? Albacore (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably not, but I just wanted to check. Ruby 2010/2013 17:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Align the ref column so that each ref is in the middle (like you did with the year column)

Fixed, I think. On my browser/monitor I can't tell the difference. Albacore (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Ruby 2010/2013 19:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support the promotion of this article. Ruby 2010/2013 17:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments Role column isn't sorting particularly well for me, the Multiple's are split by two en-dash cells for instance. Fixed. Albacore (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Is there anything you could add about the awards ceremony itself? Where it's held? When? What the winners get? Added who the awards were named after. Albacore (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC) "the same character in a play has never won the award more than once" probably my fuggy brain, but what does this mean? It's the actress that wins the award, not the character... Reworded. Albacore (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC) "Supporting actresses in two of ..." but the award is for "featured actresses" isn't it? How does that work?! As opposed to the Tony Award for Best Actress in a Play, which honors the main actress in a play, this award honors a supporting role. It's called supporting actress in a play in sources, [9], and was named the "Tony Award for Actress, Supporting or Featured (Dramatic)" before the name was changed. Albacore (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Note V appears to be missing a quotation mark toward the end of the sentence. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Albacore (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Image review: All used images appear to be free and are properly tagged. Goodraise 11:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comments

  "six parts of August Wilson's The Pittsburgh Cycle series" -> I'm not convinced "series" isn't redundant here, coming right after "cycle", which already conveys that it's a series. I also think that you could pipe link out the "The" in "The Pittsburgh Cycle", it's not necessary given the possessive—the target article already makes use of "Wilson's Pittsburgh Cycle".

  "in the 2011 remake of The Normal Heart." -> Could be wrong, but wouldn't revival be the correct term, rather than remake, when it's stage plays we're talking about?

  " In 1976, when the award's name changed to its current title, Shirley Knight, portraying Carla in Robert Patrick's Kennedy's Children, won the award." -> I think this one reads a bit awkwardly. Perhaps " The award was renamed in 1976, with Shirley Knight becoming the first winner under the new title for her role as Carla in Robert Patrick's Kennedy's Children" might work a little better.

  Other than that, though, I'm happy enough to support this one. GRAPPLE X 20:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

All addressed. I agree that "series" was redundant. Albacore (talk) 15:31, 20 April 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 promoted by Giants2008 20:05, 18 April 2012 [10].

---

List of Liverpool F.C. players (25–99 appearances)

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Another Liverpool players list, as opposed to the last list, I've gone through every player and checked that their details are correct, I may have missed the odd one or two, but unlike the last list there are not discrepancies with the majority of the players. I look forward to your comments, cheers. NapHit (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments "Alvaro Arbeloa" appears to be missing a diacritic. Don't think you need Liverpool F.C. as a cat here since you have a more refined Liverpool F.C. players cat. ("A cat, a cat, a cat!!!") Lead image caption needs no full stop. "who have been awarded league winners medals." is that referenced? couldn't really reference it, so I've mentioned two players who achieved notable records whilst playing for the club. NapHit (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the comments TRM (especially the cat one, made me chuckle), addressed all of them, cheers NapHit (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment WP:ALT for the Arbeloa image? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Since playing their first competitive match, more than 700 players have appeared in competitive first-team matches for the club" This doesn't read brilliantly for me due to the repetition of first and competitive. Other than that it looks good. Adam4267 (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, added alt and removed the first competitive from the sentence. NapHit (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Support -- Lemonade51 (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Support, Adam4267 (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – "was the first player from the club to play to represent his country." I think "to play" should be dropped. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Done NapHit (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 18 April 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 promoted by Giants2008 20:05, 18 April 2012 [11].

---

LCD Soundsystem discography

Nominator(s): What a pro (talk, contribs) is on fire. 08:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all of the criteria. What a pro (talk, contribs) is on fire. 08:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 14:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments – "which became one of the famous indie releases of 2002." Can we really call this song "famous" when it didn't even chart anywhere? Is "well-known" okay? The source does say "most talked-about release". "The album was the first LCD Soundsystem to debut in the top ten of the Billboard 200". Missing a word before the band's name. Reworded. What makes Sputnikmusic (ref 1) a reliable source? Our article on it says it has wiki-like features, and wikis aren't reliable sources. Replaced. Ref 11 has all caps in the title, which shouldn't appear like that even if the website has them. Fixed. Publisher of ref 14 (Entertainment Weekly) should be italicized. Done. What makes Stereogum (refs 10, 33, 36–37, and 46) reliable? It's a blog, and blogs aren't normally reliable either. All sources replaced. I still see the last one (now 45), which is citing a music video director. Giants2008 (Talk) 14:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Oops, misplaced the citation. Fixed now. What a pro (talk, contribs) is on fire. 14:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Ref 41 needs to have a publisher listed. Done. In ref 40, the hyphen in the title should be an en dash. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC) Added. What a pro (talk, contribs) is on fire. 13:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Image review: The one image used appears to be free and properly tagged. Goodraise 12:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments You should put (EP) after "extended plays" in the lead since the abbreviation is used in the infobox and the heading of the table without an explicit abbreviation appearing anywhere. Done. "released... release. ... released ... releasing ..." repetitive. Reworded. "US[15][5]" Would prefer to see the refs in numerical order. Fixed. "third and final album" _studio_ album. Added, I think. The source says Confuse the Marketplace came out on 10 December, not 11 December. Fixed. I don't see the release date of the A Bunch of Stuff EP anywhere in that source. Replaced. The source says Introns would be released on 14 March, not 13 March. And has no year. Fixed, and I think the year is implied since that's the year the article was published. I don't see the release date of the 45:33 Remixes in that source. Replaced. I haven't checked that all references to the singles which didn't chart reference the year of release, but please could you and confirm they all do? Done. Two blank entries for Directors, either fill them in or add note to say these are unknown. Done. Be consistent with author names in the refs, either First Last or Last, First. Fixed. Ref 29 looks like it has a spare " That's part of the title. As in, a 7". Replaced it anyway, since it didn't have the year. Ref 31 has a ! followed by a . which is bad, you'll need to fool the template by pipelinking Yahoo! to Yahoo (without the !). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Done. What a pro (talk, contribs) is on fire. 14:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support only issue spotted was that ref 7 doesn't come after punctuation, other than that, great work. NapHit (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Looks great to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 16 April 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 07:49, 16 April 2012 [12].

---

List of accolades received by The Lord of the Rings film trilogy

Nominator(s): Ruby 2010/2013 19:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC), User:Glimmer721

I am nominating this for featured list because, after a lot of work, I believe this amazing trilogy deserves the FL star, particularly in preparation for the release of The Hobbit. Thanks in advance for your comments. Ruby 2010/2013 19:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Co-nominator here: This was a list I tried to improve by adding references to back in early 2011 but eventually stopped; in November I noticed Ruby had begun working on it and asked if we could collaborate. This is my first foray into featured lists so I've kind of watched and learn; hopefully I can learn from this nomination, too! Glimmer721 ^talk 01:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Some comments "the plot follows the hobbit Frodo Baggins and the rest of the Fellowship of the Ring" Some how "and the rest" doesn't sound right. Perhaps something like "and his fellow members of the"? Also the link to "Fellowship of the Ring" needs to be redone so it doesn't redirect. "many of the actors were also recognized for their individual work, including McKellen (12 nominations), Serkis, (10 nominations), Astin (9 nominations), and Mortensen (5 nominations)." No comma after Serkis. "The film holds the record for most Oscars won, as it earned eleven Academy Awards alongside Titanic and Ben-Hur." The first part of the statement seems to contradict the second part. How about "the film won a total of eleven Academy Awards, thus tieing with Titanic and Ben-Hur for the most Oscars won."? Jimknut (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC) All fixed. Thanks for the comments! Ruby 2010/2013 01:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Support — Looks very good. Jimknut (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

More comments

• This looks good to me, great work. But please check for double links to WP articles in the plain text and the awards tables. E.g. Andy Serkis has been linked several times. De728631 (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Think I straightened this out with Fellowship--do you want things linked again for the other two movies? Glimmer721 ^talk 22:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
    • User:Ucucha/duplinks.js is useful for checking this, if you need it. To jump in on this comment, the only link I think should be repeated under each film's headings would be the link for the film in question—for instance, if The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is linked earlier in the article, it should still be linked in the heading for its awards. GRAPPLE X 22:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Super quicky - make sure the tables meet MOS:DTT with row and col scopes. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Fixed the col scopes, but are the row scopes normally done with accolades lists? I was just reviewing recent lists like this and this, and didn't notice them. My apologies if I misinterpreted something. Ruby 2010/2013 21:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC) I think you could do row scopes with the accolade names. That would make perfect sense to me, but then I'm no expert I'm afraid, that's what I'd do if it was me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC) In case an example would help, this is what you did do you when you were you, Rambling Man. :P GRAPPLE X 05:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC) OK, have added row scopes. A couple errors results when I inputted the !scope="row" parameter in addition to an award that already had the colspan=2 parameter (see Art Directors Guild for example). I can't seem to figure out how to get rid of that centered, bolded category. Any takers? Ruby 2010/2013 22:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC) I tweaked them a bit, so they should be fine now. Ruby 2010/2013 18:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Comments "were released serially in December 2001–2003" not keen on this construction. They were released between December 2001 and 2003... and was that a worldwide release? Done. Glimmer721 talk 00:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Our own article about Tolkein spaces his J. R. R. Done. Glimmer721 talk 23:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Shouldn't "near universal" be hyphenated? Done. Glimmer721 talk 23:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Not sure why the Toronto and Austin awards are listed ahead of the the numerous Academy awards and nominations... Those were awards specific to the trilogy as a whole; the Oscars are for each individual film and are in the article later. That's the explanation; I can change it if you would perfer. Glimmer721 talk 00:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC) "recognized" used in consecutive sentences is a little samey. Reworded. Ruby 2010/2013 21:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC) "(for Return of the King). " -> "(for The Return of the King)." Done. Glimmer721 talk 23:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Is there a reason for the empty cell in the third column of the Art Directors Guild line? Others of this type have a colspan across those two cells. Same for the American Film Institute Awards in the second and third tables. And MTV Movie Awards and New York Film Critics in the third table... you get my drift. When I adjusted the col and rol scopes at your behest (see above), the formatting came out wonky for some awards (view the edit history [13] to see exactly why it looks odd, especially the Art Directors Guild). The only way I could see to fix it was to add that empty cell. I've tried various formatting and none seem to work. I could use a little help with it, I think. :-/ Ruby 2010/2013 21:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC) See this edit. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Thanks, all it took was a helpful example. Fixed the rest. Cheers, Ruby 2010/2013 19:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Some award names are separated by en dashes, some by em dashes, be consistent. Good catch. Formatted them for consistency Ruby 2010/2013 21:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Philip French has an article you could link. Done. Glimmer721 talk 23:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC) "occurred on 17 December "... too passive. Done. Glimmer721 talk 00:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Chicago Sun-Times appears to be hyphenated. Done. Glimmer721 talk 00:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 13:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments – "were released serially worlwide between December 2001 and 2003." Never heard of "worlwide" before. Either it's a typo or a new word. It is a new word but I changed it for the more widely-recognised "worldwide". GRAPPLE X 01:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Thanks for catching...it's my typo (like usual). Glimmer721 talk 02:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC) The Fellowship of the Ring: "the first film earned an earned worldwide gross...". One "earned" too many. Changed to "earned a worldwide gross". GRAPPLE X 01:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC) In the Ian McKellen caption, can we have a more precise number of nominations than "more than five"? Changed it to "seven individual nominations". Glimmer721 talk 02:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC) The Two Towers: You really don't need another Academy Award link here, as there's a link in the previous section and in the lead. Might be worth checking the other sections to see if any other links can be pruned. Took out any that turned up using Ucucha's duplicate links script. GRAPPLE X 01:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Refs 86 and 136 shouldn't be in all caps. Fixed. Glimmer721 talk 02:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Refs 23, 25, 31, and 97 need en dashes to replace hyphens in their titles. Added appropriate dashes Ruby 2010/2013 04:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Ref 31 actually needed two dashes, not just one. The second would be for the year range. Others look good now. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Fixed the last one and also scanned the rest of the article for any others. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 17:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Refs 38 to 41 all appear to come from some fan site. What makes this a reliable source? And if they are Empire magazine reprints, wouldn't it be better to just cite an offline copy of the magazines, which don't have any copyright concerns? Good point. Removed the URLs and merged the four refs into one Ruby 2010/2013 04:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC) What makes ref 56 (Oscarsljmen.freehostia.com) a reliable source? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC) It's a bit ironic, but there aren't any reliable sources for the 2002 Online Film Critics. I just performed another Google search (and have done several in the past). I have also used the various databases provided by my university library, to no avail. Glimmer has also searched. While I understand that this website is not strictly reliable, I see nothing that indicates the information is incorrect; everything aligns with the Wikipedia article. I'm not sure where else to proceed from here. I could cite the IMdB article, but that isn't reliable either. Ruby 2010/2013 04:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Here you go. Archived version of the 2001 awards on their official site. GRAPPLE X 04:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Oh wow, thank you! You have no idea how much time I've spent in the last several months looking for that! Thanks much, Ruby 2010/2013 04:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Been keeping an eye on this one and its progress, and provided my tweaks here and there don't qualify as active involvement then I'm happy to support it for featured status. GRAPPLE X 11:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• The File: pages File:Peter Jackson01.jpg and File:Andy Serkis 2003.jpg would benefit from using {{information}}.
• File:Peter Jackson01.jpg and File:Andy Serkis 2003.jpg claim to be available under GFDL v1.2. Their named sources ([14] and [15]) mention nothing about that however.

Aside from these issues, all used images appear to be free and are properly tagged. Goodraise 17:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Added the {{information}} templates. Should I just remove the GFDL tags? Will that affect the images' licensing? (they're still covered under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 22:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be one way of "fixing" it. Goodraise 23:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Tweaked the licensing in favor of Creative Commons (and removed GFDL). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 04:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Revisited. Goodraise 09:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 12:51, 15 April 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 promoted by Giants2008 22:05, 11 April 2012 [16].

---

List of Malmö FF managers

Nominator(s): Reckless182 (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• This list of Malmö FF managers is the third FLC nomination of Malmö FF related list from me in my pursuit to make Malmö FF a featured topic. This list features all of the managers in the history of the club complete with statistics and honours won by each manager. The list is also illustrated with relevant images and fully referenced with footnotes to further explain some things that might be confusing to the reader. I hope you enjoy the list! --Reckless182 (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Looks good. Two questions, 1. would it be possibble to combine "1973–74 Svenska Cupen — Winners, 1974–75 Svenska Cupen — Winners, 1977–78 Svenska Cupen — Winners, 1979–80 Svenska Cupen — Winners" to like Svenska Cupen — Winners 1973-74, 1977-78... with small resolution (1280*1024) the cell becomes huge and makes the table harder to read. 2. should the super-cup runner up in 2011 really be an honour? It's a one match competition and the only match was lost. -Koppapa (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd like to stay consistent with the rest of the table, I'm not sure on how to solve the problem with the titles for Houghton. Some kind of roll-up menu would be perfect but I don't think that is possible inside a table. Svenska Supercupen is the same match format as the Community Shield albeit with a much shorter tradition, surely it should be included? --Reckless182 (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
    • A good way to get around this might be to put the honours in <small> text, and abbreviate "winners" and "runners-up" to "W" and "RU" respectively (with appropriate notes in the key). —Cliftonian (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Good idea! Now done. --Reckless182 (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• The managerial history section is quite a lot of text. Would it be possible/appropriate to add some sub-sections? Looks a useful list though. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree, I'll look into it. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
    • This has been taken care of (thanks Cliftonian!). --Reckless182 (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 00:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Add "the" to "The manager who has won most national league titles...". Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC) Recent managers: "Roland Andersson them managed the club...". "them" → "then". Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC) "he was replaced by Soren Akeby. Akeby...". Try not to have this kind of repetition from one sentence to another. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC) No need to have a hyphen in "widely-respected". Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC) Is all of the material in the body text cited? I'm not sure whether the table really covers some of the finer details in the prose, which is lightly referenced. Which details are you referring to? In the process of writing the managerial history section I added refs for facts that wasn't already referenced in the table below as it seemed a bit redundant to source these facts twice. I'll be happy to add any refs that might be needed. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC) One thing that jumped out at me was the club's relegation, since divisions aren't really covered in the table. Also, the initial entering in European competitions isn't cited. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC) Refs now added. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC) List of managers: First two words aren't needed in the section title, since we already know it's a list. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC) "the country he played for are shown." "are" → "is". Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC) "The Allsvenskan title winning seasons won while managing Malmo FF." Drop "won" since "title winning" covers the same ground (redundancy). Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC) The diacritics in Soren Akeby's last name are causing him to sort out of the intended order. Åkeby is correctly sorted after Zetterlund. The Swedish letters Å, Ä and Ö follow Z in alphabetic order. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC) Footnote E: "The Malmo FF team won Allsvenskan five time in a row...". "time" → "times". Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC) Ref 3 is a little inconsistent from the other book cites with regard to formatting. I'd suggest copying the style used in the other similar refs, without the first name of the author and with the publishing year. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC) Giants2008 (Talk) 23:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Thanks a lot for your feedback Giants! Always appreciated. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC) Only other thing I see is that ref 10 could use a period at the end. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Should appearances in the Royal League be counted. Wasn't this regarded as a notable competition? Eldumpo (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • No, appearances in Royal League are not notable as it wasn't recognized by UEFA and was primarily organized as a pre seasons competition. It was also short lived. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments I notice large parts of the prose appear to be unreferenced with just one reference at the end of a paragraph, do these ref covers the whole paragraph? As I said to Giants above, the prose is covered by the table below it as well as the refs. There is no need for more refs.--Reckless182 (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC) the sorting on the allsvenkan and other honours column is not correct I don't see any problems with them? Could specify the problem? --Reckless182 (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC) Well when the sort button on the allsvenkan column, 1985 is at the top followed by 1965, 1974, 1950-51, 1943-44, 1948-49, 1949-50, 2004 and finally 2010, its not in the correct order. NapHit (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC) They are not sorted according to what year they were first won, that can be seen without sorting. The column in sorted after number of titles. Hodgson first with five titles, then comes Duran with four titles, Hougon with three, Turner with two and then the managers with only one title sorted according to who won the title first. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC) That needs to be made clear to the reader then, as they could interpret the table the way I did, I take it the same applies to the Other honours column as well? NapHit (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC) In my opinion it is not needed as it's stating the obvious. But I've added an explanation for both columns in the table headers section above the table. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments I'm not sure I'm convinced by the wordy section headings. I know this is sometimes commonplace elsewhere but I do tend to find it a little bit tabloid, especially when a heading becomes the width of the whole page... The only heading that might be too long is the third one. However I think it's fine since it isn't POV. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC) "first team are currently playing" doubt it, they play matches in that division perhaps but are almost certainly not "currently playing"... Fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC) We also tend to avoid "currently". Fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC) "which is organised into seasons lasting" why not just "which takes place from ... to ... every season"? Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC) "The following is a list of managers of ..." would prefer to avoid this, perhaps something like "Since the club was founded, there have been X managers ...." Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC) "won has been Bob Houghton" not "has been", just "is". Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC) " who as manager between 1974 and 1980 led the club" commas after "who" and "1980" needed. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC) "The manager who has won the most national league titles ..." would lose the second "the" here. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC) "and demoted a league." I get it, but reads a little odd, because it's normally a division within a league that you get demoted from... Fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC) " and not reinstated afterwards" afterwards? seems redundant. Removed. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Konrad or Konrád, be consistent with the diacritics. Fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC) "and entered European competitions with limited success" vs "performed well in continental competitions" both link to the same article which is possibly confusing. Should be OK since the wikilinks are not in the same section and not referring to the same period of time. I can remove the second link if you want but I don't see a problem. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC) "before leaving soon after." reads a little weak, perhaps give some precise info here. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC) "to win a single league or cup title" no need for "single". Removed. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC) "by a punitive demotion" explain this. Seems a bit redundant to do this again after having explained it in the section "Early managers (before 1936)". --Reckless182 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC) "After two rather mediocre seasons" -> "rather mediocre" sounds lame to me, and POV. Removed. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC) "and in doing so proved a long-standing rumour correct" (a) what rumour? (b) is this what we normally expect to read in an encyclopaedia? Removed. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC) "was appointed in his stead on" no need for "in his stead". Removed. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC) "The list is sorted by number of honours won." only if you sort it that way. You mean "The cell" or something like that. Or else just order it chronologically to be consistent. Fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support, this looks good to me now. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks man! --Reckless182 (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support some good additions and fixes made during this FLC, good nomination, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 12:20, 8 April 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 promoted by Giants2008 22:05, 11 April 2012 [17].

---

List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA Draft

Nominator(s): –Grondemar 02:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I based this new list on the current FL List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NBA and WNBA Drafts. I also pulled from the NFL draft FLs as well as my previous FL Huskies of Honor. I believe this list fully meets WP:FLCR and invite your review. Note that unlike this Oklahoma list this is a list of only women's basketball players; I believe 23 draftees is plenty for a stand-alone list. I plan to build List of Connecticut Huskies in the NBA Draft subsequently. –Grondemar 02:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments After the lead image, don't force the sizes of other images, just thumb and upright where appropriate. Fixed. –Grondemar 03:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Tables need row and col scopes per MOS:DTT for WP:ACCESS. I added the column scopes, but I'm unsure how to apply the row scopes. I could apply them to the first column, Year, but that isn't really a "primary key" for the table. Should I add another column, such as a count of the draft picks, to be that primary key? –Grondemar 03:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC) You could make the player name the row scope since this is a list of the "Huskies", that column would appear to be the most appropriate/significant element of the table. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC) I added the scope = "row" attribute to the player name column... let me know if this was correctly done. –Grondemar 03:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Ref should be Refs as all have multiple refs. Fixed. –Grondemar 03:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Refs don't need to be sortable. Fixed. –Grondemar 03:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Note 1 says "her", perhaps make this more "the player's" or something similar. I think "her" works here since, by definition, all of the players in this list will be female. Let me know if you disagree. –Grondemar 03:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Well, I prefer to ensure footnotes are stand-alone, i.e. in this case "her" could relate to any specific player, as opposed to players in general. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC) OK, fixed. –Grondemar 03:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Note 2 needs referencing. Done. –Grondemar 03:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Image review: File:WNBA Sue Bird cropped.jpg should use {{cc-by-2.0}} instead of {{self}}. Otherwise, all used images appear to be free and are properly tagged as such. Goodraise 23:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed as requested. –Grondemar 05:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – Criterion 3b. Sorry, but I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be included as part of a combined NBA and WNBA Draft list, like Oklahoma's. I just checked how many men's draft picks Connecticut had, and the number is actually one fewer than the Sooners. We're talking about a net difference of 11 players from Oklahoma's list to what a combined Connecticut list would contain. I don't think that's enough to support two lists. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Giants. Goodraise 12:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• • I strongly disagree with the rationale behind the two above opposes. I will provide a full response later today. I request patiences from the FLC delegates until I can post my full response. –Grondemar 17:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the above oppose rationale provided by Giants2008 and concurred with by Goodraise, I object on the following grounds:

• It proposes merging two different subject areas into a single list: men's basketball and women's basketball. While basketball is indeed a single sport with a common set of rules, there are significant differences in both the rulesets and the style of play between men's and women's basketball at both the collegiate and professional levels. Among the differences at the collegiate level include length of the shot clock (35 seconds in men's, 30 seconds in women's), location of the three-point line, and certain violations such as ten-seconds-in-the-backcourt. Similar rule differences exist between the NBA and WNBA. The style of play between men's and women's basketball is even more of a apparent difference: men's basketball is characterized by "above-the-rim" play with slam dunks while the women's game plays more "below-the-rim" as in general women do not dunk.

• It is not consistent with how reliable sources treat the subjects. Reliable sources treat men's and women's basketball as two independent sports. ESPN, as an example reliable source, has separate pages for men's and women's basketball at both the college and professional level: [18] [19] [20]. You will be hard-pressed to find any reliable source that simultaneously discusses both the NBA and WNBA Drafts. The two drafts occur months apart. While the WNBA is still managed by the NBA, most of the WNBA teams are now independent of NBA teams. The NBA and WNBA are separate entities drafting from different sets of players. It does not make sense to insist on the merger of men's and women's basketball content in featured lists when no reliable source organizes itself that way.

• It is not consistent with how other Wikipedia articles are structured. In general, the format for university athletic department articles is to have an overview article at UNIVERSITYNAME NICKNAME such as Connecticut Huskies or Oklahoma Sooners. These articles then if needed per WP:SUMMARY have subarticles on each sport, such as Connecticut Huskies men's basketball and Connecticut Huskies women's basketball. You'll notice that Connecticut Huskies basketball is a disambiguation page, not an article about both programs. If there is any university that has a common article for both their men's and women's basketball programs I would be interested in learning about it. This draft list exists as a stand-alone list rather than an embedded list because merging it into Connecticut Huskies women's basketball would be WP:UNDUE. The standard for whether a stand-alone list should exist should be whether it would overwhelm its parent article, not whether it could be merged into another list with another defined scope.

• It is not consistent with other featured lists. The vast majority of basketball featured lists only discuss men's basketball. No current featured list only discusses women's basketball; of the lists that discuss both men's and women's basketball, there are as follows: List of members of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame and List of coaches in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, where it makes sense to cover both men's and women's basketball in these lists, since the Hall of Fame inducts from both sports; Huskies of Honor, a university-wide recognition program that includes inductees from men's and women's basketball as well as other athletic personnel (John Toner); and List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NBA and WNBA Drafts as well as List of Oklahoma Sooners head basketball coaches. The Oklahoma Sooner articles are the only basketball FLs that cover both men's and women's basketball, and in reviewing the history it appears the only reason these were merged is that the nominator felt that the women's lists would be too short to pass on their own. I submit that 25 entries is not "too short" for an FL. Additionally, if it is required to cover both men's and women's basketball in every featured list, we should look at delisting lists such as List of North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball head coaches, List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head basketball coaches, Big East Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year, 2008 NBA Draft, List of National Basketball Association awards, and so forth.

I am very interested in your response. Thanks, –Grondemar 01:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose struck. Connecticut Huskies basketball being a disambiguation page is the argument that convinced me. In my opinion, the nominated list does not presently violate criterion 3b. Goodraise 01:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Mine is too. I'm still a little shaky on the list based on the minimal increase in size from an already featured list, but the argument that the two teams each have subarticles is a strong one. I'll probably end up refraining from supporting after a more thorough review due to my concern, but I won't oppose over it. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your reconsideration. –Grondemar 05:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• In the second paragraph, the hyphen in "win-loss record" should be an en dash.
  • Fixed. –Grondemar 23:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Alt text for the images would be a nice luxury.
  • After all of the debate on alt text over the years I notice that WP:ALT isn't labelled a policy, a guideline, or even an essay. It would be nice if there was some kind of consensus to include alt text and of what that alt text should consist. For now, I added "refer to caption" to the alt parameters of each of the images. –Grondemar 23:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• In the Notes column, I don't believe the "Champion" in "WNBA Champion" warrants the capitalization.
  • Changed as requested. –Grondemar 23:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Giants2008 (Talk) 00:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• One thing: Could you add wikilinks to the names in the captions of the images?
• Other than that, Support -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Done, and thanks for the review! –Grondemar 02:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - with comment. "three players—Taurasi, Charles, and Moore" - there are two Moores in the list, so you'll need her first name here. Good job on archiving all of the references- means I get to skip my spiel here, though note if you care that if you add |deadurl=no to the reference, then the current page will be listed first, not the archived version- super-optional, though. I have no problems with the WNBA list being separate from the NBA list. --PresN 19:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I have addressed all of your comments. I did not know about the deadurl parameter and will make use of it going forward. Thanks for the review! –Grondemar 00:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment some double full stops in the refs e.g. 37, 39, 45, 47, 49... need to be fixed, and I think since you have "Center / Forward" and "Forward / Center" (I guess meaning the first is the usual position but can play the second?) you should have a note to explain why you have this. I don't think Notes need to be sortable either. But other than that, I'll support. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• I fixed the first and last points above. Regarding the ordering of positions, these were generally based on what the sources said rather than any kind of editorial judgement, so I'm not sure what I can say here. Thanks for the review. –Grondemar 02:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 8 April 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 11:57, 8 April 2012 [21].

---

Birmingham City F.C. league record by opponent

Nominator(s): Struway2 (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. It follows the layout of the Luton Town and the recently promoted Liverpool league record by opponent FLs. Please feel free to pick holes... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments Does Ref 4's title 'Birmingham City 1892–1893 : Results' fail WP:YEAR -- should it be corrected to 1892–93? Bit niggly yes, but I notice Statto use hyphens to separate years; this ref title uses a dash. So it is a case of mixing two rules instead of complying with one. If this has been answered before and does not apply to references, I do apologise. I think how it works is, we can change the punctuation in a publication's name to suit our house style, but we can't change the name itself, i.e. we can make the sort of changes laid out at MOS:QUOTE#Allowable typographical changes. Struway2 (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Ref 6 looks like it was published on August 9, 2007 not 2nd. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Fixed, thank you. Struway2 (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Believe this meets requirements set by the Liverpool, Luton Town and recently passed Manchester United FLC. Nice work. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• Seems like "their" or another word is missing from "Birmingham have recorded most league victories against Leicester City".
  • Reworded as "Birmingham have recorded more league victories against Leicester City than against any other club, having beaten them 50 times out of 120 attempts." Struway2 (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Is a page number possible for reference 1? Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Added, thanks for noticing. Struway2 (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Support reluctantly I tried to catch out some of the maths, failed. Prose is good, can find no flaw. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Support Just one query, ref 5 you have another link directly below it, but it's not formatted as a reference. Firstly, does the first ref not render the second one obsolete? Secondly, if it doesn't, why is it not formatted like the other refs? Other than the list is fantastic, great work. NapHit (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• It's two sources supporting the same fact, one source from each "side", as it were, Wimbledon Independent Supporters Association and MK Dons FC. See WP:CITEBUNDLE which explains why we might want to lump them together rather than having a string of separately cited sources. Admittedly, two refs on the end of a footnote doesn't clutter up any prose, but I've got into the habit of doing it that way when more than one source verifies the same thing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough I was curious as to why it was formatted that way as I've never seen it done before. MOS clarifies this, so no problem. NapHit (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Support – Great work. I redid the Wimbledon footnote but apart from that this looks positively fine. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for fixing the note. Don't think I could have got it more comprehensively wrong if I'd tried :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:26, 6 April 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 11:45, 8 April 2012 [22].

---

List of Tranmere Rovers F.C. players

Nominator(s): U+003F^? 15:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list as part of a fun mission getting the Tranmere family of articles to a better standard (than the team). This list recently had a positive peer review, and seems of a comparable standard to the recent list on Watford (unlike the team). Hope you enjoy the read! U+003F^? 15:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "It includes first-team appearances and goals in the in The Football League" - bit of a stutter there

 Done U+003F^? 13:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• "have been expunged from the records are are not included" - duplicate word

 Done U+003F^? 13:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Image of Peter Farrell is non-free and does not have a FUR for this article

 Done Shame, nice photo. The list is short on images now, I'll dig out some more. U+003F^? 13:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

a few more pics in there now. U+003F^? 23:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That's about all I could find. I haven't checked that all the links point to the right articles..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

One more comment

• The lead image can and probably should be larger -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done U+003F^? 23:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Not convinced that Second World War needs one link in the lead, much less two.  Done U+003F? 10:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Bold highlighting for table entries is discouraged by the Manual of Style. Italics are used frequently, and would be an appropriate substitute here if you're so inclined.  Done U+003F? 10:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Why does the table caption read "List of players with over 100 appearances" when players with exactly 100 matches played are included? It would make more sense to have it read "List of players with 100 or more appearances".  Done U+003F? 10:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC) The all caps in ref 35 shouldn't be there.  Done U+003F? 10:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Giants2008 (Talk) 02:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments Lead image caption doesn't need a full stop.  Done U+003F? 09:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC) I think you could expand the lead a touch, describe maybe the first, most recent, most capped player?  Done U+003F? 11:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC) "in 1992–93" maybe "in the 1992–93 season."  Done U+003F? 09:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Ref 32 should expand the month fully.  Done U+003F? 09:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support assuming... the image issues brought up by Goodraise are dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments. Encouraging to see that this list had a decent peer review. Lead. Tranmere Rovers Football Club aren't an English team... Tranmere Rovers Football Club is an English association football club... ✗ Not done I agree that it should read "club" rather than "team". But use of singular or plural is discretionary. Whilst I don't think either form (singular or plural) is more correct, I tend to prefer Tranmere/the club/the team are. I don't know if this carries any weight, but this and the other Tranmere articles (such as the list of managers) consistently use the plural. U+003F? 12:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC) The discretion comes in being able to use either form depending on context, rather than in choosing one form and then sticking to it. When you're talking about TRFC the team, as a collection of players – "they were relegated" or "Tranmere are winning" – the plural comes naturally (and correctly) to a BritEng speaker. But in the opening sentence, you're not just talking about the players on the pitch, you're talking about the business, rules, structure, directors, deciding what pitch the players are to play on, whatever went to make up TRFC the football club founded in 1884. That's a singular entity so takes a singular verb. Have a look at this on the BBC's Learning English subsite. Struway2 (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)  Done I'm not sure about this. But I won't lose any sleep over the is, so have changed as suggested. U+003F? 18:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC) I know that continual use of "appearances" gets repetitive, but I'm not sure the word "caps" is appropriate for club appearances. To me, "most-capped player" implies "player with most international caps".  Done U+003F? 19:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Players. Don't like using the word "competitive" as a definition of what you're including. It implies the Lancashire Combination and the Central League weren't competitive. Maybe something like "players who have made 100 or more appearances in nationally organised first-team competition" would be a little more precise.  Done thanks, nice clear definition U+003F? 19:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Why exclude the Third Division North Cup?  Done forgotten, rather than excluded U+003F? 19:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Maybe "the three games in 1939, immediately prior to the Second World War" could be clarified? something like "the three games in the 1939–40 Football League season abandoned because of the Second World War"  Done U+003F? 19:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Position key. If the left column is for positions before the 1960s, and the right column is for positions after the 1960s, what positions apply to players in the 1960s? Perhaps it might be worth adding an explanatory note, to the effect that over time, the names of defensive and midfield positions changed to reflect changes in playing formation, and these changes were largely complete by the 1960s. Maybe link to Association football positions#Tactical evolution. And then head the columns something like "Pre-1960s" and "1960s–". Centre all the columns, so it's clearer that Goalkeeper and Forward apply to both old and new. A better wikilink for Half-back might be Formation (association football)#2–3–5 (Pyramid), which has a (very) brief description of the function of full-backs and half-backs and the dual role of the centre-half. Have a look at List of Liverpool F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances)#Players: the same comment was made at that list's recent FLC.  Done U+003F? 19:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Table. What does the International column contain?  Done U+003F? 12:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Are you sure that someone like Mathias, who made his debut in 1967 and played into the mid-1980s, should have a pre-1960s playing position?  Done changed for everyone who made their first start in the 60s (for consistency) U+003F? 19:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Notes #4. Are you sure about "dual internationalists"? would have thought "dual internationals" was more common usage. Maybe add a few words of explanation, as at List of Watford F.C. players note d.  Done U+003F? 12:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC) References General. Soccerbase is a work, and has a publisher, which you'll find after the copyright symbol at the bottom of all its pages. So long as you include the publisher in its description here in the general refs, you don't need to repeat it in all the specific Soccerbase refs.  Done U+003F? 11:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC) References Specific. In #5, what makes The Cowsheds a reliable source?  Done replaced source U+003F? 09:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC) #21 typo  Done U+003F? 11:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC) #45 month needs spelling out in full  Done U+003F? 11:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC) #46 typo  Done U+003F? 11:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC) hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Cheers, I'll get to work on these. U+003F? 11:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments' "...1946–47 season" wikilink the season  Done U+003F? 09:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC) The Jimmy Moreton paragraph is a bit odd to me, the first sentence doesn't really fit in, not sure we need to know he was signed from Cammell Laird. Perhaps try "Jimmy Moreton made 148 Football League and 22 FA Cup appearances, as well numerous first-team outings in the lower Lancashire Combination and Central Leagues." Should read better with this change.  Done U+003F? 09:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Personally I would have the position column sorting by position, instead of alphabetically, reflecting the table above.  Done U+003F? 09:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Any reason why only the players that have made international appearances have their nationality made apparent? Would be useful for the reader to know what nationality players were. I don't know what the "right" approach is here. Looking to the two recently featured lists mentioned above, Watford follow the same approach as is currently used here, namely that if a player did not compete internationally, no country is denoted; meanwhile Liverpool give a nationality for all players. Would it be more useful for the reader to know all players' nationality, or to know which players had received international recognition? U+003F? 14:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC) According to MOS:ICON#Use of flags for sportspersons, "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality." So to attribute a flag, and by extension a nationality, accurately to a player who hadn't been selected for international football, we'd have to know and source his representative nationality, which involves knowing the international selection criteria at the time he played, his birthplace, his legal nationality, the nationality of his parents or grandparents, whether he'd declared for any nation, maybe more... FWIW, having read that bit of the MoS and seen the Watford list, I adopted the Watford approach and converted the Birmingham player lists to have an International selection column instead of Nation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Ooooer, that seems a strict interpretation of the MOS. You feel that this list should only have nationalities for those capped internationally, right? Which is fine, that's the way I'd edge too. But does it not also mean that (almost) all of the players in the squad list should have their nationalities removed too? U+003F? 09:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC) I do tend to exaggerate to make a point, sorry. But (genuinely) I'm not sure we're supposed to attribute representative nationality by birthplace alone, which is what tends to happen. If what's in the reliable source(s) can reasonably be assumed to be the player's representative nationality, there's no problem with using it. Which means your squad list's fine: it's sourced explicitly to the squad profiles pages at TRFC, most of them list a nationality, and it's reasonable to assume the info comes from the players themselves. As to this list, either approach is valid. Personally I feel more comfortable with listing international selection, whether just senior as you have or including under-age as well as per Watford. But if the general view is that readers would want to know the nationality for all the players, just omit it for the ones that can't be reasonably sourced (though it's probably safe to ignore my extreme interpretation above :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Interesting, was not aware of that bit of MOS. If you can reliably source the nationalities of all the players in the list then I would include them, but if you can't then I wouldn't bother, would look a bit odd to have nationalities for some players and none for others. NapHit (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - all looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Image review: For File:Tranmere Rovers 27 August 1921.jpg, File:Johnny Campbell.jpg, File:Jimmy Moreton.jpg, and File:Tommy Stuart.jpg, "please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was." Goodraise 22:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Additional comment: This is only necessary because the images are hosted on Commons (as opposed to images stored locally in the database of the English Wikipedia). As far as the English Wikipedia is concerned, these images appear to be free enough and properly tagged. Goodraise 20:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done I think. I must confess I wasn't entirely sure what was wanted here. Are those descriptions sufficient, would you say? U+003F^? 17:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

{{PD-UK-unknown}} can only be used if "the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry." At this point, I'm not convinced that you have exhausted all reasonable means. Somebody may still hold the copyright for these pictures, and that's not acceptable. Then again, I'm not an expert on UK copyright law. You could ask (for example at Commons:Village Pump) for input from someone more knowledgeable. Goodraise 20:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As suggested, I've brought it up there. U+003F^? 15:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done There was no clear consensus over on commons -- some thought {{PD-UK-unknown}} appropriate and some not. Thus I've duplicated the images locally, using {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} which is definitely acceptable. U+003F^? 12:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Revisited. Goodraise 16:33, 4 April 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 11:45, 8 April 2012 [23].

---

List of Olympic medalists in art competitions

Nominator(s): Canadian Paul 19:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, after working on it for the past several days and carefully reviewing the Featured List criteria, I believe that it meets the standards. This is my first time working at FLC but I based this article off the examples set by other "List of Olympic medalists in..." Featured Lists, with of course some necessary adaptations since this is a rather unique event in terms of modern Olympic history. Canadian Paul 19:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments - Interesting list wasn't even aware art competitions were in the olympics, so this has been an enlightening read. Bold links are not encouraged per MOS:BOLD so I would remove the bold from the link. You use International Olympic Committee and later use IOC, yet you have indicated that IOC is the acronym for the committee so add (IOC) after its used in the first sentence. First sentence needs a reference as that statement could be challenged. "They were originally planned for inclusion in the 1908 Summer Olympics but were delayed after that edition's shift in venue from Rome to London" that edition is redundant as you've already clarified what olympics is being referred to, and replace shift with change, so it reads "after a change in venue..." "By 1924..." I take it your referring to that year's games? It's not explicit so I would link to the article so it is, thus the sentence would read "By the 1924 Summer Olympics..." "subcategories" "subdivisions" which one is it? be consistent with which one you choose " which was eventually rejected" MOS:NUM recommend that numbers lower than smaller be spelled out as opposed to a digit. Tables need to comply with WP:ACCESS, see MOS:DTT for more info on this. Images could do with alt text. Not sure you need the key for the medals by year table, as the first symbol is not in use and the second is self-explanatory. In the same table, I would link the whole year e.g. 1936 instead of 36 to avoid any confusion as to what the column headers mean. change style="background:gold to "style="background-color: gold to ensure the sort key is visible, do the same for the silver and bronze columns as well. Also the 36 column does not sort correctly. Refs that are PDFs need the parameter |format=PDF adding. Hyphnens in the page ranges need to be dashes per WP:DASH. The header of the general section needs altering so its is a subsection of the references section. NapHit (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the review! I had a few minutes to spare so I (hopefully) took care of a handful of these: the first seven (except the reference) and the last three. I will work on the rest tomorrow, when I have more time, but I have two questions: 1) The reference for the first sentence is the same for the quote in the second sentence; should I repeat it? 2) I typed in – as my preferred method of creating the en dash, since it makes it obvious what is meant to be there. I have also seen, however, people replacing – with an inserted dash. Is this preferable, or does it matter? Thanks again! Canadian Paul 01:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC) No need to repeat the reference it's fine where it is. Personally I use the inserted dash, as I think (not totally sure) that dash is being phased out, it's certainly quicker using the inserted dash so I would recommend using that one. NapHit (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC) I think that I have addressed all of these concerns. I'm not certain why the 1936 column wasn't sorting correctly, when the "totals" one was, so I cheated a bit to fix the issue. For the alternative text, I'm not sure if the "...of XXX" part was redundant or not considering that most captions directly identify the subject, so I can take it out in the unambiguous cases (to leave it with just "Photograph") if necessary. Finally, I left out the "caption" option from MOS:DTT because it doesn't seem to be used in the other "List of Olympic medalists in..." FLs, but I can certainly insert it if the standards have been updated.Canadian Paul 00:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Nearly there, you need to remove the | that are before the ! when using scope=row. I've done the first table as an example anyway. Perosnally I would add the captions, as they are encouraged per MOS:DTT. You also need to change the colour coding per the instructions above for the medalist tables as they are sortable. Other than these issues the list is looking very good indeed. NapHit (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Alright, I believe that I have addressed these as well. My only problem was that, for the two tables that had multiple medalists of the same colour in the same year (mixed literature and mixed sculpturing), I couldn't get rid of the pipes in the sub-rows or else the style would bleed into those cells. Is there any way around this? Canadian Paul 16:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the tips and help! Canadian Paul 16:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments – "art competitions were removed from the Olympic program. Planners of the 1952 Summer Olympics opposed its inclusion on logistical grounds". "its" → "their". The "competitions" are a plural, after all. Which pseudonym did Coubertin win his gold with? That would be a nice piece of information to have in the lead. Fix looks good, but the lead photo caption says "a pseudonym", which doesn't seem to be accurate (it was two according to the lead). Giants2008 (Talk) 01:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Comma needed after Alfred Hajos in the lead. In the tables, the names should sort by last name, not first. In the second general reference and cites 1, 10, 16–22, and 24, the pp. in the citation should be p. since they are only for a single page, not multiple pages. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC) I appreciate the comments and believe that I have addressed them all! The only thing that I'm not certain about is what the best way to sort the "none awarded" entries would be. My guess would be that I should sort them as "zzz" or something that will put them at the bottom of the list when sorted alphabetically, but I thought I'd ask before I made the edits. Canadian Paul 19:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Having them sort at the bottom seems like a good idea to me. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Fixed the sorting and changed the photo caption, but it still feels a bit awkward/inaccurate to me. I'm not sure there's a good way to make it accurate and flowing while still keeping it concise, so perhaps it would be better to leave out the "under a pseudonym" part entirely and the reader can learn about the pseudonym through the article itself? Or is it too misleading to leave it as "IOC founder PdC won..." etc.?Canadian Paul 16:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review! Canadian Paul 02:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support with comments - the image captions need to lose the periods if they're not complete sentences, which right now are only the lead, Alfréd Hajós, and Walter W. Winans images. You should also consider archiving the online (non-pdf) references with webcitation.org or web.archive.org and the archiveurl/archivedate= parameters - if those websites ever go down, you could lose all your references. Interesting list; I never knew about the art competitions, and given that you can easily see a bias towards to hosting country's artists I can see why it needed to be dropped. --PresN 19:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments (e/c with PresN) Would make cols the same width from section to section. First para of the lead "Their.. they ... they..." could probably use just one more reinforcement of the subject matter explicitly. " the Games since 1928. Since 1952 an" since... since... repetitive. "Coubertin's is listed" should that be "de Coubertin's is listed"? (etc) "Jan Wils, 1928 gold medalist in architectural designs." image captions that aren't complete sentences should not use a full stop. Check 'em all. "1936-1948" should be an en-dash. "1928, 1932, 1936" why isn't that 1928–1936? Some refs have access dates, some don't. Be consistent. Some refs end in a full stop, some don't, be consistent. Check throughout. Ref 15 looks like a referenced footnote, not a reference. Ref 16 etc, double full stops... check throughout. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the review! I've addressed some of these concerns, but I also have a few questions: I'm not certain I know what you mean by making the columns the same width from section to section - unless I missed something, they are all 105-180-180-180 in each section. Unless you mean expanding the "Games" column to 180? Perhaps it's Safari, but the first two tables ("Mixed architecture" and "Mixed architecture, architectural designs") have different col widths... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC) I have 105-180-180-180 for both of those (in Firefox). Canadian Paul 21:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Must just be Safari as it appears fine in IE as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC) I also don't see any online references without access dates. Did you mean note #15 (now moved to the note section) needs an access date as well? I don't either, perhaps I was mistaken, apologies. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC) The articles I see, (most notably his own) all use "Coubertin" rather than "de Coubertin", which seems to be in line with WP:MCSTJR, which says that French names do not sort by lower case particles. Granted, that's for categories, but I think the same principle would apply for his name? I guess so... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Other than archiving the URLs, which I will look into tomorrow, I believe that I have addressed all of the other concerns. Canadian Paul 19:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC) I've archived all the non-PDF references with webcitation! Canadian Paul 18:23, 28 March 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 11:45, 8 April 2012 [24].

---

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (U.S.)

Nominator(s): — Tomica (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I contributed the page through whole the year, not constantly though. However, in the end I wrote the lead and I think it really can pass Wikipedia's FL criteria. I am a Rihanna fan, and she was successful on the Hot 100 this year, so for that I will be really happy If I make this a FL.— Tomica (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose for now Image captions are unsourced. I sourced them now.— Tomica (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC) "Published by Billboard magazine, the data are compiled by Nielsen SoundScan based collectively on each single's weekly physical and digital sales, and airplay." - This needs to be re-worded; it's a bit hard to follow: Its data, published by Billboard magazine and compiled by Nielsen SoundScan, is based collectively on each single's weekly physical and digital sales, as well as airplay." Changed the sentence. — Tomica (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC) "Although 14 singles claimed the top spot in 52 issues of the magazine, singer Katy Perry' "Firework" began its peak position in late 2010, and is thus excluded.[1]" - this is probably not important enough to be in the lead. It's a very minor detail and is good enough in the Notes section. For the creation of the lead I used the leads by List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2007 (U.S.) and List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2006 (U.S.) as models. Both pages are featured lists, and they have the singles that also charted the previous year in the lead.— Tomica (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC) "Adele's 'Rolling in the Deep' topped the chart for seven consecutive weeks and is the best-performing single of the calendar year, topped Billboard's year-end Hot 100 chart." - (1) this is ungrammatical, and is a sentence fragment? (2) No one is to judge what determines a well performing single. Just state the facts and remove the personal analysis ("is the best-performing single of the year"). Is it better? — Tomica (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Why remove "Adele"? I told you to remove the "best-performing single" stuff. :) —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC) "In addition Adele became the first solo female to have two songs spend at least five weeks at number one in one calender year." - additive term "In addition" should be removed due to redundancy. Done/Removed.— Tomica (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC) "Pop singers Britney Spears, Katy Perry, Adele and Rihanna each scored two number-one singles during the year." - "scored"? Copy-edited. — Tomica (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC) "During the year, six collaboration singles topped the chart." Awkward "During the year". Actually, the whole sentence seems a bit misplaced. Move it somewhere where it fits in. Mmm I don't know where should I place it. Advice? "... beginning its run atop the chart for ten non-consecutive weeks..." - "beginning"? Sentence needs clarification. Is it better? — Tomica (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC) "With that, the song became Rihanna's longest-running number-one single, beating her previous records held by "Umbrella and "Love the Way You Lie" in 2007 and 2010, respectively." - not relevant to the article! Can at least stay that its the longest-running number-one single by Rihanna? — Tomica (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC) per MOS:NUM, "No. 1", not "no. 1" or "#1". Done/Changed. — Tomica (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Check the captions too. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC) What exactly is an "extended chart run"? Singles that topped the chart more than three or four weeks. — Tomica (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC) I didn't know the Hot 100 had its own era? Hah Removed. — Tomica (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC) A lot of the information in the third paragraph isn't really relevant to the lead, which is supposed to be a "List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (U.S.)". My suggestion is create a separate "Notes" column in the table, where you can list important accomplishments. That way, it's tucked away somewhere where readers can access the info only if they want to. Remember the info must be ref-ed. How do you mean? In the main chart table? And If I create it, should there be information only for the number-one singles, or for every week? And by your opinion, what other information should be added to the lead?— Tomica (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC) I think nothing more needs to be added to the lead. No, you don't need ot fill in every cell for the Notes, just the information you are moving from the lead. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC) There is no need for a notes section. The reader can read the song's page for a more detailed view about its chart run. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Then the third paragraph of the lead is unnecessary. And I disagree about that. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Well, I don't know WP. But there has never been something like a notes section. So it's difficult to picture what you are saying. I respect your opinion but you have to understand that it is something new, it has never been done before. So what you can do is help the nominator by doing one as an example. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC) I know it is something new. That does not mean it should not be done. I'll strike my oppose if all issues but this are addressed. I'll wait for more reviewers before I can get a chance to support. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC) I totally agree with Jivesh. I also told you before WP that I can even imagine it in my mind, nor create it. — Tomica (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC) No one ever said "it should not be done" because it is something new. All I am asking (also Tom), is for you to do one as an example so that he understands what you mean. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Fourth table heading is called "Reference(s)". I don't think the "(s)" is needed as each issue only has one ref. Done/Removed. Links in "See also" should not be linked elsewhere in the article. I can't see that they are linked in the article. Can you point me if they are?— Tomica (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC) 2011 in music I think. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC) External links comes after References. Done. — Tomica (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Publisher should be Prometheus Global Media for 2011 Billboard magazine. Changed. — Tomica (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Tomica, I applaud you for your efforts on this article. Great to see you doing something different for a change! For me, the lead is not exactly "brilliant" yet, and could use some re-organizing and copy editing. The list is not ready yet, but I'll be happy to have another look once issues have been addressed. Cheers, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC) More comments: "Adele's "Rolling In the Deep" stayed at number one for seven consecutive weeks, while Lady Gaga's "Born This Way"—the 1,000th No. 1 single of the Hot 100—and LMFAO's "Party Rock Anthem" topped the chart for six consecutive weeks." - Unsourced. Now is sourced. — Tomica (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC) What's a calender year? Is that any different from a typical year? Right, is same as a year, but it also represents the dates the songs charted. It's used in all of the featured Hot 100 singles lists. — Tomica (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Check captions for stuff about eras. They are removed now totally. — Tomica (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC) "Barbadian singer Rihanna earned her tenth and eleventh number-one single when "S&M" and "We Found Love" both topped the chart in 2011" - is the "in 2011" necessary? Removed it. — Tomica (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC) "American singer Katy Perry had three singles on the top of the chart, all of them topping the chart in 2011" - this is repetitive and awkward. Re-worded. — Tomica (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Not yet. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC) The dates in the table only probably need nbsps or you can just wrap the dates with {{nowrap}}. You can take a look at User:Wikipedian Penguin/Sandbox 5 while it lasts to get what I'm talking about, but there's probably no need so who cares. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC) I applied nbsps'. I hope its fine now. — Tomica (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Support if there is no consensus to merge this at the end of the day. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Why is Rolling In The Deep wikilinked twice in the lead? Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 00:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ooops. I unlinked it. Thanks — Tomica (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Its all good and you're welcome. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 00:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments I did some tweaks in the lead today. Hope those help. My concern (major one) is this sentence about Adele: She became the first solo female to have two songs spend at least five weeks at number one in one calender year. Is it true? Can it be verified? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Sourced it. There it is. — Tomica (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments While I like detailed captions, these are a little too detailed. I would add anything pertinent into the lead and reduce these captions a bit. I reduced them. — Tomica (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Not sure I understand the logic of excluding Perry's Firework, just because it made it to number one the previous year. It's still a 2011 number single... isn't it? It is written like that in every List. See for example, List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2006 (U.S.).— Tomica (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC) I'd like you to explain why though. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC) I explained you down there.— Tomica (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC) "topping the Top Hot 100 " topping the Top is a little repetitive. Changed it. — Tomica (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC) "She became the fourth solo female to have multiple songs spend at least five weeks at number one in one calender year.[5] Pop singers Adele, Britney Spears, Katy Perry and Rihanna each earned two number-one songs during the year.[a]" are those two sentences related, i.e. is that the list of the four solo females? If so, this needs a little work, no need to repeat Adele in the second sentence, and consider merging or using a semi-colon to indicate some link. If completely unrelated, seems odd to introduce Adele as a "pop singer" one sentence after "solo female" (after all, the other three in that list are "solo females" too...) Wikipediam Penguin re-wrote it. See If it is okay now. — Tomica (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Nope. The re-write is even more confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Hmm, yeah you're right. I've done some sentence re-arranging instead now to clear up the confusion. The two sentences were unrelated. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC) "multiple songs spend at least five weeks " does this mean "having more than one song" and "between them spending a total of at least five weeks at the top"? Just needs to be clarified for me...Donfff Yeah, multiple means having more than one song. However, I can't understand the second part. — Tomica (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Ignore the second part, my keyboard error. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC) "having topped the chart for ten non-consecutive weeks, " well, if two weren't in 2011, they shouldn't be included in this list. Maybe a footnote to say eight weeks, but ten in total over the two calendar years. Please see the way that I changed it. Its according this example: Knowles' "Irreplaceable" is the longest-running single of 2006, beginning its run atop the chart for 10 consecutive weeks in late December to late February 2007.[4][5] "Irreplaceable" became the 20th single to score at least 10 weeks at number one since the era of longer-running singles began in 1992. (List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2006 (U.S.)). — Tomica (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC) "No. 1 single" stick with "number-one" Changed. — Tomica (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Don't mix reference date formats (see ref 4). Repaired reference. — Tomica (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Perhaps it's just me but the lead is a little confusing with regard to what actually constitutes a number one in a given year, what constitutes weeks at the top in a given year, what constitutes multiple chart-topping entries/duration/non-consecutive weeks etc. I won't oppose right now but I certainly have concerns over what this all means. And there's little-to-no point in directing me to another list. I want to understand this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC) I directed you to other list because I wanted to tell you that I wrote the lead with accordance of the other sister articles. In what other way could I explain you? And about "Firework", the song reached number one for first time in 2010, so its featured as a chart topper in that list, here just reprised its position. — Tomica (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC) A rephrase of this whole "excluded" number one is in order. I would suggest something along the lines of "There were fourteen different number-one singles the charts in 2011, one of which, Katy Perry's Firework, topped the charts the previous year." or something. No need for this "and so is excluded" because it blantently isn't excluded, it's in the table. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC) I rephrased it. You can check now. — Tomica (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Status

• Would it hurt to have them sortable? I think it would be nice for the reader to see in the chart how many times one artist appeared. — Status {^talk_contribs 17:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't that cock up the row spanning? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 17:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I kind of don't have an idea what are you talking about. Can I get an example Status? — Tomica (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Image review: All used images appear to be free and properly tagged. Goodraise 15:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - not super-comfortable that every single reference is to Billboard, but I guess that's the way the other Billboard FLs do it. You need a comma after "Firework" in the lead. I also strongly recomend that you archive the references via webcite or web archive (and the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= paremeters in the references) - while not an FLC criteria, if the websites ever go away or change to lose the information (like, say, every last link in the 2008 FL) then you end up with a completely unsourced article. Also, what's up with the merge tag at the top? It doesn't link to an active discussion, but an older section links to a months-old discussion that never went anywhere. I don't think the list can be promoted with that going on, regardless of supports here. --PresN 19:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with PresN on the fact that this shouldn't be promoted until the merge tag situation works itself out. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    • First of all thanks to all who supported. As a nominator I really don't like that adding the tag came right now. Its obvious that lists by year should be kept and the the 2010's one merged or deleted. The US charts have been written in separate lists since the start of Wikipedia, so I don't see the reason for creating one article for a decade. However, okay, its right to wait. — Tomica (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing new seems to have appeared in the merge discussion there for the past two weeks. Could someone organise its closure so we can close this candidate? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Who should be able to close that discussion? — Tomica (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Any independent admin would do. i.e. no-one featuring in either this or that process. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I will try to ask somebody independent with administrator rights. — Tomica (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and closed it as no consensus. Canadian Paul 14:25, 7 April 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 promoted by Giants2008 20:05, 4 April 2012 [25].

---

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Waqar Younis

Nominator(s): Zia Khan (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the list meets the FL criteria. It is based upon existing FL List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Wasim Akram... Zia Khan (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments There is a dablink. Two dead links need fixing. Image needs alternative text. For more information, see here. WP:LEAD is very short. Why is the second paragraph one sentence, yet the third is two lines? → WP:WEIGHT You have introduced 'Waqar Younis' in the opening sentence so you can just use his last name thereafter. – Lemonade51 (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Done. Zia (Khan) 07:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments Tables need row and col scopes (if appropriate) per MOS:DTT. "fewer than 40 bowlers have taken more than 15 five-wicket hauls at international level in their cricketing careers.[4][5]" I haven't added up the ODI and Test fifers for each cricketer, are you sure that your "fewer than 40" is accurate? Perhaps it would be better (and easier to reference) if you stuck with delineating records in Test cricket from ODI cricket. "he took 4 wickets " -> four. "As of December 2009" it's now February 2012, can this be updated and checked? He looks way down in Tests and top in ODIs... Again, perhaps instead of merging Tests and ODIs, treat them separately so they can be individually verified. No reason for bold in the wickets column. When sorting by wickets, and there's a tie on both wickets and runs conceded, sort by lowest number of overs as best result (e.g. the two 6/78 innings)... Previously been some debate over why not use full names every time or same forename abbreviation style every time. Would suggest consistency. "Match drawn" just "drawn" is fine, you don't have "match won" or "match lost". References need en-dashes and not spaced hyphens in the titles. Cricinfo needs publisher information. External links call it ESPN Cricinfo, be consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Thank you. Updated and fixed, I think there is no need to use row and col scopes (see FLs List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Wasim Akram, List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Muttiah Muralitharan and List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Glenn McGrath). I used his last name because I've already introduced him in the opening sentence.Zia Khan (talk) 07:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Things have changed since those FLs, row and col scopes are definitely now required. The "surname" issue wasn't to do with Younis, but the way you formatted the names of the batsmen, mostly AB Smith but a few are Andy Smith (these are made up examples) - this should be consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Done. Zia Khan (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Check Test 18, runs/econ need to be swapped. When ordering by wickets, for equal wickets the best should sort with the fewest runs and the worst should sort with the most runs. Ian Botham doens't need a Sir. Would expect column widths to be the same for each table. Playing Sri Lanka in Kenya, isn't that a neutral ground as well? You have three links to Cricinfo in the references, either link all, just the first, or none. Still an issue with references calling it Cricinfo and external links calling it ESPNCricinfo. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Done. Zia Khan (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Image review: All used images appear to be free and are properly tagged as such. Goodraise 13:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  This a free image and tagged as well. Zia Khan (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments – "A fast bowler who represented his country between 1989 and 2003, Younis is one of the greatest right-arm bowlers in the history of world cricket." An extraordinary claim like this needs at least one source, and probably more (especially without some attribution as to who has said this). Add "the" to "where he took four wickets in first innings." Capitalize "test" in the next sentence? "He has gone on to take ten or more wickets per match on five occasions." Since he's retired, try replacing "has gone on" with "went on" to reflect past tense. Remove period after Sharjah at the start of the third paragraph. "he is thirteenth overall in all-time Test five-wicket haul takers". "in" → "among"? In the ODI table, the 10th entry has a blank wickets column. What's the reason for that? In the economy column, the 5 for entry 10 isn't sorting in the proper order. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Fixed. ZiaKhan 00:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

;Comments from Harrias talk Mirroring Giants2008's first comment, I would go further: "A fast bowler who represented his country between 1989 and 2003, Younis is one of the greatest right-arm bowlers in the history of world cricket." Is such a strong claim that it think some inline attribution is required, and probably a slight weakening such as: "Younis is generally considered one of the greatest right-arm bowlers to have played cricket." I'm curious why you've chosen to use "Younis" thoughout the article, rather than "Waqar", which is more common in journalistic pieces written about him? "He has went on to take.." – Remove the word "has". "Making his One Day International (ODI) debut in October 1989, against West Indies in Sharjah." – This sentence doesn't make any sense: it appears to have a dangling modifier, and is in the wrong tense entirely. I can appreciate that you are probably trying to avoid repitition from the first paragraph, but this isn't an alternative! In the Test paragraph, all the grounds and locations are linked: in the second paragraph, the "Sharjah" isn't linked at all, let alone mention of it being in the UAE! Also, on the first usage, there is no definite article ("in Sharjah") while on the second usage there is: ("at the Sharjah"). Try to be consistent in whether you apply it or not. "He made a hat-trick.." – possibly change to "He achieved a hat-trick.." Per MOS:NUM, single digit numbers should be written as words when possible. "As of February 2012, he is thirteenth overall among all-time Test five-wicket haul takers, and first in the ODI list." – perhaps change the last bit of this to ".., and top of the equivalent ODI list." Why have you included a dagger for wicket-keepers in the Batsmen column? There is nothing to specify whether the play was a bowler or a specialist batsman, I can't see what this adds? Also, all of the symbols you use should be Image insertion templates per WP:NOSYMBOLS. This certainly applies to the "spades" symbol, and to the dagger to if you keep it. In your table, Headingley links to the area of Leeds, it should link to Headingley Stadium; check for any other similar occurences. When the table sorts by wickets, I would expect it to have a secondary sort by runs conceded, so that his best performances show above his not so good ones. (eg. 6/34 would be above 6/78) List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Ian Botham is an example of this in action. Make the batsmen column unsortable: it offers nothing at all being able to sort by that. Harrias talk 21:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC) Fixed. Yes, "Waqar" is more common, especially in Asia. ZiaKhan 00:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Harrias ^talk 19:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments You can link to Indian Cricket team in the second para New Zealand should be link on first usage, which is in the second sentence of the second para Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka cricket teams can be linked as well NapHit (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC) Done. ZiaKhan 20:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments would he have had an opportunity to play in T20I? I doubt it but worth the question since a fifer is entirely possible in that format and we don't have it covered/mentioned at all here. "He took 3 consecutive" should be 3->three. Sorting by wickets which are the same (e.g. all five wicket matches, all six wicket matches etc) I'd expect to see in then sort by the fewest/most runs conceded. Don't think Ian Botham was Sir Ian Botham when he was part of a fifer in 1992. Finally, consistency with linking (or not) ESPNCricinfo in the refs is needed. I see it linked in 3 and 9 and 12 but not elsewhere. Also, the SHOUTING in ref 5 needs to be addressed, and the consistency of the Cricinfo publisher needs work in ref 41, along with the extra "test" in ref 23. Otherwise, I'd support. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC) He had not played in T20I. I have already sorted according to your previous comment (When ordering by wickets, for equal wickets the best should sort with the fewest runs and the worst should sort with the most runs). Also, fixed the rest! Thanks. ZiaKhan 08:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Cool, just sort out the sorting of Test #8 and I'm all good. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Done.ZiaKhan 21:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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