Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2009

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 Juliancolton 04:35, 29 November 2009 [1].

---

List of Family Guy cast members

Nominator(s): Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because i think that it can be an FL. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments, just real quick:

• WP:AVOID using "However". If not, you shouldn't use it to start a sentence.

• done.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think this list is complete. Mila Kunis was nominated for an award for her work in this show

• Do not now, will find out--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Kunis was nominated for an Annie Award for her voice work on the episode "Barely Legal". Gage (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• done

• And that's the only one I know of. Obviously the subject hasn't been researched well enough because the nominator himself admitted he did not know. I am very reticent to support something that may not be complete, but we can't be sure because nobody knows. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have looked for the info of thease artical and i think it is very much done.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • • After reviewing the article, I added one more award to the section, and was not able to find any others to add to the list. It should be complete now. Gage (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• What does the grey boxes mean? It needs to comply with WP:COLOR, and at the moment I don't think it does.

• the grey boxes sepertate the voice characters.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• done

Cheers, Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Another comment

• Your edit links are bunched up. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry for that.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, but they're still WP:BUNCHed. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Is it better now.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Geraldk

Oppose - among other issues, the text needs a thorough copy-edit, this is just what I caught: The lead says six main voice actors, the background says five. Done--Pedro J. the rookie 20:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC) The first mention of an actor in the background section shouldn't exclude their first name. done--Pedro J. the rookie 20:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC) * "what kind of voice he was looking for the main characters" something's missing here... "The voice was originally slower, when MacFarlane heard it, he replied..." grammar, split into 2 sentences or fix the punctuation and transition in this one i am confused can you tell me if it is fixed .--Pedro J. the rookie 01:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC) "played the voices of Meg Griffin" how do you play a voice? Done--Pedro J. the rookie 20:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC) * The sentence that starts "MacFarlane called her back after her audition..." needs a reqrite, too many 'and's * "During the shows first four seasons, he was credited as guest star; beginning with season five's "Prick Up Your Ears" he has been credited a main cast member" missing apostrophe, missing 'a', missing 'as' --Pedro J. the rookie 22:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC) * Many if not all of the links going to sections of 'List of Family Guy cast members' don't seem to work. Some, like Jesus and God, point to sections that don't exist there. Many of the other wikilinks need to be disambiguated, as they now seem to redirect to the 'List of Family Guy cast members'. done You can drop the 'she has' and 'he has' parts of the notes under recurring guest voices Done--Pedro J. the rookie 20:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC) The tables are utterly unreferenced. There need to either be inline cites or a general reference in the reference section that sources the information in the tables. not all the tablets need to be refrenced, but i will work on that Geraldk (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Has Geraldk been asked to revisit? (I myself will try to review the article, but I don't know if I will get the time to) Dabomb87 (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC) no he left his comments and did not comment again.--Pedro J. the rookie 23:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Well, can you ask him to check back here again? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC) I've been monitoring the nomination, but it's unclear based on Pedro's response if he has attempted to address all of the comments. Have you done so, Pedro? Geraldk (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC) i have atempted to and i will soon finish all your concerns, is that alright?, can you tell me if any of your request where completed when Scrapler copyedited the artical..--Pedro J. the rookie 00:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC) The copy-edit has helped significantly, but my concerns still stand, especially concerns about referencing and linking problems. Additionally, I think there's much more that could be said in the lead about these actors. Geraldk (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Most of your concerns or done one am am confused and did not understa very well, and the other one is needed of some work but almost done.--Pedro J. the rookie 01:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC) done i put refrences on most of the cast exept the normal which has already refrenced.--Pedro J. the rookie 03:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC) I think the copy-edit has vastly improved the article, and will withdraw my opposition on that basis. However, I don't feel it is yet as strong as it could be, so I won't support listing. Largely, this is because the lead is still fairly weak in prose and content and consists of little more than a list of names. Geraldk (talk) 13:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC) will be working on that.--Pedro J. the rookie 18:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Is that better.--Pedro J. the rookie 21:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC) One last question - why are some of the names of characters wikilinked to the appropriate section of List of characters in Family Guy while others were simple de-linked? Geraldk (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC) some do not have there space in the list in a feuture i am planning to work on that list but i am a rookie at some articals nstill, those that awnser it?.--Pedro J. the rookie 00:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC) They all have at least a blurb in the list of characters. For example, the Pewterschmidts aren't linked at all, but have a whole sub-section (as Lois' family). I think they can all be linked, and should be. Geraldk (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Is that better?--Pedro J. the rookie 00:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Done.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - After a thorough copyedit by User:Scapler, article seems to meet the FL criteria. Gage (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'll support, but for the long-term benefit of the list, it would probably be good to fill out the character list so every character has an entry, and may be linked to. Geraldk (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'll put it in the todo list and on the WP:FG things you can do, thanks for the review.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • A few sourcing issues:
    • Several unsourced statements in the "Casting changes" section. For example: "It is mentioned in the DVD commentary track that Alazraqui was reluctant to leave the Family Guy series", which commentary?
    • done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The citations seem to be rather random. In some cases they are after the actor, in others after the characters ir statements. Other rows do not have any citations.
  • In the row for Butch Hartman, why not give a few examples of characters he has voiced. Also, I'm assuming the first word in "Started in many episodes as various characters" is a typo.
    • Done and no there are no examples--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "Regular Cast": "Family Guy has five main cast members, most of whom play several roles on the show." That is a little confusing, because six people are listed below. Why not change it to "At any point in its history, Family Guy has had five main cast members ... "
    • done.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • What is with the italicized names in the tables?
    • Those are names that do not have links in the character list(it is quite a mess), discused with previous editor.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you should add a note that explains it then.
      • A note?, how?--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Removed to many trobule.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Why not change the first section to "current cast", and remove everything about Lacey Chabert to the casting changes section?
    • Done.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, perhaps the voice credits for the main cast should be listed to regular characters, and exclude one-timers and impressions.
    • • can you be a bit spesific, and there are no onetimers in the list made sure of that.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
        • What about Mickey McFinnigan or OBrian? It might also be best to exclude characters from other sources (ie. the Kool Aid Man) or impressions (ie. Dick Cheney) and keep it to Family Guy characters.
        • Done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • In "Casting changes", if Norm MacDonald voiced Death in one episode, wouldn't that make him a guest star rather than a cast member?
    • no he was going to continue but could not the one who plays death now is a recurring cast member.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • In "Recurring cast", isn't it confusing to mention names in prose that are in other sections.
    • Can you explain?.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
      • In that section, people like Lori Alan are mentioned in the prose, but not in the table. At first, I was confused as to why they were not mentioned, then I saw they were in the next section. It might be best to only mention people in their relevant section.
      • Done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If memory serves (and I might be completely wrong), but doesn't Family Guy not make any distinction between regular and guest cast in the credits? If so, how did you decide who goes where.
    • I did that in the way that the recurring is the one who apperes but not so offten, the guest is the one who apperes many times but in diffrent episodes of seasons, did you you understand or iam i confusing you?.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
      • No, it makes sense. Perhaps you should add a note in the article?
      • Done note in posicion.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the list needs a much better definition of what qualifies someone as a "recurring guest star". For example, Drew Barrymore guest starred in a number of episodes but is not listed.
    • Done and will expand.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • In "recurring voices", a lot of notes could use copyediting, ie. "Guest starred in some episodes from 2001 to 2008" seems rather (for lack of a better term) lazy. Also in that section, some notes have periods while others do not.
• It's a pretty good start, but I think the list still has a ways to go. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Done.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and looks like you do now a bit FG.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did like the show until the post-cancellation seasons started, now I could care less about it. I still catch the occasional new episode. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Flash

Comments: As requested... Isn't Quagmire usually called just that? Not Glenn like is stated in the first caption? Thats his full name see as with the rest.--Pedro J. the rookie 23:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC) You don't need an apostrophe before "At" - I also do not believe the stint is needed at all. Suggest removal. "MacFarlane draws inspiration for the voice of Peter from a security guard he overheard talking while attending the Rhode Island School of Design.[3]" -> "MacFarlane drew inspirations[...]" Done.--Pedro J. the rookie 23:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC) "Stewie's voice is based on the voice of English actor Rex Harrison,[4]" -> "Stewie's voice was based[...]" Done.--Pedro J. the rookie 23:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC) What makes http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/rurouni_kenshin/family_guy_seth_macfarlane_interview.aspx reliable? Removed--Pedro J. the rookie 23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC) "She had not met MacFarlane or seen any artwork and said it was "really sight unseen".[9]" -> What, or who's, artwork is this sentence referring to? Done.--Pedro J. the rookie 23:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC) "Mila Kunis has provided the voices of Meg Griffin.[7]" -> don't you mean just "voice" ? Done.--Pedro J. the rookie 23:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Why are things like Kool-Aid Man, Jesus, and Ashley italicized throughout the table? Done.--Pedro J. the rookie 23:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Nope still a bunch of others that are still italicized. The Flash {talk} 23:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Well the ones that are unliked aree like that put i will take it off....done, better.--Pedro J. the rookie 23:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Please replace http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005109/awards with the official Annie Award website Added--Pedro J. the rookie 23:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC) The Flash {talk} 22:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks alot for the review flash.--Pedro J. the rookie 23:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC) No prob - some other comments, though: What's with ref 18 and 19? What's "Callaghan" and "Disc 4" mean? Done--Pedro J. the rookie 00:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC) You've misunderstood. I didn't mean remove theme, I meant to better clarify what the refs actually are. The Flash {talk} 00:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC) NO i checked them did not help the artical at all.--Pedro J. the rookie 00:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC) The Flash {talk} 00:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support: My issues have been taken care of and I believe this passes FL criteria. The Flash ^{talk} 01:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - some basic issues I'm afraid.... Caption in lead image is an incomplete sentence so needs no full stop. Done--Pedro J. the rookie 20:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC) "numerous regular cast and recurring guest stars" followed in the next sentence by "numerous guest and additional cast voices" makes for repetitive reading. done--Pedro J. the rookie 22:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Use "cast" nine times in nine consecutive sentences. Okay, it's about the cast, but this is a bit too much for me. Done--Pedro J. the rookie 22:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC) "award for there work on the series." - their work. done--Pedro J. the rookie 23:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC) "'At any point in its history, ..." - odd phrase, odd apostrophe. Maybe, "Throughout the series, ..."? done--Pedro J. the rookie 22:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Kunis' caption needs a full stop. Done--Pedro J. the rookie 20:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC) So does Warburton's. done--Pedro J. the rookie 20:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC) "MacFarlane choose to voice " - chose. Done--Pedro J. the rookie 20:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC) "Griffin's neighbor" - should that be "Griffins' neighbor"? done--Pedro J. the rookie 22:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC) "for the pilot while " link what type of pilot you mean (i.e. aviator or first ever show). Done.--Pedro J. the rookie 20:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Check out how to space your ellipses, per the WP:MOS. McDonalds should be McDonald's. done--Pedro J. the rookie 22:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Refs need work, all dates should be consistently formatted, all web references need "accessdate" etc. Ref column in tables don't need to be sortable. Keep tables left or centrally aligned, not a mix. Going to have to disagree it looks fine like that, and there is no rule for that.--Pedro J. the rookie 20:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC) No, no rules, but it looks really poor to have tables mixed up that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Well but if we did that it would look blah, it looks better, i say.--Pedro J. the rookie 22:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Several characters, actors not referenced at all. you mean the main cast, did not find the need to refrence them.--Pedro J. the rookie 19:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Are you kidding? This is a list of cast members and you "did not feel the need to refrence (sic) them"? I think you'll need to work more on the referencing before I can go anywhere close to supporting this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC) It is mostly refrenced on the cast.--Pedro J. the rookie 20:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC) More comments Just randomly checked one of your sources, e.g. Phyllis Diller's credits. Apparently she was not Thelma in Holy Crap, but she was Thelma in Padre de Familia. done--Pedro J. the rookie 16:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Check no spaces between references and text/punctuation. i do not understand be spesific.--Pedro J. the rookie 16:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC) "who did voice work " clumsy prose. done--Pedro J. the rookie 16:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC) "Lacey Chabert/ Mila Kunis" remove space. done.--Pedro J. the rookie 15:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC) "Green admittedly did an impression " why "admittedly"? done--Pedro J. the rookie 16:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Buffalo Bill or "Buffalo Bill"? done--Pedro J. the rookie 15:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Where is Brennan as Mort referenced? could not find refrence took down.--Pedro J. the rookie 15:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Greased up in the reference is Greased-Up. Your article is internally inconsistent. Done, i think?--Pedro J. the rookie 15:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC) And performance artist is Performance Artist. Your article is internally inconsistent. done--Pedro J. the rookie 16:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC) ""Griffins neighbor Glenn Quagmire, ..." suddenly italicised... done--Pedro J. the rookie 15:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC) " PA system " "public address system". done--Pedro J. the rookie 16:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Will adressed them when i come back this weekend, beach time:) thanks for the review ram(do you mind if i call you that?)--Pedro J. the rookie 17:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Why the blue headings in one table? done--Pedro J. the rookie 19:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Why is Alazraqui's sentence stand-alone? how soPedro J. the rookie 19:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Fix the &nbsp in ref 8. done--Pedro J. the rookie 19:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Again, don't mix date formats in the references. Where--Pedro J. the rookie 19:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC) And don't link dates. Where am i doing that--Pedro J. the rookie 19:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC) I unlinked the dates. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I won't oppose, the work done has been excellent so far, but I'm finding it difficult to agree this is our "finest work". Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• TRM makeing the artical better is the important thing, hit me with some improveing comments.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:35, 29 November 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 Dabomb87 16:54, 28 November 2009 [2].

---

List of Olympic medalists in equestrian

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This list, describing the medalists in equestrian sports at the Olympics, is my first FLC and really the first list I've worked on seriously. It has recently undergone a peer review, which garnered comments from one other editor. I believe this article meets all of the criteria for a featured list, but, since this is my first nomination, I may have missed something completely! Thanks in advance for you time and opinions. Dana boomer (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Geraldk

Comments quick ones, starting more in-depth review now, but... please fix the disambiguation links in the toolbox at right in the alt text for the dressage photo, top hat should be two words, unless this is a specific variation used ion the equestrian community the NBC Olympics links are broken. Geraldk (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Should be all done. Sorry about the blond moment on checking the dabs and external links before nominating... Dana boomer (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC) No problem, I forget all the time. Geraldk (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Further comments - there's lots of stuff here, but I do want to say I'm impressed at all the work on the list - it's coming a long way. in the second sentence, it should probably read something like, 'when competitions in polo...' to make the last clause work grammatically Fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC) in the first paragraph discussion of which events have been competed in, you have no mention of discontinued events. This means the section of medalists in discontinued events later has no context. It's also unclear when you list current events that these are the only events in modern games rather than simply being added to the list at the first games. I think this has been fixed, but please let me know (or feel free to tweak yourself) if more clarification is needed. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC) what are the other sports where men and women compete against each other? Some sailing and badminton divisions. Added. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC) it would be interesting to hear more detail about famous or trend-setting medalists, ones which have some prominence in the equestrian community, etc. Also, were there any medalists who medaled multiple times in the same games, or many times across many games? Added a little bit more info. It's common for equestrians to medal multiple times in the same games, because they compete in both the team and individual event. The info I added was on a the competitor who competed in the greatest number of games; others who competed in multiple games can be seen in the Athlete medal leaders section. I'm not really sure what you mean by "famous or trend-setting"; many of these competitors are well-known in their fields, but none really more than others. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC) there's something wrong with the table formatting on the discontinued high jump table Could you be more specific? I can't see anything wrong. It's supposed to have two golds, no silver, and one bronze. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC) My browser shows no border beneath Trissino's entry. Geraldk (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Really? Mine shows one just fine. Since I can't see the problem, I'm not sure how I can fix it... Dana boomer (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC) I'm confused by image placement - some sections have none at all, some have many The images are placed where there is room between the table and the side of the article. If you have suggestions to change this, please let me know. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC) I would distribute them more evenly. The presence of room between the table and the side of the article varies by browser settings, so I'd just put in the images and let the browser auto-formatting consense text as necessary. Geraldk (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC) I've distributed the existing photos throughout the article, and added a few new ones. Let me know if you think there should be more. Dana boomer (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC) it isn't a problem for me, but other reviewers may comment on the number of redlinks - you may want to ask other interested editors if they would work on creating stubs for some of them I'll see what I can do with this. I may work on creating more stubs myself, especially if other reviewers comment on this fact. Dana boomer (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC) the list is missing details links to individual events, for example there is a link for the 1912 individual dressage, but none to Equestrian at the 1912 Summer Olympics – Individual dressage, see List of Olympic medalists in table tennis for an example of how this is done Detail links added. Dana boomer (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC) on the individual events table, your formatting is reversed in the medalist cells - the medalist should come first and the name of the country second in individual events (this is, after all, a list of medalists). The country only comes first in team events. Again, see the table tennis list to see what I'm talking about. Fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC) the title of the first general reference is a description, not its actual title. Also, the filters on the page you link too aren't very user-friendly, you may want to link here instead. Fixed title, changed to suggested link. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC) some ref formatting doesn't match, for example 'Sports Reference LLC' is italicized in one place and not italicized in another Fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC) it might be useful to split the one actual note from the specific references, also 'all other serious databases' is a statement that would need sourcing - what's a serious database? Turned into a note and referenced. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Geraldk (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC) I believe I have fixed all of the issues above. Please let me know if further work is needed. Dana boomer (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC) What's the redlink for in note 2? Geraldk (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Because I screwed up the convert template. Fixed now. Dana boomer (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Support - all my issues have been addressed promptly and thoroughly. Geraldk (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - There is an error - 2008 Hong Kong should say 2008 Beijing - even though the event was held in Hong Kong, it is still considered as part of the Beijing Olympics. As far as I know, this is different from the 1956 Summer Olympics situation.—Chris!_c/t 23:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support—Chris!_c/t 19:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I like the fact that the names of the horses were included here, similar to the official IOC website medallists database (and unlike in other wikipedia articles about the Olympic sport, like List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners). There is this entry for the 1980 winner though, where the Italian gold medal winner has the flag of the IOC affixed to the name instead of the Italian flag. I know that some countries then decided to carry the IOC flag instead of their national flags during the opening ceremony as a form of protest. But I'm not sure if the usage of IOC flag has been carried over to the medalist/s' affiliation or the official medal tally. Also, is there a way to make the column width uniform or at least visually "smooth" throughout the article? I am specifically referring to the discontinued events, wherein due to the pictures, the width of the tables are zigzagging throughout the section. Joey80 (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is a standard format but looking at the other featured list related to Olympic medallists, like List of Olympic medalists in table tennis, there is a link underneath every Olympic edition, labeled as details. Maybe this can also be included here. Thanks. Joey80 (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not really a requirement and a priority but a matter of personal taste, but the table of content can also be tweaked a bit to have a look of brevity and compactness. Again, please refer to the TOC of List of Olympic medalists in table tennis. I think this will be applicable to the events currently included in the Olympic program, but the discontinued events will likely have a similar format in the table of content. Joey80 (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The flags of the Italian team have been brought up recently at the Olympics wikiproject. Across wikipedia articles, athletes are listed with the flags they marched under in the opening ceremony. The consensus on that has not changed, though if you wish to participate in the discussion about it, the link is here. The only way to make the table widths uniform is to eliminate pictures, to string a long row of picture such that no section is without them, or to set a standard width for columns. The former is obviously not a good idea and the latter messes up the page when viewed by some browsers. And the middle option requires more pictures than are usually available on any one topic. So, as annoying as it is, until someone finds a solution, the zigzagging is pretty common with featured lists. Geraldk (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fine. For the widths of the table, apparently, the Long Jump event is the one that has a different width when compared to other discontinued events, so a pic can be added or a longer pic can be found to replace the pic above it. Joey80 (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the rules/scoring systems for Equestrian. But will it be possible to include a note on why there was this edition in which the gold medal was won by two competitors (e.g. in other sports like gymnastics and athletics track events, an asterisk/cross is placed beside the names of competitors to indicate that their time/scores are the same), and why there was an edition in which there was no bronze medal winner? Joey80 (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Joey80, thank you for your comments. I have included notes that explained the two differences in medaling. The details links have been added (Gerald also asked for them above!). The IOC flag thing has hopefully been explained above (thankfully, because I wasn't really sure what the answer was!). The main reason that the tables zig-zag in the discontinued events section is that some competitors' names are longer than others, and the short tables make this more obvious. I hope these explanations help, and if you have more questions, please let me know. Dana boomer (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. All of my comments have been resolved too. Joey80 (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Andrwsc

The medal totals disagree with official sources. The four-in-hand, hacks and hunters combined, and mail coach events at the 1900 Paris Games are not considered Olympic events, and should be removed from this list. Certainly, they should not appear in the medal totals. When there are discrepancies between sources, we defer to the IOC to define what they consider Olympic or not. Moved these events to an "unofficial events" section and added a note explaining the issue. Dana boomer (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Also, the medal totals need to be re-sorted by IOC convention (also used on every other Wikipedia Olympic article), by number of golds first, number of silvers second, and number of bronze third. See the table on the main Equestrian at the Summer Olympics for correct totals. Note also that "EUA" totals are not combined with "GER", per longstanding consensus. Pulled in the table from the linked article. Is it now correct? Dana boomer (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Lastly, we should respect the requested citation style for Sports-Reference, with the author field included, per [3]. I have been using something like: Kubatko, Justin. "Equestrianism". Olympics at Sports-Reference.com. Sports Reference, LLC. Archived from the original on 2020-04-17. Retrieved 2009-11-10. Author added. Dana boomer (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your efforts! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC) I believe that I have addressed all of your comments above. Please let me know if further work is needed. Dana boomer (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC) I didn't notice this before, but the "Mixed four-in-hand" and "Mail coach" are different names for the same event. It should only be listed once, of course. And Georges Nagelmackers is Belgian (he's listed as German in the four-in-hand table). The other thought is that I think it would be much better to have a sentence of prose text to explain the unofficial events, rather than attaching a note to the section header. (I'm not even sure that technique is MOS compliant.) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 06:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for catching this, and I think I have this all sorted. Let me know if it still needs more work. Dana boomer (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Still some more comments (sorry these are coming in bits & pieces!): The intro states The Summer Olympics have included 2,129 equestrian participants, including 1,751 men and 378 women, from 69 countries. I think this type of statement would need to be sourced (you got this from Sports Reference), but there is actually a lot of uncertainty in the number of competitors in early Games. For example, Mallon's research shows 48 known competitors in 1900, but he also estimates 64 competitors. So any total that purports to be a definitive number actually has some uncertainty. Perhaps add a footnote that explains this? I think you need references for the oldest and youngest competitors. (Sports Reference) The intro disagrees with the medal table with respect to total medals won by Germany. This might be an excellent place for an explanatory statement (e.g. "German riders have won a total of 81 medals, 42 by Germany from 1912–1952 and 1992–2008, 25 by West Germany from 1968–1988, and 14 by the Unified Team of Germany from 1956–1964." plus maybe a footnote that states that the IOC makes a distinction between these three teams, but other sources (like S-R) combine the EUA and GER totals but keep FRG distinct. I think the intro really ought to explain two unusual instances in Olympic history, namely the 1956 event in Stockholm (because of Australian quarantine reasons) and the decision to put the 2008 event in Hong Kong (because of air quality concerns, if I remember correctly). This would also be a good place to explain that the Stockholm "Equestrian Games" were set apart from the main Games in Melbourne (a few months later) and had their own opening and closing ceremonies, a different organising committee, etc. The boycott of Switzerland in Melbourne also led to the interesting "paradox" of them winning a medal at a Games they are shown as having boycotted (because of the bronze in Stockholm). But for 2008, the equestrian events in Hong Kong were still an integral part of the Beijing Games, organised by BOCOG, etc. I think the Sports Reference citations are still not quite right. The {{cite web}} call should have |work=Olympics at Sports-Reference.com and the |title= parameter ought to match the page title (before the pipe). For example, "Equestrianism" instead of "Sports Reference database" for the page at http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/sports/EQU/ in your list of general references. That's it for now (and hopefully I don't see anything else). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC) I believe all of the above have been taken care of. Dana boomer (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Better, but Note 2 isn't accurate as written. GDR is not the same as EUA, which is what I would infer from what you wrote. EUA is the code used to identify the Unified Team of Germany, which consisted of competitors from both West Germany (later FRG) and East Germany (later GDR). This arrangement lasted for three Olympiads before they decided to compete as separate teams starting in 1968. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC) No, it isn't. The note now says "Note that this combines the totals of Germany as a whole country and the Unified Team of Germany (EUA), but does not include those medals won by the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany)." The intro still says 42 medals (21 gold), which is not a combined total of GER+EUA. Check the numbers in the table. The note also says "The IOC considers these three separate countries and lists their results as such, but another major database combines Germany and the EUA, while leaving the FRG separate." Actually, the IOC considers them as distinct NOCs, not "countries". You should also reference the "another major database" comment. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC) How about now? Dana boomer (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Yes! Maybe add a link to National Olympic Committee for "NOC" and I think it's done. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Link added. Dana boomer (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• All of my previous comments have been addressed, but on a final run-through, I have two more:
  1. All images need proper alt text per WP:ALT.
  2. The team events need valign=top in the table cell formatting to align the flags. That is the common style on all other list articles in this series.

  Getting very close!! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• What images can you see that need alt text? As far as I can tell, they all do already. I think I've added the valign tags correctly, although I'm not that familiar with table formatting, so I may have done it wrong. Dana boomer (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry about the alt text; my browser setting had changed.. As for the valign you need it for each table cell. For example, change every instance of |{{flagIOCteam|... to |valign=top|{{flagIOCteam|.... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dana, I can do that automatically for you if you don't know how. Reywas92^Talk 22:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• If you could do that automatically it would be awesome! I don't know how to set up a script to do it... Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• The script has now been run and the valigns correctly added (thank you Reywas!). Dana boomer (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Back when I was working on the List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing, it originally had a "medals by nation" table similar to the one here. However, I was told to move it back to the main article because they are sibling articles and it's more appropriate at the main one. I think that should be done here too for consistancy, because most of the medalists lists I've seen (although admittedly I haven't checked all of them) lack the table. -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 14:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see what some of the other reviewers have to say about this. Some of the other Olympic lists have no by-country information, while many have country medals per year tables. There doesn't seem to be any guideline calling for the table to exist or not exist (unless I've missed one). I'm willing to change the table, either by moving it back to the main article or changing it to a medals per year table. However, this list already has two supports with the current table in place, and so I don't want to seriously change a main table in the article without at least giving the other reviewers the chance to chime in. Dana boomer (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see consistency across all these articles, so if that means keeping the medal table only in the main article, then it should be removed here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I am substituting the current medals by country table with a medals by country by year template, to keep it consistent with most other FLs of this type. Please see the discussion with Reywas below for further details. Dana boomer (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Question - shouldn't this be in "equestrianism"? I don't think so, although if it's a big deal, it would probably be a question to ask the Olympics project. My understanding is that this (as well as the main article, Equestrian at the Olympics) is named as it is because the IOC calls it "Equestrian", not "Equestrianism", and WP goes by what the IOC calls an event. "considered a separate sport by the International Olympic Committee" - separate from what? Fixed, I think. How does ref 4 back up the idea that the pentathlon riding isn't considered part of the equestrian events? Because the showjumping is part of the pentathalon and so by definition cannot be part of the equestrian events. Removed "considered". "and through 1948" vs "mechanisation" - the first is very US Eng, the second is spelt in Brit Eng... consistency please. Esp with "recognize" later on...? I think I've made it consistant, but please point out (or feel free to fix) any other instances of Brit Eng. You should be more specific when you link sailing - perhaps to sailing in the olympics. Fixed, and also fixed the badminton link. "different location than the" - usually "different from". Fixed. Abbreviate IOC after the fully expanded term. Fixed, I think. "IOC committee" - isn't C for committee? Fixed. "At a separate meeting " - what do you mean by separate here? Fixed, I think. "This also led to the fact that although Switzerland officially boycotted the 1956 Games, due to the Soviet Union's recent invasion of Hungary, they still brought home a medal due to their participation in the equestrian portion several months earlier" - reads clumsily to me. I dislike "led to the fact", perhaps we can reword it... Tried rewording. See what you think. "when in 2005 international " commas after when and 2005. Fixed. "making it so that when horses left" again, clumsy prose. Tried rewording. See what you think. oldest/youngest competitor is interesting but this is about medal winners so perhaps you should have the oldest/youngest medalists? I have no found no information on the oldest/youngest medal winners in my sources. Have you found a source that could provide this information? Is it worth including the fact that the events weren't held in 1916, 1940 and 1944 due to war? Since this was an Olympic-wide thing, I don't think it's something that needs to be mentioned in an equestrian medalist list. On my browser, for 1980, the flags are after the text. Seems to be the only one. I'd missed it in my formatting changes. It's now consistent with the others. Team dressage not in 1960 - why and reference please. I can't find anything either in my books or online about why this event was not held. Ind. Eventer, Roman, Italian but Olympic flag - worth a note if this is correct. This is correct, see the discussion above. The Italian team marched under the IOC flag, and so this is the flag that the athletes are listed under when they won a medal in that games. "show-jump" or "show jump"? Or even "showjump"... Be consistent. I think I have made these consistent to "show-jump". "No medalists - No nation completed the course with three riders." - see WP:DASH and why capitalise the second No? Removed the dash, replaced with parentheses, de-capitalized second "no". "'88" etc, not sure but I don't think we should abbreviate years that way. Just use the full year. Fixed Names should use {{sortname}} so they sort correctly. Can you explain this further please? I am not well versed in the tables and sort mechanisms... Use the {{sortname}} template so that names sort by surname, not first name. You could check any recent FL for an example of how to use it. If you need more advice, feel free to drop me a line. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC) I've added the sort template to the athletes in the Athlete medal leaders table. Was this the only place you wanted them, or do they have to be applied to athletes names in every event? Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC) I don't see it in the leaders table. Am I missing something? It should be used wherever a sortable table contains names. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Yeah, that's because I'm an idiot and accidentally reverted the template addition while trying to revert something else. Check it now, it should be good. Dana boomer (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC) If I sort by gold, then Werth comes third - with more silvers and more overall, she should come second in that sort. I'm not sure how to fix this? Don't mix up date formats in the references. As far as I know, they're not. All access dates are YYYY-MM-DD, while the creation dates are Month Day, Year. They are all internally consistent, and this has been fine in other featured work that I've done... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Replies interspersed above. Thanks for your review. Dana boomer (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Per MOS (last time I looked) internal consistency for references demanded that dates, whether they be creation or access, should be formatted similarly. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments – TRM caught a couple of the sentences that I thought were awkward, and the sorting difficulties, so I won't repeat those comments here. Don't believe anything below is a duplicate from before, but I could be wrong. Capitalize "games" in first sentence. Fixed. "and one of very few equine drug-testing labs in the world." Add "the" before "very"? Reworded. There are a lot of red links in the tables. I don't personally feel that it violates FL criteria in that respect, but others may disagree with me. At the very least, filling in these red links would be a good project for someone in the future. A few red links have already been filled in during the course of this FLC (either through article creation or finding articles that already existed under a slightly different name), and it is a future project of mine to fill in many more. Reference 13 is to Brittanica, a fellow encyclopedia. I'd feel better if another source could be found to replace it. Replaced. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Replies interspersed above. Thanks for your review. Dana boomer (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Support – With my comments taken care of earlier, I was waiting on the resolution of the other comments, particularly those of TRM. Now that that's done, I'm happy to back this list, Great first effort! Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Reywas92^Talk *What is the total number of medals awarded?

• • Added.
• What is the total number of people who have won at least one medal?
  • I haven't been able to find this information in my sources. Do you know of anyplace that gives this information?
    • Counting them with AWB, there are 564 medal winners.
• Do you mind making a custom TOC like in other Medalist FLs?
  • I played around with doing this (in response to a comment above), but couldn't find a shortened table format that I was happy with. The fact that there are so many different events makes the custom TOC not much shorter or nicer than the current one, and something to do with the different lengths of the events' names make some of the other events and sub-sections off-set weirdly, looking very unprofessional. If you can come up with a custom TOC that looks good, I would have no problem with it in the article, but with my (admittedly limited) formatting skills, I haven't been able to.
    • That's fine, it's not required.
• I would prefer the Medals by country table be replaced by Medals per year. It is redundant to Equestrian at the Summer Olympics#Medal table and should be consistent with other Medalist lists.
  • I am working on this replacement table in a sandbox, but gathering and entering the information into the table is taking me some time. I hope to spend some time working on this tonight and maybe even finish it. I will let you know when the new table has been imported into the list.

Everything else looks fantastic and I love how you included the horses' names. Reywas92^Talk 22:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Reywas, thank you for your comments. I apologize for being slow to answer them - real life has been busy for the past two days and I haven't had much online time. I've interspersed my replies so far above, and will continue to work on the issues as time permits. Dana boomer (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You're fine. One more thing is to check multiple spellings. In many cases where the athlete has foreign symbols in his/her name, it is spelled with them in one place and without in another. At least one redlink is actually a bluelink but has the wrong spelling: Pierre Durand Jr. should link to Pierre Durand, Jr.. Michel Robert should be corrected to Michel Robert (equestrian). Reywas92^Talk 22:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The table has now been finished and substituted, please take a look and see what you think. I've fixed the above two examples of links, plus another one that I found. Please let me know if you see any others - I've combed through and don't see any more, but it may just be because I've looked at it too often. I'm not completely sure I trust the AWB count - for example, does it count a person more than once if their name is spelled more than one way? Also, this information does doesn't seem to be necessary to include in Olympic lists, I've looked through other FLs of this sort, and it's included in some, but not in several others. Thanks for your thoughts. Dana boomer (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It does count both links, but there weren't very many and I'm sure I got them all unless the name was completely different. The medals per year table looks great, but please add dark backgrounds to years when a country didn't exist, like in List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing#Medals per year. Reywas92^Talk 21:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Dark backgrounds have been added to years where the NOC didn't exist/didn't compete. Also, I made a mistake in my statement above which changed the meaning, please review the struck and rewritten word and let me know your thoughts. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The table is fantastic! I think it is necessary and should be added to the rest of the lists as well. If I'm looking at a list of people who won medals, I want to know how many there are. I went through it again and I'm sure there are 564 people with an equestrian medal. Reywas92^Talk 04:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I will add the information then. However, just one more question before I do - does your count include the competitors in the last two "unofficial" events? It should not, because these are not considered official events, and are not included in the table. Dana boomer (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Support then; all issues resolved. Nope, I removed them. Reywas92^Talk 16:40, 27 November 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 Dabomb87 16:54, 28 November 2009 [4].

---

List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks

Nominator(s): – PeeJay 00:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that there is a lack of featured content covering the Minnesota Vikings and I have worked fairly hard to get this list to a standard comparable to that of List of Kansas City Chiefs starting quarterbacks. All of the content of the list and the prose extracted thereof is suitably references, and I believe that the lead section introduces the content of the list effectively. Since the list is based on the list of Kansas City Chiefs starting quarterbacks, there should be no issue with the style or structure, and there are also images showing both a former starting QB and the current one. Information does not change from day to day, except to update the number of games started by the team's current starting QB, which only happens once a week during the football season. – PeeJay 00:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. – PeeJay 07:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: main reference missing publisher info & access date—Chris!_c/t 01:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. – PeeJay 07:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 See MOS:BOLD: bold in the table cannot be used this way. Find a symbol to indicate HOF or use italics instead. Used a dagger symbol (†) instead. Last navbox doesn't link to this article and should be removed. Done. You use the abbreviation "QB" a lot without explicitly defining what it means. Not everyone who reads this list will know what a QB is. The opening sentence of the second lead paragraph now reads "The Vikings have had 28 starting quarterbacks (QB) in the history of their franchise..." Is this enough? Exactly. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC) "in their first ever game" - bad wording, change to in the franchise's first game Done. "future Hall of Famer retained the starting jersey" - the what? I've never heard it referred to in that way. the starter's job or the starting role would be better. Done. "The Vikings starting quarterback for the first game" - Vikings' Done. "However, he was substituted for Fran Tarkenton early on" - "substituted for" is awkward wording. Better would be replaced by Done. "and Tarkenton ended up passing... and rushing" - informal; replace with who passed... and rushed Done. "This performance resulted in Tarkenton starting 10 of the Vikings' 14 regular season matches that year." - the reference doesn't say that it was specifically this performance that made him start 10 games, it just says he started 10 games. Fixed. "to their first ever playoff" - first ever again, remove "ever" Done. "However, Cuozzo only remained in the position for two seasons" - remove "However", and "only", unnecessary modifiers Done. "promoted from the Vikings' second string" - you don't need to say "Vikings" twice in this awfully long sentence; remove the second "Vikings" Done. "half-way through his third season" - remove hyphen (halfway) Done (didn't realise that it was the AmEn custom not to hyphenate). "The Vikings then went through three quarterbacks in three seasons: Brad Johnson (1997),[15] Randall Cunningham (1998)[16] and Jeff George (1999);" - there's got to be a better way to say this; it's awfully informal. Also, you don't need to repeat Johnson's first name after its first occurrence. Just Johnson will suffice, since he's the only one with that last name. Changed to "Johnson", but not sure how to alter this further. Pointers? I've made some minor changes. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC) "meaning that Johnson would have to step in again," - this is informal language, and it seems like Johnson has been in Minnesota the whole time, which he wasn't. I've changed this to explain the situation better, but it is a little verbose now. "and then joined the Miami Dolphins in 2006" - who did? I know it's Daunte, but it's not clear. Fixed. "Quarterback(s)" column should also be sortable. Not sure how I should go about this. I can make it sortable, but the only method I can think of would be to make the rows sortable by the name of the QB who made the most starts. Is this OK? Yes, that's the preferred sorting. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC) OK, I've fixed the sorting. Thanks for the help. – PeeJay 20:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Turn the notes at the top of the table into a key, and add to that key a note that the years link to a team season, so that they don't look like random year links. Done, but it may not be exactly what you were thinking of. Changed it up a bit toward what I was thinking. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Lists of NFL starting quarterbacks appears in the navbox at the bottom, remove from the "See also" section. Done. Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Comments definitely always help, mate. If you could reply soon, I'd be appreciative :) – PeeJay 19:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Well done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks. Can this be considered a statement of your Support then? – PeeJay 23:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Recently, I usually wait until other reviewers' comments are presented and resolved before supporting. I know I'm not perfect as a reviewer, so I acknowledge that shortcoming by waiting to see what others find. Either way, per the FLC page, the positive resolution of comments is worth more than a declaration of support anyway. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC) That's cool, I get it. Just as long as you don't have any more comments for me, I'll be happy :-P – PeeJay 01:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Well, if you want another comment, the list could use some more images :-D. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC) I knew I shouldn't have said anything! :-P I've added a couple of images I found on Commons of Daunte Culpepper and Jim McMahon. I hope the ALT text is OK, I'm not very good at ALT text. – PeeJay 16:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Good choices both, and the alt text is quite well-written. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Conditional Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) – contingent on the resolution of the sorting issue below.

Comment from KV5 (yes, again)

• Now that there is a statistical table, I think there should be some discussion of those statistics in the lead, and/or in the section containing that table, because the lead should be a summary of the list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've added a couple of paragraphs of discussion to the statistics table. Let me know if what I've added isn't what you were looking for. – PeeJay 01:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Great work. You make me proud to be a Vikings fan. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Aw, thanks man :) Not bad for a Brit, eh? Now I just need someone to teach me the tune to Skol, Vikings! – PeeJay 01:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - 1) In the lead, it says "The club was founded by Minneapolis businessmen Bill Boyer, H. P. Skoglund and Max Winter in 1959..." - Only one of these is linked, yet I would assume that co-founding a pro football team is probably notable enough to have their own article. These two should probably be wikilinked. 2) "Starting" could be ambiguous to someone not familiar with football. There's no real explanation of what a "starting" quarterback is. Those of us familiar with the game know it means starting a game, but others may think it means starting a season, starting a half/quarter, or something else. A brief explanation might be nice. 3) I don't like how the list is set up. I scrolled down expecting to see a list of 28 players in chronological order of first appearance (with a section explaining exact seasons played, etc.) and instead there's a list of seasons with the QBs that played next to it. As is, I wouldn't call this article "List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks" so much as I would call it "List of Minnesota Vikings seasons by starting quarterback". I took a look through the other "starting quarterbacks" pages and see they all follow this format (including at least one FL), and I have to say I strongly disagree with the format that these pages are in. I think my solution rather than changing the whole thing around would be to keep that section, but before it add a list of each of the 28 quarterbacks by order of first appearance, along with appropriate notes. My philosophy is that you shouldn't have to work to figure out the actual 28 different QBs, they should just be right there in a chronological list rather than having to sift through every season and determine which ones are duplicates, etc. VegaDark (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Replies
    1. I don't see how this has anything to do with the quality of the list. I could link those names, but they would just be redlinks, and I don't know enough about those individuals to create decent articles about them at this time.
    2. I've added a note and moved all three notes in the article to a single section between "See also" and "References".
    3. I would rather not act on this until more people have commented. I have added a statistics section to the article, which lists every starting quarterback in his own row. It is currently in alphabetical order, but I could re-order it chronologically. The only problem with this would be that the players who had two spells with the franchise would only be listed at the point of their first spell. I'm also not too happy about the amount of statistical data in the table, but I added the stats that seemed most pertinent to a quarterback. Comments on this new table would be appreciated.
  • You may also notice that User:Gilliganfanatic has added a table with a season-by-season account of the Vikings' postseason starting quarterbacks. I'm not sure how this could be integrated with the other table(s), but I am certainly of the opinion that it should be. Again, more comments would be welcomed. – PeeJay 23:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
    • 1) While it may not affect the quality of the list portion itself, it does effect the quality of the page as a whole, which we are to consider in FLC nominations. I would rather have them redlinks than unlinked. 2) Looks good 3) I would welcome more comments on this as well, although the new "statistics" table looks like it could satisfy this by simply adding a sortable column with 1-28 next to each QB in order of first appearance. VegaDark (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
      • 1) OK, I've linked them. 2) Thanks. 3) I think that adding a column with 1-28 in it would be a bit confusing as readers might think that the numbers refer to the players' jersey numbers. I would much rather default sort the table by the date of the player's first appearance and then let readers sort by any other column should they so wish. – PeeJay 08:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
        • That works for me. Like Killervogel5, I like to wait a while for more comments before supporting (or opposing, for that matter). VegaDark (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Quick comments' - I didn't go through the article in depth, but the statistics table doesn't seem to have a key. Also the "Record" column of that table doesn't seem to sort correctly. I am also curious about why the list should be limited to just starting quarterbacks. The statistics table shows the record of each quarterback including games started and not started, so just a little piece of the team's QB story seems to be missing with the quarterbacks who played but never started a game. An alternate approach, but maybe over complicated, would be to show the stats for each (starting) quarterback in for each season, and the current statistics table would serve as the totals. Rlendog (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The statistics table uses tooltips (see Template:tooltip) as a key. If you hover your cursor over the column header, an explanation of the abbreviation will appear.
  • I'm not sure how to fix the sorting of the "Record" column. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
    • It looks like the record column has been removed, which is fine, but to sort you could use the [[{{{1}}}]] template, and sort based on a 4 digit number with one or more leading zeros and the number of wins. Rlendog (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Is the sort template really necessary now? The content of the "W", "L" and "T" columns is now purely numerical with no positive or negative symbols, so the sorting should work perfectly without the need for an extra template. – PeeJay 17:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I could be wrong here, but in my experience, teams rarely substitute their quarterback during a game. It does happen, hence why we need to refer to "the starting quarterback" and not just "the quarterback", but changes would only occur if the player is injured or the team is so far ahead that they can afford to bring on their second-string QB. Either way, it is only really the starting QB who matters, which is why only the stats for the starting QBs have been included (although those stats include times when the player was brought on during the game).
    • The starting QB usually finishes the game, but not always. For example, the backup will enter the game in case of injury or a blowout. So Fran Tarkenton played 177 games but only started 170. Or Brooks Bollinger played 7 games but only started 1. But if he didn't start that one game, he would have played 6 but started none, and wouldn't have made the list. So I am suggesting that the QBs who only came in as substitutes should be included, at least in the master list. Rlendog (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this. If the article was "List of Minnesota Vikings quarterbacks", then perhaps including all of the players who played at QB for the team would be appropriate, but this list and all others like it focus only on starting quarterbacks. The fact that the statistics cover all appearances is a bit of a peeve, but it's not worth breaking the custom over. – PeeJay 17:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Just one more small point: how would you define a QB? If we're talking about anyone on this list, then that seems to include anyone who has ever made a pass for the Vikings whether they are a recognised QB or not. How would you suggest we filter the QBs from the FSs? – PeeJay 18:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
        • That is a good point. I am not sure whether or not there is a reliable source for who actually played QB. I thought pro-football-reference would have that, but they only list who was a QB on the roster and who threw passes. I still think the chart seems incomplete without including the players who played QB but didn't start. And I realize the the list is titled "Starting QBs" and not just "QBs", which is the basic issue - why have a list that limits to just a subset of the Vikings' QB, rather than have a list that includes everyone. But the answer may be that there are no RSes for everyone who played QB, just those that started there. So I can support. Rlendog (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the approach you suggest would be too complicated, but please feel free to create an example list in your userspace so that we can see what your suggestion would look like. – PeeJay 11:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
    • You are probably right. Rlendog (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments – "The Vikings are a member of the Northern Division of the National Football Conference in the National Football League." The division is officially the North division, which is what we should probably call it here. Done. The Reference(s) header could be changed to just Ref(s) in order to reduce the size of the column. Done. Starting quarterbacks in the postseason: Why are the players sorting by first name instead of last name? Fixed, but I wasn't sure whether to sort by Kramer or Wilson in the 1987 row. I would say Wilson since he started more games. It sorts that way now, so this one's done. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC) The Reference(s) header can again be shortened, and shouldn't be sortable. Done. Statistics: Sorting in the record and rushing attempts columns aren't sorting properly. The first needs an extra template for each number, and the negative amount for Brett Favre is throwing off the latter column when sorting from lowest to highest (other way works fine). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC) As I mentioned to Rlendog above, I'm not sure how to fix the sorting of the "Record" column, and the same applies to the "Rushing yards" column too. Again, suggestions would be welcomed. – PeeJay 11:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Your use of "−" instead of "-" was breaking the sorting. I fixed it. Wait, it appears − is the correct use per WP:DASH, but it breaks sorting. Let me look at this some more. May need to use a template of some sort.—NMajdan•talk 22:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Nevermind, I'm at a loss. Using {{neg}} correctly sorted in ascending order but not correctly in descending order. {{ntsh}} did not work either. Short of adding a plus sign to all non-negative numbers, I'm not sure what else to try.—NMajdan•talk 22:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC) I don't think adding a plus sign would be feasible, tbh. I'm at a loss with this. – PeeJay 21:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Have you tried the regular sorting template in all the column's cells? Just using it in one cell throws the rest off. Tell Favre to start running the ball and maybe this won't be an issue anymore. :-) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Favre? Run!? Are you kidding? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Support – The hyphen work-around for the sorting is not ideal, but it is the best solution possible given the situation. Everything else looks fine. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Quick comment

• "The Vikings are (plural) a member (singular)" - maybe it's just an ENGVAR issue (I'm in the UK), but this seems completely grammatically nonsensical to me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. – PeeJay 11:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments "The Minnesota Vikings is a professional American football..." / "The Vikings are members of the North Division". Is it singular or plural? I don't know the correct way, but they should at least be consistent. I think "are" is better and more common in AmE. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC) I have rectified the pluralisation as indicated. Hopefully, there shouldn't be any more incongruity. Use non-breaking spaces as specified at WP:NBSP. I've added non-breaking spaces where I thought they were necessary, but if I've missed some places where you think one should be, please point them out. I think the Statistics section should include a legend instead of or in addition to the tooltip template. Per WP:ACCESSIBILITY, "Don't use techniques that require physical action to provide information, such as tooltips or any other "hover" text." Can do. I'm gonna be picky. Can you have the legend split over a few additional columns so it doesn't push the table down as far? I think a 4 column table would be fine with columns 1 & 3 being the abbreviations and 2 & 4 being the explanation.—NMajdan•talk Done. Remove the sort function from the ref column in the Statistics section as you did the Starting quarterbacks by season section. Done. —NMajdan•talk 19:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. Further comments would be appreciated if you think there's anything else that needs commenting on. – PeeJay 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Per Rlendog's comments, it might be best to split the "Record" column in the Statistics table into two columns so they are easily sortable.—NMajdan•talk 22:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC) I have split the "Record" column into three separate columns for wins, losses and ties. – PeeJay 21:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Despite the lingering issues with the sorting of the rushing yards column, I feel this meets the criteria for FL. Let's hope somebody out there knows how to resolve this ongoing sort issue or Favre finishes the season with positive rushing yards.—NMajdan•talk 17:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I've asked Tcncv (talk · contribs) to take a look at the table to see if he can get the negative number to sort properly. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • OK; so it seems there is no way to sort correctly with a minus sign. The question is now this: do we want the table to be typographically correct, and allow a slight sorting error; or do we want to the table to sort correctly, disregarding a slight typographical error? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Personally, I would prefer to have the table sort correctly. Most people wouldn't give two shits whether we use a hyphen or a minus sign (and to be honest, I find WP:DASH to be a bit restrictive anyway), so a hyphen should be fine IMO. – PeeJay 08:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Though I am a WP:DASH fanatic, I agree with that assessment. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I am also a stickler for WP:DASH, and I suppose I can live with it for the sake of sorting, and we'll just hope that Favre breaks a 4-yard run sometime later this season. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Y'all will be happy to know that I've fixed the sort issue. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:48, 28 November 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 Dabomb87 16:54, 28 November 2009 [5].

---

List of Oklahoma Sooners head basketball coaches

Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 17:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

After getting List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches promoted to FL, I began tackling this list. I originally had the men's and women's coaches separated into two lists but after reading a discussion on the FLC talk page, I began questioning whether the women's list could stand on its own so I made the decision to combine the two. I believe the list meets all the criteria for FL. —NMajdan•talk 17:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - Too many redlinks for my liking. Also, the "†" and "*" symbols in the women's conference championships column aren't explained in the legend. Do you need both a color change and a "†" symbol to represent a coach in the hall of fame? It would seem one of the two is enough (I'd prefer the color). Finally, I am concerned about combining both the men's and women's teams to one list. There are separate categories and articles for men's and women's teams, I don't see why the head coaching lists should be combined. Would the women's list be able to stand on its own? I'm not sure, but I don't necessarily think the solution is to combine it with the men's list. VegaDark (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • 13 of the 20 coaches have links. I don't know what the established threshold was but I figured 2/3rds had to be enough. I can add a couple more if that gets it past FLC. I am also confused on your question regarding colors and the dagger. Per WP:COLORS, you can't just use a color to indicate something. I removed the extra astericks and daggers in the Women's table although I may readd them tomorrow but I will indicate their meaning in the legend. Regarding having both in one article, I am not too concerned about the effect of categorization. I would think articles come first and then you figure out how best to categorize them. There was a discussion recently at FLC regarding the minimum length for a list (here) and after reading that discussion, I began to question whether the women's list with eight coaches could stand on its own as a separate list. If you don't like them combined, but also agree the women's couldn't stand on its own, what is the other option?—NMajdan•talk 01:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The other option, of course, would be to simply not make a list out of the women's coaches until there were enough entries to justify one. Perhaps leaving them combined until that occurs would be the better option, perhaps not. I don't particularly like the idea of making a list (and promoting one to featured status in particular) where it is almost guaranteed to eventually split off into two different lists. I'll also note that the discussion you cite only pertains to a minimum number for a featured list, not a list in general, so the small number of entries would only prevent it from becoming featured (if the participants agreed with that discussion, of course), which is something I can live with. As for WP:COLORS, I was unaware of this, although it now makes sense when thinking about disabled users. I was going to cite past NCAA football season pages as an example of featured lists with this, although I see now that they have a tag at the top identifying this issue with the pages. As for redlinks, I know a list I created (and nominated for FLC by someone else) was opposed for too many redlinks, and at the time over 65% of the links were blue. If you created an article on the coach who is linked in the lead, that would be 2 redlinks down right there; I think 75% of the list members would probably be fine. VegaDark (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't think this is guaranteed to split off. I think the men's and women's basketball programs at a university are closely related enough to justify combining them in one article. In addition, there are featured lists that contained hundreds of rows, so I don't think this article will ever reach the point where it needs to be split due to length issues. Regarding red links, I need to create two articles to get 75% so I will work on that tomorrow or Friday. I'll probably create the articles for the two coaches with the most games coached.—NMajdan•talk 03:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Just to throw my two cents in: I would prefer to have two separate lists for coaches (one mens, one womens), but if others like the combined list better than I am okay with it. Remember (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments – "The men's program has played in more than 2,400 games...". Extra space present before games, due to a space after a non-breaking space. Just remove the extra space to fix this. Just to clarify, is the National Invitation Tournament included in the postseason records? No need for two winning percentage links in the lead. The Bennie Owen photo was created before 1923, but was it published before 1923. The latter, not the former, is the standard for the public domain license claimed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC) I have made the changes above. Yes, postseason includes NIT. I removed the photo of Bennie Owen. I'm sure it was published, but it appears I uploaded that photo early in my Wikipedia days and didn't include proper information. I might try to get a copy of a pre-1923 Sooner yearbook and grab a photo. But for now, the photo has been removed.—NMajdan•talk 14:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC) One more thing I saw just now: reference 4 shouldn't have the title in all caps. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Done.—NMajdan•talk 23:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Support – The list is down to a pair of red links, and I have no issue with the mix of men's and women's coaches; I see it as akin to having managers and general managers in a baseball managers list, and the lists would be short on their own. The rest of the various comments have been addressed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Should you mention that both teams play in Division I of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)?
  • Done.—NMajdan•talk 17:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• I'll see if I can help make some of the articles for the red-linked coaches in return for all of the help you have given me. Remember (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• One last comment - who is the coach "died before ever coaching a game". Can you add a footnote explaining who this was because it is sort of a mystery with the way the article currently is. Remember (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Done.—NMajdan•talk 14:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Remember (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - looks good—Chris!_c/t 18:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Consider adding Category:Oklahoma Sooners men's basketball head coaches and Category:Oklahoma Sooners women's basketball head coaches to the list (also, make sure that they are fully populated). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Done.—NMajdan•talk 16:03, 28 November 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 Dabomb87 16:54, 28 November 2009 [6].

---

Charlie Chaplin filmography

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that Charlie Chaplin is a highly important figure in the development of cinema. The list has been peer reviewed and I believe it meets the featured list criteria. Jimknut (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • They look okay to me. Jimknut (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The problem is that they shouldn't be there. Delink those links or fix them to go directly to the intended article (why is charity linked, anyway?). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Okay, I'm at a loss here. I've never messed with that section on any page, so I don't what to do. Can you help? Jimknut (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I fixed the dabs in this edit. Hopefully you now understand what I meant. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• The entire lead is a mini-biography. Does all this information belong in a filmography? LargoLarry (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Featured lists usually give a brief overview of the subject of the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I think a mini-bio is acceptable in a filmography. Hence the reason I did it. Jimknut (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Wildhartlivie

• The image needs to have alt text added.
  • Added.
• I'm not clear about the style used in the reference section. It seems that some of the links really belong under an "External links" subtitle and not the general references since the "Websites" links are not used in referencing. I don't see that the Chaplin autobiography is used in referencing, so that should be listed in a further reading section. I do think the specific references should come before the general ones.
  • The web pages have been moved into section entitled "External links". The order of the specific and general references has been changed and renamed as (respectively) "footnotes" and "bibliography". Chaplin's autobiography was used as the basis for arranging the order of his films, which is clearly stated at the top of the section entitled "Official films". Therefore, I think it does indeed belong in the bibliography section and not a "further reading" section.
• Shouldn't the {{reflist}} have two columns once the number of cites exceeds 12?
  • It should now, as I changed {{reflist}} to {{reflist|2}}. However, I'm using Internet Explorer so I can't see any change on my computer.
• This is mostly a question. There are quite a few direct cites in the "Notes" columns, but in others, there is a blurb of information without cites. Shouldn't there be cites for that information as well?
  • Stated at the top of the "Official films" section is: "Except where otherwise referenced, the release dates, character names, and annotations presented here are derived from Chaplin's autobiography, Robinson's book, and The Films of Charlie Chaplin (1965) by Gerald D. McDonald, Michael Conway, and Mark Ricci." Is that enough or do you need specific page numbers from these books?
• I'm not clear on the rationale for the color selection in the credits column. Does this color meet the guidelines for WP:ACCESS?
  • The {{Yes}} template automatically puts the word "Yes" into a moss green (#addfad) background. I did not create this template, so I don't know exactly what the green background is supposed to represent, but I think I can safely assume that it's purely a decoration. People that are color blind may not be able to see the green color, but they should able to read the word "Yes" and thus able to decifer what it means. Four of the seven filmographies that have received "Featured list" status use the {{Yes}} template. If it's okay for them then why not here as well? Jimknut (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Follow up - I think all of my comments and questions are satisfied, except for the ALT text. Keeping in mind that ALT text may be used by vision impaired people who may not know what Chaplin's "tramp" persona looks like, perhaps a small, more generic description of that would be helpful. (Unless others disagree, that is. My experience with ALT text in GA/FA has been to be more descriptive and explain how something would appear, rather than assume that someone already knows.) Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Geraldk

Comments a number of times in the lead, you refer to his 'moving to' another company, which is a informal way of saying it - can you put it another way? Actually I only used it once. I have now changed "moved to" to "signed with". do you really need to wikilink rescinded? I've taken out the wikilink. why is the awards description in two paragraphs? It seemed like a good idea at the time. I've now condensed the two paragraphs into one. I question your use of the current year template, as another film could be added to the National Film Registry later, making the statement blatantly false rather than simply obsolete. Also, I count six films in which he appeared in the Registry, including the cameo in Show People. I've taken out the current year template and put in just 2009. If any more films are put on the NFR I'll update the text at that time. I've also reworded the text so instead of "Five of Chaplin's films" it reads "Five of the films Chaplin starred in". Thus Show People can remain in its own sentence. Should mention of the star on the Hollywood walk of fame be its own one-sentence paragraph? I see nothing wrong with this. In addition to mentioning your general reference in the text, I would make clear somehow in the reference section that it is the primary source for the article. Perhaps by dividing the bibliography into general and supporting references? What are your thoughts on that? I think the bibliography is fine the way it is, as all four of the books listed were primary sources. Why mention that a film was two reels in the title - shouldn't that go in the notes? This could be changed, but I think it's okay after the title as well. I'll change it if anyone else objects to the way it is. Why the itty bitty writing in the note for Limelight. Either fold it into normal text or link it to a notes section at the foot of the article. Now changed to normal size text. That's all for now. Geraldk (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Next batch of comments? Jimknut (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC) That's all for me. As I said, good work. I do believe that the mention of the number of reels should be under the notes, but will wait for other reviewers to weigh in on that before making my decision on support. Geraldk (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC) What the 'ell. I went and moved the number of reel listed into the notes sections. Jimknut (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Support: I don't think I mentioned before, but I think this is a core filmography, and you've done great work with it. Geraldk (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - excellent work, Jim. Is it at featured standard yet? Lugnuts (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The list is waiting on more reviewers. Jim, I would suggest you leave a note for DaBomb and Wildhartlivie asking them to weigh in on whether their concerns have been addressed. Geraldk (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've past the word around asking for reviews.Jimknut (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Nehrams2020

I haven't reviewed the above comments, so if any of these conflict with issues raised above let me know.

• The single sentence at the conclusion of the lead should be merged with one of other paragraphs. It also seems to me that there is a lot of detail in the lead about his background. Perhaps a few sentences could be removed/trimmed (since his main article probably covers the same details).
  • I took the final sentence and placed it at the end of the preceding paragraph. I shorted part of the biographical segment. I think that overall the lead section fits Wikipedia's standards.
• Periods aren't needed for all of the notes in the tables.
  • They've been removed from brief notes such as "two reels" and "Co-writer: Mabel Normand".
    • Looking to other FLs, the other notes don't seem to need periods as well. The majority are not actual sentences, so they shouldn't be included. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

      Any update on this? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

      I took out the periods. Jimknut (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• The note for Her Friend the Bandit should be formatted the same as Caught in a Cabaret and Dough and Dynamite with "a lost film" mentioned first.
  • Reformated.
• United States doesn't need to be linked in the "British productions" table.
  • Unlinked.
• I would recommend rewording "oeuvre" as readers may not know what this means (or provide a brief explanation).
  • Gee, I always thought that if you don't know what a word means you look it up in a dictionary, thereby increasing your knowledge and vocabulary. Nevertheless I changed "oeuvre" to "body of work".
    • Yeah, but readers can be lazy. If you wish, you can link the word to Wiktionary. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Remove "These are listed below." Also remove "Listed here are three that..."
  • Removed.
• Consider changing "(untitled film)" to "Untitled Charity Film".
  • No, I'm leaving that the way it is. The film never had an official title, so I think "untitled film" should remain in lower case with no italics.
• Capitalization of the external links should be consistent.
  • If you mean the very last section then, yes, it's changed.

The list is very informative and does well covering his films. I've only seen a few of his films, so it looks like I need to add some more of his films to my queue. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions or when you have addressed the above issues. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• I recommend the five films listed in the National Film Registry. See them with friends if you can. Also see Easy Street (1916), in which Chaplin deals with street crime, spouse abuse, poverty, drug addiction, welfare, and religion ... all in two reels!

  When I was working on the National Film Registry list, I added multiple films to my queue so I watched The Great Dictator, City Lights, and Modern Times. Definitely could catch some more of his work. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Update: It seems that a fragment of a hitherto unknown Chaplin film called Zepped has been found. It's now added into the compilation section. See: [7] Jimknut (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support I believe the above issues I have raised have been addressed and don't see any other pressing issues that would prevent passing. Good job on bringing the list up to FL status. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comment Reference #8 appears to be dead. Do you have another source for the Walk of Fame fact (it is also possible that website simply rearranged the addresses)? While on the point, not a FL requirement, but it is a good idea to archive your sources using something like WebCitation to prevent link rot and dead links.—NMajdan•talk 15:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC) It was working when I first entered it. I do believe that website's do indeed rearrange their addresses. I have now replaced the dead link with a new one that works. I'll also consider your suggestion. Jimknut (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support.—NMajdan•talk 17:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - a few minor issues but issues nonetheless... "that he starred in" clumsy prose. Changed to "some of the films in which he starred". "the year after that with" I think "that" is redundant in this sentence. "that" has been removed. "première" - I think this word has become sufficiently anglicised to avoid the use of the accent. Accent removed. BritEng or USEng? As a British subject, perhaps BritEng, so not "sympathizer", but "sympathiser". Chaplin made his fame and fortune and almost all of his films in the United States. It was also members of the American government that made the accusations. Therefore I think USEng should prevail. No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC) "the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences" why is "the" part of the link if it's not part of the official title of the organisation? "the" has been unlinked. "As of 2009 five" comma after 2009. Comma added. Is it worth noting that for those roles where he wasn't credited as director/producer/composer/writer, he was credited as an actor? Chaplin acted in or at least appeared in all of the films listed here except for the unreleased A Woman of the Sea. I think the "role" column should suffice for his work as an actor. I could add an "actor" column but but I think that might be considered redundant and also might make the list look too crowded on smaller computer screens. "Chaplin includes this production in the filmography of his autobiography" previous sentence had a full stop, any reason why this one shouldn't? Period added. Year ranges need to use an en-dash per WP:DASH. Added. Same for page range in ref 4. Added. And ref 15. Added. Ref 17 - this should be work=The Guardian shouldn't it? Changed. Second ext link needs an en-dash. And is it really copyright? en-dash added. I checked the website and it is indeed copyrighted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Anything else needed? Jimknut (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC) "1927/28" - try "1927 and 1928" I'm staying with "1927/28" as this is the way its presented on the website of the Academy Awards. Shouldn't we be staying with our own manual of style? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Well, we could. However, since the text is about the first Academy Award ceremony I changed it to this: "At the first Academy Awards ceremony, held on May 16, 1929, he won ..." I hope you find this a better rendition. I've also added a footnote to my source. Is there a reason why the First National table is different column-width-wise from the others? Is this how you're seeing it? I have two computers in my household and on both of them the First National section appears to be the same width. Yep, First National table still odd one out for me on Safari. All columns seem a bit narrower. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC) I copied the style for the chart designed for the Keystone films and used it for all of the following charts in the official films section. Everything now looks okay on my computers. If you are still seeing anything out of wack then it's beyond my comprehension, so I'll need to request outside help. Jimknut (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Have you tried increasing the horizontal size of the page? On IE7 If I stretch the page out I get the same effect as I see on Safari with the First National not stretching out the same as the other tables in that section. I also see the same effect with the "British productions" table. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC) I have set the width of all the tables at 90%. All the tables look to be the same width on my computer screen. If it is displayed differently on other computers I have no idea on how to fix it. So I would need outside help. Jimknut (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support good work, especially with those tricky tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 27 November 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 17:57, 23 November 2009 [8].

---

Sportsperson of the Year (Czechoslovakia)

Nominator(s): Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this complete list of all Czechoslovak Sportsperson of the Year awardees for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. Thanks for all comments in advance. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment Image needs alt text; see WP:ALT Done. Not good enough. For alt texts, you have to describe what the image looks like. WP:ALT has many examples.—Chris!c/t 06:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Changed it, hope it is better. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Color need to be accompanied with symbol; see recently promoted featured lists for example OK, I have added the symbols to the individual awards. I think they are not necessary to add to the team awards, because there is written, whether the team is men's or women's. In fact, the colours are not necessary at the team awards either, but I kept them, because it looks better when the two tables have the same graphical layout. Do you agree with this solution? This should be consistent. But if the color isn't necessary, then it should be taken out.—Chris!c/t 23:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC) The colour is not really necessary, but it helps. As I have said above, it looks better, if the layout of the two tables is consistent. The lead also summarizes the numbers of men's and women's teams, the colours help the readers to check it in the table quicker. Unless you do insist on in, I would really prefer not to write the symbols into the teams section, which would indicate e.g. that "Women's national tennis team" were women. I think this is quite redundant and unlike the colours it does not make the search quicker. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Thinking about it, I can see three possible solutions for the teams section: a) leave the colours and not to add symbols, for the above stated reasons b) leave the colours and add also symbols c) not to use any of them in this section, neither colours nor symbols. I personally would prefer the a) possibility, but what do you think? Thanks. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC) C seems to be the best option.—Chris!c/t 06:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC) OK, can you just say some arguments, why you do not consider the two reasons I gave for keeping the colour important? I still think it would help and would not make any harm. I would also like to ask other reviewers to express their opinion here. If more people agree with leaving the colours in this section out, I will have no problems to do so. Thanks. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 09:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Because it is against FL standard to have only the color but have no symbol. This has to do with the accessibility guideline of the site. Please look at other recently promoted FLs with color, all of them have symbols. But if the color is unnecessary, like you said, then it can be taken out.—Chris!c/t 21:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC) While I was looking for the sources to fulfill the demands written below, I kept considering this issue. Unfortunately, nobody else has expressed their opinion here, but I still think that the colour should stay there. Usually there is a symbol which says e.g. what sex each sportsmen is, and the symbol is accompanied with the colour. The colour is usually not necessary, if there is the symbol, but it helps, because it makes the orientation quicker. Here it is practically the same, the only difference is that instead of the symbols it is directly written that the team is Men's or Women's. So I would really prefer to leave it this way. However, I do not consider it to be a crucial thing, so if these arguments have not convinced you, I will change it. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC) I understand your preference to use only color and agree that this is a trivial issue, but having color with symbol is still a standard that all FLs should adhere to. This exists to accommodate the color blinds, who cannot distinguish colors. Symbols will help indicate the differences. I am sorry about this and I don't know what else to say. Feel free to seek a second opinion though. Thanks.—Chris!c/t 18:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC) OK, no problem, I will add the symbols. Are you satisfied with the sources? Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Done. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Is http://sports123.com/ a reliable source? Yes, it is a reliable and respected source, probably the most complete international sports results archive available. 1,480 Wikipedia articles use it. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Sources are reliable if they have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Just because 1000+ articles use it, doesn't automatically make it reliable.—Chris!c/t 23:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC) As I said, it is a reliable and respected source. The number of wiki pages that use it was just an extra information, which I considered interesting. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Can you explain what you mean by "reliable and respected"? According to whom is it a high quality source? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC) I was speaking from my experience, I have used it for years and never met a mistake there. I am not sure whether there is a source directly stating that Sports123 is particularly reliable, but there is also no source saying the opposite. However, I understand if you do not consider it enough and I will try to add some sources, so that there are two independent ones for every achievement. Is this OK? Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Just use the official source will work. For example, the IOC for the Olympics.—Chris!c/t 06:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC) I will try to provide official sources, but in the case of some world championships of some minor sports this may not be possibile to fulfil, because their organizations do not keep any public record of historical results. So I was thinking about using some books.Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 09:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC) —Chris!c/t 18:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Books will work.—Chris!c/t 21:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC) I have changed the sources, now they should all be OK. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - thanks for your patience, the list looks good. —Chris!_c/t 19:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments and ideas. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I have checked it and found one dab link, which I have fixed. May I ask, what toolbox you mean? Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    • There are still two remaining, which you can see here. The toolbox is at the top right corner of this page. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I see, thank you. Fixed. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 21:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments – "The individual trophy was usually awarded to a single sportsperson, but twice a sport pair received it." I'd rather see the last part be "but a pair received it twice", mostly because "sport pair" is confusing me. Done. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC) "The only time a sports club team was awarded was the Dukla Prague handball team, in 1963." Feels like the award name should be added after "awarded". Done. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC) "The most successful were ice-hockey teams". Most successful what? Teams? If so, move that up a bit. Also, don't think ice hockey needs the hyphen. I reworded the sentence. I hope it is better. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC) A few of the single-page references show the page number as pp., when they should be p. To fix this, just change the pages= parameter in the templates to page=. The ones covering multiple pages are fine as is. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC) One more comment after looking at the list again: reference 2 needs an access date. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Thanks for noticing. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Support – Looks like a nice list. I can only assume the non-English sources are reliable, since it's hard for us English speakers to check the ones in Czeck or Slovak. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the sources: The online reference, which is in Czech, is an official web page of the Club of Sports Journalists of the Czech Republic (Klub sportovních novinářů ČR), which is a successor organization of the Club of Czechoslovak Sports Journalists, which awarded the trophy. The Slovak source is SME, one of the most widely read serious newspaper in Slovakia. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Support Comment Looks good. Only one issue that I could see—the "team" column in the team doesn't sort properly (you probably should have it sort alphabetically by sort by men, and then by women). When this is resolved I will support. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have changed it. Did you mean it this way? Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have just noticed you did some copyediting in the text. Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and yes, the sorting fix was good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. I didn't evaluate the foreign-lanugage sources for reliability, but I'll assume good faith based on Jan's explanation above. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. There were some issues with the article lacking non-breaking spaces, but due to the longevity of this FLC, I took the liberty of fixing those myself so I could support.—NMajdan•talk 15:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 16:37, 23 November 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 Dabomb87 02:07, 23 November 2009 [9].

---

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Muttiah Muralitharan

Nominator(s): ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been working on this article offline for several days, and I think it meets the criteria now. Any and all comments and suggestions would be much appreciated. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• Maybe a good idea to make the key into table format
• Overlinking of Cricinfo
• Don't denote rows with only color per WP:ACCESS

—Chris!_c/t 18:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Done: I've added the key to a table to make it into two columns, but I'm not sure if that's what you were suggesting. The other two are done. I've removed the colours now that they are redundant. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments Need a reference for names given to the "fifer"... Picky perhaps, but you say "generally regarded" as notable but give just a single source to back this up... "a limited number of bowlers" as opposed to an "unlimited" number?! I think you could be more precise? "Muralitharan was declared " just "He was... " works fine to improve the prose flow a little. ""best bowler ever" in Test cricket history" - either ditch the "ever" or "history" as using both seems a little redundant. "Muralitharan is well ahead of other bowlers by number of five wicket hauls in Tests with 66 to his name, while Australian cricketer Shane Warne ranks in second place with 37 five wicket hauls.[2] Having made his Test debut in 1992,[9] Muralitharan took his first five wicket haul ... " a few too many "five wicket hauls" in here. Consider a reword to improve prose? "He has repeated this performance against seven different opponents since then" - "He has since repeated this performance again seven different opponents"? This may be awkward but I would put the economy with the rest of the bowling figures, and move the innings to after the opponents. Would be more logical I think? Sorting by date backwards, 64 sorts before 65... (same date...) Just did a random economy rate check, match 42 - I get 3.4257 which would round to 3.43 wouldn't it? ODI 5 I get 3.829, so 3.83? "Cricket statisticians have never rounded up the second decimal place in their averages"[10]. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 18:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Live and learn, eh? I would suggest that you make a general note the effect that all calculations are rounded down, to prevent "helpful" folks from "fixing" the calculations! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC) I imagine a more appropriate abbreviation for Wickets would be Wkts not Wkt, since you have Overs and Runs? Ref 36 needs a publisher. Be consistent with BBC Sport, either a work or a publisher. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the suggestions. I will get working them as soon as possible, but please give me some time because I have to limit my wikipedia activity for a day or two. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 05:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Done: All done now, except the sorting problems. I can't figure out why that's happening. Any help? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 06:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Everything is fixed now, and I'd appreciate your input particularly on the rewordings. Are they satisfactory? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 08:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Ref 25 is missing a "t"... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Done: Well, that was embarrassing :P ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from -SpacemanSpiff 04:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments While sorting by wickets, wouldn't it be preferred to have 9/51 show as better than 9/65 and so on? Perhaps using SortKey instead of nts? Could you tell me how this be made possible? They are in 2 columns (I made it into 2 columns so that it can be sorted by runs as well as wickets, and not the whole thing) so I'm not sure how to fix that. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 08:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Left a message on your TP. Done: Sorting properly now. Thanks much for your help. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 08:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Should "...11 five wicket hauls against each team" be "11 five wicket hauls against both teams"? That's what I had originally, but doesn't it sound like that 11 is the total against both teams? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 06:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I agree; how about "11 five wicket hauls apiece against both teams"? Given the number of MoM awards he's won, should it be a separate column? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 01:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC) I didn't do this because I thought the list would be unnecessarily crowded. And would it be all right to have a yes/no type column? If you think it'd be appropriate, I can add it. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 06:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Fine how it is. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC) I'm on the fence on this one, I just think that given that it's near a 50-50 ratio, it might be a good idea to have a separate column, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 17:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comments have been addressed. -SpacemanSpiff 04:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Muralitharan is well ahead of other bowlers by number of five wicket hauls in Tests with 66 to his name, while Australian cricketer Shane Warne ranks in second place with 37.' instead of a comma, should a semi colon be used? Aaroncrick (talk) 09:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Done ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 06:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Having made his Test debut in 1992, Muralitharan took his first five wicket haul an year later against South Africa." "an" → "a". "14 of Muralitharan's five wicket hauls were taken at the Sinhalese Sports Club Ground in Columbo, Sri Lanka." I suggest changing the number to "Fourteen" so that the sentence doesn't start with a number. "In ODIs, Muralitharan is ranked second by number of five wicket hauls, second to Pakistani cricketer Waqar Younis." To remove a couple unneeded bits, switch to "by number of five wicket hauls to Pakistani cricketer Waqar Younis." "is the fourth best bowling figures in ODI history." Remove s from "figures", since this looks like it should be singular. Reference 1: Change the pages= parameter in the cite template to page= so this single-page reference will not have a multi-page range. Spell out AFP in reference 10. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Done: Everything done except the bowling figures part. I believe "bowling figures" is the term rather than "bowling figure". This is the way I have always heard it (on commentaries etc) and [11] & [12] seem to confirm that. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 06:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Support – Meets FL standards after the fixes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Nothing mentioned about how he has 22 ten-wicket hauls, well ahead of Shane Warne with 10. [13] Needs a sentence or so about this. Mention that Murali has taken 3-for in international Twenty20 cricket, instead of just saying "... he has not taken a five wicket haul in a Twenty20 International." Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 01:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Support - Lot better thanks. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 02:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Done How is it now? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Inconsistency in hyphenation (see List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Glenn McGrath); I think this list should be hyphenated per WP:HYPHEN. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed and done. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:26, 23 November 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 Dabomb87 16:03, 22 November 2009 [14].

---

List of Supernatural episodes

Nominator(s): Ophois (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been brought up to FL standards. Ophois (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment - FL no longer starts with "The following is a list of episodes ..." anymore. For examples of a more engaging opening sentence, see recently promoted FLs. Also are there any images you can add?—Chris!c/t 01:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC) What kind of image would you suggest? Ophois (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Anything pertaining to the show, like images of cast members.—Chris!c/t 01:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Would this promo be suitable? If so, I am unable to find it at an official source, so is it still okay to cite it as being from a blog website? Ophois (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC) There is also this free image, though it is in real world setting and not in-character.Ophois (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Just use the free image. Since in-character images are likely copyrighted, those displaying the actors in real world setting are the only alternative. When you add image, be sure to write alt text. This is now required.—Chris!c/t 18:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Okay. I added the image, and changed the lead. Ophois (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Any other issues? Ophois (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Please see other series episodes FLs, I believe they need a column that briefly describe the plot The plots are included on the individual season pages. This is a list of the episodes, using the list/sublist template recommended. Ophois (talk) 11:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC) How are http://www.ezydvd.com and http://www.tvshowsondvd.com reliable sources —Chris!c/t 03:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC) EzyDVD is a large retailer in Australia, and is opening up store locations. If anything would be reliable source for Region 4 stuff, it would be them. It also has precedence as a RS in other featured articles/lists. More information about it can be found in the article for EzyDVD. Judging by the references used in the article, it is a notable company. TVshowsonDVD has been mentioned by news sources such as USA Today, and is now owned by TV Guide. Ophois (talk) 11:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC) My comments are resolved, but I am not ready to support yet b/c I am not an expert in these TV lists and would like others take a look first.—Chris!c/t 01:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris!_c/t 05:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - I was initially asked about which images should be used on the page, and in the process I provided additional commentary (personal opinions) about possible improvements to the article on Ophois's talk page. I'm placing them here, per their request (and rightfully so), so that others can see what I'm suggesting and either cross it off their lists or disagree.

• • Well, first off the second image is a non-free image so deciding between a non-free and a free should be easy. :D But, at the same time neither image is really necessary. The page doesn't talk about the actors really. I've never understood why some people feel like they have to have an image there (which, I know wasn't your initial doing, but what someone basically requested at the FAC). That's my onion. FLC doesn't say you have to have an image there to be featured.

• • On some other minor notes, glancing at the page: I'd probably move the viewership numbers behind the airdates. In theory, it's a chronological thing. It gets made (which dictates ep number, writer, director), then it gets aired, and then we get viewership. That's just my thoughts on that. You could also simply the Ep # and Series # columns into a single "Ep #" column that sports two numbers (e.g., 25(3)) as the "series #" is still an "episode number" and the average reader can probably look at two columns and easily understand that you're continue to count the overall number of the episode with its place within that respective seasons. IDK, just a way to be more efficient.
    • Done. Ophois (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, I'm gonna have to undo it. Combining the episode numbers like that screws up the formatting for some reason. Ophois (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• • In the Nielsen rating stuff, "TV season" can be cut. I recently cut that from Smallville's pages because I realized it's redundant to "Season premiere" and "Season finale". We basically tell the reader when the show premieres and ends, and then follow it up with a column that tells them the same thing again. The same with "Originally aired" in the DVD box. Since it's directly below the other, we don't need to repeat that information, because we literally just stated it. Personally, I would also drop "Ratings". The main problem with that figure is that it's a percentage to a number we don't have. 3.14 million is something the reader can understand, but trying to understand 1.4% of households without knowing how many households were watching TV is kind of hard. If you don't know that number, you might assume that it means 1.4% of ALL households in the US, which isn't true. It's largely irrelevant when trying to understand how well the show did. The viewership is really all you need, and the rankings so we know how it compared to other shows on TV.
    • Done. Ophois (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Other than what I list above, that's pretty much all I see. I'll take a look again later, but the page generally looks pretty good.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Good work. I looked over it some more. I tweaked the lead a bit, and the only other things I saw was the season finale (for the current season) listed at the bottom and linking names. Unless there is a source that says it's going to be May 2010, we cannot assume that because of previous trends that it will be. Anything can happen to change that. It's probably best to leave it as TBD. The linking issue is one of WP:OVERLINK. Some people think you should link once per section. Personally, I think with a page like this, it's so close together the first instance is all that is needed. If you choose once a section, or just the first instance, it doesn't really matter but I saw Kripke's name linked like 5 times in one season's section. The same with other names. I'd go through and see who's been linked too often.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
      • The tables are part of the list/sublist template. The only way to do unlink Kripke and others is to do so on the season pages. Ophois (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh, I see what you mean. I've fix the season 4 table. Ophois (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I didn't even realize that they were like that...and they really shouldn't be. One page should never dictate another page like that. Should there be an error on season 2's table, or just a minor correction, you're basically restricting the access to the page. It's like a semi-protection without the formality. The reason I say that is because, Wikipedia is designed so that the average reader can read a page and should they find something that needs correcting all they have to do is click "edit" and go and correct it. By hiding the actual code on another page you restrict access to the page to only those people that understand the transclusion you've created. I understand the "easierness" of doing it that way, but it's basically discriminating against general editors that don't understand why when they click "edit" the text they were looking at doesn't actually show up. It kind of goes against the basic principle of Wikipedia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
          • I can just add hidden text explaining to edit the main season page. Ophois (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
            • Yes, but one of the other main problems with these setups is that any vandalism or inaccuracies on one page affects this page as well. I think that there have been a few discussions about transcluding large chunks of prose from multiple articles into a single article, and the general consensus has been that it shouldn't be done.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
              • Okay, I fixed it. I also combined the episode numbers into one column. Ophois (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: On quick glance, it looks great, but there should be some note that the seasonal average ratings are Live + 7 averages of all broadcasts of the series from that year including repeats. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Are they? I am unable to find any information about the ratings info from ABC Medianet. Do you know where to find that? Ophois (talk) 05:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That is something that I have come to realize over the years (and checked with a calculator). –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

But that isn't the number the ranking is based on, and if the individual numbers we have are the overnight estimates and not the official numbers then you're going to be wrong.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, okay, allow me to explain. I am going to be speaking in terms of total viewers, i.e. ignoring 18-49. These days, the most common numbers that are being tracked are "Live + SD" and "Live + 7". Live + S(ame) D(ay) counts the number of viewers who watched a given program live or recorded it and watched it before 3 a.m. on the same "night". Live + 7 tracks those who watched a program live or recorded it and watched it within a week. The morning after primetime shows air, at close to 9 a.m. Pacific time, preliminary Live + SD ratings become available. A few hours later, at around 2 p.m. on the day after a show airs, its final Live + SD ratings are released. These account for overruns (sometimes you get networks bleeding shows over the hour mark, so these finals adjust for that), some areas not airing the program (occasianally, stations opt for local programming instead of what is being broadcast in the rest of the country), etc. These finals show up again in the weekly rankings, which come out on Tuesdays. On the Monday two weeks after the week of broadcast, the Live + 7 ratings are released (but these are not as publicly available as Live + SD). Also on Tuesdays, seasonal average rankings are released. These use numbers called "Most Current" ratings, which are a mix of "Live + SD" and "Live + 7", i.e. where Live + 7 numbers are available, they are factored in; otherwise, Live + SD are used, further i.e. this average contains Live + 7 numbers except for the last two episodes, for which Live + SD are used. Seasonal averages cound great, right? Yes, they do, except for one thing: they include ratings for repeats that are broadcast throughout the season. As some shows play several repeats, their averages fall, while other shows that do not play repeats seem better by comparison, skewing all ranking systems and making the term "seasonal average" a bit misleading, especially on Wikipedia. Wikipedia mostly uses Live + SD numbers for individual episodes, but Most Current or Live + 7 including repeats for season averages. Even without plugging all of the numbers into their calculator, someone might look at the season 1 average (3.81 million) and then look at the individual ratings for season 1 and see that only four of the numbers fall below the average. Plugging the available numbers in, you find that the average for new episodes that season was actually 4.52 million. Add the fact that DVR ratings were not even tracked until 2007 because they were not a big deal before then and everything gets more confusing. So, I suggest either a brief note that averages include reruns or simply calculate new averages. They are easily verifiable, as anyone can plug them into their calculators. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I added a note. Ophois (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand what LIVE+SD and LIVE+7 means Demon. The fact remains is that not every overnight figure reflects that. It reflects what they've managed to acquire in data when they publish the article. Sometimes that's Live+SD, and sometimes that isn't. If you have Live+SD numbers for each individual episode, but the season average that you have a source for is really Live+7, then averaging the individual numbers will not be reflective of the actual average. Even if you take into account that the season averages include repeats (and that depends on what source your using, because I've seen season averages differ greatly because of the source reporting them), it's still not an accurate representation of how the show compares to others, because you'd have to find a source that does everything you want perfectly.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ophois has done a great job with this "article". All individual episode numbers on the page are final Live + SD, with the exception of the current season. You say that not every seasonal average includes repeats, but all of the ones that ABC Medianet uses include repeats and that is the source that we are using. I agree that whatever we use is "still not an accurate representation of how the show compares to others, because you'd have to find a source that does everything you want perfectly", but I have no problem dropping the ranking column or adding a note. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I added a note to that top of the episode section about viewers. Is it okay? I added a note to the seasonal ratings about reruns. Do you want me to do the same for ranking? Ophois (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Since it comes from the same source, let's up the reader can understand that the same note applies. As for the "not every source", I'm referring to when places like the Hollywood Reporter, and other news organizations report these figures. I've seen discrepancies in them compared to the original ABC Medianet reportings (which apparently don't find their way to the internet archive all that much, so when the link dies you have find a new source). I think that the news orgs. tend to go straight to Neilsen if they can (and I've seen rankings different because of that...I think it was either season 6 or 7 of Smallville that jumped 4 or 5 rankings up because of the numbers the new source was using after the Medianet link died). I think it's best to just do the note, because you're comparing it to other shows, and in fairness those other shows also have their repeats included as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Anyway, all of my original issues were resolved, so I support this page for FLC.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

I had to do some digging with the Wayback Machine, but I managed to find more info on the Region 4 releases, and added them to the table. Does it look okay? Ωphois 23:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I also updated the Blu-ray section, as I just learned that Blu-ray regions are completely different than DVD's. Ωphois 23:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Flash

Comments: Excellent job! Some comments: On the topic of the main image, if you look at List of Numb3rs episodes has its title card — a free use image — as it's illustrating image. This can work for this list, too. Though the blood-splatter title card from season 5 would not work, something like this falls under the banner of "contains just simple geometric shapes or letters" and can be considered free use. I'd suggest using something like that. Done by another user. Ωphois 12:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Ref 1 — wikilink to MSN. Done. Ωphois 12:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Ref 2 — wikilink to USA Today Done. Ωphois 12:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Ref 3 — ew.com is the same as Entertainment Weekly, so it'd be best just to use that as the pub. Done. Ωphois 12:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Ref 76 — any reason why the second half of the title is crossed out? That is how the article's title is formatted. Ωphois 12:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Throughout, wikilink to EzyDVD, TVShowsOnDVD.com, Amazon.com. Done. Ωphois 12:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC) You switch from 09-11-01 to November 01, 2009, a lot throughout. Please stick to one format. Working on it. Ωphois 12:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Done. Ωphois 13:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Ref 82 — wikilink to TV Guide Done. Ωphois 12:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Fix up ref 86 — looks like a bare URL. Working on it. Ωphois 12:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Done. Ωphois 13:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC) That's all. The Flash {talk} 01:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Comments and issues resolved now, I believe this list meets FL criteria. The Flash ^{talk} 14:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There is a dead link; check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Ωphois 07:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Just one thing: in the sentence, "The brothers first attempt to hunt down Azazel—the demon responsible for their mother's death—and then Lilith—who holds the contract for Dean's soul and attempts to free Lucifer.", should there not be am em dash between "soul" and "and"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedemonhog (talk • contribs) 19:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Lilith is the one trying to free Lucifer, not the Winchesters. She holds Dean's contract in season 3 and frees Lucifer in season 4. Ωphois 19:47, 21 November 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 Dabomb87 16:03, 22 November 2009 [15].

---

Master of the Rolls

Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the standards required. Ironholds (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bencherlite

Quick-fire comments, in no particular order You need to fix the sorting of the "period" column, as it doesn't work properly at the moment. Fixed by removing sorting; that was my original intent, but the coding didn't work. Fair enough, since it would only have duplicated the first column sorting anyway. BencherliteTalk 11:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC) How about marking with symbols, or symbols and colours, those MRs who have also served as LCJ, or LC? (Sorry, Lord Chief Justice / Lord Chancellor, for those non-lawyers reading this!) Hmn, could do. Green for LC (my little joke, lets see if anyone gets it) and red for LCJ? Ironholds (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC) See below. "Formerly the Lord Chancellor was the most senior legal judge in the land, but the judicial roles of the Lord Chancellor have now been removed as a result of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005." If you need this, and I'm not sure at the moment, I think you should clarify "in the land", and perhaps place it later in the lead - it's a bit unduly prominent at present. Removed. Ironholds (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC) who are officers of the Supreme Court – the Supreme Court of Judicature has now been renamed, in a dose of pure management-speak, to the Senior Courts of England of Wales [16]; see in particular Schedule 11, part 4, para 21 (gosh how dull am I...) Indeed, to make way for the SCOTUK, I believe? If you're changing the name from House of Lords to avoid confusing people, having two courts called the Supreme Court is not really a vast improvement. I can understand their thinking. It seems somebody has already changed it to Superior Courts. In regards to dullness, I spent this morning in a discussion about poorly written statutes with my equity and trusts lecturer and said, straight-facedly, that "in my opinion the most poorly crafted section of any statute is Section 2 Clause C of the Wills Act 1963". Methinks I need to get out in the fresh air more. Ironholds (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC) You say "Lord Clarke", but "Baron Neuberger". I'd suggest "Lord" each time. Changed, and agreed. Ironholds (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Numbers 8, 21, 53 and 86 have dodgy dash spacing Fixed. Numbers 53 and 54 need their names piping Piping? Ironholds (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC) My mistake, I missed the Civil War overlap. BencherliteTalk 11:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC) List of recipients? Sorry, copied from one of my other FLs. You think that's bad, through one mistyping after a copy and paste I claimed that the Advertisements (Hire-Purchase) Act 1957 was actually the Divorce (Insanity and Desertion) Act 1958. Woops. Ironholds (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC) The title "Head of Civil Justice" predates the 2005 reforms - it was brought in by the 2003 Courts Act, s 62 [17], and the title is not necessarily limited to holders of the post of MR. Off the top of my head, I can't say if all holders of the title since 2003 have been MRs or not. Removed; was present before my rewrite, I think. Ironholds (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Hope these brief comments help. Perhaps more later. BencherliteTalk 21:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Ironholds, have you addressed these comments? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC) I've left him a reminder of this FLC. BencherliteTalk 14:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Crapsticks, forgot to watchlist it - my apologies. I'll get on to these points originally; my thanks to Bencherlite. Ironholds (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC) OK, it's looking a bit better now. Further suggestions: Instead of marking LC/LCJs, a column with brief notes e.g. Tom Bingham: "Lord Chief Justice 1996–2000; Senior Law Lord 2000–2008". Done. Ironholds (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Some photos? Will try and find. It was in my original idea, can't remember why I didn't do it. I'm thinking a row of photos going vertically down the right hand side. Thoughts? Ironholds (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Done. Ironholds (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I think the lead needs more flesh to it. After all, there is no other article about the office or its holders, so the more you can say, the better. BencherliteTalk 11:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC) A former MR was kind enough to write an academic article on the office a few decades back, I'll dig it out of my external HDD archive. Ironholds (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Dug out, added a bit. The judicial websites are unfortunately not too revealing :(. Ironholds (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

  Done. Ironholds (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

  There's still one dab link showing up in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  Done. Ironholds (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment The images need alt text per WP:ALT. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Ironholds (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments "Keeper of the Great Seal is, apparently, a disambiguation page. Done. Ironholds (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Shame there are so many red links, but I'm not a big advocate of creating silly stubs for blue links unless you're really bothered. Can you explain periods of absence in this role, e.g. Colepeper to Lenthall took a week but beforehand, not a day went by without immediate replacement. Absolutely no idea, I'm afraid. A possible reason would be that the early judiciary was treated like a game of musical chairs, while by Colepeper's time it was important to appoint somebody who actually has some legal skill, but that's entirely OR. I haven't found any sources indicating a shift in attitudes. Ironholds (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Otherwise, good list. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support assuming the points noted below are addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Further comments from Bencherlite

Sorry not to revisit the list after your improvements. I think that the photographs and the notes column are useful improvements; two minor points are that I think you need to confirm that your references verify the additional notes, for completeness, and as it's a sortable list, the offices e.g. LCJ need to be wikilinked each time. I think I mentioned on your talk page that I've got Denning's biography, which has some comments about the role of the MR (or at least the way Denning treated the office), which might interest you.

You may have missed it, but there was a big kerfuffle about red-linked items in lists recently, which ended up with the existing wording "a minimal proportion of red links" being kept. As I agitated against the removal of that criterion there, I suppose I ought to raise the issue here lest I be accused of favouritism! As Masters of the Rolls, all of the names would pass the notability threshold in principle, I would have thought. I know that the missing names don't have biographies in the ODNB, but do you know whether the missing names are completely unknown biographically, or could something be written from somewhere else? Bencherlite^Talk 16:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of the names are so unknown that the ODNB doesn't have entries (their failure, hah; I could write some with the sourcing I've got, easily), some I just haven't had any time to write, what with other projects occupying much of my attention. I'll link in the notes section tomorrow morning; feel free to email me the work at thedarkthird@hotmail.co.uk. On a slightly unrelated note, getting Denning to FA would be absolutely magnificent. If you've got bios and I've got bios, feel like working on it together at some point? Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinked, and added the new references. Ironholds (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot that's good about this list, but I don't think that it's of Featured standard without the missing articles; where articles can be written for such notable people, as you say they can, they really ought to be to represent WP's best work (as per the recent redlinks discussion). So, for me, it currently fails 5(a) since it does not have "a minimal proportion of red links". Other people's views seem to vary, however, so I won't put anything in "bold type" and I'll leave it to the closing director to assess. Bencherlite^Talk 15:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Will other reviewers comment on how the red links affect their stance? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 05:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs) As said above, everything linked in the table needs to be linked every time, since the table is sortable. Done. Ironholds (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Is the general reference actually the source of any information in the article? Perhaps it could be made a specifc reference. Goodraise 22:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC) The general ref is the listing of all the names and the (general) dates. As for the links, good point! I hadn't considered that; I'll do it this evening. Ironholds (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC) More comments The table header violates WP:POUND. What was the position Julius Caesar occupied during 1606–1614? The table only gives the date. I have thoroughly reviewed the nominated list and can now weakly support its promotion. (Will fully support once the above two issues are resolved.) Goodraise 01:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Both issues resolved. Ironholds (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Supporting after all my issues have been resolved. I'd like to note that I've thoroughly reviewed the list, in particular for prose quality, source formating, source reliability, image copyright status, image alt text, and general compliance with MOS pages. Right now, the only way I see to further improve the article is by adding more images and removing the red links. Good work! Goodraise 05:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Elaborating on the red links as requested above: I will not oppose a list with less than 50% red links. The criterion is simply worded too vaguely for me to demand fewer. Goodraise 16:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments *In File:LordLindley cropp.jpg, the link to a source is broken.

• The first sentence in Lindley's caption is a fragment. Mm40 (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed the link to here, but will let Ironholds write his own caption! Bencherlite^Talk 12:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The link is still broken for me; it may be a problem on my part, but i doubt it. Mm40 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm willing to let it pass, since I now assume it's an issue on my part if everyone else can access it. Mm40 (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I couldn't access it either, but I did a manual search through the VIA and picked up a copy of the new link. I've updated the commons page; it's http://via.lib.harvard.edu/via/deliver/fullRecordDisplay?_collection=via&inoID=243911&recordNumber=4&fullgridwidth=5&method=view&recordViewFormat=grid if you want to check. Ironholds (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - a nice list, Ironh. Shame I was too lazy to work on it. Majorly talk 20:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

  Eh, tis fine. Took me a couple of months to get around to it! Ironholds (talk) 10:44, 22 November 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 Dabomb87 15:21, 21 November 2009 [18].

---

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Glenn McGrath

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It may now feel as if WP:FLC has been overtaken by WP:CRICKET lists, but hopefully you all appreciate the statistical nature of the game, just as us Brits have got used to with "baseball" (new-fangled invention...!) So, this is built on the current Murali FLC and hopefully has taken into account comments made thusfar. Please make as many comments as you need, and if anything isn't completely obvious, particularly to our non-cricketing types, please let me know. Thanks for your time, in advance, happy reviewing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  Oops, missed that. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Nice article, meets the criteria as far as I can see. Why is everyone staying away from these two though? ;P ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Why the Australian bias, TRM?! Why create such a list on a flash-in-the-pan cricketer such as McGrath when List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Derek Pringle and List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Richard Ellison, giants of the cricket world, (to name but two) are still redlinks? Err, looks fine to me; see what you think of my minor copy-edits. Support Bencherlite^Talk 12:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I would wholeheartedly approve, if only you had learned to spell.... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support – A full reading of the list revealed nothing that would cause me to withhold a straight support. Why can't all reviews take this little time? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support – Haven't checked the links, however, the prose it good. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Fixed a few links for you, Old Trafford was linking to the football stadium, Headingley to the suburb and National Stadium to what in essence was a dab page. Also, any reason that Chris Martin is written as such, and not CS Martin, like the rest?? Harrias (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the bad link fixes, much appreciated. As for CS Martin, I just blew it as it needed disambiguating and I wasn't thinking. It's now consistently formatted. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support but could you double check with default sorting, either under I or most likely G or M, because at the moment it is under L whereas a lot of other List articles are sorted under different letters. SGGH ^ping! 09:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Categories fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:35, 17 November 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 Dabomb87 22:44, 17 November 2009 [19].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Adam Gilchrist

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thought it was about time I did some work for a change. So, a content fork of the featured article Adam Gilchrist... Comments appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support from Bencherlite

Resolved comments from Bencherlite

About as good as I'd expect from you, which is meant as a compliment! Just a few thoughts: Worth saying at the start that he's retired / a former international? As it is, we don't find that out until the end of the 2nd para. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC) "One of the most destructive" – would it be better to introduce this with something like "Described by the BBC as..."? In fact, would this quote be better somewhere else (e.g. in the first para), as it doesn't relate specifically to the match that you go on to mention? Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC) "highest ever" and "quickest ever" in the second para, but "second-fastest" in the third para – perhaps a couple more hyphens to add? You know, I'm not sure about that.... Um... anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC) "Australia never lost a match in which Gilchrist scored a century" – never lost a ODI, perhaps, for clarity Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Second sentence of the third paragraph lacks a verb. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC) "Usually batting at number seven, Gilchrist has scored" since he's now an ex. Yep. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC) "Upon his retirement" – by the time of his retirement? Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Are you using spaced hyphens instead of dashes in the references? Tsk, tsk. The references are copies-and-pastes from their original source (i.e. Cricinfo) - would you prefer me to en-dash it, dash it? 14:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Allow me to do it for you, then! A "find and replace" using MSWord did the trick, and I even threw in an "mdash" for the Border—Gavasker Trophy. BencherliteTalk 14:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC) In the key, you refer to Test innings only, and not to H/A/N (for that pesky ODI in Barbados). (how dare you fix these things before I've even finished my cursory review...(!)) Done.. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Confirm that the one image is free-use, suitably tagged and has alt text; there are no dab-links; the external links work; the sources used are appropriate and reliable. That's enough for now, I think. BencherliteTalk 14:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC) With those speedy changes, I can't see any reason at present not to support, but will keep an eye on things! I'm fairly sure that "highest ever" and "quickest ever" ought to hyphenated, but that I'm sure will be sorted out as things go along. BencherliteTalk 14:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think the number of the Test should be in there like most of them. It would also serve to show that it was the rather steep decline in his Test form in the last few years. YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 06:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You mean his test number or the overall test number? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • On further reflection, I think it's unnecessary as I have already mentioned his debut and retirement in the lead, and each century is dated, so if the reader wishes to draw the conclusion that he slumped towards the end of his Test career then he should be capable of doing so relatively easily without yet another column. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

More research needs to be done, as in many of these tons, a record of some kind was created, because of his high scoring. I've put in a few off the top of my head but there are many more. The 131 v SL in SCG 99 helped break a record for the biggest successful runchase at the SCG. In those days, ~270 was a a very high score. The one in NZ in 2000 was also resulted in a 350 odd score which was an Aus record IIRC. Many of them involved very large partnserhips and records with ME Waugh. Becuase of the way he played, SR is also very important to why Australia was so successful. More details need to be added as almost every century resulted in an Aus victory or completely reversed the match sitaution, like the Mumbai 2001 or Hobart 99. YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 06:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Is 270 still the highest score chased at the SCG? It was in 2003. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Still the highest run-chase at the SCG in an ODI. [20]. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll add a bit but this isn't supposed to be a "we love Gilchrist" article...! Factual statements of records are one thing, saying things are "important" for various other issues is most likely OR. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think "highest run chase at the SCG" is a little bit too much like trivia. The second highest run chase in history has a little more gravitas. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Finally, that source suggests that 270 is the current record, achieved in 2009. The one which Gilchrist contributed to was 260, right? The second-highest? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Can strike rate be added to the ODI centuries table? Aaroncrick (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, of course. I knew something was missing... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• This is now done (after fouling up once...!) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe interesting to mention how he striked at over 100 in 13 of the 16 ODI centuries? Aaroncrick (talk) 09:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thus noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Scoring 149 runs from 104 deliveries, including eight sixes and thirteen fours, Gilchrist made the highest ever score and quickest ever century in the final of the World Cup.[5] Do you really need to say "ever"? Aaroncrick (talk)

  No, probably not, so I'll remove... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks, leaning towards support. Will wait until next week to see if YellowMonkey is happy. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion perhaps indicate those matches in which he won the Man of the Match award? Bencherlite^Talk 09:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• You again?! Sure, doing... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Support - Looks good. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 23:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• End of first paragraph: Don't like the repetition of "Describing" and "described" in the same sentence as it is now. Maybe change the second to "called"?
• Commas after "against Sri Lanka in 1999" and "128 from 98 deliveries against New Zealand"?
• "Gilchrist scored centuries against all other nine Test nations." Move "other" to after "nine", where it seems to belong. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Support – Meets FL standards after the fixes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Support: Everything looks ok. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 06:12, 11 November 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 Dabomb87 22:44, 17 November 2009 [21].

---

List of 1928 Winter Olympics medal winners

Nominator(s): Geraldk (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Similar to the 1924 list which was just promoted, but I've gone through to correct problems that cropped up in the previous nom. Geraldk (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - don't see any problems—Chris!_c/t 22:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - it all looks good. --Lightlowemon (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks both for the reviews and support. Geraldk (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 01:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs) How do you justify capitalizing the word Games? I was asked to begin doing so by a reviewer in these lists during the previous nom. My understanding of the justification is that Games is short for Olympic Games, and as such should be capitalized in the same way that President, as in President of the United States, is capitalized. Geraldk (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Seeing as it is clear from the context what is meant, I can live with this explanation. Goodraise 00:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC) "Athletes from 12 of the 25 participating NOCs won at least won medal" - What's this? That would be a typo. It's fixed now. Geraldk (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC) "A number of the medal winners during the games are memorable." - I don't understand. I assume by this comment that you were suggesting removal of the sentence. It was intended to be a lead-in to the paragraph, but am not wedded to it, so it's gone. Geraldk (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC) I didn't mean to suggest removal. I simply didn't understand. Giving a lead-in is fine, but this particular one confused me... What made the medal winners memorable? It also sounded like an unattributed opinion. Goodraise 00:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Yeah, actually, you're absolutely right, it is unattributed opinion. I think it reads OK without it, so let's leave it out. Geraldk (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC) "Per-Erik Hedlund won the race by a 13 minutes margin after temperatures warmed by 25 degrees Celsius during the race." - For us who have no clue of skiing, what is special about this? The snow melted. Fixed. Geraldk (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC) I'm still a bit confused. Didn't the rising temperatures affect every participant of the race? Goodraise 00:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry you're confused, but the source won't justify any further explanation. The source assumes that the reader will understand that a 13 minute margin is exceptional in any conditions, especially such adverse ones. Geraldk (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Looking at the source myself, how about: "Per-Erik Hedlund won the race, that took place during unusual weather conditions with temperatures rising from 0 to 25 degrees Celsius, by an exceptional margin of 13 minutes." Goodraise 02:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Stole your suggestion with one minor change for grammar. It should be which rather than that, right? Or is my grammar off... Geraldk (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Neither is wrong, which is just much more common in non-restrictive clauses. Goodraise 00:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC) "The competition was cancelled in the fifth heat because of thawing ice" - This is a complete sentence, so end it with a period. Also, what is "the fifth heat"? Fixed the first part. Heat is used as a term for a qualifying round in a sports competition, and I would wikilink but there doesn't seem to be a wikipedia article on it. Geraldk (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Perhaps link to Wiktionary.—Chris!c/t 06:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Problem is that it's the tenth definition of the word. Any idea how to link there without just confusing the reader? Geraldk (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Maybe create an article named Heat (sport), but I don't know if you are interested in that or not.—Chris!c/t 19:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Do you think linking it to racing is adequate? My issue with creating an article is that it's simply an alternate definition of the word, and I don't think it meets the requirements to be a wikipedia article (rather than a wiktionary entry). I guess my question is, is it sufficiently obscure that it needs its own article or have different vocabulary used? Or, since the main point of that bit is that the event was cancelled due to melting ice, which is clear with or without a definition of heat, can it be left as is? Geraldk (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Actually, I've simply removed the reference to which heat it was cancelled in. Geraldk (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC) "General reference" and "Specific references" - Strike "references". It's the references section, what else could they possibly be? Done. Geraldk (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC) What is given as the title of the general reference seems to be a description of the page instead of its actual title. I've altered the title, which is now technically accurate but not at all descriptive. Geraldk (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC) The title given for reference 3 seems to be a translation of the document's actual title. Fixed. Geraldk (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC) The one entry in the see also section seems a bit out of place. I'd love to see the section replaced by a navigation box built around the 1928 Winter Olympics. This one's a little more challenging. The Olympics Wikiproject has tended to stay away from bottom of page navboxes about specific Olympics, preferring instead something like the one here. So I could create a box like the 2008 one, or frankly drop the see also section completely since it really isn't necessary. Any input on that one? Geraldk (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC) When I look at the 1928 Winter Olympics article, then I see a topic that's perfectly suitable to have its own navigational box, even if it only included the articles that are linked from 1928 Winter Olympics using {{main}}. I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want such a box. Goodraise 00:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Again, I'm sorry you don't seem to understand, but I prefer to stick with the precedent of the wikiproject unless there is a discussion of such a change to that precedent beyond one person insisting on it in a review. Are you arguing in favor a sidebar navbox, or an end of page one? If the former, you'll have to explain what articles you think would be good to add, as the current format used by the wikiproject for the sidebar (like the one I linked to) would include only three articles, the main one, the medal table, and the medal winners list, and frankly a three-page navbox would muss up the article to little benefit, especially since the list already links to the main article. If instead you are arguing for an end of page navbox, I'm sorry, I don't believe that an FL reviewer should dictate the style used by wikiprojects. Geraldk (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC) There is no need to apologize. I'm nitpicking here. Comments at FLC aren't restricted to things that on their own would merrit an oppose or even to things pertaining to the FL criteria. If you find any request I or any other reviewer brings up to be unreasonable, then simply say so and do nothing. On an unrelated matter, wikiprojects don't own articles. What they tend to do or not to do is irrelevant unless they write it into a project space page and add a guideline tag to it. Actually, looking at the article now, I find I mistakenly remembered it to have several more {{main}} links. Anyway, I still find that better interconnectivity among the 1928 Winter Olympics articles, in whatever form, would be a nice thing to have. Goodraise 02:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Actually, I think I'll bring this up at the wikiproject. I think you could create a navbox for each Games that would include the individual sports articles for each Games (in addition to the basic stuff like medal winners and medal table), but that gets more complex for the more recent summer games, where you can have as many as two dozen sports and the navbox would consequently be huge. It might take a while to sort out with other participants there. Is that all right? Geraldk (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Have created a sample navbox at Template:1928 Winter Olympics, added it to list. Am running it by wpolympics now. Geraldk (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Will be back with more. Goodraise 19:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC) "which was swept by Swedish athletes" - "Swept"? What does that mean in this context? I've reworded, and split the sentence since it was getting to be too long. Geraldk (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC) The image of Billy Fiske seems suboptimal, seeing as he was only one member of a team of five and since the picture was taken 12 years later. Goodraise 00:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC) You're right that it's not optimal. However, I do think it still has some value as an illustration, as it is a portrait of a medal winner, one of the subjects of the list. There just aren't that many photos available of the people on the list. Geraldk (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC) I apologize if some of my more nitpicky comments during this review have caused you stress. That was not the intention. I also apologize for not revisiting sooner. If you look at my contributions, you'll find that I haven't been very active this past week. Goodraise 02:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry if my responses were a little rude. It wasn't being nitpicky that bother me, it was comments like '(insert typo here) what's this?' that I felt were a little snarky. I should have assumed good faith. Sorry. Geraldk (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC) I see. Well, tone is something I have yet to master. (I'm not a native speaker of English.) Goodraise 00:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC) More comments The alt texts of the first two images are flawed. See Wikipedia:Alternative text for images#Proper names. Fixed. Geraldk (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC) They still have issues. I'll do it myself if I find the time. Goodraise 00:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Done. Goodraise 03:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC) The "Notes and references" link in the TOC is broken. Also, having the middle column with less items than the outside ones looks weird. Fixed. Geraldk (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC) "Athletes from 12 of the 25 participating NOCs won at least one medal; 6 won at least one gold medal." - I don't like this construct. If I separate the sentences like this: "Athletes from 12 of the 25 participating NOCs won at least one medal. Athletes from 6 of the 25 participating NOCs won at least one gold medal." it becomes clear that the 6 refers to the number of NOCs, not athletes, which leaves the second half of the original sentence without a subject. Perhaps write it like this: "Athletes from 12 of the 25 participating NOCs won at least one medal; athletes from 6 won at least one gold medal." Fixed. Geraldk (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC) "Four athletes won two medals each;" - Following this is only a listing, not a full sentence. Use a colon instead of the semicolon. Fixed. Good catch. Geraldk (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC) "Both Grøttumsbråten and Thunberg had been multiple medal winners in the previous Olympic Games as well." - Unnecessary use of past perfect. "Both Grøttumsbråten and Thunberg were multiple medal winners in the previous Olympic Games as well." would be just fine. Fixed. Geraldk (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC) "Only three other nations, Sweden, Finland, and Austria, had athletes win medals in more than one event." - In this sentence, the nation names link to their articles of the previous Games. Holy crap, talk about poor editing of cut and paste. Fixed. Geraldk (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC) In the statistics section, the nation names link to the general "at the Olympics" articles instead of the specific ones as they do in the rest of the article. Goodraise 06:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Geraldk (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Yet more comments The see also section is now superfluous, right? The TOC seems to violate MOS:BOLD. Goodraise 00:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Fixed both. What's the outstanding issue with the alt text? I'm still fairly new at it, so any additional input is helpful. Geraldk (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC) On the risk of sounding snarky again, you may want to read WP:ALT, especially since, by nominating, you've implicitly claimed that you believe that the article is in line with that guideline. Goodraise 03:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• The general reference could use some instructions on how to retrieve the actual data from that site.

I've switched the link to take you to the more user-friendly version of the dbase. Geraldk (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That's better. However, this version of the database appears to allow direct links to result pages. For example this link could be used to reference the whole bobsleigh section without a need for the reader to query the database themselves. Using this method throughout the article would be a significant improvement. By the way, you didn't change the title of reference 4. Goodraise 00:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The olympic.org website is undergoing significant changes, and I did not link to individual dbase results for the simple reason that the pages may not last very long. Seeing as use of a general reference is accepted practice on FLC, and in the interest of meeting the stability criterion, I'd prefer not to change it. Are you saying that a general reference is unnacceptable? Geraldk (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that. I'm only saying that direct links would significantly improve the usability of the list to users who care enough to check its claims against the sources. Anyway, I don't think that replacing dead references would make the list unstable in the sense of criterion 6. If I may ask, exactly how unstable is olympic.org? Goodraise 02:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a hard question to answer. They just revamped their entire website, and sometime in the next few weeks I'll have to go back through a bunch of Olympics FLs and fix a whole lot of dead links. The only part they didn't touch was this database, but I'm worried that it, too, will change soon, hence my concern about lots and lots of potentially dead links. I think you're right that it would make the article better to have individual refs, but, well, that's the conflict. If you think that verifiability outweighs (potential) instability, I'm happy to go through and add them. Geraldk (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I don't think that instability is an issue here at all. I'd be very surprised if criterion 6 was intended that way. The way I understand it, it's only about edit wars and ongoing content disputes. I can also understand your reluctance to make yourself more work than necessary, but that's simply part of getting that bronze star. After all, you don't have to do it, if you catch my drift. Goodraise 00:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if you're holding the promotion hostage to it, I do. Any suggestions for how to write the citations? Seems to me they would all look the same to the reader, the only difference being the url, which is not visible in the cite web template. Geraldk (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not holding anything hostage. My point was that you're here at FLC voluntarily. Nobody is forcing you, right? As for the citations, WP:CITE leaves a great deal of freedom. If you don't want so many citations to look the same (which I wouldn't object to), then you could, for example, use some sort of shortened footnote system. Goodraise 03:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Weak support. I've thoroughly reviewed this nomination. I'll be happy to fully support it once that minor citation issue is dealt with. Goodraise 04:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment – "464 athletes from 25 National Olympic Committees...". Try not to have a sentence start with a number like this. That's the only thing that jumped out at me when I read the list. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Geraldk (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Support – That one comment was my only concern about the list. Individual refs would be a nice luxury, but are not important enough to me to withhold support over. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: I'm going out of town for three days, and will be able to address concerns when I return. Apologies, this was sudden. Geraldk (talk) 23:06, 5 November 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 Dabomb87 22:44, 17 November 2009 [22].

---

Madonna albums discography

Nominator(s): --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel this is a complete list featuring Madonna's albums (studio, live, compilation etc). Since her catalogue is huge so there are two separate articles for singles and albums. This is the albums discography of Madonna. I believe the article is worthy of being Wikipedia's best. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Note above infobox should be "Madonna album discography". Not sure you need to link Madonna there as it's linked in the first sentence of the lead which is in roughly the same place in the article. Done. Linking is kept as per other FLs. Image caption doesn't need a full stop as it isn't a complete sentence. Done. The four remix albums aren't included in the opening part of the lead. Done. "signed for a singles contract " didn't she just "sign a singles contract"? Done. "reached a peak of eight " perhaps "peaked at number eight on..."? Done. "album peaked the chart " perhaps "topped the chart" to be completely unambiguous? Done. You link both platinum and diamond to RIAA certifications. Perhaps just link certification once to RIAA certifications? Done. "entered the 90s " 1990s. Done. Are diamond, platinum etc capitalised or not? They're not in the lead but they are in the tables. Apart from when you say "Multi-Platinum " - I'm positive Multi shouldn't be capitalised, if nothing else! Done. Capitalised " fourteen million copies" 14 million. Done. Any real reason for the tiny font in the table? Just makes it harder to read and less accessible. Actually since unlike other FLs, sales are included in this one, hence the 10pt font was making it difficult to make other users iwth less than 800x600 resolution read teh table. We need to remember that not everybody reads the articles on Wikipedia with same format. Smaller text is more likely to cause a problem than people using 800x600 though. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Sorry I didnot explain myself clearly. The 10pt text was breaking the tables in a 640x480 resolution hence I made it 9pt. --Legolas (talk2me) 09:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC) WW? Never seen that abbreviation before, why not just have "World:" and "US:"? Im at a little loss on this one though i changed it to World. Can you use real notes that link to the text? Its fine to use scholars and their analysis as long as it is actually present. I would like the notes to link to the text, especially as some of your non-linked notes are right next to references, it looks very odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Could you clarify this a little? --Legolas (talk2me) 08:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC) The notes (e.g. "1. Standard worldwide: 1-CD...") do not link to where they are used (like a reference would, for instance). And you end up with something like "US: 5,777,000[38]2 " which is very odd looking. The notes should link to the text. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Ohh. Now I get it. I'll make them reference like :) --Legolas (talk2me) 09:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Well, I corrected it. Take a looky :) --Legolas (talk2me) 09:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC) What does en-dash mean in the table? Added in the first three tables. "Does not include sales prior to the start of the SoundScan era (May 25, 1991)." I'm not sure I understand what this really means? Explained. The notes are unreferenced. Referenced. "Other .. albums" sections should have their tables formatted with same size columns. Done. One album has a hyphen as a year separator, one has an em-dash. Pick one (pref an en-dash) and be consistent. I didnot understand this one. The GHV2 album uses an em-dash to separate the years while the "Madonna 1983-1989 " uses a hyphen. En-dash is preferable. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Made them en-dash. --Legolas (talk2me) 09:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Three of your "See alsos" are "best-selling" links. That information should be in this article if some of these are in those top lists. They are present. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support

• Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should have a maximum of four paragraphs. This article has five.
  • Made 4. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

  Not entirely sure making the third paragraph so bulky was the right way to go. I suggest splitting it again and just getting rid of the last paragraph, it's pretty trivial. — ξ^xplicit 05:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Ya I feel so now too. Removed. :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• The following references should be updated, as they redirect to different titles: "Madonna's label sues record giant", "Madonna Makes a $60 Million Deal", "Thank You For the Music! How Madonna's New Single Will Give Abba Their Greatest-Ever Hit".
  • Replaced with working references.--Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Discogs is a user generated site and not a reliable source.
  • Replaced with Billboard. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Some references do not use templates (specifically the book references). Considering using the {{harvnb}} template.
  • Whoahh. This was tricky but done :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• More than one reference contains <ref name="aus">, despite having different content. Please correct this.
  • Corrected. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• This reference is used more than once. Consider combining duplicate references. — ξ^xplicit 02:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Separated to respective urls. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Done Dabomb :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I made a few suggestions to the nominator before he brought it here, so I'm pretty happy with it right now, and don't have that much to offer, especially after the reviews that have already come. Generally it's very good, although I'm a bit concerned that the sales figures will date and may become unverifiable. Some are referenced to books from 2002 and 2004 -- surely they're more than that by now?
  • Actually I did try to find references as current as possible but its very difficult for pre 1990 albums when Nielsen Soundscan didnot track their sales. Hence the recent most book is used. Sorry about that. :(
    • No problem. I know we work on the "WP:V, not Truth" principal. :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• The book by Maury Dean is listed in the references section, but no notes use it.. is that a mistake?
  • Well here's a mistake. I'll remove it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• OK, one final thing is that I don't think the 3 "List of bestselling albums in..." are particularly necessary in the see also section, but it's a personal preference and nothing that's a big deal. Support Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional support on fixing the overlinking in the References section. The list appears comprehensive and well sourced. However, you should de-link pretty much all of the wikilinks in the references section. We already have wikilinks for most these in the article (such as Billboard or Australian Recording Industry Association) and the others (e.g. BBC or The Daily Telegraph) aren't really helpful IMO. Colin°^Talk 14:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • OK I understand about wp:overlink on Billboard and ARIA, but how does a single link of BBC and The Daily Telegraph violates wp:overlink? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    • It doesn't. I just mentioned that "IMO" those weren't really helpful but if you disagree then that's fine. The issue was the overlinking. Colin°^Talk 09:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Cool. So do you feel that I addressed your concern for the overlinking? Please check. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes. Though I've now noticed that your "work" and "publisher" parameters to "cite web" are the wrong way round. Have a look at the template help. Colin°^Talk 10:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Support from Dt128 (talk · contribs)

Resolved comments from Dt128

Why are the publishers in italics? Also, why is, for example, The Official Charts Company used in conjuction with Chart Stats? Dt128 let's talk 16:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC) That's the jargon of template:cite web and template:cite news. As for why The Official Charts Company is used with CahrtStats, the original work is by OCC, Chart Stats is just the publisher, that's why. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I know but, for example, Allmusic is a website, not a publication that should be in italics. Surely the "work=" parameter should be left to such publications as Billboard? And yes, such websites as Les Charts and Chart Stats get their chart information from the chart sources, but are not published in conjunction with them. Dt128 let's talk 17:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC) As I stated before this italicization is only due to the template:cite web and its jargon. Nothing can be done reagarding this if the jargon is not changed. As for Lescharts and Chartstats, it is more important to note the authors or the original workers when they publish not in conjunction. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Why haven't album catalog numbers been included? Dt128 let's talk 17:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Catalog numbers are not a necessity to be included. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Websites and chart names should not be in italics. See this sample edit to guide you. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Corrected such links. Please check Dabomb. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks; looks good now. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:33, 16 November 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 Dabomb87 22:44, 17 November 2009 [23].

---

List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NFL Draft

Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 16:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have created this list based on the current FL List of Arkansas Razorbacks in the NFL Draft. I used several sources for the NFL Draft listing data including Pro-Football-Reference.com and the official University of Oklahoma website. However, I made considerable effort to find original sources for Pro Bowl and NFL Championship listings. I believe this list meets all the criteria for a featured list.—NMajdan•talk 16:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 Just a few quick things: Don't separate symbols from their indicators (no spaces). If an indicator is at cap height, like daggers, they should be superscripted to avoid messiness. Asterisks need not be superscripted. The table of contents where a lead image would normally be seems awkward. Consider moving one of the many fine images to the lead and using a standard TOC. Per the documentation for the {{reflist}} template, using the 3-column parameter should be avoided. "two overall number one picks" - I'm sure there's a list of first overall picks somewhere to link to. Blank cells should use em-dashes, not en-dashes. "NFL-AFL merger" should use an en-dash instead of a hyphen (both instances). "April 22-24, 2010" - en-dash I think I am OK with no sortability in this list, as I like the format, but I will let others comment. Navbox doesn't directly link to this article. In the key: I believe "Won an NFL champion" should be Won an NFL championship, both times Dabs: Back (sports) Alt text exists; I will let other reviewers comment on the quality. The general references are all working, but none of the specific refs are showing up in the deadlink checker, so no comment for now. Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Removed spaces around the indicators (asterisks, daggers, double daggers). Just to clarify before I make the change, are you saying that all daggers and double daggers should be superscripted? Moved TOC to left and moved a picture of a more recent draftee to the lead. Reflist is now 2 columns. Added wikilinks. Em dash and en dash changes have been made. Removed navbox (getting to the point now where I need a specific athletics navbox for the University). Changed championship wording. Regarding the disambiguation, in the early days of football, "back" was the term that was used to identify a position. In modern times, we now have several types of backs: full, half, running, quarter, etc. I left that pointing to the disambig because I didn't know of a better place to point to. Thanks for the comments.—NMajdan•talk 19:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Yes, I am suggesting that daggers and double-daggers should be superscripted. Can be done with a find/replace. I do see your point with the "back" link; there really is no better place to point that. I had the same issue with List of Baltimore Orioles managers (where to point "St. Louis Browns"), so I can live with one as long as there's a rationale behind it per WP:IAR. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC) I have superscripted all daggers. You will also notice I readded the navbox after reformatting it to include this article.—NMajdan•talk 19:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC) "The University of Oklahoma Sooners football team have drafted 343 players into the National Football League (NFL)..." - the college team didn't draft anybody; the pro teams do the drafted. Suggest reword to The University of Oklahoma Sooners football team has had drafted 343 players into the National Football League (NFL)... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC) I have changed that sentence. You're right, it didn't make sense before. Guess I was guilty of copying verbatim from the FL I was modeling this after.—NMajdan•talk 19:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC) "Each NFL franchise seeks to add new players through the annual NFL Draft. The team with the worst record the previous year pickedpicks first, the next-worst team second, and so on. The exception to this record-based order is that the winner of the previous Super Bowl pickedpicks last and the loser pickedpicks second-to-last. Teams may also negotiate with one another both before and during the draft for the right to pick an additional player in a given round." - there are two tenses here. All should be present tense (changes where I have marked above). Done.—NMajdan•talk 19:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Please see my comment above.—NMajdan•talk 11:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments – The two non-free images don't have a strong enough fair-use rationale, and I doubt that they could ever be made strong enough since they are only being used for illustration. My suggestion is to remove both of them. Done.—NMajdan•talk Did any of the pre-merger draftees win an AFL title? There are none that jump out to me at a glance, but I'm not an expert on 1960s pro football rosters. Worth checking with the nominator in my mind. No, I don't believe so. It would have been indicated in the football-reference site I use extensively.—NMajdan•talk What makes the following reliable sources? http://www.drafthistory.com/colleges/o.html Removed.—NMajdan•talk http://www.draftnotebook.com/draft_basics.htm http://football.about.com/od/miscinformation/a/detdraftorder.htm (About.com is almost never considered a reliable source) Replaced the two above.—NMajdan•talk 15:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC) References at the end of the second paragraph are out of order. Not a big deal, but it wouldn't take long to adjust this. Same applies for the end of the third paragraph. Done.—NMajdan•talk Can the start of the third paragraph be recast so the AFL initial isn't given before the full use? Done.—NMajdan•talk References 100 and 102 need a publisher. Typo in ref. Fixed.—NMajdan•talk References 17 and 98 should have the publisher in italics because they are printed publications. Done.—NMajdan•talk References 120 and 128 should have all caps removed. Giants2008 (17–14) 03:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I have completed some tasks. I believe both other sources are reliable and I will address them if I am unable to find a suitable replacement, which so far is the case. You guys are killing me with the sortability. How should I address the reference column if I make this list sortable?—NMajdan•talk 15:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • You'd have to duplicate the reference for each draftee from that particular year. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
      • What about making a third header in the References (along with Generic and Specific) for the yearly links to the pro-football-reference website?—NMajdan•talk 19:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
        • That probably won't fly, but the information is all verified by the current general references, so you probably don't absolutely have to have the references in the table. You could also include this as additional support if you like. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
          • I have dropped the references column. Will work on the other changes to make this list sortable over the coming days.—NMajdan•talk 20:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Why not make it sortable? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree, no reason not to make this list sortable.—Chris!_c/t 04:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the status on this? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Umm...look up.—NMajdan•talk 01:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. I'm pressed for time, and was just quickly glancing at each FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• The list is now sortable with the exception of the Player name column. That will be sortable as soon as I add {{sortname}} to the 300+ names.—NMajdan•talk 15:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Player name column now sortable.—NMajdan•talk 16:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Done.—NMajdan•talk 01:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - the notes are not referenced—Chris!_c/t 00:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The notes are just specifying more detail than what is in the table and thus covered why the same references that the table has which are the general references.—NMajdan•talk 03:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok, I support.—Chris!_c/t 03:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

One more comment before I support: should the 2010 Draft, which won't occur until next April, be included this soon? Most sports FLs I've seen don't include future events, at least not while they are at FLC. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'll remove it. I liked it better when the list was unsortable. I don't like it as much now.—NMajdan•talk 00:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support – My comments have all been addressed and the list meets FL criteria. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:16, 10 November 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 Dabomb87 22:44, 17 November 2009 [24].

---

List of Major League Baseball awards

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is complete and meets the criteria. It has had a peer review, at which several references were added and some formatting issues were corrected. Due to my current situation, I may be slower to respond than normal to comments, but I appreciate any that are made and will make every effort to address them through correction or rationale. This is a different style of list from many of my nominations in that it is not a table format; however, I feel that the current format does a better job of explaining the awards themselves as an appropriate lead article for the forthcoming topic, entitled "Awards in Major League Baseball". The criteria for inclusion of this list are determined by using the awards pages from the official Major League Baseball website, so there are some baseball awards, included those presented to Major League Baseball players, that are not included. These are the "official" awards; this topic will (hopefully) someday become a subtopic of a larger, overarching topic of all baseball awards. This is the first step. Have at it! Disclaimer: As the playoffs continue, some of the awards and recipients may change during the course of this nomination. Because the awards are presented at different times of the year and at different points throughout the offseason, it is difficult to find a time when any of the awards does not have a change forthcoming within a few weeks. So, we will roll with it for the time being. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Dab - there is one dab link; see [25] —Chris!_c/t 01:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone else fixed it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I think this is nicely written. Besides, I can't see any problem, so that's why I support.—Chris!_c/t 00:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments – This is only a partial review of the list, having made it through the Silver Slugger Award. Will try to review the rest later. Commissioner's Trophy: "which was cancelled due to the players' strike." Change "the" to "a" since that isn't the only strike in baseball history. I thought it was clear from the context that it's 1994, since the phrase is modifying the year 1994. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Another concern with this bit: it sounds like we're assuming that the reader knows there was a strike in 1994. If this is not an issue, it's fine as is. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC) In reference 7, Verducci actually wrote those words, not Torre himself. The Yankee Years is very unusual for an autobiography in that it isn't in the subject's voice. OK, changed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC) I actually was referring to the note in the cite itself, which still says Torre. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC) The lead in its present form really feels like it is favoring Phillies players. I have no problem with listing their major awards, but it appears to be making an extra effort to include every Phillies winner; do we need the Gold Glove winners or Cliff Lee's Indians awards? I assume that, if they happen to be dethoned as champions soon, the new champions would receive a mention or two in the lead? :-) Giants2008 (17–14) 20:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Obviously. That statement may have been intended as fun/funny, but I'm sorry if I don't see it that way. I'm not trying to be biased, which is why I'm trying to give even coverage to all of the awards in the lead. If you'd rather see other information in the lead, please suggest it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC) While the last sentence of my comment was supposed to be light-hearted, the concern I have is completely serious. Most of the paragraph on the winners is devoted to Phillies winners, you have to admit. I'm reluctant to suggest expansion because the lead is well-balanced, but one possibility is to mention the most important winners (difficult because value judgements would come into play – not ideal for these purposes). Perhaps add the MVP and Cy Young holders not already mentioned and trim part of what's there to "three Phillies are current holders of Gold Glove Awards"?, and see how it looks afterward? Giants2008 (17–14) 21:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC) How's that? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Better balanced for sure. If you get a chance, take a look at the note I left regarding the second comment. Also, be sure to be alert for any possible updates that the list might require in the near-future. :-) (Okay, that was supposed to be funny). Giants2008 (17–14) 00:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC) One more thing on the lead: although I said that I thought the Phillies were over-represented before, don't be afraid to include something on them. It would give us something other than the Yankees and Red Sox in the lead; it would also be nice to have a National League team represented. Only something to think about, and not something I'd withhold support over. LCS MVPs need updating. CC Sabathia and Ryan Howard are now the current holders. Reference 8 should have the page number as p., not pp. Reference 46 needs a publisher (Major League Baseball). Reference 59 is from a book and should be formatted as such. Reference 25 is to Encarta, which is not ideal since it is a fellow encyclopedia (a defunct one at that). Any alternatives possible? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Well, the Phillies aren't a leader any more, and I haven't taken the time yet to figure out who is. LCS MVPs are updated with refs from the main article. Ref 8 fixed. Ref 46 published. Ref 59 is indeed from a book, but it is a compilation of articles originally published by the Associated Press. Wasn't sure exactly how to handle it. Refs 24 (which was to Baseball Almanac) and 25 have been replaced with book references. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Weak support – The only reason I'm not offering a full support is that the 2009 award winners are in the process of being announced; questions about stability could result from this. I'm sure KV will keep everything properly updated, though, so I will provide a partial backing. Everything else appears in order now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I will do my best. Gold Gloves were announced yesterday and today and are already updated; post-season MVPs are done to the best of my knowledge, and I think the Silver Sluggers are tomorrow and Friday. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

So why aren't all the winners of the Warren C. Giles Trophy and the William Harridge Trophy listed? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Because there's no information available (that I could find, anyway) on when they were first presented under those names. I could put a "see also" to the lists of NL and AL pennant winners, which are separate from this list. They, however, are broken down by eras, and the more recent lists of winners are available by clicking through to the NLCS and ALCS, respectively, because that's where the list of pennant winners since 1969 live. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A {{seealso}} link to the appropriate articles would be nice, if possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

'Tis done, good sir. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Next thing: the position abbreviations in the "current holder" tables need explaining (preferably a key, but I suppose links will do too). Dabomb87 (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, since you're probably already aware, but ref 21 (BBHOF) is dead. It won't hold up promotion, but be sure to fix it when you can. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that; I didn't realize there were any links to the HOF website in here. Replaced with a link to the ESPN Baseball Encyclopedia. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Well-referenced and formatted with HQ lead-ins from basically all already featured lists. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:21, 9 November 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 Dabomb87 00:41, 15 November 2009 [26].

---

List of India women ODI cricketers

Nominator(s): -SpacemanSpiff 05:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all six FL criteria. The list provides a detailed view of the womenwho have played One Day International cricket representing India. It is comprehensive as of today, with a likely addition rate of about five to eight players every two to three years, and changing statistics for another five to eight players. The intro provides a summary view (with links) of ODI cricket and the Indian team. Other parts of the lead summarize the team's performance and that of the key players. One table provides the detailed view of all players while the other details the captains' performances over the years. I will be happy to address comments/suggestions/questions etc promptly. -SpacemanSpiff 05:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from nominator -- Just addressing some issues that are very likely to come up:

• Sorting by last names is not used because of the different formats of names in India. Most importantly, the last name of some of these players isn't even part of the most common name.
• The ndashes behave a bit oddly in some sorts. It doesn't happen always and not with all columns either. This appears to be a problem with other featured lists too and I haven't been able to find a solution yet.
• The extra title bars in the middle and at the bottom are just for clarity. They do not affect sorting etc.

cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 06:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 01:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Superb. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 07:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - but just a lot of little things that can easily be fixed... Alt text needs to make it clear that the players in the photo are female. Done. The caption is incomplete (no verb?) so no need for a full stop. Done. "two representative teams" perhaps just me but what is the need for "representative" here, particularly in light of the detail that follows? Done. "The women's variant of the game is very similar to the men's version, with minor modifications to umpiring and pitch requirements." - interesting indeed but I thought we avoided discussing items in the lead that don't appear, in greater detail, in the main article? I believe this fits in with criteria #2, "...that introduces the subject...", especially to a reader without any knowledge of cricket. If consensus is that this shouldn't be part of the lead, I can remove it. Same for the next sentence, although I will admit that it makes the lead more interesting. Difficult. Same response as above, I believe this fits in with criteria #2, "...that introduces the subject...", especially to a reader without any knowledge of cricket. If consensus is that this shouldn't be part of the lead, I can remove it. "formed.[4]The" space required after the reference. Done. "The team's first series win was against New Zealand, in 1995.[8] The team is selected..." - odd follow-on, when the team won a series followed by how it was selected. I've rearranged the paragraph with selection at the start, progressing to games played and then the wins. "by a panel of former cricketers" - male, female or both? The BCCI guidelines don't say, but both panels since the rule was put in place were all-women. I have included the "retired women cricketers" in the panel composition as it is supported by that ref. "captain Jhulan Goswami.." - current or former? Clarified as current. Jogelkar has a dash for 4WI while Basu has 0. This is the case for several other players. Why? Dashes were used for players who did not bowl, while 0 is used for players who bowled at least one ball. Joglekar was an error, typed in a dash as I probably didn't think a keeper would bowl. "Batsman remained not out" - would we say "Batswoman"? Just checking... Convention is to use batsman. Cricinfo and BBC use that term. Also this was discussed at WT:CRIC -- here and here. Jain seems initially out of order in the captain's table, if the original listing is supposed to be chronologically. Fixed, an error with Chopra, don't know why I screwed that up. Don't think you need a total for years started and ended - not logical for me. Removed, I provided it for context for the game stats, but agree that it seems odd. Dates in the references need to be in a consistent format - you have a mix of ISO and human-readable right now. Fixed. The only place I've left the readable format is in Note 1 as I think it needs to be readable there. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments, hope I've addressed your concerns. -SpacemanSpiff 19:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Jogalekar's BBM is "0" while Basu's is – - inconsistent. This was a dumb error, I was trying to fix the Joglekar error above, and entered it on the wrong column. Fixed now. Al Khadeer's Cricinfo profile indicates she's bowled at least one 4WI. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Fixed Al Khadeer. There were a few other transcription errors that I did not catch while checking in my sandbox or in the article, and I have fixed them now, makes me feel like an ass. I'll contact the other editors who have already commented and let them know. Sorry for the trouble folks, there shouldn't be any more data errors. Please let me know if there are other concerns and/or changes you'd like to see. -SpacemanSpiff 19:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support nice work, and an inspiration to the cricketing community who are attempting to recover some ground here at FLC! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Only a couple of quick ones from me since the prose in the lead looks reasonable to me (though I'm not a cricket expert and can't judge content as well as some others). First, there could be a sentence or two in the lead on the team's captains, since it has a seperate table; even a brief mention of the number of captains would be helpful. Second, I've seen reviewers say that proper names should not be included in alt text, meaning this needs further revision here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Alt text changed (didn't know the proper nouns rule), thanks to User:Juliancolton for tweaking it further. I've added mention of the captains, split it to two sections -- number of captains along with the number of matches, most successful captain with the other stats summary (had to split this way instead of placing the no of captains along no of players as the stats would then be out of place). Thanks for the feedback, let me know if there are any other comments/concerns. -SpacemanSpiff 05:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Support: Looks good. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:55, 12 November 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 Dabomb87 15:02, 14 November 2009 [27].

---

List of Governors of Delaware

Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The next in my series of governor lists. This was formerly featured, but was long ago defeatured for having been left behind as standards improved. The only current issue is, no one seems to know how many governors there have been. Most sources say 73, including news sources; however, the state archives (which, for a state as historically rich as Delaware, are embarassingly deficient) say 82. It's just a matter of how you count repeat governors. This article so far goes with 73. -Golbez (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments I will try to do a more complete review later today or tomorrow but one right that pops out is your use of color. Per WP:COLOR, "Ensure that colour is not the only way used to convey important information." Mainly, I'm looking at the first few governors who are listed as having no party, but have a color next to the name column.—NMajdan•talk 12:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Nevermind, I now see Note 2.—NMajdan•talk 13:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC) I think I'll just get rid of those shadings; they're being difficult to source. --Golbez (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC) The 2nd sentence in the first paragraph seems a bit awkward to me. Another editor might be able to offer better advice on how best to restructure, but I do think it needs work. Also, I'm not a fan of of paragraphs with less than 4 sentences. I don't think there is anything in the MOS against it, so its just a personal preference. Would it possible to expand the first and third paragraphs in the lead or combine them? Combining paragraphs in the lede would, I think, lead to information overload. There's a lot of numbers, years, and references in the 2nd and 3rd grafs, and I think combining them would make the whole situation harder to keep track of. --Golbez (talk) Any source that has the url field populated also needs the accessdate parameter populated. Specifically, #2 & #3 under General. Use one format for dates in the references; some use Month DD, YYYY and others use YYYY-MM-DD. Fixed these two. --Golbez (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC) What makes reference #11 (http://www.50states.com) reliable? Found a better one. --Golbez (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Biographical Directory of the United States Congress only needs to be wikilinked once. Fixed. --Golbez (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC) —NMajdan•talk 13:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Support.—NMajdan•talk 14:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

All in all a very good list. There are a few comments though.

• As a follow on from NMajdan's comment about colour above, the lieutenant-governors parties are only given by the shading.
  • My general thought on this has been, the list is of the governors, not the lieutenant governors. Their party is mentioned for help, but should be considered slightly extraneous information. For the details of their terms and party affiliations, that's what the list of lieutenant governors is for. If others continue to disagree, I'll find something to deal with it.

One way round it would be to have a general note saying that most Lt-Governors were of the same party as the Governor, with specific notes against the 3 or 4 where that wasn't the case. Boissière (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've put that in, that's not a bad idea. --Golbez (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• In the lead would it be desirable to wikilink the various Delaware constitutions that are mentioned (assuming that there are articles for each - I haven't checked)?
  • That's a good idea, though the articles for the constitutions are pretty weak. On a side note, to be frank, Delaware's lack of historical presence online is embarassing. They are the first state, they have a very old history, yet they had zero resources online for me to use for this list. Even the old Constitutions, I had to find through Google Books.

I am happy with the changes you have made here, and you're right about those articles. Boissière (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• In the other offices held table the governors name column is sorted (incorrectly unfortunately) but the names are not sortable in the main table. Is there a reason for this?
  • Because several use rowspans to illustrate they had more than one lieutenant governor; last I checked, rowspans break the sortable table.

Oh yes that's a very annoying restriction if that could ever be fixed then a lot of tables could be improved throughout Wikipedia. The sort order on the "other offices" table still needs fixing though. Boissière (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --Golbez (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Is it possible to put in a short explanation of the "No parties" attribution? Was there genuinely no partisan politics or was it a constitutional restriction (or perhaps a gentleman's agreement)?
  • I can't really source it at all, except that no source supplies party identification for the first nine. So I have no explanation. My only guess is, yes, that early in American politics there were at best loose factions rather than organized parties. There was no constitutional restriction. --Golbez (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Boissière (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• You're mostly right, Golbez, historians date the beginning of the first political parties in the United States to 1792, when the split between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson led to the development of the Federalist Party and Democratic-Republican Party. Between 1787 and 1792 there was a split between two other groups (not parties) who called themselves Federalists (not quite the same as the later political party, these are people who supported ratification of the Constitution, hence the Federalist Papers) and Anti-Federalists (who opposed ratification), but that split was not really the creation of the party system. It might be helpful to add two notes, if you can find the sources, one for all of the people without parties explaining that parties did not exist yet, and one for the last two that gives their affiliation in the ratification debates. My guess is that in the latter note both of them were supporters of the Constitution - Delaware is known as the First State because it was the first to ratify the constitution. End history lecture. Geraldk (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Yet another fantastic Gov list from Golbez! Reywas92^Talk 20:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

A great list, and I only have one query. Is it common for partial terms to be referred to as "halves", "thirds" etc? The notes accompanying these fractions are without exception excellent, and if that's the convention then it's fine by me, but it just strikes me as a little odd to use fractions. WFCforLife (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the system we've come up with to signify which governors shared elected terms amongst each other. I don't know if it's 'common' outside Wikipedia, it's just an illustrative tool others came up with here. --Golbez (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it's more personal curiousity than something which detracts from the list. I'm supporting even if you don't do this. But perhaps a (less cumbersome) note to the effect of "1/2 signifies that Governor was one of two governors to serve during this term, 1/3 signifies that governor was one of three governors to serve during this term." would be a useful addition? I think fractions are a clever solution, but if it's a wikipedia-devised system then I think we should explain it. WFCforLife (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I get it now. We have a standard note for the Terms column; I forgot to place it in this one. :) Adding it now... --Golbez (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. WFCforLife (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Alt text comment The alt text is decent, but some of it is too short and non-descriptive. For example, what is a "nineteenth-century man"? I'm not asking for every detail, but a little more on their appearance would help. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I admit to not understanding quite how to implement alt text for maps and simple portraits; I merely copied the style from my most recently promoted list. --Golbez (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I improved the alt text a bit. It's not the best, but it does the job. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:29, 13 November 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 Dabomb87 15:02, 14 November 2009 [28].

---

List of Louisville Colonels managers

Nominator(s): Rlendog (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria, and while there are many baseball related featured lists, few involve 19th century teams. Rlendog (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I missed that one in the caption. It's no longer a dab link. Rlendog (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments Use non-breaking spaces where appropriate (i.e. 38 wins). Note a does not have brackets around it yet note b does. Looks like one is using {{note label}} and other other {{ref label}}. May want to ensure you are using these correctly. As I continued to read through the list, I noticed another a reference in the WS column of Jack Chapman. Clicking the unbracketed a in the lead takes you to Jack Chapman-WS column and vice versa, but neither take you to the actual a footnote. You say the number of regular seasons games managed may not equal the sum of wins & losses due to ties. Why don't you add a tie column? In college football (of which I'm most familiar), the winning percentage is calculated a bit different due to ties since ties are considered half of a win. Are you sure it is not the same for this? Why is the # column not sortable? If I change the sort order on another column, the only way I can go back to sorting by # is to reload. Sorting by Seasons doesn't work either as apparently there were three coaches in 1889. —NMajdan•talk 14:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I think I found all the non-breaking spaces and fixed the ref labels. I also made the # sortable; it seems to be working. As for ties, baseball records work differently than football. Team records do not show the ties, and the ties do not count in the standings or in determining the winning percentage. Similarly, none of the reliable sources for managerial records include ties in the record. In baseball ties work (or worked, I think they changed the rules a couple of years ago to avoid ties) as a result that doesn't count, although all the player stats from the game do count. So ties aren't really relevant to the manager's record and adding them would just clutter the list. Rlendog (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support.—NMajdan•talk 14:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Mm40 (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments, Mm40 (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC) "…with each team winning three games and one tie game." can be taken out of the note because it is already said in the lead. Twice in the lead, references are out of order. The ones with the lower number should come first. (e. g. "by John Kerins.[12][3]" should become "by John Kerins.[3][12]") The above is also done in the table entry for Jack Chapman. Per FLs List of New York Mets managers and List of Philadelphia Phillies managers, there should be a "total" row at the end of the managerial table. In ref 7, two "p"s are needed because multiple pages are being referenced. I've also made some minor fixes of my own. After these issues are resolved, I'll gladly support. Mm40 (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I think I took care of everything. On the "backwards" references, I had them the way they were becauce the first ref (with the higher number) was the primary reference, but it does look better this way. I actually don't think totals are a good idea for active manager lists (and not all manager FLs include them), since they can easily get stale and it is hard to tell when they do, but they are a good idea for defunct teams like this one. Rlendog (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note on alt text The alt text is well done, except for one detail: phrases about the provenance of the image are unnecessary (e.g. "black and white photo"). The baseball card phrase is fine though. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Also, the "#" is over-explained—there's a footnote about it as well as a row in the key explaining it. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. I think I have addressed them. I admit I am surprised about the alt text comment (this is my first FLC since that became an issue). I would have thought that whether something was a black and white photo or a color photo would be important in describing the image. But I am fine taking it out. I guess I have some work to do on a couple of other lists that included this in the alt text. Rlendog (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 20:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments – "The Colonels' first manager was Denny Mack. Mack...". Try to reword to avoid this needless repetition. Another example: "managed the team in 1882, his only season managing the team". "he led the Pirates with its former Colonels stars to three consecutive league pennants...". This confused me when I read it. How about "he led the Pirates, with the former Colonels stars, to three consecutive league pennants..."? Now that I think about it, the meaning of pennant in this context won't be obvious to non-baseball fans. Perhaps a link to Pennant (sports) will help? "with each team winning three games and one tie game." The with+-ing sentence structure is often considered awkward by prose reviewers; see this for further details. To fix this one, try ";each team won three games, and there was one tie." Fred Clarke photo: The Library of Congress link isn't working for me. Without that, it becomes difficult to verify that the photo is in the public domain. Jim Hart photo: I see no evidence on the New York Public Library page that this was published before 1923, and the site's terms leave it unclear as to whether this is a true public domain image. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I think I addressed the phrasing comments. As for the photos, Jim Hart died in 1919 [29] so the photo must be earlier than 1923. The Clarke photo is more difficult, but the same photo is used in List of Pittsburgh Pirates managers, and was at the time that article was at FLC.[30][31]. That FLC noted several problematic photos, but this was not one of them (see image review of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Pittsburgh Pirates managers and owners). So I am pretty sure the description of the photo being in the public domain is accurate. Also, Clarke would have been 51 years old in 1923, and this does not appear to be a photo of a 50 year old (although I realize this is not proof). Rlendog (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I followed a search from the LOC site to find this photo. The link is here. I think this confirms that the photo was indeed published in 1903 and is thus a free image. Rlendog (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Clarke photo is okay in that case. As for the Hart photo, the standard for public domain status is publishing before 1923 (in this case), not merely creation. There's no guarantee that a photo of someone deceased before the cut-off date was actually published before that date. Unfortunately, many uploaders don't know much about the details involved in whether an image is PD or not, and it frequently leads to issues at the featured content processes. Also, one image review won't necessarily catch every problematic image, and FLC image reviews are nowhere near as thorough as FAC reviews to begin with. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC) I admit that I am not an expert on these issues and I don't have a problem removing the photo if it is problematic. But I'll take one more crack at sparing it. The card the photo is on is signed, purportedly by Jim Hart. So (barring a fake signature) the photo must have been published before Hart died. Rlendog (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC) On 2nd thought, I just removed that photo. It would be good to include, since few baseball fans know what any of these managers looked like, but I suppose I can't prove that the photo was published before 1923. Rlendog (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Support – Meets FL standards after the fixes. By the way, the Hall of Fame link now works properly. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

• "when it was considered a Major League from 1882 through 1891" - de-capitalize major league
• An explanation of "player-manager" in the lead would be nice so that readers don't have to leave the article, especially since this is from the era when player-managers were both relevant and common.

All in all, well done. Clarification of these two issues will allow me to support this list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks! I took care of the capitalization issue. For the "player-manager" issue, I did not want to sidetrack the narrative with a defintion (which is relatively self-explanatory) so I added a comment that Clarke played as a Colonels' outfielder while he served as their manager. See if this works. Rlendog (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Perfect. Wholehearted support. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment There is a dead link; check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like they just changed that link on me. I updated it. Rlendog (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The HOF is going through a site revamp right now; thus, every link from that site at the moment is now dead. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:41, 11 November 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 Dabomb87 15:02, 14 November 2009 [32].

---

Premier League Manager of the Month

Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay this list is the partner to Premier League Player of the Month, which is currently pretty well supported at FLC. The reason I'm bringing it here now is because I believe the other list may have been promoted had there been closures, and also I know I'm going to be busy in a couple of weeks so hopefully, by nominating this now, it will be wrapped up or not require much work by then. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Quick question - when you sort by year, is it possible for it then sort the months either in ascending or descending order? Otherwise I'd combine the year and the month so it sorted properly forwards or backwards chronologically. Also, that lead image caption is going to be out of date in, what, two or three weeks? Not sure it's worth it... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is (Help:Sorting#Secondary key). That's why they are seperate, and also Struway2 commented at the Players FLC that it was clearer with them separate. Wrt the lead caption, I don't think it makes a difference seeing as the rest of the article will need updating, but I'll remove it anyway. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think what I meant was, when you sort by year, could the months automatically sort into the right ascending or descending order? Otherwise it's a little odd.... (or it could just be, once again, my browser...) A little like sorting Olympic medals tables, 1 gold is worth more than 100 silvers, so when sorting by total I'd expect to see gold winners above silver and silver winners above bronze. You get my drift? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand now, do you mean you want be to put in a sortkey like {{sort|1993.1|[[1993–94 FA Premier League|1993]]}} etc. for the years so they have a underlying month attached to them. Also do you also want me to do this for the players FLC? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's it. An example, if I list per descending year, I want to 2009 September, followed by 2009 August then 2009 July. Works? And yeah, do it for the other list too. Surprised I didn't notice it there, but it's been a long week. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - All redirects can be fixable. You can use User:Splarka/dabfinder.js to find them, which finds redirects and dabs. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Not done. There are no dabs and replacing redirects is "an unhelpful exercise". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ehh... I just thought that some people would might want to know what GBP is before clicking the link. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That one is fair enough and I've fixed it. I didn't know what redirects you were talking about because you can obviously identify them with that tool. Not having the tool I thought you might have been talking about player names redirecting to diacratics or fuller names, and I didn't really fancy clicking on them all to find out. If there are any examples like the GDP please point them out, and apologies if I was a bit "bitey" in my original reply. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my comment not having enough clarification. After checking the article again, the only redirects left are the names of players and cities, so ehh... I won't support the nomination, as I only had one comment. I will probably come back to review the article again, so I'll just leave this open. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Comments from WFCforLife (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Kenny Dalglish has only won the award twice as far as I can tell, not three times. Houllier and Thompson's shared award in the main table should be linked to/from footnote 2. I think footnote 1 is a bit clunky. I'm not sure if this goes too far the other way, but I think "Each year in the table is linked to the corresponding football season." would be sufficient. (edited WFCforLife (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)) Once you have sorted the main table it is impossible to get back to the default position without leaving or refreshing the page. I understand the reason behind counting Thompson and Houllier's joint award twice for awards by nationality and multiple winners, but am less sure about awards by club. My reason being that the manager of the month award has gone to Liverpool F.C. eleven times. I won't oppose if you disagree with this conclusion (there is an argument about consistency), but in either case footnote 2 should explain how the award has been counted in the smaller tables. Hope that helps. WFCforLife (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC) All done.[33] For the last point, I was being consistent with requests at the Premier League Player of the Month FLC, because originally I was counting them as half an award which reviewers disliked. I have explained the method in the footnote though. Thanks a lot for the comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC) I agree that counting it as half an award would have been wrong. FWIW I've cross checked the smaller tables with the big table, and as far as I can tell they are all consistent now. Here are a few things I spotted on closer inspection. Some of these things may in fact be right and the questions more for my benefit, but it's worth asking anyway: Does Barclays Manager of the Month need to be bolded? It is the official name, just like Premier League bolds Barclays Premier League later in the lead. Per Wikipedia:BOLDTITLE#Abbreviations_and_synonyms: "If the subject of the page has ... more than one name, ... each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance." Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Were Hughes and Bryan Robson players when those photos were taken? Could they possibly be replaced by free players of themselves (or other winners) while they were managing? Yes, but there are no other free pictures available: [34][35]. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Is there a reason not to wikilink seasons in the prose? Wikipedia:Link#What_generally_should_be_linked: "avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia" Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "Eight managers have won awards in consecutive months Joe Kinnear, Kevin Keegan, Roy Evans, Ferguson, Arsène Wenger, David O'Leary, Paul Jewell, and Rafael Benítez. Stuart Pearce also won consecutive awards, but one was at the end of the 2004–2005 season, and the other was at the start of the 2005–2006 season." I agree that the fact that Pearce's awards were in different seasons should be mentioned, but the way it's phrased makes it seem as if the article is deeming his consecutive awards as a lesser achievement. Reworded to sound less condescending. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC) I think that's everything. WFCforLife (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Hopefully I've addressed those points adequately. If not let me know. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• All those responses are fine to me. As I said, some of them were for my benefit more than anything else. In that case I'm happy to support, with the caveat that if someone disagrees with your responses to my second set of comments, appropriate action is taken. Well done, it's a pretty good list! WFCforLife (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 20:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Take a quick peek at the archived Premier League references, because they all say "Manger of the Month". Don't understand this? It is a Manager of the Month list, so surely that is the correct thing for them to say. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "Manger" not "Manager"! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Stupid me. Thanks for politely pointing out my stupidity TRM. Done Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC) How about moving "Manchester United manager Alex Ferguson" to the bit that mentions him in the second paragraph, and starting the third with just "Ferguson has been Manager of the Month the most times..."? Done Comma before "winning a Manager of the Month Award in each of those spells. Done No need for two Premier League links in the lead. Done Colon after "Eight managers have won awards in consecutive months". Done Giants2008 (17–14) 16:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Support – Nice list that meets FL standards. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Extra comments (pathetic, as they may be...)

• Caption has 'twenty-four', not convinced why this shouldn't just be 24.
  • I feel as it is directly along side the prose, it is comparablie quantity. If not it is just my preference - WP:ORDINAL: "may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words"
    • No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oh, and I suspect it's missing a "the"...? Done
• Not sure (probably discussed) that the next version of MOTM needs to be in bold. Perhaps italics?
  • I have no idea what you are talking about. Being fairly slow today. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • You have two bold titles in the lead. I'm just wondering if the second "bold" name for the list could be better (i.e. more MOS-compliantly) done in italics? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Per MoS: "If the subject of the page has ... more than one name, ... each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance." Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Note to self: re-read MOS periodically..................... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Can you "prove" the managers who are current are, well, current? (once again, I had someone query this before on the PL hat-tricks list I did...)
  • You've said this before, but seeing as they all walked up and down the touchline for the latest Premier League fixtures three days ago I just don't see the point in raking out a source from each club website stating that they are the current managers. I waste enough time on here as it is... Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I know I know. Sorry. It annoyed me too. I just wanted to put it out there so no-one could accuse me of not passing on the message. As they say, don't shoot the stoopid TRM. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
      • No need to apologise, I thought I'd put in a bit about me knowing that this wasn't really a desire of yours. Obviously I forgot, and it made it seem as I was getting at you, which I really wasn't. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
        • No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I suppose you could change it to something unambiguous, such as "Managers who have managed in the Premier League during the 2009-10 season". As annoying as the comment was (I also fell foul of it at a recent FLC), there is a valid point; content tends to get updated less frequently once it becomes featured, and by extension "current" is that bit more likely to be out of date. WFCforLife (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
            • Unfortunately lack of updating featured content won't be a problem here, as I'm going to have to update it every month. I see the point, but if we can have "most recent recipient", why can't we have "current" whatever. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
              • There's nothing unfortunate about the list remaining up to date ;) I agree with you, I'm happy with "current", just trying to explain the other POV. WFCforLife (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Any suitable link for "caretaker manager" should it be a tricky one for non-English readers? Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Alt text comment The alt text is pretty good, but phrases such as "An upper body photograph" should not mention that the picture is a photograph; just say "The upper body of". Similarly, "A head-and-upper-torso photograph" could be "The head and upper torso of", and "A photograph of a grey haired, bald man" could be simply "A grey-haired, bald man". Dabomb87 (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - all looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 11 November 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 IMatthew 15:05, 11 November 2009 [36].

---

Luton Town F.C. league record by opponent

Nominator(s): – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 07:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 07:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

One quick point before I look in depth - I would suggest that the current title is confusing and that the word "club" should be replaced by "opponent".... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 09:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 Second paragraph of the lead says "Luton" or "Luton Town" a lot; consider some creative re-wording or pronouns. Ok. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) "first-team" → first team "First-team" is, to the best of my knowledge, the correct British usage. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) As far as I'm aware, "first-team" would only be used if the term is functioning as an adjective (e.g., "the first-team squad"). I've never seen it used in such a manner when functioning as a noun. Do you perhaps have access to a British source (like BBC or something) that would show the usage? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Note: I was just looking on BBC Sport and found several references ([37], [38], [39], and [40] to name a few) to "first team", whereas references to "first-team" ([41], [42]) all seem to be describing nouns ("first-team football", "first-team coach", etc.). Wiktionary doesn't make any mention of "first-team" as a noun either. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC) In that case, I am proven wrong. It's now changed. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC) "Luton have drawn more matches" - link "draw" to Draw (tie) Ok. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Per MOS:BOLD, don't use bold as an indicator, like it is here in the table. Ok. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Why some abandoned teams in the first column? Are they notable enough to be redlinked, even if they don't have articles yet? No, because they did not appear in fully professional leagues. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) What do the table headers mean? "P", "W", etc. Definitions given in key. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Hope these help get you started. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Sorting isn't working properly (I'm getting 83, 87, 9, 90, etc.). See Help:Sorting. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Odd, it was fine before... it was only the second and third columns respectively oddly enough, so I don't know. Oh well; I've forced these two columns. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Believe it was because of those colspans. They are good because they help the clarity of the header, but they add text to the column. Any columns containing anything that's not a pure number will sort as text, which means that 80 will come before 9, etc. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC) No space between list entry and indicator symbols. Indicator symbols at cap height, like daggers, should be superscripted to avoid crowding. This can be done with a simple find and replace. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 07:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Superscripting was done, but the spaces are still there. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC) No longer. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 12:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Eddie6705 (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Rather than saying fifth tier of Football in England, you could rearrange the sentance to say ...fifth tier of English football. You could then link either fifth tier or English football to English football league system. Ok. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Also rather than say football authorities you could just mention The FA. No, because there were two separate points deductions: 10 from The FA and 20 from The Football League. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) As KV5 says above, lots of mentions of Luton in paragraph 2. Sorted. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) And again per KV5, the abreviations need to be expanded in the key. Sorted. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Notes column doesn't need to be sortable. Ok. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) What makes Statto a reliable source? Statto's data comes from Tony Brown, whose Soccerdata company published "The Definitive Luton Town F.C." along with more than 100 similar books. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Under references, change bibliography to general, and notes to specific. Ok. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Thats all for now. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support with all comments addressed. Eddie6705 (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments I know we don't need to repeat the history of the club in detail here, but I wonder if it would make sense to state why they left the league in 1900, as it usually isn't voluntarily... Bedfordshire is overlinked. Are play-off game(s) included in this list? Maybe just worth clarifying that a "blank" in the "Last" season cell means that the league fixture is yet to be conducted this season. Otherwise excellent. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Cheers. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 10:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Comment Have a look at List of India women Test cricketers - there's a funky way (it would seem) of doing a colspan heading without messing up the sortability. Consider it for the separation of Home, Away and Total columns? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Done. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 12:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Notes column looks really silly with cells only on some lines - could it be changed so that every line has a cell in this column?
• Columns with numbers in (including seasons) should be centre-justified

Looks good other than that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Done. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 12:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - all looks alright now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Provisional support – Assuming the Statto site tis found reliable, it appears to be a very strong list. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• As stated above, the data for Statto comes from Tony Brown, a prominent British football statistician; this is confirmed here. I also said above that Tony Brown's Soccerdata company published The Definitive Luton Town F.C. and many other books of that ilk; this can be confirmed here (and his publication of The Definitive Luton Town F.C. here). – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 20:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • No one seems to be making an issue of the site, so in the absence of knowledge of soccer data sites, I'm forced to lean on the views of the others here. Switching to full support. Giants2008 (17–14) 03:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• Should the unlinked clubs (Abertillery etc} not be redlinked? Struway2 (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I've left them unlinked because I don't think they'd be notable (only ever rose as high as Southern League Second Division)... Still, what's your opinion on 'em? – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 22:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Clubs which have played in the Southern League are generally considered notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
      • As are clubs which have played in the FA Cup, which they all have, except possibly Treharris, assuming it's a different club from Treharris Athletic. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. It's done. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 08:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This FLC is flagged as still needing reviews so here are some further comments. In my view the list is largely there with just a few niggles

• You shouldn't use italics to denote the defunct clubs for both MOS and accessibility reasons. You should denote these clubs with a superscripted character (e.g. asterisk).
• The fact that you haven't wikilinked the season when a club was only an opponent in one season looks a bit odd and arguably is not correct because the column is sortable.
• Some people might quibble that their relegation last season wasn't directly due to the points deduction (i.e if they had played a bit better they could have avoided it) which the lead implies. Perhaps adding the word "largely" might be an idea.

As I said above this is almost there. Boissière (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

On the first point, OK, done. On the second, yes, the column is sortable, but it will always be next to the same season directly to its left in the "first" column, which will be linked; that is why it is as it is. Thirdly, if my memory serves, without the thirty-point deduction, Luton would have finished 15th; therefore, it was the point deductions that relegated Luton, as had they not been there, then Luton would not have been relegated. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 08:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not coming back to this sooner. I am happy with the changes made for my first point. The other two are not a big deal (for the second item I understood why it was done like that - my point was that it just looked a bit odd for occasional black seasons amongst a sea of blue - but as said it's not a big deal). Boissière (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Why are some seasons unlinked? "Win%" column needs to be explained in the key. "Luton Town Football Club is" You use singular here, but later on I see "Luton Town have" in the key. "The season given as the "last" designates the last season that included a league match between Luton Town and that side." Does last mean "final", or "most recent" (just clarify in the key). The alt text you wrote for the picture was excellent. In the future, you don't need to be quite so detailed. One thing that strikes me as unnecessary: "he is clearly the goalkeeper". Doesn't matter that it seems clear; it's unnecessary detail and can be construed as original research. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC) OK, sorted. For rationale for the unlinked seasons see above – per WP:OVERLINK, if the team has only met Luton during one season, the link isn't given twice. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Mostly good, but the singular/plural inconsistency is not sorted yet – "Luton Town Football Club is" but "Luton have", unless you are using "Club" as singular and "Luton Town" as plural? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC) I was under the impression that "Luton Town" or "Arsenal" would be plural, while "the club" or "the team" would be singular. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 07:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Hassocks5489

Comments from Hassocks – very sorry to come so late to this; I had been meaning to do a review for some time, but have only been around intermittently recently. Little is needed to improve this: as well as being very encyclopaedic and ideally suited to an online environment, this sort of list is endlessly fascinating for stat-heads like me. Did you know you have never won a home game against Wigan Athletic in five attempts, but you've won 13 of 15 against Torquay United at home? (Oh – we don't have an article on bogey team.) The ease of finding facts like that makes this very powerful. Anyway: Lead First sentence is a bit awkward; needs at least a comma after Bedfordshire, and could possibly be split into two sentences: Luton Town Football Club is an English football club based in Luton, Bedfordshire. It competes in the Conference National, the fifth tier of English football. or Luton Town Football Club is an English football club based in Luton, Bedfordshire, which competes in the Conference National, the fifth tier of English football. In my view, ...for the 2009–10 season... doesn't "work" with ...competes in..., if that makes sense. Having said that, it would be a shame to lose the link to 2009–10 in English football in the lead. Watford sentence: won the most league victories is tautologous: try won the most league matches or recorded the most league victories Key All fine there. The table itself All colours and symbols are in the right place. I would use AFC Bournemouth rather than to denote Bournemouth to denote that club, as AFCB is their official name and there is another club operating under the "Bournemouth" name (a non-league club). Sorting works correctly.

In summary, very close to being able to support. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Support – everything looks good. First sentence flows nicely with the extra comma. Nice work. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 08:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

All done, except for the first sentence in which I have merely added a comma. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 07:47, 4 November 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 IMatthew 15:05, 11 November 2009 [43].

---

World Series Most Valuable Player Award

Nominator(s): -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Second MLB award nomination. Second paragraph needs to be referenced, but I'm not that good at finding sources. Copy-edits can go directly to article. Thanks! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Support: Looks in good position, and it meets FL Criteria. Good Job.BLUE_DOG^TN 21:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Only, thing that I see that needs to be addressed is the subcaptioned part of the pictures like the first one is done. This must be accomplished by the nominator. Have a nice day.BLUE_DOG^TN 01:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Geraldk

Comment - Images along the right margin are missing alt text. Geraldk (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Finished alt text. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC) A couple more minor things: there's a missing asterisk on the 1997 color box, and the first image on the right column says that the inaugural award was 1956, but that was the second award. Geraldk (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Geraldk (talk) 00:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment regarding link changes

User:TMC1982 has changed the team links several times to link to team seasons instead of the franchise page, in opposition to consensus. I have attempted to start a discussion on the talk page, but I would appreciate the help of reviewers, as this may cause a stability issue in the article that could cause it to fail FLC. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone fixed it! :D -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment – While copy-editing, I ran across a sentence that is in no way cited by the given reference: "Eleven of the thirteen World Series MVPs to have won from 1997 onward are still active in MLB—Scott Brosius and Curt Schilling are the World Series MVPs from that period that are not currently active." If it's important to have the active players noted in the table, consider citing their Baseball-Reference pages in the table and removing the cite in the overview section. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC) The reference is just like the one for the HOFs. It doesn't show the HOFs who won the World Series MVP, but it does show the HOFs. In this case, the reference doesn't show the active players directly, but does show who is active by indicating it with a +. Sorry Geraldk, KV5, and Giants2008 for not replying so swiftly. If I do have time to edit, I'll definitely try my best to write the alt text, reply to the talk page section about team page linking, and to resolve the sourcing problem brought up by Giants2008. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC) (Sorry it took me so long to come back) It does indicate active players, but only a few of them. Most of the active players in question are not included on the page, since it is merely a brief summary. Speaking of the HOF page, I took a look at it and saw that the Hall of Famers were listed on multiple pages, with only one cited here. A full list is avaliable on one page here. Consider using this page as a replacement for ease of verification. If we can make it easier to verify a fact, why not do it if the source is of similar quality? Giants2008 (17–14) 20:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Changed BHOF ref. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Any progress on sorting out the other reference yet? Giants2008 (17–14) 00:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Too much change on the article in these past two days. How about http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/rosters/alpha/A.html? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC) If you want to use a page like this, it should be noted in the reference that the reader needs to click on the appropriate letter to verify the status of a particular player. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC) (outdent) Did your original suggestion. Hope you support already! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Support – Good list overall that meets FL standards. Once the ref fixes were made, my lone remaining concern was stability, but the page activity appears to have settled down in the last day or so. The only other thing I would suggest is that the Cole Hamels and Hideki Matsui photos be swapped to have the most recent winner in the lead. This may be the Yankees fan in me, though, so I won't withhold support over it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Staxringold

I really don't think those historical overview bits need those long long headers. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC) I didn't add them, so I don't really know how to handle this... I don't mind the huge headers, but if they bother most reviewers, then I would boldly remove them. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC) I'd say go for it. EVERY other MLB list just has that stuff in the lead. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Worth noting Larsen's perfecto was the only no-no of any kind in postseason history, not just the only perfect game. Would need a new ref, since the current one only mentions perfect games and only in the WS, but worth noting. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Where did you find this information? I think that there could be at least another no-hitter in the World Series... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC) I just know it. One bad source, a better one, another, etc. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC) The Mariano Rivera image could use a rewrite for it's caption. It was the first of two consecutive, it was the 2nd of three consecutive championship teams (98, 99, 00). Staxringold talkcontribs 01:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Changed. We have a great Schilling image, why not use {{multiple image}} for the shared RJ/Schill WS MVP? Staxringold talkcontribs 01:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Since Schilling's picture is him wearing a BoSox uniform, not a Dbacks one. But I don't know...if you want to do that, then go ahead. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Paul Molitor (1993) is the only one to have not won the World Series MVP between 1961 and 1980." What does "one" refer to here? Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Maybe an explanation of what "Mr. October" is supposed to mean? Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC) The alt text needs work: "A black-and-white picture " Phrases like this are unnecessary. "A Hispanic male wear a baseball helmet" Should be "A Hispanic male wearing a baseball helmet" Alt text should describe only things that can be verified in the image. For example, "A white male in his sixties, facing to the left of the image, wearing a Oakland Athletics cap, a blue jersey, with the lettering "FINGERS" and a number 34 below it on the back, on a grass field." is pretty good, but "Oakland Athletics cap" cannot be verified (describe the appearance of the baseball cap instead). Another example: "A gray-haired white male in his sixties, wearing a Los Angeles Dodgers uniform, sitting in the bullpen with a white fence in the background." "Los Angeles Dodgers" cannot be verified, and you don't say what kind of uniform it is. Here's a better version: "A gray-haired white male in his sixties, wearing a baseball uniform with the word "Dodgers" across it, sitting in a bullpen with a white fence in the background." Avoid trivial details: "A tanned male in his fifties wearing a PokerStars.Net cap and shirt, holding a baseball with both his hands." "PokerStars.Net" is an unnecessary detail (just say "black baseball cap" or something similar), and "with both his hands" is also unnecessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I tried my best to fix all the alt text comments. Could you be able to preview them, and fix what is left? It would be great if you do! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Will do my best to address this tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Question Is the Win–loss record really needed in the key? Couldn't this link be piped through the "record" in the stats sections where needed? --Torsodog^Talk 22:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:00, 6 November 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 IMatthew 15:05, 11 November 2009 [44].

---

Ashley Tisdale discography

Nominator(s): Decodet (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel this article has finally met the FL criteria for discographies. I nominated this article for a peer review few weeks ago and I managed to improve this article the best I could. Decodet (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Diaa

Comments Compare your list to David Bowie discography in style and format.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC) The billboard references are dead--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC) The lead should be expanded--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC) The references should be more specific, one reference for each country in the charts and not just a general reference at Chart positions.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC) expand the infobox with the relevant parameters from {{Infobox Artist Discography}} like EP= and Video= --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Create a column for the singles saying which ones got certified instead of Singles Certifications hanging around under the table--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC) The Other Work table isn't closed--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Comment: I removed dead references, expanded the lead and the infobox, put a reference for each country in the charts table, and created a column for certifications on the singles table. Thanks for your comments. Decodet (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC) You have a cite error.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Convert the external links in Albums certifications to references.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Add Alt text to the image.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Provide the General references you used for the Songs and Albums names, like all music...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC) An External link to her official site would be beneficial. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Comment: Corrected everything. Decodet (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Wikilink Certifications the first time in Studio Albums and don't in Singles.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) You should have the title column of all the tables the same width. I suggest making it wide enough to stretch "A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes" since its the longest title in the Tables.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) You have some Overlinking with the Singles Charts like Billboard hot 100 and so on. delink repetitions... Arrange the sections like the Infobox, so Extended plays comes before singles...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Other Work should be other appearances and should have a lead sentence or explanation of why it's not her album ...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Under the first certification header type (sales thresholds).--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) You don't need the EU charting in other releases, since it never charted there.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) You should have ""—" denotes releases that did not chart or were not released in that country." for the Studio Album section and make it consistent with the rest of tables.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Type out acronyms the first time their mentioned in the references.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) http://www.allmusic.com/ is generally used on most Discographies as a general reference. Could u add it here as a general reference too?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Type the author and change the date format of "Fabolous Tops Billboard 200; Jackson's "Ones" Now 2009's Second-Best Seller" reference.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Have a consistent date format of the refence so "2007-02-14" should be "February 14, 2007"--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Publisher of "Ashley Tisdale Chart Archive on Finnish Chart" should be added. I know its in the title...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Look through the references and add any missing authors dates or publishers.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Comment: Done with everything again. The AllMusic reference was already on the article as a US charts reference. Decodet (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Re-add the removed information like "(with the cast of High School Musical 3: Senior Year)" and so on... It would just go under the title of the songs...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC) The lead should be expanded maybe 2X with more information about who the heck this "Sharpay Evans" thing is and her other releases. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC) ""—" denotes the release did not chart." Sometimes it means it wasn't released. Make a distinction through a sign...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Comment: Done with everything. About the lead, I tried to expand it the best I could. Since Tisdale has not a longer career, there are not many notable and non-trivia informations to put on the lead. Thanks for your help! Decodet (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC) The image, what is she performing? Where? Please improve the alt text as if you were describing the image on the phone to someone.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Comment: Done. Decodet (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC) ""—" denotes the release did not chart." It could also be not released...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Comment: I've put that part on the table several times but someone is removing it for some reason. Restored again.Decodet (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC) In the history it says "When a released song does not enter any record charts, the reasons vary and listing all of the reasons in the tables is unnecessary since there are those releases have their own articles" so it's ok if you don't add not released..--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC) You have inconsistencies in the dates of the references. Sometimes it's "2009-07-07" other times "September 27, 2009".--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Zobbel.de isn't reliable and you misspelled the "de".--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC) You should indicate when a link is a pdf through |format=pdf The "Other appearances" section, could it be retitled to Soundtracks? Since they mostly are...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC) She perfomed in some of the soundtracks as Sharpay Evans so please indicate this...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Everything correct. About Zobbel.de: that's the only reference I've found for her peak positions in the UK. I mean, she did not reach the Top 100 with any solo release so it's difficult to find a archive for her peak positions. Decodet (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support After all the improvements and efforts the list is imo of Featured quality.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• I'll leave the reliability of Zobbel.de for other reviewers to comment about.

1. What's the difference between singles and other appearances? Shouldn' "Kiss the Girl", "Headstrong" and "Overrated" be in the Singles table? The same goes for Sharpay Evans section.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: "Headstrong" and "Overrated" are not official singles. The first one was released as a radio promo and the second as a digital promo. "Kiss the Girl" is a soundtrack single but it's not one of her main singles. Decodet (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please indicate this in the list somehow. Either through a note or an intro sentence... Why are the notes over sharpay Evans? Why not after it?

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate IRMA.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Done. Decodet (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• What makes aCharts a reliable source?
• If "He Said She Said" was never released, why is it included in the discography? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments: aCharts is a good archive for multiple charts according to WP:CHARTS. About "He Said She Said", just removed it from the videography section. Apparently someone added it yesterday and I did not note it. Decodet (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Acharts is usually discouraged, due to their publishing of multiple deprecated charts and lack of third party coverage. For Australia, use http://australian-charts.com/ and for Ireland use http://irish-charts.com/. Simple to change. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 02:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What's the status on this? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Kiac (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Opening sentence doesn't include her EPs or video albums. "As Sharpay Evans", why aren't these included in the infobox? 'Billboard 200, - why the '? "in its first week" need to clarify which "it" you're talking about. "certified single" - needs clarification for non-music experts, or at least a link to music certification or whatever is most pertinent. Singles table appears to be in expanded font size. Why? Remove spaces between refs and text/punc. Why do notes go [A] [B] [C] then [*]? US or U.S.? Any reason why [D] comes before [C]? And where's [B] gone? This is categorised as a videography but the title is discography. Problems here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Done. Decodet (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Not quite. Notes moved out below... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC) ""—" denotes that the release did not chart." - can you prove that it was actually released in each of those situations but did not chart? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Why are her compilation appearances not shown in the infobox? Music videos table is missing some lines on the right hand side. Videos are pretty much unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Done, thanks. Decodet (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Not quite. Those you've done I've capped, those you haven't I haven't. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC) I guess you're talking about the music videos. Some of the videos have unknown directors. About references, I didn't find any, only to "It's Alright, It's OK". For example, MTV does not list the director for "He Said She Said" and "Not Like That"/"Suddenly" videos are not available on the site but the Scott Speer is confirmed as the director of the three videos in her documentary DVD. But I'm still trying to find reliable references. Decodet (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC) No, I'm talking about all the comments I haven't hidden, for instance, the key which says releases that didn't chart. I don't see any proof anywhere of releases that didn't chart. Perhaps they weren't released at all? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Ok, I understood. I've put ""—" denotes albums that did not chart or were not released in that territory.". I guess it's better and more detailed. Her compilation appearances are freatured as 'Soundtracks' in the infobox and her videos are referenced. Thanks. Decodet (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 13:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments "she recorded several tracks for Disney compilations albums" - What are Disney compilations albums? "Her second studio album, Guilty Pleasure" - Add a comma here. "in the US on July 28, 2009, the album debuted at" - Make it "in the US on July 28, 2009. The album debuted at". "was first released in June 2009 and was released in the US on July 28, 2009" - Where was it released in June 2009? "was first released in June 2009 in some European countries" - That seems a bit vague. Goodraise 15:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC) But the album was released in June in UK, Spain, Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Denmark, Irland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland and Hungary. I think it's an extensive list to cite all. Decodet (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC) I see. If it's that many, then perhaps substitute "some" with "several". It sounds less lax. Goodraise 18:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Done, thanks. I guess everything is solved? Decodet (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC) "Album details" would appear to be a better column descrition than "Album". What about the same column in the extended play section's table? Goodraise 15:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Done. Decodet (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC) No references are provided for the "Album" columns. Several sections are completely unreferenced. What is a featured video? "Tisdale made guest appearances in few music videos of other artists." - Why don't you say "in two music videos"? Is the exact number unknown? Goodraise 15:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Done. Decodet (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC) What makes aCharts a reliable source? Because of these issues, I have to oppose this nomination at this time. Goodraise 10:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Comments : About several sections being unreferenced, there are general references in the references list which proves albums release dates, compilation albums appearances and singles releases. About aCharts, it was replaced with reliable references. I worked out in most of your issues. Thanks for your review. Decodet (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Right... Forgot about the general references. My mistake. Goodraise 15:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Not all references provide a publisher. (Providing the name of the website/work is no substitute for providing the name of the publishing entity.) Goodraise 10:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Provided publishers for all references. Decodet (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC) There's still several missing a publisher or using an incorrect one. (For example: The publisher of ref. 24 should be Hung Medien and the publisher of ref. 32 should be Warner Bros.) Goodraise 00:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Yes, you're right, I noticed few with incorrect publishers. I corrected all I've noticited. Did I miss something? Thanks. Decodet (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC) There's still more to be done. I stopped fixing them after finding three. Goodraise 12:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Found four and fixed them. I check every single reference and now I guess it's everything OK because I did not notice anything. Decodet (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Reference 30 provides too little information. I'm not used to use that kind of reference so what do you thing is missing? Decodet (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC) It appears to be some sort of video. The documentaion of Template:Cite video may be of help. Goodraise 19:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Decodet (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC) The name Billboard is inconsistently italicized. Fixed. Decodet (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Some of the references give content descrpitions instead of their actual titles. I didn't know we have to use their actual titles, sorry. But some of them are not specific. Example: Ref 25 title is "swedishcharts.com - Swedish Charts Portal". Is that what we really have to use? Decodet (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC) You don't have to use what is given in html between <title> and </title>, but giving a discription and placing it in quotation marks isn't acceptable. For that particular reference I'd use "Search for: Ashley Tisdale" or simply "Ashley Tisdale" (changing capitalization is fine by the way). Goodraise 19:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC) I fixed the references as what I understood from what you've said. Are them really fixed or they still with mistakes? Decodet (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Non-English references aren't marked as such. Fixed. Decodet (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Goodraise 12:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC) What makes Chart Stats a reliable source? Goodraise 12:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC) I guess WP:CHARTS says Chart Stats is a good archive for UK chart. Decodet (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Sorry, but that's no answer to my question. (If you don't know how to respond, try reading this.) Goodraise 19:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC) OK, I read the entire article. Chart Stats is the only site I've found for Tisdale's chart history as Sharpay Evans in UK charts. If you think this reference is not reliable enough to be used in featured article,, I can easily remove it as well the peak positions. I'm going to try to find another reference meanwhile. Decodet (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC) It's not that I think that it's not reliable. It's that I can't tell why it would be. I've just taken a closer look and found that the three references that give The Official Charts Company as publisher link to websites that don't appear to be published by that company. Please provide the correct publishers of those websites and (if not obvious from the publisher) explain what makes them reliable sources. Goodraise 20:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Those sites are archives of the UK chart published by The Official Chart Company, since the main site does not archive it. I guess they are reliable because they are the only archives I've found for UK chart. Also, I checked few featured discographies and all of them uses Chart-Stats as the UK archive. I know it's not a good reason but that made me think it's reliable. So, should I put 'Charts-Stats' and 'Zobbel' as the publishers? Decodet (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC) No, the publisher of the website named Zobble would be Tobias Zywietz. As for Chart Stats, I can't tell who is the publisher of that site. Anyways, let me make this clear: I'm not saying that those sites are unreliable sources. It's just that I can't give this nomination my support until I understand why these sources should be considered reliable. Goodraise 21:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Chart-Stats cites their sources for all archive. I guess it's fine to use that one but since it only archives the Top 100 (and most of Tisdale's entries are #100-#200), I tried to find an alternate archive and I found Zobbie. Also, I'm actually used to follow the full UK charts every week in some forums and these two sites show the same positions I've seen in forums. I'm not 100% if they are reliable or not, but I guess their pages about Tisdale chart history are at least reliable. Decodet (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Chartstats.com is clearly an amateur site, and is used as a convenience link. The problem is that the official site, www.theofficialcharts.com, doesn't provide reasonable archiving: it has slightly less than two years of data available, and, since it provides no search facility by artist, has no method of sourcing a discography column: each and every peak needs an independent link to substantiate it, and all of those links go dead in 100 weeks or less. In fact, it doesn't source peaks at all: a link to a song with a given number on a given week doesn't source the concept that it wasn't higher on a different week. Because of that, I can't describe the use of chartstats.com as ideal, but it seems to be the best of a group of bad choices. None of the other archives are better in terms of having a recognized publisher, and the only archive that is published by a recognizable publisher isn't usable. In terms of being reliable in the traditional sense of "can be trusted to provide accurate information", I'm not aware of any problems with chartstats.com. Zobbel has its own set of minor problems, primarily in that it mingles multiple album charts: the rankings for compilation albums can't be distinguished from the rankings for standard albums, and the user of the database has to remain aware of what chart the album qualified for before quoting the rank. I don't think that issue would affect this article. That chart confusion is the primary reason I've never added Zobbel to WP:GOODCHARTS, and no one else seems to have felt compelled to add it. I don't think it would be reasonable to deny this article FL status solely on the basis of using Zobbel. Decodet's reasons to use it are sound, and he doesn't have a feasible alternative that I'm aware of.—Kww(talk) 22:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC) This is way out of my normal area of editing, so please excuse if this is a stupid question, but are there no print sources listing this kind of information? In any case, not opposing is the best I can do for an article using sub-standard sources. Sorry. Goodraise 18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC) I don't think UK chart is published in any print source such as a magazine or newspaper. I think it's only published online. Decodet (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Please see my answer at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Ne-Yo discography/archive2, where this same issue has been raised.—Kww(talk) 00:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC) As you have said on that link, I guess it would be really difficult to find the number of the issue, the exact page, article, etc...and we would have to do that for each charted song (and some of them charted few years ago).Honestly, I don't think Charts-Stats can be easily replaced. I guess it's the best source for UK charts, since it's used in most discography articles. Decodet (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC) After going over the current versions of WP:V and WP:RS, I find myself back at my original position. The websites do not seem to fit the definition of reliable sources as given by said pages. To quote policy, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Using decent sources is the least I expect of "our very best work". Goodraise 02:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC) At this time, I have to oppose this nomination, mainly because of sourcing issues. Goodraise 02:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I guess there is nothing I can do to change your decision. But I've been searching and tons of featured discographies uses Chart-Stats as the main reference for UK charts. Rihanna discography, Duffy discography, Hilary Duff discography, P!nk discography, The Ting Tings discography, Tokio Hotel discography, Ashlee Simpson discography, Depeche Mode discography, Eminem discography, George Michael discography, KT Tunstall discography, Lily Allen discography, M.I.A. discography, Nirvana discography and Yeah Yeah Yeahs discography are some of them which I can use as examples. Decodet (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Even if 200 featured lists used the source, it would still fail WP:V and WP:RS. That's all that matters. Goodraise 03:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC) You obviously have the right to oppose, but I will point out that I think you are using the letter of the policy to defeat its spirit. Decodet could go through the effort of sourcing each of these chart positions to an individual physical copy of Music Week, and your argument would disappear, because Music Week is an unimpeachable source in respect to the British music industry. In the course of doing so, he would have taken references that are trivially simple to verify and converted them into references that can only be verified by people with access to physical copies of the magazine. Making information more difficult to verify isn't the point.—Kww(talk) 03:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Right now, the information is impossible to verify using the sources given. Why should I (or any reader of this prospective featured list) trust this no-name source? My oppose is perfectly in line not only with the letter of our policy, but also with what I think is its spirit. Goodraise 03:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC) sorry to butt-in. but does this mean you are going to go through every other feature list discography that uses it and nominate them for removal because they use it? because at this rate not a single discography will be able to include uk chart information Mister sparky (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Don't worry, your bronze stars have nothing to fear from me. All I want is to improve the encyclopedia. (However, if a discography is up for FLRC anyways...) Goodraise 14:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Done: Switched Charts-Status.com and Zobbel references for physical references of ChartsPlus journal, which publishes weekly the full UK chart. The official site helped me with the issues numbers. Decodet (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Goodraise 13:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Still missing two video directors.
• That table is formatted incorrectly (missing one cell).
• 2006 featured video is not referenced anywhere.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There are no known directors for "Kiss the Girl" and "Be Good to Me German version", so I've put "Unknown" in the director table. I did not find any reference for the 2006 featutred video. All I've found is the video itself in some not-reliable sources, such as Youtube. About the table, I did not find out what's incorrect with it. Decodet (talk) 23:27, 31 October 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 IMatthew 16:47, 7 November 2009 [45].

---

List of 125cc Motorcycle World Champions

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that is close to being at Featured list standard. NapHit (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments The point system mentioned at the prose is the current point system. I believe that in the older years the point system were different. I haven't had time to confirm this and find a reference, but I think it should be noted that the point systems weren't always the same. Other than that, it's a great list, good job on completing the list of champions to complement the previous FLs (250cc and MotoGP). — Martin tamb (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorted this, added a sentence to clarify. Thanks for the shout-out, still got the 350cc, and 50/80cc to come yet, as well as an overall list of winners. NapHit (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Great list, meets FL criteria. — Martin tamb (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Alt text while limited looks good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• "historically, there have been a number of different points system's." Remove apostrophe from last word.
• Why is there an empty Refs column in the table? Having a large empty row makes the appearance less appealing. Giants2008 (17–14) 16:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Done NapHit (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Support – Other than the couple of addressed comments, I found the list to be very good when I first read it. With no further comments, I see no reason not to support. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Made a few tweaks, but otherwise another good list motorcycling racing list. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Nice. I only noticed one thing, and that was "Great Britain riders". It just sounds wrong, but I'm not sure if it is. "Riders from Great Britain" is ok though. Support Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Is there a reason why Gilera aren't included in the constructors table?
• I count 14 individual Italian winners, lead and table say 13.
• The key may need some clarification that the rider won the other championship in the same season.

--Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 17:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I count 13, done the other requests. NapHit (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I also count 14 individual Italian winners (Bianchi, Cadalora, Capirossi, Dovizioso, Gramigni, Gresini, Lazzarini, Locatelli, Pagani, Pileri, Provini, Rossi, Ruffo and Ubbiali), fixed the lead and the table. — Martin tamb (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Slightly confused - you say that sidecar is discontinued but then link it to Superside which, as far as I can tell, is very much not discontinued. Would a link direct to sidecar be more appropriate? "125cc is the class in which young riders first participate in Grand Prix motorcycle racing. "125cc" refers to ..." Two sentences starting like this is not brilliant prose, and it looks even odder since one of the two 125cc's is in quote marks "Grand Prix Road-Racing World Championship" is this the formal name of the championship? It's only mentioned once. If it is the formal name then perhaps it should appear earlier in the lead. It is the official name of the championship, but I don't think it needs to be mentioned earlier seeing as before it is mentioned talks about the sport in general not the championship itself. NapHit (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC) "The driver's championship and constructor's championship are separate championships..." do we need that last (and third in the sentence) "championship"? Or could you remove the first one? "Results from all Grands Prix count towards the championships; in the past, only a certain number of results were counted." You should make it clear that the first part o the sentence is relevant to the championship today. 80cc is in the table but not mentioned in the lead at all. "Each link goes to the article ..." - "Each year is linked to the article..."? Worth being clear what "margin" means. And perhaps note in the lead who won with the largest margin. Do you mean "rider" instead of "driver" in the Multiple winners and By nationality tables? That note needs some context, date, referencing. Ref 3 has odd spelling of January. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Done all requests. NapHit (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment – Just a minor comment, are Morbidelli and MBA the same constructors? Perhaps a note should explain why are they considered the same constructor or a note that explains Morbidelli's total win of 5 includes 2 wins as MBA. — Martin tamb (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Or probably you should split MBA and Morbidelli as two separate constructors, Morbidelli with 3 wins and MBA with 2 wins. From Morbidelli's article, it mentions that MBA (Morbidelli-Benelli-Armi) bikes was produced in a separate factory and was helped by Benelli. In my opinion, they were two different companies producing different bikes. MBA was more like a joint venture between Morbidelli and Benelli. — Martin tamb (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've split Morbidelli and MBA win totals, because all the reference I found does not recognize them as the same constructor. — Martin tamb (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Support, seems to be a well constructed list, also well researched, no obvious blatant errors that I can see. --Lightlowemon (talk) 04:13, 2 November 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 IMatthew 16:47, 7 November 2009 [46].

---

Timeline of the 1987 Atlantic hurricane season

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Jason Rees (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am re-nominating this for featured list because it meets all FL criteria and all concerns from the previous nomination have been addressed. In regards to the discussion on the HURDAT source, there is an article available on reading it located here. All comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Geraldk

Comment - What's the point of the "preceded by" and "followed by" box at the bottom of the page if it does not list to the preceding and following articles? Geraldk (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC) It generally does link to the preceeding and following years timeline, and there is talk of 1988 AHS getting a timeline though i believe nothings been done yet.Jason Rees (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC) The 1988 AHS does have a timeline, I've linked it in the box Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Also, where in the article is the explanation of HURDAT data listed or linked? From a readers perspective, it would make sense for the references that use it to have a note explaining what the data is that they will see and a wikilink to an explanation of it. Geraldk (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC) I believe it is linked to the references using Hurdat though ill doublecheck that later.Jason Rees (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Added a link specific reference just after the first use of the HURDAT reference. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 "The 1987 Atlantic hurricane season was a below-average season" - needs a reference; I don't know, and many readers will not, what an "average" or "below-average" season is. "making the 1987 season the fourth to do so since 1967." - wording is awkward, and should also have a reference Both are referenced by the reference at the end of the paragraph i would put Refname there but ive been shouted at by a certain JC on IRC and told its redudant. I think theres an article explaing what an average season etc is so ill find it and wikilink it.Jason Rees (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC) I don't know what a JC is, and I don't use IRC, but WP:V says that any statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged need a citation. The first one isn't being challenged, per se; it's just a matter of knowing if the facts are legitimate. The second one is being challenged, so it needs support. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Wow thats a rarety some one who doesnt know who User:Juliancolton is. Anyway im digressing as i said it appears they are both sourced to the first source in the article, which is the seasonal summuary written by the hurricane specialists after the season.Jason Rees (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC) I know who Juliancolton is; I've just never heard him called that before. JC is someone else to me, and I don't think He uses IRC. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Ah right anyway lets not digrese :). "a pre-season storm, Tropical Depression One, led to the season's starting on May 25" - reads awkwardly to me; suggest a pre-season storm, Tropical Depression One, opened the season early on May 25 Reason why the "related article" is in a box instead of a hatnote? I think both a hatnote and a related article box is redundant now sicne its linked to in the first sentance - i will take them out later.Jason Rees (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC) October 10 is missing a local time. Sorted Jason Rees (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC) I think me and CB have caught evreything but if not let us know ASAP. Jason Rees (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment The images need alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless im going blind they all have it.Jason Rees (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You apparently are going blind, most didn't have it :P I've added the alt text to all images now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Check the alt text link in the toolbox one more time. The Hurricane Emily pic does not have alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I was asked to look at the satellite images' alt text. It looks good, except please omit repetition of the caption and/or details that a nonexpert won't know (typically these are the same thing). The phrases I saw that need removal from alt text are "Tropical Storm Dennis" and "Hurricane Arlene". Eubulides (talk) 05:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Support I'm comfortable supporting now. A couple minor notes, though. For the June subsection, it's a little odd that the explanation that there was no activity looks like it's in the June 1 sub-sub-section. I don't know if there's anyway to fix that within the bounds of your project's syntax for these timelines, but wanted to point it out. Also, I can't figure out why, but in the wikilink to HURDAT in the ref, the preceding parenthesis is part of the title link, rather than simply enclosing the link, such that the title reads, "Atlantic Hurricane Best Track Database (". Anyone know how to fix that? Geraldk (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)

• File:Eye of Hurricane Emily 1987.jpg requires alt text.
• Ref. 4 is not actually a reference. Remove it or incorporate it into the article in another way.

Image licensing seems fine. Sources look good. Goodraise 17:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Added the alt text and changed ref. 4 to a note. Thanks for the review Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The 1987 Atlantic hurricane season was a below-average season" - What does that mean?
• "This season had fourteen tropical" - Make it "The season had fourteen tropical"
• A few more internal links would be nice in the lead.

Goodraise 17:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Links added, specified what a below average season is and made the minor fix Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Image licensing and alt text seems fine. Sources look good. I can support this nomination. Good work. Goodraise 18:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
" - swap pipe for semi-colon! Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC) "Exact time unknown" - no need for small font, just less accessible. Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Otherwise very good. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the review Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "$80.3 million (1987 USD, $154.2 million in 2009 USD)" Use {{inflation}} instead so that you don't have to constantly update this figure.

I cant figure out how to add it in and make it look tidyJason Rees (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Added the template Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• AST needs a link in the timeline. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

its already linked Jason Rees (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:13, 31 October 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 Dabomb87 15:34, 7 November 2009 [47].

---

Major League Baseball Comeback Player of the Year Award

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I was sitting on this nomination for a little while given the FLC nomination freeze, but Dabomb has now lifted that (hence my starting this up while 30 Rock (season 3) is still going). Yes it is a short list with only 10 award winners so far, but IMO it meets all the criteria including comprehensiveness. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5
Toolbox comments from KV5 2 dablinks: Aaron Hill and Depression. Fixed. I caught one Aaron Hill link but missed that 2nd one. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC) ELs all fine. I won't comment much on the quality of the alt text, but it's there; someone who knows better can check it out. Will return with more later. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24

Comment - Could explain more about the voting process. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC) A reply would be much appreciated. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Whoops, sorry about that. I'm not sure what else to expand on. The candidates are named and a fan vote names the winner. What would you like added? Staxringold talkcontribs 00:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC) According to this MLB source, it says that "The 30 Club beat reporters from MLB.com, [and] the official website of Major League Baseball" are the voters, not the fans. Also on this other MLB source, from looking at the voting numbers, it appears that 1st place votes are 5 points, 2nd place is 3 points, and 3rd place is one. Huh! To reply to the message you left on my talk page, it's okay, as long as the matter will be resolved. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Wow, weird, it was definitely a fan vote originally. I'll fix that section up. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC) There we go, fixed. I really do apologize. As far as I can tell the 05 and 06 awards were clearly fan vote and the 08 and 09 awards clearly with this voting structure. The 07 awards are the only unclear one currently, as the two comeback winner articles focus more on the Players' Choice Award than this. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Woot, found the source. 05-06 was fan vote, 07-current is the beat reporter vote. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Would probably comment again tomorrow (no school tomorrow!). Thanks for fixing up the voting section! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Support -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 02:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments – The quote in the first sentence is crying out for a cite. Done, it's the same first cite but I'll stick it on again just to be clear. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) For the first entry in the table, link the word batting to batting average for the benefit of non-baseball fans. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Carlos Pena: "and was released on August 16th, 2006." Drop "th" in the date. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) "and won the Rays first Silver Slugger Award." Apostrophe needed at end of Rays. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Cliff Lee: "going 22–3 with a 2.54 ERA and won the Cy Young Award." In this sentence structure, "won" should be "winning" instead. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Nomar Garciaparra: Another th to remove in August 5th. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Chris Carpenter: Dash needed for won–loss record. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) The National League table sorting for name is sorting by first name, not the usual last name. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Done. Dunno why it didn't have sortname. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Support – Meets FL standards after the fixes. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - no major issues that I see. —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Images: Licensing looks fine and alt text is provided. Goodraise 01:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Sources: Sources are formated properly and seem to be reliable. Goodraise 02:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 05:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs) What is a "shortstop"? Linked. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) What is "fielding"? We have no article on it. If this was a serious question, not just a request for a link, it's the act of a defensive player (fielder) going after a ball to try and get an out. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) It wasn't a "serious question" or a request for a link. It's an accessibility issue of the article. Goodraise 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Well what else can I do? I'll link to this article, but you can only link to so many things. Yes, it would be useful to know what "fielding" is when reading about baseball. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC) What is a "fly ball"? Linked. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "hitting ... 108 runs batted in" - This seems grammatically incorrect. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "and made the 2009 All-Star Game" - Does that mean he played in it? Yes. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "He also underwent major hamstring surgery in August 2004 having torn it from the bone, appearing in 83 games in the 2004 season." - This sentence appears to try to say too much. I don't understand it. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) More later. Goodraise 03:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "pleading guilty to assaulting his girlfriend." - Does that mean he was on trial? As the NYT article says "[he] pleaded guilty to assaulting his girlfriend by choking, bruising and scratching her and tearing out clumps of her hair." Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "and was elected to the 2007 All-Star Game" - That means he played in it, right? Yes. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "converted 41 saves in 41 chances" - What does that mean? Linked saves and save situations. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "First place votes are worth five points, second ..." - This is too abrupt a change in the line of thought from the previous sentence. Touched up to connect to the discussion of the two voting styles. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "Six players were elected to the Major League Baseball All-Star Game" - They were elected to play in it, right? This goes to your other two posts as well. GENERALLY you play in the ASG when elected. I'm not sure, but I believe all these elected All Stars played, yes. But the sourcing I provide is simply to the ELECTION to the ASG, because that is what indicates some level of performance (being elected president shows your popularity, even if you are shot the day before election day and never actually serve as president). Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) This goes for the other two cases as well. I don't have an issue with what you say, but how. They were't elected to a baseball game, they were elected to play in a baseball game. Goodraise 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Ah, but no, they were elected to the game. There is absolutely no guarantee, other than for the starters (and even they can get injured and replaced) that you will play in the All-Star game. Your election just gets you there, it's the game managers who get you in. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC) We're talking past each other here. "Six players were elected to the Major League Baseball All-Star Game" makes no sense. They don't become the game, they only play in it. This has nothing to do with whether they actually get to play. Goodraise 00:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC) But that's what I'm saying. They aren't necessarily elected to play. They are elected to the game. The same way you are elected to the presidency, but whether or not you actually serve depends on your surviving to inauguration day. I assume the sentence you'd rather see is "Six players were elected to play in the Major League Baseball..." but that would simply be an overgeneralization. Albert Pujols didn't play in the 07 All-Star Game, he's the best player in baseball, and his own team's manager was the NL ASG manager. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC) "They are elected to the game." What does that mean? Goodraise 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC) They are on the roster, available to the in-game managers, and will forever be known as a 19XX/2XXX All-Star. Again, Albert Pujols was named an All-Star in 2007 but did not play one single inning offensively or defensively. The honor is in the title, the playing is a whole other thing. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I see. That needs to be clarified to the reader. Goodraise 02:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Not to sound sarcastic or anything, but should I define baseball as well? This simply isn't confusing as a reader. Six players were elected as All-Stars. Period. That is a fact. If you want to get into the eccentric details of the All-Star game that belongs at those articles, not here. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC) If you write the sentence "Six players were elected as All-Stars." into the article, then you have to explain what an All-Star is or at the very least link it. Anyone familiar with baseball may know what an All-Star is, but our articles shouldn't assume that much knowledge on the part of the reader. Goodraise 02:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Major League Baseball All-Star Game is linked. And I changed it slightly to "named" since not All-Stars are elected (the managers name some). Staxringold talkcontribs 03:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC) With this, we're back at square one. A person can't be named or elected to a game. It doesn't make sense. They aren't baseball games, they're baseball players. Goodraise 03:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC) ...Yes they can be... "Named to the All-Star Game" returns 5.8 million hits on Google. I can change it to "Named to the All-Star team" if you want, but you absolutely can be named to a game, just like being named to a committee even if you aren't a committee yourself. There's a "to" in there, it's not saying they are named an All-Star Game, it's that they are named to it. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I never doubted that, among baseball savvy people, it is common to say so, but to me, as someone who isn't, the phrase sounds plain wrong. As for your suggestion, that would be acceptable, as long as "All-Star team" is explained and/or linked. Goodraise 04:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Done and done. This may have been my longest indent ever. :p Staxringold talkcontribs 04:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC) "Carpenter (NL) and Hill (AL)." - Could you convert this construct to prose? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Why are the positions given in acronyms? This is a common practice on all the baseball lists to keep the tables uniform sized without wasted space. The alternative is a "key" for the acronyms with the links at the top, but it's larger, messier, and for a table this size a key looks rather silly. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) It's in violation of the MOS. Goodraise 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Huh? And I quote directly from WP:MOS#Acronyms and Abbreviations: "it may be useful for reducing the width of an infobox or a table of data." That's precisely what is being done here and being done in dozens of other articles. Like I said, I can add a key if you want but it seems very odd. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC) The MOS says to "[w]rite out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence", which the article doesn't. I'd also like to stress the may in your quote. Using acronyms for width reduction is not warranted in this case. Goodraise 00:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I went ahead and did it. I understand, as you said in the Family Guy season 5 FLC, "The name of this page isn't Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/every Featured List in the Simpsons series/archive1," but at some point it becomes silly. Plenty of lists have used this abbreviation style. 00:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Following the MOS is silly? I beg to differ. Goodraise 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC) The MOS explicitly says the way it was was fine. I changed it to make you happy, but I quoted direct policy from the MOS page that speaks to this issue going to other way. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC) "The MOS explicitly says the way it was was fine." I assume you mean the passage "it may be useful for reducing the width of an infobox or a table of data"? This does not mean that you don't have to "[w]rite out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence" nor does it mean that it's generally fine to use abbreviations in tables. Goodraise 02:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC) So the MOS directly stating it may be useful to abbreviate in tables doesn't mean one can? Whatever, it's been changed. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC) That's right. The law may state that it's sometimes fine to shoot people, that doesn't mean I can run around doing it. If the MOS states that "it may be useful for reducing the width of an infobox or a table of data", then that means that "it may be useful for reducing the width of an infobox or a table of data", nothing less and nothing more. Goodraise 02:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC) But this is the stated situation (in your example a case of self-defense where you can shoot someone), it reduces the width of a table of data. What is a situation where you see such abbreviations as acceptable? Staxringold talkcontribs 03:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Okay, lets assume for a second that it was the stated situation, then the sentence "it may be useful for reducing the width of an infobox or a table of data" still doesn't free you of the need to "[w]rite out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence", which could happen in the prose preceeding the table. It is only an exception from the general rule not to use abbreviations when they aren't necessary. Goodraise 03:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Oppose for now. Goodraise 12:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC) I've stricken my oppose. Will give a new recommendation once I get the chance go over the article again. (I'm a bit busy right now.) Goodraise 23:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Weak oppose for now. Goodraise 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC) One more comment: The position columns currently differ in width. Goodraise 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Fixed, for some reason it decided to copy my early guess of 14% rather than the 9% I set for the final size. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It is my pleasure to support this nomination. Goodraise 05:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments "most overall points" - "most points overall"? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC) What do they actually win? The award. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Any money? A trophy? Or is it just the title? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Prize money and trophies are not mentioned in any of the press releases. I doubt there's any real "prize" (that's not common with baseball awards), and as for a trophy if there is one I can't find any sourceable info on it (even in the official MLB press releases on the award). Staxringold talkcontribs 19:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "Six players were elected to the..." do you mean six winners of this award were elected... because "in their winning season" could mean something very different... I mean in their award winning season, fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "an intestinal parasite" - just the one? Perhaps "an intestinal parasite infection"? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "in just 80 games" to non-baseball players that's a lot of games. Perhaps you could lose the only and add a "out of a possible x games" instead to give us all the context? Apply this to other instances of the "just x games"... Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "was traded to the White Sox" by whom? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC) First instance of Tigers, spell out Detroit Tigers (once again, for us knuckle-head no-knowledge types) - once again, apply this to other instances of just the nicknames... Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC) The software engineer in me is screaming out about the two-digit year format you have in your references.. any chance you'd change them to include the century? Just for me? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed to avoid Y3K problems. :) Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Note MM-DD-YYYY is not a format used on Wikipedia; please use YYYY-MM-DD or a format with the month spelled out. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• WP:CITE#HOW: "There are a number of citation styles. They all include the same information but vary in punctuation and the order of the author's name, publication date, title, and page numbers. Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as each article is internally consistent." Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• WP:DATE#Dates: "YYYY-MM-DD style dates (1976-05-31) are uncommon in English prose." I find absolutely no policy that says what you are saying. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That citation style note doesn't really apply here, except for consistency. I was referring to the references, which are not prose. "11-01-2009" is a prime example of why we don't use these formats (is it November 1 or 11 January?), because they are ambiguous.
  • Also, see "Do not use date formats such as 03/04/2005, as they are ambiguous (it could refer to 3 April or to March 4)." This applies here, as MM-DD-YYYY is the same as MM/DD/YYYY (or DD/MM/YYYY), but with hyphens instead of slashes. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• How is YYYY-MM-DD any less ambiguous on those dates than MM-DD-YYYY. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Regardless, I changed the style. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Why no ref in the second paragraph?

• For all these baseball lists, information that in the lead simply summing up what's said in the table generally isn't ref'd. I'll find one for the Carpenter 04 Comeback win, though.

• Why no lead image?

• What would it be? I know of no trophy (and certainly no trophy image) and all the winners are listed below. If someone had an image of one of the players clearly pre-Comeback (like when sent down to a minor league team or walking off the field injured or something) that might be useful, but beyond that dunno what to use. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Why do the ESPN refs say "ESPN" twice in a row?

• They don't, one is the work and one is the publisher. This is Goodraise's work. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Major League Baseball" and "ESPN" only need to be linked once in the refs.

• This is how I've done up several baseball lists before it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it's right. BUC (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• No, it doesn't but why not err on the side of slightly overlinking so someone browsing the site can easily check up on the refs rather than underlink and cut into that simplicity? Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• There's no right way, as long as it's consistent. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure if this list is long enough to be a FL. But if it has gotten this far in prob is.

• WP:FL? criteria 3 (Comprehensiveness) requires only that the list "comprehensively covers the defined scope" (which it does) and "meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists" (which it does). Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• For example, List of Arizona Diamondbacks Opening Day starting pitchers or List of Tampa Bay Rays seasons. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• "and won the Rays' first" weren't they still the Devil Rays back then?

• Right you are, fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW "sponsorship agreement between MLB and Viagra" lol is that because the winners are generally old! BUC (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's partially a play on the term "comeback". Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:03, 1 November 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 Dabomb87 15:34, 7 November 2009 [48].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Virender Sehwag

Nominator(s): Abeer.ag (talk), Hometech

I am nominating this for featured list because it certainly meets the FLC criteria. Its been in FLC before but failed to pass because of lack of reviews. Abeer.ag (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Prose is like a bunch of dot points strewn together, particular with the repeated "He/His" sentence starts. Also the 201 in Galle needs a special mention, as it was named the Wisden Performance of the year, and carrying his bat, which broke some record(s). Also, is it uncommon to have only 3 victories in 15 centuries? This may be a reflection of most of them being on pretty flat pitches, or India's bowling being toothless (usually both) resulting in a stack of draws. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• What should I say about the Galle innings?

As long as there are citations for that :P SGGH ^ping! 10:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

CEntury on debut? Only one century in the second innings, none in runchases. Why is this disparity not mentioned? It's a very famous part of Sehwag's record. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• • He has 3 centuries in innings 3 or 4. Its not really that relevant mentioning victories I guess. And I do say "In 2001, he became the eleventh Indian player to score a century on Test debut, with 105 runs against South Africa"

Also, didn't he break a few records for hitting a lot of fours and sixes in some of these triple centuries?? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, doesn't he have the highest % of boundaries out of modern players? Or something along those lines. One series 5 years ago he scored 80% of runs from fours. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Its very hard to cite facts like that: [49] is the only link I could find, and it dosen't mention anything particularly notable.

Thanks For you comments. Abeer.ag (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • Opening sentence is, well, so practical that it is flat.
    • It might be basic, but it introduces the topic so non-cricket readers are not immersed in cricket terminology from the start. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it without adding any more terms. SGGH ^ping! 13:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• • The lead has too many choppy sentences, and not enough flow.
  • The lead does have good information, however.
    • I know.. I tried to fix it earlier as well, and this is the best I could do.
  • Of the tables, why is there no column for which Test of Sehwag's career it was? i.e. 5th Test, 23rd Test etc. I would have thought this would be useful information, helping to show particular runs of form or drought, and how many consecutive centuries there are.
    • The dates for the Tests are mentioned
  • I think an article on his centuries should perhaps have a shade more information on the man's career debut date, the date of his first century in the lead, things like that.
    • I menton " In 2001, he became the eleventh Indian player to score a century on Test debut, with 105 runs against South Africa"
  • Also, please replace the external link with {{cricinfo|ref=india/content/player/35263.html|name=Virender Sehwag}} ***Done SGGH^ping! 10:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank You for you comments. Abeer.ag (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorted. Cheers. SGGH ^ping! 13:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments - *You could probably say how he has scored 150+ in his last eight or so centuries (I think). You'll need to find a source though. Aaroncrick (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• • I do say that: "His last 11 centuries have been scores of 150 or greater, a record for the most consecutive hundreds of over 150."
• "He has been dismissed three times between 90 and 100 runs, and has made five scores of 200 runs or more, the most by an Indian opener, of which a record three have come against Pakistan." Is the sentence a bit long? Aaroncrick (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That part of the lead has gone through several edits, and that was found to be the best way to say that. Abeer.ag (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment – Tough one to review. There are no major faults that I can find, but I also notice the choppy nature of the lead. It's difficult to offer solid advice on this, but mixing up the beginnings of more sentences may help. Also, I wish the alt text for the graph had some description of the figures in the graph, since that would be of great benefit to those with screen readers. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the alt text for that should at least mention that the graph runs from 2001 through 2009, that there are peaks in early 2004 and early 2008 (and perhaps the value of those peaks), and that the moving average goes up and down around 50 for most of his career; that sort of thing. The current alt text leaves the visually impaired reader in the dark. Eubulides (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Changed. Thank You Abeer.ag (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments "scored in thirteen cricket grounds" scored "at" the grounds? Changed "of which eight", reverse it for my taste, but that is my opinion (i.e. eight of which...) That does sound better Can we find a link for "dismissal" for when you say "dismissed three times" (it's a bit cricket jargony) Done I would tend to agree with Giants on the slight feeling of disjoint - you mention dismissals then double centuries... I know... but what else can I do? "of which a record three" what kind of record? Most double centuries against Pakistan; explained by note "His first ODI century was ..." not sure you really need to repeat ODI century here. Changed "coming up off 60 balls" - not sure this is how I would write it, perhaps "coming from 60 deliveries"? changed "The number of the Test matches played in that series" - not really, it's the "The Test in which the century was scored against the total number of Tests in the series". No succinct, perhaps you could work that out a bit better than I could write it? The current caption kind of works... as you said, the alternative is not very suucint. I would make 201* sort above 201 as it's generally agreed that a NO finish is better than an out, right? Same with the 114* I don't know how to do that! I just used standard wiki sorting. SpacemanSpiff fixed it. In the lead image you use ODI but in the image a way further down you revert to the full usage. I'd do it the other way round. Done Your notes are really all References except for [7] which is a note. Changed Is India national cricket team linked anywhere in this article? Done The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments Abeer.ag (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments "MA Chidambaram Stadium, Chennai, where Sehwag got his highest score, 319 versus South Africa." ... reached his highest score, 319 versus South Africa? Aaroncrick (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Added a comma. Thank you. Abeer.ag (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Weak> Support - Nice work Aaroncrick (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose still nothing happening on the discussion of some of the notable things about Sehwag's centuries YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Abeer.ag added bit about scores of 150, however, I doubt there are refs for the other issues. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Added some data. Abeer.ag (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Like mentioned by Aaroncrick above, "He has been dismissed between 90....come against Pakistan." is too long and should be split. Also, ref 6 is really a note, so it should probably be split off from the references.
  • Changed
• Double referencing - #1 and #2 don't say anything different, so either should suffice for the first paragraph. Likewise #8, #9. In both cases, the reference quality isn't questionable, so is there a reason for adding the extra reference?
  • 8 & 9 cite different things; #1 and 2 are the result of a discussion on a previous FLC, its so that not all references are from Cricinfo.
• The three sentences from "His highest score of 130..." to "...coming from 60 deliveries" should be consolidated to two and the reference to New Zealand strengthened.
  • Changed.
• This is more of a stylistic preference, but should "between 90 and 100" be replaced by "in the nineties"?
  • Done

-SpacemanSpiff 01:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank You for your comments. Abeer.ag (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm sorry, I didn't notice the other comment. How do I do that? Or should I just remove it? Abeer.ag (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Done Abeer.ag (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Has YellowMonkey been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you add the info that the 254 v Pak in Jan 2006 was the largest score at 100+ SR? Also the fact that it was in a 400-run partnership and went with 4-5 of breaking hte WR by Roy and Mankad in the 1950s YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Added the second part;not sure about what you mean by the first part; his 319 also had a SR>100. Abeer.ag (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The 254 was off about 250 balls or something and was the record until the 319 broke it YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Added a bit about the 319 being the largest. Abeer.ag (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey himself added the other stuff as well. Abeer.ag (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - concerns have been addressed. -SpacemanSpiff 01:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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