Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2010

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:44, 30 January 2010 [1].

---

List of England Twenty20 International cricketers

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) & Wt is this (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Immediate disclosure: this is a former featured list, see here for details. Primary concerns seemed to be over sourcing, lack of lead, etc, which I think I've addressed. I've also made the table sortable (after a recent FL - List of Indian women Test cricketers) and added a few images. I am concerned that the player images may cause issues on narrower browsers and will remove them if there's a consensus to do so. Otherwise, we have no dabs, all images have alt text, the columns all sort correctly, I don't think there are any typos, and everything that should be referenced, is. Finally, I have notified User:Wt is this as, judging by the list history, he did a lot of the work following the FLRC, and has been keeping it up to date in the meantime. I'm hoping he'll accept the offer of co-nomination of this list. As ever, thanks for all reviewing time, suggestions, praise etc! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

For convenience of comparison, this is the list as it looked when it was delisted. Bencherlite^Talk 14:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support -

• The first paragraph seems a bit blocky to me. Not exactly sure how it can be fixed, but the short sentence "England won the match by 100 runs" doesn't fit in well for me, and the subsequent explanation of T20I cricket seems a bit out of place straight after it.
  • Do you think a brief explanation of the format should be first, then describe England's entry into the format, then the individuals? Or should the format be described afterwards? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • As suggested below by Bencherlite, possibly switch the paragraph around as you say, so describe the format first. Harrias (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay, have done, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Brilliant, that reads much better. I've moved (T20I) to the first instance rather than ask you to do it! Harrias (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• "Eoin Morgan holds the record for the highest score by an Englishman in T20I cricket," as he is Irish, he is an England cricketer, but not an English cricketer, or an Englishman, can this be reworded?
  • "... by an England player ..."? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• "Stuart Broad is the most successful English bowler in T20I," only if the definition of successful is wickets. In T20, it could be argued that economy is more important, and Maddy has a better average, which others may consider the rating of success. Could you rewrite it to either clarify, or remove 'successful'?
  • Tsk, I absolutely knew this would be picked up and I'm not sure why I dared to keep it in... how does "... has taken more wickets ..." suit you? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• "who featured for the first time, against Australia in August 2009." No comma necessary.
  • Okeydokey. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The list itself is, as far as I can see, perfectly fine. Well done! Harrias (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for your comments and for moving those images. Safari seemed to cope heroically with them being there, and even does when you reduce the width to barely nothing. IE7, now that's a different kettle of fish altogether.... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BencherliteTalk 16:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

;Comments from Bencherlite (after edit conflict) Some typos corrected (including an accidental reversal of bowling and batting averages in the key); one accidental omission of "alt=" fixed; fixed the broken url for Jamie Dalrymple (html, not htm, probably a cut-n-paste slip!). No dabs, and all ELs now work. Cricinfo is a reliable source. Otherwise, looks to be a vast improvement on what went before. The sortability is excellent (I hadn't seen sorting with multiple header rows before). Minor thoughts: Although I'm no alt text expert, I would have thought the alts could be improved. Would a non-expert know that Luke Wright is a cricketer just from looking at the photo? You could mention the wording on Broad's shirt. Tsk, I thought my alt text wasn't toooo bad. I'll revise it. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Perhaps put the first two sentences in the lead to the end of the paragraph, or at least after the third sentence? That way, people coming to the article will at least know what a T20I is before being told when England first played one and who won. Revised per suggestion, I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Worth mentioning somewhere that the matches are only 20 overs long? Not sure. The link to the format should cover that, once we get into subtleties then we may need to talk about power plays, free hits, etc... not sure where you'd finish. I could say it's the shortest format of international cricket I suppose.... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Yes, that'd do. BencherliteTalk 16:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Have done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Worth clarifying that the 16 teams are international teams? Think that's covered (or at least implied) by the fact they're ICC-accredited? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC) "The record total number of runs has been scored by South African-born Kevin Pietersen" might work better without the passive: "South African-born Kevin Pietersen has scored the most runs in total", etc. Didn't want a quick repeat of South Africa. Drop it the repeat altogether or are you alright with the passive? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Good point, just say "Kevin Pietersen", no need to hark on about his birth place I think... BencherliteTalk 16:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Done The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC) :Why not say that the statistics are accurate as of the date of the last match (15 November 2009), rather than 20th Jan (today's date)? In any case, the accessdate for that note is 17th Jan, not 20th... Yes, I'll do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC) What's the basis for deciding that a player's career is over or continuing (which I assume is the difference between "2009" and "2009-" for example)? It can't be that they played in the last England T20I, since there's more than 11 marked as having continuing careers. Good question. I hadn't noticed that. I think it would be better to use that field as the date of the last match a specific player was involved in. What do you think of that? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Or, even better, check out this link which should confirm that these players could still be considered "active"... how's about that? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC) I'll leave it up to you how to present this! BencherliteTalk 16:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Howzat? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC) That's it for the moment. BencherliteTalk 14:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Good work by TRM and Wt is this. Bencherlite^Talk 16:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment wouldn't it be more simple to have the key in a table rather than the way its showed here? and wouldn't it make more sense for the Career column if Present was actually written out instead of a gap being left? Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 18:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how it would be more simple to have a table rather than the way its laid out. And I think the note leaving an open-ended dash is as easy to understand as "present", particularly with the note (which would be necessary in either case to validate my claim of "live" members of the squad). Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• I just thought it'd be easier if it was in a table. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 07:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, not sure what you mean by "easier" as it's effectively tabulated but in a prosey way. I don't see the need for yet another table. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well it was just a suggestion, no biggy. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 13:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Haven't reviewed the list or prose itself yet, but the images are quite bunched up. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yep, I noted this would be a possible concern in my nominating statement. So far you're the only one to have a problem with it - I'd guess you're using IE and have a horizontal resolution of less than or equal to, say, 1024? The world would be a better place if everyone used Safari.... But seriously, if it's a major concern then I'll have to remove those player images altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    • An alternative would be to force them narrower using "upright", (perhaps cropping Wright's photo) but not forcing image size. Bencherlite^Talk 07:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Yep, I'll give that a try, but what is worrying is that JC is seeing these thumbs with different widths in his browser and that's definitely not good... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment - Why not mention in the Collingwood caption that he has played the most T20's for England? Aaroncrick (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Done Mr Crick. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you also do so in the image caption? Aaroncrick (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Done also. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• You could indicate the captains and wicket keepers in some way (or at least the captains), such as in List of South Africa women Test cricketers.
  • Done this. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• How about sorting the number of wickets taken according to total runs conceded, perhaps using a sortkey? For example, when there are several players who have taken 6 wickets each, they will be sorted from who has conceded the least amount of runs to the highest. There's something similar in this list.
  • Heh. I'll see what I can do. The sorting is pretty complex, as well you know, on these types of list. I'll try not to break it... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Other than that, it looks good to me. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, I think I've fixed it per your suggestion. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Yeah, perfect. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - Just make sure you keep updating the article every so often. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Of course. Thank you for your interest, comments and support. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - It looks great and I have no problems with it. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 13:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:55, 27 January 2010 [2].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Donald Bradman

Nominator(s): ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Starting off the new year with another centuries list. I think the legend deserves to have a list of his own ;) As always, all comments and suggestions would be most welcome. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments yeah, not sure you could have made a better choice of subject for these kinds of list, even if he wasn't the most prolific centurion, his efforts certainly deserve this kind of content fork. Hate that [N 1] by Test cricket. I'm sure our community could survive waiting until the end of the sentence before reading Note 1. Done: Moved to end of sentence. "20 year" hyphenate, and to be picky, from 1928 to 1948 is actually 21 years. And did he bat internationally during the Second World War? Removed "20 year" I'll check that and mention it. Done: Added part about the break from cricket. "in just" is a bit POV. Done: "just" removed. "These centuries also enabled him to be the fastest to reach 2000..." not necessarily true. He could have played hundreds of mediocre innings. I know he didn't but you get my point...? This may not be the place to discuss total runs scored... You mean drop the part about being fastest to 2000, 3000 etc? Not necessarily, it's a personal opinion, I'd rather hear about his significant centuries than being fastest to 3000 runs... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Yes, I see your point now, and I have to agree. I've removed that part, since it's not only his centuries that took him there. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC) " He is also the record holder for the highest number of triple centuries (2), a feat later matched by Virender Sehwag and Brian Lara" - so he's the joint-record holder then? Done: Rephrased that. "Making his first triple century (334 against England in the 1930 Ashes), Bradman scored 309 runs on 11 July 1930, which remains as the highest amount of runs scored by a single batsman in one day.[15]" - for me this reads a shade confusing for our non-cricketing types. Perhaps a rephrase to say he scored 309 of 334 in a single day? Done: How is it now? "to victory against England with 270 runs" - by 270 runs? 270 is his own score. If we say "by" it would sound like Australia won by 270 runs, no? Of course, my mistake. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Score doesn't sort correctly for me. I always seem to have problems with sorting :P Will work on it. Done: Sorting templates added. "cricket were initiated much later" - perhaps just state that he didn't play ODI/T20. Done: Changed. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks. I've made some changes, and will fix the sorting and career details in a few hours. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC) That's done now. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 08:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support

• "19 of his centuries were made against England, which remains the world record for the highest number of centuries against a single team": per MOS:NUM, "Numbers that begin a sentence are spelled out, since using figures risks the period being read as a decimal point or abbreviation mark".

• Done

• The above goes for "5393 of his 6996 Test runs came from these 29 centuries", although MOS:NUM also rules out spelling out 5393, so I'd recommend rewriting the sentence.

• Done

• Something about Bradman's captaincy should be mentioned in the lead. A great deal has been written on the man, and I'm sure someone has commented on how the captaincy affected his batting (he averaged about 3runs more as skipper, although that's not a huge difference considering his average when not captain was 98.69).

• Done

• The lead is left slightly open, it feels like it needs something to round it off. How about mentioning his retirement?

• Done: I've changed the lead quite a bit as well, and would appreciate your views on that.

In addition to Rambling Man's points above, I've done some copy editing myself. Everything else seems fine. The sources seem ok (reliable and consistently formatted); alt text is present; the table is sortable and easy to use. If these issues can be sorted, I think I'll be able to support the article. Nev1 (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments and copy edit. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 15:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• The only remaining issue is that I'd like to see something on how the captaincy effected Bradman's batting, aside from the raw stats that he scored 14 centuries as skipper. However, it's not a significant issue and doesn't really change the comprehensiveness of the article, so I'm switching to support. Nev1 (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Most books think that Bradman was a lesser after the war, but on the other hand, Bradman also had to put up with Bodyline in his earlier years. The stats can also be altered by a few sticky wickets so it might not be all that indicative. On another note, most historians also regard the 1930s as being somewhat weak on the bowling front, so averages might not equate with ability at the time YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• I didn't add that since I thought it would look more like a batting analysis than a lead for a centuries list. I added the normal average since I thought it would show his rate of scoring, or how often he scored centuries. If this information is really needed, I can add it. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• "in the 1936/37 season". I'm pretty sure the Manual of Style says somewhere that slashes like this one shouldn't be used in prose. Usually en dashes are used for seasons in other articles I've seen.

• Done: Hmm... I'll remember that.

• "and scored 14 of his centuries as captain of the Australian side," Punctuation switch needed at the end of this part.

• Done: Stupid mistake.

• "In fact, he would have retired with an average of 100 had he scored four more runs in his final innings." Don't believe the first two words are needed. While they may be intended to show that a given fact is surprising, most of the time it's better to just let the fact speak for itself. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Done: Thanks for your suggestions. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support – The cricket project has got itself another winner here, on a subject who truly deserves it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Can you also add that the 334 was also the highest Test score at the time (a record that lasted near three years)? I think the list is otherwise comprehensive. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 04:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Done: Thanks, I had missed that. Chamal ^talk _{stealth mode} 07:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Also, could you reword "In the same series, he went on to score one century, two double centuries and a triple century, accumulating 974 runs in 7 innings" to something like "...he also scored a century and two double centuries....accumulating 974..."; it currently reads a bit like the century, two doubles and the triple followed the original triple, although the total says that's not the case. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 17:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Done: I have reworded it to make it clearer, although not in the way you suggested. What do you think? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments have been addressed. I do think Mattinbgn's comment on the name is valid, but it's not (IMO) important enough to hold up this list. –SpacemanSpiff 18:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• You state "Bradman only played international Test cricket matches and not One Day Internationals and Twenty20 Internationals, which were not played by that time." To me, this indicates these had previously been played but weren't any longer, should the 'by' be changed to 'at' maybe? Otherwise, it all looks good!

• Done

• ''"He is also the joint record holder for the highest number of triple centuries (2) with Virender Sehwag and Brian Lara." Per WP:MOSNUM, should the (2) be (two)? Similarly with the rest of the numbers under ten that you use throughout the article.

• Done

Other than those two issues, it looks great, and it'll be good to see such a worthy recipient of FL! Good work. Harrias (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Both fixed, and thanks. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support, thanks for the quick fixes, and as I said above, a very worthy article about a very worthy subject. Harrias (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Great work. However, wouldn't a more appropriate title for this list be List of Test cricket centuries by Donald Bradman? I understand why you have used the title you have (consistency with List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar et al) but it rings of false inclusiveness and anachronism if you ask me. International cricket was Test cricket prior to 1970 and sure enough the list provided here only includes Test centuries. The name isn't a deal-breaker by any means but it just rings false with me. Once again, great work with the list. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 20:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• As you said, I named the article that way to be consistent with the already existing lists. I don't have a problem with renaming it if others feel the same way, or keeping it as it is. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • As I said above, the name is not a deal-breaker, the list is certainly featured quality. Personally I would support a name change, others may feel differently. Perhaps others at WT:CRIC may have an opinion. If the name is the only thing holding this up, please don't worry about it. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 08:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Support: — Thought this may have passed by now. Great work nonetheless. Aaroncrick (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment The lede needs a copyedit before it reaches the requirements for featured content. The following particularly struck me:

• Australian cricketer Sir Donald Bradman, often called the greatest batsman of all time,[2][3][4] scored twenty-nine Test cricket centuries during his international career which lasted from 1928 to 1948.[N 1] However, his cricketing career was interrupted from 1941 to 1946 due to the outbreak of World War II, followed by poor health.[5] I think it would be better to break the first sentence after "career" and then continue "It lasted from 1928 to 1948 with an interruption from X to Y due to a combination of World War II and and ill health."
• The "X to Y" above is because I'm not sure you picked the right dates. Australian first class cricket was suspended before the start of the 1940-41. Looking at History_of_the_Australian_cricket_team#The_1930s, I would be surprised if a tour wasn't initially scheduled either for 39-40 (possibly a vist by South Africa though India and NZ were theoretically available too) or more likely 40-41 (which would fit with a 4-year schedule for a visit by England).

• The provided ref clearly says "... on 3 September World War Two broke out. It was decided that cricket would continue for purposes of morale", mentions a 1st class double century in 1940, and also says that he enlisted after the surrender of France (25 June). History_of_the_Australian_cricket_team#The_1930s is completely unreferenced, so we can hardly rely on that can we? I had mentioned the year as 1941, I have fixed that.

• He assumed the captaincy in the 1936–1937 season,[6] and scored fourteen of his centuries as captain of the Australian side. Better: "He became captain of Australia during the 1936-1937 season and scored fourteen of his test centuries as captain." Answers the question "captaincy of what?"

• Reworded

• Bradman holds the world record for the most double centuries scored by a single batsman, with twelve to his name. Better "Bradman's total of twelve double centuries is a world record.
• He is also the joint record holder for the highest number of triple centuries (two) with Virender Sehwag and Brian Lara.[9] Again I prefer Bradman was the first of just three batsmen to have twice scored triple centuries in test matches. The others are Virender Sehwag and Brian Lara."

• Reworded

• Nineteen of his centuries were made against England, which remains the world record for the highest number of centuries against a single team. "How about "His total of 19 centuries against England remains the record against any one (test? international? first class?) side."

• Reworded

• It was also the highest individual test score at the time, and remained so until being surpassed by Wally Hammond in 1933.[12] better "It was the highest individual test score until Wally Hammond score 3xx in 1933."

• Reworded

• In the same series, he went on to score one century and two double centuries as well, I prefer "Bradman also scored two double and one single century that series,"

• Not done, since to me this makes it seem like his 974 runs (mentioned following this phrase) came only from those.

• And one unrelated point. Shouldn't the South African flag be the old one as he never played against the post-apartheid side?--Peter cohen (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed
• Thanks for your suggestions. I have changed the article somewhat, but I haven't done most of the rewordings exactly as suggested. Since the lead is basically a bunch of scores, I'd prefer not to have short sentences so that it wouldn't look like a bunch of statistics thrown together. Anyway, I will take a look at the factual problems and then try to reword the sentences more suitably as soon as possible. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 17:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A tour by England in 1940-41 did exist before it was cancelled. There was still some first-class cricket in 1940-41 and maybe the year after as well. I don't have the book with me, but Military career of Keith Miller, Ray Lindwall, Arthur Morris, Bill O'Reilly and so forth will have sourced details of some matches in 1941... I'm pretty sure they kept on playing until Pearl Harbor YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reworded the article some and corrected the flag. However, the rewordings are not exactly as suggested, due to the reason I've given above. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 15:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. support I still think the use of "as well" is not the superb prose expected in featured content. How about In the same series, he went on to score a further century and two more double centuries...? The triple century technically falls into both those categories at least e.g. when compiling a list of his centuries.

--Peter cohen (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds better to me too. Changed as suggested. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 16:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:16, 26 January 2010 [3].

---

List of Houston Astros first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Built in the style of featured lists List of New York Mets first-round draft picks and List of Philadelphia Phillies first-round draft picks along with the likely-soon-to-be-featured List of Boston Red Sox first-round draft picks. Give me one second to fix the dab links using the tool, but review away! Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

• "while seven outfielderss" - !?
• "based in the Astros home city of Houston." - should be Astros'
• "and a compensation pick from the team he signs with" - and a compensation pick from the team with which he signs

• All done! Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Well done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments Kendall Rhine or Rhines? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC) "The Astros have failed to one " I believe there's a missing word here... It's "sign". I got this one. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks! Staxringold talkcontribs 15:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC) "Each year links to ..." why not just "Links to..." (and no period) to be consistent with the phrasing of the rest of the key? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC) "compensation eligible" shouldn't that be hyphenated? or may "eligible for compensation"? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Otherwise this is excellent work. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk). I think I smell another featured topic... Heh, KV5 and myself have discussed the idea of this as a long-term topic goal along with managers, yes. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC) The Biggio's and Berkman's ALT texts should mention the "Astros" across their chest. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC) "amateur baseball clubs to its teams" I think "franchises" might be better than "teams". Many picks don't play for the teams that pick them, but for the franchises Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC) "while seven outfielders, two first basemen and two third basemen were selected" might be better as "as were seven outfielders, two first basemen, and two third basemen" Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC) You may want to spell out MVP Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC) "in 2008, his first season with the Philadelphia Phillies after leaving the Astros the previous season" is wordy in its repetition of "season". Any way to cut it a bit shorter? "selection in the draft twice" Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Why no color for a player not signing? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC) The |work= parameter for reference 5 is missing .com Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC) I'd add File:DSC 0018 Brian Bogusevic.jpg next to the table. It's of decent quality, and the most recent draftee picture is currently from 2001. Kk. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC) I think McLaughlin's school is Lipscomb University. A good way to check the red links for schools is to go to the city's article; they often have a list of schools. Also, Livsey's school might be Simeon Career Academy. Mm40 (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Yeah, fixed. I've found a couple schools like that, the articles can be tricky. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Forgive me if I've missed something but for the notes, Vabcde... yadda ya, I was just wondering why is V at the beginning and why is it no the letter a? Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 19:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• The idea was to keep the notes semi-consistent, and this style was developed under List of Boston Red Sox first-round draft picks which actually gets through the whole alphabet. The idea is to use V for "Value" while just simple lower-case letters for the various compensation/lost picks. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • Ok cool makes sense, I have no tiffs over the list then, I Support it. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 19:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Move comma after quotation mark in "Colt .45s,". Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC) In the second paragraph, try to mix up some of the "selected" uses, I count three in two sentences at the moment. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC) "No Astros first-round pick has won a World Series championship". Brad Lidge is mentioned two sentences later. Could you imagine if KV5 saw that? :-) If this is meant to say that no one won those honors for the Astros, state it more directly. KV5 did saw that, but he assumed he knew what it meant. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Didn't see KV5's review, but still think it's more clear with the change. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Commas needed for 3000 hits relating to Biggio (in caption and lead)? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC) What do you mean? Where would you place the comma? Staxringold talkcontribs 19:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC) I think he means delimiting the numbers (3,000 as opposed to 3000), but MOS:NUM says either is fine for four-digit numbers only as long as it's consistent. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Support – My comment have all been addressed, and everything looks to be at FL level. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• One I just thought of (as I'm starting LAA draft picks, hope that's OK), maybe the section can be Selections or Picks instead of Table.Mm40 (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Phew, scared me before I re-read that, I'm doing LAD in my sandbox right now. It's kewl with me, just so long as you intend on bringing it to FL status. I'm worried about TOR, SEA, and some of the other lists that have been made but not polished up (particularly TOR). And that title sounds better, how about we go with "Picks"? Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yep, Picks seems better. BTW, you may want to make the changes suggested here to all the other first-round picks FLs. I probably would've done LAD except I saw it in your sandbox. Mm40 (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Already did it when I changed the Astros list. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:16, 26 January 2010 [4].

---

IWGP Junior Heavyweight Tag Team Championship

Nominator(s):--WillC 09:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I feel it meets the criteria. I am currently working on two topics (Topic 1 and Topic 2) on all of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling's championships. That being any that have been defended there at least once; not just TNA owned titles, any from any promotion over the seven years TNA has been around that I have evidence occurred. This title was defended in TNA twice and acknowledged by the promotion, so it falls under that area. This and probably one more, unless I discover another that was defended in TNA at a house show or something, is all I have left that I plan to take here. The rest can go to GAN. That is just the first, the second is about all champions in TNA, which also involves this one. As such, I rewrote this article entirely to get it to FL standards. All comments will be taken care of as soon as possible. Thank you to all who take the time out to review.--WillC 09:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Staxringold

Comments The wrestling project is really good at pumping out these Tag Team GAs and championship lists! Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC) And you'll be surprised there is only about 5 people expanding those articles. The ones who come to mind right now are ThinkBlue, MJP, GaryColemanFan, NiciVampireHeart, and myself. Not saying those are the only ones, but the only ones I see at the moment. Nikki311 expands some articles now and then, but haven't seen any tag team articles from her though. They all do a great job. I feel it is an honor to work alongside them.--WillC 10:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC) The lead image could use some work, IMO. First off the image itself is very dark, if you can find any better pic I would go with it. Also the alt text is very vague. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Thought it made sense and was the only one I could find. However, went looking after you posted this and found one of Jushin Liger. Added it and is a very nice one. Hopefully it will fit your standards.--WillC 10:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Heh, yes it's fine. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC) The lead sentence on the "days of reign" record makes separate sentences of Gedo and Jado holding the record as a team and individually, but the next sentence on defenses uses one sentence broken by a comma. I would use a consistent style. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC) They hold almost every record I do believe, I was running out of ways to make it flow better. But I fixed this I do believe.--WillC 10:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Kewl. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC) "Gedo and Jado Jado are tied" I assume you meant to say Jado just once? Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Fixed--WillC 10:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC) "The Motor City Machineguns (Alex Shelley and Chris Sabin), a Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA) tag team, defeated reigning champions" Should that be "then-reigning"? Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Fixed--WillC 10:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC) How many defenses did the Motor City Machineguns have? At first it says "three successful defenses," but then only describes the 2 TNA ones. I understand you're writing this for a TNA topic, but the subject for this list still the IWGP so I would mention all 3 defenses if you mention any. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Didn't add that for the TNA topic, mainly for DYK and history purposes. History was the first thought and then the idea of a DYK sold me on adding it. The main point was they defended it in TNA. When a Japanese title gets defended in an American promotion it is usually a big deal since it happens rarely. Hell, just a title getting defended in a different promotion is rare. Actually I didn't just expand this for the TNA Topic, there is only two more active New Japan Titles that are not FL, this being one. Thought to get this one and the last one done as well. It worked with the topic so it was a double win.--WillC 10:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Gotcha Also, would shift the "current champions" sentence to after all this stuff about the Machineguns, to make it really clear who the champs are. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Fixed--WillC 10:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Side question, but are "No Limit" or "Apollo 55" notable enough for at least stubby articles as a tag team? Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC) I would say No Limit are since they have worked in two major promotions (TNA and NJPW) plus several lower promotions. However, there is the problem of Japanese history not getting featured that well in the reliable English sources that are available. Apollo 55, I don't know. Doubtful that they are notable at this time. There are few indy tag teams notable in the US. Japanese stuff is about on the level of an indy material. Not much is known, so not sure.--WillC 10:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Cool. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Last question: Do you have any more info on the creation of the title? You mention the inaugural winners, but in my limited time watching wrestling I've never seen a new championship introduced (other than the Diva's championship which was just kind of a replacement for what was already there). Got any sourceable info on that tournament Shinjiro Otani and Takaiwa Tatsuhito Takaiwa won? Staxringold talkcontribs 15:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I'll check somemore, but I never found any brackets while I was looking. I'll check around a bit more and hopefully find somemore.--WillC 04:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support Though I'd love to see a bit of info on the title-creating tournament, what is there is what is there. If you get the time please stop by my FLC, which has also slowed a bit and could use a fresh reviewer! Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments I maybe missing something but do we have a link here to tag team wrestling anywhere, if such a thing exists? Tag team, linked in first sentence and the main pro wrestling article also speaks of tag team wrestling.--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC) "weight-limit to the title " - limit for the title? Done--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC) "won via the result " - would prefer "won as a result of a ". Done--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC) "(the most of any team)" perhaps make this a clause after an unspaced em-dash as it's probably important enough to sit outside parentheses.. Done--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC) " with 15. At 15," - needs work on this prose. Done--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC) "26 wrestlers, which made up 19 different teams" - who made up 19 teams? The different combinations of the 26 wrestlers.--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC) TNA Impact!.[5] - avoid those double periods. Impact! includes the "!". I moved the sentence around so it is no longer a problem.--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC) "they had their second" - they made their...? Done--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Don't use PPV without explaining it. Done, thought I already had.--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC) "The championship is vacated ..." was vacated. Done--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC) "NJPW.co." - do you mean njpw.co.jp? Done, never thought of the jp.--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Gen references shouldn't have spaced en-dashes, just un-space them. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Removed endashes but traded with a regular dash to keep the names right.--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Try using {{SortKey}} so the vacated "reign" sorts as a zero, otherwise you can't actually get the max in each col at the top when re-sorting. Plus it's chronologically out of order too.
  • Will try to do that.--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
    • If we're lucky, Dabomb87 will be back soon and will be able to point you in the right direction here. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
      • And here I am. Will try to take a look soon. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments – "Jushin Liger and Minoru are currently tied for the record of most reigns by an individual wrestlers". Make the last work singular. Done--WillC 07:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC) "with two being held by TNA due to an agreement with NJPW." This is one of those sentence structures that I'm not crazy about. How about "; two were held by TNA...". Done--WillC 07:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC) The Date column in the table is completely empty. If the information isn't avaliable, use dashes like you do elsewhere in the list. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC) I don't understand. The date columns is filled with numbers.--WillC 07:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, date column is fine to me. Small question, should "Reign" be a sortable column? I guess it's useful to sort by reign and then by name so you get the multi-reign guys in order of their reign (though that could be done with dates as well). I ask because other than that use it seems to not do all that much, since there isn't any real commonality because "first reign" guys that I can tell. Meh, it doesn't hurt anything the way it is. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure, wasn't a big part of the format discussion done months ago.--WillC 07:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Conditional Oppose Maybe switch to Support if some fixes are made: First, the sorting needs to be fixed (there is no reaso for a vacant reign to be listed ahead of the longest title reign when sorting by length, vacancies should be list at the bottom. This is a problem with the sorting method Wrestlinglover wants to use, the sorting method used in FL's like List of WWE Champions do not have this problem and I have pointed this problem out to Wrestlinglover many times before). The width also needs to be fixed, no reason for columns like Location to be as wide as it is and forcing the Notes column to be so condensed. Also, Tag team names should be listed primarily and the members to be in parenthesis (not the other way around like the article currently does). TJ Spyke 18:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would like this vote not counted in the closure. TJ is bias against me due to our constant disputes over list format, so his vote is not neutral. His example is of an article that was passed as an FL over 2 years ago which fails the current criteria today including the sorting criteria he mentions, I and others have tried to explain this to him. Also TJ, the sorting problem has been discussed above as including the sortkey template. Dabomb is to be looking into it. Also, the tag team idea could work, however, that is to keep consistent with previously passed tag team FLs such as IWGP Tag Team Championship, List of WCW World Tag Team Champions, List of ECW World Tag Team Champions, List of TNA World Tag Team Champions, etc. The champions come first, before the team name.--WillC 18:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have done some work on the days held sort problem. The table is designed to do it, it seems. After various changes, it does not change. I used several different sorting methods, and yet it still followed the same suit. However, following the WWE Champions list is completely unacceptable. The days held columns has a 0 instead. Those are not reigns and not in anyway should they have a number there at all. Also, they are mixed in with other wrestlers 0 day reigns. The columns go vacant, held up, Andre the Giant, vacant, vacant, etc. That is not good sorting either. It would be best for you to strike your oppose on the grounds of not having enough knowledge on what makes an FL, over previous disagreements and the fact you voted oppose on this during an on-going disagreement after I presented you with the link to it shows you can't be neutral on this manner, etc.--WillC 20:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is as valid as anyone elses, so it should not be stricken just because you disagree with me. As for the teams issue, I will tell you what you keep claiming when you go around changing entire articles to the format you personally like more: articles can continue being improved. Just because a tag team article was passed with one format does not mean it needs to stay that way. The format used in this article (and others you want to see it in) offers no benefits over the one already used in Featured title Lists (which DO pass FL criteria). TJ Spyke 23:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

TJ, this isn't about me disagreeing with you on formats. This is about you don't have the ability to be neutral in your vote. When you and I are involved in a argument on another page and have history, you voting oppose or support on this page can not be taken as neutral. That is a good enough reason for it to be striken from the final vote.--WillC 04:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Will, I don't discount actionable comments because of a personal feud between nominator and reviewer. Please respond to the other comments TJ Spyke made (aside from sorting, which you've addressed), and explain why they should not be implemented (for example, why the width does not "need to be fixed", if you don't think there's a problem). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I however feel this is unneeded. If he was just reviewing the article, it would be fine. But due to his comment being posted directly after I gave him a link and he mentioning old formats, it seems more of a revenge angle rather than genually trying to help. I have looked into all of them. The location problem is vague. I don't know what would be a good width. I have decreased the section to 15% like the event column. As for the tag team being above, when the format was introduced, that is how it was agreed to be placed. See here where it was brought up again and it being agreed to in this section.--WillC 00:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comment @ TJ Sypke's comments -- I actually will agree that the width shouldn't be fixed in some columns, because it does condense the list more than how it should be, like in the notes column. I don't agree with the tag team names being listed first because since the column is being sorted, it is more logical to have the names of the wrestlers to sort by for consistency because not all tag-teams have a name, and sorting by 'tag team names' and just the names of the wrestlers isn't consistent. This is how it has been for the most recent FL's.--Truco 503 16:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I agree some of his comments have marent. However, the sorting fucntion is table based. That is something that can't be fixed it seems. The width for location I would be happy to fixed, but the comment is vague. The others have been agreed upon.--WillC 00:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC) I changed the sorting function some more. Now the Wrestlers column is at 23% while the notes are at 50%. The location and Event columns are at 15%. Is there anything else?--WillC 00:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC) "Like most professional wrestling championships, the title is won as a result of a scripted match." -- 'most'? Aren't they all? Well considering at one point pro wrestling titles were won legit, I would say most. However, that is the past and this is the present it would be all. Instead of having that question, I just removed "Like most" and replaced it with "Being a".--WillC 08:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC) "Title changes usually happen at NJPW-promoted events." -- usually? how about 'mostly'? Done--WillC 08:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC) "At four reigns, the team of Gedo and Jado hold the record for the most by a team." Done--WillC 08:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC) "Separately, Gedo and Jado are tied for most days as champion." -- how about individually? Done--WillC 08:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC) "Their first defense in TNA at the tapings of their weekly television program TNA Impact! occurred on March 31, 2009." -- how about "Their first defense in TNA occurred on March 31, 2009 at the tapings of their weekly television program TNA Impact!." Done--WillC 08:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC) I would note somewhere stating why the defenses are notable for this title versus other pro wrestling titles. No source that says why they are notable to New Japan that I have found. However, if I find one I will add that info. Still looking for tournament information from above so I may run across it in my search.--WillC 08:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC) The PW Torch ref should be listed as "Pro Wrestling Torch".Truco 503 04:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Never had that problem before, I'll think about it though. I'll change it, no harm in it.--WillC 08:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC) The only thing that still stands out is the defenses. Is there a note that states why NJPW uses them?--Truco 503 21:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Not that I have seen of any on their site but it is all in Japanese. My translation tool may have mistranslated and I missed it. Though it may be obvious why they are important, seeing as puro has a more realistic approach. I'll search their site today and if I find anything, I'll add it.--WillC 22:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Was there anything?--Truco 503 03:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC) No, but I'll continue to look. I got some more free time now. I'll see if there is anything I missed.--WillC 05:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Didn't find anything this time around either. A few interviews, match results, etc but didn't find anything that said how defenses are significant to NJPW and why they keep track of them.--WillC 08:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC) I would but then again that isn't exactly truth. It is becoming more clear and known that several companies keep track of them. WWE and TNA don't, but ROH, New Japan, PWG, etc do.--WillC 22:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Then state that.--Truco 503 03:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Okay, placed in a sentence.--WillC 04:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support -- My main issues were fixed, but I would at least make a mention somewhere in the article (in prose or footnote, or however) that unlike other companies defenses are recorded by NJPW.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've got a few minor problems which shouldn't be a trouble fixing

1. "Being a professional wrestling championship, the title is won as a result of a scripted match." it feels like this statement could be changed a little bit to specify the match is predetermined.
2. I think it could be mentioned in the 3rd paragraph that this was because of a pre-existing relationship between NJPW and TNA.
3. in the References #1, 2, 3, 7 you've listed the site as NJPW.co. which it should be NJPW.co.jp as listed in the General references.
4. References #4 and 10 you've listed as WrestleView.com and #5 and 9 its listed as WrestleView, this is minor but it's a little inconsistent.

Other than that I think its fine, they might not even be problems to the list. Afro (Not a Talk Page) ^{- Afkatk} 05:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

All done.--WillC 07:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support I have no problems with it. Afro (Not a Talk Page) ^{- Afkatk} 07:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Some of the column widths still need fixing, but that can be done any time. The team name issue is about to be changed as so far the consensus at WT:PW is to list the team name fix. However, if the sorting feature for vacancies hasn't been fixes yet then it should go back to the previous template (which works much better than this format, the format in this article offers no benefits over the previous one). If this happens I will give my Support, otherwise I have to Oppose. TJ Spyke 22:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The sort issue is table. That is a design flaw in the main code, something I have nothing to do with. It does it with both formats.--WillC 00:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I changed the widths some more. As for the tag team name discussion, that is a discussion. No new consensus established yet. If a new one is reached I will change them, but not until then. At the moment it is pretty close. Also, vacant wise, there only difference between them is the sort templates and the days held has a 0 in it, which is incorrect since they aren't reigns and if you read the key the dashes are there to not include those columns as offical reigns.--WillC 08:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Did my recent edit fix the sorting as desired? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
      • No, vacant reign column still comes after the longest reign. I tried everything from sortkey, to changing the letter or number it sorts by, to placing a days held template in the sort template. Nothing changed it. Nice try though.--WillC 01:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Just for kicks, what would the list look like in TJ Spyke's format (I would like to see a sandbox version if possible), and would the sorting still not work? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
          • See List of WWE Champions, the vacant reign would be sorted within the official reigns. Just replacing the dash with a zero, though vacant columns aren't reigns; it would be just silly to add.--WillC 23:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would imagine it'd somewhat look like this [5] as he seemed adamant at the time to maintain that format before Will brought it up to current FL standards. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 09:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Just put in a "to and from date" that ends up in "-1" so the reign lasted from Jan 4 to Jan 3 and it sorts like it should, lower than zero.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  11:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You MPJ, that is very helpful of you. However, I don't understand what you mean. Maybe you can point me to one of the lists you've done that has this in it so I know?--WillC 05:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Did not work. New option — sorts as "0" and any 0 day reigns sort as "0.1" to fix the problem? Not that it's a problem in this list at this point in time.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  06:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It already sorts as zero and yet still comes after the longest reign. This probably has always existsed since the days held column was introduced it seems.--WillC 07:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

So very strange, I credited them with a "0 day" reign (Jan 1, 2000 to Jan 1, 2000) instead of "0" and that apparently makes a difference? don't know why, don't make sense but it sorts correctly right now in this case - so strange

Thank You MPJ, I did that before and it didn't work. Maybe you just have the magical touch.--WillC 12:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That sorting function is really odd, I guess it takes an odd man to fix an odd problem ;) glad it worked, it'd suck for that to be a problem for FL.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  13:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well again thank you. The list format has yet to be perfected and probably never will. Good thing is this is one less problem.--WillC 17:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• And now it fullfills the "No redlinks at all" criteria ;)  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  19:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

While expanding the OVW Heavyweight Championship in a subpage, I discovered another problem. The fix to this one helps, but the vacant reigns come before the o day reigns. It goes 1 day, vacant, 0 day. I've worked on it and found no solution thusfar. I've tried sorting by 0.1 on the O day reigns. I've tried sorting the vacant reigns by -1 day and nothing. Would like to find a solution. Maybe you, MPJ, have some ideas?--WillC 19:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I was encouraged to follow up on my comments here so that the FL process could move on. I actually did not have any objections to the article, I just tried to help Will fix the sorting problem, so in that regard I made no comments that need to be addressed in the FLC Process. So good luck with it (and I'm kinda stumped on the OVW thing myself Will).  MPJ -DK  11:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:16, 26 January 2010 [6].

---

List of Oklahoma State Cowboys head football coaches

Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 20:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it now meets all the criteria.—NMajdan•talk 20:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I didn't see anything in the article about OSU's former name and moniker. When most of the people listed in the article were head coach, they were coaching the Oklahoma A&M Aggies. This sentence: The team has had 22 head coaches since organized football began in 1901 with the nickname Cowboys. makes it sound like the team has been the Cowboys since its inception in 1901. For almost 25 years, the team was exclusively the Aggies and for almost the same length of time, the team was called both the Aggies and Cowboys. NThomas (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Great suggestion. I didn't even think of that. I will add a little bit about the previous school name and nickname.—NMajdan•talk 13:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• The changes look great. Good work. NThomas (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support from NThomas (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments Lead is a little short for our "finest work". I would like more information on the coaches rather than just the bare stats which I can see in the table. There must be something richer we can bring the lead. I modeled this list after List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches which passed FLC recently (which you also reviewed). I'm not sure what else you're looking for.—NMajdan•talk Whether I reviewed it or not is irrelevant. All I'm saying is that this lead seems to be a re-hash of the stats and absolutely nothing more. That's all. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Per WP:LEAD, the lead "serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article." Frankly, I do not see how the lead violates this. Expanding the lead may involve going beyond the scope of the article/list which is not the intention of the lead. For a list of this size, one healthy paragraph is enough to satisfy MoS requirements.—NMajdan•talk 19:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Yes, I'm fully aware of WP:LEAD thanks, but you also need to attempt to write engaging prose. The lead is not engaging. Of course, that's just my opinion, but there you have it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Lead image doesn't need a period. Done.—NMajdan•talk For me, Term doesn't sort correctly. How so? Looks fine to me. It sorts by the beginning year.—NMajdan•talk Okay, so if I press the up/down arrow next to Term, I get the following results at the top: 1972, 1907–1908, 2005–present, 1906. So something's not working right for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Overall it just has that "slim" feel. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC) More specifics would be appreciated.—NMajdan•talk 15:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - "The Cowboys have (plural) played in more than 1,000 games during its (single) 108 seasons" - needs fixing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Done.—NMajdan•talk

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments – There's one longish paragraph in the lead, and one very short one. This might well be contributing to the feeling above that the list is slim. If some content from the first paragraph is moved to the second paragraph, the balance would be better. The lead could state what conference the Cowboys play in, and the conference(s) they used to be in. This is relevant to the list and should beef up the lead by a couple of sentences. Most of the featured coach lists state in the lead who the team's first coach was. That could be added here as well. Other featured coach lists give the actual statistics in the lead for things like winning percentage and win totals. Would be another useful addition here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Changes made.—NMajdan•talk 16:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC) One more minor thing I saw: a comma should probably be inserted before "joining in 1915" in the second paragraph. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Done.—NMajdan•talk 22:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments - Did any of the coaches win a National Coach of the Year Award or a Conference Coach of the Year award. If so, I think that would be worth mentioning and/or integrating into the list. But that is just my opinion and if that is not needed, then the list looks good to me. Remember (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

None won any National coaching award. Don't know about Conference as those are usually hard to trace down.—NMajdan•talk 16:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be easy enough to find. Just look for a list of Conference Coach of the Year winners and look for OSU winners. According to this, Bob Simmons won in 1997. Just look for a source. Mm40 (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked for a source for Simmons winning? I quickly found this, but I'd like a higher-quality source. Mm40 (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Simmons' award is mentioned here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

My support below is assuming you'll add this before promotion. Mm40 (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

NMajdan, please don't forget to resolve this issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This is in regards to adding the Coach of the Year mention to coach Simmons, correct? If so, this is complete.—NMajdan•talk 03:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments. I'm not quite sure I want to support yet, I'll recheck at some point. Note that I've commented on a few issues below. Mm40 (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Support assuming you'll add the Conference Coach of the Yeah for Simmons. Also, you mix {{Citation}} and the {{cite x}} templates, such as {{cite news}} or {{cite web}}. One should be used throughout. Mm40 (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added the coach of the year award. Also, I do not see any issue with mixing templates, so I disagree. You should not mix templates with plain text citations, but it should not matter which template you are using.—NMajdan•talk 15:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, cite XXX and citation use different citation styles, so mixing them creates inconsistencies, which we do not want. Anyway, I have fixed this. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't that then be resolved by the template designers? I think we're getting awfully picky if only certain templates can be used together. Nonetheless, thanks for your assistance.—NMajdan•talk 03:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The mysteries of the assorted citation templates are beyond me. The only thing that we care about at FA and FL, in terms of citation formatting, is consistency, and for whatever reason using citation and cite web/book/whatever together doesn't do that. I agree that we should do a better job of standardizing citation styles, but getting anything done in the realm of style of formatting is a huge time-waster. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Oppose for the moment from Mm40 (talk). I do think the lead could be expanded. Did any of them go to OSU? Play in the NFL? Longest/shortest tenured? Mention that Waldorf is in the HoF. I think NFL experience is irrelevant to this article. I also already have the longest tenured coach mentioned. I already mention Waldorf is in the HoF.—NMajdan•talk I have added a sentence listing the coaches that graduated from the university.—NMajdan•talk 15:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Lead image doesn't need a period Done.—NMajdan•talk No reference saying that organized football began in 1901. Done.—NMajdan•talk Also, you might mention they played for 5 years without a coach Done.—NMajdan•talk "postseason bowl games" should link somewhere Done.—NMajdan•talk Maybe a note saying when bowl games started. Otherwise it may appear that the team was bad before 1939 Its a bit more complicated than that since the Rose Bowl began in 1916 and was the only bowl game until the 1930s. I think this is satisfied with the wikilink to bowl game in the lead.—NMajdan•talk "of the Cowboys program with .250" it sounds odd having the sentence add with "250." Maybe reword to "Theodore Cox has a .250 winning percentage, the worst in team history" Done.—NMajdan•talk The last two sentences of the lead both begin very similarly; change it up. Also, "Mike Gundy" should just be "Gundy" in the last sentence Done. I still think leaving the full name is important since he is the current head coach and this sentence is pointing that out.—NMajdan•talk Some images next to the table would be appreciated Added another image.—NMajdan•talk Which needs alt text... Mm40 (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC) The article has both "postseason" and "post-season" Fixed.—NMajdan•talk A note should be added saying that "Conference" in the table means games against other teams in the conference Added "Games" to the key.—NMajdan•talk Waldorf's symbol should be superscript to reduce table clutter Done.—NMajdan•talk Some coach tables have a totals bar on the bottom (see this, for example). It's not necessary, but it's nice I don't think that is necessary on this list but would be more appropriate on an article listing the seasons.—NMajdan•talk You may wish to add a hidden comment telling people not to update until the season's end Done. And that reminded me that I had not updated this since the conclusion of the 2009 season, which has now been done.—NMajdan•talk The second sentence of the first note can be removed as this hasn't happened yet. Fair enough. Done.—NMajdan•talk The "conference" and "college football" links in notes 2 and 3 can be removed Done.—NMajdan•talk The publisher of the first general reference is "Oklahoma State University" Done.—NMajdan•talk "Oklahoma State University – Stillwater" is used in the first reference, but the Wikipedia article and this one has the dash unspaced Fixed.—NMajdan•talk The AP is listed first in ref 2 and second in ref 4 This is a function of the cite templates. Both have The Associated Press listed as the agency and Ref 2 has NBC Sports as the publisher and Ref 4 has USA Today as the newspaper, so I guess that's just how they are sorted unless I am using the cite template incorrectly.—NMajdan•talk What's that title at the end of ref 4 mean? What title?—NMajdan•talk I mean ref 5, what does this mean at the end: "Oklahoma State promoted offensive coordinator Mike Gundy to head coach Monday..." Mm40 (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Its a specific quote from the source that backs up the fact it is being used for.—NMajdan•talk 15:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Usually direct quotes aren't used (see the first footnote on WP:V), but I suppose it doesn't hurt. Mm40 (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC) For ref 5, the archival and retrieval dates should be two separate sentences per the other refs Again, a function of the templates. If this needs to be uniform, it should be done at the template level.—NMajdan•talk Add Category:College football lists. Mm40 (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Done.—NMajdan•talk I think I've either fixed or responded to most of your issues. There are a couple sourcing issues you pointed out so I will need a little time to hunt down sources for those. Thanks for your review.—NMajdan•talk 15:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC) What sources were you referring to? Have they been found? Mm40 (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - looks like a pretty solid job to me. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 18:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:16, 26 January 2010 [7].

---

List of awards and nominations received by William Gibson

Nominator(s):  Skomorokh  03:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This is to my knowledge a comprehensive and well-sourced collection of a highly notable author's awards and nominations. I believe the prose to give sufficient context to a reader unfamiliar with the author, while covering the most salient points of the topic, and written to a professional standard. Comments, suggestions and constructive criticism welcome.  Skomorokh  03:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. As good as the article on William Gibson and List of works of William Gibson which Skomorokh brought to FA and FL standard. Well done, again. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a couple of comments:

1. Center the dashes in Notes.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Make the table sortable in year, category and result.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ciao diaa, and thanks for the suggestions. I've made this change to add sortability to {{awards table2}}, the template used for tables in the article. I'm not sure how to make that column-specific. For centering the dashes, the only ways I can think of doing it are to have a default value in the template so that if nothing is entered, a centered dash appears, or alternatively to add <center></center> tags manually to the article. I'm not sure exactly how to implement the former, and the latter seems inelegant. Further suggestions welcome! Regards,  Skomorokh  11:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps {{center}} is more elegant? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be, but it would have to be added about four dozen times, and I'm not sure the benefits (aesthetic?) are worth the effort or added complexity for future editors. I'm ambivalent on this one, it's not a big deal either way.  Skomorokh  01:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Mm40 has centered the dashes; the succession of left-aligned comments with centered dashes looks discordant to me, but again it's not a big deal.  Skomorokh  18:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Any reason why the totals for the awards/noms don't match those in the expanded table (3 and 44 vs 8 and 38)? Why is the background to the Arthur C Clarke award black in the expanded table in the lead? "which would prove the author's breakout work" grammatically incorrect - perhaps "which proved to be the author's breakout work"? "Gibson was a living inductee " reads oddly, perhaps "Gibson became a living inductee..."? On a not-too-wide setting (around 1200 pixels) I can't see all the letters in the Result column. This gets worse when I reduce the width further, and I see a similar issue with the Year column. If tables are sortable, we'd normally relink things each time as they are not guaranteed to appear top of the list if the table is resorted. It's not abundantly clear what you mean by a result of 2 or 3 - perhaps 2nd or 3rd? "and Gibson sat on the jury " just a personal thing, I'd say "while Gibson..." in that case... Same comment above for the positions in the poll. Plus you could use = instead of (tie)... I think the career honours section would work better as prose, as I find it a little odd to see him "winning" his nominated work of "Living inductee" into the Category of "Science Fiction Hall of Fame" - just feels a little "square peg, round hole"....! Ref 3 could use a work or publisher. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the very helpful comments, TRM! I'll answer in order below; hopefully it won't get too confusing. I've reworked the expanded table to include all awards and nominations except the polls, and used the same metric for the totals, so these should be consistent now. It's not black for me, but it is shaded slightly differently. The only difference between the treatment of that award and the others that I can see in the template used – {{Infobox writers awards}} – is that it is governed by #ifeq rather than #if. I don't understand why, but there is probably a purpose to it. Reworded as suggested Reworded as suggested There will always be too little or too much space for particular fields depending on the viewer's screen resolution, but I've tweaked the allocations now; let me know if it's any better. Is there a pixel width such templates should be optimised for? 800px? 1000px? Switched to ordinal numbers as suggested "While" to me denotes a temporal concurrence (as in "meanwhile" or "simultaneously"), but the events in question here took place years apart. I used "and" because it simply denotes concurrence, but I'm not sure it's the best or mos descriptive conjunction and am open to another suggestion. Ordinal numbers used as suggested. I think that "tie" as in "2nd (tie)", though something of an Americanism, is unambiguous whereas the meaning of "2nd (=)" or "=2nd" would not be as immediately obvious to me. You're right about the career honours section; the content did not fit the table headings at all. I've reworked it as prose per your suggestion; my only worry now is that it is looking a little scant for a standalone section and I'm not sure there's anything that can be done about that if expansion is not feasible. That was an import of a citation without the attached reference; all the info should be there now. Thanks again, and if you have any more problems, issues or suggestions, please keep 'em coming. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  01:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• The image needs better alt text than its title.
• In any tables that have book titles in both italics and quotation marks without italics, the book without italics sort first in the nominated work column, followed by the ones in italics. It would be better if a way could be found to get them to sort alphabetically together.
• I have several queries and concerns about the sources used (keep in mind that I have no knowledge of the subject) They may well be fine, but I feel it's better to ask now just to be safe.
  • Is reference 2 (randychase.com) supposed to be an online link to a published book? If not, it begs the question of why what appears to be somebody's personal website is a reliable source.
  • Reference 3 (Project Cyberpunk) is definitely a link to information from a book, but does it say that they have the right to republish?
  • Again, does the publisher of reference 5 (brmovie.com) have the right to republish this newspaper article (assuming it isn't some official site of the paper)? If not, it should be converted to an offline reference.
  • The publisher in reference 7 (The Independent) should be in italics since it is a printed publication.
  • What makes Worlds Without End a reliable source? It's crucial that this site be reliable because it is citing a few of the tables.
  • Reference 12 should have the Seattle Post-Intelligencer added to it, since that is where the link comes from. I imagine this should also be in italics, in addition to the newspaper already given. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks greatly for your comments Giants; I've had a go at addressing them so let's see where things stand:

• The alt text for the infobox image (File:William Gibson 60th birthday portrait.jpg) reads "The head and shoulders of a middle-aged balding bespectacled white man, looking into the distance." Is this sufficient? There may be a display issue with the infobox template itself, but that should not be difficult to fix.
• Your observation that italicised works and quoted works sort separately seems accurate from what I can tell. The italicised works are standalone works – published books, mostly, whereas the quoted works are short stories that for the most part have only been published in collections. I don't know of a way of having MediaWiki treat italics and quotes the same for the purposes of sorting, but the existing division (books and short stories sorted separately) is not an arbitrary one and I think it is tolerable if nothing better can be managed.
• Speaking to the references:
  • I've added the missing content (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, italics for The Independent).
  • I've replaced the randychase.com and Worlds Without End references (though I wouldn't give up either as reliable sources necessarily). The new refs are Burning Chrome (the introduction to a collection of the author's works), the Center for the Study of Science Fiction and New Scientist. I hope these pass muster (and that no errors or omissions have been introduced therein).
  • On the issue of links to copyrighted material hosted by third parties, namely Project Cyberpunk and brmovie.com, I have included them as an aid to the reader so that they can verify the content of the article for themselves. I would have thought the issue of rights to republication is an issue for the webhosts – surely the encyclopaedia is not liable or beyond fair use in merely linking to them?

Thanks again for your perceptive review, and look forward to seeing more. Regards,  Skomorokh  17:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Bencherlite

• To sort alphabetically by name and avoid works in quotations marks sorting after works in italics, you can put{{hs|Dogfight}}"[[Dogfight (short story)|Dogfight]]", and that will sort it under the letter D, not under a quotation mark. I think that the list ought to sort by name, not by whether the title happens to be in italics or in quotations marks.
• TRM's comments above included "If tables are sortable, we'd normally relink things each time as they are not guaranteed to appear top of the list if the table is resorted." I don't think you responded to it, but he's capped his comments as resolved, so I'm unsure what's happening with this one! I'd agree with TRM, as it happens.
• "Notes" columns aren't usually sortable, so I've tweaked {{Awards table2}} for this.
• "Related pages" would normally be entitled "See also"
• WP:LINKVIO, part of the Wikipedia:Copyrights policy, says that "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders." So the issue of rights of republication is not just a matter for the webhosts, but also for this FLC.

Otherwise, a interesting and well-presented list upon a topic about which I knew nothing! Bencherlite^Talk 16:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful comments Bencherlite! I'm not sure on the linking issue (per WP:OVERLINK), but I hope to address the rest of your suggestions in the coming days. The copyrights link is interesting, but in the case of the websites, I don't "know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright" or if it's with their permission. Do we default to assuming a violation (as with images and text from website used as part of an article) or not? Like I said above, I'd prefer not to make such an assumption for our reader's sake, but will follow whatever convention the rest of the encyclopaedia uses. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  13:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

All works now sorted alphabetically, thanks to Bencherlite's {{hs}} suggestion, and Notes are no longer sortable. Further discussion needed on link density (see Wikipedia:OVERLINK#Repeated_links) and copyright (presumption of violation or innocence?).  Skomorokh  18:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment on linking: Per WP:LINK, "tables, in which each row should be able to stand on its own" are a listed exception to the rules on overlinking. Thus, each row should have its information linked. The use of multiple tables, though, is an intriguing little monkey wrench thrown into the works. I honestly don't think it would be overlinking to have each title and award name linked, and regardless, I do believe that—using the Nebula Award table as an example—that the names of each award must be linked at each occurence. The Hugo Award table is a bit different, given that the link appears right above the table, but I honestly think that it does no harm to include the links and is better for the integrity of the article as a whole if links are included throughout. Other than that, I reviewed this entire list and found no errors that I could see. Well done on the list as a whole. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yo KV5, thanks for the comment. I agree that it's something of a complex case. Taking Neuromancer for example, there are 19 mentions in the article (excluding references + navbox). As it stands, the article is linked twice; once in the lead, and the second time in the first section. Linking each title would add eleven extra links to a total of 13 in an article with 12 kB of prose/tables (6.4 kB readable). On my cramped laptop monitor, the article is five screenfulls long, which means an average of two and a bit links to the same article for a given view of the page...anywhere else this would be a definite link violation. I suppose I don't understand the rationale for the exception for tables ("each row should be able to stand on its own"). What's the benefit to the reader of so much identical blue?  Skomorokh  09:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You have sortable tables, meaning that it's indeterminate which row will be first at any given time. That's why they all need to be linked. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, I understand that the sorting tables can result in different works coming first, but that does not address the link density problem.  Skomorokh  00:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk). By the way, does my solution for centering the dashes work? "and the Hugo Awards for best novel, and the Philip K. Dick Award" I don't think the comma is needed. Link Aurora Awards in the second paragraph? Link Bruce Sterling at his first mention The "SFWA" abbreviation shouldn't be provided if it's not used elsewhere in the article. In the Arthur C. Clarke Award section, why is United Kingdom linked while neither American or Canadian is linked in the lead? In the BSFA Awards section, only use the abbreviation. The "Result" column for the Locus poll doesn't sort correctly Ref 2 and 3 should have consistent linking and presentation (City, State) of publishing locations Link Literary Review of Canada in ref 4 Ref 13: Why is the publisher of New Scientist in parenthesis while no others publishers are? Is there any way to avoid having the only two images in the article (counting the navbox image) be the same? It may be a bit extreme to copy the navbox code just to use a different image, but do what you will. Anyway, the navbox image needs alt text. I'll be happy to support once these issues are fixed. Mm40 (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Yo, Mm40, your dash solution seems to have done the trick, thanks! I appreciate your keen eye (and am horrified at missing such simple issues!), and will respond in turn: Eh, hardly simple. After you do a couple of these reviews, you know what to look for. I often laugh at how pedantic I am ;) Mm40 (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC) The comma is there to avoid the use of the conjunction "and" twice in the same sentence without interruption. It's trying to group two elements [Nebula + Hugo awards for best novel] separately from the third [Philip K. Dick Award for best paperback original]. Would it be better if the sequence was reversed? I think it might be best if they were connected using "as well as"; my only issue is that the comma makes the sentence choppy. I'm hardly a prose master, so I'll leave it up to you. Mm40 (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Links corrected Unused abbreviation expunged Regarding the BSFA Awards, I was following MOS:ABBR; "The full name should always be the first reference in an article, and thereafter acronyms are acceptable, as long as the acronym is given as an explicit alternative early (usually in parentheses)." Usually, the lead section does not count, being a summary of the component sections, so I thought it proper to use the full name. Furthermore, although the article on the awards is at BSFA Awards, the article on the organisation is at the full name – British Science Fiction Association. I'm not too concerned either way, but the case has yet to be made. Hmm, usually the lead does count. Maybe it's that abbreviations are usually vital to understanding the article (this, for example. "MVP" is the basis of the article). It's a relatively minor issue, so no biggie. Mm40 (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC) I don't know how to fix the results sorting in the Locus section I'm afraid; {{hs}} does not seem to co-exist peacefully with {{nom}}. Do you think you can avoid the template by just using |bgcolor= and {{sort}}? I'm not sure what exact color coordinates {{nom}} uses, but I'm sure it could be found out. It's only for that one poll table, so it shouldn't be too much work. Mm40 (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC) The Burning Chrome reference does not seem to have a city to go with its state according to Worldcat, but I have unlinked City, State in the other ref for consistency. According to the mailing address on it's website, it's New York City. Mm40 (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC) The parenthesised publisher in the New Scientist ref is a consequence of {{cite journal}} behaving differently to {{cite book}}, {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} it would seem. Alt text added for navbox image. There's not really any room for images outside the infobox given all the tables. The solution, if there need be one, would be to change the infobox image, but I don't really have anything decent to replace it with. This, maybe? I see the image is also repeated in the main FA and another FL on Gibson, so I won't bug you. Mm40 (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks again for the review, I really appreciate it.  Skomorokh  09:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC) (to mm40) I've reworded with "as well as" and added NYC for the Burning Chrone ref as suggested. I don't mind the work in getting the Locus table to sort properly but I dislike using custom solutions as they tend to make edit screens inscrutable and their utility tends to degrade much faster than commonly used templates. The issue seems to be the double digit ordinal numbers; I'll ask at the technical village pump if there is a solution.  Skomorokh  18:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC) (to mm40) They seem to have found a workaround for this at the Village Pump thread, so I hope to fix this today.  Skomorokh  15:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC) The sorting of the Locus table has now been fixed.  Skomorokh  23:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC) I've fixed a quick typo, so the sorting is functional. Mm40 (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support with one comment. Could you include a "XX out of YY" or something in the poll section? Currently it's unclear to me how impressive say... The 4th place polling for "The Winter Market" is. Is that 4 out of 10 candidates? 25? 100? Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. The Locus Awards don't seem to have a fixed number of nominees per category (click here and browse chronologically to see). "The Winter Market" coming 4th means it was chosen as the 1987's fourth best novelette out of however many novelettes the voters read that year, so from one point of view it would not matter if 16 more novelettes were listed subsequently or 86; the number of candidates = number of works published that year it would seem. Reading the self-description, I'm not sure how the threshold for inclusion in the poll results (i.e. 27 novels one year, 22 the next) is set, so the best we could do is XX of YY for every single poll entry. Would that make it easier for the reader to understand or more complicated?  Skomorokh  08:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's worth either including the info (so year by year) or putting in a note describing what you've said here. Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to look for sources to verify my hand-waving theory, and if they are not forthcoming I'll do the year by year. Thanks for your valuable help.  Skomorokh  15:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments General Alt text, contributors, dabs and external links all check out fine. Lead Since first being published in the late 1970s, Gibson has written more than twenty short stories and nine critically acclaimed novels. -- Are you trying to say, 'since first starting to publish in the late 1970s?' Several of these garnered critical attention, receiving Hugo and Nebula Awards nominations in the categories of best short story and best novelette and featuring prominently in the annual Locus Awards reader's poll. -- IMO, being featured sounds better here than featuring His most recent novels – Pattern Recognition (2003) and Spook Country (2007) – put his work onto mainstream bestseller lists for the first time,[7] with the former being the first of Gibson's novels to be shortlisted for the Arthur C. Clarke Award. -- these should be emdashes (the long dash) without spacing. Either one works, per WP:DASH: "Spaced en dashes – such as here – can be used instead of unspaced em dashes". Mm40 (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC) List Gibson's only Nebula Award was for Neuromancer in 1985, though he has received seven other nominations. -- the comma should be a semicolon when using however/though. Gibson has been nominated twice, but has yet to win -- sounds a bit POV-ish. Maybe reword to but has not won one. or to simply Gibson has been nominated twice. Gives the same message. Same thing here: The British Science Fiction Association (BSFA) annually presents four awards, traditionally on the basis of a vote of its members. Gibson has been nominated for an award on six occasions,[8][14] though he has yet to win Why not center the wording as well, and not just the dashes?--Truco 503 16:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Yo Truco, thanks very much for your comments. I've reworded "being featured" and "has yet to win". "Since first being published" rather than "since first starting to publish" is an intentional wording choice, as Gibson is not a publisher but an author. Could you expand on the rationale for using a semicolon rather than a comma in the "though" case? Following a semicolon with "though" seems odd to me; redundant perhaps. The centering I am not crazy about, so I'll leave it to other commentators to decide which of all-centered, all-left-aligned, and dashes-centered-only is optimal. Regards,  Skomorokh  18:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support-- resolved issues, meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Support as the points below are fixed.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm on the verge of supporting, but:
  • "Several of these garnered critical attention, receiving Hugo and Nebula Awards nominations in the categories of best short story and best novelette and being featured prominently in the annual Locus Awards reader's poll." This could be read as if the Hugo and Nebula nominations are symptoms of attention from professional critics, (or at least "semi-pro" ones in the sense used by WSFS when defining certain Hugos). The Hugos are voted for by SF fans/convention attenders and the Nebulas by SF authors. Both of these categories include critics, but I think it is better to avoid the implication that they are are awarded by critics.
  • You mention who vote for certain awards (jury panels for the Dick, writers for others.) I think that you should include indications for others. I can tell you that the Hugos and BSFAs are both fan awards, shortlisted and voted for by the members of Worldcons and of BSFA respectively and the Clarkes are shortlisted and judged by a panel. I'm not sure about some of the others, but people at WP:SF will. --Peter cohen (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Good points both Peter, thanks for the review. I'll have to dig around for independent sources, but I don't think this ought to be too difficult to fix.  Skomorokh  15:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added the selection methods for each of the awards and clarified the implication that Hugo/Nebula/Locus awards were tied to critical attention.  Skomorokh  00:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Question for the directors/delegates: is there a time limit on this review? It seems as if there are but a few resolvable issues to attend to, and one or two bullets to be bitten so barring new concerns it ought not take too long, but I've noticed that this review is the oldest on the books at the moment and I wonder if there's a chance of sudden archiving?  Skomorokh  15:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no time limit as such but all nominations will last at least 10 days. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 18:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is a sudden wave of opposes or the FLC stagnates for a long time I'll keep this open. Also, I'm contacting a few reviewers to revisit this FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you both; I hope to have it wrapped up by the weekend.  Skomorokh  23:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Remaining issues from Bencherlite

• Minor prose issues noted by Peter cohen (talk · contribs)
• More linking, as has been mentioned above.
• Remove links to copyvios. I've had a look at the site and can't find any indication that the works (or others) are hosted with the permission of the rights holders.
• Fix sorting of the problematic Locus table as suggested at the Village Pump - I had an interim solution but reverted myself when I saw the more elegant solution, but don't have time at present to do this for you.
• I don't agree with Truco's suggestion about a semi-colon before "though".
• Apart from this, I think we're done. Bencherlite^Talk 08:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yo Bencherlite, thanks for returning; I've addressed the sorting and Peter and Staxringold's suggestions for adding context. The linking issues (which I am not to concerned about either way) remain. The issue with internal links has yet to be comprehensively stated (i.e. the happy medium between helpfulness and overlinking), while in the case of external links to copyrighted material, WP:LINKVIO seems to indicate that only links to pages which are known to be in breach of copyright ought be removed, and I'm not sure anyone here has claimed such knowledge. Cheers,  Skomorokh  00:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yo Skomorokh. Well, copyvio sites are hardly likely to say "we're hosting this in breach of copyright", are they? There is an awful lot of material on the site with no details of copyright given. I can't believe that Gibson has consented to lots of his work being hosted for free. Using common sense, I think we can fairly say that it's a linkvio site. At the risk of sounding like the lawyer I am in my day job (!), knowledge can be taken to include shutting one's eyes to the obvious... On linking, I could understand if you were linking once within the awards section and once within the polls section, but you're not: some are relinked in the polls, others aren't. If people read through the tables and think, "Oh, I wonder why that book won? What's it about?", they then have to hunt back to see if there is in fact a link, and if so where it is. At present, you're assuming that people will "jump off" the first time that a book/story is mentioned, when they may not want to until later on. I think the list as it stands is too light on helpfulness. Even WP:LINK allows relinking "where a later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first." Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 01:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The legal and moral angles are interesting here, but I think ultimately we are in a grey area ultimately pitting copyfighting against respectability. As it happens, Gibson does not mind unauthorised reproductions and derivative works as long as they don't make any money (my income from the list has been disappointingly flatlining so far). The linkvio issue has come up at another peer review I have a hand in so I think I will cave on this one and remove the links in deference to what seems to be the prevailing convention. I don't see an easy answer to the link density issue with the unforseseen complexity of multiple repetitive small tables, but I will revisit it shortly.  Skomorokh  15:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Well done for all your hard work before, and during, this FLC. Bencherlite^Talk 20:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support I see no further problems. Reywas92^Talk 01:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I see nothing really wrong with it, though the article could do with internal linking some of the stuff in the References as by example you don't link the British Science Fiction Association at all within the references. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 15:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've removed the links to the questionably-hosted copyrighted works and increased the internal link density of the list such that each work is linked approximately once per screenful or major section.  Skomorokh  16:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 04:46, 21 January 2010 [8].

---

List of DART Light Rail stations

Nominator(s): Patriarca12 (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the FLC criteria as it is based on the templates set forth in previous FLC on similar topics (List of St. Louis MetroLink stations, List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations and List of Vancouver SkyTrain stations). Patriarca12 (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ≈ Chamal (sock) Master · talk 06:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

;Comments Images need alt text Alt text added to all images. In the refs, keep the date format consistent in both published date and retrieved date. Corrected. The image description page for the map says a part of it is incorrect. Can you check and fix if this is true? It'd be best if you could add a reference there to an official map. I revised the map to correct the duplicate station indicated in the description page and amended the Green Line Stations that are now open. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 05:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for taking a look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Alt text is pretty much the same as the image caption now. It should describe the image, since it's there for someone who can't see the image. For example, the alt text for File:White Rock Station .jpg could be something like "Two people are standing next to a small tree and a waste container, on a platform beside a partially visible white and yellow train". ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 06:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Sorry about that as I have not done alt texts before. I think I got it right this time around. Thanks! Patriarca12 (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Support ≈ Chamal (sock) ^{Master · talk} 06:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

;Comments If you're going to force image sizes for maps, put them at minimum 300px. Resized. Several of the sentences are rather long; in particular the first, the last in the second paragraph and the last in the third paragraph. I reworded several to cut down the length of several sentences. Instead of wikilinking 'U.S. state of...', just write 'Texas, United States', with 'United States' unlinked. Done. In the lead, I would like to see more about the stations—perhaps by expanding the total length. Information that could be included are if there are any 'hubs' or similar in the system, the busiest stations ect. Another aspect that could be discussed is the amenities, facilities and architecture of the stations. Are they mere tram stops, or full stations? Is there a common design, or are they vastly different? Also, the information in the third paragraph is much more vital to the scope of this article, and should be moved further to the top, perhaps even as the second sentence. Relocated suggested paragraph and added additional paragraph providing for additional information on station design. Pearl is overlinked. Delinked. It is not obvious that 'Dallas Love Field' is an airport. Clarified. In the key, 'transfer' should not be capitalized, similarly 'completion' in the second table. Done. Although it is possible to say 'terminal station', the phrase 'terminal' by itself can have another meaning. It would be better to use the terms 'termini' (plural of 'terminus') or 'terminal stations'. Done. References should be center-aligned in the tables. Done. 'St. Paul' and 'Spring Valley' are in the wrong order. Corrected. 'Orange Line' is overlinked in the body of 'stations under construction'. Delinked. There seems to be a statement in the body of 'stations under construction' that lack sources. Additional sources added. Use 'and' instead of a slash in 'deferred/ghost'. Done. Image licenses and external links turn out all right. Could you move the three appropriate images to the Commons, please. I am not familiar enough with how to do this. I will work on it... Use this tool to easily move the images. Get a TUSC account (click the link on that page to learn more) and it is a one-step transaction. Couldn't be easier (once you've figured out how to do it). Thanks for the tip. I have moved the appropriate images. Patriarca12 (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Ref 13 should use the {{"'}} template, but since this is being created by a cite template, there isn't much that can be done about that. Arsenikk (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Again, thank you for your comments and taking the time to take a look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC) To easy loading time on WP:FLC, please avoid use of 'done' images and similar. I have taken the liberty of removing them. Arsenikk (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments Before launching into "Both the..." perhaps state how many lines there are to start with. Can we be more imaginative than to start two consecutive sentences with "As of 2009.."? "mileage of the network to 90 miles" again, why repeat mile? Perhaps, increase the overall length of the network to x miles? I'd avoid using abbreviations in a lead image as it's one of the first things our readers will see (i.e. TRE). "protection from the elements" I may being over-sensitive but this is a little colloquial for me, perhaps "from adverse weather conditions" or similar? Perhaps the pickiest I've ever been but " MLK, Jr." on my screen is linked, but carries over two lines so looks like two links. I'd use a non-breaking space between the comma and the Jr... For non-US readers, it may be useful to expand DFW. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC) All have now been addressed except for the one regarding the MLK Station. I am not sure as to what you mean by a "non-breaking space." Please advise as to how to proceed, and thank you for your comments! Patriarca12 (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC) It's probably easiest if you check out WP:NBSP - basically I'd prefer for the MLK, Jr. to not be split across lines and a non-breaking space should allow it... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Got it! Thanks for the link as I was not sure how to do that. Thanks again for your comments. Patriarca12 (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Excellent, works for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Is it possible to avoid placing footnotes in the middle of sentences?
• Additionally, all stations include works of public art as part of the DART Station Art & Design Program. - "Additionally" is redundant here.
• 2-column reflist?

Otherwise good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Comments addressed. Thanks for taking a look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Support; thanks for quickly responding. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The map needs alternative text. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Alt text added to the map. Patriarca12 (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but what you added doesn't really describe the content of the map. It doesn't help the reader to describe the appearance of the symbols. See the two examples given in the link I provided. If you still have trouble, contact Eubulides (talk · contribs), the expert on alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Some of the other alt texts need a bit of improvement. Don't use proper nouns that can't be verified by looking at the image (e.g. "DART" and names of stations). For example, in "the DART Light Rail Pearl Station island platform and canopy in the median of the street with only a few passengers present" just say "A light rail station island platform..." Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I think I got it this time. Proper nouns removed except for Las Colinas from all alt texts and map text formatted like one of the ones shown in the suggested link. Thanks for the help! Patriarca12 (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Also, what makes http://www.angelahunt.com/2005/02/15/dallas-area-rapid-transit-meeting/ reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Replaced the council woman's website with a citation from the Dallas Morning News. Patriarca12 (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Pretty solid work, I can't find anything in it which is an issue. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 10:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm afraid the lead map File:Dfwrailmap2.1.png is useless at the resolution in this article, and it won't help to increase the size (unless it's made wayy to large). The map's alt text "Diagram illustrating transit lines and stations as described in the text" is useless as well. If the map is summarizing an important part of the article that is not immediately adjacent to the map, then the map's alt text should provide a similar summary. But anyway, I suggest that the map be replaced by a route diagram; that'd be much easier to read. Eubulides (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I removed the map altogether as maps have not been included in all of the FL's of rail stations (BART stations & Caltrain stations as examples of this). Patriarca12 (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:57, 20 January 2010 [9].

---

List of World Series champions

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs, Scorpion⁰⁴²²

Assuming the nomination below for Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award passes, this list will be the final piece in a now 4-month project of WP:MLB to create a featured topic for MLB Awards. The list has been touched up by several experienced editors, and I think this last piece is ready! Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Added note: KV5 just reminded me, Scorpion0422 deserves major credit on this list as well! He really put a lot of work in before I finished this baby up. I'll leave a note on his talk page, but he deserves some of this FL credit regardless.
  • Also added note: This project has actually been ongoing since March 2009 :-p. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, but little did you know what you were starting. :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, I did; this was an unspoken goal at the beginning. I just wasn't counting on so much valuable help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 I'm still at odds with only one league being colored; it should either be all or none. That's just me, and I've felt that way since the shading was originally put in over my objections way back when. This was done as a mix of the styles of List of NBA champions and List of Stanley Cup champions, I think. As in the Stanley Cup list the columns are winner/loser (rather than the leagues) and takes the shading element from the NBA list. I don't really know if the shading is needed, but it really just exists to keep the leagues clear. Stanley Cup gets by without shading (or even a league column, it's just in parens). Yeah, I understand why it was done, but it still looks like one league is being favored. I'd rather just see the colors go because if another color is added for the NL (which should be the blue league to begin with), we're going to end up with Skittlepedia. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Since I originally tinted the table, let me explain my reasoning, more to give information than to advocate a position. I'd first used the coloring I'd used at World Series and Major League Baseball, but that was reverted as too bold. (There were four editors talking at the time, and since two of them objected, there was no strong consensus either way). The original list went back to 1876, including years when there was no alternative major league (those championships are now at List of pre-World Series baseball champions), and I was trying to be as unobtrusive as possible, so the natural way to highlight a distinction only for the years when one existed seemed to be to color the American Association a light eggshell and the American League a very light pink. To see earlier arrangements and color schemes, see November 5th and December 27th version. This month, the opposite objection arose, that my colors were too faint, so an attractive but much stronger shade of teal (which doesn't match the NL blue/AL red convention) was substituted for American League teams. I wasn't trying to favor one league over the other, just to be economical with the shading. I still think that a shaded table is infinitely more informative and easier to read than a plain gray array of 9 columns over 105 years; the alternative of putting the National League in one column and other leagues in another (which also shows pennant winners in sequence and allows managers and teams to be compared easily for both winning and losing years) ran into awkward difficulties with where to put the score and how to clearly highlight the winning team each year while accommodating color-blind readers, monochrome monitors, screen reading programs and other parts of Wikipedia:Accessibility. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Ultimately I just don't think the shading adds much of anything for all the complexity it lends. Again, List of Stanley Cup champions gets by just fine without it (or even a column for league/conference). Staxringold talkcontribs 21:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC) The prose looks good, and I like the table construction. Also, the sorting works with colspans!... Somehow!... I'm good with that. It's all about putting in sorting values. My one question is if I should change the sorting value from "zzz" (so they sort to the bottom) to "aaa" (so they sort to the top) because currently the first column (winning team) sorts them to the bottom because of that value but then the rest sort them to the top (because they have a null value). Makes sense; I'd accept that as an explanation (lol). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC) The 2010 MLB box doesn't particularly belong on this article, as it doesn't link here. This list is basically a historical record, so it doesn't have much to do with an ongoing/upcoming season. Removed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I think we need a note somewhere that years in the table link to the corresponding World Series. I'll put a small key together right now. It'll also explicitly explain the league abbreviations. Finally, as previously discussed at WT:MLB, I think that former FL director, hard worker, and all-round great guy Scorpion0422 should get co-nom credit here, because he did a lot of work before Stax came in and took over to get this ready for FLC. Absolutely right, sorry I forgot to mention that, I'll list that right now. Added: Forgot the toolbox check... 4 dablinks. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC) One dead EL (2003 WS) and one firewalled (which is SI, so that always happens). Fixed, dunno why that didn't transfer to B-Ref. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Support — Cheers, and hats off to the (hopeful) FT! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those lists that I started working on, but never got around to finishing it off. Why were the references from the MLB website replaced? I know third party sources are usually considered better than official sources, but I thought that in this case, it was acceptable. I can't say that I like the colour coding (though it has since been removed). Is it worth mentioning that the Blue Jays are the only team from outside the States to appear in/win a World Series? Should there be some mention of the pre-Official World Series champions? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• I replaced the MLB references because they had far less information about the series', and MLB.com had a couple different formats for the links which left me worried that they would migrate and kill off some of the links. I can add the Blue Jays note, that's a solid point. As for pre-WS champs, I dunno. There is a disambig to them at the top. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments " best-of-seven playoff and is played between " playoff followed by played is a little tiresome. Maybe "is contested by"? Done. "meet with the " I have never seen the use of the word "with" in this sentence! But I am a Brit... Changed, but meeting with someone is definitely a phrase used plenty. What's "the Fall Classic"? The series itself, fixed to make clearer "met with President Barack Obama, " there's that "with" again...! That really is normal phrasing. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Any reason for the spaces between text and the notes? Done. No reason to bold AL and NL in the key, they're not bolded in the table. Done. Not sure what the slight colour-coding means? Shouldn't it be in the key? It's gone. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC) There's some discussion on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NBA and WNBA Drafts/archive1 over a mixture of alignments in a list. You may like to browse it and prepare yourself! Thanks! Minor point but the hatnote links to the pre-World Series list, the title contains the word "baseball" while this list doesn't. Perhaps some consistency here? The World Series is the World Series. The pre-World Series link can't simply be List of World Series champions, however, or it would effectively refer to every sports champion before 1903. Okay, no problem, other than there are other World Series, e.g. World Series of Poker, World Series of Darts, World Series of Snooker... just wanted to make sure we (non-baseball experts) are happy with it as it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC) In fact, World Series (disambiguation) is quite hefty...! But no big deal, it just stuck out to me that this could easily be called List of World Series baseball champions without harming anyone too much... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Again though (replying as this is your only non-capped comment), those would be at say... List of World Series of Poker champions or whatever. This is the only thing that is just the World Series. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC) I understand that you and I both know that the World Series is the World Series, but since, globally, there are dozens of "World Series", and since the title should be unambiguous (in my opinion), I just think adding the word "baseball" between Series and champions here would do no harm at all. I'm really not trying to be difficult, honest, I promise.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Mkay, I'll move it. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments – There is a link to championship ring that could be useful for the second paragraph. It's not the greatest article in the world, so I wouldn't blame you if you declined to include it. Linked. That's the kind of thing that could see improvement some day. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC) I see Major League and major league in the third paragraph. It would be nice if they were made consistent, in either form. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC) "(once as Brooklyn, five times as Los Angeles)." Change both "as" uses to "in", like in the other paranthetical bit? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Nice photo by the franchise table! :-) Heh. I actually am particularly proud/happy with the lead image, I think it makes for a nice, bias-free, non-changing image to intro the article. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Hidden typo in the alt text for the trophy photo – "one a red platform." Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Notes W and X could use sources. If you have trouble finding sources, one of my almanacs can cite at least who the expansion teams were. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC) KV5 properly cited the Wild Card note, could use a nice simple expansion team source sure. All we need is a list of ML franchises that quickly notes their history/creation date or whatever. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC) The almanac I ended up using has a list of the expansion teams and when they joined MLB. Sounds like exactly what was called for. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Support – Excellent job with a list I've been hoping would come here for a while (please note that I did add a reference, in case the closers consider me an involved party at this point). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments about naming conventions

*Comment TRM, sorry, but "List of World Series baseball champions" sounds very awkward. Other than the facts that the World Series is the original World Series and the main article is World Series, rendering "baseball" superfluous, the title doesn't even make sense grammatically. You wouldn't say List of Super Bowl football champions or List of Stanley Cup hockey champions. "World Series" is incorrectly being used as an adjective when it's not one. Reywas92Talk 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Naming conventions can be dealt with very quickly at any time, what do you think of the article itself? Staxringold talkcontribs 03:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC) I've no opinion on whether "baseball" is necessary or not, but I believe Reywas is correct about the grammar. If you all decide whether "baseball" should stay in the title, the article's name should probably be changed to "List of World Series (baseball) champions". Dabomb87 (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Shall I move it? Not to be presumptuous, but I think this FLC is pretty well settled other than the question of "World Series champions", "World Series baseball champions", or "World Series (baseball) champions". Staxringold talkcontribs 22:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Just popping in here, I think "List of World Series champions" would be best. List of Stanley Cup champions is thus named. Anyway, "World Series baseball champions" is still somewhat ambiguous: see all the "World Series" listed at World Series (disambiguation). Either "World Series champions" or "MLB World Series champions". Mm40 (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Again, I just ask that the FLC and ostensibly the FTC are not held up from closing over this. If anything such a discussion belongs at the article talk page. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC) I'm not going to change my support, whatever the outcome, but since we have World Series (disambiguation), I think it's fair enough to assume that not all people associate World Series with baseball. Yes, US readers definitely will, but baseball isn't exactly popular in Europe or Africa. All I wanted was an unambiguous title which defines the content of the list to a non-expert. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC) It's worth noting that on that disambiguation page, this particular World Series is the only one to have just the words "World Series" alone. All of the other World Series have other things affixed to them; e.g., College World Series, World Series of Blackjack, World Series Cricket, World Netball Series, etc. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC) That was precisely the logic originally. Everything would be at List of College World Series champions or whatever. Disambiguation, I thought, was only needed in the title when the items had the same name as in The Office (UK TV series) and The Office (US TV series) or Top Gear (1977 TV series) and Top Gear (2002 TV series). Staxringold talkcontribs 17:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC) As I said, no worries. It just seemed odd to me that the hatnote did include baseball and this didn't. I guess I'm seriously North American-outvoted here! Move along, nothing more to see. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC) The difference (I moved the original hatnote) is simply saying "pre-World Series champions" doesn't tell you it's baseball related, there were other types of championships before the World Series. "World Series champions", however, tells you definitively what it's referring to. Moving back per this discussion. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC) I thought the World Series was the World Series so saying "pre-World Series" was the same as saying "pre-World Series". Oh well. As I said before, happy to go with consensus. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC) But you see it isn't, because say "World Series" means you are referring directly to that thing. "Pre-World Series" could mean any event (or in this case champions) prior to 1903, the beginning of the World Series. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Yeah, clearly it's been a long week for me 'cos I still don't get it. It's abundantly clear to all you guys, so I'm bound by consensus, no worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Nice job! It seems everything has already been taken care of. Reywas92^Talk 00:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support Pretty solid job, I can't find anything to pick out of it. Afro (Not a Talk Page) ^{- Afkatk} 07:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment In the appearances by team column, why is the Win % column right aligned when everything else is center aligned? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• No reason, fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:57, 20 January 2010 [10].

---

Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award

Nominator(s): Mm40 (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The second-to-last topic in WP:BASEBALL's featured topic drives for award. I have two concerns with the article. The first is the tie for the 1979 NL award; I was trying to use colspan, but according to Help:Sorting, that doesn't work. Additionally, I'm not sure if the lead is long enough, but I can expand it if need be. I hope this doesn't die due to a lack of reviews. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

;Comments from KV5 "first commissioner of MLB" - first MLB commissioner Done. "at two difference positions" - different Fixed. Suggest either removing "year in baseball" links in prose since they duplicate information in the tables. Also, {{by}} links throughout should be changed to {{mlby}}, since the Major League Baseball season pages provide more context. I can't find anymore "year in baseball links" in the prose; I fixed them just after I initiated this, so you might have seen the old version. Also, changed the {{by}} templates using AWB. "in the Majors" - in Major League Baseball Done. "widely disliked Ty Cobb" - widely-disliked; it's a compound adjective here Done. For the 1979 issue, I would put Don Baylor in one cell as shown, then leave the other blank with centered em-dashes. Done, put the dashes in the second cell. There are a lot of active National League players who aren't marked as "active". Not sure how I missed those; maybe as a Mets fan I'd just like to think Howard and Rollins are retired. Remove fixed image widths to allow users' preferences to set the size of the thumbnails based on their resolution (except the lead image). Removed. Remove the section links from the header of the navbox so that it's obvious that they link to this article (link should bold out on this article). Done. Team links in the table should, I believe, go to the franchise, not to history pages, to be consistent with all of the other articles in the series. I did it this way because I feel it would be more useful to the reader to be able to read about the team the winners played for, not the current incarnation of the franchise, some of which don't have history sections. An example is Oakland Athletics, which has nothing in the History section, so a link there from "Philadelphia Athletics" wouldn't be very useful. If you still think so, I'll change it though. I think that's more a weakness of those particular articles rather than this one, so I still think they should go to the franchise pages. I'll drop a note on the talk page of the Athletics page so that maybe some editors who visit/edit that page regularly can talk about incorporating some history into the main page. Or maybe I'll just do it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Ok, changed them.

Great work, Mm40! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, now we just need Starx to finish WS champs. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• *shakes fist at uppity teens ruining his lawn* Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Staxringold

*Comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 15:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC) The Ruth and Foxx images are lacking alt text. You caught me just as I was adding more images and finishing alt text. There are 4 disambig links that the FLC tool will show you (Bob Elliot, bunt, Larry Doyle, Texas Rangers). That's odd, they weren't there this morning. Fixed. I think the lead could use expansion. Precisely how many did each of those IF positions win? Foxx was the first to win multiples. DEFINITELY mention the 1979 shared award. Etc, etc, etc. Done, is that enough? Now three decent-sized paragraphs. "The award's only tie occurred in 1979 when Keith Hernandez and Willie Stargell both received 216 points." - in which league? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Specified. By the way, can your resolved comments be considered a support? Mm40 (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC) I've taken to waiting for most comments to be resolved before stating a support. There have been some instances where I've supported lists after finding 3 or 4 mistakes only to come back and find that other reviewers have found 25 or 30 things that I missed. Since the resolution of comments is given more weight than a declaration of support anyway, I usually wait to see the comments that other users make, and if they are resolved as well, before supporting or opposing. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Also, the League Award needs quite a bit more citing. The rule about one-win-per-player is completely uncited. The entire section is cited to Gammons and Palmer; if you can find some more sources, I'd gladly incorporate them. How does it look now. I realize there are a few missing symbols, I'm adding them now. Mm40 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC) All the above issues resolved. Mm40 (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The only problem I have is that all of the content is under a single header. As the title says the list is about award winners, it is unnecessary to have a header saying the entire article is about award winners. Make the current subsections top-level sections. Reywas92^Talk 17:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  Done. Mm40 (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Support Reywas92^Talk 20:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments First feel is (as a non-baseball expert), why divide the tables? I could easily see a lead which merges that good info into one and allows us to sort all the winners against each other rather than three sets of winners. Not a big deal though. Because there are three different awards presented by three different organizations in three different time periods, though they were all presented for the same purpose: identifying the Most Valuable Player. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC) "in each league" how many leagues are there in MLB? Non-experts may not know... Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC) "both received 216 points" - but we don't know how we got there - what's the scoring system? Good point. I've moved the exact amount of points down to footnote [c], which the reader will presumably read after the description of the scoring system. Better? Mm40 (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC) baseballevolution.com - a reliable source (even though it's just an EL?) The Rambling Man (talk) Considering the link to their "About Us" page is broken, I'd assume not. Removed. Mm40 (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Comma after "first MLB commissioner". Added. "The award's only tie occurred the National League in 1979". Missing "in". Fixed. Next sentence starts with a number, 17. It would be better if this was worded to avoid the number beginning the sentence. How's it sound now? Chalmers Award: Remove hyphen in "widely-disliked"? It was suggested by KV5 because it's a compound adjective; I'm keeping it with the hyphen for now, but I'm not sure. League Awards: Do your sources contain anything on how the NL award was established? Not vital by any means, but it would be nice to know if avaliable. I couldn't find anything on establishment (although I'm going to look more later), but I did find other info. Tell me how it sounds. BBWAA MVP: redundancy in the first sentence: "The BBWAA first awarded the modern MVP award...". Award...award... Fixed. Footnote c: "Hernandez and Stargell both received the 216 points in the 1979 voting." Remove first "the" to make it tighter? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Not tighter, grammatically correct. Fixed. Mm40 (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Support – Another top-quality list, like the other MLB awards lists that have come through here lately. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - what Giants said. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• "the Detroit Tigers' widely disliked Ty Cobb" Can you source "widely disliked" (and is it even necessary)? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  Sources added. I think it may serve as reasoning for a prise being awarded to both players; Chalmers wouldn't give the award only to an unpopular player. Mm40 (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment is it possible to place tot he Barry Bonds picture actually in the Key section? it seems a bit out of place hovering next to the Table of Contents, it might not even need a fix its just personal curiosity as to why its placed there. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 10:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

  Done. Mm40 (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Now there are 2 Barry Bonds pictures? Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 12:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

    I really should sleep some time, done. Mm40 (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I have nothing now standing out which concerns me. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 12:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support Well done...Modernist (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:57, 20 January 2010 [11].

---

List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete list, with proper references and I think it meets all the other criteria required for review. Kumioko (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments I think the lead could be expanded a touch. You have only two major sections to the list so writing a paragraph summarising the recipients in the lead (i.e. how many, where, why etc) shouldn't be too hard. "received the Medal of Honor. José Nísperos was the first person of Asian descent to receive the Medal," - receive the medal is a little repetitive here. Done.--Kumioko (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC) "and he received his for " replace with "after" and then replace the next "after" with "following" perhaps? A little more succinct? Done--Kumioko (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Trinidad's date of action is 1915 but your intro to this section says fighting continued until 1913... I'm confused. The heading mentions peacetime but the lead to this table doesn't make it clear. Done I think this is clearer now too.--Kumioko (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Not sure you need to link conflict to war. Not sure what you mean here, could you clarify?--Kumioko (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC) World War II is overlinked. Done. --Kumioko (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Worth mentioning that only two officers were awarded this in WWII? Done--Kumioko (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Unit doesn't sort correctly - I'd expect 7th before 100th for instance. I'd look at the {{SortKey}} template. Done, Took me a little while to figure this out but I think its fixed now. --Kumioko (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Not 100% on my alt text but should they all reflect that the people in the images are Asian American? Done- I removed the reference to asian from the ones that contained it. Given the context of the article it is not necesary and the article title emphasizes that they are of asian decent. --Kumioko (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Sortable table - link each link every time. Check platoon. There could be others. Could you clarify this a little too, im confused. --Kumioko (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Don't think you need to link United States in the Korean war section. Done--Kumioko (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC) "armistice (ceasefire agreement) " - you've linked armistice so no need for the parenthetical hint. Done--Kumioko (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Don't mix date formats in the references. Either all ISO or all human-readable. Done--Kumioko (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Just make sure that every time you link something in your sortable tables, you link it every single time because it's a sortable list. E.g. platoon. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks..--Kumioko (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Still says "During this conflict two Asian Americans... " - but wasn't one of them peacetime? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Your absolutely right. Ill get that fixed in the next couple hours. --Kumioko (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC) I think it should be ok now. --Kumioko (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Just a few minor technical points:
  • emdashes (for example in Korean War section) should be unspaced according to WP:DASH;

Done--Kumioko (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't believe this one has been covered off on yet. There are still spaces between the emdashes in the Korean War section. To fix it, you need to remove the non breaking space mark up code. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Know I think I have it.--Kumioko (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• • in the lead, there is irregular capitalisation of the word "As" (as in as of);

Done This was due to the use of the as of template but I removed it. --Kumioko (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• • in the lead, as you mention the first recipient, would it make sense to mention the last recipient?

Done- I expanded the lead a little and added this to it. --Kumioko (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• • there is some inconsistency in style regarding US and U.S.;

"is there a preference to which is used? --Kumioko (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell, if using American English (which this article does) U.S. would be preferred, but I don't think it is required. I normally use "US" myself, but I don't think it matters so long as there is consistency. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations) might be able to help. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Done --Kumioko (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• • there is some inconsistency in how you deal with numbers greater than 10. In the lead you use numbers (e.g. "31 have been awarded", but elsewhere you use letters (e.g. in World War II "twenty-four Asian American awardees, twenty-one...".

Is there a preference to how these should be handled. I believe I read something were numbers less than ten were spelled out but numbers larger than ten were displayed as numbers. I can't seem to find that at the moment though. --Kumioko (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you are correct. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers as figures or words states that the general rule is to spell numbers below ten, and use numbers for 10 and above. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Done- I think I fixed these. --Kumioko (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, I think it should be okay. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

All my concerns have been dealt with, so I have changed my comments to support. Well done. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments. Support. Well written, I have a few things. Arsonal (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Add a comma after "September 17, 2009" as the numbers 2009 and 31 next to each other would look slightly awkward if the inline citation were not there.

• Done. --Kumioko (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• It might be advisable to wikilink the first instance of "Asian American" so as to provide context of the term's scope.

• Done. --Kumioko (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• It seems that some of the other Medal of Honor lists contain a column for "Place of Action". I would like to see the information on this list as well.

• Done - I also linked all the locations that had a page. --Kumioko (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• The World War II section mentions: "Of the Asian American recipients during World War II, only two were officers." Forgive me for not being knowledgeable, but at what rank does a military personnel become an officer? This might need to be clarified.

• Done. Rather than add a huge chunk of text that only loosely related to the topic and was information I added this as a note. --Kumioko (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• The explanation is nice, but it still doesn't tell me which two persons are officers because I know nothing about rank hierarchy. Arsonal (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I clarified it some more but please let me know if you want me to change anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good. I tweaked it to reduce redundancy on Inouye's information. Arsonal (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Is ref 22 needed? It seems like additional information and doesn't connect well with the main prose. Arsonal (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support Well written, although I did notice a disambig link when I ran the dab checker, can you locate that and remove it if at all possible? TomStar81 (Talk) 12:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:57, 20 January 2010 [12].

---

Grammy Legend Award

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 16:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the FL criteria. I welcome all comments. Thanks, Pyrrhus16 16:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Perhaps a touch radical but since you have almost a complete set of images, how about embedding them in the table rather than the (rather nasty, in my opinion) gallery? I did similar for the Crafoord Prize. Added images to table. Consider using the Award infobox. Added. "to recording artist " - to a recording artist? Plus, do you really mean this? Are the Bee Gees an "artist"? Changed to "recording artists". "were issued in 1990, to recipients Andrew Lloyd Webber" - why not just "were awarded in 1990, to Andrew..."? Done. "inuagrated" - typo. Fixed. "The next year, in 1992," perhaps I missed something but the next year would be 1991... Correct. Fixed. "prestigious award" who says it's prestigious? Dropped "prestigious". Your lead says awards were made in 1995 but the table doesn't. Changed to 1994, and tweaked the sentence in reference to the award being issued intermittently. 15 musicians? I'd say 14 solo musicians and one band... Changed to "14 solo musicians and one band have received the Grammy Legend Award". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. Pyrrhus16 17:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support

• were issued in 1990, to → were issued in 1990 to

• Done.

• The next year, in 1991, four more → The next year four more

• Done.

A very short list withour much information, but I think you've got everything and it looks nice. Reywas92^Talk 03:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Pyrrhus16 19:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk) I don't think "awarded by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences" should be in "Awarded for" in the infobox. Done. The first two sentences begin and end with "the Grammy Awards"; see if you can reword them. Reworded. The third sentence should clarify that it's talking about the normal Grammies, not the Legend Award. Clarified. "in the 21st century, when the brothers" the comma isn't needed. Done. Is there any info on how the recipients are selected? I know of the nomination and selection process for regular awards, but cannot find any information on the system for this special award. In Joel's alt text: "upper body show of a" is "show" a typo? Fixed. Can you think of anything else to add to the table? Maybe a genre/simple description? For some of the artists listed, genres can be hard to place and become the subject of "genre trolls". I can't think of any other appropriate things to add to the table. In reference 6, America's Intelligence Wire should be a work, not a publisher Done. Because most of the information presented should be well-covered, I think more freely-accessible sources can be used; not a requisite, just a suggestion. Added free and reliable sources where I could find them; a lot of the sources available give the wrong date for artists receiving the award. The 2001 People Entertainment Almanac needs attention with regards to formatting. Who's the author? People is in the template but does not show up. Fixed the template. People is the author. Overall, the article seems a bit thin, but I assume there's nothing else that can be added. Mm40 (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Pyrrhus16 19:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support Although a free replacement for reference #9 would be nice. Also, any critical response to the award of any kind? For example, the list is pretty heavily US/UK-centric and, more generally, Western. I'd say Khaled is as much a Legend as Streisand is, eg. And I'm hardly a music critic. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've removed ref 9 and re-used a free reference which was already in the article. I have found no critical commentary on the award in any sources. Thanks. Pyrrhus16 21:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I can't find anything in this article which would raise any issues. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 18:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:57, 20 January 2010 [13].

---

List of National Historic Landmarks in Indiana

Nominator(s): Reywas92^Talk 22:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the last FLC, I have added alt text, removed information not covered in the references, and improved the related articles. Reywas92^Talk 22:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. It was in the templated map. Reywas92^Talk 00:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments James Whitcomb Riley House links to a disambig. That was fixed above, but the tool hasn't updated it, unless it's hiding somewhere. ...Courthouse is an unusual combination.. I don't like the word "unsual". A bit too weasely. Changed to "unique" Classocal revivial architecture Spelling. Fixed 200-foot Shouldn't this be plural? No, it's used as an adjective. 192-foot Again, plural? No, again, it's used as an adjective. 210 feet Hyphenate like you did above. No, it's not used as an adjective. Template:National Register of Historic Places doesn't have a link to this article. It's not required to. That is standard to all NRHP articles. It was mentioned in a previous review that ref 14 doesn't specifically mention the construction date. This has not been fixed. Changed. Again, a previous review mentioned that ref 7 for Angel Mounds doesn't define it as a regional center. I suggest you take another look at Nev1's comments in the previous FLC. Changed. Reywas92Talk 01:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC) I will continue my review when I feel the issues above as well as the issues from the previous FLC have been resolved.—NMajdan•talk 16:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC) I'm still not convinced all sourcing issues have been resolved. I picked one random citation, #39 for General Lew Wallace Study, and the citation given says nothing of him being a Governor, nothing about being a minister, nothing about being designed by Lew Wallace and nothing about being a Ben-Hur museum (just says museum).—NMajdan•talk 19:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Fixed. And I do apologize for not providing a more thorough review; work has been a bit more hectic since the beginning of the year and I'm generally not very active on weekends. Here are some more (and I don't feel it is my duty to verify each and every source): Citation 28: Doesn't say anything about the 1982 conversion. Fixed. See the name of the linked article. Citation 31: Doesn't say anything about this being the last building designed by the architect before his death. Also doesn't say anything about being an oculus allowing light into the sanctuary. Fixed. Citation 40: Doesn't say anything about Walker being the first self-made female millionare. Fixed. I'm sure there are more given how I was again 3/3 on the sources I inspected.—NMajdan•talk 22:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC) To the nominator, are you sure you have identified and corrected all instances where the text does not reconcile with the source attributed to it? I have now raised this issue multiple times and have provided nearly half a dozen examples. Frankly, if I look again and find another, my final vote will be oppose.—NMajdan•talk 16:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it has been discussed below (and argued some elsewhere, previously) that by the nature of this list being an index of well-sourced articles, the list-article can be regarded as well-sourced although not every unsurprising detail is explicitly sourced on this page. For example, discussed below is the 210 foot height of the memorial in "Indiana World War Memorial Plaza HD" and the fact that is not in the NHL summary webpage which is footnoted. Note User:Nev1 who focussed on detailed referencing in earlier review seems receptive about this. If a fact is surprising or controversial, I agree it should be explicitly sourced, as in any article. Non-surprising/non-important/non-controversial facts do not require in-line citations in wikipedia articles, including FAs. So, I would hope you could focus your concern on facts that you feel need sourcing, and not be unduly irked by a gotcha-type discovery about something that in the larger scheme is not so important. I do appreciate your attention to detail here and elsewhere, though, and I don't mean to imply that good sourcing is unimportant for Featured Lists. It clearly is important; I just think there can be overkill in sourcing that makes some list-articles less helpful for readers. doncram (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the sourcing is my only concern for this article. I don't completely disagree with you and as long as the FL directors are aware of this, then this list has my support.—NMajdan•talk 20:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There shouldn't be any other problems. Reywas92^Talk 00:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments - nice illustrated list, but a few things for me... Four "Indiana"s in the opening two sentences - this could use some variation, e.g. "the state"? Done Weren't natives "early settlers" or do you settlers to mean Europeans here? Done You link Indiana a little later than you could. Done "They illustrate the state's industrial and architectural heritage, as well as battles, circuses, education, and several other topics" to me this reads that "They illustrate the states ... battles, circuses, education.." - do you mean that? or do you mean they also illustrate the state's battle heritage, circus heritage, education heritage? Just reads a little strangely to me... Well I wouldn't say we have a battle or education heritage. I'm not sure what to say. Don't think you need (a ship) in parentheses, you could just have ", a ship that was ..." Done Are the NHL criteria the same as the predetermined criteria you mention? Yes, I think so. Where do you mean? You use light-blue only for designating National Historic Landmark. Is this because you're assuming you don't need a symbol (per WP:ACCESS) by virtue of the fact you have only two categories and the other does have a symbol? Yes. Symbol (+dark blue) is NHLD and no symbol (+light blue) is just NHL. Why is Landmark name in bold? Removed Why abbreviate the date? The column is wide enough for a full month. Yes, but that depends on your computer size and it would take away from the other columns. Our Beaux-Arts on Wikipedia is hyphenated. Done "Classical Revival" or "Classical revival"? Revival You don't link modern architecture but you do link modern-style (to neoclassicism). Both linked "He would later be" could just be "He later became..." Done "The 500 is the largest single-day sporting event in the world" in what context? Attendance "and influenced future bank" - subsequent instead of future. Done "place for both Indians and whites " just a quick check, 'cos I'm a dumb European, do you still use "Indians" in this sense? Yes, both Indians and Native Americans are acceptable terms, though the latter is considered politically correct. "It is a fine example of Greek Revival style from architect Francis Costigan amd is now a museum" fine in whose opinion? And fix the "amd" typo. Done Since this list is sortable, I would have thought we should link things like Italianate in every instance as there's no guarantee which one appears first after a re-sort. Done Blank image cell for the quilter house, would be better off as an en-dash so it doesn't just look as if something's gone missing. Same for any others. Done I don't like the split off table of one former landmark. Perhaps this is the format used elsewhere but it looks odd to have a single-row sortable table. I would add it with a note in the descriptions column.\ I think it would be inapproprate to include inde it with the others, and other states have this. I removed the sortability. Okay, but at least make the column sizes the same widths as the previous table...! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Done See also has History of Indiana which you already link to the in lead. Done Not directly relevant but the templates are different shades of blue. Why not make them the same, at least for the NHL/NHL in Indiana template? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Well the NHLs in IN one should be the same as the general NRHP one. I reordered to put the same colors together. Thanks for the help! Reywas92Talk 18:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC) "approximately 1,687 " very precise for an approximation. That is the total number, but more are always being added. Well I would say 1,687 as of X. Because 1,687 simply isn't approximate, it's exact. Very precise indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC) I'll check with Doncram about a date. Updated as of December 2009.

• Ordering of first column is odd, despite the note, and means you cannot (as far as I can tell) restore the list back to numerical order. Can you do it?
  • The number column is also sortable.
    • Yes, that's what I mean, the number column does not sort numerically so once you've sorted per something, you can never get the list back in numerical order. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't see what you mean. If I play with the sorting of the other columns and then go back to the number it's in the original numerical order.
        • Not in Safari. It sorts four ways. I would guess it's down to the symbols you're using. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure it would make a difference just by browser. It works for me, so I wouldn't how to fix it without taking out the important symbols. Reywas92^Talk 20:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
            • I'm surprised you think all browsers work the same way! (for instance this site seems to imply there could be various issues). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
              • You don't have to be rude about it. I would expect the sorting to be more of a Wikipedia thing. Could you please play with it? Obviously I would have no idea if it works for you unless I strip it down to just the numbers, which shouldn't be done. Reywas92^Talk 21:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
                • Sorry, if it appeared I was I being rude then forgive me. Just that being a Mac user we're often overlooked since we utterly never use "Internet Explorer". Sometimes the way "we" see the internet is different from everyone else. All I'm saying is that there seem to be issues. Don't forget, it's just my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
                  • Which brings up a question. Is there an easy way to see how a page renders with different browsers? I know with Firefox and IE tab, I can easily look at those two browsers. But I don't know how to check Safari short of downloading it, which I am not inclined to do.—NMajdan•talk 01:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
                    • Well, since it's free and if you really wanted to address the cross-browser issues, then downloading it seems the easiest and most comprehensive way of doing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
            • Looks like you need to replace the {{NHLsm}} and {{NRHPlegend}} templates with something that sorts correctly. I'm also not a fan of how the latter links you to Wikipedia:NRHP colors legend, which is just another key/legend. Seems like that whole thing would violate WP:ACCESS.—NMajdan•talk 21:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
              • I've changed all to the NHRPlegend template. I'll keep testing the template to see if I get anywhere. Reywas92^Talk 21:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
                • I'm not sure whether NMajdan refers to some link to the Wikipedia:NRHP colors legend other than the one in a footnote phrase "defined here", from footnote explaining the first column. Given that the article has an explicit key section defining the only two colors used in this article, the "defined here" link to the NRHP colors legend is not needed though. The footnote explaining the first column is still needed, to explain the ordering is by first "significant" word and that the numbering should not be interpreted as something too highly significant. It seems the table is sorting properly by that number column now. By the way, the table can be sorted to its original order in any browser, I believe, by refreshing the page. But it is helpful to have the first column be sortable to provide that option of sorting explicitly. doncram (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Other Comments

• The article seems well developed on explaining the NHL designation process. For example the guidelines at Title 36, Part 65 are linked, although maybe with one extra step required to get to that (not sure if my linking here will work, either). The statements all seem accurate to me, except maybe there is a little bit of over-emphasis on the National Park Service staff making the recommendations. The guidelines anticipate that state officials and "other parties" other than National officials will make recommendations (which then the NPS would evaluate and come to its own recommendations about). The possibility that state officials or private owners will nominate a property for NHL designation should be admitted, as that does happen (or technically they may be "recommending" rather than "nominating" their property for NHL status, if "nominating" is technically to be reserved for referring to the National Park Service's step in the process, while "nominating" as an English language word is what they are in fact doing).
• Indiana is different than many other states in that none of its NHLs are also National Historic Sites, National Historical Parks, or other types of National Park Service units covering sites of historical importance. Indiana does have two non-NHL, NRHP-listed NPS units, the George Rogers Clark National Historical Park and the Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial, which should be at least mentioned in the article, IMO. The National Park Service does make a point of mentioning these two non-NHLs in its official list of NHLs (the mention is on page 114 of the nation-wide PDF list that is the first reference in this article, or on the same page of the Indiana-specific PDF list of NHLs that the NPS also provides, not linked from this article). I believe it is appropriate to follow their lead in the Wikipedia list-article about the Indiana NHLs. These two sites are comparable to a NHL and, if the sites were not NPS units, they probably would be designated as NHLs. There is no specific source I can point to right now about this, but places which are NPS units already often do not get NHL designation, presumably because there are no significant additional benefits in terms of tax incentives or otherwise, for a site that is already a NPS unit. The George Rogers Clark National Historical Park and the Lincoln boyhood memorials are the only other contenders, anyhow, besides the NHLs, for being among the most important historic sites in the state that are recognized by the Federal government. This list-article, mainly covering the NHLs, is improved by covering these 2 in addition, so that it covers all of the most highly recognized sites of national historical importance in the state. I personally would want to include location information including coordinates for these, so that the Google/Bing map links are more useful to readers, too. doncram (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe this was discussed in the previous FLC. With all due respect, I think that only NHLs should be listed on this List of NHLs. And, in fact, the Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial is both a NMEM and NHL, but it is called Lincoln Boyhood Home. Reywas92^Talk 23:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I just did notice the Lincoln Boyhood Home is both an NHL and NMEM too, and I added NMEM color and a symbol to the Key and changed its entry to show that.
    • Yes, whether to separately list the non-NHL NPS historic places has been discussed some before; i have not revisited what was said in the previous FLC. Reywas92, I take it your view is that having a separate table for them (just the George Rogers Clark National Historical Park in this case) is not what you want. While I would prefer having that, and including location and coordinates info for it, as I believe that readers interested in NHLs in IN are well served by having that. It is a lesser step, though, to just include mention of the place in the text. Can we just do that, which is part of clarifying what the NHLs are, anyhow (they are among the most important nationally-recognized historic sites in the state, but there's at least one other roughly equivalent site). I'll try making an edit to add some mention somewhere, to have something specific to discuss. doncram (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I see in the first FLC, Reywas92, your view was "I wouldn't oppose a see also or a mention in the lead, but these do not belong in an NHL list". I tried adding a mention of the one NHP into the text. Is that okay? doncram (talk)
      • Looks fine to me. Thanks! But for Lincoln, it is both an NHLD and NMEM. How should that be marked with the colors? I think it should use the NHLD color because that is what the list is describing. Reywas92^Talk 23:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, the table is all NHLs/NHLDs, that is understood. Whether one is further a relatively rarer National Historic Site, National Memorial, etc. is usefully indicated by a color of that. That is how the wider system of NRHP lists is devised: in NRHP lists, all NRHPs are indeed NRHPs but we don't apply just NRHP blue color to every one, we have used different colors to indicate NHLs and NHLDs and NHSs etc amongst the mere NRHPs. For consistency with use of the colors in all other NRHP lists and all other NHL lists, this one should show the relatively rare NMEM color. doncram (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

About sourcing: the issue on sourcing opened in the first FLC, mostly in comments by Nev1, seems still open. There are facts stated in many of the descriptions which do not appear in the NHL summary webpages that are given as the sources. For example, specifics in the Indiana World War Memorial Plaza Historic District entry do not appear in its NHL summary webpage. As I stated in the closing minutes of the first FLC, I would support the descriptions being summaries of their corresponding articles as they are now, without representation that they are fully sourced from the NHL summary webpages (which is not accurate). I do want to support the FL candidacy of this article without requiring excessive footnoting, without requiring all the references that appear in each of the corresponding articles. But I would hope FL status be given with some more explicit understanding consensus of what's being done. doncram (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I had removed excess information not in the references so nearly everything should be covered by them. Reywas92^Talk 23:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

So, to be clear for one example, the Indiana World War Memorial Plaza HD description mentions" it is 210 feet (64 m) tall" and that is not in the NHL summary webpage which is footnoted. I personally do not feel that the height is a controversial assertion requiring a separate footnote to the NRHP document, say. I assume the height is accurately/adequately sourced in the corresponding article about the HD. I think this is fine, but then I would prefer for a footnote to the title of the descriptions column be given that clarifies some non-controversial facts are sourced in the corresponding articles. I had composed and/or applied such a footnote in the NY NHL list-article. doncram (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

To conclude, I support promotion to FL. I've reviewed the article again, think it is very good, and I have no remaining concerns. Nice job! doncram (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments – The main map image requires alt text. "There are 37 National Historic Landmarks in the state, which are located in 22 of the its 92 counties." Excess "the" in this sentence. I find the first paragraph of the lead to be slightly overlinked, in particular the battle, circus and education links back-to-back-to-back. These are common terms and don't require the links, especially when there are so many valuable links later in the lead. All caps should be removed from references 2 and 15. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC) All done. Thanks! Reywas92Talk 23:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Well written and well sourced list. Ruslik_Zero 22:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support From a quick sample of the sources (I don't have time to do as detailed a review as I did last time), but they seem mostly sorted. Most examples of prose being lifted straight from the source and of details creeping in from elsewhere have been addressed. I'd prefer it to be dealt with completely, and believe that with just 42 sources, the list is a long way from being "excessively" footnoted, but the height issue is incredibly minor. After the comments from everyone else, and as my own concerns from the previous FLC have been addressed, I am happy to support the list. Good job Reywas, I'm glad to see this back at FLC! Nev1 (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note Please address the sourcing issue brought up by NMajdan. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Quick Comment - in the top paragraph in brackets you list National Historic Landmarks as NHLs but throughout the lead you list it without the s, as trivial as it may seem I could see this confusing some readers, just wondering if it would be better to change this. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 17:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • What do you mean? NHLs is plural and NHL is singular.
    • "here are 37 National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) in the state", shouldn't that have no s on it? Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 20:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
      • National Historic Landmarks is plural so the abbreviation will also be plural: NHLs. Reywas92^Talk 22:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Quick Comment2 - I was just wondering why isn't the Light blue accompanied by a symbol?, since I've been told a color should be accompanied by a symbol. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk}
  • Having no symbol is the symbol. Teal + dagger = NHL District, Grey + lemniscate = National Memorial and NHl, and Light blue = NHL. It would be unnecessary for everything to have a symbol; we just like the colors. Reywas92^Talk 19:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Well early last year someone in a project I'm associated with WP:PW was told by Dabomb here "per WP:COLORS, colored cells should have accompanying symbols (e.g. * ^ †) for accessibility reasons." so unless I'm unaware of a change, I don't know why it shouldn't also be accompanied by a symbol. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 19:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks for being specific with your reference to Dabomb's previous comment. I went and looked at what he said, and he did say it that way, but the [[example he linked to was one where most of the cells were not colored, and the colored cells were different, needing explanation by a color/symbol key. Here in this list, the light blue coloring is the base coloring, and only the differently colored cells need explanation. --doncram (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Well I guess I have no outstanding or minor issues with the article. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 09:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:31, 16 January 2010 [14].

---

List of Seattle Sounders FC players

Nominator(s): WFCforLife (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I felt it was about time I pulled my finger out and did some work on a list. I'm nominating this list for FLC as part of the WP:SOUNDERS drive towards a featured topic. While I'm not exactly sure which articles such a young club would need to include in a topic, it's pretty clear that this one would be part of it. I think I've learnt from my last FLC, so hopefully this one will involve less work. For what it's worth, I'm in the wikicup. Thanks in advance, WFCforLife (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

This list is great work. The only thing that I might like to see is the key moved into a table, but it's not a deal-breaker. Extremely well-done. Support. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I experimented with a table for a similar key a while back, but I couldn't get one that I was happy with. I've split it into columns now, which hopefully does the job. WFCforLife (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man " and began playing competitive " this is a touch confusing because we've lost the subject - you've mentioned the city of Seattle since mentioning the club. soccer or football - pick one and stick with it I would suggest. Fixed. Old habits stick, but the s-word is clearly more appropriate. "The current Sounders FC is a distinct entity to both of these clubs" I think I understand what you're saying, but perhaps "an entity distinct to..." would be better? Reworded as suggested. "... three goalkeepers. Goalkeeper Kasey ..." quick repeat of goalkeeper. Swapped Zakuani and Keller for better prose. Why do you have a subsection 1.1 and no subsection 1.2? Addressed. No full stop after "Ejections" please. Removed. "Major League Soccer clubs ..." you've already abbreviated it, why not just say "MLS clubs..." I just feel that it makes for better prose, especially at the start of the paragraph. If you feel that it needs to be changed, I have no objection. Please be aware of an opposition to tables with a mixture of left- and centrally-aligned columns. The discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NBA and WNBA Drafts/archive1. Personally I have no problem whatsoever with it, but you should be forewarned! Warning duly noted, and an instance of left aligned numbers fixed. I don't think this is the same situation, as all of my actual text is left aligned. If I used "Defender", "Midfielder" and "Forward" in the table, I would left align it, but one or two character symbols should be treated in the same way as numbers as far as I'm concerned. Not sure just using coloured cards for those columns is allowed under WP:ACCESS... They have alt text. If images are disabled, the user will see "yellow card" and "red card" respectively. In the event of a colourblind user, the contrast is sufficent for them to be able to distinguish between the two. Notes col doesn't need to be sortable. Fixed If the players are still on the roster, shouldn't all the years be 2009–10? In a way I agree with you, but the rosters won't be finalised until March. Adding "–10" would imply that a player was part of the roster for the 2010 MLS season, or has already played MLS games in the 2010 season. "He usually stays near to his goal, and is seldom involved in his side's attacking moves." interesting, true but original research as unsourced. I guess you're right. Pity though. Blank cells, don't like, so use en-dash for those without notes. Done. That Miscellaneous section is no different from a {{trivia}} section so is not recommended. Removed. The notes are unreferenced. The Nyassi note is referenced in the notes column. I didn't feel that the shutout one needed referencing, it's simply an explanation of an ambiguous term. I've added a wikilink. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. WFCforLife (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "players who only appeared for the team in other competitions are noted at the bottom of the page." - I can't see any.....
  • Removed. Previously there were four players listed, but it was a cross between trivia and synthesis, so I just removed it altogether.
• Any reason for the goalies to be listed separately?
  • I figured this would come up. For English clubs we don't. But as far as I'm concerned, the reason for this is that we simply didn't record these statistics in the 19th century, and that it would be inconsistent to have this detail just for (please forgive the phrase) internet-era players. With Seattle Sounders there is no such problem, as they are all internet-era players and the MLS goes out of its way to compile these statistics. The options were therefore:

1. To ignore the available and more relevant statistics, and include goalkeepers in the same table as everyone else.
2. To list the goalkeepers in the main table, but also have a side table for them.
3. To have seperate tables for goalkeepers and other players.

• • My opinion is that the third option is the best.
• Spelling error in "conceded" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Thanks for the feedback. WFCforLife (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - can't see any issues, your point about goalie stats makes sense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from SkotyWA

• I fixed one reference to the team where "Sounders" was used instead of "Sounders FC".
• Do we have any pictures of the players in Sounders FC uniforms that we can use? Here are some pictures I uploaded that might work with the list: 1, 2, or 3. Will any of these fit?
  • The Ljungberg picture fits nicely with the international section. Perhaps the first one could go in the lead? WFCforLife (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I agree. The Ljungberg picture fits well for that section. Do any of the pictures I pointed you at seem viable for the lead? If not, I can keep looking. Some sort of group photo or lineup photo would go well I think with an article which lists players on a team. --SkotyWA^T|_C 18:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• If you don't think the pictures I took will fit (which is understandable, I'm a terrible photographer), here is a link to a flickr.com query which will return all photos available under an acceptable license which allows us to port it to Wikipedia. I've already done the port of this photo (here) as it could be used in this list or in the season article. --SkotyWA^T|_C 18:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think that your first picture is a good one for the list. The image quality isn't as good as the flickr one you've linked to, but it's a great shot. I'm happy either way. WFCforLife (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree with the removal of the misc section. I agree that header text makes it feel a lot like {{trivia}}, so I think that needs to change (perhaps "Other Players" or "Additional Players"). There needs to be a section where we can list players who have played for the team, but may not have played in a league match. Given that Sounders FC competes in the U.S. Open Cup every year, and will often be in the Champions League or SuperLiga, there needs to be a section (probably without stats since they can't be sourced) to list players that only appear in those competitions.
• As I noted on the talk page, there are also some players that have appeared only in friendlies. I feel that in order for the list to be complete, it needs to list all players that have represented Sounders FC on the field in any competition (as long as there is a reliable source proving it of course).
  • If a Barcelona or Chelsea player's only ever appearances for their respective clubs were in friendlies, they would not be listed. I'm not trying to detract from the significance of those matches, but they were non-competitive fixtures. Comprehensive statistics from all friendlies are not going to exist (although even if they did, I imagine there would still be opposition to including them).

• That's fair. Let's just go for players appearing in competetive competition. --SkotyWA^T|_C 18:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• • With regards to the Lamar Hunt Open appareances, it was synthesis. If there was a reliable source giving a player's overall appearances in cup competitions, I would support including that information in the main table somehow. The issue is that we can't use every single match report. WFCforLife (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• What if we don't try to say how many times they appeard, only that they appeared at least once in competetive competition, just not league competition. Then it becomes a simple list of players with a reference proving one of their appearances (rather than all). --SkotyWA^T|_C 18:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• That seems like a good solution. I'll have a go at it tonight. WFCforLife (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Overall, great work WFCforLife taking a flat list and turning it into this high quality content. --SkotyWA^T|_C 21:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I took a stab at swapping out the picture with the one you said might fit and adding back the "Additional Players" info with a preamble explaining the nature of this additional short list of players. Let me know if this works for you and please make any adjustments to this as you see fit. --SkotyWA^T|_C 17:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - with the discussion below it appears that my additions of a different image in the lead, and the "Additional Players" section will stick. Given that, I am now in full support of this list becoming a featured list. I feel that it is a complete list and provides enough context in prose to help the user understand it's relevance. Excellent work WFCforLife! --SkotyWA^T|_C 16:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Cptnono

Support with the discussion below concluded.

Lots of hurdles on this one. You met both Wikipeida's standards on inclusion and sourcing while being thorough. A few things I really like:

• How Open Cup appearances are mentioned even though those players did not go on to do anything league wise. This is especially important since they won that tournament. It is also the top domestic cup competition (the MLS Cup is a postseason) so other guys should be worthy of mention in the future.
• You perfectly addressed the international pool (which came up just a couple weeks ago!)
• You link to the previous but not technically associated Sounders.
• "Players" was a good choice. MLS owns the rights to players which causes confusion. Both Dragavon's and Montero's status has been questioned but they certainly trained and took the field with the team.
• Keller's stats and card (I searched and searched for a table that wasn't GK only but found nothing)
• Good balance between English variations. It is more than "z" and "s". "Shut out" and "clean sheet" makes a potentially annoying footnote but it provides some clarifying info.
• Good fact checking. I'm going to go over it one more time to make sure none were missed but so far excellent. I get to see the local paper everyday and I doubt I could have made this as clean and accurate as you have.

A couple quick notes:

• You use "Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation (RSSSF)." in the first ref then "RSSSF" afterward. I like that but haven't seen it done in the references list. Is that standard? If so, does this need to be done to Major League Soccer in the refs?
  • I think they're different situations. The RSSSF is known exclusively as that, but at previous FLCs it has been pointed out that it should still be expanded at least once. With Major League Soccer, the long form and acronym are used interchangeably. We already have mlsnet.com, so spelling out major league soccer adds more value in my opinion. WFCforLife (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Cool. I am going to fix one instance (rest look fine).
• Should a date be added to the lead image since that is a different starting squad than some games in the past and presumably in the future? I also noticed that it was a little blurry. The only other on Flickr features a guys butt in center frame, so this one is good to have overall.
  • At 220px it's okay, but hopefully a better quality image will find its way onto wikipedia in 2010. I'm of the mind that it's better to use an inferior quality image that shows exactly what you want, than a high-quality but somewhat irrelevant one. I'm not sure of the Barcelona date, but I've no objection to that being added. Although the fact that it was against Barcelona is probably irrelevant. WFCforLife (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Agreed.
• Would it be ridiculous to make a note on who is and who is not active? (let me know if this is better left for a future footy MoS discussion)
  • It would at the moment, because they're all still playing as far as I'm aware. Once the roster has been finalised, I'll introduce a key denoting 2010 Sounders, worded along the lines of the one in List of Watford F.C. Players of the Season. Once a few players have retired it may be worth looking at this again.
    • A handful are gone. A couple were released mid season. In this offseason, French dude got picked up by Philly and another is not expected to be back. All that aside, that is for discussion on the talk page or at the footy project since this list doesn't make claims to who is active. This might need to be addressed as it grows.

WFCforLife (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Overall you took his to a level that I did not expect and that is awesome.Cptnono (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Bias from being a fan and wishing you the best of luck in the Cup aside, this is a great list and easily meets (if not surpassing) the requirements seen at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Comprehensive and clearly laid out. Nice work. Cptnono (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Provisional support – Looks like a solid list overall. Only found a few minor points upon inspection. First, there are a couple of "also"s in the Additional players section that strike me as redundant; the one after "In addition..." is particularly blatant. In the references, FIFA should probably be spelled out, and references 12 and 13 should use italics for their publishers, since they are newspapers. I'm sure these will be taken care of shortly, and this can be considered a full support after that occurs. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

All done, except for the spelling out of FIFA. Where the wikipedia article is actually located at the acronym, I consider that acronym common enough (or the name obscure enough) to use the acronym unqualified if it is only used in the references. WFCforLife (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:31, 16 January 2010 [15].

---

Hartford Dark Blues all-time roster

Nominator(s): Neonblak ^talk - 23:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the standard for FL. Of course, if the reviewers notice any corrections, or grammar, that needs changing, I will rectify them quickly. Neonblak ^talk - 23:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 The captions are very dry and don't really add much to the readers' understanding of the article. The images also need alt text. No need to bold "Hartford Dark Blues" in the lead, as it's not the title. "which then moved" - and moved Link first instance of captain to Captain (sports) ", and played their" - ; they played their" "second place finishes" - second-place De-space and superscript the § signs. I don't think the spaces in the cells of players with multiple positions are necessary. In the reference section: The titles are incorrect; Retrosheet's page titles are simply the player's name. They don't say "[name]'s career statistics". Dates like "01 December" shouldn't have leading zeroes; either "1 December" or "December 1" is appropriate. What makes BaseballLibrary.com reliable? Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC) On the reliability of BaseballLibrary.com, that was discussed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/J. R. Richard and resolved favorably based on a comment from Sports Illustrated. Rlendog (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Good enough for me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Great suggestions, I implemented most of them, but have a few questions/comments. 1) I created the "Notes" section to give a short bit of information on the player, and I think these are slightly better written than the last two FLs I was able to get passed. Are you suggesting leaving the spot blank for players who have no interesting information to give. I could be wrong, and I don't speak for anyone else but me, but I find the idea of a straight table-listing of players quite dry. Not at all; I was referring only to the image captions. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Thank you for clearing that up. I have made the captions just say who they are, and their fielding position, if you think there should be more, please let me know.Neonblak talk - 06:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 2) Since it was suggested in either peer review or FL nom, I find the spaces between the players' fielding position better looking; again, my view. Honestly, I like the way it looks too, but that suggestion was per MOS:SLASH. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC) I look at the MOS for slashes, it only states that unspaced slashes may be used, so unless this is a deal breaker, I prefer to keep it the way it is being used here. I have, though, used the non-breaking spaces per the same MOS.Neonblak talk - 06:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 3) I removed the "0" in front of the "02" in the ref date as you suggested, however, by using the "cite" reference button, it is automatically generated.

Support - per the positive resolution of comments made by myself and others towards the goal. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Articles should be created for the redlinks. Wizardman 05:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • If possible, yes, but it's not essential. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Not essential yes, but since all of them were able to be created I would have preferred it. Giants' issues are fixed and the image problem doesn't seem too big to me, it's pretty obvious they're public domain (at least pd-us), so Support. Wizardman 18:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Don't know if it's just me but "and one in " would read better for me if it said "and for one in"? Make that image larger if the resolution supports it. " the other veteran players" - you didn't say Lip was a veteran... "in earned run average the two previous " - in... or for... the two previous? "did increase the team's good fortune" - you're suggesting the team changes made the team luckier to me. Perhaps just be a little more factual - after the team changes, results improved? "With stable hitting, behind veterans ..." sorry, but what do you mean by "behind" here? Fifth part of the key says "indicates", none of the rest of the key does that. Seasons doesn't appear to sort for me. Ref 1 needs an en-dash instead of a hyphen. Perhaps discussed before, what makes retrosheet a reliable source? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC) All good suggestions, and I have made the changes you proposed, including the size of the pic in lead. Now about Retrosheet. It is a website that contains the most up-to-date information regarding statistics, derived from the actual box-scores from every game played from 1871 to present. The is derived the box-scores that are kept on record at the Baseball Hall of Fame. Members of SABR run the website, and are decicated to providing the most accurate statistics available, as well as locating birth, death, and burial information on each player, manager, umpire, etc. who have appeared in a major league game. From my experience, Retrosheet is the best resource for statistics, name, birth, and death information.Neonblak talk - 17:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Also see User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet#Baseball. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments – "The Hartford Dark Blues was a short-lived Major League Baseball franchise in the 1870s, which was based for three years in Hartford, Connecticut and for one in Brooklyn, New York." I was always under the impression that plural team nicknames should have "were" following them, not "was". Well, I used "was" in these cases due the the "Hartford Dark Blues" being a singular entity, but it never has sounded right to me because the plural nature of the name. I can go with either/or.Neonblak talk - 06:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Tom Carey note: "and among the league's shortstops three times." Feels like something is missing. Among the league's what? re-worded, hopefully this version is more clear.Neonblak talk - 06:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Now reads "leading the league in games played shortstops all three seasons". Might want to remove "shortstops" from that. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC) One more try at it; I think I have the intent clarified this time.Neonblak talk - 05:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Hate to bug you again, but it now reads "his total of 86 in led the...". Remove the excess "in" and this should be done. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Fixed.Neonblak talk - 02:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Bob Ferguson note: "Ferguson played third base and was their player-manager for the franchise's final three seasons." I would remove "their" as an unneeded extra word. Fixed.Neonblak talk - 06:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Terry Larkin note: Dash needed for 29-25. Fixed.Neonblak talk - 06:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Jack Manning note: "Manning time with Hartford consisted of one game." "Manning" → "Manning's". Fixed.Neonblak talk - 06:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Move the external link to after the references. Fixed.Neonblak talk - 06:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Photos: Most of the images lack proof that they were published before 1923 (as claimed for public domain status), not merely created. The only one I'm sure about is the Jack Burdock baseball card, which is fine. In the alt text, proper names shouldn't be given since they cannot be verified just by looking at the image. Minor point, but the access dates in the references are in date-month-year format, which is normally associated with articles that aren't related to the United States. For U.S.-related pages, month-day-year is normally used. Fixed.Neonblak talk - 06:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC) I have made the smaller changes you have suggested, I look into the photo situation, and try to figure out the alt text better.Neonblak talk - 06:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC) The Tommy Bond picture is part of the A.G. Spalding collection on the New York Public Library, picture being part his Spaldings personal collection of photos he had gathered throughout his baseball career. He died in 1915. So although no date of the photo is specifically given, I can deduce that the photo of the person is correct, and was published before 1923. But, if it needs better proof, then I will need to remove it and find a suitable replacement. The Ferguson photo is similar, in that, his name is on the photo, photo was taken in Chicago, he is wearing the White Stockings uniform, so it is likely that the photo was published in or around 1878, the only season he played for the Stockings.Neonblak talk - 06:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC) I have fixed the alt=text for the photos. Now for the photos themselves, I left a comment above on that, if that is not suitable, please let me know.Neonblak talk - 04:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC) I see that Wizardman commented in favor of the photos' status. I'll leave it unstruck pending another set of eyes, but I'm inclined to call them okay as is. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support Great work! You should remind the reviewers who have capped their comments to stop by again! Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:31, 16 January 2010 [16].

---

Charlotte Bobcats all-time roster

Nominator(s): —Chris!_c/t, Geologik

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it fulfills the FL criteria. I am not the major contributor, but have permission from contributor to nominate.[17][18] —Chris!_c/t 01:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments With 59 elements, I see no benefit in subdividing alphabetically whatsoever, it makes a nonsense of the sortability of the tables in any case. Well, since the franchise is still pretty new, not many players have played, so subdividing alphabetically seems useless right now. But as the list grows to 200+ items, I think subdividing alphabetically will be useful. For example, see other all-time roster lists.—Chris!c/t 19:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC) I absolutely agree with this. I would even have a problem with breaking up those longer lists. It would be nice to sort the whole list by various schools, numbers, etc.—NMajdan•talk List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NFL Draft has nearly 350 entries and maintains sortability, FWIW.—NMajdan•talk 14:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Yep, one list, no subdivides please. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC) No images? There are images of individual players, but would it gives a particular player more weight if his image is used over another?—Chris!c/t 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC) See Worcester Worcesters all-time roster. I agree images would make this pop more. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC) I don't think a particular player would be have more weight if a caption clearly justified why his picture is showed in the article over the others, for example: Gerald Wallace as the longest serving Bobcats, Emeka Okafor as the only Bobcats who won a NBA Rookie of the Year Award, Alexis Ajinça as the first foreign-born drafted by the Bobcats, Primož Brezec as the first foreign-born Bobcats, all other players who have been included in the NBA All-Rookie Team, etc. Also you miss Wálter Herrmann selection to the All-Rookie Second Team in 2007. — Martin tamb (talk) 07:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Agreed. These are great examples of how to use images in this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Done—Chris!c/t 02:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC) I'm not "wowwed" by the lead. I know the team and the players appear to have not achieved a great deal but there seems to be a focus on that fact... I know it is quite boring, but since "the team and the players appear to have not achieved a great deal", there is really not much for me to add.—Chris!c/t 19:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC) You have G, F, C in your key, what about PG, PF, SG, SF? Just use G, F, C based on refs.—Chris!c/t 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC) I don't get it. If you have a key, it needs to cover all the abbreviations. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC) What I meant is that I didn't use PG, PF, SG, SF in the list anymore because they aren't verified by the refs.—Chris!c/t 04:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC) I still see a SG. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Fixed—Chris!c/t 02:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Not sure the heading colour scheme aids accessibility. That is the team color. I agree that it has nothing to do with accessibility, so should I remove then?—Chris!c/t 19:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC) I don't think the present colour scheme is helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Removed—Chris!c/t 02:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC) "present" seems to mess with the sorting of columns it appears in. Fixed, I think—Chris!c/t 04:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments The second sentence seems a bit too wordy - too many commas. Can it be clarified or broken up? Assuming you mean the 3rd sentence, done—Chris!c/t 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC) fifty-nine past and current players Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a situation where you would simply say 59? Fixed—Chris!c/t 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC) who has appeared have appeared. Fixed—Chris!c/t 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC) 3 column references is generally discouraged. I recommend changing to 2 columns. Fixed—Chris!c/t 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Merely a suggestion, might be worthwhile in the long run to archive your sources using WebCitation. It will prevent link rot and hopefully spare you or someone else some work if those links die. (Mainly for the non-basketball-reference.com link.) —NMajdan•talk 22:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Shouldn't Élan Béarnais Pau-Orthez be sorted with the E's?—NMajdan•talk 14:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Fixed—Chris!c/t 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support.—NMajdan•talk 18:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• I think the table would be much stronger and more interesting if some basic statistics were included. Items like points, rebounds and assists per game would make great use of the sorting, and a few facts from these categories could also help spice up the lead.
• What is citing the part about the Hornets relocating to New Orleans?
• "The Bobcats are the only team to have never advanced into the playoffs." This is true regarding the 30 current teams, but there are defunct teams that never made a playoff appearance. The reference confirms this.
• "with Alexis Ajinca, drafted in 2008, being the first foreign-born player to be drafted by the Bobcats." The "with... being" structure isn't great, and "drafted" is used in a repetitive way. How about "; Alexis Ajinca, drafted in 2008, was the first foreign-born player to be selected by the Bobcats."
• Looking at my sentence proposal above, it still might be confusing to non-NBA fans who don't know what the NBA Draft is. In addition to improving the structure, I'd like to see a specific mention of the NBA Draft for clarity's sake.
• In the table headings, decapitalize Club as a non-proper noun. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Done all—Chris!_c/t 05:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Question Why is Raja Bell listed as 2009-2010, and others are listed as 2009-present? Also some players are listed as having joined the team in 2010. --Pgp688 (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is based on the source. And it listed the year as the last year for a season. Since Bell was traded in November 2009, which is the 2009/10 season, the year is listed as 2010. I will add a note about this.—Chris!_c/t 20:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Can you remove the "width=80%" part from the table? It messes up the layout in my browser.

Done—Chris!_c/t 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Statistics should be as of the last day of the previous season. the way it is now, it requires constant updating.

I agree, but this is almost impossible for me to change since the source used is constantly updated and I add the stats during the middle of the season.—Chris!_c/t 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • Have you used the latest media guide? Starting page 133, it gives you stats as of the last day of last season.--Cheetah (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Done—Chris!_c/t 20:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• • The years in the "from" and "to" columns are confusing. It's better to use the two-year format(ex. 2005-06) or just link the years to the season it indicates(ex. 2005).

Done—Chris!_c/t 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

--Cheetah (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 Why is there no table of contents and no section header for the table proper? Added although I don't think this is required—Chris!c/t 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Abbreviations in the table that aren't covered in the key: No. (although that might be considered common knowledge, it might be important to explain why some players have two), Pos, Pts, Reb, Ast. Also, if Ref. and No. have periods, then Pts., Reb., and Ast. should too. Done—Chris!c/t 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Image captions: "Since drafted in the 2004 expansion draft, Gerald Wallace has been the longest serving Bobcats player." - two changes, should be Since being drafted (or perhaps Since being selected might be better to reduce redundancy of the word "draft"), and longest-serving is a compound adjective. Done—Chris!c/t 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC) "Raymond Felton was selected to the All-Rookie Second Team in 2006" - complete sentence, needs a period/full stop Done—Chris!c/t 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC) "Adam Morrison was selected to the All-Rookie Second Team in 2007" - complete sentence, needs a period/full stop Done—Chris!c/t 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Is there a reason why some players are "C/F" and others are "F/C"? Might be worth explaining. Done—Chris!c/t 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I agree with all of Crzycheetah's comments too. Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Good work. Awaiting an answer to Wizardman's question. Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support with one question. Might it be worth mentioning the 2004 NBA Expansion Draft that initially filled their roster? Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Done.—Chris!_c/t 04:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I find the use of defaulting to the end of the season for the purpose of the list confusing. Mainly, if someone doesn't check the footnotes, then they're thinking that the team started in 2005 and had no players in 2004. It doesn't have a good feel to me. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed.—Chris!_c/t 18:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks better. Ideally the first and last games would be an exact date, but that would be very difficult to find and modify, so I won't ask for that. For the purposes of whether or not to promote, this can be considered a support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:31, 16 January 2010 [19].

---

List of civil parishes in Somerset

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 20:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive list of all the parishes, supported by suitable references (using WebCite where the county council has removed the relevant documents) & with pictures in all cases where appropriately licensed images are available. It has received a peer review & the issues identified have been addressed. — Rod ^talk 20:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment "This is a list of civil parishes in the ceremonial county of Somerset, England." Needs to be changed since FLs no longer start like this. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Done.— Rod ^talk 23:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments "the ceremonial county" then followed by just "the county" do these refer to the same thing? The ceremonial county is no longer used for administrative purposes since unitary authorities were introduced (1996) but is still commonly used in conversation, descriptive and "ceremonial" purposes. The ceremonial counties are generally used on wikipedia as discussed by WP:UKGEO. The wording of this section is the same as Grade I listed buildings in Somerset & I'm struggling to find a better/clearer way of describing it.— Rod talk 14:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Prose is rather turgid to start with "The x of Somerset this, the Y of Somerset that..." User:Malleus Fatuorum is much better at elegant prose than I am.— Rod talk 14:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC) break-up is hyphenated. Done— Rod talk 14:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC) What does yellow/pink indicate in the lead image? Done— Rod talk 14:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC) It needs WP:ALT text. Done— Rod talk 14:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Infobox says Taunton Deane is a Borough but lead says it's just a district. What does (Borough) mean? Done Historical royal charter - but I've removed it as not relevant here— Rod talk 14:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC) 2nd para of lead is unreferenced. Done— Rod talk 14:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Needs a note for when these populations were counted. Done based on United Kingdom Census 2001— Rod talk 14:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Why talk about settlements which aren't in this list? Not quite sure what you mean? If it is Bath & Taunton which are unparished it would not be unreasonable for someone to come to this list for info about them - therefore an explanation that they are unparished seems reasonable.— Rod talk 14:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Lead says Greinton has a population of 54 while list says 71. Check all others. My error 71 according to the council's data Why is "Civil Parish" in the list completely capitalised? Done— Rod talk 16:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC) History and Current position headings are wrong level. Done— Rod talk 15:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Personally, I would centrally align the population col as right now it looks pretty odd. Is there an easy way to do this?— Rod talk 15:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC) You could use the {{center}} template? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC) This works fine for a single row - I was looking for a way to do this for a column in one go.— Rod talk 15:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Well I'm no expert but I've never managed to find a way of doing that I'm afraid... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC) If this is a requirement for support I'm going to need some more time.— Rod talk 16:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Done. It would be nice if a wikitable syntax expert found a way of doing this but in the meantime I've done it manually using the template you suggested.— Rod talk 23:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Any reason to split these tables? Couldn't you just have the headings in another column? My idea in doing this is to enable readers to sort and compare within a particular district. Selwood has no image - add an en-dash for blank cells rather than just leave them with the reader thinking "I wonder if something's supposed to be there?" Same for Seavington St Mary, etc. Done— Rod talk 16:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Any reason why North Somerset columns different widths from the other tables? Wouldn't be a problem if you merged the tables... Done— Rod talk Ditto for Sedgemoor. Done - I've set them all to width=90% — Rod talk 19:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Don't mix date formats within the references. Done— Rod talk 19:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Check year and page ranges use an en-dash in the references, not a hyphen. I have attempted to do this - but I have never understood this one so I've probably got it wrong Refs 81 to 100 have no work/publisher and no accessdate and/or publishing dates. Done — Rod talk 19:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Am I a bad person if I want a map? :) --Golbez (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sure you are not a bad person.. but if you want a map you can click on the "Map of all coordinates from Google" or "Map of all coordinates from Bing" (top right below the infobox) you can see them all plotted. I don't have the skills or software to create a map with all the parishes plotted myself.— Rod ^talk 21:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• But no borders? ;) As I said, I'm a bad person. That works fine. --Golbez (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support looks really good to me, an excellent achievement! Harrias (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

*Quick comments – The box of coordinate links is cutting off "square" in "in an area of 740 square kilometers" on my computer. Maybe it's just me, but I'd be interested to see if anyone else is experiencing this. I can't see this on my screen - it may relate to browsers/screen resolution - interested in the comments of others.— Rod talk 09:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Not terribly concerned about this, so I'll cap it. For some reason I get some of these formatting issues that nobody else can find. Not a big deal. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC) History: "and were generally identical to ecclesiastical parishes,,". The double comma should be fixed. Done— Rod talk 09:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC) More double punctuation: "with the abolition of the Poor Law system in 1930 the parishes had only a nominal existence.." Done— Rod talk 09:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Don't understand the table lead-in: "The part of the city of Bath which were parts of Bath County Borough are unparishes."? Should some of the plural bits here be changed to singular? Maybe that's why I'm having trouble reading it. Reworded - hope this is better?— Rod talk 09:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Reference 3 should have regular hyphens for the access date, not dashes of any sort. A couple of the other cites need similar fixes. I've found & fixed some of these but have never understood this rule so may have missed some.— Rod talk 09:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC) In ref 21, move the publisher out of the title. Done— Rod talk 09:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Publisher needed for refs 57 and 93. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Done— Rod talk 09:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Response - thanks for your comments, with the exception of the "box cutting off sqaure" problem above, hopefully these have now been addressed.— Rod talk 09:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Still see a few references with dashes in their dates (I noticed them in refs 8 and 13), but everything else is taken care of. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the rest of the dashes in the references. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Per Harrias above; I'm really impressed. Chrisieboy (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks very good. Not much to complain:

• Could you wikilink "Bath and North East Somerset" in "The city of Bath is the largest centre of population in Bath and North East Somerset."? Initially I read: "Bath is the largest centre in Bath."
• Is there a comma missing in "All of North Somerset, the other unitary authority is covered by..."?
• More out of curiosity: Why do you make the tables 90% of the textwidth?

bamse (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Response Thanks - I've added the wikilink & comma suggested. The width of tables was originally left unspecified but this meant they were different widths, because of different text string length. In response to comments I standarised them. I could put them up to 100% but unless you are using a very low screen resolution none of the text goes over one line (except where intended to) so I'm not sure if there is any advantage?— Rod ^talk 14:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Congratulations to the very good list. support.bamse (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:31, 16 January 2010 [20].

---

Order of battle at the Battle of the Nile

Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This is part of a project to develop the Battle of the Nile and associated articles. This is a listing of the ships engaged, their commanders and the casualties each one suffered in the battle as best as can be determined by the sources. Please note that the ships are ordered by the position they took in the battle line and thus the tables are not intended to be sortable. Any comments and suggestions welcome. Jackyd101 (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Very good list (and article). The lead reads nicely, but I am not sure that it is clear what is included in the list (scope) after reading it. Could you add something to the effect that it is a list of participating ships and casualities. I will work on this. I've had a go, let me know what you think.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Better. Not sure what the MOS says about italics, but fine for me. Could you make the columns sortable? As explained above, the table are arranged in the order of battle as per the title. This means that the ships are listed in the sequence they were deployed in during the battle. Making them sortable would dilute this effect. The lists are quite short in any case and I can't really see any benefit in making them sortable: what details would need sorting? It is good that the tables are arranged in the order of battle and I would not want to change it. What I suggest is to make them automagically sortable as per Help:Sorting which does not require much work for the editor and gives an added advantage for the reader (to see which ship suffered most/second most/... casualties and so on). Basically all columns except for "Notes" could be made sortable. The present order could be left as default order so nothing is lost. I've had a go, but the header lines seem to disrupt the sorting. Possibly this could help, but I am not an expert in advanced sorting tables either. Alternatively headers like "Rear-Admiral Nelson's fleet", "Vice-Admiral Brueys' fleet" and "Line of battle" (Why two headers for the French fleet?) could be removed from the table and put in a short text just before the respective tables. Same for the colspans at the bottom of the table. Did you consider marking ships that were destroyed somehow (by color for instance)? If it is useful you could also mark varying degrees of damage. I could mark the destroyed ships, although note that the "Notes" column already does this by giving details on degrees of damage / causes of destruction. I'm loathe to highlight the ships based on the level of damage as this factor is relative and can vary quite widely - two heavily damaged ships can be damaged in completely different ways. Agreed about not marking damaged ships. I would mark the destroyed ships, since it is faster for the reader to see that only French ships were destroyed. On reflection, I'm quite reluctant to do this. There were four French ships destroyed, but each was destroyed in very different circumstances, and grouping them together in this context seems quite forced. In addition, three French ships were destroyed by their captors three weeks after the battle as the damage they suffered was too severe for them to sail ever again. Three more ships were so badly damaged that they were unable to serve as frontline warships and were eventually scrapped. Thus highlighting the ships that were destroyed seems a bit like using a roller to paint a portrait: it irons out a lot of the detail (which is already included in the lead and the notes column). Good point. Done. If there is only one number in the "Casualties" column of the French fleet, does it refer to those wounded (or killed or total)? You might want to add "0" like for the British list. If there is one number, it is because the Killed/Wounded/Total boxes have been bypassed and so this is a total casualties figure (note how the boxes have been merged). The reason why the figure is not broken down further is that I have not been able to locate sources giving a more precise total. I'm not sure what you mean by the 0? If it is the total number, wouldn't it be more natural to put it into the "Total" column (and question marks in the "Killed/Wounded" columns)? (The numbers which are now centered appear as if they belong to the "Wounded" column, that's why I suggested to add "0" to the "killed" column...) I can do this perhaps, although it looks pretty messy. What should I do about the "Heavy" and "Light" entries? I don't have any really good suggestion. (A footnote saying that these numbers are for total casualties?) Maybe another reviewer is more creative than me? I am not sure if "Heavy" and "Light" are proper words to combine with "Casualties" (rather with losses)!? They are standard terms in military history texts. OK, am not familiar with such texts. Why did you choose to give precise numbers of casualties for the British fleet and a range for the French fleet? (even though note A says that there are various numbers in literature). Because precise numbers exist for the British fleet (as given in the table) but they don't for the French. The footnote just gives a bit more detail into the range of figures available for both sides. I think I got it. Because William Laird Clowes is the only one who gives numbers for every ship. Correct? bamse (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Correct, although William James gives totals for most of the British ships which are identical to Clowes' figures (he just doesn't present it in a table).--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks very much for your comments. I will work on the first one you raised, and have given answers above explaining problems with enacting the others. Please let me know if you have any further suggestions. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Welcome. 5. (and probably "6. as well) is done. I'd like to see "4." addressed since it is confusing (at least to me) without further explanation. Don't feel strongly about "3.", but "2." would be a good feature to have in my opinion. bamse (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC) "3." and "1." done. With "4." let's wait for other reviewers. If it is not confusing for them, it can be considered done. Just one more quick question: Why are the French ships rated according to the Rating system of the Royal Navy? Was there no French rating system at the time?bamse (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I'm not certain whether the French had a formal rating system (although a possibly informal one is often hinted at in histories). Here it is used for comparative purposes. I could delink the rate column on that table if that would help? On a wider note, thankyou very much for your interest and comments, they have been very helpful. On the outstanding issues I'd like to wait for more input from a broader consensus before I do anything at this stage. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Following additional input below, I have clarified the heavy and light casualties sections - is this better?--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good now and the sorting feature is not that important. Therefore Support.bamse (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanksyou very much - Happy New Year.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments - nice work. Caption needs no full stop as it's not a complete sentence. Quite right, done. Is it worth linking British fleet to something appropriate? Is there something appropriate (Royal Navy)? Same with French... probably not or you would have done it already...! Royal Navy and French Navy would be the links, but that would mean linking a title, which I am quite reluctant to do as it is frowned on and doesn't look very tidy. It's early for me today, but what do you mean by linking a title? I was implying you could link those two in the prose ("a British fleet and a French fleet"), not the section headings... The Rambling Man (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Oh I see. Done Pedant's corner - is three month campaign hyphenated, e.g. should it be three-month campaign? Honestly I think it can go either way. I'll do it for you. "13 ships of the line and four frigates" here you could safely use "thirteen" so we don't mix smallish numbers and words. Thankyou - I've always preferred this format, but I've lost count of how many times I've been asked to strictly adhere to the rule of 1-9 in words and anything else in numerals. Discovered at 2pm on 1 August, then "rapid approach of nightfall" - I would have thought nightfall wasn't until around 10pm then? Clarified (hopefully) "Despite the death of the admiral," - worth reinforcing which admiral we're talking about? Named "as can best be established:" - personally I would say "as best as can be established" but that's just an opinion... Good call, changed Any link for "mizen mast" as I've never heard of it! The only link would be to mast Mast (sailing) - is that appropriate? It's not a big deal. I wondered if we had something specifically about a "mizen mast". I think the sailing mast link is okay but a little too general. Never mind! The Rambling Man (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Culloden's notes, first sentence ends in a full stop, second doesn't. Not quite sure of the rules here, but it looked a bit odd... I thought it was a sentence fragment (never sure how they work), but I have added it now. I think your symbol for KIA should be listed in a key because it's not 100% accessible for those who find it harder to see links... Done Mostert's years shouldn't be spaced. I can't find where you mean, can you be a little more specific? Sorry, in the bibliography, title of Mostert's book currently has spaced en-dash, needs to be unspaced. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Gotcha. Done. Thanks The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Thankyou very much, I think I have addressed all of your comments. Much appreciated!--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Would you also be able to comment on some of the points raised by Bamse above? We are interested in some addition thoughts on the issues from other users before any changes are implemented. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC) I'll see what I can do! The Rambling Man (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Per bamse's comments: I don't think this necessarily needs to be sortable at all, and as you've pointed out, colspan's tend to throw it all out anyway. I hadn't noticed "Heavy" and "Light" and I do have a bit of an issue with that because it's not quantitative and I can't see what that means anywhere. I don't have a big problem with a single figure meaning overall casualties as long as you note it. You haven't referenced the casualties in the Orient, by the way... The Rambling Man (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for this - I have added the word "casualties" to the heavy and light entries in the table to better explain it and sourced the Orient casualties - is this better?--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Looks good Jackyd. I've made a few prose adjustments, and I've put some comments below:
  • I've tried a new first line: the old one seemed a bit long and contained a lot of info for one sentence, so I've tried breaking it into 2. I think it reads better this way, but I realise you might not agree!

Much better, thankyou.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• • I agree with the suggestion that it might be an idea to highlight French vessels destroyed in the action. I understand your points above, but I think it'll make the list instantly clearer at first glance, whereas at the moment you really need to read to find the lost ships. Using the style applied on lists of VC winners might be an idea, and the key at the top could explain that highlighted vessels are the ones lost during the engagement, not later on. Although all the vessels were lost in different circumstances, the end result is the same (just like the death of VC winners).

OK, I'll give it a go and see what it looks like.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• • In the 3rd para of the lead - "The almost total destruction of the French fleet reversed the strategic situation in the Mediterranean, giving the Royal Navy control of the sea which it would not relinquish until 1815." This leaves me wanting more info - what happened in 1815? Was it Waterloo that lost the RN the Med? I wonder if a note might help, or if there's a appropriate blue link to an article or article's subsection?

Nothing so exciting I'm afraid, 1815 was the year the war ended, thus ending the need for dominance. In fact the Royal Navy remained strong in the Med until 1945, but thats getting off topic somewhat. I'll rephrase the sentence.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• • In the French table, Genereux is decribed as "Escaped with Villeneuve on 2 August". I don't know if there's a formality to describing the senior officer, but I'd have thought it would be more logical to say "Escaped with Guillaume Tell"

Either works, I'll rephrase it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise it looks good, nice work. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou very much, replies above, improvements to follow.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've now done everything, including adding the colour coding. I'm still not convinced by that, it seems like a broad brush approach to something that is actually quite complex, but since there have been several requests for it I've added it in. Thanks very much for your comments and interest.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, you might not like me saying that it looks good then! So good in fact that I Support promotion. Ranger Steve (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Intro reads rather long and involved given there's a full article on how the battle went. Perhaps it should concentrate more on where the ships came from to form the fleets? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. Can you elaborate?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

SupportComments.

1. The lead currently says that the French had 13 ships of the line and four frigates. However it says nothing about the number of British ships (although they are named in the table). It should say that there were 14 British ships of line and one sloop.

   I will add this (although your numbers are not quite correct).--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

2. Four French ships were too badly damaged to join him and were beached by their crews, Villeneuve eventually escaped with just two ships of the line and two frigates. On 3 August the last two French ships in the bay were defeated, one surrendering and the other set on fire by its crew. These two sentences are confusing. They convey a wrong impression that the two ships that were defeated on 3 August were the same ships of line that had escaped on the previous days. I think the first sentences should clearly state that they escaped to Malta, while the second should clarify which ships were defeated.

   I have clarified this in the text (although the escaping ships did not all go to Malta). Thanks for your interest and comments - do you have any other points to add?--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruslik_Zero 20:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Changed to support. Ruslik_Zero 05:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:31, 16 January 2010 [21].

---

List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NBA and WNBA Drafts

Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 17:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that I am getting familiar with the FL process and I got List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NFL Draft passed FL, I feel comfortable that this list also meets all the criteria for FL. However, I do expect some comments on the number of red links so let me address that in the nomination. I feel that this article passes critera 5a because there is a minimal proportion of red links for articles that I feel are notable. I feel that some of these players may not be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia because while they were drafted to the NBA, many never played a game and would probably violate WP:ATHLETE. I also feel that this part of the criteria is flexible due to the fact that on several occassions, it was proposed it should be removed but no consenses was ever reached. I'm sure if the situation were reversed and someone was trying to add the criteria, no consensus would be reached on its addition and it would not be added.—NMajdan•talk 17:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment Column heading "Player name" can simply be "player" Explain abbreviation "Rnd" in the key, or just spell out "Round" You have symbol in the key but they are not being used —Chris!c/t 18:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Done. Also, I saw your change with the ellipses and was kind of baffled. Then, I read WP:ELLIPSIS. They really should consider removing the ellipsis character from the editing help section below the Save Changes/Show Preview buttons if that character is not recommended. Thanks for making the change.—NMajdan•talk 23:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Point 3 still not done.—Chris!c/t 21:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Ha. Definite oversight on my part. Third time's a charm.—NMajdan•talk 22:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Redlinks or not, it doesn't bother me. And the rule "a minimal proportion of red links" is really open to different interpretations. Anyway, I am comfortable supporting now. —Chris!_c/t 20:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose – Unfortunately for this list, the criteria regarding red links makes no mention of notability; it simply says "a minimal proportion of red links", and I can't say that red for 24 of 51 entries (nearly half) is minimal. If the players aren't notable enough for articles, they should be delinked, as two of the entries already are. Haven't taken a close look at the rest yet, though I am unsure of the reliablity of reference 9 (McHenryCountySports.com). Also, there's no reason for the date in the one general reference to be linked. These are secondary in importance to the red link issue, though. I know it is controversial, but an FL criterion does exist (though it isn't my favorite) and should be respected until consensus shows otherwise. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Clicking the "About Us" link on the http://www.mchenrycountysports.com website takes you to http://www.nwherald.com/about_us/ indicating it is a sports-spinoff website of the Northwest Herald. Are you saying that delinking those that are not notable would resolve the red link issue?—NMajdan•talk 23:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC) That's exactly what I'm saying. The non-notable players would be those who didn't play in the NBA/WNBA. If any of the red-linked WNBA players played in the league, they should probably remain linked since they would be considered notable by Wikipedia standards. The female players by themselves would be minimal in terms of red links, so no worries there. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC) If you haven't checked the article already, I went through my primary source and delinked those that had no stats in the NBA. Let me know how it looks. I will try to get some additional articles created for those that did play.—NMajdan•talk 04:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Happy to see that red links are no longer an issue, and am ready to take a closer look at the list as a whole. "while the women's basketball team has had nine players players drafted in the Women's National Basketball Association." Duplicated word in the middle. Done.—NMajdan•talk En dash for "win-loss record" twice. Done.—NMajdan•talk "Three former Sooner men have won a championship with their respective team." Make last word plural? Done.—NMajdan•talk The Jimmy McNatt photo is suspicious. It is highly doubtful that the supposed author took this picture 60 years ago. Removed.—NMajdan•talk Spell out WNBA in the references. Left as is. If you visit the references (assuming you are referring to 4 & 5), you will see at the bottom of the page that it is abbreviated the same I have abbreviated it.—NMajdan•talk Fair enough. One further related point: the bottom of the general reference from WNBA.com lists the publisher as WNBA Enterprises, LLC. For consistency's sake, sholdn't this be the same as the publisher in reference 4? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Yes, it should. Fixed.—NMajdan•talk 21:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Reference 7 should have The Sporting News in italics (printed publication) and should mention the website (NBC Sports/MSNBC) somewhere. This would be an ideal spot for both work and publisher to be given. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Done. Thanks for the comments. Hopefully I have resolved them to your satisfaction.—NMajdan•talk 22:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Support – After many comments from myself and other editors, this meets FL standards. The table alignment really doesn't bother me at all, and I commented on the unlinked players below. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments "The University of Oklahoma men's basketball team has" - why not "The U of O men's basketball team, the Oklahoma Sooners, has..." so you can link Sooners rather than easter egg link men's basketball team? I'm torn on this. I don't feel I'm "easter egg"ing the link.—NMajdan•talk I was misled by the link. It looked like one whole link to me. I think you should just do away with the link to the OU article, and link to the basketball article, which is more specific. If readers really need to go to the main article about OU, they can click on the link in the basketball article. This is a linking concept known as "chain linking". Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC) I like this idea. Done.—NMajdan•talk You could then split the first sentence to discuss the female drafts straight afterwards so as not to have a real mouthful opening sentence. Also not a fan of this change, but it was made. Let me know if you feel it is better.—NMajdan•talk You could note who drafted Griffin since it was such a big deal. Done.—NMajdan•talk Name the all-stars, since there are relatively few of them. Done.—NMajdan•talk Najera's alt text - I think you could safely add the description that he is "muscular" to assist those who need alt text. Done.—NMajdan•talk What's ABA? Done.—NMajdan•talk Pick doesn't sort correctly for me. Done.—NMajdan•talk What does en-dash in the Pick column mean? It appears that in the first couple of drafts, no particular order was documented or there simply was no order. I have not been able to find a source that details the early days of the draft and all sources I have found have left the pick number empty for these picks.—NMajdan•talk Alt text for Ms Dales - you could include what is behind her in the image? Done.—NMajdan•talk Notes 1 and 2 are the same, so just reuse one. Done.—NMajdan•talk Ref 6 could use an en-dash in the year range. Done.—NMajdan•talk The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24_[c]

• "From 1967 until the ABA–NBA merger in 1976, the American Basketball Association (ABA) held it own draft." - How is this relevant to the article? --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • This was added to answer the "What's ABA?" question in the review above.—NMajdan•talk
    • You replied "Done" to that question. That doesn't answer my question. Laugh out loud. I think including the ABA Drafts could be possisle. No point in not. --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Could mention the first drafted Sooner from the NBA and WNBA Drafts in the lead.
  • I think this may be a bit extraneous. Especially considering the first Sooners in both drafts didn't have an exception, if any, professional career.—NMajdan•talk
• "# - Inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame" Remove, as the symbol is not used in any of the tables.
  • Done.—NMajdan•talk
• Could mention who is currently active in their respective leagues.
  • Done.—NMajdan•talk

--[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman 19:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
*Comment: In the NBA Draft you have Round/Pick. In the WNBA draft you have Round/Pick/Overall. Make the two consistent. Wizardman 18:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Thank you for pointing that out. Oversight on my part.—NMajdan•talk 16:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman 19:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • The University of Oklahoma men's basketball team has had 42 players drafted in the National Basketball Association (NBA). The women's basketball team has also had nine players drafted in the Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA). - These two sentences need to be reworded, the second sentence implies that men had 9 players drafted, which contradictory to the facts.
    • I don't see how the second sentence implies what you say at all. Seems very straight forward to me. Can you be more specific?—NMajdan•talk
      • The word "also" is used as a synomym of "same"; thus implying what I said. The word "while" is more precise IMO. Something like ...men had 42 players while women had 9...--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
        • I originally had it structured this way, but another reviewer suggested I split it into two which is how it stands now.—NMajdan•talk
          • It may be easiest if you removed any kind of interjectory phrase, or replace "also" and "while" with just "and". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
            • Are you suggesting I remove the "also" from the second sentence? If so, then the sentence sounds very odd.—NMajdan•talk
              • Not that odd, just two plain old sentences. Perhaps for the sake of just getting on with this FLC, it'd be better to revert to "...while..."..... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
                • Done.—NMajdan•talk
  • Oklahoma had two players selected in both the latest NBA draft and latest WNBA draft. - Two players in total OR two players in each draft? Be specific.
    • Again, I feel that I am being specific. By saying "...two players selected in both...", I am saying that two players in both the NBA Draft and WNBA Draft.—NMajdan•talk
      • There's a room for a doubt or second guessing. Why not use the word "each", something like "...two players in each of the drafts...".--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Didn't do your exact recommendation, but I did make a change that I think should make it clear.—NMajdan•talk
  • ...must be at least one year removed from the graduation of his high school class. - This is not applied to international players. Be more specific.
    • Right, that rule doesn't apply to international players but this is a list about an American university's draftees, so the international rule doesn't apply. Now, it does belong in the main yearly NBA Draft article.—NMajdan•talk
      • The lead should explain the draft process and by omitting the "international" part, it gives false explanation. You can add the "only Americans" part in the end.--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Added a part in the lead which indicates the rule is for American players.—NMajdan•talk
  • Also, all five non-playoff teams that participate in the draft lottery pick in the order of the lottery outcome with the remainder of the league selecting in reverse order of their win–loss record. - where are the commas? or some other punctuation marks? It's just hard to read.
    • Where would a comma go? The only place where one might go is after outcome but I don't think it is necessary.—NMajdan•talk
      • I'd suggest after "lottery" before "pick".--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
        • I disagree that a comma is needed there. Maybe someone else has an opinion on it.—NMajdan•talk
          • Only place I can read it as possibly useful is after "outcome". I think we're a bit comma-crazy sometimes. There's not a single rule of grammar I've come across which would mandate a comma between lottery and pick, but I'm a Brit so what would I know... ?! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • ...have completed her intercollegiate... - her or their? we're talking about "players", right?
    • Fixed.—NMajdan•talk
  • Can the image captions "draw attention to something in the image that is not obvious"? per WP:CAPTION
    • Fixed.—NMajdan•talk
  • Why are the player names and teams centered? The text should be left-aligned in the tables.
    • I've seen many other articles have center-aligned text. Can you link to the MOS guideline on this?—NMajdan•talk
      • You may find one or two lists with centered text, but the majority is left-aligned. Besides, you have both left-aligned and centered text in the table, you need to be consistent.--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
        • I'd like to hear from other editors on this change. I have several FLs that are like this so I don't see a problem.—NMajdan•talk
          • Unless the MOS mandates something specific, this is personal choice. As NMajdan says, there are many FLs with either center aligned or a mixture of left and center aligned text. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
            • MOS mandates consistency; this list does not follow consistency.--Cheetah (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
              • Can you point me to that? We have had a number of tables in the past where this inconsistency has occurred, so it'd be useful to be able to point to the specific section of MOS which prohibits it. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
                • It's section 1.1 of WP:MOS.--Cheetah (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
                  • I think your intepretation of internal consistency equalling all columns should be aligned the same is extreme. The list is consistent with itself. If you are sticking to this (and would oppose because of it), we may need to revisit many, many of our current FLs. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
                    • The list uses two styles (both left-aligned and centered text) in the table in the same page (i.e. internally), how is it extreme? Every part of the MoS should be followed, especially the very first part. Let's revisit those FLs if you think they fail the first "rule".--Cheetah (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
                      • I don't think they fail the first rule, you do. And it's not the rule, it's your interpretation of the rule. And last time I looked it was a guideline. You'll need to add several hundred FLs to FLRC if this is going to be your approach from now on. In extremis, you could argue that paragraphs should be the same length (internal consistency) or that sentences should be the same length (internal consistency). The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
                      • Oh, and I just browsed a random sample of current FLs, and I'd say at least 800 have a variation of alignments within them and many hundred have central alignment, not "one or two lists with centered text" as you suggested. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(→) Don't mock the MoS, please. I just went through around 20 FLs and didn't find any, but I'll take another look later. As for this page, it just needs its "notes" columns to be centered and that's it. I really didn't think this will be discussed as much.--Cheetah (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"Don't mock the MoS"! Funny... The reason this is being discussed so much is that it affects a huge number of existing FLs and a number of current FLCs. If you're going to oppose all lists based on this interpretation of MoS then it needs discussion. As for finding some examples 1, 2, 3 (note the Key table here), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8... I clicked on about 16 to find 8, hence my estimate of how many lists have your interpretation of "internal inconsistency". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The #4 is the only one that really violates. #5 can easily be fixed, I don't see any problem with others. Keep in mind that numbers have their own style.--Cheetah (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, now I'm really confused. List of Gaylactic Spectrum Award winners and nominees for best short fiction for instance (number 8 above), has a mixture of left (author, title) and centrally (year, result) aligned columns. List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in East Sussex (number 7) has left (site name), central (reason, grid reference, year) and right (Area) aligned columns. The key table in number 3 (List of Houston Rockets seasons) has a mixture of central and left aligned text columns. Isn't that the thing you're objecting to here, or have I misinterpreted your comments? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am only talking about all text should have same style/format. By saying text, I mean a word, a phrase, or a sentence. Numbers and abbreviations can have their own style/format. In your #8 example, all columns that have text are let-aligned. The result column looks like it has abbr. Your #7 example has only one column with text and it's the "site name" column. Now, afer taking a second look, I see that numbers have inconsistent style(area and year). That's worrisome to me. As for the example #3, I see the first column has abbr. and the second column has text, it looks OK. --Cheetah (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, my #8 has text both left and centrally aligned. Look again. (Won isn't abbreviated). And shouldn't those em-dashes be left-aligned in the blank cells? Are you saying abbreviations can be centrally aligned while non-abbreviations can be left-aligned? And numerical text can be right-aligned? I think you need to clearly define the rules you're applying here so we can make an assessment on the many 100s of lists this clearly affects. Where does MOS say "numbers and abbreviations can have their own style/format"? I think this is confusing. And I don't think it's a valid oppose. I think you can see that, say, aligned numbers both centrally and right (e.g. years centrally and physical values right [so they line up per 1,000]) makes a lot of sense, despite your interpretation of "internal consistency". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

And just quickly heading back to the few examples of the many hundreds, #1 which was List of Washington Metro stations has left (code, station, opened) and central (jurisdiction) columns, all text, #2 has left-aligned text but the colspan text is centrally-aligned (is this an exception to the "internal consistency" rule?), #6 has a mix of abbreviations and non-abbreviations in the left-hand (centrally-aligned) column (are mixtures covered somewhere?) and #7 seems to centrally align references (which are, after all, numbers), while right-aligning capacity... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems like the original issue was resolved. What more is left that needs discussing, with regard to alignment of tables? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the original issue was resolved. The comment was "Why are the player names and teams centered? The text should be left-aligned in the tables." The names and teams are still centred while the awards are left-aligned... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have much time to keep up with this discussion. I'll add the last comment. Scroll through all the players' names. After doing that, click on 2006 NBA Draft and scroll through those names. If you don't notice a difference, then just close this discussion and move on. If you do notice a difference, you'll know what to do.--Cheetah (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That rather misses the point. Just because one other FL happens to have your approved version of alignment, it doesn't mean this list has to be the same. One other interesting point is that the headings of a wikitable are all centrally-aligned, while the text under them can be left, middle or right aligned. The only reason I want you to explain your overall strategy using the above examples is so that we understand future oppositions based on "internal inconsistency". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. That list isn't even a featured list. Why would you suggest it as an example? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• • The "key" section mentions that † marks NBA or WNBA champions, but it also marks the ABA champion, Don Sidle. This confusion needs to be avoided.
    • I mention the ABA and the ABA-NBA merger in the lead. Is that not enough?—NMajdan•talk
      • Most readers would just jump to the list skipping the lead, so adding three letters "ABA" in the "key" section should not be a big deal.--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Fixed.—NMajdan•talk
  • Why are some names not linked? I believe they're professional athletes and are notable enough to have a page here on Wikipedia some day. Do you feel they're not notable or afraid of the red links?
    • I covered this is my nomination intro.—NMajdan•talk
      • It needs to be mentioned what players did not play a single game in the pro league. Some indicator along with color may be used for this.--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Again, I think having to indicate which players actually played in the NBA is a bit beyond the scope of this list and hard to verify. I don't think it is needed.—NMajdan•talk
          • I'd agree with NMajdan here. This a list of who was drafted, not who didn't go on to play in the NBA/WNBA. It's interesting if it can be clearly cited, but it'd be an exercise in trying to prove a negative and certainly is borderline within the scope. This is about those drafted into the NBA/WNBA, not necessarily if they went on to make appearances. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
            • There needs to be some explanation why those players are not linked at all.--Cheetah (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
              • I don't believe so. Not linked inherently means not notable enough for an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
                • All of these players are in the same scope, right? They all went to Oklahoma and they all were drafted. So, why some are notable while others not? If all players were unlinked, then we wouldn't be discussing this.--Cheetah (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
                  • Well, once again, this is a new point out of the blue! We have hundreds of FLs with unlinked items, without note, because it is widely understood that unlinked terms fail notability criteria. Proving this is attempting to prove a negative. One was promoted only three days ago - List of members of the Council of Keble College, Oxford. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
                    • WP:ATHLETE, the standard for athletes' notability on Wikipedia, states "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport" are considered notable. If draftees never played in a game, they technically don't meet this standard, and have to meet a much tougher standard to be considered notable. Considering how popular college athletics are in the U.S., it strikes me as a hole in the system, but it is an accepted standard and should be respected as long as it is considered so. With that in mind, I see nothing wrong with not linking the players here. We can't complain about the amount of red links in lists and then disagree with someone who removes them when articles can't be created. Why tempt an editor to create an article that will likely be deleted anyway, barring multiple sources on the player that establish notability? The one area I can see your point on is the female players. If they played in the WNBA (not sure if that's the case), they should be linked since they are decidedly professional players. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(→)These draftees have competed at the highest amateur level in basketball; therefore, they meet WP:ATHLETE. College basketball is the highest amateur basketball competition. In today's basketball world, Olympics and World Championships can't be considered amateur tourneys because professionals play there. Since they meet WP:ATHLETE, I believe they should be linked.--Cheetah (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC) --Cheetah (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If they meet ATHLETE, redlink them and then we can move on. If they don't, don't link them and then we can move on. Nothing more needs to be said. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, at least with college football, I'm pretty sure it's an established fact that college football players (who are similarly situated athletes to college bball players in terms of the stature of their amateur status) are not inherently notable. See 2009 Oklahoma Sooners football team#Roster for example, many of the players have no articles. Occasionally a player like Sam Bradford or Tim Tebow is notable enough through other coverage (Heisman race, for example), but for the most part not. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that the level of media exposure afforded to collegiate athletes has exploded in recent years. Its a lot easier for a lot of athletes to meet WP:ATHLETE since there is a lot more written about them these days. There's a lot of sports coverage given ESPN, local newspapers, websites and magazines dedicated to that particular school (I know Oklahoma has at least two magazines dedicated to Sooner athletics: Sooners Illustrated & Sooner Spectator). Before the 1980s and maybe even the 1990s, not nearly as much was written about collegiate athletes and thus it is harder for them to meet the BIO guidelines.—NMajdan•talk 14:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You bring in a couple of nice points. College basketball wasn't as big of an event before 1980s as it is now. Just explain to me why Tim McCalister has an article while David Johnson and Darryl Kennedy are not even linked? Also why none of those women are linked? They were drafted after 2000, they should be notable enough.--Cheetah (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Obviously, I still have several questions regarding your suggestions, so I hope we can clear them up.—NMajdan•talk 15:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with cheetah's athlete interpretation. If they didn't play professionally, then just keep them unlinked as they are now. Just "being drafted after 2000" doesn't make someone notable. McCalister had a 4 year professional career, while the other two did not play professionally based on what i could find, hence no link. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you share with your evidence that states "McCalister had a 4 year professional career"?--Cheetah (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I misread the article. I thought it said he played in the nba for four years, but he never played professionally. Nevermind then, his article as it stands does not establish notability. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Has it now got to the point where, instead of dissecting each individual's worthiness of a redlink, we should just redlink everyone in this list? NMajdan did a good job of trying to explain why he didn't take the easy option of just linking everyone, but it appears to have blown up in his face. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Note the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Another WP:ATH question. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, per the notability issue, I have no problem with him keeping them delinked. The list still seems fine to me. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see a difference between McCalister and Kennedy, for example. Both were drafted in 1987 and none of them played in NBA...yet one is linked while the other is not. Why?--Cheetah (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Simple, because McCalister currently has an article. It'd be pretty stupid to not link it when the article exists. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Was asked to comment on the alignments so I'll do that quickly: I'm fine with the way they are now, the center alignments look fine. If consensus lies elsewhere in the end then that's also fine, I really don't consider it much of an issue. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the center alignment is fine.—Chris!_c/t 19:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note Because of the length and complexity of this FLC, I am writing my closing rationale for this on the talk page of this FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:50, 12 January 2010 [22].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Marcus Trescothick

Nominator(s): Harrias (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Another list of cricket centuries, primarily modelled on that of Ricky Ponting. The first one for an English player. Would appreciate any comments, criticisms and improvements. Harrias (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport Any remaining tweaks will undoubtedly be picked up. SGGH ^ping! 12:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "the only occasion on which he has made a double century" could be "his only double century"
    • Done: changed as suggested.
  • "His 14 Test centuries have been scored at 11 grounds, with nine of the centuries being scored in England and the five remaining centuries all scored at different grounds. He has made a century in both innings of a Test match on one occasion, against the West Indies in 2004 at Edgbaston. He has been dismissed twice after scoring 90 but failing to go on to score a century, against India in 2001 and Australia in 2005.[5]" Overuse of "century" particularly at the beginning, and the second use of "ground" could be changed to "venue".
    • Done: changed as suggested.
  • "Trescothick's 12 ODI centuries are the most scored by an English cricketer, four more than the next, Graham Gooch"... "the next..." what? "The next" would fit in better I feel if the sentence had been "Trescothick's 12 ODI centuries is the highest tally" but would be better to remove the "next" part.
    • Not changed yet, I have similar issues when writing it, but I'm unsure as to whether it would make sense if it isn't clarified that Gooch has the next most centuries. Just couldn't work out suitable wording.
      • Done: changed in rewrite.
  • the lead overall is slightly bullet-point-esque.
    • Again, not changed yet, I appreciate your point here and will have a look at it properly to work through, I'm not always the most fluid writer! Any help here would be appreciated.
      • Done: changed in rewrite (hopefully).
  • A few other prose issues and grammar.
    • As with the previous point really.
      • Done: changed in rewrite.
  • "Test" column is a bit misleading IMO without "th" or "st" to illustrate you mean which Test in the series. Though I suspect you have done this because it is what Ponting's list does.
    • I'm not sure how much clearer having 'th' and 'st' would make it personally? Would invite other opinions on this.
      • Done: fixed with Chamal's suggestion (x/x), see below. Harrias (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Place the cricket archive link in the external links
    • Done: changed as suggested.
  • Is the cricket records box needed? I've always been inclined to include only nav-boxes in the articles they have in them.
    • All the other lists of this type have this box. That doesn't make it right, but for consistency until a discussion/concensus is made, I'll leave it there.

Good stuff, I'll check back with the FLC has proceeded further. SGGH ^ping! 11:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I've fixed those that I'm immediately able to, and left a few other to think and mull over! Harrias (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

;Comments "Trescothick failed to score a century in his three Twenty20 Internationals" makes it sound like it's a failure on his part IMO, which isn't really fair on old Marcus since only one player has yet managed that. Maybe a reword? I originally had 'and did not make a century in any of them,' but this was changed by Aaroncrick to the current wording. I agree with what you say, but also feel that my original wording was a bit clunky, I'll try and find a middle ground. Is it really necessary to mention his domestic T20 century? This is not uncommon, and a lot of international players have done that. Why single out that one when his other first class centuries are not mentioned? It was only due to the fact that he'd only played three T20Is, I can remove it if you think that's best. The template {{cr}} doesn't display the Irish cricket flag since it's non-free. But Template:Country data Ireland says not to use the template without a flag variant specified. You could use the normal Irish flag, or drop the flag altogether and just give the link. Done: changed as suggested. You could indicate the matches where he was selected man of the match, though it's not really a big deal. I'll have a look through and see how many there were and if it adds anything to the article. For the "Test" column, you could use the format used in Gilchrist, Jayasuriya lists etc. The latest centuries lists have used this, and is less confusing than just the number I think. Done: changed as suggested. The lead could do with a copyedit, but you've said you're already working on that. The 100 he made against Bangladesh in 2005 is the third fastest ODI century by an English batsman [23]. Doesn't he hold any other world/English records? Mention those in the lead. Done: I've just bolted it on at the moment, as the lead needs a copyedit anyway! ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC) I've integrated it and tinkered a little. SGGH ping! 12:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC) I've responded to a number of your points, the Test column x/x is a good format, I'll go through and do that soon. Harrias (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Now done Test column. Harrias (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Good enough for me. I was actually talking about MoM awards in the table same as the captained and not out matches (like here), but as I said that's not a big deal and I'm ok with it either way. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment You should not have two keys that say the exact same things. Please remove the second one, and also check that other century FLs are not also repetitive. Reywas92^Talk 17:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Looks great. Reywas92^Talk 22:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Done: Merged the two keys and separated from the individual sections. Harrias (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest having a ==Centuries== with the key in bold type and then ===List of ODI/Test centuries=== or something similar? The current level 1 headings for Key, followed by another level 1 for ODI and another for Test looks a bit blocky and and divisive. SGGH ^ping! 12:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Done: And I agree, it looks better like this. Harrias (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments "didn't" - don't (!) use contractions in featured material. Done: changed as suggested. "his highest score being" - not keen on the "being" - can we rephrase? Done: changed as suggested. "Trescothick didn't score a century in any of his three Twenty20 Internationals, [3] his highest score being the 72 he scored against Sri Lanka in 2006.[4]" seems a bit out of order considering this is a list of his centuries. Basically the first thing you say is that he didn't score a century in this form of cricket, reads a little odd for me...! Just felt it was worth mentioning what he had achieved in T20I cricket. Perhaps move it from such a prominent position in the lead? The Rambling Man (talk) Done: moved to third paragraph. Harrias (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC) "was scored... when he scored..." a bit repetitive. Done: changed as suggested. "against Sri Lanka in a match played at" no need for "in a match played" in my opinion. Done: changed as suggested. "with Andrew Flintoff's first-innings of 167 earning him the accolade instead." I may be alone, but "him" here reads a bit ambiguously. You may need to repeat Flintoff. Done: added clarity that Trescothick didn't win it. "helping to earn him a Man" no need for the "to" Done: changed as suggested. "remaining five all scored " no need for the "all" Done: changed as suggested. "off 76 balls" - perhaps link "ball" to delivery? Done: changed as suggested. "rescothick made his first century..." ODI century. Done: changed as suggested. "three match series " hyphens! Done: changed to three-match series. "Only six days later, captaining..." why "Only"? Because it was six days later against another team/country and he was now captain. Seemed a quick turn around, can remove it if you think it's out of place. "Between the two formats" - this isn't at all clear for non-experts. Done: added "(Test and ODI)" after formats. Score col doesn't sort for me. I want to help, but it does sort for me, so I don't know what to say! I'm using Safari, it often has these issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC) I'll try and have a look on Safari later if I can, but can you describe the problem; does it sort incorrectly, or not change at all? Harrias (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Done: I've now added a sortkey to the HS column, fixing a problem with the 104* in all browsers, and it now works in my Safari browser too. Harrias (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the copy-edit, have made most changes as you suggested, just a couple of questions back for you. Harrias (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments – I see a couple of sentence structures early on that annoy me, as they do in a lot of articles. I'm talking about "with Andrew Flintoff's ... earning" and "with nine being scored". The linked user page has much sage advice on how to handle these structures. Done: changed to "Trescothick was not named Man of the Match, as Andrew Flintoff's first-innings of 167 earnt him the accolade instead." and "grounds, of which nine were scored". Little redundancy in the writing here: "scoring what would also be his highest score of 137." Scoring and score is quite repetitive. Done: changed to "scoring a career-best 137." No need for multiple The Oval links in the lead. Also see a pair of London links. Done: changed as suggested. In the second table, Ireland doesn't have a flag. There is no fair-use image for the flag of the Irish cricket team. In reference 13, I believe Wisden should be in italics since that is technically a printed publisher (it publishes cricket almanacs). Done: changed as suggested. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I've responded to most of your points, need to read through the page provided and work the other one out. An initial read has helped me understand what you mean, but not educated me enough to fix it! Harrias (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Have now changed the Noun plus -ing sentences too. Harrias (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Support – FL standards are met after the fixes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:50, 12 January 2010 [24].

---

Madonna videography

Nominator(s): --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this embodies the videography of American recording artist Madonna completely and is a complete list of her releases, including their notability and controversies surrounding it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from 12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Comment. That's a huge lead! Here are my objections: "The year 1995 saw the release of "Bedtime Story" from the same album. At the time of its release, the music video for the song was the most expensive video to be ever made, with production cost of $2 million." That can't be right. "Express Yourself" cost $5 mil. and it was the most expensive at its time. Also, "Bedtime Story" is said to have cost 5 mil too: here. Corrected. The reference I used was obviously wrong then. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC) "Madonna wore leotard in the video and had her hair in curls. This look was carried in the music videos for the other singles from the album namely, "Sorry", "Get Together" and "Jump"." Not true. She did not wear a leotard in "Get Together" or "Jump" and definately not curls in the latter, as she had a blond bob wig. Didn't she wore a leotard in the alternate version of Get Together eh? Oh well, removed. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Oh, I guess I forgot about that one, my bad. You can add it back if you want. Why not mention that "Die Another Day" is second most expensive video in history? Mentioned. Can't believe I missed it :) --Legolas (talk2me) 04:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC) There is no source for Mary Lambert as the director of "Like a Virgin" and "Material Girl". That's all from me. Mentioned the reference. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Should these issues be adressed, I will gladly support. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support - The information seems complete and sources look good.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Festive comments Infobox image caption... En-dash needed for range. "Her tours are accompanied by vivid visuals as seen in the performance." - not really needed at all. Infobox should say "Concert tour videos" not just "Concert tours" because they're not the same. " It faced negative reaction..." - it received a negative reaction? "sex without marriage" presume you mean "sex outside marriage"? "Her other notable videos..." who says these are more notable than any other videos she released that year? "applauding Madonna's bravery and media mastery while others took the brazenness of the video negatively" - these sound like quotations, "bravery and media mastery" certainly isn't encyclopedic, it's really fancruft...! "a celebration of sex". - ref please. "best selling" "a four times" - hyphens? Don't think you need to link protege. "a walk through memories" walkthrough is either one word or hyphenated. And do you mean "of" memories? "Original video portrayed..." was there a subsequent video then? "do a number of S&M inspird dance" avoid "do", link S&M and spell inspired with an e! "posh hotel" posh is a little colloquial for me. "where Madonna defeat him" - defeats? Concert tours should use en-dashes per our WP:DASH. 1993-1999 -> en-dash please. Be consistent. Either link platinum all the time or just the first time. Check refs for correct use of hyphens/dashes as well. General: just seems that it needs a thorough copyedit by a native English speaker. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Corrected isssues and gave a thorough checkthrough. --Legolas (talk2me) 09:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Quick comment – I just took a momentary glance and noticed that the lead is the longest I can remember seeing in an article, let alone a list. To be honest, it's overwhelming in its length to me. I feel that it would be better to have the lead act as more of a summary, and have the details be included in their own section, where the size wouldn't matter as much. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I moved much of the commentary to appropriate sections. Take a look, lead seems appropriate length now. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see why the one-line plot summary against each each video is required. As an analogy, in a Wikipedia discography you don't see descriptions of the album/single's music do you? I think this plot info can be cut from the lead as well, bring down its size as Giants2008 requested. In fact, if you consider just the tables here, I don't see why can't be merged into the Madonna's discography, as is standard for all other artists.—indopug (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you check whether the blockquote in the lead has been transcribed properly?—indopug (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. There is no Madonna's discography. Her catalogue is so huge that long back it was decided that albums, singles, films, videos will be separated. And a one-line plot summary is definitely not WP:UNDUE is it? Plot info has been considerably cut from the lead and merged into those one liners. There is no concrete rule for how a discography should be constructed and WP:WAX seems invalid in this case as everything is separate here. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Legolas on this one; the catalogue is so vast that it does require to be split into three. The same is done for Michael Jackson (videography, album discography and singles discography). Pyrrhus16 16:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Some comments: INTRO SECTION In 1984, Madonna released "Like a Virgin", the lead single from her sophomore album of the same name. > What is a sophomore album? The link redirects to album, so I suggest that you change this. The same year she also released the follow-up single "Material Girl". > Add comma after "single" Lead single "Live to Tell" and its video ushered in a new image for Madonna. > Add commas after "single" and "Live to Tell" when a contest titled Making My Video, > when a contest entitled Making My Video, "La Isla Bonita" and "Who's That Girl", both released in 1987 portrayed Madonna's fascination with Hispanic culture > Add comma after "1987" In 1989, Madonna signed a $5 million deal with Pepsi, to use her song "Like a Prayer" in their commercial. > In 1989, Madonna signed a $5 million deal with Pepsi, to use her song "Like a Prayer" in one of their commercial advertisements. In 1990, Madonna released the song "Vogue" which portrayed the underground gay subculture > Commas after "song" and ""Vogue"" In 1992, Madonna released her fifth studio album Erotica. > No comma after "1992"; comma after "album". The video of "Deeper and Deeper" portrayed Madonna as Andy Warhol protégé Edie Sedgwick. > Change "Andy Warhol" to "Andy Warhol's" In 1994, she released "Secret", the lead single from her sixth studio album Bedtime Stories. > No comma after "1994"; comma after "album" The year 1995 saw the release of "Bedtime Story" from the same album. > In 1995 she released "Bedtime Story" from the same album. The 1995 music video for the single "You'll See" portrayed Madonna taking control over her life and leaving the bullfighter forever. > What bullfighter are you talking about? In 1998, Madonna released her seventh studio album Ray of Light. > Comma after album The lead single "Frozen"'s music video ushered in a new image for her. > The music video for the lead single, "Frozen", ushered in a new image for her. The title single's video was a high-speed one, > The video for the title single was a high-speed one, In 2000, Madonna released her eighth studio album Music. > No comma after "2000"; comma after "album" The video for the last single "What It Feels Like for a Girl" portrayed Madonna > The video for the last single, "What It Feels Like for a Girl", portrayed Madonna This fascination for violence continued with the music video of "Die Another Day" (2002) and "American Life" (2003), > Change "music video" to "music videos" The latter's video > The video for the latter The lead single "Hung Up"'s video was a tribute to John Travolta and his movies. > The video for the lead single, "Hung Up", was a tribute to John Travolta and his movies. Her eleventh studio album Hard Candy was released in 2008; > Her eleventh studio album, Hard Candy, was released in 2008; its lead single "4 Minutes" portrayed her as a superhero, > its lead single, "4 Minutes", portrayed her as a superhero, Madonna has worked with many successful directors and produced music videos that are considered by some as works of art. > This sentence should start a new paragraph. It will expand the intro to four paragraphs which is the preferred maximum. MUSIC VIDEOS SECTION I think it's unnecessary to put (Britney Spears featuring Madonna) and (featuring Justin Timberlake) in small type. Also, this is a fairly long list. Perhaps you could subdivide it on a decade-by-decade basis. Jimknut (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Addressed all concerns and divided the list into decades wise. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Support and comment. I was asked to comment here because I had brought Michael Jackson videography to FL status fairly recently, and it is the only videography currently at that status. While Madonna's and Jackson's videography articles differ a bit in structure, there is no guideline for how these lists should be constructed. As long as the list has the main details that I think should be required (music videos, home media, certifications of home media), then structuring can be varied to the main editor's preferences. Jackson has his filmography integrated into his videography article, but seeing as Madonna has starred in more movies, hers should not be added to this and, in my opinion, should remain a standalone article as well (Madonna filmography). Anyway, I have no problems with this videography - it looks nice and appears to be comprehensive. Well done. Pyrrhus16 16:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Support — Large comprehensive list, without any flaws I can find. Aaroncrick (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:50, 12 January 2010 [25].

---

List of Inner Hebrides

Nominator(s): Ben MacDui 16:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is now complete and ready to match the existing Scottish island FLs such as List of Outer Hebrides. Ben MacDui 16:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments "the Hebrides as a whole were a strong " vs "Inner Hebrides is a chain" - plural vs singular. Can you check this for consistency? The problem here is that the word would seem to be both singular and plural. Thus the "Inner Hebrides is a chain" is correct in that "Inner Hebrides" is the noun for an archipelago. However I can also say that "there are many Hebrides" meaning many individual islands plural. The only way to make this consistent is to make everything plural e.g. "Inner Hebrides are a chain". I can and will do this, but I think it rather goes against common spoken usage. Ben MacDui 10:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Now done. I think it may be helpful to link loch. Done If a highest point isn't named, I would suggest you use an en-dash. Commenced Done "This is a list of uninhabited Inner Hebrides with an area greater than 30 hectares..." nasty - why not "There are x uninhabited Inner Hebrides with an area..."? Simply because the list wasn't completed until recently. Now fixed if my addition is correct. " Eilean Dubh (2)" - is it really called this? The same as the one in Loch Linnhe? This may be misleading. It means that there are two "Eilean Dubhs" here. The Gaels have a propensity to name lochs with outrageous names such as "Loch Dun na Buail'-uachdraich" and "Loch Druidibeag" but for some reason run out of steam with small islands. "much less well-known" sorry to be picky but you're making an assertion and not referencing it in this case. Well I could try explaining that I had never even heard of these latter little rocks until I spotted them with a magnifying glass recently, but I fear you would be unimpressed. Difficult to know where to look for a reference for their obscurity. Maybe I will add them to the table instead... re-written without obscurity Finavon (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Many thanks for your comments. I will attend to them asap, although you have caught me at a busy moment and it may be Saturday before I get the time to look at them all. Ben MacDui 21:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC) As ever, no stress. Glad you appreciate the comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Initial comments above. Ben MacDui 22:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC) All items above now fixed or commented on. Ben MacDui 11:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Typically we avoid bold links.
• Especially as you link Inner Hebrides in the next para as well.

The lead is fixed I think.

There are emboldened links in the "Smaller islets and skerries" section too. This isn't generally necessary in the other lists as they are all archipelagos distant from the shore so the "main island" the skerries surround is always linked higher up. Here the links are useful pointers to the general area. It would be a pity to unlink them and I'm tempted to suggest that this is a case of IAR, but I am open to suggestions.

Well, I suggest we see what the rest of the community think about it... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree the emboldened group names are appropriately linked. An alternative would be to repeat the group name and link that - would probably look worse. Finavon (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the bold is fine as well. We could very loosely consider it used for a "definition list" function, as per MOS:BOLD. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Bamse Looks very good. Just a couple of comments/questions: In reference 9 ("Haswell-Smith (2004) p. 206 save those indicated with a separate footnote."): which "footnotes" are meant here? Done Thanks. According to the "Uninhabited islands" section, last paragraph, there are "difficulties of definition". Which definition is used for this list? This is explained in the lead and in Note 1 - I could add an extra note if you think it would be helpful. Ben MacDui 12:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC) I see. Thanks for pointing me to the explanation. I don't think it is necessary to add anything. The "Group" column of the tables: Are these commonly used names/groups/categories or only in this list? Are there wikipedia articles to link to? Done - recognised group name or main island in group used; where these are not known, the location (eg Loch ...) is used. wikilinks added. Finavon (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC) In the "Last inhabited" column: What does "post 1931" and "post 1841" tell? I'd rather expect upper limits like "pre ..." or "before ...". Post 1931 could mean that it was inhabited until yesterday. These will usually be the last 10-year census that showed a population. It is likely to be the best available information. Finavon (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC) I have done a little more research and the dates have been amended to avoid this usage. Ben MacDui 13:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Done. "...in the possession of Clan Stewart of Appin at this time...": Is there a "the" missing? Normal usage would be without the definite article. OK. "In addition to be a hazard to navigation...": To be or not to be: "be"->"being"? Fixed. Thanks. What is a "continuing list"? Removed Thanks. The paragraph starting with "Various Gaelic names are used repeatedly..." should be moved up as it relates not only to the "Smaller islets and skerries" as far as I can see. Done - Moved up, may need to be in an introductory section - not the lead. Finavon (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC) I'd move it up even further, either to the lead or a separate "Names" section. Done I am not sure how the "Small archipelagos" section fits in. It gives the impression that these are islands in addition to the "Inhabited/uninhabited islands" and "Smaller islets and skerries", but as far as I understand these groups include both, inhabited and uninhabited islands. It would be better to wikilink the groups in the table and to convert the information in the "location" column into prose. Done Thanks. I'd reduce the number of "See also" articles to those that are directly related to the Inner Hebrides. "North Sea islands" links to "North Sea#Islands" which does not currently exist. Done Thanks. Why is "General references" small while "Notes" and "Citations" are bold? Done Thanks. The "Settlements and Places of Interest in the Outer Hebrides (Na h-Eileanan Siar)" navigation box should be removed or replaced with its Inner Hebrides version. Removed - there is no alternative Thanks. Also the "Prehistoric Western Isles" template appears to have only sites on the Outer Hebrides and should be therefore removed. Done. Apologies - these two templates were absurd leftovers. Ben MacDui 12:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks. I removed Category:Inner Hebrides since Category:Islands of the Inner Hebrides is already in that category. Feel free to revert if that was a stupid idea. Not an inconceivable idea but as Category:Islands of the Inner Hebrides is now buried in Category:Landforms of the Inner Hebrides I've undone this. Ben MacDui 12:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC) bamse (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC) OK. Some further replies: Ben MacDui 12:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Many thanks for your comments. I think these are all attended to now. Ben MacDui 13:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Many thanks for attending to the comments. Just one more thing. I noticed a couple of fullstops after non-sentences which I think should be removed: captions "The Clachan Bridge...", "Eilean Mor...", "The lighthouse at Carraig...", "Looking north from ...". The same problem with some of the references, e.g. "Estimate from Ordnance Survey maps." But I am not that sure what the MOS says about those. I'm not sure whether some of the captions are really sentences or not but I have removed the periods. I think the references are OK - so long as they are consistent. The system is that there is no period on a closing page number but there is for a sentence or phrase. It's easy to change of course. Ben MacDui 20:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Support All comments have been addressed.bamse (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Reywas92 Support

• The years in the Last inhabited column should not be linked.

Done

• Notes 2 and 6 could be merged.

Done

Very nice overall. Reywas92^Talk 03:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Done and thanks for your comments. Ben MacDui 13:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Before I can support I have a couple of comments below. Other than that the alt text looks good and the article seems well written with a good lead and clean and organized tables. I checked it through AWB and there was nothing significant there.

• There is 1 disambiguous page for Lismore

Took me a while to find it hiding on a template. Now fixed.

• many of the references seem to lack proper formatting--

Could you be more specific?

Kumioko (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• I also think that the last section of the lead that appears to be notes in determining what is defined as an island be removed from the lead and linked as a note. I think this info detracts from the content of the article itself..but thats just my opinion.

Done

Other than that it looks good.--Kumioko (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I changed my comment to support, looks good to me know. --Kumioko (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• In the two tables, items that have Gaelic names with Gaelic as the first letter sort following all names beginning with a regular letter in the Gaelic names column. Is this the intention?

It was not and thanks for spotting this. Now Fixed.

• In the second table, Eilean Tigh's area is not sorting properly. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Ben MacDui 09:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

Looks very nice, just a few minor things:

• "The islands of Scotland's west coast are known collectively as the Hebrides and the Inner Hebrides are separated from the Outer Hebrides by The Minch to the north and the Sea of the Hebrides to the south." - this is a bit of a run-on sentence; might I suggest instead The islands of Scotland's west coast are known collectively as the Hebrides; the Inner Hebrides are separated from the Outer Hebrides by The Minch to the north and the Sea of the Hebrides to the south. This would break things up a bit by inserting a verbal/mental pause.
• "In the past the Hebrides as a whole" - a comma after "past" would not be amiss.
• "Scottish Gaelic speaking" is a single adjective, so I believe the correct punctuation would be Scottish Gaelic-speaking
• Jura and Gigha overlinked in the lead.

Otherwise very well done. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments. All done. Ben MacDui 19:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I support the promotion of this list, as it meets the featured list criteria. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:25, 9 January 2010 [26].

---

List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings)

Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 09:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This list was a recent featured list candidate. The nomination failed due to a lack of reviewers. All comments of the previous nomination have been addressed and the list has virtually not changed since then. I nominate it again because I think that it meets all the criteria for a featured list. Hoping for more reviewers this time. bamse (talk) 09:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Very informative and well written list. My only concern is the following sentence: All of these are counted double in this table. All of these five paintings are mentioned just one time in the table. Ruslik_Zero 16:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and edits. Not sure if I understand the problem. There are five National Treasures which date to more than one period (In fact all of these five date to two periods.) In the "Age/National Treasures" table the sum in the "National Treasure" column is 163 which is equal to 153 (single period National Treasures) plus five (two-period National Treasures) which are counted double. So 153 + 2*5=163. I added the following sentence to the footnote to clarify: "For instance, the National Treasure "Portraits of Seven Shingon Patriarchs" appears twice in this table: under "Tang Dynasty" and under "Heian period"." bamse (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Support – On a second look at this list, the only problem I saw was the clarification tag, and steps have been taken to address this. This is normally where I would support the list's promotion, but I am a temporary delegate and must abstain as long as there's a possibility that I could close this. I might be back to my regular reiewer role before this FLC ends; if I am, I intend to offer support. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • And now I have. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support: Excellent effort. I don't have any problems here. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comments from WFCforLife I didn't review this first time around because it's really not my area of expertise, but I'm sad to see that this didn't get passed. I may live to regret this, but a note to the directors. If an article fails its first FLC purely because of lack of interest (i.e. the director feels it could have passed with a couple of reviews, but was obliged not to promote), I'll review anything the second time if made aware of the second nom.

Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

:*"The 158 entries in the list consist of the following: 90 are hanging scrolls; 38 are hand scrolls or emakimono; 20 are byōbu folding screens or paintings on sliding doors (fusuma); and three are albums." This does not tally to 158. Indeed. I added "four are murals" and "Two items, the portrait of Kichijōten and Illustrated Biography of Prince Shōtoku do not fall in any of these categories." and re-counted the byōbu/fusuma which are 21 (not 20). Now it adds up to 158. "20 are byōbu folding screens or paintings on sliding doors (fusuma)" Is there a reason that one term is in brackets but not the other? I've got no preference on formatting, but as far as I can tell byōbu and fusama should be used in the same way. Fixed. Both without brackets now. "The greatest number of National Treasure paintings are located in Kyoto with 50, and Tokyo with 46, and more than half of the Tokyo paintings are located in the Tokyo National Museum." While they are wikilinked, it's not obvious at a glance if we are talking about the prefectures or the cities. Because specific statistics are being used, the distinction is important. Perhaps something along the lines of: "The city containing the greatest number of National Treasure paintings is Kyoto with 50, followed by Tokyo with 46. More than half..." Rewritten as you suggested. On a related note, is Tokyo national museum mentioned because it is the building with the most treasures? Added: "which is the structure housing the most painting National Treasures." Perhaps wikilink the "Prefecture" heading to Prefecture#Japanese_sense_of_prefecture. It would be inaccurate to change the word, and cumbersome to add a footnote, but nonetheless some readers may not understand the term. Wikilinking seems a good compromise. I wikilinked it to Prefectures of Japan which is the main article referred to under Prefecture#Japanese_sense_of_prefecture. Most of the redlinks don't bother me. There is clearly scope for articles to be created for these in the future, and it's therefore correct that they are linked to. But what makes Kawabata Kinenkai notable? Unlinked Kawabata. I can't fault the table itself, that's absolutely wonderful. Hope these help for now, WFCforLife (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I think I addressed all of them.bamse (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with the lead, it's very well-written.

Not speaking Japanese, it's difficult for me to express opinions on most of the references. The best quality sources are going to be Japanese, and therefore we should use them. What I would ask is that at least one of the |publisher= or |author= fields is filled in for each reference, so that a non-speaker can ascertain where the information is coming from. There are a few references with a Japanese title, followed by (in Japanese) and retrieved on yyyy-mm-dd, which isn't really enough information. WFCforLife (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll do that as soon as I am back to a computer with Japanese fonts; likely either today or tomorrow.bamse (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Added publisher or author information to all references. Also started to add translations of reference titles with "trans_title" if the title is in Japanese. With almost 150 references it will take a day or two until I am done with it. bamse (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. All references have publisher or author information and all foreign language reference titles are translated.bamse (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Fantastic work! Those refs all look credible, so I'm very happy to support. WFCforLife (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• May sound patronising, but I'm glad to see this back at FLC, and doubly glad that bamse hasn't been discouraged by the current lull in reviews. And moreover, thanks to those of you who have shown an interest, made a review, come to a decision. Happy new year! The Rambling Man (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Great work so far...Modernist (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - the red links bother me, the artists, museums and schools hopefully can be eventually filled in...Modernist (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I did previously say this in my capped comments, but I feel it worthy of repetition. In my opinion the redlinks are fine, as they all link to things that I believe meet the notability requirements for a stand-alone article. I would be very much opposed to encouraging someone to create stubs for the sake of it. There's no rush. WFCforLife (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with WFCforLife, there's no harm in having red links. Ideally, they would all be blue, but also ideally they'd all be Featured Articles as well. We're not judging the content (or existence) of other articles, just this list. I'm sure they'll get filled in eventually. Nev1 (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Support

• The lead image could do with being bigger; currently, the detail is unclear. Try 300px.

  I used "upright=1.4". If I replace it with "300px", for my screen the picture actually shrinks. So I made it bigger with "upright=1.6". Big enough?

  That's better. My preferences for image size are set to default so it appears as it does for unregistered editors. Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• The lead is unusual. Why does it start with religious art, rather than paintings as a whole. Unless religious paintings are the first known or surviving examples of paintings?

  As far as I know, there are no surviving Japanese paintings (apart from maybe some primitive art) from before the introduction of Buddhism (mid 6th century). The oldest paintings in the list and the oldest surviving paintings are religious (Buddhist). Basically the intro traverses the table by age starting with the oldest paintings (click on the arrow next to "Date" to have it sorted this way). I don't think it is necessary to explain what a painting is.

  It's certainly unnecessary to explain what a painting is. I think it would be worth explaining what you've just said about survival in the lead. Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

  Added: "They comprise the oldest extant non-primitive paintings in Japan." to the lead.

• When talking about the different kingdoms and different styles, it would be useful for anyone not familiar with Chinese history to be given date ranges. It's done in some cases, but perhaps not often enough.

  I'll add date ranges.

  Done.

• The lead is a little woolly, and I'm left wondering what the scope of the article is. Is it religious paintings from the 6th century onwards? If so, why is the article's title not more specific? There's no preamble ("There are x number of national treasures that are paintings; they cover such and such a date range. Although Japanese art stretches back to this period, the earliest natural treasure dates from a different time because... etc) and the reader is plunged straight into a summary of religious art, without any direct connection being drawn between art and national treasures.

  The scope is as the title says, National Treasure paintings. Mainly the older paintings are religious. Since the intro is written chronologically, it starts with religious paintings. However the intro also clearly mentions other types of paintings that are contained in the list: "illustrated novels", "historical" topics, landscape paintings,... At least at the sentence: "The paintings listed show Buddhist themes, landscapes, portraits and court scenes." it should be clear that there are not only religious paintings in the list. Would it be OK to use the term "National Treasure" in a preamble before its definition (=last paragraph of the intro)? Or do you mean to move the last paragraph up to the top?

  I think moving the last paragraph of the lead would help with the flow. Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

  Moved it up to the start.

• Can you find a source which discusses the breakdown of the paintings? You already have a table with the periods, but for an explanation (perhaps a particular period was known for its quality) a source would need to be found.

  I don't have a source, and think it would be impossible to find a reliable source for it as it means interpreting the decisions of the Agency for Cultural Affairs which designates the National Treasures. The criteria are basically a very high "historical or artistic value", but in the end it is up to a group of people to decide which paintings qualify. So it is a very subjective list and one could argue that other existing paintings could equally qualify to be a National Treasure. In fact the number of National Treasures is slowly increasing while the number of old paintings is not. Also, different periods were characterised by very different genres of paintings. How do you compare a painting of the "Eleven-faced Goddess of Mercy" with a landscape in ink by Shūbun for instance? As an observation one can note that the number of national treasures in a period roughly scales with the length of that period.

  Unfortunately this leaves the uneven period distribution of National Treasures unexplain (ie: the two peaks in the Heian and Kamakura periods). It's so infuriating when you know what you want a source to say but no one's written it down yet so it can't go into the article because of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Since there's nothing that can realistically be done about it, I've struck this issue. Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

  Indeed the peaks are not completely explained by the long times (400 years for Heian and 150 years for Kamakura period). I think there are several factors that could explain this distribution: (i) a preference for old items, which means Nara, Heian and Kamakura period; (ii) Nara period: limited number of genres (only religious, Chinese style) and not many surviving paintings, therefore low number of National Treasures in Nara period (iii) emerging new styles in Heian and Kamakura period and National Treasures designating early examples of new styles. As I said, these are my personal opinions and non-quotable. Maybe I should write a book on the topic to reference it!? ;-)

• On a similar note, the break down of the subjects would be interesting. Do sources comment on whether there is a high number of religious paintings?

  Same problem as in the previous item. I am not aware of any sources, and don't think it is reasonable to discuss a subjective list too much. Any discussion of the numbers (number of items of a certain type, a certain age, a certain location,...) would mean discussing the selection process of the committee (which is not public).

  Struck per above. Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Who were these paintings commissioned by, what section of society did they belong to? Are these objects of the elite, or do the National Treasures include objects by lesser artists say?

  It is somewhat different for different periods, but there is quite some info on that in the lead: "artists are unknown", "Zen monasteries", "were commissioned to adorn the castles and palaces of the military rulers", "artists from the Kanō school", "Rimpa school", "The Kanō school, patronized by the ruling class, was the most influential school of the period and, with 300 years of dominance, endured for the longest period in the history of Japanese painting", "Yuan Dynasty scholar-amateur painters", "Nanga", not to mention the many artists mentioned specifically by name. Do you really think, that more information on the artists and the commissioners is necessary?

  I phrased the original point poorly. It's not about who painted the pictures, but about who they were for. Were paintings exclusively owned by the social elite, or did lower classes have paintings? Were they status symbols or did they have other meaning? A general book on Japanese art might provide something. However, if you think that this is too involved for a list (the lead is already well developed), I'm prepared to strike the issue. Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

  From my understanding, all these paintings were for either temples or the social elite (warriors). Lower classes had ukiyo-e at some point but those are not National Treasures. Not sure what you mean by "other meaning". Some of the religious paintings and mandalas probably had (and still have) a religious meaning. Also most of the paintings are quite pretty, so I can well imagine a daimyo enjoying the view of a painting. Since the castles and palaces are already mentioned in the intro, I could make more clear that paintings were also produced at and for temples. Time to go to sleep for me, so I'd do it tomorrow if you think that it's necessary.

  I think it would be useful to add that they were also produced for temples, but I'll leave it to your discretion. Nev1 (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

  Added: "As with most of the early Japanese paintings, these works were created for Buddhist temples."

• Does being a National Treasure afford the painting any special protection? For example, are there restrictions on sale?

  There is some info in the National Treasures of Japan article, but I'll add a little to the intro.

  I'll do it first thing tomorrow morning.

  I added: "As such, they are restricted in transfer and may not be exported. Owners are required to announce any changes to the National Treasures such as damage or loss and need to obtain a permit for changes in location, transfer of ownership or intended repairs." There are more things that could be added: National Treasures need to be displayed in public for a certain period of time. Owners can receive financial compensation, tax reductions and advise/guidance. However for the purpose of the lead, I think these two sentences suffice. All the details are in National_Treasures_of_Japan#Preservation_and_utilization_measures.

  Agreed. Nev1 (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• The first entry in the main table of paintings gives "Heian period" as a date; this needs the century or a date range with it. This happens a handful of times, but they need to be sorted.

  If there is no date, it means that no date (not even a century) is known. The sorting is arranged (with hidden sortkeys) as mentioned in the "Usage" section by the start year of the period. So sorting works fine even if there is no date visible. I could add the whole year ranges (for instance "794 to 1185" for the Heian period) if you think it is necessary.

  Thinking about this more, I don't think it's so important. You give a fair reason, and the reader can quickly follow a link if they want dates (although bear in mind that the reader might not come back...) Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a good list, but more information needs to be provided before I can support it. Of course, in some cases it may not be available, but it is worth investigating. I'm impressed by what I see, and a lot of effort has been put in; the alt text must have been particularly time consuming. I hope that with a bit more, I will be able to support. Nev1 (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I agree with some of your points raised and expressed my view on the others. I'd appreciate if you could respond to the latter (the points I don't really agree with), before I start modifying most of the list. bamse (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I addressed the one and a half outstanding issues.bamse (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Switching to support, nicely done. Nev1 (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Check the toolbox; there is one dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  Fixed. bamse (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:25, 9 January 2010 [27].

---

List of New York Mets first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I plan on creating this series of lists soon (for the Wikicup) and want to get the style down pat to make the process easier. This is built in the style of List of Philadelphia Phillies first-round draft picks, a featured list. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 6 dablinks. Grah, tried to catch most of these manually, should've checked the tool. Thanks, fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC) You have some redlinks and some "blacklinks" for players and schools... is there a difference? Not really. The players I left blacklinked because the vast majority are guys who never made the majors and (particularly for the older ones) are unlikely to ever meet notability standards. I suppose the difference is the school could gain the notability to warrant an article, but I'll delink for now. Gonna leave Randy Sterling redlinked, however, as he does technically pass WP:ATHLETE having played (briefly) in the majors (similar to that article you created which I often cite when discussing WP:ATHLETE, Drew Carpenter). Staxringold talkcontribs 18:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC) The schools should still be redlinked, as I believe all high schools are considered inherently notable. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC) The thing is I can't really. Many have very generic names, and the precise style for disambig'ed schools isn't consistent enough to where I could point to the proper spot for the article anyways. Plus, it's a very common practice to leave redlinks blacklisted when they are in large quantity (to avoid looking incomplete, I assume). See List of unreleased Michael Jackson material (I'd say a Michael Jackson song is more notable than some random high school) or List of tallest buildings in Oakland, California, to pull 2 recently featured examples. And both of those have "blacklinks" on material which is actually an entry on the list, not simply a fact about an entry as a school is. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Also not sure high schools are inherently notable. They seem to fail Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which mentions that it includes "educational institutions", barring coverage from 2ndary sources. The line is coverage in secondary sources, which is an article-by-article standard, not an inherent one. Plus the "chains and franchises" note seems to indirectly get at this point. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Lead image needs alt text, and no period on caption because it's not a complete sentence. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC) "one of only two first overall picks along with Brien Taylor to never play in the major leagues" - some kind of separation is needed for the phrase "along with Brien Taylor", either parentheses, spaced en-dashes, or unspaced em-dashes. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Otherwise well done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks. I figured I'd needle you, the Phillies fan, by basing the Mets list off the Phillies list. :) Staxringold talkcontribs 18:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Doesn't bother me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Darn, wanted to make use of that storied Mets–Phillies rivalry. :) Staxringold talkcontribs 19:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC) It's only storied because I made it a GA :-p. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• "played in the 1986 World Series for the Mets' 1986 championship team." No need to repeat 1986 like this. Perhaps try "second championship team"?

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Major issue: most of the yearly Baseball-Reference links are redirecting to a page listing the number one overall picks. The 1965 link has a slightly different address than the rest, and is the only one that goes to the correct place for me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'll fix that shortly, they changed around the precise coding for the address to get to the right page. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• There, that should be all done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Wrestlinglover

• Will begin tomorrow after I finish the GA review I currently have to do.--WillC 10:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know alot about Baseball anymore since I haven't been apart of a team for 5 years and haven't watched in years either, but as far as I can tell this article is fine. Only problem I found was ref 12 is broken. I Support this list's nomination.--WillC 22:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support and note, fixed that! Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 13:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments as promised from Mm40 (talk) In the second paragraph, some numbers are spelled out while others aren't. They are done correctly per MOS:NUM. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC) There should be a ref after "if a team fails to sign a draft pick from the previous year"; if the two before the comma verify this, move both of them to the end of the sentence. This was actually the one sentence I was very worried about because I knew it to be true (so couldn't remove it) but could not find a source for it. Just did some Googling and found this, however, so fixed (and added to the Philadelphia Phillies list of this kind, the Mariners and Yankees lists doesn't have this sentence). Are any players in the Hall of Fame, win the Rookie of the Year Award, make the All-Star team as a rookie, etc.? No HoFers (though both Gooden and Straw would probably be there if not for drugs), but I was just thinking about adding this stuff when I read your comment below about more interesting image captions. It would be nice if the captions were a bit less repetitious; if they're from a state uncommon in the list, played a different position from what they were drafted as (if that makes sense), anything else I'll on this a bit. How's that look now? Staxringold talkcontribs 21:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC) I suggest using File:Darryl Strawberry 2008-09-28.jpg instead of the current Strawberry picture as he's in a Mets' uniform and it's (IMO) higher quality. Done. You can make the table sortable by making multiple rows for years with multiple picks. The table can't be sortable because of the colspans. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC) I know, I meant getting rid of the colspans (as I did with the MVP list). Mm40 (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Ah, that's not what you said. That issue was raised and addressed at WP:Featured list candidates/List of Philadelphia Phillies first-round draft picks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC) OK, makes sense; I need to learn how to communicate. Mm40 (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll support once these issues are resolved. Mm40 (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well done, the captions are much better. Good luck in the WikiCup! Mm40 (talk) 13:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Now that I'm not a temp director anymore, I can now offer more than strikes to my comments. I only had a couple of comments to begin with (resolved long ago), and I think the criteria are met here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:25, 9 January 2010 [28].

---

List of Australian Open Men's Singles champions

Nominator(s): BLUE_DOG^TN 03:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is up to the standards the two FL are in this topic List of US Open Men's Singles champions and List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions, which I think this is equal to them, and that is why I am nominating this to get to FL status. BLUE_DOG^TN 03:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

*Note [c] - put the references in numerical order. Fixed.BLUEDOGTN 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) "The men's singles was one of the two first events contested in 1905. " what was the other "event"? Fixed.BLUEDOGTN 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) "because of a date change" you'll need to be more specific than that. Fixed.BLUEDOGTN 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) "all held the event" "have all held..." Fixed.BLUEDOGTN 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) First sentence second para has too many run-on clauses. Fixed.BLUEDOGTN 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) "season[4];" move ref after semi colon. Fixed.BLUEDOGTN 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) "since the first edition. Since the first championships" repetitive. Fixed.BLUEDOGTN 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) " victories is co-held by Ken Rosewall " - perhaps "co-held by x men; Ken Rosewall .... with two each"? Fixed.BLUEDOGTN 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) In the lead image alt text, you haven't mentioned the fact it's a tennis racket he's holding. Fixed.BLUEDOGTN 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Not sure "score in the final" should be linked to "winning a set". DisagreedBLUEDOGTN 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Ref 12 should be a note. Fixed.BLUEDOGTN 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments – "and 1986, which was because they wanted to move the tournament start to mid-January 1987 from the mid-December 1986 previously announced start date." Grammar is not great in this part, and it's unclear who "they" are. How about "and 1986 because (they) wanted to move the tournament start from mid-December 1986 to mid-January 1987."? Fixed Again Top and Bottom concernsBLUEDOGTN 23:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC) They are Tennis AustraliaBLUEDOGTN 23:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC) To ensure that the grammar checks out, I recommend making a change to "1986 because Tennis Australia...". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC) FixedBLUEDOGTN 03:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC) "The competition switched location every year...". Make "location" plural? FixedBLUEDOGTN 23:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC) "In the Australian Open, Andre Agassi holder of the most victories at four." Missing "is the" in the middle. FixedBLUEDOGTN 23:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC) "The most consecutive victories is held at two victories by the following tennis players". The second use of "victories" and only use of "tennis" are redundancies and can easily be removed without changing the sentence's meaning. FixedBLUEDOGTN 23:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC) No need for multiple Andre Agassi links in the lead. FixedBLUEDOGTN 23:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC) The Rod Laver photo is suspicious, as I doubt the site could have released the copyright. I would recommend removing this photo. FixedBLUEDOGTN 23:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC) The Mats Wilander photo lacks evidence that it was published at least 20 years ago, as are the requirements this template has for PD in Argentina. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC) FixedBLUEDOGTN 23:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Removed all non-three time or more times wins champions pictures, and will do it to the other articles of the Wimb, US, RG(FO), and this one.BLUEDOGTN 23:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Support – Now that my stint as a temp director is over, I can now support lists I gave full reviews to, including this one. It meets FL standards, so there's no reason for me not to. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Reywas92Talk 04:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

;Comments Are the three notes in the first sentence really necessary? They seem more like a way to include vaguely relevant additional info than actual notes. Yes they are needed big time because they are addendums to explain the complexities of the intro like it is called the Australian Open now but it was not always. Yes outdoor hard courts except for Laver Arena.BLUEDOGTN 03:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC) The intro must be able to stand on its own without the rest of the article WP:Lead Section.BLUEDOGTN 03:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC) In the last paragraph of the lead, why do all the parenthetical years include "winner"? The context clearly implies those are the years the person won. It was done that way before I got to these articles, and the Wimbledon got to FL status with them so I left it that way. I could change it if you want on all of the articles? Yes, please. Fixed on all articles go look!BLUEDOGTN 07:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Why do the years without a competition have to be color-coded with a dot? "None" and the footnote get the point across, so the dot and color look silly. So people have visual problems and need the dot and the color coded is to distiguish them.BLUEDOGTN 03:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Even people with visual problems can tell the difference between it saying "None" and it saying the name and nationality of the winner. There should not be any dot or color. I corrected it on the three it was on Australian, French, and Wimbledon, which go look!BLUEDOGTN 07:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I think note i would be better included in the lead. Where would I put them? It is in the appropriate place in the article to my recollection.BLUEDOGTN 03:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC) At the end of the first paragraph seems logical. This clarifies that the later years were open but the earlier were not. I put it as the second note or B on all articles Australian, French, Wimbledon, and US, so go look!BLUEDOGTN 07:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Great list overall. Reywas92Talk 02:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Thank You for your comments! GOOD JOB.BLUEDOGTN 07:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Reywas92^Talk 04:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Article looks great, as like the other two tennis lists! Support. oncamera^(t) 03:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - Just the French Open left to conquer now. A great list Spiderone 10:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:25, 9 January 2010 [29].

---

List of The Apprentice (U.S.) candidates

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 01:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets criteria. I made similar lists for Big Brother, Project Runway and Dancing with the Stars, so I feel I know most of the issues that need to be addressed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments Make sure you use one date format in your references. You have a couple instances where you are using ISO. I prefer to always write dates out, such as "December 2, 2009". However, the {{Cite episode}} template requires ISO format, otherwise, the date will not show up at all. I suppose all dates throughout the article could be updated to ISO format for consistency, if required. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Done, thanks to Dabomb87, who converted all dates to YYYY-MM-DD format for consistency. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC) The list is not in the navbox at the bottom. I suggest adding it. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Overall, a very good list.—NMajdan•talk 17:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Thank you much! I appreciate your time and suggestions. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support.—NMajdan•talk 14:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Worth noting that Rivers wasn't just the oldest, but the oldest winner too? Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Also worth noting the non-US competitors? There are only a couple aren't there? Well, there are several that were born in other countries, but their "hometown" is listed as their current U.S. residence. I don't see it as too relevant, but I can try to come up with something if needed. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Don't relink names in the lead. Done. Didn't realize I had linked Joan Rivers twice. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC) First general ref - don't mix ISO and human-readable date formats. Please see comment above for Nmajdan. As much as I hate ISO format, the cite episode template requires it, so I can change all other dates throughout article to ISO format for consistency, if needed. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Not sure why a cite template requires a certain date format. In any case, I have made all of the ref dates follow the YYYY-MM-DD style. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks, Dabomb87. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Same in sixth general ref. Ditto. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Not directly relevant but the template could use en-dashes in the location pages. Sorry, I am not sure exactly what you are referring to here. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Never mind, I see now. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your feedback. Much appreciated. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick comment – Should Spring in "Spring 2010" be de-capitalized? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

According to MOS, season are lowercase "in almost all instances". Furthermore, "When personified, season names may function as proper nouns, and they should then be capitalized: I think Spring is showing her colors; Old Man Winter." I will go ahead and lowercased Spring, and keep in mind the new season will start soon so "spring" will be removed regardless. --Another Believer _(Talk) 08:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support

• Donald Trump's "apprentice" → Donald Trump's apprentice

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• winner donating their → winners donating their or winner donating his or her

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think the highlighting of the winners is unnecessary because their Finish is always 1st.

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• With only one person appearing twice, I don't think highlighting of her name is necessary.

Just thought I would point out that it was preferred over at List of Project Runway contestants. If you would still like the coloring removed, I'd be happy to. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary for that list either; it's also redundant because it's listed in the lead. The previous point about winners and runners up also applies to that list.

Done. Removed coloring for Omarosa. I will not worry about the Project Runway list since that went through its own FL nomination process. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Notes III and IV should be combined because they say the same thing.

Not sure how to combine these. I tried, but was unable to. Also, I didn't know if (given the different sorting features) users might find it confusing which candidates were fired at the same time. Note III and Note IV both tell you specifically which candidates were fired at the same time. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Perhaps you could add something else to the notes so they aren't identical. Reywas92^Talk 01:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. If you prefer different wording, just let me know! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Good job overall! Reywas92^Talk 02:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support Although I would definitely say the winners should be marked by a color of some kind. I realize the column says they are the winner, but that deserves an additional identifier. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:25, 9 January 2010 [30].

---

Kate Rusby discography

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it's of a comparable standard to existing featured discogs, and I think it would be nice to see one from the world of folk music. There's probably loads of things still wrong with it, but if you point 'em out, I'll fix 'em if I can :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

PS Before it is asked, I have looked hard and can find no evidence that she has charted anywhere except in the UK. Allmusic says that one of her albums charted on a minor Billboard chart, but this is not supported by Billboard themselves, who state "This album has never charted" against all her albums on their website. If people feel that the Allmusic info should be included anyway, I'll be happy to add it in, I'm not "up" on how accurate the info on Billboard's own site may or may not be..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Allmusic copies the chart information directly from Billboard, so you should include it. Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 16:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Now included -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments "... first release ... was released ..." just reads a little poorly for me. Don't use EP before you place (EP) after extended play. Never keen on small fonts, just makes the information less accessible. I assume that all the stuff which doesn't have specific in-line references is referenced by the two general references e.g. that in 1995 the eponymous album was released on CD and cassette? Ref 14 is really a note. The list is uncategorised. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Many thanks for your comments, all sorted now I think. Everything not specifically cited inline should be covered by the general refs. I don't personally think ref 14 is a note, it is the reference citing the information as to who the director of the DVD was, unfortunately the credits on the DVD itself is the only source I could find....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Now. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

:*The All-Music cite for the sentence "In 1997 Rusby released her first solo album, Hourglass, and also joined the all-female folk group The Poozies, with whom she recorded one EP and one full-length album." cites the album and mentions The Poozies, but does not say when she joined. The "extended plays" need some more info, see Godsmack discography for example. The ref for the video album director isn't proper. I would just cite the DVD itself. I would archive the "Television" ref (#17) using WebCite. Just advice, but that looks like a link that could easily rot. Her template (I guess not really part of the article but worth fixing) should include her all her Collab albums under "Other albums" along with Heartlands, even if they don't have an article. I've done the same with the one musician I've written on, Alison Krauss discography and {{Alison Krauss}}. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Heh, actually checking that now I see someone has created several stub articles to fix most of the red links, but Home on the Highways: Band Picked Favorites is still there so my example holds. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• All addressed. Precise release dates for the EPs don't seem to be recorded anywhere so I've just had to reiterate the year. The WebCite thing didn't work. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Too bad, seems like a cool tool. Never used it myself. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Drewcifer

Comments Looks good. Here's a few suggestions/comments: The charts column in the Collaborative albums table is unnecessary, since none of those albums charted. In general there's a few chart positions columns with only one sub-column (UK). In these instances, there's no point in having the header (Peak Chart Positions) along with the sub-header (UK). Just one header is fine since there's only one column. The titles of the EPs aren't bolded like the titles of the other albums are. Year columns in general should be centered. I'd recommend merging repeating columns, such as Years and Album (mostly in the singles table). The Guest Appearances table should also include which track she appeared on. As it is, it looks like she was a guest appearance for the whole album. Sources don't state that information, and for the ones I happen to own myself from the list, that level of info isn't even on the sleeve. We're not talking a case like a rapper where "Featuring Kate Rusby" would be plastered in big letters on the track listing on the back of the sleeve. The albums I own from the list do not pick out the additional musicians who are on each track, rather each album has one block listing of all the musicians on the album in tiny type inside the booklet which includes "Backing vocals: Kate Rusby", which could obviously mean anywhere from one track to all of them. I could of course listen to them and pick out the ones with her voice on, but that would be OR. I'll wait and see if you think this is a dealbreaker before I proceed with the other changes you've requested...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Hmmm, I see. Well, what I would recommend then is to be a specific as possible wherever it is possible. For those albums where it is completely vague - either based on the sources or the actual way in which she's credited on the release itself - just leave it vague. But surely some of the releases specify contributions on a per-track basis. The compilations especially. And taking a look at the wikipages of some of the other albums, a few of the pages themselves do specify which track she contributed to. Not sure if that's OR on those pages, but it's worth a look. In general you can only be as specific as the liner notes allow you to be, but if they allow you to be more specific then you should be. Drewcifer (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC) I've had a good look round and I can only reliably source the track(s) she is on for three of the fifteen albums. Some of the others may be sourcable from the sleeve notes but I don't own them or know anybody who does. Personally I think it would look really silly to put specific tracks against three albums and leave twelve as "unknown", so I'm not going to add it in. If this means the article can't be a FL well, so be it, such is life...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC) I don't think you need to be so negative about it; I'm giving suggestions, not trying to derail the FLC. Hopefully you can see my point/problem with the current format, and hopefully we can come to some simple solution. My problem is that it seems to suggest Rusby's involvement is album-wide, which obviously isn't the case in some of the instances. So wherever possible, and wherever applicable, I think it would be clearer to include specific tracks. You could do something similar to the last table of Trent Reznor discography. Or, you could also just add in parenthesis the specific track where applicable rather than add a whole new column. Or, you could also just add some sort of asterisk type thing to those albums, with a legend below the table stating that those asterisked albums include contributions on only certain tracks. These all seem like reasonable and simple solutions, hopefully one of them works with you. Drewcifer (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC) I wasn't trying to be negative, or to suggest that you were being obstuctive, and I apologise most sincerely if I gave that impression. I was merely trying to convey the fact that, unlike some nominators I've seen at FLC and FAC in the past, I'm really not fussed if the article genuinely can't get promoted. I'll have a look at your suggestions, the sources I have, and see what I can do..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Info now found for all bar four three -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Status on this? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC) There should be an external links section of some sort. That's it for now. Drewcifer (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Sorry for the delay on this. I made one little edit myself to the sub-header thing; feel free to revert if you like. Also, hopefully you can figure out what that last unknown track contribution is, but I'll won't hold it against you for now. Drewcifer (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It looks like a staggeringly obscure album, I think the only way to find out would be to buy it. Maybe if I see it really cheap on Amazon marketplace ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Just a few comments: "as part of a duo or group" was she ever in a duo? If not, "duo or" can be removed. yes, she was in a duo with Kathryn Roberts There should be non-breaking spaces after the two mentions of "number" in the second paragraph. Done The link to the US World chart in the first table links to a section that doesn't exist. It did at the time, but that article appears to have been quite heavily reworked since. Fixed as best I could misspelling: "casette" for first collaborative album Done Link The Poozies in EP table? Done no full stop needed after "Recorded live at the Leeds City Varieties" Done In the music videos' table, I think the "(s)" can be dropped off of "Director(s)" Done Some references are missing periods; all should have them. Mm40 (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Seems to be down to the vagaries of the {{cite}} template. Forced the full stops in manually -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2009 (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 18:22, 5 January 2010 [31].

---

List of Montserrat national football team results

Nominator(s): -- BigDom 11:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets all of the FL criteria. The list provides a comprehensive and complete history of the results of the Montserrat national football team. Look forward to all of your comments, thanks in advance for your time. -- BigDom 11:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment the key section should come before the actual list and should be in table form. "In the "Score" column, Monserrat's score is shown first." should be a footnote—Chris!_c/t 19:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Have put the key first and used a footnote, but from previous experience at FL I'm afraid I don't agree about having the key in table format so I've not done that. -- BigDom 12:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Many FLs have the key in table format in case you didn't notice. But I guess that is just personal preference, so feel free to leave that alone.—Chris!_c/t 18:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I meant in my own experience here, I haven't had to put any keys in a table format. Like you say, it's just personal preference so I may as well leave it as it is. -- BigDom 23:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I support—Chris!_c/t 01:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments - nice to see a niche list here! No image? Not even something vaguely Montserrat-ian? Hmm, I haven't found any uncopyrighted ones up to now, but I'll keep looking. Have left a Photo request on the list's talk page. -- BigDom "football on the island is governed by the Montserrat Football Association " - surely not all football? Perhaps official competitive football? Changed -- BigDom "They are affiliated..." singular "association", plural "they are"...? Changed to singular -- BigDom "has to date" can we be more specific? Changed to "as of December 2009" -- BigDom "The side lost their..." you've just mentioned Anguilla, be careful we don't run the risk of confusion over which "side" you're referring to. Changed to "Montserrat" -- BigDom "for another three" perhaps "for a further three"? Done -- BigDom You could link "lowest-ranked" to the FIFA rankings article. There's already a link to that article in the same paragraph, so didn't want to overlink. -- BigDom Per above, you use "to date" and "most recent" quite a bit, it'd be handy to have a timeframe on this. Have put a timeframe on them all -- BigDom "won just two" I think use of "just" is vaguely POV, I'd stick to the bare facts. Removed "just" -- BigDom "record high rank of #196.[6]" - record-high, and perhaps it'd be useful to put this into context as you haven't previously stated what bottom of the rankings is in numerical terms (i.e. #200? #250?). Changed and done -- BigDom "1996–" would prefer "1996–present"? Done -- BigDom GF I count 15, not 16 in your summary table. Also make GA 112, but it is getting late.. Ahh, the GF and GA were right, but I'd left a team out of the table. It's right now -- BigDom FIFA needs linking in the references for our non-footballing readers. Done -- BigDom The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the comments, have addressed them accordingly. -- BigDom 18:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support

• next seven matches, before → next seven matches before

• Done -- BigDom

• What does becoming a FIFA member have to do with the volcano?

• Split into two sentences -- BigDom

• The friendly match, between the two lowest-ranked teams in the world, ended → The friendly match between the two lowest-ranked teams in the world ended

• Done -- BigDom

• Is is necessary to say "As a full FIFA member", or can it just say "FIFA"? Was it only a partial member before?

• Removed "full" -- BigDom

• I think record tables tend to be WLD rather than WDL.
  • The nominator is from the UK, and in the UK (and in fact pretty much everywhere outside the USA) sports tables are always shown in the WDL format -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I've always seen tables as WDL so I guess this one's just personal preference -- BigDom
      • Not wishing to pile-on, but yes, WDL is conventional in the UK and even in US publications about European football like Serie A. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Notes A, B, C, D, and E are redundant to the lead or unnecessary because they can easily be inferred from the table.

• Removed them -- BigDom

Nice list overall. Reywas92^Talk 03:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the tips, I have addressed them all now. -- BigDom 08:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support - all looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• Spell out CONCACAF and FIFA.
• No need for duplicate World Cup links in the lead.
• but were beaten 1–6 on aggregate by Dominican Republic in the First Qualifying Round." Add "the" before Dominican Republic.
• "becoming worst-ranked side in the world." Add "the" before "worst"?
• In Footnote A, the team's name is misspelled.
• Again, spell out abbraviated reference publishers (RSSSF and FIFA). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for the comments, all resolved now. -- BigDom 10:01, 5 January 2010 (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 18:22, 5 January 2010 [32].

---

Mary Pickford filmography

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Mary Pickford ranks as one of the most important and influencial pioneers of cinema, and therefore warrants an outstanding filmography. I have arranged the list in a structure simular to the Charlie Chaplin filmography, which is now a featured list.Jimknut (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Last time I checked there were two dead links here. I found only one. It's now fixed. "she was possibly the best-known woman in the world" - I'm not convinced a single reference from an author who appears to be not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry is enough to completely substantiate this claim. Actually there is a Wikipedia entry on Eileen Whitfield, although it's only a stub. I took out this item, though, and added (in a blue quote box) a quote from Adela Rogers St. Johns. I trust you'll find her to be a more "heavy-weight" source. "began acting on stage in 1900. She began " - began ... began - repetitious. Changed the second "began" to "started". " that she award a contract" she was awarded a ...? Changed. Is there a 1929 Academy Awards article you could link to in the lead? Changed to direct link at the Academy Award's website. Same for the 75 awards? Same as above. "As of 1909 " - perhaps 2009? WHOOPS!!!! Changed. Would you consider any of the unlinked films to be prominent i.e. notable enough to be redlinked? Yes, but there would be a lot of redlinking. I think all of her features and some of the Biography shorts should have their own articles. However, I would prefer to shape up this list first and create articles for the films afterwards. "handled th distribution" the. Changed. Does an en-dash in Director mean unknown? Or no director at all? Unsure, needs a note. Changed to "(unknown)". United Artists sections - notes seem to be something different from the other tables. What exactly do you mean by "Mary Pickford–United Artists" for instance? I changed the notes to read "A Mary Pickford Production<br>Released by United Artists" or a variation of that. Page ranges in refs need en-dash, not hyphen, e.g. refs 1, 2,13, 18, 19, 21, 22 etc. Changed to en-dashes. Ref 11 has spare full stop. All refs have stops now. Year ranges in ref need en-dash too, e.g. ref 16. Changed. Are those "websites" actually "External links"? They are now. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Care to ramble over it again, Rambling Man? Jimknut (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Watch out for spaced en-dashes per WP:DASH in the references and bibliography. I checked the en-dashes. They now look good to me. Accessdates for ref 1, shouldn't those be "References" rather than footnotes? An accessdate was added for ref 1. Jimknut (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support One thing, can we use the {{harvnb}} template for the book citaions? That way it is easy to link for a reader to a particular book. Otherwise a very comprehensive and informative list. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • {{harvnb}} added where appropriate. Jimknut (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Based on the same layout, style, etc as the Chaplin one, this is another fine workover. Excellent stuff! Lugnuts (talk) 09:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick comments – Biograph (1912–1913): "Except where noted all 26 films form this period are one-reelers." A typo is hiding in there. Fixed. State rights (1913–1914): Is State meant to be capitalized? If not, you might want to de-capitalize the one instance here. De-capitalized. Artcraft (1916–1918): "Pickford made 13 films for Artcraft release of which 11 survive complete." What purpose does "release" serve here? Is it part of the company's name? "release" removed. "In 1945, she her third husband". Missing word here. "and" added. References 17, 29 and 30 are missing publishers. Publishers added. I'm not crazy about citing her America's Sweetheart nickname to a book cover on Amazon.com. If one of the books used in the references can be used to cite this fact, that would be better to ensure reliability. Also, I normally wouldn't be that thrilled about citing a personal Tripod page extensively, but it appears to be from a film expert, so it should just pass muster. The book cover reference has remained but it's now supplement with a ref from the Whitfield bio. I'm not sure which Tripod page you're refering to. Hugh Munro Neely or Christel Schmidt? Mr. Neely is curator at the Mary Pickford Institute in Los Angeles. He has made many of Pickford's films available for release on DVD and has performed the musical accompaniment to most of them. He has also produced a documentary on Pickford (narrated and hosted by Whoopi Goldberg) and also many other documentaries about silent film stars (most of which have aired on Turner Classic Movies). I think we can safely consider him an expert. Christel Schmidt works for the Library of Congress and has been researching the films of Mary Pickford for over ten years. She was the curator of a Pickford exhibit that was presented throughout the United States in 2008. She also recently hosted a Los Angeles screening of Pickford Biograph shorts. I think we can safely consider her an expert as well. Found this in the reference section: "The Mary Pickford Institute for Film Eductation." Pretty sure that's another typo in the last word. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Corrected. Thanks for the help. Jimknut (talk) 18:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I don't normally support without nit-picking, but the simple fact is that I couldn't find any nits. This is well written, comprehensive, well cited, there's no need for a sort function, and I cannot see any MoS faults. Nicely compliments Mary Pickford, which was a fascinating read. WFCforLife (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 18:17, 2 January 2010 [33].

---

List of songs in DJ Hero

Nominator(s): MASEM (t) 22:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A change from my normal Guitar Hero soundtrack lists, the soundtrack for DJ Hero is quite different from the other games due to being mixes of two songs. For as much as I could do so, I stuck to the usual pattern the other GH songlists are in, though year of song release has been dropped (as technically, this would require 3 years to each row: song 1 and 2, and the mix year, and this is made difficult due to the number of mixes and remixes of the original songs that are present). Anything to help make this better, if possible, would be appreciated, but otherwise this is complete. Note that there is likely to be future DLC, but the table given is a good indication of how this information will be added when it is announced. MASEM (t) 22:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• The article is miscategorized. It's not a game! It's a list of songs. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed; only classified under "Guitar Hero soundtracks" now per other GH lists. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments Wikilink crossfade to Fade (audio engineering)#Crossfading. Fix one of your links to M.I.A. Any reason you're not wikilinking FreeStyleGames in the table? Per WP:LINK, each row in a table should stand on its own. Would it make sense to exclude the The when sorting? For example, "The Edge" would sort under the es. —NMajdan•talk 16:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Fixed these all, including adding "The"-less sorting. Thanks. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Should this apply to artists as well? Also, is it The Black Eyed Peas or simply Black Eyed Peas? I believe the latter.—NMajdan•talk 16:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Caught those as well. In game, they are listed as "The Black-Eyed Peas" even though our article here on them is the-less, so I've pipelined along with sorting to avoid the single redirect. Also checked the mix artist column, but this was ok for the-less (on scratch perverts) --MASEM (t) 16:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support.—NMajdan•talk 22:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments May seem trivial but you could try to add in a way of saying this is about being a disc jockey (DJ), then use the abbreviation DJ safely... "downloadable content will also feature" - perhaps "future downloadable..."? "arranged across 24 different setlists, arranged " - arranged x 2, not brilliant prose. Last sentence of on-disc soundtrack para is a little, well, verbose? Mix Artist->Mix artist. Which ref says that downloadable content will regularly be available in the future? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Fixed all the above. --MASEM (t) 06:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• Remove extra period at the end of the first sentence in Downloadable content section.
• "due to the addition effort needed to create the mixes." Typo.
• "as previous downloadable for games like Guitar Hero allows players on these systems to select what individual tracks to purchase." Feels like a word is missing after "downloadable". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

All fixed. --MASEM (t) 01:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support

• "DJ vs Guitar" → DJ vs Guitar (twice)
• more-difficult → more difficult or harder

Good job! Reywas92^Talk 02:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Both fixed. --MASEM (t) 03:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 12:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk) "Crossfader" should link to Fade (audio engineering)#Crossfading and the second "crossfade" should be unlinked; the current link is to a band "single song, mixed with itself." I think you can remove the comma "game supports additional content through downloadable content from the" unfortunate repetition of "content" "individual songs have been incorporated into" "have been" makes it sound like the process is still on-going. "most mixes of the game were created" I think "of the game" is redundant "To access latter tiers" should that be "later"? "one of the "most adventurous" sountracks" out of what? The GH series? Music games in general? Also a typo: "sountracks". All these issues are relatively minor; I'll support when they are resolved. Mm40 (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC) All fixed. --MASEM (t) 07:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support once the typo on the downloadable section for the song DARE by The Gorillaz is fixed or explained because FreeStyleGames is listed twice. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 18:17, 2 January 2010 [34].

---

List of members of the Council of Keble College, Oxford

Nominator(s): Bencherlite^Talk 22:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I ran out of lists to write about Jesus College, Oxford, and so have moved on to the next college alphabetically, as part of my plan for world domination. I've written articles for 15 of the 54 names on the list. 7 names are "blacklinks" because I don't see that they're sufficient notable for their own articles (e.g. never made it into Who's Who, didn't get an obituary in The Times) and I don't think that being a member of the Council without more is sufficiently notable to trump a lack of coverage about them. No dab links, all images have alt-text and are from Commons, only one external link. Have fun. Bencherlite^Talk 22:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from the right shade of blue.... Read that first sentence and tell me if you think it should end somewhere....! Yes, it was as long as one of John Keble's sermons. Reworded. Does Royal need to be capitalised? No It Did Not. I prefer refs to be ordered numerically, you have [4][2] at the moment. Ouch. "the meetings made him and his wife, Lavinia, tense." - a bit "factoid"y for me this, not particularly scintillating... Removed, remainder of sentence shifted into following para. "on a constitutional part with" - part or par? par "Finish" seems a little strange, wouldn't End be better, i.e. end of term? No big deal. End " who was a Student (i.e. Fellow) of" - don't understand this... Christ Church calls people who would be "Fellows" at any other college "Students", as well as calling students "students"; typical confusing nonsense from "the House". Reworded. Pellew note has a full stop, others don't (even those with seemingly similarly structured sentences)... Same for Lygon. Perhaps I'm missing something...? One was a mistake, one was a sentence. Reworded to eliminate full-stops. Ref 11 needs an en-dash, not a tilde. Poor eyesight I guess that bold in ref 2 is as a result of the template? {{cite book}} uses bold for the "volume" parameter, but it does look odd, so I've edited the citation. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. Hope it's looking better now, and that the move is going well. BencherliteTalk 22:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Move is going fine, thanks, besides the lack of broadband... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I really have nothing to add: this is a fine list that covers an obscure but interesting topic comprehensively and well, that I thoroughly enjoyed reading. Excellent work. (By coincedence, it seems likely that the black linked William Sackville-West is the father of the subject of an article I wrote a few years back: Charles Sackville-West, 4th Baron Sackville. I agree that he probably isn't notable, but I do enjoy these unexpected connections that Wikipedia can throw up).--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment – There are a lot of old images in this list, and I'm uncertain about the licensing in a couple of cases for the photos next to the table. Can we find someone more knowledgeable than myself on image licensing to check the photos? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose world domination but support article

• "and many were not otherwise linked to the university": does this mean that many had no link with the university prior to joining the council, or that aside from being an alumni of the college had no connection with the university? Other than that, the lead's good and answered all my questions (how the Council was selected, its role, etc).
• Was the Warden chosen from or by the council?

Unfortunately, I can't bring any specific knowledge to this review, the subject is completely new to me. I was looking for more to say (if only so the review wouldn't look painfully superficial!), but I think the article meets the FL criteria already. Well done on creating a great list. Nev1 (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Reworded as "many did not have other continuing links with the university" - some were alumni of Keble or elsewhere but were making their mark in the wider world rather than as university academics.
• I'm sure they did, will double-check my (limited) sources when I'm back at work next week and give a specific ref if possible. Thanks for your comments. Bencherlite^Talk 15:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Support, Comments resolved. Good work, Mm40 (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk) Does "the early church" refer to the Roman Catholic Church or the early Church of England? Catholic, clarified. "between nine and twelve members" can just be "nine to twelve members" Done "any vacancies arising" i don't think "arising" is needed here changed to "power to fill any vacancies arising" The sentence beginning "There were often arguments during" sounds odd: there were only arguments when Talbot was Warden? Not much is given in the sources about how the council worked in practice, or how it worked with the various Wardens, so I can't say whether the council only argued with Talbot... One of the items in key has a period while the other doesn't Added Some references have periods while others don't; all should have them Added The book in ref 2 has a location of publication while the books under the bibliography don't. Either all should have them or none should have them. Removed location The editors for Cameron and Archer should be alphabetized by last name. No, that's how it's published presumably because Cameron (as the Warden) is senior to Archer (a "mere" Fellow). I'll be happy to support once these minor issues are fixed. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks. Hope these changes keep you happy. BencherliteTalk 15:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

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