Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 2013

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 14:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

Theatre productions of Dan Leno

Nominator(s): Cassianto^Talk and Ssilvers (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Dan Leno, the leading English music hall comedian of his day, became, later in his career, chiefly known for his pantomime dame roles in the lavish, spectacular and very popular Christmas pantomimes at London's Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, from 1888 to 1904. Earlier last year, Ssilvers and I successfully saw through the promotions of Dan Leno to FA and his list of songs sketches and monologues to FL status. As we went along, we researched his pantomimes and his handful of other theatre productions and compiled this short list, which also supports the main article. We feel confident that this article conatins a thorough and comprehensive list of Leno's theatrical productions and that it meets the criteria needed for FL consideration. We invite any comments and suggestions, which would be greatfully received.Cassianto^Talk 11:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Further to the above, for anyone interested in Leno's pantomime and theatrical acting career, as opposed to his far more extensive music hall career, this list article, including its sortable table of the theatrical productions in which Leno performed, gives, in convenient format, details about all of the theatrical productions in which Leno had acting roles that would have been too detailed for the main Leno article. We look forward to your comments. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Support – comprehensive, well-documented, with highly readable introduction. I don't see how this could be improved at all. Tim riley (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Tim! :-) -- Cassianto^Talk 11:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Support - I had my say in PR and made a few little technical tweaks during the development process. It's a very good article indeed: it covers what it needs to, and does so in a very readable way. The table is noce and sortable and I think it all works OK, from what I can see. I've not done the images to any great depth, but they look good on a cursory scan of the licenses. Nice work. - SchroCat (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and advice, SchroCat. Wikipedia would not look as good without knowledgeable contributors like you! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK. Some need slightly different tags or a bit more details. Sources and authors provided, where available.

• File:Dan_Leno_and_Herbert_Campbell.jpg - OK (author info already expanded)
• File:Augustus_Harris.jpg - OK (i fixed erronous author info, please double-check)
• File:Mrs._Kelly.jpg - OK. Suggest to add publisher, location and year of publication to all book sources (ISBN, when available). A link can rot, so it's better to have the basic data directly available.

• Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 11:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• File:Leno_as_Sister_Anne_1901.jpg - not OK. 1901 is too new for PD-70. However, PD-1923 together with PD-UK-unknown will work (if you did a "reasonable enquiry" for the author without success).

• Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 11:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• File:Leno3.jpg - not OK. Same as above, try PD-1923 and PD-UK-unknown if author can't be found

• Done. The author was found online as being Tom Browne who died in 1910. The image description has been updated. -- Cassianto^Talk 11:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• not listed remaining 5 images - all OK.

Cassianto asked me for a quick image check, but i won't formally vote, as i know not enough about the specific FLC-criteria. Nevertheless it looks like a great list with a lot of effort being spent on it. GermanJoe (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks again GJ for taking the time to review the images it is really appreciated. -- Cassianto^Talk 11:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• You're welcome, was fun to read up on an unfamiliar topic (status updated). Btw, is it "Sister Ann" or "Sister Anne"? Microscopic nitpick, but list and caption have both spellings. GermanJoe (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• It is "Sister Anne". I have requested that the file be renamed to reflect the correct spelling. Thanks! -- Cassianto^Talk 15:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you GermanJoe. Yes, I agree that it is Anne. If you google this pantomime, you can see the name spelled both ways, but this poster shows that at Drury Lane they spelled it "Anne" in this production. Of course, Bluebeard is a french fairy tale, so it is only a translation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. A nice list. I have not noticed any particular problem. Ruslik_Zero 19:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your support. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. A very nice piece of work - well done! The table is well-organised, accessible and functional. Normally I might have preferred the production as the row header, but productions are not unique and some of the titles are very long, so you made a better choice by using the date. Just a few minor points about the images: a couple of them have empty alt tags, which should only happen for decorative images that have no link, because otherwise a screen reader will get a link announced but not necessarily know where the link goes. There are also a lot of images; on my widescreen monitor they extend at least one picture beyond the bottom of the article. My advice is to prune a few of them out - remember that images are meant to illustrate a point that you are making relevant to the article/list, not just to decorate it. Some are useful to show how Leno dressed for his parts, or how he was caricatured, but I'm not sure of the point being made by Augustus Harris.jpg or Leno, Danvers and Campbell.jpg, for example. It would be quite possible to create a commons category called 'Dan Leno' and use the template {{Commons category|Dan Leno}} on the page (and other pages!) to direct viewers to the entire category - that's the normal advice if you have a lot more pictures than can be comfortably accommodated on the page. Nevertheless, the points I raise above are minor and do not detract from my support for this very well-executed list. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you RexxS. Your support, as always, is valued. The category sounds like a great idea! i havent a clue how to do it, but I shall ask about and read up on the instructions. I will also check the alts again later today. We played around with the images on big, medium and small screened devices so we could get everything to fit, which it did. However, if you say the images are causing a bleed into the next section we may have to discuss a further prune. Ss, which shall we go for? I was thinking Marie Lloyd? -- Cassianto^Talk 00:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Rexx. Yes, I deleted Lloyd and moved the right-facing cartoon up to the text. That should do it. I don't see any empty alt tags, though. Do you see what Rexx means? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a useful Firefox addon called "Web Developer Toolbar" that adds some neat tricks like outlining images with empty alt attributes - I find it very useful to spot missing alts. I've added some example alt text (which was missing) to the lead image. The 'Dame trot' had alt text but you hadn't put "alt=". I've moved the images outside of the table in wiki-text to make the table self-contained if anybody wants to copy it. Finally, I've moved up the left-side cartoon one paragraph as it otherwise pokes down into the Productions section on my monitor and moves the entire table over by 150px! The other option would be to use {{-}} before == Productions == to force a break. Please excuse me and feel free to revert, alter or re-use any of these changes - I just thought they were easier to do than try to describe them to you. --RexxS (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I have taken up your advice and I'm now trying to understand the workings of the Toolbar. In relation to the moved image, I am getting a bit of text squeeze on my small screened device, but I suppose what works for one won't always work for the other. Your edit looks great for me, thanks again! -- Cassianto^Talk 00:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Those changes seems good, Rexx. Thanks for fixing the alt text. I put the left-side cartoon back where it was (as Cassianto says, that caused more problems for most viewers), but I added the {{-}} as you suggested. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2013 (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 14:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC) [2].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Ivy Queen

Nominator(s): DivaKnockouts (talk) and ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. Originally included on the main Ivy Queen article. I then moved the list of award tables to a separate article while expanding the tables with more awards and nominations. The list follows the same style as List of awards and nominations received by Ricardo Arjona which is also listed as FL. Regards. DivaKnockouts (talk) and ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Very well formatted and referenced. — Cirt (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments It's The New York Times. Done. Not sure about that image being suitable, despite the fact it's come from Commons, it looks like a screengrab which hasn't been licensed correctly. Not done. Elaborate? This image is properly licensed. I did elaborate. It's a screen grab. I don't believe the Commons licence is correct, how could a screen grab from a TV show be used under CC 2.0? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC) I don't believe it's a screen grab from a TV show? This is the image on Flickr from which it is taken, and the license is in fact Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC) But it even has a burnt-in URL in the bottom-left corner of the image.... I'm not happy with the licensing at Commons so I'm not happy with its use here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC) I've changed the image. Regards. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Thank you, now needs a caption and alt text. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Caption and alt text provided :) — DivaKnockouts (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Should "reggaetón" be capitalised or not? Be consistent. Same with the other music genres. Done. Does reggaetón have a diacritic or not? Be consistent. Done. she earned the "indisputable ..." - what did she earn? the title of indisputable...? I don't get this sentence. Done. "However, this became her only Premio Juventud so far" poor English. Would consider merging that with the previous sentence, something like "... her only Premio Juventud"...? Done. "Female and Tropical Airplay Song of the Year" is that a single category? This sentence is confusing for me. Done. Is it Ivy Queen or Queen? Be consistent with how you refer to her after the first mention. Done. I count 12 wins from 30 noms in the infobox, not consistent with the lead. Done. "Queen has received all the awards she was nominated for.[9]" bit of a stretch when she's got one nom only... Done. " she was nominated for." -> "for which she was nominated". Done. "two awards from twelve nominations" looks like 2 out of 11 to me. Done. Not sure why you need bold text in the refs. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the comments! :) — DivaKnockouts (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment—I made some tweaks to the lede and should explain my addition of quotation marks around the award titles, something I do not do often. Reading this sentence, "...was awarded both Hot Latin Song of the Year, Female and Tropical Airplay Song of the Year, Female out of five total nominations she received for the song", the comma placements caught me off guard for a second. I think the quotation marks clarify that the ", Female" parts are in the names. Overall, the lede is well written and well structured. The fact that the infobox image shows her facing to the right is a bit of a pet peeve, so if you can replace that with an image facing towards the page, that would be nice. If you don't want to, it's OK; I'm only nit-picking. Also, why do some bundled citations only have one reference (8, 9, 12, 13, 14)? I'd remove the bullets. Finally, the number of nominations adds up to 31, not 32. Otherwise, good work. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Okay, first off thank you for your comments and tweaks to the article :) The citations from 8 on are bundled by Award show, for some award show she was only nominated at one ceremony so only one reference is available. When you say remove the bullets, do you mean on all the citations or just 8, 9, 12, 13, 14? Also, are you sure your count brings up 31? Mines adds up to 32, counting the Infobox and independent sections they both add up to 32. Thanks again for your comments. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Just on the citations mentioned. Yes, you're right. I checked my math: it's 32. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Alright! All done. Anything else? Thanks :) — DivaKnockouts (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support—a job well done. I have nothing else for now, but if I do, I'll let you know. Thanks for the prompt responses! —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

*" for her contributions to the music industry in the genres of " --> have a phonetic break by adding a comma "for her contributions to the music industry, in the genres of " Done and has become the "indisputable lead .... --> that quote starting from indisputable is a little too long to have it without ceritfying the autor or the publication quoting it, like you have attributed The New York Times quote. Done "which honored her for her musical career and is her only Premio Juventud thus far" --> "which honored the singer for her musical career and is her only Premio Juventud thus far" Done award from the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers --> award from the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAPS) Done " In 2009, "Dime" from the album Ivy Queen 2008 World Tour Live!, [7] became her most nominated work at a single Latin Billboard Music Award ceremony, where she was awarded both "Hot Latin Song of the Year, Female" and "Tropical Airplay Song of the Year, Female" out of five nominations she received for the song. Later in 2010, Ivy Queen received an award from the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers for "Urban Song of the Year" for "Dime"." ---> This whole block can be pretty hard to read, I will take a shot at makign the flow better, how about " In 2009, "Dime" from the album Ivy Queen 2008 World Tour Live!, became her most nominated work at the Latin Billboard Music Award ceremony. She was awarded both "Hot Latin Song of the Year, Female" and "Tropical Airplay Song of the Year, Female" out of five nominations for "Dime". Later in 2010, the song won Ivy Queen an award from the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAPS)for "Urban Song of the Year". Done Link BMI Done Sentimiento, nominated three times for three different awards ---> Just spare few words describing what Sentimiento is, like whetehr its a studio album, EP etc Done What are Flashback and Drama Queen? Again see previous for sparing a few words Done Overall, Queen has received 14 awards from 32 nominations ---> Specify uptill which point these noms and awards are true, like As of February 2013..... Done WP:ACCESS required for the tables. Will get to this. I think I have dealt with this. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 03:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC) NOt quite there. I have made one change to the GLAAD award ceremony, you can follow this throughout. Use en-dash throughout the article. Done Ref 5, when you are using that Billboard Google magazine link, i.e. a physical magazine, you need volume, issue, page no, issn etc. Done About.com is not a reliable source for featured content. Done Use {{cite news}} when its a news article like ref 1 Done There is no need to use any citation template as a requirement. Just to note. — ΛΧΣ21 03:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Citation templates will always be advisable over bare formatted links, in fear of linkrot. No two qualms about it. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC) The award description one liners need references. The awards are notable and has WP pages, but their one liner description cannot be without reference, and fails FL?1 Again, List of awards and nominations received by Ricardo Arjona and List of awards and nominations received by Selena both do not have references for the descriptions of the award shows and they are FL. Award descriptions don't need references. References are for the awards themselves. — ΛΧΣ21 03:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Fair enough, I was referring to the List of awards and nominations received by Madonna, which seems to follow this, but I can see your point as well. However, for an award does not having a page in WP, its notability arises and then we do need a third party reliable souce. Case in point, People's Choice Reggaeton and Urban Awards. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC) The reliable third party source is used as a reference for the awards. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Also, if you are archiving all the references, follow this throughout, I saw two of them don't archive Done There is no requirement to archive all the sources, although it is recommended. — ΛΧΣ21 03:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC) You are correct that there is no requirement to archive references, however, DivaKnockout has indeed archived most of the references, why not the first few? Its a consistency issue mostly. I only archived the most important. (The awards and the older articles) — DivaKnockouts (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Billboard Latin Music Awards or Latin Billboard Music Award? Which is the correct name and italic format? Done Question, you are not italicizing Billboard down the line. So again a consistency issue? Done You are using both Ivy Queen and Queen. Stick to one format. Done The last line of the lead Done LO Nuestro or Premio Lo Nuestro? Done Any reason why the awards are not alphabetically sorted? I see the awards in each and every FL like this to be sorted List of awards and nominations received by Ricardo Arjona (which is FL), is sorted by importance. This is list is also sorted by importance vice-verse, however. Indeed. Awards can be sorted by importance too. Check other featured lists IndiaBio. — ΛΧΣ21 03:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC) See below Same goes for the infobox See above Firstly, if GLAAD is the most important award, following your logic, why doesn't the infobox reflect that? They should be sorted as per the awards in the actual list. Also, the recognition writeup in the lead starts with the Premios Juventud, however no mention of the GLAAD awards or the Premios Furia Musical? And if GLAAD awards are the most important you need to put it in perspective as to why they are important. I guess if she's a gay icon or something in that line that needs to be reflected in the lead. No, she is not a gay icon, she is a heterosexual women. The awards are ordered by importance, least importance to greatest importance with Latin Grammys being the greatest.— DivaKnockouts (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Then why is it opposite in the infobox? Or rather, why doesn't the infobox follow this rule at all? The list and the infobox should be consistent. Done American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Awards – I dont think you need to expand ASCAP, the short form is by which the awards are known, ala BMI. Why not? There is no rule saying it shouldn't be expanded. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Indeed there is no rule. However, the awards are known as ASCAP Awards and the association uses the short form, like CHR Awards, BMI Awards etc. And also, the consistency issue. If you are expanding it, then expand any short form you are using throghout the article. They are expanded throughout the article. Not really. Check BMI Music Awards. Alright, now, I believe everything has been addressed. Thank you. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose from IndianBioSupport – Seems a pretty comprehensive list. Here are few of my quabbles. I initially wanted to just comment and was almost gonna support, but found quite a few prose and MoS issues that I'm opposing for now. Let me know if these issues are fixed. I don't watch the nominations so ping me in my talk page. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your interesting input and comments. I appreciate them. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt actions DivaKnockouts. For I have gone ahead and supported the list. Best wishes. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your review IndianBio :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments – In the caption, both "Friday" and the th in 16th are unneeded, and I think the MoS discourages them. Billboard Latin Music Awards: Remove "the" before Billboard. Broadcast Music, Inc. Awards: En dash in "most–performed" should be a regular old hyphen instead. Premios Juventud: "anually" → "annually". This award and the next one are inconsistent in whether "the" comes before "television network". Minor, but worth fixing all the same. GLAAD Media Awards: Remove "the" before "one nomination"? Same could be done for the next two awards. People's Choice Reggaeton and Urban Awards: "and awarded annually by the public". "and" → "are". Giants2008 (Talk) 01:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC) All done! Thanks for your comments! :) — DivaKnockouts 01:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Lead image could use alt text. Image has alt text. — DivaKnockouts 01:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC) It's not showing up to the readers. Try decapitalizing Alt in the infobox parameter; I've seen that cause problems before. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Alright, it is now showing up. Thanks! — DivaKnockouts 21:22, 16 February 2013 (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 14:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC) [3].

---

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A)

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. The first review went stale without flagging any major concerns. I hope that this time around the list draws enough attention. Thanks in advance for any constructive feedback MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Can't detect any issues. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 18:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport A couple from me.

• in the lead, suggest "has now been succeeded by" instead of "is now succeeded by". I don't think we quite got the tense right in the ACL's I reviewed recently.

done MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Posthumous recognition is duplicated as a link in the body ("Recipients" section).

done, removed link in the body MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• no dabs, external link issues, missing alt text, duplicate citations, reflinks issues, redirect probs or copyvios detected per those toolserver tools.

• no action taken MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have recently reviewed two (other) RK lists for A class, and this incorporates all of the suggestions made in those reviews.

• no action taken MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• I am not sure about the need to mix Hauptmann (or any other rank for that matter) with "of the Reserves" in English. Given there is no appreciable difference between a given rank and a given rank of the Reserves (in terms of equivalence), you could render the first mention followed by (Captain) or (Captain of the Reserves) then carry on with the German version fully italicised throughout. Not a war winner, but I assume you are at the beginning of this series at FLC level, and it would probably be best to crack the rationale on this one early, especially as there have been queries about italicisation and anglicisation of German ranks at ACL in this series.

• The list is sortable. The order is arbitrary after the first sort. Because of this, overlinking is allowed on sortable lists. Wouldn't this apply to your suggestion about translations as well? MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Good point. I still think you could render all ranks in German only, so long as they are linked, no problem. But a minor matter, not an obstacle to FL.

• At your usual high standard, well done.

• Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A pleasure. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment have been over variants of these lists many times, always of a high quality, just avoid the "SCHERZERS MILITAER-VERLAG. " shouting. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Do I need to take action here? If yes, what exactly do you mean? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Remove instances of OVER CAPITALISATION (which is commonly referred to as shouting...) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Ah, okay, done thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Perhaps add a visual representation (similar to the KIA and disputed entries) to indicate recipients with higher grade crosses in addition to mentioning it in the notes? Winning the highest military award multiple times is a major achievement so I think it would be good if the reader could easily identify the people on the list who have done so. Obviously this is only a suggestion and not a problem with the article. Chamal ^T•C 08:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I could add something like (see below), would this work? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

  This along with the + (plus) indicates that a higher grade of Knight's Cross was awarded as well.

Yes, that's what I was thinking of. Chamal ^T•C 08:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Very high quality article. Chamal ^T•C 16:36, 22 February 2013 (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 14:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC) [4].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Alastair Cook

Nominator(s): Zia Khan, The Rambling Man (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Alastair Cook is one of the best Test batsman in the history of England cricket. Zia Khan is very excited nominating this one. In fact, we have another similar list at FLC right now which "has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed" there. Zia Khan thinks that can nominate this list. The Rambling Man is interested in improving the list, so has the co-nomination. As always, look forward to the comments/sugesstions from anyone, especially FLCers. Zia Khan 00:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments I'd suggest you to remove the total runs scored, since cook is currently active in international cricket. We cannot constantly update the numbers. The same applies for no. of matches too, else you can retain them by adding "As of...". —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Done. Zia Khan 11:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Old Trafford links to a football ground. It should be "Old Trafford Cricket Ground". Pipelink Old Trafford Cricket Ground to Old Trafford. —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Done. Zia Khan 11:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC) His highest ODI score, no need to repeat ODI. Ref for "His highest ODI score is 137 runs against Pakistan at the Sheikh Zayed Stadium, Abu Dhabi in 2011", doesn't indicate that the score is highest to date in ODIs. It's just a scorecard. Similarly ref #11 need not be used in the lead. Has he retired from T20Is? India national cricket team is linked twice in the lead. Facts about him being in the list of top century-makers needs "As of" prefix per WP:DATED. "Cook has scored Test centuries...", the next sentence starts with cook again. Alt text for the second image needs to be a little more descriptive. "No result" founds no usage outside the key. There are a few items that end with a period while others do not. Not done. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Fixed now! Zia Khan 21:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Inn. for his fourth Test ton is 4; Inn. and Pos. needs to be corrected in #10, #18. 18 still not corrected. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Fixed now! Zia Khan 21:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC) He did win a MoM award for his fifth ODI hundred, but not for the second one. He was the captain when he made 119 against Sri Lanka in 2011. —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Fixed all! Zia Khan 15:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Last comment is still not fixed. —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Done. Zia Khan 11:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC) More comments He did not win the MoM award for his 20th century. "hehas" -> Needs capitalising and space. He wasn't the captain when he made 115 vs SAF. —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Fixed all! Zia Khan 11:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC) He has scored his twenty-three Test centuries; "twenty-three Test" repetitive -> He has scored centuries against seven different opponents or something like that. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Done, as suggested! Zia Khan 21:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Meets the standards. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

*Comments by Crisco 1492 the sixteenth English cricketer to achieve this feat - What, score a century on his debut against India in 2006? Needs rewording Twenty20 International should be linked I gave a copyedit, be sure to look. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Fixed both. Zia Khan 23:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC) I think the 16th bit is interesting and pertinent to the article at hand, so it should be in the text and not a footnote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Done. Zia Khan 04:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comments from me addressed. Waiting for Vesantry (who seems to know much more about cricket) to finish weighing in before I support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Ahhhh! thanks for your compliment :) —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Its amazing! Have you really seen this right now? Zia Khan 16:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Yup! —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• • No problem, thanks for the comments, BTW! Zia Khan 05:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Support on prose. Looks solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• ICC should be spelled out in the first paragraph.
• Reference 8 needs a publisher (Wisden). Giants2008 (Talk) 01:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Zia Khan 16:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments Why is 'Key' used in the heading of the section and the caption for the table? It seems redundant. Similar featured lists do not have this. Ditto for the other tables. Most of the century lists have the same format, please have a look. Zia Khan 23:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC) All of the examples I looked at do not have this redundancy: 1, 2, 3, 4. Whether we are following or ignoring precedent here, what is the reason? Jujutacular (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Look at: 1, 2, 3 and 4. All they are promoted in 2012. Zia Khan 05:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Again, I must ask, what is the reason? Jujutacular (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC) We could check this with User:RexxS but I seem to recall that if a table directly follows a heading with no text in between, the caption is essentially made redundant. Captions are more appropriate when they're either used following a section of text or if the caption embellishes the screen reader experience (i.e. describes in more detail what's presented in the table, rather than just a repeat of the section heading). The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Made a little change to the Key caption. Zia Khan 00:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC) That looks better to me, thank you for bearing with me :) Jujutacular (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC) No problem, thanks to you! Zia Khan 18:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Spot checks of sources -- all checked info verified accurate. Thanks for the comments. Zia Khan 23:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Jujutacular (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support Great list, I couldn't find any issues with it. Jujutacular (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support No problems I can see. Chamal ^T•C 16:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support. Zia Khan 18:03, 22 February 2013 (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 14:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC) [5].

---

List of The Elder Scrolls video games

Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The Elder Scrolls (abbreviated as TES) is an action role-playing open world video game series developed by Bethesda Game Studios and published by Bethesda Softworks. The Elder Scrolls games take place on the fictional world of Nirn, on the continent of Tamriel, a large landmass divided into nine provinces. The actual Elder Scrolls play a very limited role in the storyline of the series, serving only as framing plot device, and are rarely referred to in-game, or even in the in-game literature. The first game, The Elder Scrolls: Arena, was released in 1994. It was intended for players to assume the role of an arena combatant, but development shifted the game into a role-playing game (RPG), beginning a tradition that persists throughout the series' history. The first nomination failed because after two users opposed based on a misleading interpretation of the forking criteria for featured lists, I decided to withdraw the nomination and focus on other things. As I think it meets the criteria (or its very close to it), I bring this back again to FLC. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Status 04:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Status: "abbreviated as TES" → I don't see a point in this. It isn't abbreviated as such later on in the article. Removed. "on the fictional world of Nirn" → "in the fictional world of Nirn" Fixed, Why is it important to say when Skyrim was announced? Removed. Publisher → Publisher(s) Fixed. Release date → Release date(s) Uhmmm. Not yet. Done. Added "Release dates" when multiple dates exist. I wouldn't say listing the genre is important, as it's the same for every game. I have, just in case a game with a different genre is released.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC) It doesn't look like you've implemented any changes in response to Status' comments yet. I agree with all of them except the thing about Publisher and Release date. The fix you made during the Crystal Dynamics FLC to detect the number of publishers and react accordingly is cool and you should keep it. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC) I haven't yet, yes. I will take a look when I have time. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 00:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Status 04:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Axem Titanium (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

;Comments from Axem Titanium I'm curious why you decided to make a new list entry template (Template:ListEntry/VG) instead of using the more popular Template:Video game titles? It seems slightly inefficient to list out platforms visually like that and also have the platform-specific release dates under bullet points elsewhere. Not necessarily a criticism, just curious. This design is better for this type of games and developers (western). The template was discussed during a previous FLC I had (that was promoted) and no issues were raised. I just like this colour-oriented design :) I took a look at your other FLC (I'm assuming you're referring to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Crystal Dynamics video games/archive1) and it looks like at least 4 people raised issues with it, including an administrator and a FLC director. I'm not going to raise a stink about it here but I would highly recommend taking NapHit's advice to "discuss the merits of each template at the relevant wiki project", in this case, WP:VG. I wasn't the one who took the initiative to write this list, so I'm not going to impose my preferences on it, but please do open the discussion. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC) I will diligently start a discussion sometime in the future about it. Thanks for your thoughts about this matter :) — ΛΧΣ21 20:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Template:Video game titles should be speedy deleted due its ugliness tbh (kidding, of course). Status 04:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I'm confused about the way refs 8-23 are placed. Are they citations for the name of the game? They appear to have multiple "sub"-references in each and it's not clear why. I'm guessing they're for the different release dates by platform? If so, it would make more sense to simply place the individual citations after the release dates themselves so readers can check the correct one for each. Hmm, The individual bullet-listed refs are packed becase they provide a more easy way to see which refs are supporting which game; it provides order. Having individual citations after the releasde dates will make the table look like a citation farm, which is ugly. This style of citation was approved on my previous list-game FLC. I'm worried that clarity in citation is being sacrificed for aesthetics here. I look at ref 21 and I see 6 bullet points to 6 different places and I don't know which one is citing what. It's difficult for me to verify the information that you're presenting because you're not saying where you got which piece of info. If you're worried about organizing references in an orderly way by game, consider converting to WP:LDR format, which was designed for this exact purpose. User:PleaseStand/References segregator is a good tool for this as well. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC) I added the correspondent platform at the title of the reference and in parenthesis (e.g. "game Name (PS3)"). Of course, I would have no problem in adding the specific platform at the start of each bullet to make identification more easier. Any idea you have in mind will be greatly appreciated, as long as you don't ask me to to split the bulleted lists into separate ones u.u — ΛΧΣ21 20:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Yeah, at the start of the bullet might help. You generally have to assume nothing from the reader and make it as obvious as possible. I notice that for some of your bulleted refs, they're cited multiple times because of the notes section (e.g. ref 10, 18, 19). I would definitely separate the citation for the notes in question into their own ref names. When I click ref 19 for note c, I have no idea which individual link is the correct citation for "The Xbox 360 version of The Elder Scrolls IV: Knights of the Nine is only available through Xbox Live Marketplace". Axem Titanium (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Okay. I will do this today :) — ΛΧΣ21 16:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Whenever you get around to this, I'd be willing to support. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Done, I think. — ΛΧΣ21 05:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC) The lead feels a bit long and essentially repeats the information contained in the list itself, i.e., the names and release dates of every game. I would much rather hear more about the gameplay advances between games (some of which is already there) and the common elements of the setting. I think this can be done in two paragraphs. See also some of the other WP:VG featured lists for lead-writing inspiration. I don't know. I will take a look. I think that given the long list of games the series have, a lead like that was grantes, but I can chop it down. I have chopped down the list to two paragraphs. Take a look. — ΛΧΣ21 02:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I like it much better. :) Axem Titanium (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Yay! — ΛΧΣ21 03:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Axem Titanium (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Expanded some answers. More to come, I guess. — ΛΧΣ21 20:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Per 3.b I am not convinced that the tables cannot reasonably be included at the end of Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Nergaal (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • How can a table of all games released for a series be included at the end of an article of the development of only one of those games? This makes no sense. 3b has no weigh here, Nergaal. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    • ^ What he said. Status 04:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support - As I've said before, I really do prefer Template:Video game titles to Template:ListEntry/VG, but it's an aesthetic choice. I'm also fine with the multi-citation refs you have; it's not as immediate what goes with what as it would be if you stuck each ref in the appropriate table cell, but it's honestly not much different than sticking them all in a "ref" column. My one comment- seeing as there are two books and can only be a handful of albums, have you considered expanding the list into "List of The Elder Scrolls media"? Not required, but I think it would work well. --PresN 18:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks! I may expand it later. I was thinking about it, but given that I won't have much time soon, I thonk I won't be able to expand it anytime soon. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

  I would also like to see this whenever you get a chance. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Quick comment – In refs 9 and 10, there are books that use pp. for a single-page cite; those should be p. instead. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

  Fixed. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:06, 23 February 2013 (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 14:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC) [6].

---

List of airports in the Okanagan

Nominator(s): TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 18:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the featured list criteria. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 18:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment This is a very nice list, and it does have sufficient entries, but why does this need to be separate from (and somewhat redundant to) List of airports in British Columbia? A region column could be in the table to sort by the unofficial subdivisions of BC. Reywas92^Talk 22:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Reywas makes a good point I think it's feasible this list could merged into the British Columbia one and a region column added. NapHit (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment I'm not so sure. The amount of detail in the lead and the additional fields in this list make it perfectly justifiable to standalone. The main BC list is massive, I have counted the entries, but I suspect there are well over 200 entries, which if expanded as this list has been expanded, would be unmanageably large and would require some SALs to be branched out from it. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Rambling. The BC list is way to large. I think it would be best to separate each region into a separate list.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggest renaming to List of airports in the Okanagan region.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Why? There is nothing to disambiguate and we would not do the following: List of airports in the Canada country, unless there is a specific reason. I have created that as a redirect for now, though. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 01:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That is indeed true, but just having "the Okanagan" sounds sort of awkward to me. To compare, Canada is a well known country, and Okanagan is a region, that I personally, never even heard of before. It might give better premise to the list. List of airports in Okanagan, British Columbia may also work better.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

But there is nothing to disambiguate. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 02:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, "Okanagan" is sufficient, if people don't know what that is there's a short explanation and link in the lede. If the name is sufficient for the article, it's sufficient for subarticles. --Golbez (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Rambling Man convinced me. This meets the FL criteria and can be a standalone list per the issues stated above. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

;Comments from Arsenikk First sentence says "a number of", but the list clearly limits to a dozen. You might as well be specific. Done. TBrandley (what's up) 18:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Perhaps just merge the first and second sentence, as they duplicate quite a lot of information ("contains a number of airports, heliports and water aerodromes" is utterly redundant to the following sentence"). Done. TBrandley (what's up) 18:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC) "amount" should be limited to uncountable items or large quantities; it is better to use "number" for low integers. "Lake CountrY"... Done. TBrandley (what's up) 18:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC) For what its worth you might want to specify in the lead that Kelowna is part of the National Airports System. Done. TBrandley (what's up) 18:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC) "contains airports, heliports, or water aerodromes" should be "and" instead of "or". (it doesn't contain one of the three, it contains all three). Done. TBrandley (what's up) 18:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC) If I was going to make a list of airports I would strongly consider including the runway length, the number of annual passengers and annual aircraft movements. Working. TBrandley (what's up) 18:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Both see also entries are in the navbox so they should be removed. Done. TBrandley (what's up) 18:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC) {{GeoGroupTemplate}} can be very useful for some readers. Arsenikk (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Great list, no issues. Status 03:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Harrias ^talk

• What is a water aerodrome? I can't see anything on this list pointing to another article that tells me about it, and I frankly have no idea what to think. If we don't have a page that tells us anything, create a red link so that someone might think about creating such a page for people like me! It might be worth linking to airport and heliport too, just to be safe.
  • Done, there is actually an article on it. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 22:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• "Meanwhile, the towns of Oliver and Osoyoos are home to the Oliver Airport and Osoyoos Airport; the former is situated in Oliver, while the latter is based in Osoyoos." This sentence repeats itself, there is no need for the bit after the semi-colon.
  • Removed. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 22:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• What is an "unincorporated community"?
  • A place that has not been "incorporated" as a city, town, district, village, etc. I have added a link for now. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 22:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• Is it appropriate to have an External links section for a Commons box and a Google maps/Bing maps box? (I genuinely don't know, but it looks odd to me.)
  • It is the general convention to provide links to Wikimedia Commons in the section, same goes for those boxes, another editor suggested them. They are external links, so... TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 22:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Harrias ^talk 17:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the review. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 22:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support good work. Harrias ^talk 16:08, 22 February 2013 (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 Hahc21 20:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC) [7].

---

List of international cricket centuries by AB de Villiers

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk), Zia Khan 17:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Feels like cricket is taking over FLC right now, but that seems to be the way it goes from time to time. TRM has another, similar FLC running right now, which currently has three supports so he feels able to nominate this one. Zia Khan has done good work tidying it up as well, hence the co-nomination. We both look forward to the scrutiny of the community, and as ever thank you all for your time and energy. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you The Rambling Man, for considering me as co-nominator. I'll try my best to help you taking the list to FL status. Thanks again! Zia Khan 22:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "De Villiers' ODI debut came in February 2005..." Would prefer was to be used instead of came

• Done.

• "De Villiers has scored the seventh-fastest century in ODI cricket, in 58 balls, when he hit an unbeaten 102 against India in..." Think this could be revised perhaps " De Villiers has scored the seventh-fastest century in ODI cricket; he hit an unbeaten 102 against India off 58 balls..."?

• Done.

• "in that format" -> in the format

• Done.

• Seems to be a discrepancy with the strike rate when sorting by score on the ODI table. You have two scores of he same value, 102 has the highest striker at the top, while 107 has the lowest one at the top. I'm not too sure which way round it's should be, but it should be consistent either way.

• This is not strike rate, this is not out (102* is better than 102, same for 107)

• The balls column doesn't sort correctly

• Done. Zia Khan 15:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

NapHit (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments I don't think that the country name is needed in the venue column. Removed. Why is the width length predefined? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC) What do you mean? I don't understand you. Why have you set the widths for the columns? It seems to mess up the things. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC) How does it mess things up for you? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC) The sentence "Despite making his first T20I appearance in 2006" is a little POV. Many players made their T20I debut in 2006 but didn't scored a century as a T20I century is rare. This is not about other cricketers, this is just about him. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC) But this is somewhat a criticizing sentence and is a possible BLP violation. In case if an another publication has used this, it should be include in the references. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Removed "despite". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. Zia Khan 15:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Small typo at the start of the sentence which follows "...this remains his highest ODI score." in the third paragraph. Other than that, very good. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed. Zia Khan 18:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Quite picky on my part, but "man of the match" is hyphenated in the lead but not the key. I'm not sure myself which way it should be, but this should be made consistent. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • In the lead its "man-of-the-match performance" but in the Key it is used as a noun. Zia Khan 15:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Mild oppose The second sentence of the second para is a little confusing. Instead of repeating England once again, rephrase the sentence like "during the same series" or something of that sort. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Pos. for his second Test hundred is 2. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Senwes Park Potchefstroom -> Senwes Park, Potchefstroom Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Sir Vivian Richards Stadium is in which city? Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Unbeaten doesn't sound encyclopedic. It's standard cricket language. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Someone who is unfamiliar with cricket might not clearly understand. Even hard-core cricket followers get confused between a batsman staying unbeaten till the end of the innings and carrying the bat at times. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Ok, -> not out. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC) His 58-ball century is actually ninth in the list. Fixed, unbelievable error on my behalf. Sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC) He has scored centuries while leading the team too. Really? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Found and fixed, key sorted too. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Still missing one. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Care to tell me which one? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC) His 12th ODI hundred. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC) That seems to be already noted? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Alright, I was a little confused over the usage of double-dagger in this list. In other lists it's the other way around. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Sort the cats alphabetically. No need, where is that required? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Pardon me, there is no such rule. Just got this idea when a couple of editors reviewing my lists asked me to do the same. However, the relevant guideline says that it's quite essential to sort them in such a way that most significant categories appear first. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Do you think they're not in significant order? If not, perhaps you should suggest the order you'd prefer. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC) I was just highlighting that. The word significance is highly subjective in these type of lists. The present order looks fine. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC) The categories are already in alphabetical order, aren't they? Zia Khan 21:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC) I'm pretty much sure that SAF lost the game where he made 114* against India. Check for others too. While there are a few errors in the table which wouldn't take much time rectifying them, the prose is really not so engaging. It's not so good as we expected from you when compared with other lists. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Ok, done all the above (bar the cats comments, if there's a policy which says we need them alphabetical, then please show me, otherwise, no reason to change), but will also look at tweaking the lead to impress you further. Thanks for your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Vesantry, anything more? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Waiting for your c/e (lede). —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Additional comments As of February 2013, he has scored 13 Test centuries -> he has scored 15 Test centuries. In his fifteen ODI centuries, De Villiers has scored the ninth-fastest century, you mean to say that this was the ninth fastest among his fifteen ODI centuries? —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Fixed both! Zia Khan 23:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support – No issues for me. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 09:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• "...One Day International (ODI) and T20I teams" Why is ODI expanded on this first use, but T20I is merely linked?
• "He made his first Test century the following month, scoring his debut century.." "first Test century", "debut century" is unnecessary repetition.
• Could the first paragraph be expanded to mention his other double century against India in April 2008? Harrias ^talk 17:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

  Done, thanks for your comments Harrias! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support, no problem, good work. Harrias ^talk 18:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:06, 22 February 2013 (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 Hahc21 22:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC) [8].

---

Lou Gehrig Memorial Award

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly over the past few months and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

Comments from Crisco 1492

• The inaugural winner was Alvin Dark. - Why did he get it?

• I've checked all the free Google News archive articles, but none of them explain why Dark won the award. I was basing the "inaugural winner sentence" off the Hutch Award FL, which bluntly states the Mick won it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Anything on the award's site? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• No, nothing much. It just states he was a PDT member at LSU. And the site only delves into specific details for the last seven winners. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Why no winner for 2012? When is the winner selected?

• According to Baseball Almanac, the 2012 winner will be announced in June 2013. However, the award date changes frequently, as Derek Jeter won the 2010 award in January 2011. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Images look fine (no action required)

Looks very solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback Crisco! Cheers. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images, looks solid enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Arsenikk

• Perhaps elaborate a bit more on what is meant by "the character and integrity of Lou Gehrig". From what I read further down in the lead it seems that this is a award for off-field philanthropic work. I would be nice if the article was a bit more specific about the criteria or what is emphasized in selection.

Otherwise I don't see anything else to pick on. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the award's website itself is pretty vague on what the criteria is. It only stipulates a player who "best exemplifies the spirit and character" of Gehrig "both on and off the field". —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support excellent list. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support (after a minor copyedit). Ruslik_Zero 18:33, 19 February 2013 (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 Hahc21 21:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC) [9].

---

List of counties in West Virginia

Nominator(s): Coal town guy 06:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This is my first nomination of anything on Wikipedia. My area of interest and contributiuons has been unincorporated communities within WV, and certainly KY, PA, VA etc etc. However, having a FL list for WV counties is paramount for WV history and the associated portals throughout Wikipedia. All data is accurate and the current list represents substantial changes in quality and accuracyCoal town guy (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment Congratulations on your first nomination! I can tell you've put a lot of work into this list. I was just wondering if you've had a look at other counties lists, such as Florida and Utah? I think consistency is usually good with these types of articles, and it wouldn't be too much work to convert some of your sections into four lead paragraphs. Just my two cents though; I'll let others weigh in. Regards, Ruby 2010/2013 16:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought about that alot, believe it or not. In this instance I wanted to use seperate paragrapha because of the concepts. Example If I said Rights and Functions, I better have 2+ paragraphs, at least, that was my thinking. VERY much appreciate the comment. I did however take heed of your advice and others who helped. I used the more recent FL county lists as a template. I was totally blown away by New Jersey. EGAD....However, FL, MA, NJ, and KY each had pieces that really make a county list function well. Coal town guy (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Done I removed the headersCoal town guy (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments welcome! Image caption needs work, it's not actually telling me what I'm seeing. Sure, it's given me instructions on how to use the clickable map, but you need to describe what the image is as a primary goal. Done Don't list "See also" articles that you've already linked in the main article. Done "6,000" vs "6000" be consistent. Done " the framers of the new" maybe just me, not sure about the use of the term "framers" here. Done Avoid overlinking, e.g. don't link West Virginia more than once in the lead. Done In the origin col, what is the point of (VA) for some entries? Done WP:YEAR suggests that a year range within a century needn't repeat the century.Done Ref 8, 10 has no space after "p." for the page number, other refs have a space. Be consistent.Done The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Done after help from Orlady As far as why I still have (VA) in origin col those counties with (VA) are currently part of VA. Should I remove them (the (VA)) in totum??Coal town guy (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC) When indicating that a particular county was part of the state of Virginia, you need to spell out the full name of the state. Don't assume that the postal abbreviation "VA" is sufficient. --Orlady (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Done, for all instances and for any others in entire tableCoal town guy (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Orlady

One thing that favorably impresses me about this list-article is the inclusion of authoritative sources on county government functions in West Virginia and the history of these functions. I wish we had similar information about all U.S. states. I was bothered, however, that the section included some verbatim quotations from books that were used merely to present factual information. I accessed the books online and rewrote the passages to eliminate direct quotations. Along the way, I learned about the state's 1863 constitution and added some information about changes in the structure of local government between the 1863 and 1872 Constitutions and between the 1872 Constitution and the 1880 amendments. My apologies to Coal town guy for messing with the article, but I believe I improved it. --Orlady (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC) I do not feel any apololgy is required. I stressed the usage of texts for one odd reason. Virgil Lewis was the founder of the WV Historical Society. After working for a brief time with the WV Historical Society, I was rather imprerssed by the fact that Virgil Lewis is still used as the de facto reference, some 120 plus years later. IF asked, I will say YES, with pride, that I do own an original text by Lewis. I wanted to use direct quotes to show with certainty that I was not in any way using assumptions, many thanksCoal town guy (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Direct quotes are good if you are quoting directly from a document like the state constitution or if the quotation adds some sort of special flavor, but in this situation I think it's better to use original wording, with a good citation to the source. --Orlady (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I believe this list now meets the all FL criteria. I have just one small question: What is the reason for including the list of state symbols as a "see also" item? I couldn't figure out the value it's supposed to add. If I were linking any "see also" items for this list, it would be the lists of cities, towns, and villages (which lists aren't anywhere near good as either this one or the list of state symbols). --Orlady (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Done and THANKS for Support. I have added List of WV Governors (a FL) and List of National Historic places in WV. The State symbols list was removedCoal town guy (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I concur with Orlady that this list now meets all the featured list criteria following the edits by Coal town guy and those made by the editors addressing all the issues and comments raised above. Coal town guy did an extraordinary job framing the importance of counties in the governance of West Virginia in addition to the origins of their nomenclature and associated geospatial data. -- Caponer (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Question Why two different references to Bakestress and Rice? Why not make life a little simpler by removing the page number for the references, implementing the <ref name> feature, and citing individual pages with {{rp}} after the </ref>? Our citation guidelines permit both styles (although of course you can't use both in the same page), so there's absolutely no reason for you to do this if you don't want to. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Answer The data cited was either a span of pages, or on a specific page. I chose that specific style, both could be done. The page was submitted to GOCE and was reviewed twice. No preference for citation were stated. As to Rice and Bastress, Bastress is far better at the specific code and historic dates for the WV constitution, Rice is better at its interpretation. Both are effective, however for the point being made, I chose those references specifically. Does that address your concern? If not, let me know Coal town guy (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry, that's not what I meant; I wasn't attempting to question your use of sources. In the first Rice citation, why don't you change <ref> to <ref name=rice> and drop the page number, change the second Rice citation to <ref name=rice /> (deleting everything else from that citation), and then append {{rp|153}} to the first one and {{rp|247}} to the second? And why don't you do something comparable to the Bastress? Of course, "I don't feel like it" is fine; I just thought you might find it more convenient. See what I've done with citation #2 at Mechanicsburg United Methodist Church for an example. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

In all honesty, I found the accepted style I used to be easier.......and yes, I didnt feel like it might be a good part of that. used what I thought to be an easier style for the fact that the list in the form I found it required ALOT of content and work, an easier and accepted ref style made it better for me at least. I do however appreciate the info on another form of accepted refs. Otherwise, if there is something you do not support or do support, let me knowCoal town guy (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No complaints; I just wanted to make sure that you used a different style because you wanted to, not because of ignorance. My only substantive question also concerns the citations: on several of them, the end of the citation is a parenthetical statement, like (WV County Founding Dates and Etymology) or (WV State Boundaries). What's the point of those? Is it perhaps some note-to-self, which could simply be put in <!-- hidden comments -->? I don't see how they're necessary, but I don't want to remove them if you have a good reason for including them. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The County list page is a great place to show the literature of the state and if a person were inclined to contribute more to a specific county article, they now have a reference, with a parenthetical that would guide them. There are a few County pages I would LOVE to have ANYONE get to and correct a few boundary issues (no finger pointing), a few of the origin issues etc etc. They now have a source should they go to the county list page. Hope this helps as this does not violate a Style rule or guide.Coal town guy (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

If it did, I wouldn't know about it, since I virtually never read WP:MOS. Thanks for your responses! Sorry for speaking earlier as if you weren't familiar with the ref name idea; I completely overlooked the fact that you're using ref name for other citations. I only meant to introduce the rp template, and with both it and the parentheticals I only was commenting, not objecting to the current format. Nyttend (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No apology is required at all. This is a learning experience for myself and really what a FL should be at this point on wikipedia. I cant learn these things unless, others show me, and point them out, and everyone here has in a very positive mmanner. Hope you support this FLC. I would not have it here unless you and many others pointed me in a constructive directionCoal town guy (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Orlady (part 2)

I thought I was through here, but I seem to be back. Nyttend's comments about the comment in the citation to Lewis caused me to dig into that source (one I didn't delve into earlier). The book apparently doesn't have an ISBN number and the citation gives an Amazon ID number for the book. I gather that Coal town guy was using an old printed copy of the 1896 edition of the book. I find that Amazon is selling a paperback version of the book (date of edition not indicated) for US$30.99 [10] and Google has the 1904 edition as a free ebook [11], wherein the county name etymologies are on pages 403-408. IMO, it's not kosher to indicate the Amazon edition as the source if it wasn't the source used and it isn't kosher to identify any one business as a vendor if they aren't the only vendor. Accordingly, I suggest that the citation should clearly identify the source as the 1896 book, but it should include some sort of a note (I'm not sure how it should be presented, but WP:MOS or WP:Citing sources may have suggestions) identifying sources for other editions of the book. --Orlady (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC) That is correct. While I own a hard copy of the books in question, I used an ISBN in the instances of the books that were too old to have a ISBN. No preference was meant, I will look, NOW at the guides to see if there is a way to notate thisCoal town guy (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC) After looking at BOTH WP:MOS and WP:Citing Sources there are 2 things I can do. 1)Remove the ISBN. ISBN is not a required field at all when citing a book AND 2)I can provide in the parenthetical an explicit statement that this is an original text and of course state its a first edition in the citation. Example (Etymology original text) Does this address your concern?Coal town guy (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Not really. It's always good to tell readers how they can access sources; taking that information away doesn't benefit readers. I haven't yet found good suggestions on formatting/presenting this information, but I'm imagining a citation that looks something like this: Lewis, Virgil (1896). History and Government of West Virginia. New York NY: Werner School Book Company. pp. 264–270. (WV County Founding Dates and Etymology) [Other editions of book: ASIN B009CI6FRI. Google Books.] The idea would be to cite the source you used, then provide convenience links to sources for other editions of the book. --Orlady (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC) After reading [Wikipedia:Convenience link]], I suggest the wording "other editions available at ASIN B009CI6FRI and Google Books" at the end of the citation. --Orlady (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Doing now thanks for the formatCoal town guy (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Done. Many thanks, learned alot about refsCoal town guy (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this earlier and have just re-read it. It has been greatly improved and I find it now meets the FLC criteria. I have one suggestion - "Wyoming" is a Lenape (Delaware) word, which this reference (which is already cited in the article) confirms. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Done and thanks for support added Lenape prefix, many thanks for your help in this effort!Coal town guy (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments "The U.S. state of West Virginia has 55 counties. Fifty of them existed..." This intro overtly shows the ignoring of the the rules at WP:NUMERAL ("55" is written as a numeral and then "fifty" as a word). I will note that all the other county lists start out with the same numeral. I'm personally okay with this, and I believe noticing this was pretty nitpicky, but I wanted to hear your thoughts. I promised Coal town guy I'd jump in if I could help. I think the present usage is acceptable. The general rule, per WP:MOSNUM, is that numbers greater than nine should be rendered as numerals, thus the usage of "55" is correct. The subsequent usage of "fifty" is also correct, however, as it is the first word of a sentence, a concern that trumps the usual rule, according to the manual of style. All that said, it is possible that the second sentence could be refactored to avoid starting with a number. In that case, the general rule of using numerals for 50 would again apply, and consistency would be achieved. I don't really think that's necessary, but I'll leave it to my esteemed friend, the nominator, to determine whether it is worth the effort. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 23:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Numbers greater than nine that consist of one or two words may be written in word form or numeral form; it is the editor's discretion. So the idea is that we should be consistent. Coal town guy: per Acdixon, if you want to change it, please refactor the sentence so that doesn't begin with a numeral. Jujutacular (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC) And reading again over WP:NUMERAL, Acdixon is indeed correct that the format used before my review was actually totally within MOS rules. It just struck me as odd to see "55" and "Fifty" right next to each other in different forms. Use your discretion. Jujutacular (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC):Done, my English Prof would kick my posterior if I used a number. "Randolph County is the largest by area (1,040 square miles, 2,694 km2); at 83 square miles (215 km2), Hancock County is the smallest." -- listing the sizes of the counties next to each other makes this sentence difficult to parse. I initially didn't notice the semicolon. Would a rewording be possible?:Done. I made the sentence simpler. Good eye! Please add the information that the population data is based on the 2010 census.:Done. Ref 7 in reference section states they are 2010 figures. Note: I was referring to adding that information in the lead text. See List of counties in Florida for example. Jujutacular (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Done. Sorry I missed what you meant. I have that in the lead nowCoal town guy (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Note: checked about ten random population figures, verified accurate. I suggest re-sizing the lead image to 500px for better readability in default settings.:Done. I used 480, another editor shrank it to 350 Overall, a great list. I especially admire the in-depth information of county powers and organization. Great work. Jujutacular (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC) All Items Done and Many thanks Hope I can count on your supportCoal town guy (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support -- Looks good! Thank you for the quick response to my comments. Jujutacular (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to you for taking the time. This has been a learning process for certainCoal town guy (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment the table should at least include a caption per WP:ACCESS, row headers are objectionable since the table is not complex. Why are the FIPS codes not sorted, ie some numbers are missing (2, 4, 6). Were there any former counties? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Questions I do not at all understand what you mean per tainig to tables. When you say you want a Caption and not a header I do not understand....How is this done. I have looked at WP:ACCESS and have no idea what to do, can you please help?

Done with FIPSThe FIPS codes are the exact FIPS code for each county that is provided for WV. There are no missing counties there are other states which also have gaps in the FIPS codes, New Jersey, as an example. The numbering is not always a sequence. The current values are sorted properly. No data is missingCoal town guy (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Coal town guy (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have looked at all County FL lists, I am not able to see a caption on any of these at all, ANY help would be wonderfulCoal town guy (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Done but need help added a table caption and it does not display. I also looked at every county list for the United States, none have a caption. Please help me out hereCoal town guy (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The template {{Countytabletop}} doesn't have the facility to include a caption (although I'd like to see it edited to add this feature - it just needs a line something like {{#if:{{{caption|}}|{{!}}+{{{caption|}}} }}). A caption confers the advantage that it makes the table self-contained for re-use and it allows some screen readers for visually impaired visitors to navigate directly to the table. However, the consensus has been that tables which are placed immediately below a heading gain sufficiently little benefit from a caption that we don't insist on having them. The reason is that most screen readers can jump to a heading just as easily as to a table caption, so the caption is somewhat redundant in those circumstances. The Countytabletop template correctly marks up its headers as table headers with a scope of "col", but I'd also like to see the template {{Countyrow}} mark up the name of the county as a table header with a scope of "row", as that would improve the ability of some screen readers to use the name of the county to identify the row when a screen reader user is navigating around the table.

In brief: there's not much you can do to improve the accessibility further without modifying templates that are used in 40+ other articles, and that will often require forging a consensus with the editors of those other articles. For now, the list is reasonably accessible, imho, although it could be improved. I'd certainly support it as a FL. --RexxS (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the info, feel free to add your support, it is always appreciatedCoal town guy (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I am also unsure of what you mean by "row headers are objectionable since the table is not complex". If you are referring to the column headings, these are absolutely necessary in order to identify the information. Jujutacular (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I mean the row headers. The table does not need them if it has no complex features. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support, but noticed two minor problems.
  1. It says "Reforming public education became a county function in 1933. In May 1933, a county unit plan was adopted. Under this plan, the state's 398 school districts were consolidated into 55 county school systems." but it is unclear if education itself is currently a function of counties?
  2. I have a problem with sentence: "This enabled public schools to be funded more economically and saved West Virginia millions of dollars". This looks like an opinion not a fact, but it is stated as a fact. It should be probably attributed to the authors of the book to make it clear that it is their opinion.

Ruslik_Zero 16:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Done and thanks for support. I added the word current to clarify that this practice continues today. As to the saving mllions of dollars, it is part and parcel of the Rice source on page 247, hence why I places the ref tag there. Many thanks for the supportCoal town guy (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2013 (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 Hahc21 23:01, 15 February 2013 [12].

---

List of works by H. C. McNeile

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

H. C. McNeile is one of the forgotten giants of the golden age of British detective fiction, although he is now more likely to be remembered for the rather odious views on race and anti-Semitism he included in his stories from time to time. Best known for his Bulldog Drummond stories, McNeile created the forerunner to later thriller heroes—Drummond was both a proto-Bond and Biggles—but he also wrote extensively about the First World War, while serving on the front line. He managed to write 80 short stories while serving on the Western Front and continued writing after the war. - SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

*Comments from Crisco 1492 Several entries in the Title column are sorting by "the" No longer, I hope! - SchroCat (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Bulldog Jack doesn't note if it was published or unpublished "Unpublished" now added - SchroCat (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Why isn't the film Bulldog Drummond included? Wouldn't he have received a writing credit? I don't know; he did; it is now. - SchroCat (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC) These were published in the Daily Mail under the pseudonym Sapper, the nickname of his regiment, the Royal Engineers. - Too many commas. Any way to avoid the second comma? Re-worked a couple of bits in the section to move regiment's name. - SchroCat (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Otherwise no comments from me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Many thanks for your comments Crisco: much appreciated, as always! - SchroCat (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images. Can't see any more issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments "he began writing" any reason why it's not just "he wrote"? None - all changed now - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC) "These were then" I would say "They were then..." Or re-emphasise "The stories were then..." First option taken - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC) "wrote than" spot the missing word...! Spotted! - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC) "continued writing after" would prefer "to write" Done - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC) "he changed from war stories to thrillers" he didn't change, he just wrote a different genre of books... Now tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC) I count 15 novels in the table and only 14 noted in the infobox... Counting was never my strong suit! - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC) The Notes column for the "Other works" is highly compressed in Safari, any reason? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC) I was forcing the column width to keep in line with the other tables, forgetting this has an extra column. I've taken out the sizing, so it should fit more comfortably now? Many thanks as always! - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – In the third table, the Ref column shouldn't be sortable. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well spotted! Now sorted. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support I made a small copy edit to the lead as it seemed a bit clunky due to a series of full stops. I merged one and deleted "these were then collected together." It seemed a bit redundant when the sentence goes onto say "and published as collections through Hodder & Stoughton." Feel free to revert if you don't agree. The article is in great shape! -- Cassianto^Talk 13:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• No, your edit is great - many thanks for the tweak and the support: both are much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2013 (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 Hahc21 04:34, 15 February 2013 [13].

---

List of film producers of the Dutch East Indies

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it's a good look at film producers from the Indies, a topic I'm trying to make featured. No images because I haven't found any free ones of those involved. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Why limit the article to 1926 to 1949? I understand that Indonesia is not exactly the same as Dutch East Indies, but I wouldn't think producers must be segregated by pre- or post-independece. The names in Category:Indonesian film producers would be a good addition to this list. Reywas92^Talk 19:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Because a) it was not the same political body, b) as noted at Darah dan Doa, Indonesians have generally not considered films from the Indies truly "Indonesian" films, and c) we already have List of films of the Dutch East Indies and List of film directors of the Dutch East Indies; this is meant as a complement to them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Nice list. Here are some comments you may disagree with.
• "Twenty-two people are recorded as having produced fictional films in the Dutch East Indies between 1926," I would write "Twenty-two people are believed to have produced fictional films in the Dutch East Indies between 1926," although I know that weasel words are not permitted, still I prefer such wordings in this case
• "All were men; the first female film producer in Indonesia, Ratna Asmara, produced her first film in 1953.[3]" - suggest "Among identified film producers from the Dutch Indies, all were men except at least one woman, Ratna Asmara, who has produced her first film in 1953"--Tomcat (7) 18:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments and support. "Believed" sounds less encyclopedic than "recorded" (especially since they are on record) and 1953 was after the Dutch East Indies was dissolved, so Ratna should not be counted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support in principle with some comments. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 07:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • You mention G. Kruger as one of the first producers, but his debut film is 1930, which is later than a number of other producers. Is this assertion based on the approximate date when he started working on Karnadi Anemer Bangkong?
    • Hmm... Good point. He was likely the producer of Eulis Atjih in 1927, but I don't have a source to confirm this. Good catch, reworded until I can confirm that he was the producer of Eulis Atjih. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • "Altogether they produced some 93 films in this period..." Is it a valid corollary to say then that a total of 93 fictional films were produced in the Indies between 1926 and 1949? If not, perhaps this requires rewording.
    • The recorded producers did, although (as visible at List of films of the Dutch East Indies) some 112 fictional films were produced altogether. Any suggestions for alternatives? The already-featured list of film directors of the Dutch East Indies uses the above wording. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
      • A possible alternative is "Altogether they are credited for 93 of all known films produced in the Indies..." This should also provide some connectivity between the producer/director lists and the film list, which seems to be missing at the moment. Out of curiosity, do we know the original terms (in Dutch, etc.) used to describe these people's roles? —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Cameraman seems to have been "operator", but none of the sources have any more. Good wording, changing... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments – "By 1930 Chinese producers had dominated" – comma after 1930. In American English, likely. It seems to be optional in British English (which this article uses) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC) "Producers in the Indies would often handle multiple roles, including as director and cinematographer." – not sure about this, but I think there's no need for "as". Also, you might want to add "including the positions of..." so that it flows better. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Removed as. Since we have "roles", I feel "positions" would be redundant. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support – List meets all 6 criteria. Good work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2013 (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 Hahc21 18:11, 14 February 2013‎ [14].

---

List of NFL champions (1920–69)

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 02:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I have improved this article considerably and I think it meets all FA-criteria. The list includes all NFL champions and runner-ups prior to the league's merger with the American Football League in 1970. I think this will be an excellent compliment to the companion List of Super Bowl champions article, also an FA. Toa Nidhiki05 02:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments a few basic things, not sure this is ready quite yet....: WP:DASH & WP:YEAR for year ranges. Make lead image larger so we can see it. Some explanation required for 8-0-3 record (and en-dash probably too). WP:DASH for scores, throughout. Baltimore Colts is a dab link. Single page refs should say p. not pp. Notes should be referenced. A PDF you use many times should be general reference, with specific references using the title or author's name, whichever is less ambiguous, and the page number only, rather than repeat the whole ref every time (see ref 3, 5–10). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC) First off, thanks for commenting here and getting the ball rolling - you seem to get around a lot, being at my other nom. :P I do my best... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC) I've fixed all of these. Toa Nidhiki05 19:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Well clearly the title of the page needs to change to comply with WP:YEAR as well....! Also forgot to note that you're using colour-only to denote divisions etc in the NFL champions table. This contravenes WP:ACCESS, we need a symbol as well or some other clear way of denoting different properties in a table so as not to prevent everyone from understanding the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC) I've changed the title and added different symbols for each conference/division. Toa Nidhiki05 23:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC) There was no need to change the title of the article. I have requested that the page be moved back to List of NFL champions (1920–1969). – PeeJay 12:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC) I meant the title should have been changed per WP:YEAR i.e. drop the second "19"... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Oh, I see what you mean. I'm familiar with rule but I hadn't thought of it that way. Toa Nidhiki05 17:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

Comments from Crisco 1492 ALT text would be nice AFL–NFL merger - Since we don't know what AFL and NFL are yet, this is gobbledygook 8–0–3 (8 wins, 0 losses, and 3 ties) - Perhaps use 8–0–3 AFL–NFL merger - Linked above Does Red-Blue meet WP:ACCESS? It looks terrible in my opinion, because our links are blue too Score is sorting weird (i.e. it's going 14–0, 14–10, 14–6...) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC) I've fixed the first 4 issues and will work on the 6. As for 5, I used those two colors because they are used on companion article List of Super Bowl champions and because they match the red and blue coloring of the NFL logo. I can switch if there are alternate colors that would work fine. Toa Nidhiki05 00:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC) I think you should only switch it if it doesn't meet ACCESS. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Alright, I'll check to make sure. Also, I've fixed the sorting issue so now they sort properly. Toa Nidhiki05 00:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, assuming red and blue meets WP:ACCESS. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • According to WP:ACCESS:

Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers.

• • I can't see any link issues, but I can see how there could be issues with them. I've replaced it with a lighter color that shows the link more clearly. Toa Nidhiki05 02:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Resolute 03:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Resolute The table under Total championships won says Green Bay won 10 titles, but lists 11 years. Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 01:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC) I really don't like the opening sentence. It resolves down to "The National Football League Champions ... were the winners of the NFL." Rather redundant. I'm not sure if you can find a way to reword that a little. Regardless, you don't need the brackets around that second use of "NFL". Modified a bit to make note of the two systems used. Toa Nidhiki05 01:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC) ...they declared the Akron Pros, who finished the season with an 8–0–3 record. - Missing words. I'm sure you meant to make note of them as inaugural champions or somethimg similar. Fixed, not sure how that content was removed. Toa Nidhiki05 01:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Is there a reason why every team except Chicago is linked in the lead? No, I just forgot to link them. Linked. :) Toa Nidhiki05 01:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC) The last paragraph uses the word "championship" nine times in close succession. Can you reword a couple uses to add variety? Alternating between 'championship' and 'title' now. Toa Nidhiki05 01:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC) There is a parenthetical note stating Green Bay won its first title in 1929, which is inconsistent the other teams Not sure what that is, but I modified one bit. Toa Nidhiki05 01:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC) That's about all I got. Cheers! Resolute 00:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Is there any real need to use a different symbol to denote different names the East and West divisions carried over time? No, not particularly. I can change if need be. Personally, I would prefer it. There's just too many symbols that effectively say the same thing. This is a case where simpler may be better. Resolute 03:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC) For now I've changed it so the same symbols are used for each conference/division 'name' instead of three each. Toa Nidhiki05 21:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Also, I am offering this up only for your consideration: List of Stanley Cup champions uses parentheticals for such denotions. i.e.: (WC) That may be easier for a reader to note what conference/division the teams were members of than six obscure symbols. Feel free to disregard this suggestion if you dislike that format.

• I would not mind switching to that, but the NFL only has one article for the divisions/conferences, not two, so there would not be a unique. I used the symbols mainly because that is what is used on the Super Bowl champions article, or something similar. Toa Nidhiki05 01:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• That's fine. You could link the relevant article in the key, leaving the (ED), (AC), etc. notes unlinked in the table itself. However, I do agree that this list should be relatively consistent with the Super Bowl article, therefore this may be something worth discussing internally to the NFL project, if you feel it valuable. Resolute 03:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see it as too big of a deal, but I will either check with the group to see if it is fine or boldly do it myself. Toa Nidhiki05 21:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yup, no problem. As I said, I offer that only as a suggestion. Therefore...

• Support. My concerns have been addressed. Resolute 00:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments – The first paragraph appears to be exceedingly large. My recommendation is to split it at the point the 1932 season is mentioned, which leaves three similar-size paragraphs. Also, it leaves a paragraph on the league's playoff systems, which seems sensible for this article. Done. Toa Nidhiki05 01:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC) In that sentence, an en dash is needed in "typical win-loss system" to replace the hyphen. Done. Toa Nidhiki05 01:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Still see this in the second paragraph. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Replaced. Toa Nidhiki05 19:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Decapitalize second word of "AFL Champion". Done. Toa Nidhiki05 01:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Another "the" needed in "play the champions of AFC Championship Game". Done. Toa Nidhiki05 01:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I see a few sentences with a "with ... -ing" structure; they are a bit awkward, and should be avoided if possible. Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 01:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Not sure New York City needs a link, as a straight link to the city doesn't add the same type of value to the article that the team links do. New York was not a participant in all of those games - the Boston Redskins and Green Bay Packers played one title game there. That is why linked to New York, not the team. Toa Nidhiki05 01:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Another "Champions" could use the capitalization removed, this time in the lead photo caption. Done. Toa Nidhiki05 01:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Still see this as well. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 19:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC) In the first table, the reference column shouldn't be sortable. Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 01:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC) NFL champions: "indicate the number of times that team won the NFL Champion...". "won the NFL championship" sounds like what you're looking for. Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 01:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC) "as of the of the championship game." Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 01:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC) We have articles for the championship games, I believe. Should they be placed in the year column, instead of the more generic season articles? I wouldn't mind changing it. Toa Nidhiki05 01:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Another en dash needed for "win-loss" in note 4. Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 01:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Again, the hyphen is still there. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Removed now. Toa Nidhiki05 19:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC) As someone who knows a little about sports history, I find it surprising that the 1921 controversy gets a note, but the 1925 controversy does not. I've personally heard of the latter, but not the former until now. Maybe they both deserve notes? Giants2008 (Talk) 00:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Can't believe I forgot that, I have added a note on it now. Toa Nidhiki05 01:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

;Comments by Arsenikk Regarding "8–0–3", I do not believe that a tooltip is sufficient, as it will often not be available for reuse, mobile users etc. The information is sufficiently critical because in Europe that score means 8 wins, 0 ties, 3 losses, so a casual European reader could be rather confused. I see what you mean there. This article is in American English so the 8-0-3 record should be used (similar to other dates like 9/11/01 as opposed to 11/9/01), but I put the meaning of the '8-0-3' in parenthesis behind the record itself. This shouldn't be an issue in the table since that denotes them individually. Toa Nidhiki05 18:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC) I would really have liked the site to mention the stadium, not just the city (this is for instance done in the Super Bowl list). I mainly didn't put the venue there because that information is not in either citation from the NFL; the only location explicitly noted is the Polo Grounds hosting the Boston Redskins/Green Bay Packers game, presumably because all the other games were hosted in a home stadium of an NFL team. Since the game wasn't neutrally sited, it isn't as important here. In short I could add it, but it would take a while to find all the citations needed and add them. Toa Nidhiki05 18:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC) How was the venue selected? It seems that one of the teams had a home game. I don't have a source for this yet and I can't seem to find one, but the venue was chosen on a rotating basis between the two conferences. The 'home' one could decide where to play, since Green Bay played one in Milwaukee (they played home games there occasionally) instead of Green Bay and the Boston (now Washington) Redskins chose to have theirs in New York instead of Boston because they were moving to Washington D.C. after the season. Toa Nidhiki05 18:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Three sites list the states, while the others do not. Please be consistent. Oversight on my part, corrected. There is a stray space in the 1960 attendance entry Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 18:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Seems like all the see also links are either in the article or in the navbox, so the section should be removed. Removed. Toa Nidhiki05 18:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC) I would be nice if the image was moved to the Commons. Arsenikk (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support nice work! Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:04, 11 February 2013 (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 pomoted by Hahc21 02:54, 14 February 2013 [15].

---

Grade I listed churches in Cumbria

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this is a list of all the Grade I listed churches in the country of Cumbria. Its style and format follow the recently promoted Grade I listed churches in Lancashire and the previous similar lists. The text has been copyedited. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments "Cumbria is a largely rural county that includes the Lake District, which largely explains why tourism is its major industry." To someone who is not familiar withe Lake District that sentence may be hard to understand. Also the second part of the sentence reads to me like it should be in an essay. I would try and clarify this sentence. "The east and south walls of the chancel were rebuilt in 1732, and the side walls of the nave in 1869." I take it the side walls were rebuilt as well? It's a bit unclear given the way the sentence is structured. ref formatting issue in the St Michael row NapHit (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC) All points addressed. Does it read better? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Excellent list, the usual great work by Peter! NapHit (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Another excellent list from Dr Vardy! I do have a few comments.
• I think the lead might be improved with a little more detail on the churches. The second paragraph feels a little slight. Is there any more that can be added about the architecture of the non-Anglo-Saxon churches? Is there an unusually large amount of Norman architecture for the NW? St Martin's Brampton could perhaps be discussed as an unusually late grade I church. Also the Viking material could be discussed.

• Fair comment. I have expanded the second paragraph (not too much I hope), addressing these points, and added a little about the Viking material in the last paragraph. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Looks good, thanks. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• How does the national park and the current industry of tourism affect the grade-I-listed churches? Are any of them significant tourist attractions? How many fall within the park?

• Only 10 out of about 50 churches are actually within the National Park, and most of these are located around the periphery. Considering the antiquity of almost all the churches, and the fact that tourism only started with the Romantic movement in the 18th century, I am not sure that this is particularly relevant to the architecture. So why do I include this in the lead: mainly to give a snapshot of what the county is like to the reader unfamiliar with it, and to give consistency with the other related FLs. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ok. I suppose international readers won't have any clue that the Lake District is in Cumbria, and are more likely to have heard of the former. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Is there a reason the date column was removed? I've always found it very useful, even if the date for such churches can be hard to determine.

• Not only can the date be difficult to determine, I consider that a date column can be confusing. What date do you choose? The date of foundation, the date of earliest surviving material, the date of the major part of the fabric, the date of a major rebuilding or restoration? The relevant dates are included in the Notes column, with a discussion about their importance where necessary. IMO this is a better way to deal with dates than to have a potentially misleading extra column. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd tend to prefer it using probably date of earliest surviving material, with a footnote perhaps -- I generally sort these types of list into date order before reading -- but I understand the reasoning for exclusion. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• St Martin's, Bowness-on-Windermere: 'Painted on the internal walls are tests dating from the 16th century' -- what are tests, in this context? Should it be texts?
• St Mungo's, Bromfield: How does the chantry chapel of St George relate to the main church?
• St Ninian's, Brougham: What is the original date?
• St Oswald's, Grasmere: 'Battered' is obviously a technical term; can any article that explains it be linked? Otherwise it might be simpler just to write inward-sloping walls.
• St Mary's, Lanercost: What is the date of the original priory?
• St Andrew's Church, Sedbergh: This description is shorter than most of the others; can anything else be added?

• I have dealt with the above in the relevant Notes sections. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Still doing some minor copy edits on the remainder of the table so I might have some more queries once I've finished. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments and advice. I think I have addressed all the points you raised. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Happy to support. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments very good indeed, a couple of minor things from me.... You link things like "county" in the first para, would suggest that "Christian" deserves an appropriate link. "County" is a familiar term to British readers, but not necessarily to readers from elsewhere; hence its linkage. But I would have thought that Christianity is sufficiently well-known worldwide that to link it would be excessive. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Any reason Modernism is capitalised mid-sentence? Modernism is an architectural style (confirmed in Pevsner's Architectural Glossary). It is capitalised for consistency with such terms as Norman and Gothic Revival. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC) " the Lake District. Its major industry is tourism" the "its" in the second sentence would logically refer to the last noun, the Lake District... not what you mean. Fixed (thanks to GP). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Points addressed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support another excellent list from Peter, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Everything (including File: pages) looks good. Will probably support after I've found time to examine the prose a bit closer. Goodraise 23:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Image review. No concerns. Goodraise 03:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "all major architectural styles except Modernism can be found in the county's Grade I listed churches." - Would like to see a citation here.

• This is a summary drawn from the items in the list, which I think is valid in the lead. I have no source for this to provide a citation. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Can't say I agree. I see it as original research. Goodraise 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Research???? OK it's gone. A pity because I thought it added value and interest to the lead. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps you could word it differently, in a way that doesn't go beyond what the sources say? By simply removing it, you've broken the connection to the next sentence. Goodraise 07:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• I cannot think of a way of saying what I said without a similar objection being raised. Connection between the sentences altered. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• "A large number of churches" - Could be less vague and would benefit from a citation.

• Changed to "Many of the churches", although I am not sure that this is an improvement. Once again I have no source for a citation. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm having trouble figuring out the pattern behind your comma usage. Sometimes you appear to be using serial commas, sometimes not. Sometimes you appear to be placing commas after disambiguating locations, sometimes not. You're not placing the commas to accommodate the citations, are you?
• "The most modern church in the list is St Martin, Brampton," - Suggest using listed instead.

  That would subtly change the meaning, as there are other grades of listing besides Grade I. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Goodraise 01:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• "was built in 1874–78" - "was built from 1874 to 1878" - See MOS:YEAR. Multiple occurrences.

  It may be that you need to refresh your understanding of MOS:YEAR. In addition, to say that something was "built from" implies that those are its constituent parts. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  Right, in isn't actually part of the date range, so MOS:YEAR#5 doesn't apply. I don't see any danger with "built from" though. Who would come to believe a church was made of years? Still, point taken, "between 1874 and 1878" would probably be better. I'm uncomfortable with the "in 1874–78" construct because I'd read it as "in 1874 to 78", which sounds awkward to me. I'd be fine with it, if it was "in 1874–75". In any case, I won't insist on the change if I'm the only one seeing merit in it. Goodraise 01:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

  I accept that "between 1874 and 1878" is better and have made the change. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "designed by Philip Webb, who used a variety of architectural styles." - "... Webb, using a variety ..." would make it clear that Webb used multiple styles on this church.

  Done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Can't see the lead as adequately summarizing the article, as long as it doesn't mention how many items it has.

• Total number of items added, with some amendment to the text. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "The tower fell in 1600, destroying the choir and the north transept, which was followed by a fire in 1604." - Awkward. Please reword.

  Reworded as "... an event that was followed by a fire in 1604". George Ponderevo (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

  Not seeing this change in the article. Goodraise 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

  My edit didn't seem to stick for some reason, done it again. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Norman west doorway, and a Perpendicular east window." - Remove comma for consistency.

  Comma removed. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

More to come. Goodraise 03:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The nave dates from the same century, the south aisle was added ..." - Comma splice.

  Slightly rewritten, but bear in mind that once again this is a comma-separated list, not a comma splice. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Perpendicular-style windows were inserted in the 16th century, the south porch was added ..." - Comma splice.

  No, it's a list, the elements of which are separated by commas. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  See discussion of next item. Goodraise 07:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• "The south aisle was added in about 1200, the chancel was extended ..." - Comma splice.

  Again it's a list, not a comma splice. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  "The nave dates from the same century" would appear to be an independent clause to me, just as much as "the south aisle was added in the following century, a north aisle and a south chapel in about 1300, and the chancel in the early 14th century." If they are independent clauses and a comma splice is the joining of two independent clauses by means of a comma, then I don't see how this can not be a comma splice. I'm not seeing one list here, but two, one list, containing one item, "dating to the same century", and one list, containing four items, which were "added". If you could point out where my misunderstanding lies, that would be great. I'm always happy to learn something new. Goodraise 01:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I don't understand all this. I hope the nomination does not fail because of a comma or two! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not qute sure now what it is you're objecting to Goodraise. The text now reads:

  "St Michael's has a central tower dating from the 12th century; the nave dates from the same century. The south aisle was added in the following century, a north aisle and a south chapel in about 1300, and the chancel in the early 14th century."

  That looks fine to me. Has there perhaps been some rewriting since your original posting? George Ponderevo (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

  Ah yes, I would have picked another sentence as an example had I refreshed the page before replying. The current version of this is fine, but the other two remain comma splices to the best of my understanding. I don't claim to be a guru of English grammar, but until someone explains to me how I'm mistaken here, assuming I actually am mistaken, I'll have to continue to object. In "I came. He left. And she stayed", I can replace the second period with a comma without problem, because there's a coordinating conjunction in the form of an and, but if I replace the first period with a comma, I'll have created a comma splice by connecting two independent clauses with a comma. Goodraise 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• "This is aA long narrow church built in the 12th and 13th centuries,"

• This makes it into a phrase rather than a sentence. I know that the notes in some lists are in phrases rather than in sentences, but I have tried to use sentences throughout. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, but it still seems clumsy to me to start an item's description with "This is a". How about "This long narrow church was built in the 12th and 13th centuries, with later alterations"? Goodraise 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Don't really see the need, but done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• "and a south doorway. A. above whichthe doorway is a carved stone from the early 12th century depictings two knights on horseback." - A suggestion.

  That doesn't really work, as it would make it seem that the carved stone is above the doorway and the windows. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

  Okay, how about "A carved stone from the early 12th century above the doorway depicts two knights on horseback"? Just to move the two occurrences of doorway further apart. Goodraise 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

  That doesn't really work either, as it's saying that the early 12th century is above the doorway. Changed to "An early 12th-century carved stone above the doorway depicts two knights on horseback". George Ponderevo (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• "The northeast vestry was built in 1911 by W. L. Dolman, whoand converted it into a chapel by the same architect in 1922." - Another suggestion.

  Seems reasonable, done. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• "and was executed by George Jack to Webb's design" - Not sure what this means. Who designed the top stage, Jack or Webb?

  "to" changed to "following". Does that clarify? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

More to come. Goodraise 19:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in responding, but I have been away. Thanks for the comments, and to George Ponderevo for the help provided. I think that all the points raised have been addressed, and await any further comments. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "The top stage of the tower, featuring a saddleback roof with a lead spirelet, was added in 1906 by George Jack, following Webb's design." - Another suggestion.
• "It was suppressed at the time of the dissolution of the monasteries, and was restored in 1925."
• "The church is now redundant and is in the care of the Churches Conservation Trust."

• Above fixed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Not strictly required, but I'd like to see the list comply with WP:NOPIPEDLINK (e.g. [[English Gothic architecture#Decorated Gothic]]).

• Amended. Did not know this is "allowed" - thanks. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• "and the roofs are in green slate."
• "The churchIt is constructed in roughcast stone with a slate roof." - Avoid repetition.
• "Inside the church is a three-sided altar rail, and a three-decker pulpit." - Remove comma.
• "south Norman doorway" - Awkward. Please reword.
• "In the porch are part of a 10th-century cross-shaft decorated with carvings of beasts, and a grave-cover, possibly from the 11th century; outside the church is a 10th-century hogback stone." - Why use a semi-colon here instead of a period?
• "One of the monuments is by Francis Leggatt Chantrey." - What monuments?

• Above dealt with. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for not having completed this review yet. Reviewing prose is a very time consuming activity for me. I'll try to get through the remaining items quickly. Goodraise 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• "This has been a Christian site since the 8th century..." - Considering that this is a list of churches and not a list of sites, I'm sure this can be said differently.
• "The church was remodelled and extended in 1896–99 by C. J. Ferguson." - "between 1896 and 1899"?
• Not quite sure what a "blocked south Norman doorway" is. Could you put that differently?
• "consists of two naves, beingwhich were doubled in size between 1490 and 1500"

• Above fixed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Sandys Chapel" - Might there be an apostrophe missing?

• No, the surname was Sandys. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• "and it has a green slate roof."
• "four bay nave"/"four-bay nave" - Consistency please.
• "Norman features include three doorways, and the north arcade." - Why's there a comma here?

• All the above dealt with, other than the Sandys chapel. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Almost through. Goodraise 23:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• "the building of which started in about 1175–80" - This again. Reading it aloud, I stumble over the date format.
• "It was restored in 1847–49" - "between 1847 and 1849"?
• "Stained glass in the north aisle windows" - "The stained glass in the north aisle windows"?
• "The nave and chancel of Holy Trinity date from the late 12th century; there is a Norman north doorway." - Not seeing the connection here.
• "it was restored and extended by Sarah Losh, including adding an extension to the north." - Double exten-, double -ing. Would like to see this worded differently.

• No improvement here. How about "In 1844 Sarah Losh restored the church and extended it to the north"? Or if you want to keep the new bit: "In 1844 Sarah Losh conducted a restoration and extension, which included the building of a chancel at right angles to the north of the nave." Goodraise 07:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Inside the church are galleries on three sides carried on Tuscan columns, and paintings on the walls." - I'd put a comma before carried for easier understanding.
• "a north doorway is said to be Norman." - Is there some sort of disagreement about it?
• "St Michael's ... contains Norman features, including a south doorway, the arcades, and the chancel arch. The font is also Norman." - Why make this two sentences?
• "In 1720 the body of the church"/"In 1689, the nave ceiling" - Consistent comma placement would be nice.
• "in 1880–82 by John A. Cory, who also added the south porch." - Strong suggestion.
• "was restored in 1880–82 by John A. Cory" - "between 1880 and 1882"?
• "Later alterations and additions have resulted in the presence of Early English and Perpendicular features."
• "The church has a cruciform plan, with a piscina in each transept." - Remove comma for consistency.
• "Built in 1752–73, this church" - "between 1752 and 1773"?
• "In 1655–66, Lady Anne Clifford" - "Between 1655 and 1666"?

• All the above dealt with. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• "In 1655–66, Lady Anne Clifford paid for the building of the northeast chapel and the rebuilding of the chancel." - "When she arrived in 1667 to see what she had paid for, she found nothing had actually been done and nobody knew where her money had gone." Can we reword this?

• I don't understand this. Where did that second quote come from?

• The second quote was my apparently failed attempt at humorously pointing out that the first quote doesn't say that these works were actually undertaken. Not a big deal, but why not make things as clear as possible? Goodraise 04:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oh! Reworded. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

That's it. I'm finally through. Goodraise 00:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete revisit. Goodraise 04:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Revisited. Goodraise 07:44, 10 February 2013 (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 Hahc21 20:18, 12 February 2013 [16].

---

HMV's Poll of Polls

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 04:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is of sufficient quality. I believe that this article meets the necessary FL criteria, and I welcome any comments about ways in which it could be improved. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 04:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments A couple of minor copy edits made - please feel free to revert if you disagree with them. "indie labels" It's informal, so I'd prefer independent labels in our part of the text. It needs explaining for the quote though as some won't necessarily make the link: perhaps bracketing "indie labels" after the first linked occurrence "Albums released through independent record labels (indie labels) often perform well…" Comma needed between "year-end, best-of charts" Beastie Boys image: possibly link " hip-hop" Very minor points indeed and good work. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Done all. I've put "indie" in brackets after the first use of "independent". Does that work? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Support All good: nice work! - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A few minor comments

• I would remove the redirect (HMV -> [[HMV Group|HMV]])

• Okay. But why?

• The redirect might get turned into a dab page somewhere down the road. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Fair enough then. Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Just so I understand it, currently the list is compiled from 30 sources, but in the past this number has included 60? This might be made a little clear in the lead. Ruby 2010/2013 01:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's a little confusing. From what I can tell, the poll has only ever been compiled each year using about 30-35 sources, but obviously over the years the sources have changed. As of last year, more than 60 different listings have, at some point, contributed towards the Poll of Polls. Which part of the lead do you think needs to be changed to make this clearer?
• Thank you very much for the review, Ruby! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support I see no reason why this list should be barred from promotion. Prose is good and the content seems solid. Ruby 2010/2013 19:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

*Comments from Crisco 1492 Subsequent polls have been topped by acts such as Daft Punk, Queens of the Stone Age and Kanye West. - Any reason for choosing these acts? Not particularly, other than that they're reasonably well known (compared with, say, Joanna Newsom or Animal Collective). I think I also wanted to pick three artists from three different genres – we've got an electronic act, a rock act and a hip hop artist. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Otherwise looks fine, both for images and prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks very much for the review, Crisco! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images, looks like a good list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2013 (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 00:08, 2 February 2013 [17].

---

List of songs recorded by Fiona Apple

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) and User:Ruby2010 02:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ruby2010 and I are nominating this list of recordings by Fiona Apple for featured list because we believe it meets criteria and closely resembles similar lists of this standard: Adele, Rihanna, etc. We believe the list is complete and we are happy to address any concerns that may arise during the course of this FLC process. Thanks so much for your time. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aaron

Resolved comments by Aaron Comments I don't see the point of having red links in an article, so I would unlink them and leave them as normal. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Fiona Apple doesn't need to be linked in the Artist(s) column. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC) You don't need [Bonus], it's still from the album.  — AARON • TALK 19:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks for taking time to review the list. I have to disagree on your last point, though. I think it is important to note that the track does not appear on the standard issue of the album. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Update: See asterisks in the "Original release" column noting bonus tracks, along with the accompanying note below the table. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC) I don't understand this? It makes no sense to me. Standard, deluxe, bonus, they all come from the same album, written for the same album, recorded for the same album. I don't see any need to differentiate.  — AARON • TALK 19:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC) I don't know what to say. I happen to think it is important to distinguish standard issue tracks from bonus tracks, as do others who have participated in this discussion. I think we have come up with a good compromise, which is to notate bonus tracks with a simple asterisk. Do these three asterisks prevent you from supporting the promotion of this list? (That is a serious question, by the way, not sarcasm.) Thanks. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Why do you think it's important? I'm not being argumentative I just want to know lol. I could only see three asterisks and at first I didn't even notice them, not very noticeable. I don't see why it's next to the album, if it is the song which is the bonus. Maybe stylise it like on List of songs recorded by Leona Lewis if you really want to keep some form of notation for it. (See the songs Colorblind Acoustic, Glassheart Acoustic).  — AARON • TALK 20:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC) If someone wants information about a particular song, they should not be lead to believe the song appears on the standard version of an album. Bonus or alternate-issue tracks can be difficult to find sometimes. If we distinguish bonus tracks on album articles, I see no reason why we should not do the same in this list. Also, the whole point of the asterisk is that it notes the alternate release without disrupting the table. Appropriate information is conveyed in a respectable manner. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC) I don't think the asterisk is very noticeable.  — AARON • TALK 21:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC) So, are you advocating that bonus tracks should not be distinguished at all, or that they need to be more distinguished visually? Sorry, I am confused. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Personally, I wouldn't distinguish the bonus tracks, as they are still on the same album after all. But, if you wish to keep them as separately noted, make it more obvious, as a little star is not noticeable, I didn't even see them at first.  — AARON • TALK 21:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC) For someone who would prefer that bonus tracks not be distinguished at all, I think requesting that they be distinguished to a greater extent is somewhat contradictory. Again, I think an asterisk is a great solution here. When someone reads the table, they see the album on which the song exists, and if there happens to be an asterisk next to the title they realize the song appears on a non-standard issue. I do not think it is necessary to incorporate additional colored cells, which would just make the table more confusing. If possible, I'd love to hear from another reviewer on this issue... or, what specifically would I need to do to earn your support? Colored cells, other ideas? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC) I've suggested that you not distinguish, but I can tell that you do want to distinguish and do not want to do as I've suggested, therefore I am suggesting what you can do to make it more noticeable. I never said about additional coloured cells. Just something which is more apparent than a * 21:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Apologies, I thought you were providing the Leona Lewis example to advocate cell coloring. My misunderstanding. Please see the table again and see if you are satisfied with the small text below the album title. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Yeah that is better.  — AARON • TALK 22:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I don't see why this shouldn't be promoted.  — AARON • ^TALK 22:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments Mildly concerned that a lot of the lead (mainly the second para) would be covered almost identically in Fiona Apple discography (if that article was up to scratch). This should be more about songs recorded, rather than album success/awards. Better? --Another Believer (Talk) 23:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC) "During her career Apple also has recorded five..." do you think "During her career" is really necessary? Done. Removed. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Consider linking "jazz standard" as it may be unclear to some non-music-like-people. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC) No link for Largo? Nope. The film (which I am not sure deserve its own article, I'll leave that for someone else to decide) is a series of performances from the club of the same name. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC) If the initial sort order of the table is alphabetical by title, it's not right, as when I sort by title, it changes the default sort order. It's because you force things like "The First Taste" to sort by F and not T. That's fine, but order them initially accordingly. Also, obey the same rules for the albums... Done. I believe all sorting concerns have been addressed. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC) "Galifianakis" caption is a complete sentence so should take a full stop. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Ref 30 needs an en-dash. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Is Myspace really considered reliable? These two links are the only two I can find to verify the existence of this song. I understand your concern, but I think Myspace is better than no reference at all, and this is the official page of the artist. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments Looks pretty good to me, I just have a few points:. "winner of the Grammy Award" --> "which won the Grammy Award" reads a little better to me. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC) It seems somewhat odd to have two uses of "in 1998" so close to each other. Done. Changed the first use of 1998 to 40th Grammy Awards (and linked). --Another Believer (Talk) 20:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC) "List of songs" would probably be better as just "Songs". The title of this list is consistent with similar lists. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC) If you're not linking Fiona Apple in the Artist column, then there's probably no need to link to her in the Writers column either. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Good work, in all. Incidentally, I've got my own FLC: HMV's Poll of Polls. If you have the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Thank you for taking time to review the list. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC) What's 826LA? The organization credited for the song. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Is that this organisation? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Oh! Thanks so much. Done. :) --Another Believer (Talk) 22:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Galifianakis' --> Galifianakis's In accordance with a manual of style? When is "s's" ever appropriate? --Another Believer (Talk) 20:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC) I was always taught to add an s for possessives of singular nouns, but, according to the MOS, both are acceptable, so you can disregard my remark. Ok, thanks. I learned something new today. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Come On and Get It --> "Come On and Get It Done. Good eye. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC) The "John Lennon and Paul McCartney" part of the image caption is probably not necessary, as "Lennon—McCartney" is already stated. I disagree. I think it is necessary to articulate the subjects within the picture, especially for people who may not be familiar with Lennon-McCartney. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Hmm... It still seems a bit unnecessary to me to name them twice. Would "credited to Lennon and McCartney (pictured in 1964)" be a suitable compromise? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC) I went with your suggestion, but included last names. I think this is the best possible compromise since the credits are accurate and the subjects are identified. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Yep, I'm happy with that. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC) A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC) What do the N/A cells represent? How do they differ from the "Single release only" cells? Cells with "N/A" indicate no official release, album or single. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC) I see. I think that, in the interests of consistency, it would be best to use the same convention throughout the list. If you want to stress that "Come On and Get It" and "I Want You" were released as singles, you could replace "Single release only" with the respective titles of the singles, then use the N/A template for the songs that weren't released at all (although a key explaining what the N/A cells indicate would be useful). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC) This list is consistent with List of songs recorded by Rihanna. Is there a third reviewer who could chime in regarding this concern? --Another Believer (Talk) 23:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC) As I recall, the Rihanna list was the very first "Songs recorded by..." list to be reach FL status. Although it's still FL quality now, there are a couple of points I'd raise if it were nominated today, now that seven others have gone through the process. Personally, I feel that it would make more intuitive sense to a reader, and would bring it in line with FLs such as List of songs recorded by Faith No More and List of songs recorded by Guillemots, but I'd welcome a third opinion on the matter. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Replaced "Album" column with "Original release" column. Replaced two "Single release only" cells with the titles of the singles. Two cells have "N/A" as a filler, but I think this is obvious the song was not released officially. Good suggestion, thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 04:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Looks good to me, although those cells now need to sort under C and I. Also, have you thought about perhaps incorporating the note under the table into the key instead? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Added sort commands. Thanks for the reminder! I had thought about incorporate the note into the key, but there is a difference. Singles are marked with colored cells, so the purpose of the key is made apparent very quickly. However, asterisks are more difficult to find when looking at an entire table, so I associated the note with only one particular column. I also thought this would resolve Aaron's preference that alternative versions of albums not be made a big deal. I think the current table is good... singles (which are important) are noted with colored cells and symbols, plus a key, while bonus tracks are noted with an asterisk and an explanation below for curious minds. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• My main concern is the number of links, particularly in the third paragraph. Certain terms (like single, lead single, cover version, studio album, compilation album and soundtrack) are probably familiar to a reader that they needn't be linked to.

I disagree. I think these links are important and it should be assumed people know the meaning of these terms. Also, neither reviewer above mentioned this concern. Please let me know if you feel strongly enough that you would not support the promotion of this list without specifically addressing this concern. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It's probably not something I'd oppose over, it just seems like an awful lot of blue in paragraph three. It looks to me like about a third of the words in that paragraph are links. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there are an inordinate amount of links there. The first paragraph contains 17 links, the second para has 15, and the third has 18. I think we've maintained a good blue consistency. Also, I can't think which links we would trim out (all seem necessary to readers). Ruby 2010/2013 21:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that the number of links is consistent, I'm just concerned that there are a few too many of them – it looks like nearly a third of the words in the lead are links. But, as I've said, this isn't necessarily something that I'd oppose over. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• The lead originally said "Sony released" rather than "Sony produced". I can see that you changed it to avoid repetition of "released", but, when referring to a single, "produced" would suggest that Sony actually had a hand in its music production, which presumably wasn't the case. Is there another less ambiguous word that could be used instead? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Changed back to "released". I am not particularly bothered by the word redundancy, but also would not be opposed to a more generic term. Distributed? --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Status: "for four studio albums" → "for her four studio albums", as she has also recorded songs for other people's albums. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC) May I suggest just displaying bonus tracks as done on this list? It looks much nicer. See asterisks in the "Original release" column noting bonus tracks, along with the accompanying note below the table. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Fiona Apple discography should not be listed as a "see also", per WP:SEEALSO: " As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Everything else looks good; great job! I love seeing all these song articles being improved! (I've been working on one myself since October of 2011... I really need to get that done, LOL.)  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Great work!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, great use of citations, good structure, nice background info and introduction material, appreciate the usage of free-use media files. — Cirt (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Source comments –

• What makes TwentyFourBit (refs 28, 38, and 42) a reliable source?

This sounds good to me, but perhaps others would disagree. Also, I don't think the information taken from these sources is particularly controversial or questionable. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• What makes The Round Table (ref 44) reliable? Giants2008 (Talk) 15:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I know nothing about The Round Table except that, in this case, the two sources used to verify "Still I" are the only two I can find. Here is the site's "About Us" section with editor profiles. I assumed a less-than-ideal source was better than none at all. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If there's no truly reliable source for a fact, it's better to not include it at all. I'm sure reviewers will understand if a fact with reliable sourcing issues is removed, and will not hold it against the list on comprehensiveness grounds. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the source in question. The myspace reference remains at the moment, so I will keep the song in the table accordingly. If we believe myspace is not reliable, I can remove the song altogether. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If it's the performer's official page, I suppose it can be considered somewhat reliable like someone's Twitter account would be, although I don't like the use of such sources myself. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The song appears on the artist's official myspace page, which is why I could consider it reliable. I will leave the song in the table unless consensus says the source is considered unreliable. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:41, 7 February 2013 (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 21:11, 10 February 2013 [18].

---

List of Hong Kong ODI cricketers

Nominator(s): Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because because I feel it meets the FL criteria and follows a similar design to current FLs such as List of Bermuda ODI cricketers. The list is also complete and as Hong Kong don't play at this level anymore, it is unlikely to change in the near future. It was previously a featured list just over four years ago and was on my radar early in 2012 to promote to FL, but time never permitted me to complete the nomination. Feedback most welcome! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "A ODI differs" should be An ODI -  Done
• "Hong Kong have never gained ODI status in their own right, but have been accorded ODI status twice on a temporary basis for participation in the Asia Cup, in which the matches played held ODI status." Think this could do with a reference.  Comment: - If only I could find one! Looked long and hard, with no luck thus far.
• Is the name sorting correctly? It appears to be a cross between first and last name  Comment: Pakistani players are generally sorted by first name, see here and per a discussion here. Nine of Hong Kong's squad alone in the 2008 Asian Cup were born in Pakistan.

NapHit (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Comments Put the Batting, Bowling and Fielding columns above. -  Done Change "Stumpings taken" to "Stumpings affected". -  Done ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Second para has "Hong Kong" nine times in seven sentences. Need to work on the prose here.  Done I think there's some need here to explain that I'm struggling to find a single one of these cricketers who was actually from Hong Kong....  Not done - Can't see their nation of birth being relevant as the list is about those who have played for the team, not where they were from.  Comment: I don't follow. The list is of people who have played ODIs for Hong Kong and not if they are from Hong Kong! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC) But the majority of Indian ODI players are from India, the majority of Oz ODI players are from Australia. Are any of these HK ODI players from HK??! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)  Comment: No, most aren't, sadly it's another international team which is like Canada or UAE and relies on expats. In the context of this list, that doesn't matter, surely. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Well it's worth noting in my opinion since it's pretty unique to this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Nudge. You could just add something like "most of whom were born outside Hong Kong" or something similar.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)  Done I've included a sentence at the end of the lead paragraph. It might be too much detail and could certainly be worded better (my writing mind is dead after hours of watching histopathology videos!). "Hong Kong played four ODIs" - perhaps a note to explain why that won't be increasing.  Comment: - If only I could find one! Looked long and hard, with no luck thus far. "Hong Kong have " vs "Hong Kong played its..." consistency in plural/singular usage.  Done The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 15:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments – For a 20 players' list, the lead is very long.  Comment: - It follows the same lead layout as other featured lists of international cricketers, giving a brief background and overview of key points. In the 2nd para, you are talking about Hong Kong Cricket Association and their ODI status. I think this is unrelated to the list.  Done - You're right, too much information. Removed. No need of (pictured) in the image caption.  Done You are using "its" and "they", for consistency this should be either its or they.  Done In the table, consistency in sorting the names is required.  Not done - Some are Pakistani by birth, hence sort by first name (as appears on scorecards), while non-Pakistani names are sorted by last name. What would you suggest as a way around this? Shall I ignore the sorting rule and sort all by last or all by first name? Bowling ave. and Eco. columns do not sort correctly, I think.  Comment: - Looks fine to me. Zia Khan 23:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Don't you think (–) is better than 28.25 in Bowling ave. coulumn? Same for Eco. column. Zia Khan 19:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)  Comment: - I've always sorted those two by ascending order, making sure (–) is below all bowling figures/economy rates. I guess ideally you would have the figures sortable and (–) non-sortable within a column, so (–) always stays at the bottom. 256 run loss → 256-run loss.  Done Zia Khan 19:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Good work! Zia Khan 15:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment

• For the request for a reference for the part saying they were afforded temporary ODI status, as big as the internet is, I can find no source for that. I don't have either the 2007 or 2009 Wisden Almanack, so perhaps it is mentioned in there somewhere. For now I have included a note explaining why they were given temporary ODI status. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments Tabarak Dar is liked twice in the lead.  Done - Delinked. Ref #6 isn't working now.  Comment: - Seems the Cricket Canada site is having technical issues. I'll give it a few days to come back online with that content (literally the only reference I could find for them qualifying for the World Cup Qualifer, oddly). Link 2004 and 2008 Asia Cups in FN.  Done Add (Hong Kong and the United Arab Emirates) after "two leading Associate Members" instead of including it at the second occurrence.  Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Looks good for me. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• "playing two matches against Pakistan and India. , though struggling...". Period should be gone, and the comma should be moved to before the reference. How did three supporters miss something like this?  Done - Yes, how did we miss that! That's what this process is for :)
• "but have qualified for the 2014 World Cup Qualifier, where qualification...". Too much qualifying in this sentence.  Done - Lost one

Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 24 January 2013 (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 21:11, 10 February 2013 [19].

---

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

Nominator(s): Struway2 (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As the reviewers were so kind to my last attempt, I thought I'd submit this third and final section of the complete list while my luck still holds (hopefully). It has the same structure as the previous one, and comments made at that FLC have been actioned at this list as well. And there's a few more pictures on this one. All constructive comments welcome... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments by NapHit (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments "including first million-pound player" I think there should be a "the" before first, reads strange without it added "Birmingham team that won an unexpected victory" not sure about the unexpected victory bit, I would simply say team that won the cup. If you insist on keeping it, I would revise as "won an unexpected victory" reads awkwardly How about "Birmingham team that beat the odds-on favourites and ruined Arsene Wenger's season by winning..."? Removed. That would be more accurate, although probably a tad too POV! NapHit (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Just a point, is it necessary to use a symbol to highlight the players that are still at the club? Surely the date column provides that information? Not necessary, no. But I do think it's helpful both to sighted and to screen-reader-using readers to have a symbol next to the player's name, rather than expecting them to look in two columns that aren't even next to each other to pick out the names of the current squad members. That is a good point, will definitely aid screen reading users. NapHit (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC) problem with Dave Barnett's ref column, appears to be missing a pipe somewhere Fixed, thanks for noticing

• The position column should really sort by position, e.g. GK to FW, instead of the current alphabetic method NapHit (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you could explain why it needs sorting in that order? I can't think of any particular reason why the reader sorting that column would expect the contents to appear in back-to-front order. Wouldn't they just be wanting all the players with each position to sort together? I'm not being awkward, and am quite happy to make the change if there's a good and generally accepted reason for it, but am reluctant to introduce 350+ extra template calls to an already large article if it's just personal taste.
    • Well I thought it was the done thing, as the equivalent lists for Man Utd and Liverpool use this method. Also as the positions key list the positions in relation to their position on the pitch, so to me it would make sense to reflect this in the column. I think a few more opinions are needed on this, before, as you say, you introduce 350+ sort templates. NapHit (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments WP:LEAD would seem to indicate that four paras in the lead is the accepted max... It does, indeed. The lead section of a long list of this type, where there's no prose other than in the lead, is rather different in kind to the lead section of a non-list article. I don't like the minimalist approach to prose at the top of a list, i.e. get it over with and get on to the nice easy table, but I do admit to a tendency to write more than strictly necessary when the topic interests me. So where do we go? As you say below, the paras are long-ish already, so sticking two together won't really work. What do you think to a genuine lead section, say consisting of the current 1st para with a little more information as to what's included in the table, as per WP:SAL#Lead, and move the rest to an introductory section? I have seen lots of your other work, it usually involves a LEAD-esque lead and then plenty more afterwards in a section that introduces the table. I'm not going to force you one way or the other, it's not my position to do so. But I'd prefer us to stick to the MOS (that's a criterion, not an opinion) where possible... (cop out, I know...) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC) "after their playing days" a bit wistful perhaps? Maybe "following their retirement from playing" or similar. will reword "including the first million-pound player" suggest you contextualise the record, i.e. Britain's first million-pound transfer. will do. Remember thinking about doing so at the time, but clearly never did Ref 3 is dead for me. works for me, though takes some time to load "Others set club..." new para, lost the context, so "Other players set ...." at the least. will reword "holds the records for the most goals scored in a season" records? not record then? The run-on is too much for my small brain to handle. tis 2 records: league goals scored in a season, and goals scored in all comps in a season. will try and clarify I thought you hated transfer fees.... I can find RS saying £6.7m Sky and £6m CNN easily. What makes your £6.5m "more right"? Just because that's what bcfc said? Maybe attribute the fee to bcfc and job done... I think what makes it "more right" than news reports from the day of the transfer is that the club ought to be more likely to know what they received than Sky or CNN, and (more importantly) that it's what they've published after the event as their club record, which is the fact we're citing. Whether it's right is another matter entirely... I'll attribute Attribution is ideal. As a shareholder at ITFC with annual accounts at my disposal, I see that the transfer fees aren't necessarily those advertised, even by the club website (which incidentally is appalling in ITFC's case....) .... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC) "Eight men in this range" again, we're four long-ish paras in, do we remember what "this range" really is? I do; didn't you? If we go with a brief lead and an introductory section, some of this stuff will disappear; if the reader is still keen enough to continue with the intro after reading the lead, I think we could expect them to have grasped what they're reading about I have a very short attention span, so apologies. I'd just perhaps reinforce what the "range" means unless the rewording you're intimating makes it obvious. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC) "No player has ended his Birmingham career with 99 appearances." surely that needs an "as of...." Not sure: it says in the key that all stats are correct as of..., and IMO that applies to those in the lead as well? Not sure either. Ideally I shouldn't have to read all of the article to understand the currency of any fact in the lead...? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC) I've just found WP:YEAR in the MOS, it suggests you don't add the century the second time in a range. It may not be the case here for seasons but I thought I'd ask the question..... Just??? could have sworn you'd come across it before... My answer remains the same (c&p'd): The problem arises from using what looks like a year range to indicate years of first and last appearance. There's no logical argument for year of last appearance being less legible than year of first appearance, and without the century it would be. The alternative would be to have two columns, one for first app and one for last, but that'd get very messy with ... people with more than one spell at the club. I think I'd invoke the word "normally", as in "A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits", to suggest this should be an exception to the norm. Okay, just "re-discovered" it. You win again, as the Bee Gees would tell us. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC) General question, about "utility" players. You have Mark Yates marked down as a "U" but his own Wikipedia page mentions nothing of the sort (not that it's reliable, of course) and it got me wondering where "utility" is defined for these players? General reference Matthews (2010), as for all playing positions for players up to that date (probably Soccerbase thereafter). will add somewhere appropriate Sounds like you have some work on your hands to update the individual player pages to make them consistent with the list..... (should you dare to accept such a mission.......!) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Positions in this list are those occupied by the player during his career with Birmingham, regardless of where they played elsewhere. Yates began at BCFC as a kid, and he played wherever they put him; in his later career, he settled as a midfielder. Any suggestion of adapting said mission to update each player with detailed analysis of the evolution of his role with his various teams will not be appreciated :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. I probably won't be able to do much on this until after the weekend, unless it snows so much we don't even attempt to go to the football. If you find time to address the WP:LEAD/layout question before then, it'd be appreciated, but if you don't, I'll go with the introductory section idea and hope it's acceptable. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC) No worries, as ever. Have a safe weekend in the "snow". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Journey to Birmingham was fine; walking downhill away from the ground on icy pavements less so... Lead section is now MoS-compliant. I took the first few bullet-points out of the key and made them into a 2nd para, put a section heading above the rest of the prose, and tweaked some of the wording. Ref for playing positions now in general refs section. If I've missed anything, or if the prose is still unclear, I'm sure you'll tell me. Again, thanks for taking the time to review. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support a typically high quality nomination and my comments (where actually helpful) addressed nicely. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - all looks good to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

;Comments from Arsenikk Table needs a caption, per WP:DTT I believe we were once advised by someone active at WP:ACCESS that if the table immediately followed an informative section heading, and if the caption would basically be repeating that heading, the caption was not required. Perhaps I mis-remember (wouldn't be the first time), or perhaps the advice has changed since whenever that was. I'm afraid I know little of the impact of the table caption on accessibility. A couple of recently promoted cricket lists have a section heading of "Test centuries" and the table caption immediately after reads "List of Test centuries scored by Player Name". Would something of that form – "Players with between 25 and 99 competitive appearances for Birmingham City" – be correct? Perhaps you could advise. I say this because the issue has been pointed out to me at my own nominations. The rationale can be read here (I do not know more about the issue, but it seems to be an issue with screen readers, a device I have never used). I think a heading such as "Birmingham F.C. players" might be short enough, although again I am no expert. Arsenikk (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Caption added. Struway2 (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC) "Chief Constable" is not a proper noun (titles are only capitalized if they can only be held by one person simultaneously, per MOS) and should be decapitalized. And is this really a worthy fact of inclusion? Seems rather trivial to me. Mr Charsley's later job isn't directly relevant to his playing football for Small Heath, certainly, although it does follow on from the first half of the sentence, which mentions his service as a police officer during his playing career. But a little bit of "trivia" can sometimes make the prose a little more engaging than what all too often comes across as a tedious recitation of "Player A did this as Foo F.C. won competition 1. Player B did that as Foo F.C. won competition 2." If you do feel it's inappropriate, I'll remove it. On capitalisation, one might argue that, although there are many chief constables, "Chief Constable of Coventry" is a post that can't be held by more than one person simultaneously. But the Guardian Style Guide says it's a job and not a title, and the BBC sometimes cap and sometimes don't, so if the sentence stays, I'll de-cap it. You are correct that "Chief Constable of Coventry" should be capitalized (given that is the official title), while "Chief Constable of the Coventry police force" is a description and should not be capitalized. I feel the issue is too trivial, but on the other hand this is probably a matter of taste rather than following guidelines. If you feel it adds personality to the article, then it is fine with me. Arsenikk (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Have de-capped chief constable. Struway2 (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Excellent list and I'll be happy to support once the two issues are resolved. Arsenikk (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to review, and for your thoughtful comments. I await your replies with interest. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Now I've looked at the table in the edit window, I see that all the image-related code comes between the section heading and the table, so a caption clearly is needed for the benefit of the screen-reader user. Thanks for pointing it out. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support nice job. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:34, 10 February 2013 (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 21:11, 10 February 2013 [20].

---

MGMT discography

Nominator(s): I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because having extensively redeveloped the tables and prose, I feel that it meets the FLC criteria. Any criticism would be helpful if it improves the page. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Holiday56 (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments "reached number 38 on the US Billboard 200" not sourced in the lead. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 09:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC) "producer Ratatat": This wording makes Ratatat seem like a single person, when they are in fact an experimental electronic rock duo. Done Changed to "electronic rock duo". I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 09:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC) The two live albums are listed as live EPs on their respective pages. Done Combined all the entries into the EPs table. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 09:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC) "Future Games" is missing from the guest appearances section. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 09:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Holiday56 (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Thank you responding so quickly: I'm hopeful that this can be passed soon, as it's my first non hip-hop discography to be taken to FLC. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 09:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Good work. Holiday56 (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments "was founded in 2002 by original members" surely it's obvious they were "original members" if they "founded" the band? Done Removed "original members". I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 10:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC) "their... their... they" - a little repetitive, maybe switch in a "the band" or something from time to time. Done The uses of the words are now less frequent. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 10:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC) ".[4][2][11][12][13] " refs in numerical order please. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 10:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC) No mention of videos in the lead, despite the videos being their favourite method of release. Done Added some information about a few of their music videos. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 10:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

Comments from Crisco 1492 Are Brody Baker and Megaforce notable? Not really: removed their names from the lead. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 09:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Image looks fine I've copyedited, be sure to double check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC) The copyedit looks fine to me. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 09:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Looks solid. Image could be better, but if its all we've got it's all we've got. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments Not sure if this is just because I'm reading the page on an iPad, but that first paragraph is awfully long. I would split it, for easier readability, that is if it is not just an iPad issue. Done No, you're right: that paragraph is rather long even on a normal computer and could easily be split into two. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC) link Wesleyan University? Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC) "and platinum by British Phonographic Industry" there needs to be a the before British Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC) "Later in the year..." This is quite vague and misleading, especially as the album in question was released which is exactly much later than early 2010. I would give the specific month instead. Done Added the fact that the album was released in April 2010 (which isn't that much later really). I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC) "during its recording process" I would change its to the Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC) "It also spawned four singles" spawned is the wrong word to use here in relation to singles releases. Simply say "Four singles were released from the album:" Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Hopefully, I've addressed all of your comments satisfactorily. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• "The critical success of the EP and extensive touring brought the group to the attention of Columbia Records, which signed the group in 2006." Don't care for the redundant use of "group" here; try revising this to have only one usage.

• Done Removed the second "group". I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Similar issue in "The album reached number 38 on the US Billboard 200, and reached...". The second "reached" isn't needed at all in this sentence. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Done Removed the second "reached". I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Good work. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:07, 7 February 2013 (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 08:30, 7 February 2013 [21].

---

List of North Carolina Tar Heels in the NFL Draft

Nominator(s): Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 01:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have done all that I have seen in the other "(School name) in the NFL Draft" pages, but with the North Carolina data. I've referenced all of the awards and super bowls, along with most of the points of contention I believe. Go Heels! Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 01:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments by Ravendrop

*A Few Random Comments: In the positions column, what is BB (Tom Burnette), OG (Ken Huff), OT (Harris Barton). You do not include these in the table of contents. Potentially could link B - Back in the Table of contents to Glossary of American football#B as it seems to be explaining what you are explaining in the note. I found that BB was the earlier use for the term Quarterback. The latter two positions have been fixed in accordance with the table. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 15:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC) My though here is that it might be better to simply list Tom Burnette as QB. My opinion for why is that the person himself doesn't have an article and that the history of the position is much better explained on the Quarterback page than a draft page. This would also tidy the table of contents aesthetically. It is, however, only my opinion and I think with either option the list is FL worthy. Ravendrop 02:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Confused as to why in the table of contents "NFL Championship" links to List of NFL champions (1920-1969), but the colour/mark when used in the table is used for Super Bowls. If none of the draftees won a pre-Superbowl NFL championship, I'd suggest, for consistency, using Super Bowl in the table of contents as it is, in my opinion, the more widely used phrase. Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 15:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC) In the lead in the third paragraph I would put in a sentence that explains that teams from both the AFL and NFL would sometimes draft the same player in their separate drafts. This would help to make the notes explicit as well as the fact that the players are included in both tables. Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 15:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC) The lead seems a little short to me (especially for Tar Heels related material being only 1 of the 3 paragraphs). I think it would be useful to add the numbers of draftees that have won Super Bowls or played in Pro Bowls. I know this is evident from the table, but the lead is a sum, so I don't think it is redundant. Additionally, are there any major records (or significant, notable team records) held by any of the Tar Heels draftees. If so, these could be added to the lead as well. I added another paragraph per the request, the phrasing is the only thing that I think needs tweaking about it now. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 15:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Specific Reference #3 (NFL History by Decade:1961-70) goes here, which appears to be a main navigational page. Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 15:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC) I notice on pro-football-reference some of the players are listed as having multiple positions, but you list just one in the table. When clicking on some players at football database it seems to list multiple positions too. Any reason that I'm missing why? Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 15:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC) (slightly off topic) Why doesn't Brian Bollinger have a wiki article when he has won a Super Bowl. I would have thought that this would have been more than enough to pass notability. Ravendrop 07:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Yeah that is a little strange I'd say. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 15:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. Ravendrop 02:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose many comments despite the above early friendly supports, this is just a quick sample of comments in a five minute review... " representing University of" why not representing the University? Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Would suggest somewhere in the lead clarifying this is American football, not just football (which means something very different to most of the rest of the world). Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Third & fourth para come along a little late to explain the purpose and rules of the draft after you've discussed the draftees... Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC) "with the most" no need for "with". Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC) "Every current franchise" -> "Every current NFL franchise" Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC) "The most players selected in the first round of a single NFL Draft is three" awkward English, reverse perhaps, "The single round of the NFL draft with most Tar Heels selected was ... with three..."? Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC) "and four have achieved both of those successes." -> "of these successes" is redundant. Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC) "The most players from the North Carolina selected in a single NFL draft is nine, which occurred in the 2011.[7]" yuck, something like "The highest number of Tar Heels selected in a single NFL, in 2011, is nine." Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC) "Super Bowl Champion" or "Super Bowl champion"? Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC) There's a "cite error" warning at the bottom of the page. Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Tables aren't accessible. Not sure what you mean? They have color like all the other feature lists, if that is what you're getting at with this. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Try MOS:DTT. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Fixed, I believe. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 02:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC) See no reason for two tables, merge and add another parameter, or another key for those few AFL folks. Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Where are all notes referenced? The last general reference at the bottom that links to the pro-football drafted player list should cover the notes. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Link franchise the first time. This I think is completely unnecessary I see every team linked on all the other pages I've looked at. Its much more convenient for this type of page to have each team linked each time they draft a player. Sorry, I said link the "franchise" term the first time round. Not the second time. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Hahaha. Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 00:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC) That's a start. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Looks like an extra space snuck in between "205" and "American football players...". Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC) "As part of the merger agreement on June 8, 1966, the two leagues would hold a multiple round "Common Draft"." Seems like "would hold" would be better as "held"; that gets rid of some annoying passive voice in the writing. Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC) The first sentence of the third paragraph contains information repeated from the first paragraph. I think the lead would be stronger without it. Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC) "The single first round of the NFL draft with most Tar Heels selected was 1998 with three". Needs "the" before "most". Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC) "thirteen have been selected to selected to a Pro Bowl". Two words need removal. Which ones? .... Kidding, fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC) "The highest number of Tar Heels selected in a single NFL, in 2011, is nine." A bit messy here. Try "The most Tar Heels selected in a single NFL draft is nine, in 2001." Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Alt text in lead photo: "hold" should be "holding". Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Key: "Won a Super Bowl champion". "champion" → "championship". Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Captitalization of NFL Draft is inconsistent in the lead and captions. I actually think it should be capitalized as the title of the event. Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC) I still see one instance where "draft" is not capitalized when it should be, in the last sentence of the lead. The rest appear to be fixed, though. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Fixed.Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC) I'm not convinced that databaseFootball is a reliable source, nor do I think you need it. You'll still have four other sources to back the list, which is more than enough. Can I still keep it though? Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Giants2008 (Talk) 22:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC) If it's not a reliable source, then we shouldn't keep it. That's the point I'm trying to make. As long as the content is supported by the other general references, why bother keeping a source that may not be reliable in there? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Removed all the Pro-football citations. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:53, 20 December 2012 No, that's not I meant. I don't doubt the reliability of Pro Football Reference; the Database Football reference was the one I was questioning. You need to reinsert all of the Pro Football Reference pages and remove the Database Football one, unless its reliability can be established. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Fixedamundo. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 00:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments by NapHit (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

'Comments The table does not meet MOS:DTT, you need to add row and col scopes Bold links should be avoided as they present undue emphasis NapHit (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Going to address both points here. Well if I remove the bolding the color pattern messes up so I can't undo that. Also is it really necessary that I go through and change everything on the table for col scopes and row scopes when every other featured article table i look at doesn't have that... Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC) I don't see how if you remove the bold links from the year column it messes up the colour. Also I'm not sure what you mean by colour pattern but its irrelevant. Bold links should be avoided as they give undue emphasis to column that has them. The row and col scopes have to be included. It doesn't matter if other lists don't have them, they need to be included. This is for users who read wii via a screen reader as without them they can't view the table properly. Both items need to be addresses. NapHit (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC) All right well I did the scopes and unbolding. But now if you look at the table the colors, if the person was the first drafted that year, is in the year drafted box, you see what I mean about the color problem? Any clue on how to fix this, would putting the color in each box individually suffice? But there should be something simpler than that... Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 14:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC) What I've noticed is that if I bold the draft years by adding the "!" instead of the "

• Support NapHit (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Images look okay (no action required)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

*Suggest linking players' names in the image captions. Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 03:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Since the list is not sortable, is repeating the links to the individual pro teams necessary? Absolutely. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 03:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC) I consider it overlinking. Compare List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar, where the venues aren't repeated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC) The linking is necessary. Say a person who is looking at one player and wants to read up on the team that drafted him finds that the article is not linked. But if there was a link there, like there is now, its much more convenient and less of a nuisance to type in or search for the first link on the page. Honestly its fine with the links, its much more convenient this way. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 05:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC) I'd like to see a third opinion on this one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Well, it's been over two weeks and nothing new... Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 03:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Do we have a link for wild card? Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 03:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Check your references. I don't like seeing this:

• Neutral until a third opinion is given about names. Also, I do not appreciate being called "kid". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion: Taken literally, WP:REPEATLINK presently allows each target to be linked only once from within a table. However, the main argument against linking everything possible is to not take away the readers' attention from less numerous but equally or even more relevant links. I'm not seeing that problem in this article. So in my opinion, the convenience provided by these additional links slightly outweighs the aesthetic displeasure their presence causes. An unorthodox solution would be to color all but the first links black without actually delinking the teams. Or you could simply make the table sortable. Goodraise 06:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Well okay so keep the linking it is then? Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 03:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Try here perhaps? Goodraise 05:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support the list on prose and images. Still not wild about the linking, but the MOS doesn't proscribe any particular method for lists — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Are all the players who have played in the NFL/AFL linked, or just the ones that currently have articles? Wizardman 18:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Just the players that have articles are linked.Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Per WP:NGRIDIRON they are almost certainly notable if they played at least one game and thus could be linked — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

They don't have to be linked and personally a ton of red links are annoying to see on the page, so I'm going to pass on linking those without pages that have played games.Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 12:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'd much prefer the links added but it's no big deal. By the way Eric Blount needs to be linked, since he's not. That's basically why I'm pushing for the links, since they'll be filled in one day. Wizardman 03:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Linked.Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 15:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

One more comment, actually, then I can finally support: Refs 3 and 4 are exactly the same: combine them. Wizardman 17:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Doneski. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 18:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Support. Wizardman 22:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 00:08, 2 February 2013 [22].

---

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Sydney Barnes

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 18:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Another cricket nomination to clog things up! This one is a bit further back in time than most of those coming through recently. Sydney Barnes is almost certainly the best "pace" bowler to have played Test cricket. He completed bamboozled Australian batsmen who otherwise dominated the English bowlers, and had he been a bit more courteous to the amateurs who ran the game, he would surely have played more Test cricket, and hold even more records. As it is, he took 24 five-wicket hauls in just 27 Test matches, and this list is long overdue. It's a while since I've nominated one of these lists, so there might be a few foibles, but as always, I invite all comments and advice. Harrias ^talk 18:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 22:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments – Image needs a suitable caption instead of his name. Expanded. Harrias talk 07:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC) "Barnes had only played seven ............................. suffering from burnout.[6]" → is totally unrelated to the list. Similarly "At the start of his career, ........................ and being suitably paid.[6]" is less significant for a fifer's list They are only marginally related to the list itself, but I think both sentences gives vital context to how remarkable his international figures are, given the small amount of first-class cricket he played. Harrias talk 07:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Still not agree with you. You may include this in his biography. Zia Khan 22:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC) "...it was in this match that his took his first..." → 1st "his" should be "he" Changed as suggested. Harrias talk 07:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC) "Barnes collected six wickets in the first innings, and seven wickets in the second innings" → no need of comma, I guess Removed comma. Harrias talk 07:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC) ....collecting eight for 56 in the first innings and 9 for 103 in the second.[17] → nine? Good spot, changed. Harrias talk 07:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Zia Khan 05:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Although the lead is very long, but well-written by Harrias. Zia Khan 22:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments I would split the first para and potentially the second one as well, as they are quite large Split the first paragraph, I can't find a natural place to split the second one, and I think it flows better as one, though I can try and rework it if you feel it necessary. Harrias talk 18:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Regarding the burnout details above, I see no issue with it, adds to the context of the list and helps the reader understand why he played so few matches "He based his decision upon two main criteria – playing for first-class counties was less financially rewarding..." Is that right he wanted to play minor counties cricket because it was less financially rewarding? Sounds a bit odd in today's climate and when reading later on that he didn't play more for England because he didn't get paid enough I meant it the opposite way around, he would have got less money in first-class cricket, so he played club cricket instead. I have rephrased this, is it clearer now? Harrias talk 07:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Yep much clearer now. NapHit (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC) "seven occasions on which" should this be in which instead? Quite possibly, changed. Harrias talk 18:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Hyphens in date ranges should be en dashes Fixed. Harrias talk 18:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments He was simply irresistible."[15] -> Period should be the end of everything. I have followed MOS:LQ, which states "On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not." Harrias talk 18:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Venue for the 17th fifer is Kennington Oval. Thanks, fixed. Harrias talk 18:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC) "Headingley, Leeds", "Lord's, London", why "Melbourne Cricket Ground" and "Sydney Cricket Ground"? I can add them if you really feel it is necessary, but given that they are both based in the city mentioned, it seems redundant to list the city twice. Harrias talk 18:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC) While sorting the table by date, entries for the same matches doesn't sort correctly. It would be good to extend the sortability to the No. column as well. This should work now, courtesy of a handy little fix. Harrias talk 18:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC) —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Additional comments In his last fifer (7 for 88), you've listed eight batsmen in the table. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Fixed, I'd forgotten to delete one when copying! Harrias talk 18:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Either link "Result" or add an explanation for "Drawn" matches in the key. A person who is not comfortable with cricket may not have an idea about drawn matches. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC) I have expanded the key, which hopefully solves this issue. Harrias talk 18:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Sort the cats alphabetically. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Done. Harrias talk 18:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Looks good to me. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments "and only played 47" -> "and played only 47" would read better for me. Changed as suggested. Harrias talk 07:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Our article on minor counties cricket capitalises it to "Minor Counties". Changed as suggested. Harrias talk 07:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC) "being over-bowled " no way on earth a no-expert will get this. I'm not sure why they wouldn't. It works in the same way as over-worked, over-paid and a number of other well understood phrases. I further clarify the meaning by stating "..and suffering from burnout." That said, if you still wish, I could change it to "..worried about being bowled too much in first-class county cricket.. Problem is "being bowled" works as a bowler and as a batsman, doesn't it?! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC) That is a good point. How about "..worried about having to bowl too much in first-class county cricket.." ? Harrias talk 15:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Sure, sounds less ambiguous. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Changed. Harrias talk 18:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC) "He is generally regarded" -> "Barnes is... Changed as suggested. Harrias talk 07:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC) "and cutting the ball" jargon. Within the sentence I then link off cutter and leg cutter; unfortunately we don't have a generic article on the cutter. Harrias talk 07:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC) "Barnes did not play any Test cricket between July 1902 and December 1907, as he was considered a "prima donna"" so was it (a) his choice not to play or (b) he wasn't selected? The sentence suggests the second (unless you change "as" to "and") but your previous commentary suggests the first. He wasn't selected. Harrias talk 07:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Could link to Ten-wicket match. Linked. Harrias talk 07:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC) "match scorecards see [16][17][18][19]" would at least put a colon there, but this is clumsy. Why not just place the individual scorecards as in-line refs? Added a colon; this is one of those preferential things, I think. At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009/archive1, I was advised to avoid "Long reference strings within the text", hence I now use this format whenever I need three or more. I'm not overly fussed, so if you think it looks clumsy, I can put them back inline. Harrias talk 07:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support as picky as I could be, all comments addressed with a modicum of actual enjoyment! This is what FLC should be about. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support looked through it a couple of times and can see no glaring issues! Perhaps the mention of playing Minor Counties cricket could name the county he played for, but once again another fantastic list from Harrias! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• "his average places him amongst the top-ten bowlers in Test cricket." "amongst" → "among"? There's also another similar usage later in the lead.
• "After his recall to the England side, he played regularly until the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, as was named by the Wisden Cricketers' Almanack as one of their Cricketers of the Year in 1910." "as" → "and". Giants2008 (Talk) 00:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed both; good catches! Harrias ^talk 07:43, 23 January 2013 (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 00:08, 2 February 2013 [23].

---

Latin Grammy Award for Best Urban Music Album

Nominator(s):  — Statυs (talk, contribs), — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The Latin Grammy Award for Best Urban Music Album is an honor presented annually at the Latin Grammy Awards, a ceremony that recognizes excellence and promotes a wider awareness of cultural diversity and contributions of Latin recording artists in the United States and internationally. According to the category description guide for the 13th Latin Grammy Awards, the award is for vocal or instrumental merengue house, R&B, reggaeton, rap or and hip hop music albums containing at least 51% playing time of newly recorded material. The award was first presented as the Best Rap/Hip-Hop Album until it received its current name, Best Urban Music Album, at the 5th Latin Grammy Awards ceremony in 2004.  — Statυs (talk, contribs), — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments "The award was first presented as the Best Rap/Hip-Hop Album until it received its current name, Best Urban Music Album, at the 5th Latin Grammy Awards ceremony in 2004." Needs a reference I still see no reference after this sentence. NapHit (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC) One doesn't appear to exist. But in the references, you can see it's title was changed. :/  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Exactly. There is no need for sources, and noone took care of the name because it was uncontroversial. Checking each yearly award you will note that it is indeed truth, and the only way to support this would be to add a link to the last year's awards usage of the previous name and the first year where the new one was used. — ΛΧΣ21 01:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Yes I would reference it by using a ref from 2003 and 2004 showing the name change. However uncontroversial you claim it to be, it would be helpful to have it referenced. NapHit (talk) 07:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Done.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 12:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC) "Puerto Rican artists have won this award more than any other nationality" be specific, how many times? I also think it can be worded better. "More than any other nationality" is not professional standards of prose "In 2009 the Puerto Rican duo Calle 13 won the award for Los de Atrás Vienen Conmigo and also earned the Album of the Year becoming the first urban act to do so." Lack of commas makes the sentence hard to read. The sentence needs to be restructured as well. As the subject of the sentence is about Calle 13 being the first act to win those two awards that should be at the start of the sentence. "Calle 13 are also the biggest winners in this category with four accolades." Again not professional prose Still not good enough, changing this to the does not solve the problem. Needs re writing Gonna need a suggestion, because I don't see what's wrong with it.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Biggest winners is not encylopedic prose, how about Calle 13 hold the record for the most victories, with four? NapHit (talk) 07:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Done.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 12:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC) you need to add row scopes to the table Calle 13 image caption could be worded better as well Still not happy with this. Performer suggests it is one person, yet the lead says they are a duo. That could cause confusion for readers. NapHit (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Changed to "act".  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC) About.com sources need to be replaced. We do not consider it to be a reliable source, as content is user submitted NapHit (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Everything has been resolved, I believe.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 15:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Erick (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments It should be Residente o Visitante, not Residente O Visitante. Fixed. — ΛΧΣ21 18:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Tribune Company is linked more than once on the references. As is the Los Angeles Times. Fixed. — ΛΧΣ21 18:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Shouldn't the most nominated artist(s) without a win be mentioned? It seems like, the most nominated without an award is only two. That doesn't really seem that major to note.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC) It's three actually, for Tego Calderon. Oh, alright. Thank you! I really could not see. I'll add it.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Done. Thank you for your comments.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Erick (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Nice list you two. Erick (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks Erick!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from DivaKnockouts (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments Shouldn't it be noted that although three females have been nominated (two of them twice), males have always won in this category? I don't see why that is relevant?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC) I'll leave this alone, as it really isn't important. Also Vico C is tied with Calle 13 for the most nominations. Vico C won 2, while Calle 13 won 4?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC) They both have 4 nominations. Get where I'm going at? — DivaKnockouts (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC) I see what you mean, but the lead really focuses on who actually won the award. Except for the person who most noms without winning.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Alright then. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Other than that, I don't see anything else wrong. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Great job! — DivaKnockouts (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks DivaKnockouts!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 12:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

*Comments from Crisco 1492 Perhaps link Latin to Latin Americans? Well, I'd say it's a pretty well-known term.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Perhaps, but it otherwise could be read as Latin urban music (which would be interesting to hear). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Hmm, I guess so.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC) victories - Can we really say winning an award is a victory? Sounds rather unstandard to me. Changed to "wins".  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC) I strongly suggest archiving your web references so that this doesn't end up at FLR in 3 years. I've given a copyedit, be sure to double check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Looks OK to me.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose. Looks solid, table is nice too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks so much Crisco! We'll talk the suggestion of archiving URLs (I always tell myself I will... but I never end up doing it, LOL).  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, a solid work, but I think you could still add another image to ilustrate the winners. Jaespinoza (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks! I will add another image then :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments "2nd..." I would expect that to be "Second" or similar. "though award-winning albums have also been performed by musicians " musicians don't "perform" albums, they usually "record" them. "the highest number of " -> "the most". " without a single win" -> "without a win". "Calle 13, are the most successful act in the category, with four wins" no need for first comma, and the sentence needs a full stop. "Barrio Fino En Directo" seems to have "en" in small case. Link LA Times first time round. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC) I have fixed them all. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21 19:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Quick comment – All caps in reference 6 need fixing. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks! — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:31, 30 January 2013 (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 00:08, 2 February 2013 [24].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Allan Border

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. This one closely follows format of similar lists. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments by NapHit (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments "156 Tests and led Australia in 93 Tests." No need to repeat Tests "He holds the record for making the most number of consecutive appearances (153 matches) as a player in Tests" "and was one of the 55 initial inductees "In ODI cricket, border" B on Border needs to capitalised "remained not out on both the occasions" NapHit (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. Fixed all. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 15:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments named by the Wisden as one → no need of "the" for his contribution to sports,[7] → cricket? England accumulating eight centuries against them. → I think there is no need to repeat "against them" thirteenth in the overall list of most hundreds → thirteenth overall in the list of most hundreds the first of them came against Sri Lanka and the last one against West Indies (127 not out), → for consistency you may also mention his 2nd century (118 not out) as you did with the 3rd one Good work with the list! Zia Khan 05:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Fixed all. —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC) ...he scored centuries in both .... → centuries need an explanation like (100 or mor runs in an innings) or something, and no need of "both" "Centuries" is already wiki-linked, so I don't think an explanation is required. —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Link not out in the lead I've already linked that as a pipe to "close of the innings". —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support – meets the standards. Zia Khan 17:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments "and led Australia" perhaps be specific: "captained"...? " different cricket grounds" I don't think you need "cricket" here. "and batted till the close of the innings" looks to me, since he was an opener, that he carried his bat. Carrying his bat refers to an instance where an opening batsman remains at the crease even after all the ten players have been dismissed. That's not the case here. —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC) You have won, lost and drawn in the key, but not tied? Refs need en-dash check in date ranges etc, avoid spaced/unspaced hyphens. Access date need consistent date formats. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Fixed all. —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• Second "the" in "He holds the record for the consecutive appearances as a player in Tests."
• I see a couple of "till"s in the prose. Not sure whether this is considered formal enough in Australian/British English; if not, there's always "until".
• No need to capitalize "Tie" in the one note.
• "There have been only two occasions where a Test match ending in a tie." "ending" → "ended". Giants2008 (Talk) 23:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. Fixed all. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Tintin 18:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments His first century came the following year against Pakistan at the same venue For a cricket-aware reader it is misleading usage, because it came three months later in the same season. Done. It should be clear to users who don't understand cricket too. So going by seasons also doesn't seem to be a good idea. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks, three months is the best possible option. Tintin 00:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC) "when he made 105 and batted until the close of the innings" This is also unconventional usage. Australia chased and won while the line gives the impression that he batted through the 50 overs My mistake, Done. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC) "Border remained not out on both occasions" Redundant. See the previous line Done. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC) "16 163 India" He was the MoM Done. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC) "3 127* West Indies" May not be a bad idea to add a note. The match did not have a MoM but Border was a 'player of the final' Tintin 17:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC) I could not find any such claim in the scorecard. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC) See this scorecard of the third final : http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/65390.html Tintin 00:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC) I guess that's not particular to this final alone. He might have been awarded the title based on his performances in all the three finals put together. Unless it's specific to a particular game like MoM, I don't think we should add it. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support No issues from me, looks good. Harrias ^talk 16:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

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