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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:03, 30 December 2010 [1].

Sakharov Prize[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found the list, modified it, sourced it, illustrated it, hopefully it's close to featured. Thanks to the community as ever for time and effort spent reviewing the list. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from --CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:Organisations -> organizations (I believe your choice is spelled incorrectly) The whole article is written in British English, where organisation is the correct spelling. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] who had dedicated their lives -> considering how recent the last award was and its "relevancy" I think "have" would be better Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] € -> What monetary unit does that symbol represent? The Euro. Linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] The first prize was awarded jointly to South African Nelson Mandela and Russian Anatoly Marchenko -> reword, I don't like this "South African" and "Russian" I think it's helpful to distinguish the nationalities and to display how diverse the recipients were. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] to Cuban dissident Guillermo Fariñas -> I think you should tell us a bit more about him than the fact that he's a "Cuban dissident". Same with Mandela, don't think everyone knows who he is, you should specify. Additionally, I think it would be beneficial for this article to have some info on why these candidates were chosen to receive these awards. Did Mandela do anything in specific to earn it? The awarding organisation does not provide specific succinct citations so it would be WP:OR for me to describe why I think they won the prize. More information on each recipient can be found in the individual's articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] toreceive -> typo Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Prize -> better wording would be more appropriate Why? It's a prize, after all... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] organisations -> again See above. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thats all--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from --CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Organisations -> organizations (I believe your choice is spelled incorrectly)

The whole article is written in British English, where organisation is the correct spelling. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

who had dedicated their lives -> considering how recent the last award was and its "relevancy" I think "have" would be better

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

€ -> What monetary unit does that symbol represent?

The Euro. Linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first prize was awarded jointly to South African Nelson Mandela and Russian Anatoly Marchenko -> reword, I don't like this "South African" and "Russian"

I think it's helpful to distinguish the nationalities and to display how diverse the recipients were. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

to Cuban dissident Guillermo Fariñas -> I think you should tell us a bit more about him than the fact that he's a "Cuban dissident". Same with Mandela, don't think everyone knows who he is, you should specify. Additionally, I think it would be beneficial for this article to have some info on why these candidates were chosen to receive these awards. Did Mandela do anything in specific to earn it?

The awarding organisation does not provide specific succinct citations so it would be WP:OR for me to describe why I think they won the prize. More information on each recipient can be found in the individual's articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

toreceive -> typo

Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prize -> better wording would be more appropriate

Why? It's a prize, after all... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

organisations -> again

See above. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats all--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Thats fine. Support from me. Good work and good luck!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good lead, good grammar...what should I say more? A really great list.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it would be beneficial to have a sentence or two in the table about their contributions.Cheetah (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree, as long as my synopsis of what has been said about the individuals does not count as WP:OR because the EU don't provide a distinct citation for the award. If you'd prefer me to come up with some stuff I thought was relevant, then okay, I'll look into it. Or, if you'd like me to precis the external link I gave that's fine too. Let me know what you think. (Nice to see you around, by the way). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry for replying late, I would like to see a "notes" column added, as well. I think you just need to write a short description on everyone. I'd take it from their respective leads. For example, for Anatoly Marchenko you can say "Soviet dissident, author, and human rights campaigner". I just don't want readers to click on the names one by one just to see who they are. They can always click on the names when they want more information about those recipients, but some basic info should be on this page.Cheetah (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No problem on the delay getting back to me. I think you're right, as long as the Notes column would not be construed as "why the EU presented the award" (or, as Nergaal asks below, "the reasoning of the award" - that information is not succinctly available), rather, just a synopsis of the winners' highlights. I'll take a look at that shortly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Notes now added. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Cheetah (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't there a notes column (with the reasoning of the award)? Also, why are Annan and UN grouped together, while the other multiple awards are separate? Nergaal (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See above for why I haven't given the reason (in short, the EU don't provide a "reason", so anything I write will be WP:OR with respect to why they got the award). As for being UN & Annan joint recipients, that's how the EU have it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, but for Izzat Ghazzawi, where there is no article available, how are the readers supposed to know what he might have done to get the award? If a note column is added with entries like for Annan: "UN secretary general (97-06) during X, Y, and Z crises" would provide a context to the award without going OR-ish. Nergaal (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Article now available. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notes now added. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Support the list looks good now. Nergaal (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - In my opinion this list meets FL criteria. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:03, 30 December 2010 [2].

List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the English Midlands[edit]

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a sister list to List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England, recently promoted as a FL. The first two paragraphs of the lead are identical, and the format used is the same. It is a complete list of the churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the counties of the English Midlands. The text has been copyedited. Every church in the list has a related article of at least Start Grade. The information given in the notes is not limited to a summary of the article, but often contains a fact which might be of sufficient interest to tempt the reader to click on the link to the article. All the images have alt text. One difference from the sister list is that the first column sorts on the name of the place (village, town, etc) rather than on the title of the church.Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support The opening two paragraphs of the lead borrow from List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England, a Featured List, and does a good job of framing what redundant churches are, what the fund does and how it goes about it, and is of course well-sourced. The next paragraph is unique to this list and summarises the table; it covers the main points – numbers of preserved churches in the Midlands, spread of ages, status as listed buildings etc – and I can't imagine a way to improve it. The table is well laid out, with no space wasted and having a brief description of each church makes sense. The descriptions are concise and well-written. Although by no means necessary, it's useful to see that most churches have their own picture. A very good list and I'm happy to support it. Nev1 (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have deeply red this list and I must agree with Nev1. Like the prior FL, this list should pass the nomination. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~Support from Hassocks Sorting, coordinates and everything else are working perfectly. Just a few observations from me before I can support:

→Lead:

This list contains the 72 churches: "describes the 72 churches" might be better.

almost all of them in Grades I and II*. I suggest "at" instead of "in", and confirm the importance of those grades by adding "the highest" before the word "Grades".

→Church notes:

St John the Baptist's Church, Llanrothal: overlooking River Monnow: needs "the"

St Peter and St Paul's Church, Preston Deanery: The church gell into disuse: typo

St Werburgh's Church, Derby: I suggest using the "Grade II*" blue colour for the Grade B cell. Use the code |align="center" style="background-color: #87CEEB"| to achieve this

That's all! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have dealt with all the points above, other than the last one. Like Hassocks I had thought that Grades A, B and C directly matched Grades I, II* and II, but I cannot find this verified anywhere. I believe (without being able to find confirmation) that in the early days of grading, churches were given the grades of A, B and C, and secular buildings I, II* and II, and that later the gradings were combined into I, II* and II. Many, but not all, church gradings have been converted into I, II* and II. As I see the situation, the gradings more or less correspond, but not necessarily exactly. So the compromise I have used in the list is not to give Grade B the Grade II* background colour (leaving it uncoloured), but sorting B with II*, which seems to be the most pragmatic solution for the present. I guess that in time the A, B and C gradings will be reviewed and converted into I, II* and II. I have discussed this with Hassocks on our talk pages. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All points have been resolved; support accordingly. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 15:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:03, 30 December 2010 [3].

Eazy-E discography[edit]

Nominator(s): CrowzRSA 01:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I (obviously) think it meets the criteria. I only recently started working on the article, and the text and stuff just came about. So yeahhh, CrowzRSA 01:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
- need delinking of US and R&B in the paragraphs Extended Plays and Compilations-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I delinked US and R&B but I don't see why Extended Plays and Compilations need to be delinked. CrowzRSA 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would recommend you to add a See also template at the top.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done
- Thank you for your comments! CrowzRSA 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Novice7 Talk 04:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*"His music has been released on record labels.." — maybe through in place of "on"? Done* "In this discography, music videos and collaborations are included as well" — is this needed? I found this in Eminem discography (it is FL), I'm not sure if it's needed, but why should it be deleted. CrowzRSA 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Okay then. Novice7 Talk 07:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Eazy-Duz-It peaked at 41 on the.." — at only 41; also try using forty-one instead of the number. Similarly, 2× Multi Platinum can be written as two times platinum. Actually, per WP:ORDINAL, this is only required for single digit numbers. CrowzRSA 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Okay. Novice7 Talk 07:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Similar corrections throughout the lead would be nice. (see above) CrowzRSA 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Also, "The EP spawned only one single, which would never chart.." — try which failed to chart. Done CrowzRSA 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] "The album went multi platinum on February 7, 1994 and peaked at number one on the Hot Rap Tracks" rearrange – first chart and then certification. Done CrowzRSA 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Real Muthaphuckkin G's became Eazy's highest charting album.." — a single not an album. Done CrowzRSA 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Any Last Werdz was not as successful, as it never charted — "The second single Any Last Werdz failed to chart" would be better in my opinion. Done CrowzRSA 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] "was released as a single, originating on the" — does originating fit the sentence? and "on"? try using some other phrase like "originally featured on the". Done CrowzRSA 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] In the last paragraph, if the year of release of each work is included, it would be better to understand. Done CrowzRSA 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] These are all I see right now. Novice7 Talk 09:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for your comments! CrowzRSA 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Novice7 Talk 04:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

**"His music has been released on record labels.." — maybe through in place of "on"?

- - Done
- "In this discography, music videos and collaborations are included as well" — is this needed?
  - I found this in Eminem discography (it is FL), I'm not sure if it's needed, but why should it be deleted. CrowzRSA 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay then. Novice7 Talk 07:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Eazy-Duz-It peaked at 41 on the.." — at only 41; also try using forty-one instead of the number. Similarly, 2× Multi Platinum can be written as two times platinum.
  - Actually, per WP:ORDINAL, this is only required for single digit numbers. CrowzRSA 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay. Novice7 Talk 07:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Similar corrections throughout the lead would be nice.
  - (see above) CrowzRSA 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, "The EP spawned only one single, which would never chart.." — try which failed to chart.
  - Done CrowzRSA 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The album went multi platinum on February 7, 1994 and peaked at number one on the Hot Rap Tracks" rearrange – first chart and then certification.
  - Done CrowzRSA 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Real Muthaphuckkin G's became Eazy's highest charting album.." — a single not an album.
  - Done CrowzRSA 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Any Last Werdz was not as successful, as it never charted — "The second single Any Last Werdz failed to chart" would be better in my opinion.
  - Done CrowzRSA 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "was released as a single, originating on the" — does originating fit the sentence? and "on"? try using some other phrase like "originally featured on the".
  - Done CrowzRSA 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the last paragraph, if the year of release of each work is included, it would be better to understand.
  - Done CrowzRSA 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are all I see right now. Novice7 Talk 09:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments! CrowzRSA 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Consistency issues with the use of US. Also the Singles doesn't have the forced break for US R&B. Also I'm interested in knowing why there are question marks in the directors column of the music video section. On Ref 9 I'm incredibly confused about "Up for Discussion Jump to Forums.". Ref 14 has a consistency issue with one of the date. Ref 4 doesn't have the ((Cite web)) template. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 17:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason there are question marks as directors is because no sources gave information about the director. Many featured discographies (Slayer discography, Aaliyah discography, Audioslave discography, and several more) have question marks/other indicators that the director is unknown. Also, citation templates are not required per WP:CITE and WP:FN. The rest has been fixed. Thanks! CrowzRSA 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you use the Cite web template already in the article all I'm doing is pointing out an Inconsistency with the format for references. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 09:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well, I changed it to the citation template. CrowzRSA 22:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 4 and 7 don't use cite web. To cutback on space you're better adding these "style="text-align:center;"" to the top of the table code and sort out the coding for the very select cells this would cut back on space used in the article. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 16:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done with the references… but I don't see why changing the style code is necessary, since there are so many other FL discographies that have the same style formatting. CrowzRSA 22:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although its a very small article at the moment, its simply a suggestion to reduce space and loading time. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 22:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I tried doing it, but for some reason it doesn't come out right. I think I'm inserting the wrong code. CrowzRSA 02:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Its alright to leave it at the moment until the discography is extended more. I'll support I have no major issues with the article. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 23:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:"Even though Eazy-Duz-It peaked at 41" - number* 41. What's with the "even though"? Fixed CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Per MOS:TM get rid of all the stylistic crap from It's On (Dr. Dre) 187um Killa Done CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] "The album peaked at number one on the Hot Rap Tracks and peaked at number one on the Hot Rap Tracks went multi platinum on February 7, 1994" - rewrite Done CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] "The second single, "Any Last Werdz" failed to chart." - comma after title Fixed CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Released in 1995, Eternal E became Eazy's first compilation, peaking at number 84 on the Billboard 200 and was certified gold by the RIAA." - changes tense Done (I think) CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] " The album became his best charting album on the Billboard 200." - you give specific chart positions for other albums, so why not his best one? Done CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] "It's only single..." - remove apostrophe Done CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] "...peaked number 113 on the Billboard 200. 2007's Featuring...Eazy-E was..." - rearrange so that you don't have numbers to end a sentence and begin the next Done CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Having inline citations next to the chart positions looks messy and potentially confusing. Place them in the table header Fixed CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] "US Hot 100" should simply be "US" Done CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ref 1 needs an access date Actually, per WP:CITEHOW, if the article's publish date is given, access date is not required. CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] "It was also certified a 2× Multi Platinum by the RIAA" - rewrite Done CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Not quite, how about 'In 1992 it was certified double Platinum by the RIAA.'? You need to remove the 'a', 2× interrupts with the flow of prose a bit. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Done CrowzRSA 22:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Having "?" directors fails 3a. I do not believe that there is nowhere that directors are listed for four videos. As I explained in one of my previous comments, there are many featured lists that have question marks and such as directors. And I know just because other stuff exists, it doesn't make a valid argument. But still, they passed. And there aren't any reliable sources that say anything about the director. CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Maybe the music videos DVD on [4] has them? Anyway, can you at least give a note to explain the lack of directors? Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Done CrowzRSA 22:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Use [5] for NZ charts. You'll find that "Just tah Let U Know" also charted in NZ. Done CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hung Medien publishes charts.org.nz, not Steffen Hung. Can you also link the NZ Singles Chart and add a line break before the ref? Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Done CrowzRSA 22:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Workers of references need wikilinks and publishers I wikilinked them, but where do I get the publisher? Isn't the website just the publisher? CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] The publisher of Billboard, for example, is Prometheus Global Media, and Allmusic is published by Rovi Corporation. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Done CrowzRSA 22:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:*"Even though Eazy-Duz-It peaked at 41" - number 41. What's with the "even though"?

Fixed CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:TM get rid of all the stylistic crap from It's On (Dr. Dre) 187um Killa

Done CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The album peaked at number one on the Hot Rap Tracks and peaked at number one on the Hot Rap Tracks went multi platinum on February 7, 1994" - rewrite

Done CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The second single, "Any Last Werdz" failed to chart." - comma after title

Fixed CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Released in 1995, Eternal E became Eazy's first compilation, peaking at number 84 on the Billboard 200 and was certified gold by the RIAA." - changes tense

Done (I think) CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" The album became his best charting album on the Billboard 200." - you give specific chart positions for other albums, so why not his best one?

Done CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It's only single..." - remove apostrophe

Done CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...peaked number 113 on the Billboard 200. 2007's Featuring...Eazy-E was..." - rearrange so that you don't have numbers to end a sentence and begin the next

Done CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having inline citations next to the chart positions looks messy and potentially confusing. Place them in the table header

Fixed CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"US Hot 100" should simply be "US"

Done CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 needs an access date

Actually, per WP:CITEHOW, if the article's publish date is given, access date is not required. CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It was also certified a 2× Multi Platinum by the RIAA" - rewrite

Done CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, how about 'In 1992 it was certified double Platinum by the RIAA.'? You need to remove the 'a', 2× interrupts with the flow of prose a bit. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done CrowzRSA 22:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having "?" directors fails 3a. I do not believe that there is nowhere that directors are listed for four videos.

As I explained in one of my previous comments, there are many featured lists that have question marks and such as directors. And I know just because other stuff exists, it doesn't make a valid argument. But still, they passed. And there aren't any reliable sources that say anything about the director. CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the music videos DVD on [4] has them? Anyway, can you at least give a note to explain the lack of directors? Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done CrowzRSA 22:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use [5] for NZ charts. You'll find that "Just tah Let U Know" also charted in NZ.

Done CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hung Medien publishes charts.org.nz, not Steffen Hung. Can you also link the NZ Singles Chart and add a line break before the ref? Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done CrowzRSA 22:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Workers of references need wikilinks and publishers

I wikilinked them, but where do I get the publisher? Isn't the website just the publisher? CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher of Billboard, for example, is Prometheus Global Media, and Allmusic is published by Rovi Corporation. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done CrowzRSA 22:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I also formatted the references for italics - I hope you don't mind? Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Novice7 Talk 04:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:"2007's Featuring...Eazy-E was Eazy's final compilation album, but it failed to chart. A box set entitled Tri-Pack was released in 2010, but failed to chart." — try to reduce the times you use "failed to charts" in last para. Remove the "failed to chart" from boxset. Done* CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Str8 off tha Streetz of Muthaphukkin Compton was Eazy's only posthumous studio album, as it was released nearly eight months after his death in 1995" — what if another album is released in future? Change to something like "Str8 off tha Streetz of Muthaphukkin Compton, Eazy's first and only posthumous studio album to date, was released in..". Also, "after his death in 1995" — posthumous albums are released after death. I fixed the 'what if' thing, but I'm not clear on what you want me to do about "after his death in 1995". Just delete it or what? CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've done the fixes. Novice7 Talk 04:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Eazy's second EP, was released on October 25, 1993. The album peaked at number one on the Hot Rap Tracks and peaked at number one on the Hot Rap Tracks went multi platinum on February 7, 1994." — remove repeated phrase. And, Hot Rap Tracks? Maybe some other chart like R&B albums chart or BB 200. Correct that. Fixed CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] — Novice7 Talk 07:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Novice7 Talk 04:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:*"2007's Featuring...Eazy-E was Eazy's final compilation album, but it failed to chart. A box set entitled Tri-Pack was released in 2010, but failed to chart." — try to reduce the times you use "failed to charts" in last para. Remove the "failed to chart" from boxset.

Done CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Str8 off tha Streetz of Muthaphukkin Compton was Eazy's only posthumous studio album, as it was released nearly eight months after his death in 1995" — what if another album is released in future? Change to something like "Str8 off tha Streetz of Muthaphukkin Compton, Eazy's first and only posthumous studio album to date, was released in..". Also, "after his death in 1995" — posthumous albums are released after death.
I fixed the 'what if' thing, but I'm not clear on what you want me to do about "after his death in 1995". Just delete it or what? CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the fixes. Novice7 Talk 04:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Eazy's second EP, was released on October 25, 1993. The album peaked at number one on the Hot Rap Tracks and peaked at number one on the Hot Rap Tracks went multi platinum on February 7, 1994." — remove repeated phrase. And, Hot Rap Tracks? Maybe some other chart like R&B albums chart or BB 200. Correct that.

Fixed CrowzRSA 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Novice7 Talk 07:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one more thing. " Featuring...Eazy-E, released in 2007, was Eazy's final compilation album" — similar case. What if another compilation is released? Is there any source to verify this? Just a confusion. That's all. Other than this, I don't see any errors. Novice7 Talk 10:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done CrowzRSA 22:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support — All my issues were fixed. So, its a support from me. Novice7 Talk 12:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - im sorry but im going to have to oppose this article, with only 11 references and the main page only being 31kb in length this article seems to fail criteria 3(b). Also, Music video sections needs directors and references, a simple ? does not work as it then fails criteria 3(a). Sorry once again. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The number of references should not be an issue - everything is verified. Do you want the nominator to add more references for the sake of it? Also I don't think a merge is practical as it would make Eazy-E discography-heavy. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And also, a consensus was met to add a note to the Music videos section saying something about the question marks. CrowzRSA 01:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references arnt the issue, Feature articles and list must be comprehensive, i dont think this is very comprehensive and meets criteria for stand alone lists. An artist only charting in one Country (The US) and once in NewZealand doesnt really warrant its own page. It could easily be merged into the Eazy-E page. Thats my opinion, if others disagree thats fine. Im just saying i dont think it should have been split and i really oppose there not being directors, thats not comprehensive, again, thats my opinion. Once again, sorry but my oppose still stands. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 02:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Fantasia Barrino discography. Apart from one or two singles she has mostly had U.S. chartings. Eazy-E has released more albums and music videos, and about the same number of singles. If you think it does not warrant a WP:SAL, then you would support a merge, right? See User:Adabow/Sandbox4. About one-third is discography. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Comment:
- STUDIO ALBUMS: "[[Certifications]]" should linking to "[[Music recording sales certification|Certifications]]"-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done CrowzRSA 23:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Comment I'm not sure if this will be a problem or not, but I'll be gone for a while. I have to study for exams and won't be back until the 21st. So today will be my final day on here. CrowzRSA 00:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment – Bold links, like the one at the start of this list, are discouraged in the Manual of Style. Since I'm sure you want a link to Eazy-E as soon as possible, the easiest fix for this issue is to remove the bolding from the opening sentence altogether. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody did that already

Attention: User:Live and Die 4 Hip Hop vandalizing, by replacing the lead with one sentence and accomplishing other edits:
- 1st vandalize:[6]
- 2nd vandalize:[7]-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can other reviewers comment on the 3b issue? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why commenting on the 3b issue is at all necessary. Adabow brought up a very good point with the example of merging Eazy-E discography with the main article (See User:Adabow/Sandbox4). There are several other discographies (in length wise) smaller than the Eazy-E discography. Here is a list of discographies shorter.

Ashlee Simpson discography
Audioslave discography
Billie Piper discography
Chimaira discography
Dave Gahan discography
Geri Halliwell discography
Isobel Campbell discography
Joel Turner discography
Killswitch Engage discography
Lightning Bolt discography
Lostprophets discography
Meshuggah discography
Nile discography
Paulini discography
Rachel Stevens discography
Ricki-Lee Coulter discography
Róisín Murphy discography
The Kills discography
The Strokes discography
The Ting Tings discography
Trivium discography
Uncle Tupelo discography
Willowtip Records discography
That's nearly 16% of the assessed FLs at WikiProject Discographies. CrowzRSA 16:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:03, 30 December 2010 [8].

Chris Brown discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Candy o32 16:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason the first FLC was closed as all current comments had been resolved and was waiting for feedback from the reviewing editors. The previous corrections from the first FLC have been made and it the discography should meet FL criteria as of now. Candy o32 19:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

No period/full stop in infobox caption, as it's not a complete sentence

Done.

"Peaks above 100 are peaks of the singles on either the Bubbling Under Hot 100 or Bubbling Under Hot 100, 25 song extensions of the Billboard Hot 100 and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, respectively." - any reason for two "Bubbling Under Hot 100"s? I see they don't link to the same place, but then why do they have the same name? — KV5 • Talk • 19:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Fixed. Candy o32 20:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:"Superhuman" needs notes (under 100 in US) Done Why isn't "Better on the Other Side" mentioned (except for videos)? It was not released officially for download or radio as a single or on an album. Refs 29 + 30 should be in headers Done Either link all albums in singles table or none Fixed. I had linked Fan of a Fan at the time when I thought mixtapes couldn't be included. Is there a release date (or year) for F.A.M.E.? Added confirmed 2011 date. Candy o32 01:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Something is wrong with ref 51 ("Shawty Get Loose" video). Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I had noticed that, but I can't seem to find what is wrong with it. Also, would the sorting thing added interfere with WP:OVERLINK? Candy o32 01:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sortable tables can be exceptions to overlinking. If you wish to unlink them, though, you can use the `nolink`parameter in the template. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Another comment: '"—" denotes releases that failed to chart or was not released.' I have always detested the many different types of notes here. What if something was not released, but did chart? Is it marked with a dash? Why not simply: '"—" denotes items that failed to chart.'? Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Because something should have the chance to chart before it fails to chart. In other words, if it wasn't released, it can't chart, so saying "it failed to chart" is misleading. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I see your point. What about "has not charted"? ~~This needs rewording somehow, as it is grammatically incorrect, anyway.~~ Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I actually think the current is fine as "has not charted" will imply to the reader that the song will chart when surely, even if so due to Billboard rules I'm sure some songs of his that are +5 years old that never charted will anytime soon. Anyway, I have corrected the statement so it is not grammatically incorrect. Candy o32 23:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Can you see my point, though, about items that were not released, but charted? Do they receive dashes or are their positions listed? It is confusing. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I see what you mean now. Well I guess that would just mean that "Other charted songs" wouldn't receive "did not chart" rather than remove not released. Candy o32 23:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] ~~Support*~~ I'm still not convinced with the "did not chart" notes in the tables, but they are used WP-wide. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The Canadian positions are not all supported by the reference given. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Done. Candy o32 01:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] That page doesn't give peak positions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] They are there it is just behind a login wall, which I cannot do anything about. And the only other alternative is to use acharts.us, which is discouraged on featured articles. Candy o32 02:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I would prefer that you use aCharts, as everyone can access their data. aCharts is OK to use if there is no alternative source. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ok, should be done now. And I assume you were just talking about the features as the Billboard should cover his solos. Candy o32 18:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Crawl" and "Yeah3X" are still behind the billboard.biz login wall. Can you use aCharts for them as well? Also, did "What Them Girls Like" chart in Canada? Sorry to keep posing problems, but with WP:DISCOGSTYLE not finished yet you have to keep up with recent amendments: table captions should be shorter. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Done. And yes it is. It should be sourced in the Canadian references and it is in the table. Candy o32 09:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:*"Superhuman" needs notes (under 100 in US)

Done

Why isn't "Better on the Other Side" mentioned (except for videos)?

It was not released officially for download or radio as a single or on an album.

Refs 29 + 30 should be in headers

Done

Either link all albums in singles table or none

Fixed. I had linked Fan of a Fan at the time when I thought mixtapes couldn't be included.

Is there a release date (or year) for F.A.M.E.?

Added confirmed 2011 date. Candy o32 01:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something is wrong with ref 51 ("Shawty Get Loose" video). Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed that, but I can't seem to find what is wrong with it. Also, would the sorting thing added interfere with WP:OVERLINK? Candy o32 01:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sortable tables can be exceptions to overlinking. If you wish to unlink them, though, you can use the nolinkparameter in the template. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment: '"—" denotes releases that failed to chart or was not released.' I have always detested the many different types of notes here. What if something was not released, but did chart? Is it marked with a dash? Why not simply: '"—" denotes items that failed to chart.'? Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because something should have the chance to chart before it fails to chart. In other words, if it wasn't released, it can't chart, so saying "it failed to chart" is misleading. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. What about "has not charted"? ~~This needs rewording somehow, as it is grammatically incorrect, anyway.~~ Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think the current is fine as "has not charted" will imply to the reader that the song will chart when surely, even if so due to Billboard rules I'm sure some songs of his that are +5 years old that never charted will anytime soon. Anyway, I have corrected the statement so it is not grammatically incorrect. Candy o32 23:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see my point, though, about items that were not released, but charted? Do they receive dashes or are their positions listed? It is confusing. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean now. Well I guess that would just mean that "Other charted songs" wouldn't receive "did not chart" rather than remove not released. Candy o32 23:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ I'm still not convinced with the "did not chart" notes in the tables, but they are used WP-wide. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian positions are not all supported by the reference given. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Candy o32 01:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That page doesn't give peak positions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are there it is just behind a login wall, which I cannot do anything about. And the only other alternative is to use acharts.us, which is discouraged on featured articles. Candy o32 02:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that you use aCharts, as everyone can access their data. aCharts is OK to use if there is no alternative source. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, should be done now. And I assume you were just talking about the features as the Billboard should cover his solos. Candy o32 18:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Crawl" and "Yeah3X" are still behind the billboard.biz login wall. Can you use aCharts for them as well? Also, did "What Them Girls Like" chart in Canada? Sorry to keep posing problems, but with WP:DISCOGSTYLE not finished yet you have to keep up with recent amendments: table captions should be shorter. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. And yes it is. It should be sourced in the Canadian references and it is in the table. Candy o32 09:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think I'm done for good now :). Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the first nomination was closed as WP:FLC is not WP:PR. The initial quality of the list was of great concern. Please don't nominate lists of that nature again. Glad to see it back in a better state. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My confusion was that all corrections had been made at the time of closure. Candy o32 12:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well when I archived it, there were many, many issues. Just took Gimmebot nearly 12 hours to close it formally. Anyway, we're here now. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my apologies. I forgot about the Gimmebot. Candy o32 14:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - The lead is totally unsourced why is this? Ref 4, 7 need language parameters. Swiss isn't a language. Ref 14 has no publisher. Ref 70 looks and probably is incomplete. "No Air" has a few unsourced Certifications. In Mixtapes, you source "In My Zone" but not "Fan of a Fan" why? Afro (Talk) 23:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We established on the previous review that the lead is source as all chart positions and certs are sourced. Per WP:LEAD, refs are discouraged in the lead if sources are present in the other parts of article. No sales or anything are posted that would require sourcing. Fan of a Fan is sourced because its notability criterion is established because it has its own page, while In My Zone does not, and if not sourced, its establishment could be questioned. That's just like F.A.M.E. being sourced while all the other albums aren't. All refs in question are fixed. Couldn't find sources for other "No Air" peaks so removed. Candy o32 02:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Fair enough. "Fan of a Fan" is fine without a reference but "Chris Brown's Journey", "BET Presents Chris Brown" and "Exclusive: The Forever Edition Bonus DVD" need one? Granted "Chris Brown's Journey" and "Exclusive: The Forever Edition Bonus DVD" are basically section redirects but "BET Presents Chris Brown" is its own actual article, I hate to sound uncivil but consistency please. Also on the Music videos I'm a bit confused as to what The directors column is meant to be sorting by. Afro (Talk) 23:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I removed the refs for all the ones that redirect to sections or have articles of their own. I'm also confused as to what you mean with the videos. I guess just to sort the names, if that is what you are asking. This was modeled after FL's that have been converted to the new style. Candy o32 23:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you an idea just to clarify what I'm asking. Sorting Up, Bryan Barber, Chris Brown, Chris Robinson, Jim Jones, Kevin Custer and James Franck, R. Malcolm Jones, Joseph Kahn, Alex Nazari, Chris Robinson. Am I clear in my point that it sorts weirdly? Afro (Talk) 00:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you mean now. I have no idea as to why it is sorting this way. Candy o32 00:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well until its sorted I am opposed to the articles promotion. Afro (Talk) 00:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sorted the names and missed one. It's fixed now. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'd be better if the names were in alphabetical order in the cells, maybe that'd be less confusing for me. Afro (Talk) 03:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We'll the reason they are not alphabetical because on singles with numerous performers, the main performer is listed first, and how it is credited. Candy o32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 01:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afro, people are sorted by their surname, except where they have stage names. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable Candy. Support I have no issues with the article. Afro (Nice Beaver) 16:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm sorry Candy, I came here to comment on the discography, but in seriousness I cannot support this at present. I see some persistent issues with the discography, issues which I had pointed out in the Ciara discography nomination which you submitted. Might I say that there is a pattern to it? Here are some of it for instance.
- The first line in the lead doesnot include the mixtape, promo singles or the music video count, as well as the infobox.
- Internationally, the single either charted at the top, or inside the top ten, of several charts -> extremely vague

I originally had "worldwide top-ten" as I did in the Ciara discog, but a user in the first review was against it.

- "Dreamer", a single for the AT&T Team USA Soundtrack reached the top twenty in the US. --> missing comma after soundtrack.

Done

- In 2009, Brown's fourth album, Graffiti --> Graffiti is the third studio album.

Done

- multiple international countries. --> doesnot mean anything

I don't understand what you mean by "doesnot mean anything", but, I originally had "international top-ten", like in the Ciara discog, but a user in the first review was against it

- which peaked within the top twenty of several countries --> No it didn't. Either source this or leave this.

Well it is sourced in the tables, I thought that would cover it. Anyway I did have "top-twenty hit" or something like that as in the Ciara discog, but a user in the last review was against it.

- Correct the title of "Yeah 3x" to "Yeah 3×".

The proper title is "Yeah 3X" as it is on the digital download and on the official single cover.

- There is no mention of the release of the DVDs or the mixtapes. Are they non-notable?

Not really notable as they never charted, and I didn't want to lead to be so excessive. Do you think they warrant inclusion?

- The music video section needs a thorough run down for merging the cells, removing overlink from them, artist names etc.

Cells can't be merged because it is a sortable table and I was told sorting tables are an exception to overlink.

- Usage of en-dash is non-existent in the reference titles.

I still get confused about en-dash.

- Please avoid using abbreviations like ARIA, CRIA etc.

Done

- Check online sources and their italicizations

Done

- Reference 32, for Canadian Hot 100, is screwed up. Please correct.

Done

- Some references miss accessdate.
- Can we not have the discogs link in EL, and add something from Rollingstone or Allmusic please?

Done

- The chart providers being used. Shouldn't you have a consistency across the page? Why the sudden use of the Rap chart?

I thought it would be better to use charts that his featured singles have appeared in rather than a list of dashes all the way down of where the songs haven't charted. Candy o32 00:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I feel that the lack of consistency is the major issue with the article. Feel free to ping me with clarifications you need, and not a talkback please. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please check the internal link rot and the dab links pointed out by the bot in the talk page. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good now. It says #52 redirects but it does not. Candy o32 08:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has improved but my major concern is with the peaks of Bubbling under. They are completely and utterly wrong. A peak of 22 on the Bubbling chart doesnot correspond to a peak of 122 for the hot 100. They are not even comparable. There was a strong discussion regarding this at Talk:Lady Gaga discography and such additions of BU peaks were removed. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be sufficient if I removed the positions but leave corresponding notes to the peaks. Candy o32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 15:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think thats a reasonable amendment, and please do so, otherwise I support this disc. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Infobox caption should not have a full stop. Done thirty six should be thirty-six. Done "promo" should be spelled out in full. Done "Brown's self-titled debut album was released in 2005. The album ..." merge these. I'm confused.... You have "in the US" and "in the U.S." both are acceptable but I would expect this to be internally consistent. Done Link "certified" appropriately. Done "and Gold in other countries" not specific enough. how money countries? Done " and it spent a month atop the chart." no need for "it" and did it spend "a month" or four weeks? I would guess that Billboard updates weekly. Done first thing. Month as Billboard updates weekly. "Internationally, the single either charted at the top, or inside the top ten, of several charts" again, very vague. What would you suggest as explaining every single charting might be a bit redundant. "US R&B top five singles " what is "US R&B"? i.e. link it. Done "international top thirty song "Superhuman"" what does "international top thirty" mean? Re-worded "During the Exclusive period" I thought Exclusive was an album? What does this mean? The time during which singles were released during that album. I had "era" but an editor above was apposed to it. I see no mentions of music videos in the lead. The lead is supposed to adequately summarise the whole article. Music videos are mentioned, if you mean in the first sentence. I haven't seen an FA to explicitly detail videos in the lad except for in the first part. Seems like "Yeah 3x" should be "Yeah 3X" according to our own article. Done That's the lead reviewed. Plenty of spaced hyphens in the references (should be en-dashes per WP:DASH), Long Gone isn't referenced, two DVDs have no citations... Confused about en-dash, I'll fix Long Gone, and as stated before like the albums, they are on Wikipedia pages, and this is why they are not sourced. This is why F.A.M.E. is linked but Exclusive is not. Candy o32 03:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Infobox caption should not have a full stop.

Done

thirty six should be thirty-six.

Done

"promo" should be spelled out in full.

Done

"Brown's self-titled debut album was released in 2005. The album ..." merge these.

I'm confused....

You have "in the US" and "in the U.S." both are acceptable but I would expect this to be internally consistent.

Done

Link "certified" appropriately.

Done

"and Gold in other countries" not specific enough. how money countries?

Done

" and it spent a month atop the chart." no need for "it" and did it spend "a month" or four weeks? I would guess that Billboard updates weekly.

Done first thing. Month as Billboard updates weekly.

"Internationally, the single either charted at the top, or inside the top ten, of several charts" again, very vague.

What would you suggest as explaining every single charting might be a bit redundant.

"US R&B top five singles " what is "US R&B"? i.e. link it.

Done

"international top thirty song "Superhuman"" what does "international top thirty" mean?

Re-worded

"During the Exclusive period" I thought Exclusive was an album? What does this mean?

The time during which singles were released during that album. I had "era" but an editor above was apposed to it.

I see no mentions of music videos in the lead. The lead is supposed to adequately summarise the whole article.

Music videos are mentioned, if you mean in the first sentence. I haven't seen an FA to explicitly detail videos in the lad except for in the first part.

Seems like "Yeah 3x" should be "Yeah 3X" according to our own article.

Done

That's the lead reviewed. Plenty of spaced hyphens in the references (should be en-dashes per WP:DASH), Long Gone isn't referenced, two DVDs have no citations...

Confused about en-dash, I'll fix Long Gone, and as stated before like the albums, they are on Wikipedia pages, and this is why they are not sourced. This is why F.A.M.E. is linked but Exclusive is not. Candy o32 03:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More (still oppose) "was certifiedf double Platinum " typo. Done. References in this list should standalone and not rely on sub-articles to cite them, e.g. Exclusive. Confused as to what you mean. Were all of the "Other charted songs" released in all of those territories? No, as they are not "singles" therefore not released, they just failed to chart. So why does the note say "releases that failed to chart if they weren't released? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Done. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure how useful "with relevant information" is in a table caption. It might as well say "with stuff". Removed. Please read WP:DASH – spaced hyphens e.g. "ARIA charts - Accreditations" should be spaced en-dashes e.g. "ARIA charts – Accreditations". Done. Candy o32 01:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More (still oppose)

"was certifiedf double Platinum " typo.

Done.

References in this list should standalone and not rely on sub-articles to cite them, e.g. Exclusive.

Confused as to what you mean.

Were all of the "Other charted songs" released in all of those territories?

No, as they are not "singles" therefore not released, they just failed to chart.

So why does the note say "releases that failed to chart if they weren't released? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how useful "with relevant information" is in a table caption. It might as well say "with stuff".

Removed.

Please read WP:DASH – spaced hyphens e.g. "ARIA charts - Accreditations" should be spaced en-dashes e.g. "ARIA charts – Accreditations".

Done. Candy o32 01:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have rowspan years in, say, Album appearances table but not in Music videos. I don't understand the difference. Is it simply to keep the Music videos table sortable?

I suppose. I modeled it after FL's that had been converted to the new style.

Well I'd prefer a consistent approach, either way. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing changed yet? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a bit of a crossroads here now because I used the sortable because all the FL's now converted to the new style made usage of sortable tables, including Fantasia Barrino discography, which was promoted after the new style was implemented. I believe sortable is used because of the different directors, and multiple artists, but I am not sure. Candy o32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 19:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to hear from DISCOGS as to why video releases table should be sortable while the other tables shouldn't. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot sort the singles and albums tables cleanly, but you can with videos. I think it is an editor's choice whether to use sortability or rowspan on videos. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there is no formal decision about it. It's quite practical. The contents of this table is different from the other tables. And it is handy to be able to sort the content by director or artist. Dodoïste (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have all reviewers been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notified Legolas a few days ago, now I am notifying other two reviewers. Candy o32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 01:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I really don't understand the big fuss over the article. It reads well, the peaks look fine and referenced. Heck, I'm supporting!--AlastorMoody (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

~~Missing "on" in "peaked at number one the Billboard Hot 100".~~

Done

~~In the third paragraph, commas should be added after Kevin McCall and F.A.M.E. Minor point, but it would improve the flow of the sentences for readers a little.~~

Done

What makes http://acharts.us/ (references 21, 22 and 34) a reliable source?

Due to Billboard glitches, those peaks will not show up on the site and from WP:BADCHARTS, acharts.us can be used as an alternate source.

Since I don't know that much about the kind of sites these lists use, I'm leaving this one unstruck in case the regular reviewers in this genre have anything to add. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the reason it was added was because it wasn't included in the Billboard reference, and a reviewer above told me to use acharts. Candy o32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 17:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reference 13 lacks a publisher.~~

Done

~~Period needed after the link in reference 30, for consistency with the other citations.~~

Done

~~Would you mind checking the formatting of this reference? It's showing up in the article. Looks like the closing brackets were accidentally removed.~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it wasn't closed then, but it should be fixed now.

~~Another minor point, but reference 33 could use an indication that the link is in PDF format. The format= parameter of the cite templates works well for this.~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Candy o32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 14:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : The only thing i find annoying is having three references in one box. They should be merged like so to avoid overlapping and clutter. Once this is done throughout the article i will gladly support if i fail to find any other issues. To be more clear on what i mean, under Chris_Brown_discography#Singles US section, you have three references, they should be merged into one with proper titles and explanations. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to do such, but I have a problem in that some of the refs are named. So I tried to combine, and name the ref as a whole, but then it kept showing up as an error. Candy o32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 17:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:03, 30 December 2010 [9].

Grammy Award for Best Latin Jazz Album[edit]

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 23:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC), Jaespinoza[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it closely resembles other Grammy-related lists with FL status (see profile page) and I believe that it meets all FL criteria. I am co-nominating this list along with Jaespinoza, who assisted with its expansion. Thanks, as always, to reviewers and directors for all of the work you do! --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Thought the infobox had a most recent winner field? If so, you could use it. Not that I know of, unless "Holder" is what you are referring to. However, to me at least, this seems more applicable to awards that are transferred from one recipient to the next (such as a crown for Miss America). This template is used for all of the Grammy lists I am working on. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Seems a little odd to have two images of Haden, especially when the second one is Camilo! Woops! Good catch! Thanks so much. (Corrected.) --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Not keen on the differences in date formats between ((cite web)) and ((cite news)) (one is in parentheses after the author, the other isn't), so would be happy to see all being cite web's? Just me though. In the past I used "cite web" formatting for everything, but I have been asked enough times to change news references to the "cite news" format. If there is a preference for using "cite news" for news sources and "cite web" for non-use web sources, I am going to comply by that preference. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Miguel Zenon is missing a diacritic (or our article on him is wrongly titled..) Done. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thought the infobox had a most recent winner field? If so, you could use it.

Not that I know of, unless "Holder" is what you are referring to. However, to me at least, this seems more applicable to awards that are transferred from one recipient to the next (such as a crown for Miss America). This template is used for all of the Grammy lists I am working on. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a little odd to have two images of Haden, especially when the second one is Camilo!

Woops! Good catch! Thanks so much. (Corrected.) --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not keen on the differences in date formats between ((cite web)) and ((cite news)) (one is in parentheses after the author, the other isn't), so would be happy to see all being cite web's? Just me though.

In the past I used "cite web" formatting for everything, but I have been asked enough times to change news references to the "cite news" format. If there is a preference for using "cite news" for news sources and "cite web" for non-use web sources, I am going to comply by that preference. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Zenon is missing a diacritic (or our article on him is wrongly titled..)

Done. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support after a quick once-over, nothing more to correct, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: (once as a member of the Caribbean Jazz Project and once as the leader of the group known as the Paquito D'Rivera Quintet?). The band's calling "D'Rivera Quintet?" or "D'Rivera Quintet"? That's all I found. Regards (again great list).-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. Paquito D'Rivera is the leader of the group "Paquito D'Rivera Quintet?" (question mark included). The album cover even contains the question mark, so I made sure it was included in the list and lead. GOP or other reviewers, please let one of us know if this needs to be addressed somehow. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Went through the list and didn't see any problems. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:03, 30 December 2010 [10].

List of National Basketball Association player-coaches[edit]

Nominator(s): Martin tamb (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another NBA list about the player-coaches that were common in the NBA until the league prohibited them in 1984. — Martin tamb (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments "as the teams'" as their teams'? Fixed. "the league" is repetitive in the lead, used at least three times in quick succession. Changed some of them into BAA or NBA. "Coach of the Year award(s) won[a]" is completely "None" and hence the [a] is irrelevant too. Any need for this col? Column removed. Yrs - is that complete years? Complete seasons? Would you really consider Dischinger to have a 1-year coaching career for two games? Suggest this col is axed. Column removed. You have a mix of spaced and unspaced slashes used within the article. Be consistent. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the reviews. — Martin tamb (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"as the teams'" as their teams'?

Fixed.

"the league" is repetitive in the lead, used at least three times in quick succession.

Changed some of them into BAA or NBA.

"Coach of the Year award(s) won[a]" is completely "None" and hence the [a] is irrelevant too. Any need for this col?

Column removed.

Yrs - is that complete years? Complete seasons? Would you really consider Dischinger to have a 1-year coaching career for two games? Suggest this col is axed.

Column removed.

You have a mix of spaced and unspaced slashes used within the article. Be consistent.

Fixed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reviews. — Martin tamb (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support after a tiny tweak, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why not to split the tenure(s) into its own column?

I could split them, but it would not work well with Wilkens who have two separate coaching stints.

I don't see a problem with two tenures separated by a line break. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've split them, but on a quick glance at the table, it looks like Guerin had two stints with two different teams. I still think the previous arrangement is better. — Martin tamb (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks better. But I'll leave this discussion open so people can make their own minds up. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am indifferent about both arrangements.—Chris!_c/t 00:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a really cool little list, I like it a lot. One question, though none of them has won Coach of the Year, what do you think about including a general awards column to include any player honors (MVP, DPOY, etc, etc) if anyone won those? I'd be just as interested to know about exceptional player-seasons while coaching as I would be interested in outstanding coaching while playing. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, I'll work on that soon. — Martin tamb (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added the honors and awards column. I'm still looking on the All-Star Game coaching honors and will add them as soon as possible. — Martin tamb (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, lemme know when you've checked that and I'll support. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All done. — Martin tamb (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting on the below, I missed that source issue. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I buy MT's argument below on this source, and beyond that it looks great! Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

~~Please check the sorting in the playoff columns. I'm getting some random oddities in the form of numbers sorting by one digit only.~~

Added hidden sortkey, sorting should be fine now. — Martin tamb (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~What makes http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm a reliable source? It looks like somebody's personal website. If a better source wasn't out there for this fact, it would surprise me.~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it qualifies as a RS. The site is maintained by Larry Coon, who is often called an expert on NBA salary cap by media including The New York Times. He also writes for the ESPN.—Chris!_c/t 03:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Coon's self-published website should qualify as reliable source per WP:SELFPUBLISH which says: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. — Martin tamb (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Enough editors have come forward to convince me that the source is decent, though I still think something of a higher quality could be out there. I don't have any further issues. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've tried to find a better source. I've been looking through the complete CBA documents here but I couldn't find anything about coaches' salary. Then it occurs to me that coaches are not part of the National Basketball Players Association, which explains why their salary are not counted in the salary cap. So far, Larry Coon's CBA FAQ is the only source I could find which clearly stated this information. — MT (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:03, 30 December 2010 [11].

List of National Basketball Association season steals leaders[edit]

Nominator(s): —Chris!_c/t 01:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't done this in a while. So here goes... —Chris!_c/t 01:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - The key looks awkward can't it be formatted like the second table? if not why is "Pos., SPG, Ref." bolded and not "G, F, C"? Afro (Talk) 08:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed—Chris!_c/t 00:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should repeat some of the references for the second paragraph in the lead. I'm a bit confused about Scottie Pippen in the 1994–95 since you list his position as "F/G" how does this differ from "G/F"? Afro (Talk)

Is repeating the refs necessary? From my experience, this is not the case. As for positions, the one listed first is primary.—Chris!_c/t 22:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not after looking over the para again. Afro (Talk) 12:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Note9] doesn't direct me anywhere when I click it. Afro (Talk) 12:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caused by a typo, now fixed—Chris!_c/t 00:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have no issues with the article. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 09:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments "ball by a defensive player" what if an offensive player takes the ball, is that not a steal? FIBA's definition was that it was simply a "defensive action" which resulted in a turnover... Offensive players already have the ball as they are the side that try to score. A steal occurs when players of the other team (defensive players) gain possession either take the ball away or through a turnover. Does that make sense?—Chris!_c/t 20:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ah, I think this is because where I'm from, someone without the ball with be a "defending" player, not a defensive player (as defensive would indicate his usual role in the team). Is it different for NBA? FIBA's definition seems clearer to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ok, I use FIBA's definition.—Chris!_c/t 22:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "This is the requirement since the 1974–75 season, with requirements changing with the schedule length several times before that." Maybe "Although this has been the entry criteria since the..., requirements have changed with the..."? Fixed—Chris!_c/t 00:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Funny split key, not keen on that at all. Fixed—Chris!_c/t 00:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Captions are a little, well, dry and repetitive. Suggest you fluff them up a little if possible? Done—Chris!_c/t 00:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The lead refers to season as a single year while the list refers to it as spanning two years. I'd be consistent. The single year links are linked to Finals article instead of the seasons.—Chris!_c/t 00:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Where is the proof that active players are, well, active still? And does that mean active in the NBA or active anywhere? It means active in the NBA. I forget to update the page. Now fixed.—Chris!_c/t 20:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"ball by a defensive player" what if an offensive player takes the ball, is that not a steal? FIBA's definition was that it was simply a "defensive action" which resulted in a turnover...

Offensive players already have the ball as they are the side that try to score. A steal occurs when players of the other team (defensive players) gain possession either take the ball away or through a turnover. Does that make sense?—Chris!_c/t 20:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think this is because where I'm from, someone without the ball with be a "defending" player, not a defensive player (as defensive would indicate his usual role in the team). Is it different for NBA? FIBA's definition seems clearer to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I use FIBA's definition.—Chris!_c/t 22:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This is the requirement since the 1974–75 season, with requirements changing with the schedule length several times before that." Maybe "Although this has been the entry criteria since the..., requirements have changed with the..."?

Fixed—Chris!_c/t 00:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny split key, not keen on that at all.

Fixed—Chris!_c/t 00:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Captions are a little, well, dry and repetitive. Suggest you fluff them up a little if possible?

Done—Chris!_c/t 00:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead refers to season as a single year while the list refers to it as spanning two years. I'd be consistent.

The single year links are linked to Finals article instead of the seasons.—Chris!_c/t 00:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the proof that active players are, well, active still? And does that mean active in the NBA or active anywhere?

It means active in the NBA. I forget to update the page. Now fixed.—Chris!_c/t 20:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support no problems on a quick re-visit. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – "with requirements changing with the schedule length several times before that." TRM's proposed text makes for a better read, but it doesn't solve the main issue I have with it: how could the requirements have changed several times (before 1974–75) when the stat had only been monitored for one season before that point? Fixed—Chris!_c/t 00:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Is Iverson still considered an active player when he's about to go play in Turkey? This might be what TRM means; if that's the case, consider this the same question in a different fashion. Now fixed.—Chris!_c/t 20:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I see that he is no longer treated as an active player in the table, but he's still listed in the lead as the active player with the most steals in a season. This should be changed too. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Done—Chris!_c/t 23:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "are the only players to win more than one steals titles." Believe "titles" should be singular, not plural. Oh, and wouldn't this statistics include the players with three titles? Maybe it should be "only other players"? Fixed.—Chris!_c/t 20:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] ~~Can the position column be made sortable? There are only a few forwards included, but I do think there are enough for sorting to be useful, if possible.~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Done.—Chris!_c/t 20:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

"with requirements changing with the schedule length several times before that." TRM's proposed text makes for a better read, but it doesn't solve the main issue I have with it: how could the requirements have changed several times (before 1974–75) when the stat had only been monitored for one season before that point?

Fixed—Chris!_c/t 00:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Iverson still considered an active player when he's about to go play in Turkey? This might be what TRM means; if that's the case, consider this the same question in a different fashion.

Now fixed.—Chris!_c/t 20:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that he is no longer treated as an active player in the table, but he's still listed in the lead as the active player with the most steals in a season. This should be changed too. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done—Chris!_c/t 23:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"are the only players to win more than one steals titles." Believe "titles" should be singular, not plural. Oh, and wouldn't this statistics include the players with three titles? Maybe it should be "only other players"?

Fixed.—Chris!_c/t 20:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Can the position column be made sortable? There are only a few forwards included, but I do think there are enough for sorting to be useful, if possible.~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.—Chris!_c/t 20:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:03, 30 December 2010 [12].

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1942)[edit]

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this as the first of five lists for featured list because I feel this list already meets the criteria. Due to the few number of recipients in the years 1940 and 1941 the two years had to be merged into one list. Once completed the five lists 1940–1941 (currently also under FLC review), 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945 will comprise all of the generally accepted 882 recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves. I welcome any constructive feedback. Thanks in advance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Any reason why 58 and 164 seem to be sorting by name by "von" while all other "von"s sort by the bit after the von? Oops, fixed MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "from a senior commander for skilled leadership of his troops in battle to a "low ranking" soldier for a single act of extreme gallantry" this looks a little like a quotation from the award? not really! See the Enactment regarding the renewing of the Iron Cross for the original wording please MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Not sure you need to link paradigm. What do you want me to do here? The 1940-1941 article uses the same links. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Nor Army, Navy or Air force. What do you want me to do here? The 1940-1941 article uses the same links. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] done MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Prefer "Image" over "Picture" as a column heading. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Think the title should have 1942 in parentheses rather than after a spaced colon, so "...with Oak Leaves recipients (1942)" good idea! done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Isn't "commander in chief" normally hyphenated? I linked it to commander-in-chief, does this work? MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] For "Unit", you have, for instance, "pilot in the .." this isn't unit, it's role/unit really isn't it? doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] What does the 4./ mean in " the 4./Jagdgeschwader 77" ? I tried addressing this with the article Nomenclature used by the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS, which is a note to the "Role and unit" column.MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Note 1 - "(Only leadership and organisational achievements, no personal bravery)" was this part of the note? If so, why not in quotes? Note 3- you suddenly use JG as an abbreviation. fixed MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Note 6 - you explain JG. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Note 9 - you say II. but just III without the full stop. To full stop or not to full stop, that's the question. done full stop is correct! It denotes the German naming convention for 2nd or 3rd group of a fighter or bomber wing. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Surprised the template at the bottom doesn't include the year lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "What do you want me to do here? The 1940-1941 article uses the same links." - this is precisely the reason not to have multiple nominations about the same subject matter simultaneously at FLC. Do what I ask here, and read across to the other lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Point taken! Sorry MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Any reason why 58 and 164 seem to be sorting by name by "von" while all other "von"s sort by the bit after the von?
- Oops, fixed MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"from a senior commander for skilled leadership of his troops in battle to a "low ranking" soldier for a single act of extreme gallantry" this looks a little like a quotation from the award?
- not really! See the Enactment regarding the renewing of the Iron Cross for the original wording please MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure you need to link paradigm.
- What do you want me to do here? The 1940-1941 article uses the same links. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nor Army, Navy or Air force.
- What do you want me to do here? The 1940-1941 article uses the same links. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - done MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer "Image" over "Picture" as a column heading.
- done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Think the title should have 1942 in parentheses rather than after a spaced colon, so "...with Oak Leaves recipients (1942)"
- good idea! done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't "commander in chief" normally hyphenated?
- I linked it to commander-in-chief, does this work? MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For "Unit", you have, for instance, "pilot in the .." this isn't unit, it's role/unit really isn't it?
- doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does the 4./ mean in " the 4./Jagdgeschwader 77" ?
- I tried addressing this with the article Nomenclature used by the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS, which is a note to the "Role and unit" column.MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note 1 - "(Only leadership and organisational achievements, no personal bravery)" was this part of the note? If so, why not in quotes?
Note 3- you suddenly use JG as an abbreviation.
- fixed MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note 6 - you explain JG.
- done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note 9 - you say II. but just III without the full stop. To full stop or not to full stop, that's the question.
- done full stop is correct! It denotes the German naming convention for 2nd or 3rd group of a fighter or bomber wing. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surprised the template at the bottom doesn't include the year lists.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"What do you want me to do here? The 1940-1941 article uses the same links." - this is precisely the reason not to have multiple nominations about the same subject matter simultaneously at FLC. Do what I ask here, and read across to the other lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken! Sorry MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - You only use RSD to in pointing out the abbreviation, is there any point in having it in the article? Same with JG 3. WASt doesn't need re-abbreviating in Note 11. AKCR is also abbreviated in the lead, I hardly think it needs re-abbreviating in the notes. Afro (Talk) 23:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Support

The list starts at number 58 a note could be added to the indicate that 1–57 were issued between 1940–1941 or whenever.

I was thinking of adding the followin text: "Listed here are the 111 recipients of 1942, ranging from sequential number 58 to 168. The 8 recipients of 1940 ranging from 1 to 7 are listed here, the 50 recipients, range 8 to 57, are listed here. The range 169 to 360, denoting the 192 recipients of 1943 can be found here. In 1944 328 men, listed as recipients 361 to 688, can be found here and the final 194 recipients of 1945 ranging from 689 to 882 are listed here." Would this address the issue? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In note 2 handled the case in 1981 and decided: Swords yes, can this be reworded handled the case in 1981 and decided to award him the Swords ?

In note 4 According to Scherzer as Staffelkapitän of the 3./Jagdgeschwader 77 - should that not be III./Jagdgeschwader 77 ?

Nope, 3./Jagdgeschwader 77 is correct, it denotes the 3rd squadron, I double checked MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In note 6 and others there is no need to link the ranks they are already linked in the table

I was once advised to err on over-linking since the list can be sorted and one does not know what sort option the reader may have chosen. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In note 7 while Prien states who is Prien.

Prien is the author of Jagdgeschwader 53 A History of the "Pik As" Geschwader May 1942 – January 1944. Listed in the Bibliography section. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translate some of the more obscure German Aufklärungs-Abteilung for example.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note reagding the nomenclature of German military terms. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure having two separate lists for 40-41 and for 42 is ideal. I would prefer a single 40-42 one since it would be shorter than the '43 one. Nergaal (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this general consensus? If not I would like to keep them separate. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm against it. I would rather split up 40-41 article on a half in order to simplify things and have tidy article for every year. Current format could make people wonder if there is some another quality reasoning behind such a breakdown besides saving some KB's or one list simply being shorter. Utinsh (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The merge of 1940 and 1941 was requested at the WikiProject Military A-class review. I also had preferred to keep them separate. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I can't find anything to add or complain about. Great article. Utinsh (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:45, 17 December 2010 [13].

List of off-season Atlantic hurricanes[edit]

Nominator(s): Hylian Auree (talk), --Hurricanehink, Jason Rees

I am nominating this for featured list because the problems previously stated have been addressed. Hylian Auree (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As author of the list, I am co-nomming. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After discussions with Hink ive been alowed to co-nom.Jason Rees (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Strange Passerby (talk • contribs)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
~~Oppose~~ – There are a number of issues I see. Some are minor, but a lot of stuff brought up in the first FLC have not been fixed, which leaves me wondering about the claim that "problems previously stated have been addressed". I would suggest reviewing The Rambling Man's comments from the first FLC before continuing. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] United States Weather Bureau should be National Weather Service as the former is no longer an existent entity. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oops, got it. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "As of now" should be "As of 2010" or "As of November 2010". "Now" can change, and if an off-season storm forms without the article being updated it'd be inaccurate. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I changed it to 2024. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sourcing for the background, for example the statement that "Regardless, off-season storms prior to 1964 are still defined by the current seasonal span and are still considered part of the annual season outside which they develop." On that note, I'd also remove the word "regardless", it seems to be unnecessary. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I removed that sentence, since I wasn't really sure how to handle it. I replaced it with a note - does that make sense? --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Is there any single source for the entire table, or for the individual entries in it? I assume refs 4 and 5, heavily used in the records and statistics section, is what's being used for this? If so, would it make sense to add a ((small)) after the table with "Sources: [4][5]"? Likewise for monthly statistics. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, all of the names, seasons, dates, and winds are based off the two links. That's why at the top of the table, I have a ref next to winds (not to names, seasons, and dates so it's not cluttered). I could put the ref on the bottom, but I don't want people thinking that the deaths and damage came from there. I did add the ref to the monthly stats. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] And on that note, if you do take up that suggestion, you could remove [4][5] from the list column headings, too, making it look cleaner. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Numbers or Unnamed? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Numbers for storms within HURDAT, unnamed for TD's that weren't numbered. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Please solve the issues brought up in the first FLC, including sorting issues with the names, damage, deaths, and WP:ACCESS issues with the coloured backgrounds. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I believe the sorting issues were fixed, and I'm not sure what the concern is over WP:ACCESS. The previous comment was: "if I can't discern color, I can't use the key." If you can't discern color, then you don't need the key. The color is just another little thing added to the article. Unless, do you mean that a column should be added for "Category"? --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] If you can't discern color, then you have no way of knowing the category. --Golbez (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK, I got it now. Does that work, what I added? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] It's fine by me. As for the sorting, it's not fixed. Try sorting by name. #18 and #19 are appearing before #5 and #6; #13 and #14 before #2; Unnamed before any of the A storms. Sorting by deaths produces a horrible mess where sorting in descending order has 0 on top and sorting in ascending order has "several", followed by 80 on top. Suggest you use ((sort)). Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 08:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Alright, I've sorted so that the numbers are first, then unknown, then the names. Hope that works. Anything more that you object to? --Hurricanehink (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Deaths and damage still don't sort properly. I'm getting $78.9 million listed before $9.46 million, and 25 deaths before 5. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 05:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ugh, fucking sorting :P I'm not sure how to fix the damage, since the damage is auto-inflated. Any suggestions? --Hurricanehink (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The sorting should now be sorted.Jason Rees (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Several" means more than one and should be sorted as such. Also, could you fix sorting for the category status? Other than that, no other issues for me. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 10:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK, the "several" issue has been fixed, as was the category status. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Strange Passerby (talk • contribs)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

~~Oppose~~ – There are a number of issues I see. Some are minor, but a lot of stuff brought up in the first FLC have not been fixed, which leaves me wondering about the claim that "problems previously stated have been addressed". I would suggest reviewing The Rambling Man's comments from the first FLC before continuing. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- United States Weather Bureau should be National Weather Service as the former is no longer an existent entity. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops, got it. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "As of now" should be "As of 2010" or "As of November 2010". "Now" can change, and if an off-season storm forms without the article being updated it'd be inaccurate. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I changed it to 2024. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourcing for the background, for example the statement that "Regardless, off-season storms prior to 1964 are still defined by the current seasonal span and are still considered part of the annual season outside which they develop." On that note, I'd also remove the word "regardless", it seems to be unnecessary. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I removed that sentence, since I wasn't really sure how to handle it. I replaced it with a note - does that make sense? --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any single source for the entire table, or for the individual entries in it? I assume refs 4 and 5, heavily used in the records and statistics section, is what's being used for this? If so, would it make sense to add a ((small)) after the table with "Sources: [4][5]"? Likewise for monthly statistics. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, all of the names, seasons, dates, and winds are based off the two links. That's why at the top of the table, I have a ref next to winds (not to names, seasons, and dates so it's not cluttered). I could put the ref on the bottom, but I don't want people thinking that the deaths and damage came from there. I did add the ref to the monthly stats. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And on that note, if you do take up that suggestion, you could remove [4][5] from the list column headings, too, making it look cleaner. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Numbers or Unnamed? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Numbers for storms within HURDAT, unnamed for TD's that weren't numbered. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please solve the issues brought up in the first FLC, including sorting issues with the names, damage, deaths, and WP:ACCESS issues with the coloured backgrounds. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe the sorting issues were fixed, and I'm not sure what the concern is over WP:ACCESS. The previous comment was:
    - "if I can't discern color, I can't use the key."
  - If you can't discern color, then you don't need the key. The color is just another little thing added to the article. Unless, do you mean that a column should be added for "Category"? --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you can't discern color, then you have no way of knowing the category. --Golbez (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, I got it now. Does that work, what I added? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It's fine by me. As for the sorting, it's not fixed. Try sorting by name. #18 and #19 are appearing before #5 and #6; #13 and #14 before #2; Unnamed before any of the A storms. Sorting by deaths produces a horrible mess where sorting in descending order has 0 on top and sorting in ascending order has "several", followed by 80 on top. Suggest you use ((sort)). Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 08:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Alright, I've sorted so that the numbers are first, then unknown, then the names. Hope that works. Anything more that you object to? --Hurricanehink (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Deaths and damage still don't sort properly. I'm getting $78.9 million listed before $9.46 million, and 25 deaths before 5. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 05:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Ugh, fucking sorting :P I'm not sure how to fix the damage, since the damage is auto-inflated. Any suggestions? --Hurricanehink (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The sorting should now be sorted.Jason Rees (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Several" means more than one and should be sorted as such. Also, could you fix sorting for the category status? Other than that, no other issues for me. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 10:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- OK, the "several" issue has been fixed, as was the category status. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now supporting. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 16:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Afro (Nice Beaver) 23:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The chronology table seems to be unsourced in certain areas where information may challenged. The note isn't referenced. The timeline in the Monthly statistics section seems terribly out of place. Afro (Talk) 00:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Where does such info appear unsourced where it could be challenged? And how does that timeline seem out of place? It is the same as the data on the left, just in graphical format. Lastly, I don't know how to cite the note, but I'll look into it. --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Dates, Regions affected for starters. Then if not out of place the timeline is useless as its already conveying information in the table besides it. Afro (Talk) 03:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Fine, I put the sourcing at the bottom. Also, I don't consider two forms of data as useless, if they provide different ways at looking at something. And, I figured out how to cite that note. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] If two forms of data had different content it wouldn't be useless, however the only difference between the two is that one of the left has references. Also looking over the sources for the table I am finding that some of the items within the table aren't listed as presented in the table, as an example and I have no idea if I'm interpreting the source correctly but for the first item Ref 4 lists a hurricane which is Not Named, while Ref 20 says "No track available, only one point." which leaves me being unable to verify whether this entry is listed in the source, I also do not see any information on either regarding regions affected, you may want to look over the content in the table as I'm sure there are similar entries to this. Afro (Talk) 10:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, I personally think the two tables should stay, since they are different ways at looking at the data. As for the sources, it's a bit difficult to discern for people unfamiliar with it. For all tropical storms and hurricanes (and TD's after 1970), they are in the best track, which is ref #4. For all tropical cyclones before 1925, they are in ref #20. The first storm (the one in 1865), can thus be found in ref #4 (as well as #20). You can find it easily by doing a search of "1865". It yields: AL##65 NOT NAMED 053000 1865 13.0 80.0 50 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * In laymen terms, that's the 1865 season. The storm was unnamed, and it existed on May (05) 30th. It was at 13.0N, 80.0W, and had peak winds of 50 knots. For all storms, locations affected refers to the areas it affected along its track (the track being its latitude and longitude). Does that make sense? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] So the storm was unnamed? so why is it listed in the table as #1? Also listing the deaths as "Several" in the column isn't helpful and I am confused at the sorting, they should at the very least be higher than 0. Afro (Talk) 11:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, storms before 1950 were unnamed. Those with numbers are in the best track as official tropical cyclones. Those without numbers ("unnamed"), are either unnumbered tropical depressions, or they were tropical/subtropical cyclones after 1950 that didn't have a name. The sorting issue (for now) has been fixed. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Still confused so the storms before 1950 are listed as Unnamed in the source so why isn't it listed as unnamed in the article? Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 13:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, that would be a lot of unnamed storms. I just opted to list their storm number. I don't think it makes much of a difference. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well at the current state it proves inaccurate and inconsistent, I fail to understand how only a bare few of the hurricanes can be labelled correctly yet others cannot. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 15:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] It is both accurate and consistent, though. How would it be useful to have half of the storms listed under "U"? The consistency is that the storms are listed by either their name or their storm number. There just happen to be a lot of storm that don't fit into that metric, like unnumbered storms. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I fail to see how its accurate, when storms before were 1950 are unnamed. I only bring up this naming issue because the column is listed as a name, not Name or Storm Number. By the way I am still opposed to the presentation of 2 tables in the monthly statistics for previous reasons stated. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 18:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I mean, if you want to be really pedantic, it could be retitled as "Name or Storm Number", but I really don't think it's a big deal. It's just the heading for a column. As for the 2 tables, well, I'm sorry, but I prefer seeing the two versions like that. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] It would be pointless to combine them since if we were to combine the graphs we would need a symbol per WP:Accessibility, where as at the minute i dont think we do.Jason Rees (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The point I'm making on the graph is not that it doesn't meet Accesibility purposes, its that it conveys the same information as the table next to it. On the column name I'll meet you half way somewhat if a note can be provided explaining the naming process of the storms listed I think it would be adequate. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 19:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK, I added a note about names, I should've done that earlier. I apologize. I forget how some people don't know everything about hurricanes! --Hurricanehink (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Just a note, I contacted Afkatk's talk page, whether the opposition still stands. There was never a response to my above comment. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] I still think the second graph table adds nothing to the article, I'm still questioning its existence. There are also inconsistencies with the date format for Ref 8 and 9.Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 22:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, Ref 8 doesn't have an exact date, unlike Ref 9, so that shouldn't be a big deal. As for the second graph, one is the numerical value, and one is the graphical value. I'd hardly call that adding nothing. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Retrieved November 30, 2010.", "(December 2, 1925), Retrieved November 30, 2010.". So your opinion on it is, ones a pretty picture and the other is text? Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 11:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Precisely. Last I heard, images were still welcome in articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'll just drop the point at the present time unless another editor wishes to do bring it up again. Ref 8 still has an inconsistency with the date format by the way. The first paragraph in Records and Statistics looks of had its last sentence cut off. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 23:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hinks just told me (on irc) hes fixed this point.Jason Rees (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Afro (Nice Beaver) 23:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The chronology table seems to be unsourced in certain areas where information may challenged. The note isn't referenced. The timeline in the Monthly statistics section seems terribly out of place. Afro (Talk) 00:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does such info appear unsourced where it could be challenged? And how does that timeline seem out of place? It is the same as the data on the left, just in graphical format. Lastly, I don't know how to cite the note, but I'll look into it. --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dates, Regions affected for starters. Then if not out of place the timeline is useless as its already conveying information in the table besides it. Afro (Talk) 03:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I put the sourcing at the bottom. Also, I don't consider two forms of data as useless, if they provide different ways at looking at something. And, I figured out how to cite that note. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If two forms of data had different content it wouldn't be useless, however the only difference between the two is that one of the left has references. Also looking over the sources for the table I am finding that some of the items within the table aren't listed as presented in the table, as an example and I have no idea if I'm interpreting the source correctly but for the first item Ref 4 lists a hurricane which is Not Named, while Ref 20 says "No track available, only one point." which leaves me being unable to verify whether this entry is listed in the source, I also do not see any information on either regarding regions affected, you may want to look over the content in the table as I'm sure there are similar entries to this. Afro (Talk) 10:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I personally think the two tables should stay, since they are different ways at looking at the data. As for the sources, it's a bit difficult to discern for people unfamiliar with it. For all tropical storms and hurricanes (and TD's after 1970), they are in the best track, which is ref #4. For all tropical cyclones before 1925, they are in ref #20. The first storm (the one in 1865), can thus be found in ref #4 (as well as #20). You can find it easily by doing a search of "1865". It yields:

AL##65 NOT NAMED 053000 1865 13.0 80.0 50 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *

In laymen terms, that's the 1865 season. The storm was unnamed, and it existed on May (05) 30th. It was at 13.0N, 80.0W, and had peak winds of 50 knots. For all storms, locations affected refers to the areas it affected along its track (the track being its latitude and longitude). Does that make sense? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the storm was unnamed? so why is it listed in the table as #1? Also listing the deaths as "Several" in the column isn't helpful and I am confused at the sorting, they should at the very least be higher than 0. Afro (Talk) 11:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, storms before 1950 were unnamed. Those with numbers are in the best track as official tropical cyclones. Those without numbers ("unnamed"), are either unnumbered tropical depressions, or they were tropical/subtropical cyclones after 1950 that didn't have a name. The sorting issue (for now) has been fixed. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still confused so the storms before 1950 are listed as Unnamed in the source so why isn't it listed as unnamed in the article? Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 13:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would be a lot of unnamed storms. I just opted to list their storm number. I don't think it makes much of a difference. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well at the current state it proves inaccurate and inconsistent, I fail to understand how only a bare few of the hurricanes can be labelled correctly yet others cannot. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 15:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is both accurate and consistent, though. How would it be useful to have half of the storms listed under "U"? The consistency is that the storms are listed by either their name or their storm number. There just happen to be a lot of storm that don't fit into that metric, like unnumbered storms. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how its accurate, when storms before were 1950 are unnamed. I only bring up this naming issue because the column is listed as a name, not Name or Storm Number. By the way I am still opposed to the presentation of 2 tables in the monthly statistics for previous reasons stated. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 18:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if you want to be really pedantic, it could be retitled as "Name or Storm Number", but I really don't think it's a big deal. It's just the heading for a column. As for the 2 tables, well, I'm sorry, but I prefer seeing the two versions like that. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be pointless to combine them since if we were to combine the graphs we would need a symbol per WP:Accessibility, where as at the minute i dont think we do.Jason Rees (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point I'm making on the graph is not that it doesn't meet Accesibility purposes, its that it conveys the same information as the table next to it. On the column name I'll meet you half way somewhat if a note can be provided explaining the naming process of the storms listed I think it would be adequate. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 19:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I added a note about names, I should've done that earlier. I apologize. I forget how some people don't know everything about hurricanes! --Hurricanehink (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, I contacted Afkatk's talk page, whether the opposition still stands. There was never a response to my above comment. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the second graph table adds nothing to the article, I'm still questioning its existence. There are also inconsistencies with the date format for Ref 8 and 9.Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 22:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ref 8 doesn't have an exact date, unlike Ref 9, so that shouldn't be a big deal. As for the second graph, one is the numerical value, and one is the graphical value. I'd hardly call that adding nothing. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Retrieved November 30, 2010.", "(December 2, 1925), Retrieved November 30, 2010.". So your opinion on it is, ones a pretty picture and the other is text? Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 11:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Last I heard, images were still welcome in articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just drop the point at the present time unless another editor wishes to do bring it up again. Ref 8 still has an inconsistency with the date format by the way. The first paragraph in Records and Statistics looks of had its last sentence cut off. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 23:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hinks just told me (on irc) hes fixed this point.Jason Rees (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have no major issues with the article. Afro (Nice Beaver) 23:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Jason Rees (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Comment - The references need to be gone through with a fine toothcomb as you have several publishers as authors. Also i note these problems need to be fixed. NOAA needs to be spelt out in references.Jason Rees (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Reference 5 is lacking Author information and publication info despite it being listed on the page.Jason Rees (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Tropical Depression 01 Preliminary report is lacking author info despite it being listed on page 2 of the report.Jason Rees (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Spelled out NOAA, added authors, and went through refs. --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Jason Rees (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comment - The references need to be gone through with a fine toothcomb as you have several publishers as authors. Also i note these problems need to be fixed.

NOAA needs to be spelt out in references.Jason Rees (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 5 is lacking Author information and publication info despite it being listed on the page.Jason Rees (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Depression 01 Preliminary report is lacking author info despite it being listed on page 2 of the report.Jason Rees (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spelled out NOAA, added authors, and went through refs. --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comment from Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 01:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment, separate from my resolved concerns above: an explanation should be made for why some pressures are listed as "N/A" (a brief line about when pressures started to be estimated or something would work I suppose). Likewise, some sort of explanation about why some damage totals are listed as N/A even where there were deaths (and by extension damage must've occurred) would be useful. Str Pby (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK, I made a note. --Hurricanehink (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comment from Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 01:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment, separate from my resolved concerns above: an explanation should be made for why some pressures are listed as "N/A" (a brief line about when pressures started to be estimated or something would work I suppose). Likewise, some sort of explanation about why some damage totals are listed as N/A even where there were deaths (and by extension damage must've occurred) would be useful. StrPby (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I made a note. --Hurricanehink (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The lead seems to have a few non-referenced stats like " with over 60% of such storms occurring during that month". I may not have looked closely enough but I can't see these stats anywhere else in the list so they must be cited. Well, that's just based on what's in the article. It's routine math. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Occasionally, however, storms develop in late November and persist until December; this list excludes such storms." why? From a non-expert point-of-view, they're either in-season or off-season. These would appear to qualify as "off-season". (note: I think the main part of the article explains this, but it seems odd to say it in the lead but not explain it there).. Hinks used the qualifier that they must of formed out of the normal season. Thus ones that form in November but persist into the off season are not included.Jason Rees (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, it's still confusing as "storms develop in late November" surely could include storms that occur before November 30, i.e. formed during the season? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, the storms don't form in the off-season, that's it. The lede says the article is limited to storms that form in the off-season. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Still confused. Even though a storm exists off-season, just because it didn't form off-season, it's excluded? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] You've got it.Jason Rees (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, it is a list of off-season storms. Something that forms inside of the season is not off-season. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] No but it still "exists" off-season. Take an extreme example, it forms on November 30, and persists for say three weeks (figures plucked from the air, so apologies) but it wouldn't be an off-season hurricane? Is this an "official" definition of "off-season" or an arbitrary cut-off? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] No, it wouldn't be an off-season hurricane. An example is Hurricane Epsilon. It formed in late November, and was a hurricane in December. In its report, the NHC mentions that it was a December hurricane, but not that it was an off-season storm, unlike the report on Tropical Storm Olga. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Okay, well if at all possible, a referenced definition would be good. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Actually, I can't find a good referenced definition either way. I suppose I can easily add them, that formed in November but lasted until December. There aren't too many of them, and it wouldn't change the article much. Would you suggest that? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, I do promise you I'm not being deliberately awkward, it just struck me that "off-season" obviously means something different to you and Jason as it does to me. And without an official reference I guess either of us could be theoretically correct. It's a shame there's nothing definitive out there, because right now I think the inclusion of those which crossed off-season from November probably should be included. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Haha, no, I understand the confusion, and I don't mind at all adding the November storms. I'll get on that. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "November 30[nb 1],[3] " note before, ref after comma, why?! Oops, good catch! Hurricanehink (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Color-coding of names doesn't make sense per WP:ACCESS despite the scale graphic. The name shouldn't be in that color, the SSHS category should. OK, good call. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] What is SS on the scale? It's not on the graphic. Done.Jason Rees (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] In fact, C1, C2 and C3 aren't mentioned on the graphic either. This is a touch confusing. Done.Jason Rees (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Damage column, I'd put a linebreak after "in" to reduce the overwhelming width of this column. Done.Jason Rees (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Records and Stats section - you have "Caribbean Sea" which you don't link, then afterwards "Caribbean" which you do... Caribbean Sea was linked earlier, but Caribbean (the landmass) was not. --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hurricane Alice is overlinked in that section too. Agreed. --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Portal link squashes the references, can you put it in the See also section (for instance)? Sure. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Staff Writer->Staff writer (although I could see no evidence of either, and many other claims) and page number (14)? Gotcha. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Generally published sources have surname, first name order in the references. No prob. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Comments[reply] Why does SS sort before TS while the scale shows TS before SS? Arthur needs a $ in the damages col. Dates col doesn't sort correctly, 1973 Unnamed comes between Alma and 1940 #1 but should come between 1899 Unnamed and 1932 #1. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] All FixedJason Rees (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] As previously mentioned, sorting problems seem to have been fixed. On a side note, I've finished adding the November–December storms to the list. Stats and storm totals have also been updated accordingly. ★ Hylian Auree (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] 12 and #4 sort out of order for me, I'm guessing they're treated like text instead of numbers so you'll need to force the sort. 4 value of damage sorts out of order still. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ive forced the sorting to sort accurately.Jason Rees (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sorry to bang on, but your N/A in the Damage column sorts differently from your N/A in the Pressure column (for instance). I'd expect consistent behaviour here. Also not sure why you need three columns for wind speed when a merged column would sort just as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] No worries feel free to bang on. Regarding the pressure N/As not sorting as the N/As in damage. There seems to be a curious problem there, i set the pressure column to sort like the damage column, but it isnt working. The only thing i can think it that it might be is the fact that the damage column is the last sorting column and wouldn't have anything to sort against. (I hope this makes sense). Ill see if i can find a solution tomorrow.Jason Rees (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] I had a look through and i cant get it too work either of the ways i thought it might work.Jason Rees (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Here is what it looks like with the wind units merged. I think if we were to go ahead with that, the knots would be removed (since they are not needed by any means). Does that work, TRM? Hurricanehink (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yep, prefer that format. I'll have a look at the other sorting issues too, see if I can help. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Okeydoke, it's done. --Hurricanehink (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comments Okay, in Safari, the Damage column sorts incorrectly, and sorts four ways. It's sorting fine for me (I just noticed the 1925 one wasn't sorting, so I fixed it). --Hurricanehink (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Pressure still sorts with N/A equivalent to zero while Damage sorts with N/A always below rows with a Damage value, which is inconsistent. Ive finally found a way around it and sorted it to many chorus of Hallelujah :PJason Rees (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] I also (have just realised that I) don't like the floating S-S hurricane scale graphic, without a caption or any particular relevance where it is. What makes DR1.com a reliable source? (Discloser: its the first time ive seen this source) It appears to be a main news agency (eg BBC) for the Dominican republic.Jason Rees (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] But that's it! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Err, I don't really get the problem with the S-S hurricane scale. It is in the chronology section, which also mentions how SSHS is used within the table. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] It might just be Safari but it's virtually embedded in the text, it looks a little odd. Other hurricane lists I've seen have this centrally aligned on the top of the table or similar. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oh, I use Safari, and it's seated nicely on the right-hand side. I added a space. Lemme know if that works better. That's how it was done on List of retired Atlantic hurricane names. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The lead seems to have a few non-referenced stats like " with over 60% of such storms occurring during that month". I may not have looked closely enough but I can't see these stats anywhere else in the list so they must be cited.
- Well, that's just based on what's in the article. It's routine math. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Occasionally, however, storms develop in late November and persist until December; this list excludes such storms." why? From a non-expert point-of-view, they're either in-season or off-season. These would appear to qualify as "off-season". (note: I think the main part of the article explains this, but it seems odd to say it in the lead but not explain it there)..
- Hinks used the qualifier that they must of formed out of the normal season. Thus ones that form in November but persist into the off season are not included.Jason Rees (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, it's still confusing as "storms develop in late November" surely could include storms that occur before November 30, i.e. formed during the season? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, the storms don't form in the off-season, that's it. The lede says the article is limited to storms that form in the off-season. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Still confused. Even though a storm exists off-season, just because it didn't form off-season, it's excluded? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You've got it.Jason Rees (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Well, it is a list of off-season storms. Something that forms inside of the season is not off-season. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No but it still "exists" off-season. Take an extreme example, it forms on November 30, and persists for say three weeks (figures plucked from the air, so apologies) but it wouldn't be an off-season hurricane? Is this an "official" definition of "off-season" or an arbitrary cut-off? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it wouldn't be an off-season hurricane. An example is Hurricane Epsilon. It formed in late November, and was a hurricane in December. In its report, the NHC mentions that it was a December hurricane, but not that it was an off-season storm, unlike the report on Tropical Storm Olga. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, well if at all possible, a referenced definition would be good. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, I can't find a good referenced definition either way. I suppose I can easily add them, that formed in November but lasted until December. There aren't too many of them, and it wouldn't change the article much. Would you suggest that? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I do promise you I'm not being deliberately awkward, it just struck me that "off-season" obviously means something different to you and Jason as it does to me. And without an official reference I guess either of us could be theoretically correct. It's a shame there's nothing definitive out there, because right now I think the inclusion of those which crossed off-season from November probably should be included. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Haha, no, I understand the confusion, and I don't mind at all adding the November storms. I'll get on that. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"November 30[nb 1],[3] " note before, ref after comma, why?!
- Oops, good catch! Hurricanehink (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Color-coding of names doesn't make sense per WP:ACCESS despite the scale graphic. The name shouldn't be in that color, the SSHS category should.
- OK, good call. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is SS on the scale? It's not on the graphic.
- Done.Jason Rees (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, C1, C2 and C3 aren't mentioned on the graphic either. This is a touch confusing.
- Done.Jason Rees (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Damage column, I'd put a linebreak after "in" to reduce the overwhelming width of this column.
- Done.Jason Rees (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Records and Stats section - you have "Caribbean Sea" which you don't link, then afterwards "Caribbean" which you do...
- Caribbean Sea was linked earlier, but Caribbean (the landmass) was not. --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Alice is overlinked in that section too.
- Agreed. --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Portal link squashes the references, can you put it in the See also section (for instance)?
- Sure. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Staff Writer->Staff writer (although I could see no evidence of either, and many other claims) and page number (14)?
- Gotcha. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally published sources have surname, first name order in the references.
- No prob. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Comments[reply]

Why does SS sort before TS while the scale shows TS before SS?
Arthur needs a $ in the damages col.
Dates col doesn't sort correctly, 1973 Unnamed comes between Alma and 1940 #1 but should come between 1899 Unnamed and 1932 #1.

The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All FixedJason Rees (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As previously mentioned, sorting problems seem to have been fixed. On a side note, I've finished adding the November–December storms to the list. Stats and storm totals have also been updated accordingly. ★ Hylian Auree (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1. 12 and #4 sort out of order for me, I'm guessing they're treated like text instead of numbers so you'll need to force the sort.
    2. 4 value of damage sorts out of order still. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ive forced the sorting to sort accurately.Jason Rees (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry to bang on, but your N/A in the Damage column sorts differently from your N/A in the Pressure column (for instance). I'd expect consistent behaviour here. Also not sure why you need three columns for wind speed when a merged column would sort just as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No worries feel free to bang on. Regarding the pressure N/As not sorting as the N/As in damage. There seems to be a curious problem there, i set the pressure column to sort like the damage column, but it isnt working. The only thing i can think it that it might be is the fact that the damage column is the last sorting column and wouldn't have anything to sort against. (I hope this makes sense). Ill see if i can find a solution tomorrow.Jason Rees (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I had a look through and i cant get it too work either of the ways i thought it might work.Jason Rees (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what it looks like with the wind units merged. I think if we were to go ahead with that, the knots would be removed (since they are not needed by any means). Does that work, TRM? Hurricanehink (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, prefer that format. I'll have a look at the other sorting issues too, see if I can help. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okeydoke, it's done. --Hurricanehink (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Okay, in Safari, the Damage column sorts incorrectly, and sorts four ways.
- It's sorting fine for me (I just noticed the 1925 one wasn't sorting, so I fixed it). --Hurricanehink (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pressure still sorts with N/A equivalent to zero while Damage sorts with N/A always below rows with a Damage value, which is inconsistent.
- Ive finally found a way around it and sorted it to many chorus of Hallelujah :PJason Rees (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also (have just realised that I) don't like the floating S-S hurricane scale graphic, without a caption or any particular relevance where it is.
What makes DR1.com a reliable source?
- (Discloser: its the first time ive seen this source) It appears to be a main news agency (eg BBC) for the Dominican republic.Jason Rees (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that's it! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Err, I don't really get the problem with the S-S hurricane scale. It is in the chronology section, which also mentions how SSHS is used within the table. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It might just be Safari but it's virtually embedded in the text, it looks a little odd. Other hurricane lists I've seen have this centrally aligned on the top of the table or similar. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, I use Safari, and it's seated nicely on the right-hand side. I added a space. Lemme know if that works better. That's how it was done on List of retired Atlantic hurricane names. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support after my many comments were all nicely dealt with. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: While I the think that the "SSHS category" column would look better centered, this list looks great overall and meets FL criteria. I support its promotion, assuming other reviewers' concerns are addressed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

Records and statistics: No need for multiple Hurricane Lili links here.
"with a total of five existing in the off-season. estorms Several other had three". Extraneous word there.
Several of the references (10, 11, 13, 21) lack PDF indications. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good catch. I got them. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for reviewing, guys! ★ Auree (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:45, 17 December 2010 [14].

Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (B)[edit]

Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 16:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the featured list criteria. The list was recently updated to meet the concerns raised regarding accessibility of lists in table format at the prior FLC in this series, including the addition of "scope=row" parameters and such. I will make every effort, as always, to be as expedient as possible in addressing reviewers' comments. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 16:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Why is there no section heading for the list? Afro (Talk) 23:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See the linked prior FLC. This discussion also. — KV5 • Talk • 13:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Since all major comments seem to of been addressed by other users, and I have no objections. Afro (Nice Beaver) 20:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose All sources bar one are primary. Sandman888 (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How are these primary sources? Baseball-Reference.com is not affiliated with the Phillies, to my knowledge. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The spirit of WP:PSTS is to base prose statements on other evaluations, not make novel interpretations based on what is a primary source. The distinction between secondary and primary is not merely on affiliation, but also, and 'primarily', on the analytical level. Cheers, Sandman888 (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - There have been no "novel interpretations" made here. The all-time roster is sourced to multiple pages within a a reliable secondary source. I heartily disagree with your interpretation stating that sources are primary based on their "analytical level", as this is not an accepted academic practice. — KV5 • Talk • 12:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Luckily there exist semi-official definitions of a secondary source. University of California, Berkeley library defines "secondary source" as "a work that interprets or analyzes an historical event or phenomenon. It is generally at least one step removed from the event". my emphasis. Taken from the above link to secondary sources. What you consider an "accepted academic practice" must be taken up to revision. Sandman888 (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Princeton adds: "A secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or more steps removed from the event. ", again, my emphasis. 1 Cheerio. Sandman888 (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Baseball-Reference is a work that analyzes historical events and phenomena (baseball seasons and games) and is at least one step removed from the event (in this case, Major League Baseball), so thank you for proving that it is a reliable secondary source. — KV5 • Talk • 12:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(OD) the notion that baseball-reference analyses anything is outright ludicrous; it is nothing but a list of stats. Earlier on you said that the definition of secondary sources was not "an accepted academic practice" and you "heartily disagree[d]". When that proved to be wrong you simply tried to force baseball-reference into the definition of secondary sources, but that is not acceptable. Sandman888 (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely incorrect in this point, as Baseball-Reference takes statistics provided by primary sources and extrapolates them to categories like Wins above replacement player, just to name one. — KV5 • Talk • 19:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Baseball-Reference is obviously a reliable secondary source, per any/all of KV5's arguments above. Arguing otherwise is simply a waste of everyone's time. I offer this question: in your definition, what is a reliable secondary source for MLB statistics? — Timneu22 · talk 19:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree as well baseball-reference is not a primary source Secret ^account 19:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed, BR is not a primary source. It is independent of MLB and provides sabermetric statistics MLB.com does not. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no issue with the use of a primary source for statistical information, in any case. From Wikipedia's guidance on primary sources: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Since no interpretation is being done and the accuracy of the referenced information is easily verified, there is no issue. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What he said.oknazevad (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What they said.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thirded. Stats are stats are stats. Isaac Lin's statement is bang on. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Any chance of discussing the list itself now? :-D — KV5 • Talk • 17:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Since you discovered it is indeed primary: "Do not base articles entirely on primary sources." - From the relevant policy. Original emphasis. Sandman888 (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No, we agreed that use of primary sources is okay in some circumstances. And I see at least two non-BR references so you cannot say this article is based entirely on primary sources. My emphasis. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Actually, I believe from the definitions of primary and secondary sources, Baseball Reference fits the definition of a secondary source:
        Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.
        
        Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them.
        
        Since Baseball Reference is not collecting the basic accounting of events itself, nor is the official agent for those collecting the data, and is getting its information either directly or indirectly from the official agent, it is a secondary source. However, for an article that is a dry recitation of simple occurrences, I believe the most accurate source is the primary source and there should be no bar to making use of it for its information. For example, an article such as the Results of the 1994 Sri Lankan general election by electoral district is best sourced by references to the official documents published by the chief electoral officer. Isaac Lin (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know this isn't part of the FL criteria, but I'd like to see articles created for the still-redlinked players. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An ongoing project. My first goal is to make sure that all of the players who appear in the leads of the articles are bluelinked by the time the list reaches FLC (hence my creation of Frank Bruggy last week). Beyond the completion of the lists, these will basically become linkfarms for me to create the redlinked articles, as it is an eventual long-term goal of mine to have these all be blue links. — KV5 • Talk • 12:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (on the list... ;D) "in 1883, 1,881 players" reads odd to me, but don't add "a total of" because that's redundant too. Is there a better reword where we don't end up with these numbers in quick succession? Don't think you need to link the letter B. Pitcher is overlinked in the lead (you linked it from pitching) "whose career with the Phillies encompassed the 1896 season" pardon my ignorance, but is this significant? "whose number 14 is the only one retired by the Phillies for a player on this list" (1) for non-experts, what does retiring a number mean? (2) do you mean this B list, or the overall list? "catcher Mack Burk has the highest batting average, at .500; he had one hit in two career plate appearances with Philadelphia" now then, this is "statistically correct" but what a pity that this pretty much discounts the fact he batted only twice, compared with others who batted hundreds of times. I don't think you can argue with your sentence but it seems such a shame... Maybe resort to that statistic last, and stick with those that reflect the longevity of the player? What does "player's primary team" mean? Do you mean he played for the Phillies more than any other team combined? For a longer duration? I would (personally) prefer more engaging image captions than "name, position". Note a is unreferenced. And since it calls another source into question, it's probably worth sorting that out. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ok, so I saw this stuff Thursday morning and haven't had a chance to do anything about it until now because of the Thanksgiving holiday. My (rather lengthy) responses, in order: I could re-word that sentence, but just so you're aware, it'll need to be changed in all of the sublists. The best suggestion I could make is to move the inception date to a different sentence (e.g., "The team has played officially under two names since beginning play in 1881:..."), and then just have "Since the franchise's inception, 1,881 players...". Happy Thanksgiving by the way. I hate to say it, but yes, I think I'd prefer this to the current approach. Sorry I didn't notice it before... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks. And it's no problem. Done now in all 20 sublists. — KV5 • Talk • 18:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't mind unlinking the letters. Obviously they are common. But I thought that the articles, in some cases, gave interesting insight (like the fact that E is the most popular letter in the English language, and yet there aren't that many players whose names start with it). Again, this is an every-sublist issue, so I can definitely change it; I just want to know in advance of making all 21 changes. Ok, leave it, if the worst occurs then someone else will point it out! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Removing the doubled pitcher link is done. Cool. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] For Brouthers (and all team Hall of Famers), I gave a note about his career. I didn't want to repeat myself (e.g. saying that Bender played for the team for two seasons, and that Brouthers played for the team for one season) by using the same wording. If you feel something different would be better, I'm open to suggestions. Cool by me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Is a wikilink sufficient to explain retired numbers, or do I need to have a written explanation in every sublist where one occurs? As for lists, it's this list. I could say "this sublist" if it's more comfortable. A link is fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Done. — KV5 • Talk • 18:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] As to the statistics, this is, again, a series-wide issue. I did it this way because it's as objective as possible. I'm trying to avoid making any unnecessary analysis to avoid original research accusations. I didn't want to make an arbitrary cutoff, like, the best batting average among players with x at-bats, etc. Agreed. If baseball stats don't have a traditional cut-in point (e.g. 100 matches) as we do in cricket lists, then so be it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The player's primary team is defined by the Hall of Fame, and they don't provide their definition of what that term means. Okay, as long as there's a ref that says what you said. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Captions are, again, a series-wide issue, and honestly, a lot of the old-time players don't have any more engaging information than that. I reckon you could create just basic captions that say "x played for the Phillies from a to b, hitting y home runs.", "y was a Phillies player from a seasons, making z catches." for instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Captions are done. — KV5 • Talk • 12:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Note a is actually referenced by the reference in its row; if you'd prefer duplication, that's easily accomplished. No need to duplicate, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Looking forward to your responses. — KV5 • Talk • 14:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I believe that everything actionable is done save for finding a reference for the primary team conundrum, which is confounding me at the moment. — KV5 • Talk • 13:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (on the list... ;D)

"in 1883, 1,881 players" reads odd to me, but don't add "a total of" because that's redundant too. Is there a better reword where we don't end up with these numbers in quick succession?
Don't think you need to link the letter B.
Pitcher is overlinked in the lead (you linked it from pitching)
"whose career with the Phillies encompassed the 1896 season" pardon my ignorance, but is this significant?
"whose number 14 is the only one retired by the Phillies for a player on this list" (1) for non-experts, what does retiring a number mean? (2) do you mean this B list, or the overall list?
"catcher Mack Burk has the highest batting average, at .500; he had one hit in two career plate appearances with Philadelphia" now then, this is "statistically correct" but what a pity that this pretty much discounts the fact he batted only twice, compared with others who batted hundreds of times. I don't think you can argue with your sentence but it seems such a shame... Maybe resort to that statistic last, and stick with those that reflect the longevity of the player?
What does "player's primary team" mean? Do you mean he played for the Phillies more than any other team combined? For a longer duration?
I would (personally) prefer more engaging image captions than "name, position".
Note a is unreferenced. And since it calls another source into question, it's probably worth sorting that out.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I saw this stuff Thursday morning and haven't had a chance to do anything about it until now because of the Thanksgiving holiday. My (rather lengthy) responses, in order:

I could re-word that sentence, but just so you're aware, it'll need to be changed in all of the sublists. The best suggestion I could make is to move the inception date to a different sentence (e.g., "The team has played officially under two names since beginning play in 1881:..."), and then just have "Since the franchise's inception, 1,881 players...".

Happy Thanksgiving by the way. I hate to say it, but yes, I think I'd prefer this to the current approach. Sorry I didn't notice it before... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And it's no problem. Done now in all 20 sublists. — KV5 • Talk • 18:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind unlinking the letters. Obviously they are common. But I thought that the articles, in some cases, gave interesting insight (like the fact that E is the most popular letter in the English language, and yet there aren't that many players whose names start with it). Again, this is an every-sublist issue, so I can definitely change it; I just want to know in advance of making all 21 changes.

Ok, leave it, if the worst occurs then someone else will point it out! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the doubled pitcher link is done.

Cool. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Brouthers (and all team Hall of Famers), I gave a note about his career. I didn't want to repeat myself (e.g. saying that Bender played for the team for two seasons, and that Brouthers played for the team for one season) by using the same wording. If you feel something different would be better, I'm open to suggestions.

Cool by me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is a wikilink sufficient to explain retired numbers, or do I need to have a written explanation in every sublist where one occurs? As for lists, it's this list. I could say "this sublist" if it's more comfortable.

A link is fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — KV5 • Talk • 18:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to the statistics, this is, again, a series-wide issue. I did it this way because it's as objective as possible. I'm trying to avoid making any unnecessary analysis to avoid original research accusations. I didn't want to make an arbitrary cutoff, like, the best batting average among players with x at-bats, etc.

Agreed. If baseball stats don't have a traditional cut-in point (e.g. 100 matches) as we do in cricket lists, then so be it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The player's primary team is defined by the Hall of Fame, and they don't provide their definition of what that term means.

Okay, as long as there's a ref that says what you said. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Captions are, again, a series-wide issue, and honestly, a lot of the old-time players don't have any more engaging information than that.

I reckon you could create just basic captions that say "x played for the Phillies from a to b, hitting y home runs.", "y was a Phillies player from a seasons, making z catches." for instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Captions are done. — KV5 • Talk • 12:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note a is actually referenced by the reference in its row; if you'd prefer duplication, that's easily accomplished.

No need to duplicate, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to your responses. — KV5 • Talk • 14:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that everything actionable is done save for finding a reference for the primary team conundrum, which is confounding me at the moment. — KV5 • Talk • 13:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Don't have anything to add to what TRM gave, except that I don't consider Baseball-Reference a primary source either. By the definition given above by the opposer, any printed encyclopedia that contains statistics for all players in a sport would be a primary source. I don't think so. If all the cites came from the Phillies' web site, or MLB.com (true primary sources), there would be a better case, though I wouldn't have a problem with using them for this purpose. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The oppose voter is simply incorrect. As already discussed B-Ref is fine as a source for the statistical information, and the notability of this list is rather apparent. "Philadelphia Phillies roster" returns over 1 million hits, "Philadelphia Phillies players" 300k+, etc. The split to B is a WP:ACCESS thing, that's it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Now that TRM is done, I see no reason the list wouldn't meet FL standards. I already gave my opinion on the oppose rationale above. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the least meets the required criteria and consensus is clear that the position of the opposer is a minority one. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:45, 17 December 2010 [15].

List of million-selling singles in the United Kingdom[edit]

Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So here we go. I'm really quite proud of this (not sure why). Revamped from former state to where it is now. Hope you enjoy the read and any comments are greatly appreciated. Only query is the name (which is inherited) but haven't come up with anything substantially better. Perhaps List of million-selling singles (UK) or List of million-selling singles in the UK, much less wordy but bit less precise. Hopefully you'll let me know your opinion. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Nice list. I prefer List of million-selling singles in the UK if you are to change the title, even though it doesn't say "over"

I'll bare this in mind and see what others say. Mainly because I also have to move the FLC etc. and don't really want to do it more than once. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have gone for List of million-selling singles in the United Kingdom. Hopefully it is okay. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentence is a bit abrupt, and it doesn't really introduce the list.
- Re-written, let me know what you think. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"At the start of the century" --> "At the start of the 21st century"
"nineteen singles released in the prior century" --> "nineteen singles released in the 20th ::century" -- both for clarification

For both of these I deliberately didn't use that. Mainly because the 20th century ends on 31 December 2000 but I think that the source actually means before 2000 (i.e. 31 December 1999) reflecting a fairly common misapprehension, I believe. Any suggestion? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One Robson & Jerome entry says just that, the other, their full names. I don't think they were ever credited with "Green" and "Flynn"
- Actually their first single was released under their full names - see here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes single covers dictate it is correct as is [16][17]. I was going to correct to Robson & Jerome to match Wikipedia, but then the OCC credits both to Robson Green & Jerome Flynn[18]. The only consistent thing seems to be the ampersand. Suggestion? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have time right now for a complete review. Hopefully I'll be able to do one later though. Matthewedwards : Chat 04:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Sad to see the influence Simon Cowell has had on the charts! I count 10.

Twice so for Bleeding Love. Matt Cardle's performance of Bleeding Love on The X Factor gave the original a 58.5% jump in sales week-on-week and put it over 1 m. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested revisit 25 Nov and on 30 Nov without reply. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice work. Opening paragraph is a bit choppy and picture of Diana is not really needed (Elton John would be more appropriate). I agree the title is overlong, I would prefer List of million-selling singles (UK). Other than that, good.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bare this in mind and see what others say. Mainly because I also have to move the FLC etc. and want to get a consensus not have to move it multiple times. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Took a stab at the lead. Hopefully it is better. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have gone for List of million-selling singles in the United Kingdom. Hopefully it is okay. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both of you for your comments. Hopefully I've addressed or responded to them. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments "A million-selling single is regarded as one that has sold over one million copies in the United Kingdom" not true, it's not just in the UK that "a million-selling single" means that. Done Could you consider linking "platinum" to "record certification"? Linked "classified" instead as platinum record redirs to Music recording sales certification. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "million" features nine times in nine sentences in the lead. Repetitive. I'll see what I can do. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Removed four instances. Sufficient? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Give Disc a little intro (e.g. "British popular music magazine Disc ...") Went for periodical (per the mag vs paper issue I've discussed before) and without "popular" for NPOV. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "In 1973, Disc introduced an initiative in 1959 ..." hey? Whoops. A fragment from when I was going to start with the BPI awards (1973). Good spot. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] This may be controversial, but I thought ENGVAR (for Brits) would say that disc should be disk? May be adoptive usage but Media Week seems to use disc ^{(Sorry a PDF was the first thing I found)} Also wiktionary notes a "c" is used for optical media (e.g. CDs) and thus it had become common usage in recent times (just like ize is the correct OED spelling but we now see it as an Americanism). As an Englishman "disc" seems more correct here. Not sure why. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Put (BPI) you-know-where. Done " 2 × platinum" - prose so why not "double platinum", "triple platinum" etc.? Done BBC Position singles which aren't i that list should have an em-dash (or something) rather than just a grey background. Lazyness. With an mdash or n/a, the cells don't sort properly on multiple clicks and I thought greyed out might be a valid substitute instead of 100 nts templates; I'll get on it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Should "(Everything I do..." list alphabetically first? Not sure. It is on my iPod. Anyway went for "E" just in case. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Notable omission". Always get twitchy when there's a section called "notable... something-or-other". I'd cover this in the lead. And I wouldn't bullet-point a single item. Into lead Only added section yesterday as it is something that clearly needs mentioning. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Note 2 - can you make refs in numerical order? No longer an issue Some "spaced hyphens" in the references. Done, wasn't sure if we preserved original title typographics or not. As far as I recall, we don't. The Rambling Man (talk) BBC Radio 2 is a publisher while BBC News is a work. Why? Done The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your comments as always. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Belive it is all done. Can I ask for on a opinion on the name (Tuzapicabit and Matthewedwards differ). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Title... "List of United Kingdom million-selling singles" is my choice. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'll get back to you on this as MoS allows UK. Additionally, it's been the status quo at List of number-one singles from the 1970s (UK) etc. for a while. Anyway with three different opinions I'll wait to see if anyone else has anything to say. Hopefully all other issues are resolved and let me know if not. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, I understand that UK is allowed in the title, but this is a "pretty unique" list, so I don't see a problem with it being the way I suggested. Anyhow, no great shakes, let's see what the consensus is. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Went for a rearrangement of yours (as that could mean UK singles that have sold a million in the US, say). Have spelled out United Kingdom with redirect for UK. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"A million-selling single is regarded as one that has sold over one million copies in the United Kingdom" not true, it's not just in the UK that "a million-selling single" means that. Done
Could you consider linking "platinum" to "record certification"?
- Linked "classified" instead as platinum record redirs to Music recording sales certification. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"million" features nine times in nine sentences in the lead. Repetitive.
- I'll see what I can do. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed four instances. Sufficient? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Give Disc a little intro (e.g. "British popular music magazine Disc ...")
- Went for periodical (per the mag vs paper issue I've discussed before) and without "popular" for NPOV. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1973, Disc introduced an initiative in 1959 ..." hey?
- Whoops. A fragment from when I was going to start with the BPI awards (1973). Good spot. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This may be controversial, but I thought ENGVAR (for Brits) would say that disc should be disk?
- May be adoptive usage but Media Week seems to use disc ^{(Sorry a PDF was the first thing I found)} Also wiktionary notes a "c" is used for optical media (e.g. CDs) and thus it had become common usage in recent times (just like ize is the correct OED spelling but we now see it as an Americanism). As an Englishman "disc" seems more correct here. Not sure why. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Put (BPI) you-know-where. Done
" 2 × platinum" - prose so why not "double platinum", "triple platinum" etc.? Done
BBC Position singles which aren't i that list should have an em-dash (or something) rather than just a grey background.
- Lazyness. With an mdash or n/a, the cells don't sort properly on multiple clicks and I thought greyed out might be a valid substitute instead of 100 nts templates; I'll get on it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should "(Everything I do..." list alphabetically first?
- Not sure. It is on my iPod. Anyway went for "E" just in case. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable omission". Always get twitchy when there's a section called "notable... something-or-other". I'd cover this in the lead. And I wouldn't bullet-point a single item.
- Into lead Only added section yesterday as it is something that clearly needs mentioning. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2 - can you make refs in numerical order? No longer an issue
Some "spaced hyphens" in the references. Done, wasn't sure if we preserved original title typographics or not.
- As far as I recall, we don't. The Rambling Man (talk)
BBC Radio 2 is a publisher while BBC News is a work. Why? Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments as always. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belive it is all done. Can I ask for on a opinion on the name (Tuzapicabit and Matthewedwards differ). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title... "List of United Kingdom million-selling singles" is my choice. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get back to you on this as MoS allows UK. Additionally, it's been the status quo at List of number-one singles from the 1970s (UK) etc. for a while. Anyway with three different opinions I'll wait to see if anyone else has anything to say. Hopefully all other issues are resolved and let me know if not. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand that UK is allowed in the title, but this is a "pretty unique" list, so I don't see a problem with it being the way I suggested. Anyhow, no great shakes, let's see what the consensus is. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Went for a rearrangement of yours (as that could mean UK singles that have sold a million in the US, say). Have spelled out United Kingdom with redirect for UK. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support all my concerns addressed, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could you double-check the BBC ref for "Blue Monday"? It says "Although it sold half a million copies it didn't get a Gold disc...", but nothing about over 1 million sales.—indopug (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, maybe the positioning of the ref was misleading and I've moved it. That ref just references the explanation of why they weren't awarded gold/platinum discs. The million sales is referenced three fold – the two general refs and by the inclusion on the BBC top 100 million sellers. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd feel more comfortable if the list was retitled something along the lines of "List of singles certified as selling more than one million copies in the UK". Anything to play up the actual relevance of the number, and its acknowledgment as noteworthy in of itself. Otherwise, this page could technically be nominated for deletion for being based around an arbitrary subject (there's nothing more notable about selling a million copies of a record than there is about selling 1,098,376 copies). Make it explicitly clear from the outset that this is an actual threshold acknowledged by the British music industry, rather than a number that gets a list just because it's a nice big round one with lots of zeros at the end. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the lead where the second sentence explains the historical significance of 1m. The name will be changed it is just a question of to what. Each user above has made a different suggestion. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That paragraph doesn't establish that one million copies sold is a notable threshold in of itself. Furthermore, the "History" section gets into unnecessary discussion about the breakdown of UK certification levels and best-selling singles in the UK (only mentioning why they're relevant to the list in a few cases). The best rationale that you have that a million copies is a noteworthy benchmark worth cataloging in list format is the sentence "The highest threshold is "platinum record" and was then awarded to singles that sold over 1,000,000 units". Still, that only goes up to 1989, and then it'd be better to title the list "List of singles certified platinum in the UK before 1989" if you were going to categorize by that threshold. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was careful to try and establish notability with "the seven-figure mark has retained its importance"[19] where the Beeb describes it as the all important million mark. Furthermore, surely notablility is covered by tertiary reliable sources covering the subject [20] and The Official Charts Company also regard it as notable. Are you actually suggesting this list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that the page needs to make it clearer that it isn't. Right now it assume too much before getting onto business. Furthermore, why is it "the all important million mark" in the first place? Establish that in the page, because it's integral to this list being around, much less reaching FL status. The way I see it, it's part a source issue and part a prose issue. Until my concerns about the list are addressed in the article, I'll have to oppose. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency. Two following posts took place on talk pages [21][22] but it was requested all discussions were kept here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right well you are sticking your guns and I don't understand some of what you ask so can we discuss parts of it here. You ask why is it "the all important million mark", Well as Caroline Westbrook wrote it only she can answer. I can conjecture (like I have tried to in the lead e.g. previous platinum threshold) but of course it does have something to do with being a nice round number – it is no coincedence that all music sales classifications are nice round numbers ending in five zeroes. However, we both know I can't put my guesswork up there so what do you want me to do. The sources are, IMO, fairly good considering what information is information. I hope I'm right in sensing you are not actually opposing on notability but playing devil's advocate in that perhaps the notability can be made clearer in the prose – please tell me if I'm wrong. Can you assist me with this as million-sellers are not "certified" by the OCC (as far as I know) in the sense that they are given anything (in a gold/platinum disc) kind of way. As far as I know, it is just a notable landmark that is announced and discussed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I hope I'm right in sensing you are not actually opposing on notability but playing devil's advocate in that perhaps the notability can be made clearer in the prose – please tell me if I'm wrong". This is pretty much it. I like asking the hard questions about things that are taken for granted. For the benefits of the FLC, it's best to keep all discussion on the FLC page, so that other editors may view it. I can provide feedback on your progressing efforts, but I can't personally help right now with tracking down sources, as I have an FARC to deal with at the moment that's my main priority. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed this [23]. I asked the user to revisit on 25 Nov and again on 5 Dec with no reply. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. Just a point - some of the dates seem to be a little off at first glance, but perhaps they're listed in one of the refs? "Bright Eyes" released in January 1979? "Wannabe" in 1994? and Robson and Jerome seem to have gone double platinum before they went platinum? Also, just checked "Merry Xmas Everybody" and sure enough BPI say it went platinum in December 1980 (which in itself is strange considering that the chart entry of it that year was a completely new recording, but I digress) but you have put 1985 (five years later) as passing one million. Perhaps that needs a specific ref, where did the 1985 date come from? --Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every date is ref'd. As noted (except where explicitly marked) the release date comes from BPI. So do the platinum dates. The million-selling dates (unless referenced otherwise) are from the two general references. As for the Robson & Jerome case, I fixed it. It went 1x & 2x platinum on 1 May 1995 (the 8 May 1995, present before, was the release date). You noted that some of the platinum dates seem "a little off". If you notice, most were orignally just awarded at the beginning of the month. Also, you may ask how a single can be classified platinum before it was released (e.g. the R&J case you pointed out). As I've referenced and pointed out in footnote one that's because sales for the BPI are based on shipments whereas the million sellers are not. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the biggest thing that stared me on the face was "Wannabe" with a 1994 release date. Not sure where you found that date, but having looked it up on BPI it does say 15 July 1996, which is what I would have roughly guessed.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good eagle-eyed spot. I'd also made this mistake in the 1990s list and seemed to copy it across. No idea why I should make such a mistake (it seems I'd inserted the release date for Stay Another Day!?). Fixed and thanks again, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looking good and well referenced. Can't spot any other errors, so I Support the nomination.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – What makes everyHit a reliable source. There have been several discussions of this site at FAC, and I've never seen it declared reliable. They source check submissions: "Please quote your source as we're keen only to print factually accurate information and may need to check it." and has been discussed in NME, Reuters, and The Times calls it a "reference source" alongside publications like allmusic and cricinfo which are widely considered reliable here. Personally I'd say he was an expert in the field and qualified as a WP:SPS. Removing it wouldn't make too much difference. Dates of these "millionth sales" aren't widely publicised and I think the extra reference helps support the information. It also gives an occasional discrepancy with OCC (not surprising). One example being Bilk's "Stranger on the Shore": OCC says 1961 but eH says 1962 which also corresponds to Disc's Gold award which was given on 13 January 1962. For complete disclosure (as far as I know) eH only solely references "Torn" and "Wonderwall" being 2007 million sellers. Unless another source could be found (and you still called for eH removal these would change to 2004–2010s. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] The quote in the discussion here isn't nearly so encouraging, I'm afraid. I really don't think this is a source that should be used in any featured content (or good content, for that matter). This may cause a few inconveniences, but to me to the reliability of a page's sources is more important. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Fair enough. That general ref is no longer used. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] There's still one inline cite to everyHit, which is reference 49. Not sure what you want to do about that one, but I don't see anything more to comment on after this. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Didn't know I'd used another everyHit page inline. Anyway replaced. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] ~~Why is Summer capitalized in the first paragraph?~~ ~~History: "Such inaccuracies led to the instigation of offical classification system." Feels like "the" or "an" is missing after "of".~~ ~~"Band-Aid released charity-record 'Do They Know It's Christmas' in response to the famine in Ethiopia". Should "the" be placed before "charity-record"?~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've made the requested grammar tweaks. No opinion yet on everyHit. Jujutacular ^talk 22:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

What makes everyHit a reliable source. There have been several discussions of this site at FAC, and I've never seen it declared reliable.
- They source check submissions: "Please quote your source as we're keen only to print factually accurate information and may need to check it." and has been discussed in NME, Reuters, and The Times calls it a "reference source" alongside publications like allmusic and cricinfo which are widely considered reliable here. Personally I'd say he was an expert in the field and qualified as a WP:SPS. Removing it wouldn't make too much difference. Dates of these "millionth sales" aren't widely publicised and I think the extra reference helps support the information. It also gives an occasional discrepancy with OCC (not surprising). One example being Bilk's "Stranger on the Shore": OCC says 1961 but eH says 1962 which also corresponds to Disc's Gold award which was given on 13 January 1962. For complete disclosure (as far as I know) eH only solely references "Torn" and "Wonderwall" being 2007 million sellers. Unless another source could be found (and you still called for eH removal these would change to 2004–2010s. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The quote in the discussion here isn't nearly so encouraging, I'm afraid. I really don't think this is a source that should be used in any featured content (or good content, for that matter). This may cause a few inconveniences, but to me to the reliability of a page's sources is more important. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. That general ref is no longer used. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's still one inline cite to everyHit, which is reference 49. Not sure what you want to do about that one, but I don't see anything more to comment on after this. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Didn't know I'd used another everyHit page inline. Anyway replaced. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Why is Summer capitalized in the first paragraph?~~
~~History: "Such inaccuracies led to the instigation of offical classification system." Feels like "the" or "an" is missing after "of".~~
~~"Band-Aid released charity-record 'Do They Know It's Christmas' in response to the famine in Ethiopia". Should "the" be placed before "charity-record"?~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made the requested grammar tweaks. No opinion yet on everyHit. Jujutacular ^talk 22:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:45, 17 December 2010 [24].

ICC Cricket Hall of Fame[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it's been a while since I tried a cricket list, and this is crying out for becoming featured. Cheers, as ever, for your comments and interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Support Harrias ^talk 13:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Harrias
* As I've already commented on the talk page after a request to look at this article, I think the lead is a tad on the short side, but on the other hand I can't really suggest anything to expand it with. The paragraph regarding Heyhoe-Flint is a single sentence, which is frowned at, could it maybe be merged in with another paragraph, or maybe some more information added to that one (though as I say, don't ask me what!) Working on this now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Had a bit of a go, what do you think now? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Much better now I think! Harrias ^talk 13:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The table sorts fine, and after fixing a couple of the references they all seem okay. It's a pity that the playing role couldn't be referenced, it would have been interesting to have it included. Thanks for those fixes. Yes, the role would have been interesting, but not directly relevant I suppose. These players were inducted for as "legends" and not against a particular criterion. And the difference between batsman/all-rounder and all-rounder/bowler is always going to lead to some subjectivity... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Could the '+' be super script, to stop it appearing that they were inducted some time after 2009, ie 2009 plus. Superscripted, much easier than I thought! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Otherwise, all looks good, nice work. Harrias ^talk 16:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your initial comments and those here. I'll work on expanding the lead a touch more. Any suggestions wouldn't go amiss! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Harrias

* As I've already commented on the talk page after a request to look at this article, I think the lead is a tad on the short side, but on the other hand I can't really suggest anything to expand it with. The paragraph regarding Heyhoe-Flint is a single sentence, which is frowned at, could it maybe be merged in with another paragraph, or maybe some more information added to that one (though as I say, don't ask me what!)

- Working on this now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Had a bit of a go, what do you think now? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much better now I think! Harrias ^talk 13:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The table sorts fine, and after fixing a couple of the references they all seem okay. It's a pity that the playing role couldn't be referenced, it would have been interesting to have it included.
- Thanks for those fixes. Yes, the role would have been interesting, but not directly relevant I suppose. These players were inducted for as "legends" and not against a particular criterion. And the difference between batsman/all-rounder and all-rounder/bowler is always going to lead to some subjectivity... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could the '+' be super script, to stop it appearing that they were inducted some time after 2009, ie 2009 plus.
- Superscripted, much easier than I thought! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, all looks good, nice work. Harrias ^talk 16:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your initial comments and those here. I'll work on expanding the lead a touch more. Any suggestions wouldn't go amiss! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—the link to Rodney Marsh leads to a dab page. No dead external links. Ucucha 11:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oopsie, haven't done that in a while. Fixed now, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Gave a talk page review before the nomination, and I thought everything was fine even then. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments relating to licensing problems at Commons with images that were formerly used in the list
Comment quickly looking at File:Keith Miller.JPG it seems to be PD, but it is not clear why. Could you update the description with sources to match the criteria in the PD template. Also the OR operator in type A is rather weird; how can something be published prior to 1955 but not taken prior to 1955. Sandman888 (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] It's a Commons image perhaps you could ask the uploader. If it's a problem for this list, I can replace it. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Source is also a deadlink. If it's not possible to verify as PD it should be tagged for deletion. Sandman888 (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] As I said, it's a Commons image so take it up there please. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Image also replaced in this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The other pictures has similar problems. Sandman888 (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] As I said, these are Commons licence issues, so please take your concerns there. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] (OD) Normally the nominator is responsible for pictures used in the list/article are correctly licensed and sourced. Cheerio, Sandman888 (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] If you are confused.. by licenses at Commons, please take it up there. If you object to the use of specific images here, say so. They can easily be replaced. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] In any case I think I've removed any images whose licensing issues may have confused you. They are used in many other articles but I admit I have no energy whatsoever to argue with you about license semantics at commons. Cheers for your input. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] it's not semantics, but a question of proper licensing: all PD claims must be sourced. I am not confused by any of the licenses, but your retort seem to confuse constructive input with ad hominem attacks. Cheerio, Sandman888 (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I trust this is no longer an issue with this list. Feel free to contact the uploader at Commons to continue discussion over any further license concerns you may have. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:WGGrace.jpg is still missing source, publication date and author. Sandman888 (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Replaced. Thank you for your diligence. I trust you will chase up the various uploaders at Commons now? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Since you asked, no I will not. I trust that you were already on it since you are now aware of how PD claims of images ought to be sourced? Cheers, Sandman888 (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] No, Commons and Wikipedia are different, and I work in Wikipedia. You seem to be very diligent in finding PD problems at Commons, so I suggest you get an account there and state your case. If an image exists at Commons with a problem, you have to go to Commons to solve it (especially as I removed these images from this list). In any case, I assume you have no further issues with the images in this list? If that's all then please collapse these comments as they've become rather lengthy for no gain other than replacement of a couple of Commons images. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments relating to licensing problems at Commons with images that were formerly used in the list

Comment quickly looking at File:Keith Miller.JPG it seems to be PD, but it is not clear why. Could you update the description with sources to match the criteria in the PD template. Also the OR operator in type A is rather weird; how can something be published prior to 1955 but not taken prior to 1955. Sandman888 (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Commons image perhaps you could ask the uploader. If it's a problem for this list, I can replace it. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source is also a deadlink. If it's not possible to verify as PD it should be tagged for deletion. Sandman888 (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it's a Commons image so take it up there please. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image also replaced in this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other pictures has similar problems. Sandman888 (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, these are Commons licence issues, so please take your concerns there. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(OD) Normally the nominator is responsible for pictures used in the list/article are correctly licensed and sourced. Cheerio, Sandman888 (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are confused.. by licenses at Commons, please take it up there. If you object to the use of specific images here, say so. They can easily be replaced. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any case I think I've removed any images whose licensing issues may have confused you. They are used in many other articles but I admit I have no energy whatsoever to argue with you about license semantics at commons. Cheers for your input. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's not semantics, but a question of proper licensing: all PD claims must be sourced. I am not confused by any of the licenses, but your retort seem to confuse constructive input with ad hominem attacks. Cheerio, Sandman888 (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I trust this is no longer an issue with this list. Feel free to contact the uploader at Commons to continue discussion over any further license concerns you may have. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:WGGrace.jpg is still missing source, publication date and author. Sandman888 (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced. Thank you for your diligence. I trust you will chase up the various uploaders at Commons now? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked, no I will not. I trust that you were already on it since you are now aware of how PD claims of images ought to be sourced? Cheers, Sandman888 (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Commons and Wikipedia are different, and I work in Wikipedia. You seem to be very diligent in finding PD problems at Commons, so I suggest you get an account there and state your case. If an image exists at Commons with a problem, you have to go to Commons to solve it (especially as I removed these images from this list). In any case, I assume you have no further issues with the images in this list? If that's all then please collapse these comments as they've become rather lengthy for no gain other than replacement of a couple of Commons images. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the list stands, it's pretty good: well-referenced, comprehensive, and the lead is generally well-written, but it feels a bit light. What was behind the decision not to include player some basic stats such as runs, wickets, and averages? I know people weren't inducted based on their stats, but it might give the reader some indication why these people have been singled out. It might also be worth including a table showing the break down of HoF members by country, with a column for when the country started playing Tests (and perhaps how many they've played to take into account breaks such as the boycott of South Africa). Nev1 (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All good points. However, as an overall rule, I would see it as synthesis to include an personal estimation as to why these individuals may have been singled out. The ICC say this accolade "recognises the achievements of the legends of the game from cricket's long and illustrious history" and doesn't go into more than that. You're right, we can definitely speculate that Barry Richards was included despite only playing four Tests because of the circumstances, but we can definitively state it as fact, unless we can find an ICC source backing it up. In short, I think I'm saying the objective basic Test career stats are included, and nothing else because other stats may mislead a reader. In actuality, I guess the only really neutral approach is to just list the names, teams and year of induction. But I felt the balance was finely struck between all stats/speculation and bare list of names. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – And one question, is Wasim Akrim alphabetized correctly? I know nothing about Pakistani surnames and their proper use, but judging by the rest of the Pakistani names in this article, he deserves to go top of the list. And maybe in Bishan Singh Bedi's place in list should be determined by the first surname just like in Rachael Heyhoe-Flint case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utinsh (talk • contribs) 12:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments and support. I've made Akram sort consistently with the other Pakistani players. I don't think Singh is part of the surname, so it sorts by Bedi. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:45, 17 December 2010 [25].

List of I Zingari first-class cricketers[edit]

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 10:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all the requirements. It is modelled off lists such as List of Afghanistan ODI cricketers and List of South Africa women Test cricketers that have already attained FL status. Harrias ^talk 10:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 11:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Our own I Zingari article seems to imply there were Australian "gypsies" too? There were, but they didn't play any first-class matches, and to be honest I'd call them seperate sides; I suppose I could add a note in though. I think something needs to be added because you link to that article in the lead, and it'd be odd not to at least mention it in passing. With a ref, obviously! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Added something in now, what do you think? Harrias ^talk 11:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think you mean "Old Harrovian" rather than "old Harrovian". I do indeed, fixed! "opposition; the Gentlemen of England and county sides became frequent opposition" opposition too quickly repeated for me. Changed second usage to 'opponents', if that is still too similar, I'll change it further. " who included W.G. Grace and two of his brothers in their side." maybe "whose team included W.G. Grace and two of his brothers."? Changed as suggested. "Their next first-class" - lost who "they" is (last team mentioned is The Gentlemen)... Changed to "I Zingari's next first-class.." "although the highest " perhaps "while the highest..."? Changed as suggested. The ? need a note to explain what they mean. Will add one in. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks, as always, for your comments, some of my responses probably needs replies back from you! Harrias ^talk 19:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Our own I Zingari article seems to imply there were Australian "gypsies" too?

There were, but they didn't play any first-class matches, and to be honest I'd call them seperate sides; I suppose I could add a note in though.

I think something needs to be added because you link to that article in the lead, and it'd be odd not to at least mention it in passing. With a ref, obviously! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added something in now, what do you think? Harrias ^talk 11:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "Old Harrovian" rather than "old Harrovian".

I do indeed, fixed!

"opposition; the Gentlemen of England and county sides became frequent opposition" opposition too quickly repeated for me.

Changed second usage to 'opponents', if that is still too similar, I'll change it further.

" who included W.G. Grace and two of his brothers in their side." maybe "whose team included W.G. Grace and two of his brothers."?

Changed as suggested.

"Their next first-class" - lost who "they" is (last team mentioned is The Gentlemen)...

Changed to "I Zingari's next first-class.."

"although the highest " perhaps "while the highest..."?

Changed as suggested.

The ? need a note to explain what they mean.

Will add one in.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks, as always, for your comments, some of my responses probably needs replies back from you! Harrias ^talk 19:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support (never 'eard of 'em) enjoyed it, decent list, up to scratch as far as I'm concerned. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Just a few nit-picks in an otherwise fine list...

~~Little redundancy here: "while the highest score for I Zingari was 147, scored by Teddy Wynyard." The "score" and "scored" is what I'm referring to.~~

Removed "scored". Harrias ^talk 23:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Members of the peerage also played for I Zingari; including...". The semi-colon should probably just be a regular comma.~~

Changed to comma. Harrias ^talk 23:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~The publisher for reference 1 should be in italics, since the Wisden Almanack is a printed work.~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is now italicised! Harrias ^talk 23:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good work, meets standards, and I'm not finding anything to nit-pick about. Courcelles 20:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support You might want to include a bit about the derivation of the name if you can find a source, although that's not enough to make me oppose. I made a couple of copy edits you'll want to double check, but otherwise the lead seems fine; it provides a good summary of the main points of the table and is a good introduction to the subject. I like the layout of the table, it's fairly standard and the sorting works fine. As there are 85 players I haven't gone through all the sources to double check if they're correct, but did spot-check five (from working on similar lists I know transcribing errors can creep in as you're doing the same thing over and over) and everything checked out fine. Well done Harrias on the good work. Nev1 (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:45, 17 December 2010 [26].

Family Guy (season 8)[edit]

Nominator(s): Gage (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. As a part of a project to improve Family Guy articles related to each season, I am nominating the season eight list. I will try my best to make any improvements as they are brought up. It is largely modeled after the season five article, which was promoted to featured list status not too long ago. Gage (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 13:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is a recent season there should be some sort of Ratings column in the table. Nergaal (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I've been opposed to adding ratings info to the table, especially since it is already summarized in the reception section, and is available on each respective article. I'm not sure on its neccessity.~~ Gage (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to deprive a reader of information so easily include-able in the article, after all the inclusion of the ratings column hasn't seemed to of hindered other recent FLs such as Glee (season 1). Afro (Talk) 21:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'd prefer to move away from this issue, I've added a ratings column. Gage (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Courcelles 11:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose File:Family Guy Volume 8 - DVD box cover.png fails NFCC #8. I've amended the fair use rationale for the image. Gage (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] No, you've used a cookie cutter template. Why is this image so important to the article that we need non-free content to get it across? Using a cookie-cutter also runs afoul of NFCC 10. (Quite possibly 1, as well. "They made DVDs. They had an image of an animated guy on them." carries the same message as this image. (Also note that despite that guy taking up 60+% of the image, you've neglected to tell us which character it even is.) Courcelles 21:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've removed the image, since that seems to be your ultimate goal. Gage (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The plot summaries are way too long for a season article- the few I spot checked were over 150 words long. This is excessive when each episode has its own article. I've already cut down the summaries significantly, before submitting this list for featured list status. If you would like to provide an independent look over to remove some of the unnecessary details, I'd be all for it, as I am at a loss as to what else should be removed. Gage (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've never seen these episodes... or even this show, so I would not be a good judge of what is important. Considering we're talking about 22 minutes of footage for each episode, though, it feels like each summary is discussing every plot point of the episode, instead of being a broad overview. Courcelles 21:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've specifically requested several times that people who have never watched any of these episodes, or this show to remove the unnecessary details, and they seemed to have had no problems. Gage (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Really don't think the DVD's are worth a paragraph in the lede. Done, but the volume 8 and 9 info should be left, in my opinion. Gage (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Eight of the twenty-one episodes are included in the volume. The remaining eleven episodes of the season will be released on the Volume Nine DVD box set." 21-8 does not = 11... In general, though, this paragraph should be cut to a sentence and merged with the one prior. Three regional release dates don't all belong in the lede. Courcelles 21:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Because I was instructed to remove the paragraphs dealing with two of the season's episodes being independently released on their own DVD. 8 in the first volume + 2 independently released + 11 in the second volume = 21 episodes. And I strongly disagree with your assessment that the regions should be eliminated, and merged with the previous paragraph. Gage (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Courcelles 11:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose

File:Family Guy Volume 8 - DVD box cover.png fails NFCC #8.

I've amended the fair use rationale for the image. Gage (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've used a cookie cutter template. Why is this image so important to the article that we need non-free content to get it across? Using a cookie-cutter also runs afoul of NFCC 10. (Quite possibly 1, as well. "They made DVDs. They had an image of an animated guy on them." carries the same message as this image. (Also note that despite that guy taking up 60+% of the image, you've neglected to tell us which character it even is.) Courcelles 21:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the image, since that seems to be your ultimate goal. Gage (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The plot summaries are way too long for a season article- the few I spot checked were over 150 words long. This is excessive when each episode has its own article.

I've already cut down the summaries significantly, before submitting this list for featured list status. If you would like to provide an independent look over to remove some of the unnecessary details, I'd be all for it, as I am at a loss as to what else should be removed. Gage (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen these episodes... or even this show, so I would not be a good judge of what is important. Considering we're talking about 22 minutes of footage for each episode, though, it feels like each summary is discussing every plot point of the episode, instead of being a broad overview. Courcelles 21:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've specifically requested several times that people who have never watched any of these episodes, or this show to remove the unnecessary details, and they seemed to have had no problems. Gage (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really don't think the DVD's are worth a paragraph in the lede.

Done, but the volume 8 and 9 info should be left, in my opinion. Gage (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Eight of the twenty-one episodes are included in the volume. The remaining eleven episodes of the season will be released on the Volume Nine DVD box set." 21-8 does not = 11... In general, though, this paragraph should be cut to a sentence and merged with the one prior. Three regional release dates don't all belong in the lede. Courcelles 21:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was instructed to remove the paragraphs dealing with two of the season's episodes being independently released on their own DVD. 8 in the first volume + 2 independently released + 11 in the second volume = 21 episodes. And I strongly disagree with your assessment that the regions should be eliminated, and merged with the previous paragraph. Gage (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Courcelles 21:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:Really don't think the DVD's are worth a paragraph in the lede. Done, but the volume 8 and 9 info should be left, in my opinion. Gage (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Reading the lede... I have no idea we're talking about television here. Done. Gage (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Joseph Lee received his first directing credit for the season." Is this a complete sentence? And presumably, everyone that directed in the season had a first episode. Do you perhaps mean this was his first directorial credit for the series? Done. Gage (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm really finding the Production section hard to get through. It's long, rather boring, and confusing in places. Try to get an independent copy-edit. Consider if there's some stuff here that really doesn't matter and/or would be better left to the episodes individual articles. I'm unsure what should be removed. It largely mimics the production section of the fifth season featured list. Gage (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "The episode was inependently released on DVD on September 28, 2010, shortly after the ninth season premiere of Family Guy.[18]" Inependently? Spellcheck, please, that's not the only typo. Done. Please alert me of any other errors. Gage (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] How many times do we need to be told Road to the Multiverse is the season premiere? Done. Gage (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Think about your linking. For an example, instead of "Both of these figures were significantly higher than those of the seventh season finale." containing a link to the seventh season article, which we've seen before, link to the actual episode's article. Done. I'm not aware of any other links that should be changed. Gage (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "On July 24, 2010, MacFarlane gave a live performance of the song at the 2010 San Diego Comic-Con International," Do we really need the year twice in that sentence? Done. Gage (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I know the ratings for each episode are available, there would be a nice addition to the chart. They were unknowingly removed by another user. If they are removed again, it will not be because of me. I added the ratings after a previous user requested that they be included as well. Gage (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Are we a DVD sales guide, now? There's entirely too much information on the DVD releases here. Done. Gage (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ref 5 has an author available. Check all. Not that I'm entirely sold on using The Huffington Post as a reliable source, actually... Done. Gage (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] FLC isn't PR, so don't consider this an exhaustive list of issues, but that should be enough for you to work on. Courcelles 04:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Courcelles 21:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Really don't think the DVD's are worth a paragraph in the lede.

Done, but the volume 8 and 9 info should be left, in my opinion. Gage (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the lede... I have no idea we're talking about television here.

Done. Gage (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Joseph Lee received his first directing credit for the season." Is this a complete sentence? And presumably, everyone that directed in the season had a first episode. Do you perhaps mean this was his first directorial credit for the series?

Done. Gage (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really finding the Production section hard to get through. It's long, rather boring, and confusing in places. Try to get an independent copy-edit. Consider if there's some stuff here that really doesn't matter and/or would be better left to the episodes individual articles.

I'm unsure what should be removed. It largely mimics the production section of the fifth season featured list. Gage (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The episode was inependently released on DVD on September 28, 2010, shortly after the ninth season premiere of Family Guy.[18]" Inependently? Spellcheck, please, that's not the only typo.

Done. Please alert me of any other errors. Gage (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do we need to be told Road to the Multiverse is the season premiere?

Done. Gage (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think about your linking. For an example, instead of "Both of these figures were significantly higher than those of the seventh season finale." containing a link to the seventh season article, which we've seen before, link to the actual episode's article.

Done. I'm not aware of any other links that should be changed. Gage (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"On July 24, 2010, MacFarlane gave a live performance of the song at the 2010 San Diego Comic-Con International," Do we really need the year twice in that sentence?

Done. Gage (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know the ratings for each episode are available, there would be a nice addition to the chart.

They were unknowingly removed by another user. If they are removed again, it will not be because of me. I added the ratings after a previous user requested that they be included as well. Gage (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we a DVD sales guide, now? There's entirely too much information on the DVD releases here.

Done. Gage (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 5 has an author available. Check all. Not that I'm entirely sold on using The Huffington Post as a reliable source, actually...

Done. Gage (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FLC isn't PR, so don't consider this an exhaustive list of issues, but that should be enough for you to work on. Courcelles 04:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Would really like someone who has actually seen the show to look at the episode summaries. Asking non-viewers to try to identify what is important in a season is not going to work well, as we do not know what became important and what was a throwaway padding scene never mentioned again. Courcelles 11:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good work. Looks ready.--AlastorMoody (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Is is "boxset", "Boxset" or "box set"? I'd suggest the latter but be consistent throughout (including the infobox). Done. Gage (talk) "As production began, Steve Callaghan, Alex Carter,..." no real need to repeat the first names as long as there's no other Callaghans or Carters in the section. I removed Callaghan's first name, but I'm not sure why Carter's first name should be removed, as he is only mentioned once, to my knowledge. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "as Quagmire' daughter" missing an s? Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "received the lowest amount of viewers"-> "received the fewest viewers" would be much nicer. Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "won and were nominated for " seems the wrong way round to me, after all they had to be nominated to win, so why not "were nominated for and won...."? Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "as the "worst show of the week."" - you refer to six episodes, is this a recurring award, it's not clear to me. References seem to imply this but capitalise the title as well. Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I see Goodman's image narrower than the other upright images, is there a reason for this? Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Should Family Guy be in italics in Rizzo's quote? Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "a remote that " could you patronise the Brits and say "remote control"? Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "The test comes back negative" benign? Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Vladmir -> Vladimir. Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "that Miley Cyrus is having a concert in Quahog" just reads odd to me "is having a concert"? There must be a better way... I've altered the sentence. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Chris the captures" missing an n. Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "but when the monkey helps Chris write" -> helps him write. Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Cleveland left the group," sorry, I missed this, what group? I've altered the sentence. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "a Hispanic maid" -> "an Hipsanic maid". Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] " bachelor party. Peter then takes Carter to " -> party, so takes him to... Done. I think you left out "he" after "so," though, and I added it to the article. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Don't think you need to link janitor. Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "research for the article, " what article? Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "but soon back out" backs out. Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "and Angela tries to seduce him" -> "where she tries..." Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "He tries a few different things" remove "a few". Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "he simply buys the kids an " -> "he buys them an" Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Vader goads Luke to join the dark side" -> Vader goads him... Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "marking the first time an episode has premiered in the United Kingdom before the United States" is this claim referenced? I was not aware of the statement. I've removed it. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Rating sorts four ways in Safari. A user readded the ratings table, instead of listing it in the episode list, so I'm not sure your concern still applies, as I've reverted it. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] So does Share. Same as above. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Any reason for the bold text in the table (apart from the headings, of course)? Same as above. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ref 15 looks like it has a spare " Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ref 21 vs Ref 22 for inconsistent formatting of TV by the Numbers. And refs 66 to 68 look different again. Done with 21 and 22. Not sure what you're referring to with "66 to 68." Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] What is UNCCD and what makes its criticism specifically relevant? I've replaced the reference. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] IGN in the references is sometimes italicised, sometimes not, be consistent. Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ref 63 is missing most parameters besides title. There are no other parameters that are able to be filled. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Is "television seasons" really necessary if you have Family Guy seasons (which must have "television seasons" as a super-category?) Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Would suggest a merger of the very short lead para into the subsequent para. Which paragraphs are you referring to? Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Second and third... The Rambling Man (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Done. Gage (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] " Eight of the twenty-one episodes are included in the volume. The remaining eleven episodes..." perhaps I'm tired but that adds up to 19 in my mind, not 21... If you look at the previous user's concerns, I was instructed to remove two episodes that were independently released on their own DVD. Because of this, 8 in the first volume + 11 in the second volume + 2 independent releases equals 21 episodes. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I find it confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, I see no problem in readding the two independent releases to the DVD release info in the lead, especially since you're the second person to question the math. Gage (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] It just needs to be clear, that's all. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've added to the statement. Gage (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Don't mix date formats in the references. I looked over the references, and was unable to locate anywhere that I had mixed the dates in the references, please point out what needs to be fixed. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Fair enough, can't see any problems now! The Rambling Man (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Is is "boxset", "Boxset" or "box set"? I'd suggest the latter but be consistent throughout (including the infobox).

- Done. Gage (talk)
"As production began, Steve Callaghan, Alex Carter,..." no real need to repeat the first names as long as there's no other Callaghans or Carters in the section.
- I removed Callaghan's first name, but I'm not sure why Carter's first name should be removed, as he is only mentioned once, to my knowledge. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"as Quagmire' daughter" missing an s?
- Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"received the lowest amount of viewers"-> "received the fewest viewers" would be much nicer.
- Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"won and were nominated for " seems the wrong way round to me, after all they had to be nominated to win, so why not "were nominated for and won...."?
- Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"as the "worst show of the week."" - you refer to six episodes, is this a recurring award, it's not clear to me. References seem to imply this but capitalise the title as well.
- Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see Goodman's image narrower than the other upright images, is there a reason for this?
- Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should Family Guy be in italics in Rizzo's quote?
- Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"a remote that " could you patronise the Brits and say "remote control"?
- Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The test comes back negative" benign?
- Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vladmir -> Vladimir.
- Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"that Miley Cyrus is having a concert in Quahog" just reads odd to me "is having a concert"? There must be a better way...
- I've altered the sentence. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Chris the captures" missing an n.
- Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"but when the monkey helps Chris write" -> helps him write.
- Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Cleveland left the group," sorry, I missed this, what group?
- I've altered the sentence. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"a Hispanic maid" -> "an Hipsanic maid".
- Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
" bachelor party. Peter then takes Carter to " -> party, so takes him to...
- Done. I think you left out "he" after "so," though, and I added it to the article. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think you need to link janitor.
- Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"research for the article, " what article?
- Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"but soon back out" backs out.
- Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"and Angela tries to seduce him" -> "where she tries..."
- Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"He tries a few different things" remove "a few".
- Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"he simply buys the kids an " -> "he buys them an"
- Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Vader goads Luke to join the dark side" -> Vader goads him...
- Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"marking the first time an episode has premiered in the United Kingdom before the United States" is this claim referenced?
- I was not aware of the statement. I've removed it. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rating sorts four ways in Safari.
- A user readded the ratings table, instead of listing it in the episode list, so I'm not sure your concern still applies, as I've reverted it. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So does Share.
- Same as above. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason for the bold text in the table (apart from the headings, of course)?
- Same as above. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 15 looks like it has a spare "
- Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 21 vs Ref 22 for inconsistent formatting of TV by the Numbers. And refs 66 to 68 look different again.
- Done with 21 and 22. Not sure what you're referring to with "66 to 68." Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is UNCCD and what makes its criticism specifically relevant?
- I've replaced the reference. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IGN in the references is sometimes italicised, sometimes not, be consistent.
- Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 63 is missing most parameters besides title.
- There are no other parameters that are able to be filled. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is "television seasons" really necessary if you have Family Guy seasons (which must have "television seasons" as a super-category?)
- Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would suggest a merger of the very short lead para into the subsequent para.
- Which paragraphs are you referring to? Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Second and third... The Rambling Man (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. Gage (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
" Eight of the twenty-one episodes are included in the volume. The remaining eleven episodes..." perhaps I'm tired but that adds up to 19 in my mind, not 21...
- If you look at the previous user's concerns, I was instructed to remove two episodes that were independently released on their own DVD. Because of this, 8 in the first volume + 11 in the second volume + 2 independent releases equals 21 episodes. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I find it confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I see no problem in readding the two independent releases to the DVD release info in the lead, especially since you're the second person to question the math. Gage (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It just needs to be clear, that's all. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I've added to the statement. Gage (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mix date formats in the references.
- I looked over the references, and was unable to locate anywhere that I had mixed the dates in the references, please point out what needs to be fixed. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, can't see any problems now! The Rambling Man (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Production: What is citing the second and third paragraphs of this section? I've referenced the best way I could think of, similar to the main list. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Reception: How could Family Goy have reached "a high for the eighth season" when it's stated earlier that the season premiere had the highest ratings, which the given statistics seem to back up? Done. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] In the key, the second bulleted point has a space before its period. And why does one note have a period when the other doesn't? Done. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Episode 5: "He sneaks in backstage, Miley becomes Stewie's best friend." First, it feels like an incomplete sentence. Second, why is Miley's first name being used? Episode 6: "and introduces the clone to Brian. Brian...". Try to avoid repetition like this from one sentence to another. Done. I'm not sure why the use of simply "Miley" is being called into question though. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Episode 11: "Luke then breaks out of jail and tries to hide in the Griffin's home." "Griffin's" → "Griffins'". Done. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Episode 15: "Stewie finds an old script that Brian wrote, suggests Lois read it." Feels like "and" is missing after the comma. That might help the Miley sentence too. Done. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Episode 19: "Peter questions where Quagmire heard the joke and eventually find...". "find" → "finds". Done. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] DVD release: Is the spelling of "Karoke" correct? Done. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] General reference needs a period after the publisher. Done. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] References 2, 22, and 24 should have designations that the links are in PDF format. The format= parameter of the cite templates is useful for this purpose. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Done. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Production: What is citing the second and third paragraphs of this section?
- I've referenced the best way I could think of, similar to the main list. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reception: How could Family Goy have reached "a high for the eighth season" when it's stated earlier that the season premiere had the highest ratings, which the given statistics seem to back up?
- Done. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the key, the second bulleted point has a space before its period. And why does one note have a period when the other doesn't?
- Done. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Episode 5: "He sneaks in backstage, Miley becomes Stewie's best friend." First, it feels like an incomplete sentence. Second, why is Miley's first name being used?
Episode 6: "and introduces the clone to Brian. Brian...". Try to avoid repetition like this from one sentence to another.
- Done. I'm not sure why the use of simply "Miley" is being called into question though. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Episode 11: "Luke then breaks out of jail and tries to hide in the Griffin's home." "Griffin's" → "Griffins'".
- Done. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Episode 15: "Stewie finds an old script that Brian wrote, suggests Lois read it." Feels like "and" is missing after the comma. That might help the Miley sentence too.
- Done. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Episode 19: "Peter questions where Quagmire heard the joke and eventually find...". "find" → "finds".
- Done. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DVD release: Is the spelling of "Karoke" correct?
- Done. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
General reference needs a period after the publisher.
- Done. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References 2, 22, and 24 should have designations that the links are in PDF format. The format= parameter of the cite templates is useful for this purpose. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Question, what happened to the picture of the DVD box? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was implied by another editor above that it was not necessary. Gage (talk) 08:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 19:23, 15 December 2010 [27].

List of World Heritage Sites of the United Kingdom[edit]

Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This list follows the same pattern as the successful lists for Spain and Peru. It should certainly be comprehensive as it contains details of all the sites, details of the nomination process, and prospective candidates. There is a departure from those two as the UK list doesn't include a map; instead there's a prominent link to Bing and Google which does the job and is a method used in other FLs (eg: castles in Cheshire and Scheduled Monuments in Greater Manchester). Each site – there are 28 – has a brief description to make things interesting for the reader (hopefully). The tentative list (sites which are proposed to become fully fledged World Heritage Sites) is just a list of names as otherwise it would imbalance the article as there are more candidates than actual WHS. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to read the list. Nev1 (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I know we avoid bold links but I don't see a reason why you can't link UNESCO and World Heritage Site in the opening sentence of the lead. Caption of Stonehenge image is a complete sentence so a full stop. Would lower than expected be better as lower-than-expected? You use WHS only once throughout. I wouldn't bother, or, be consistent and use the expanded version only once with (WHS) after it. And keep reminding me that it isn't WH Smiths. Last sentence of lead, you link all of "Giant's Causeway and Causeway Coast" - you've already linked Giant's Causeway (on its own) earlier, and in the table you do the same (i.e. don't link "and Causeway Coast") so I'd be consistent. "Inaccessible Islands" links to just the singular. Which is correct? Not sure the small text is really necessary nor desirable, but I won't complain if nobody else does. UNESCO data - numbers over 999, why not have a comma to separate the thousand? "five to ten year " would hyphenate myself. There seems to be a variety of "Tentative list", "Tentative List" and "tentative list" so I guess we need consistency. Ref 27 needs a ((cite web)) Ref 51 needs an en-dash, not a spaced hyphen. Ref 6 - inconsistent date formats in the refs. FCO can be linked since you link other publishers. Be consistent on linking UNESCO in the references. Benvie's book has isbn number according to Amazon. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The opening sentence isn't bolded, so I've added the links in any case. Full stop added. Nev1 (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think you're right about hyphenating. Fair point about the abbreviation, since it's only used once I suppose it's a bit unnecessary and have expanded it. It should now be consistent (ie:just "Giant's Causeway" linked in the lead and table). The site's name is "Gough and Inaccessible Islands", individually they are Gough Island and Inaccessible Island. I can see there might be some confusion as it might sound like there's more than one Inaccessible Island, but even UNESCO does it that way. I think the slightly smaller text makes the table look neater but would welcome other opinions. Can't think of a good reason why there weren't any commas, so there are now. I'm not sure about this. If five and ten were numbers I wouldn't mind either way, but MOS:NUM does encourage spelling out numbers below ten, and putting a dash in there doesn't look quite right. I'm not too fussed either way to be honest though. I removed ref 27 as another editor introduced it while adding some info on the legend associated with Giant's Causeway. Many of the sites have legends attached to them but there just isn't space in this list for that kind of information. UNESCO mentions that the causeway has inspired legends of giants in Ireland, but I don't think it's worthwhile going into lots of detail about the legend of it being formed. You're quite right about the hyphen in ref 51 (now 50). The dates should now be consistent. Didn't realise there was a link for the FCO, but I've added it now. I've delinked the two times UNESCO was linked in a reference. I opted not to link it as it would make the reference section a sea of blue and distract from the hyperlinks; guess I forgot about those two. ISBN added. Nev1 (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I know we avoid bold links but I don't see a reason why you can't link UNESCO and World Heritage Site in the opening sentence of the lead.
Caption of Stonehenge image is a complete sentence so a full stop.
Would lower than expected be better as lower-than-expected?
You use WHS only once throughout. I wouldn't bother, or, be consistent and use the expanded version only once with (WHS) after it. And keep reminding me that it isn't WH Smiths.
Last sentence of lead, you link all of "Giant's Causeway and Causeway Coast" - you've already linked Giant's Causeway (on its own) earlier, and in the table you do the same (i.e. don't link "and Causeway Coast") so I'd be consistent.
"Inaccessible Islands" links to just the singular. Which is correct?
Not sure the small text is really necessary nor desirable, but I won't complain if nobody else does.
UNESCO data - numbers over 999, why not have a comma to separate the thousand?
"five to ten year " would hyphenate myself.
There seems to be a variety of "Tentative list", "Tentative List" and "tentative list" so I guess we need consistency.
Ref 27 needs a ((cite web))
Ref 51 needs an en-dash, not a spaced hyphen.
Ref 6 - inconsistent date formats in the refs.
FCO can be linked since you link other publishers.
Be consistent on linking UNESCO in the references.
Benvie's book has isbn number according to Amazon.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentence isn't bolded, so I've added the links in any case.
Full stop added. Nev1 (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right about hyphenating.
Fair point about the abbreviation, since it's only used once I suppose it's a bit unnecessary and have expanded it.
It should now be consistent (ie:just "Giant's Causeway" linked in the lead and table).
The site's name is "Gough and Inaccessible Islands", individually they are Gough Island and Inaccessible Island. I can see there might be some confusion as it might sound like there's more than one Inaccessible Island, but even UNESCO does it that way.
I think the slightly smaller text makes the table look neater but would welcome other opinions.
Can't think of a good reason why there weren't any commas, so there are now.
I'm not sure about this. If five and ten were numbers I wouldn't mind either way, but MOS:NUM does encourage spelling out numbers below ten, and putting a dash in there doesn't look quite right. I'm not too fussed either way to be honest though.
I removed ref 27 as another editor introduced it while adding some info on the legend associated with Giant's Causeway. Many of the sites have legends attached to them but there just isn't space in this list for that kind of information. UNESCO mentions that the causeway has inspired legends of giants in Ireland, but I don't think it's worthwhile going into lots of detail about the legend of it being formed.
You're quite right about the hyphen in ref 51 (now 50).
The dates should now be consistent.
Didn't realise there was a link for the FCO, but I've added it now.
I've delinked the two times UNESCO was linked in a reference. I opted not to link it as it would make the reference section a sea of blue and distract from the hyperlinks; guess I forgot about those two.
ISBN added. Nev1 (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Doncram

Comments about site articles that are indexed
I'll collapse the following as i don't have time to develop my thoughts further, and there's no clear impact for this list article right now. --doncram (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I would prefer to see the full official WHS name wikilinked, e.g. "Giant's Causeway and Causeway Coast" rather than seeing "Giant's Causeway and Causeway Coast". It should usually link to the one article which provides the WHS infobox, if one is used. In the Giant's Causeway case, there already is a redirect, so this could definitely be done, and I believe it would look better, clearly conveying that the full WHS description will appear at that one article. About WHS listings that are not covered in a single article, but rather are covered in two or more separate articles, each with a similar WHS infobox, I am not completely happy. These ones have several separate wikilinks within one WHS title, as presented. I would rather, in a way, see a new combo article at the full WHS name, with info on the WHS designation, which could be linked to. This combo article could possibly reflect a merger of the material now in separate articles, in some cases, and in other cases would consist of a short statement and linking to the multiple separate articles that exist on each component of the combo WHS listing. But, i know that attempting to comply with this would cause complications as there do exist separate articles for many WHS combo listings. I have myself struggled with this in some drafted, not-yet-in-mainspace WHS list-article work. Great looking list-article, overall! Maybe i will be able to comment more later. --doncram (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Your points about name linking and articles for WHS are linked so I'll address them together. In the case of Giant's Causeay and Causeway Coast and Pontcysyllte Aqueduct and Canal I have expanded the link to so that the whole name is linked as each article does discuss the site. For ease of reference, the remaining names which have multiple links are: Canterbury Cathedral, St Augustine's Abbey, and St Martin's Church Durham Castle and Cathedral Gough and Inaccessible Island Historic Town of St George and Related Fortifications, Bermuda Old and New Towns of Edinburgh Studley Royal Park including the Ruins of Fountains Abbey Westminster Palace, Westminster Abbey and Saint Margaret's Church Since there's no single article which covers the subject, there are multiple links. One option to address this would be to create a lot of stub articles, but I don't think it's a satisfactory solution. Some subjects lend themselves well to that approach. Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites is one such example where ideally the article would look at the ritual landscape of the sites and how they fit together; there's already a lot of literature on the subject and the monuments are rarely treated in isolation. However, taking an example I know, Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd is an example of the pitfalls. It's a poor article in any case, but as it explains Edward I built more castles in Wales than are included in the site. An article on Edwardian castles in Wales – a very valid subject and perhaps one I'll get round to some day – would need to include castles beyond those in the listing. Otherwise it would be difficult to fully understand the subject; once you include those extra castles, there'd be no point in giving the article the official name of the WHS as that would no longer adequately describe it. That's a particularly frustrating examples as I know there's a better way to treat the subject because I'm familiar with it, but a UNESCO site would give the appearance of being comprehensive to those who don't know otherwise. Another situation is that there are articles on both Durham Castle and Durham Cathedral, and both should ideally mention each other, but is there any point in having one article for both? They are separately notable and can be best addressed separately. Although occasionally overlapping, not all of the history of the castle is relevant to the cathedral and vice versa. An article at Durham Castle and Cathedral would be a mash of the two, doing neither justice. If it wasn't for the fact that UNESCO has grouped the two, you wouldn't even think about writing an article on the subject. I don't think we should fall into the trap of creating articles under UNESCO names if they are not the best way to address their subject, and I believe that would be the case for those listed above. There's something similar at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crucible of Iron Age Shetland, although the result of that AfD was keep. Nev1 (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your thoughtful commenting. About the "Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd" one, I would think that the article title does not have to be kept at the WHS listing name, but the WHS name can be a redirect to a more broadly titled topic. If the article includes a WHS infobox, especially, then it should be very clear to readers that "This is the article where the WHS site of this name is covered!". About the Durham Castle and Durham Cathedral separate articles, i actually like how the Durham Castle article uses a WHS infobox that displays title "Durham Castle and Cathedral", succinctly conveying that a) The WHS listing is the combo, by the complete title, and b) "This is the article covering the Durham Castle part" and c) See the linked Durham Cathedral article for that part. If the idea is to split the WHS coverage, then it could be elegant and complete if the Durham Cathedral article likewise had a WHS infobox with title "Durham Castle and Cathedral". There is a section late in the Durham Castle article on the WHS listing, but it isn't clear to me whether that is the place for the WHS to be officially covered, or if it is half and there should be an equivalent half over in a section over in the Cathedral article. The section itself does not name the WHS listing. And actually i notice that Durham Castle and Cathedral is a redirect to the Cathedral article, which does not clearly cover the combo WHS listing. Can you just clarify here, where is the WHS listing to be covered, in your view? If it is to be covered in a section in the Castle article, then at least the redirect should be changed to point to that article and specifically to that section. I'm still struggling to see what is best, how to treat these combos. In the U.S. National Register of Historic Places register, there are very few combo situations like this (and I dealt with several by setting up short combo stubby articles, which hold the corresponding NRHP infobox and proclaim "here is where the combo as a combo is addressed"). But I am aware there are many of these combos in the WHS register and that it is not clear how it is best to handle them. --doncram (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about site articles that are indexed

I'll collapse the following as i don't have time to develop my thoughts further, and there's no clear impact for this list article right now. --doncram (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to see the full official WHS name wikilinked, e.g. "Giant's Causeway and Causeway Coast" rather than seeing "Giant's Causeway and Causeway Coast". It should usually link to the one article which provides the WHS infobox, if one is used. In the Giant's Causeway case, there already is a redirect, so this could definitely be done, and I believe it would look better, clearly conveying that the full WHS description will appear at that one article.
About WHS listings that are not covered in a single article, but rather are covered in two or more separate articles, each with a similar WHS infobox, I am not completely happy. These ones have several separate wikilinks within one WHS title, as presented. I would rather, in a way, see a new combo article at the full WHS name, with info on the WHS designation, which could be linked to. This combo article could possibly reflect a merger of the material now in separate articles, in some cases, and in other cases would consist of a short statement and linking to the multiple separate articles that exist on each component of the combo WHS listing. But, i know that attempting to comply with this would cause complications as there do exist separate articles for many WHS combo listings. I have myself struggled with this in some drafted, not-yet-in-mainspace WHS list-article work.
Great looking list-article, overall! Maybe i will be able to comment more later. --doncram (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your points about name linking and articles for WHS are linked so I'll address them together. In the case of Giant's Causeay and Causeway Coast and Pontcysyllte Aqueduct and Canal I have expanded the link to so that the whole name is linked as each article does discuss the site. For ease of reference, the remaining names which have multiple links are:

Canterbury Cathedral, St Augustine's Abbey, and St Martin's Church
Durham Castle and Cathedral
Gough and Inaccessible Island
Historic Town of St George and Related Fortifications, Bermuda
Old and New Towns of Edinburgh
Studley Royal Park including the Ruins of Fountains Abbey
Westminster Palace, Westminster Abbey and Saint Margaret's Church

Since there's no single article which covers the subject, there are multiple links. One option to address this would be to create a lot of stub articles, but I don't think it's a satisfactory solution. Some subjects lend themselves well to that approach. Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites is one such example where ideally the article would look at the ritual landscape of the sites and how they fit together; there's already a lot of literature on the subject and the monuments are rarely treated in isolation. However, taking an example I know, Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd is an example of the pitfalls. It's a poor article in any case, but as it explains Edward I built more castles in Wales than are included in the site. An article on Edwardian castles in Wales – a very valid subject and perhaps one I'll get round to some day – would need to include castles beyond those in the listing. Otherwise it would be difficult to fully understand the subject; once you include those extra castles, there'd be no point in giving the article the official name of the WHS as that would no longer adequately describe it. That's a particularly frustrating examples as I know there's a better way to treat the subject because I'm familiar with it, but a UNESCO site would give the appearance of being comprehensive to those who don't know otherwise.
Another situation is that there are articles on both Durham Castle and Durham Cathedral, and both should ideally mention each other, but is there any point in having one article for both? They are separately notable and can be best addressed separately. Although occasionally overlapping, not all of the history of the castle is relevant to the cathedral and vice versa. An article at Durham Castle and Cathedral would be a mash of the two, doing neither justice. If it wasn't for the fact that UNESCO has grouped the two, you wouldn't even think about writing an article on the subject. I don't think we should fall into the trap of creating articles under UNESCO names if they are not the best way to address their subject, and I believe that would be the case for those listed above. There's something similar at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crucible of Iron Age Shetland, although the result of that AfD was keep. Nev1 (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful commenting. About the "Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd" one, I would think that the article title does not have to be kept at the WHS listing name, but the WHS name can be a redirect to a more broadly titled topic. If the article includes a WHS infobox, especially, then it should be very clear to readers that "This is the article where the WHS site of this name is covered!".

About the Durham Castle and Durham Cathedral separate articles, i actually like how the Durham Castle article uses a WHS infobox that displays title "Durham Castle and Cathedral", succinctly conveying that a) The WHS listing is the combo, by the complete title, and b) "This is the article covering the Durham Castle part" and c) See the linked Durham Cathedral article for that part. If the idea is to split the WHS coverage, then it could be elegant and complete if the Durham Cathedral article likewise had a WHS infobox with title "Durham Castle and Cathedral". There is a section late in the Durham Castle article on the WHS listing, but it isn't clear to me whether that is the place for the WHS to be officially covered, or if it is half and there should be an equivalent half over in a section over in the Cathedral article. The section itself does not name the WHS listing. And actually i notice that Durham Castle and Cathedral is a redirect to the Cathedral article, which does not clearly cover the combo WHS listing. Can you just clarify here, where is the WHS listing to be covered, in your view? If it is to be covered in a section in the Castle article, then at least the redirect should be changed to point to that article and specifically to that section. I'm still struggling to see what is best, how to treat these combos. In the U.S. National Register of Historic Places register, there are very few combo situations like this (and I dealt with several by setting up short combo stubby articles, which hold the corresponding NRHP infobox and proclaim "here is where the combo as a combo is addressed"). But I am aware there are many of these combos in the WHS register and that it is not clear how it is best to handle them. --doncram (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About footnote locations
About the last column in the table "References", why not drop it, moving the UNESCO footnotes into the UNESCO data column (or into the description column) and moving the other footnotes to the description column. I do note some descriptions have a footnote and others do not. I know that References is a column in some other list-articles but i don't get that. It's not a column that i see as being useful for readers. In fact the footnotes should support specific material. There is not a separate references column in any U.S. historic sites list (only a couple of which are featured) that i am aware of. --doncram (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I have been persuaded in the past that a Reference column is not really of much use, and I now usually add the citations at the end of the Description (or whatever) column.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Originally I expected the vast majority of the information to come from the UNESCO website, so rather than adding a reference to each column, a new column was created to reduce clutter. Other sources have been used, but for the most part UNESCO is the key source. I do like that it would free up some space though, so I'm a bit torn. I could redistribute the references into each column if there's consensus; take a look at Blaenavon's entry in this link for roughly how it would appear (the last column would obviously be dispensed with). Nev1 (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I guess Nev was waiting for more comment, while i thot there was enough consensus on this point. The table's appearance varies according to your browser and your open window size, but on my fairly narrow window right now it looks like the appearance would be improved considerably by removing that almost-empty column, to let the description column widen out. I wouldn't actually oppose FL status about just this, but why not make the improvement? I hesitate to move the references myself as I am not sure exactly which info in other columns is supported by the footnote references that would be moved over. --doncram (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ok, I've had a go at it, what do you think? Nev1 (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think that is better, thanks! And collapsing. --doncram (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About footnote locations

About the last column in the table "References", why not drop it, moving the UNESCO footnotes into the UNESCO data column (or into the description column) and moving the other footnotes to the description column. I do note some descriptions have a footnote and others do not. I know that References is a column in some other list-articles but i don't get that. It's not a column that i see as being useful for readers. In fact the footnotes should support specific material. There is not a separate references column in any U.S. historic sites list (only a couple of which are featured) that i am aware of. --doncram (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been persuaded in the past that a Reference column is not really of much use, and I now usually add the citations at the end of the Description (or whatever) column.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Originally I expected the vast majority of the information to come from the UNESCO website, so rather than adding a reference to each column, a new column was created to reduce clutter. Other sources have been used, but for the most part UNESCO is the key source. I do like that it would free up some space though, so I'm a bit torn. I could redistribute the references into each column if there's consensus; take a look at Blaenavon's entry in this link for roughly how it would appear (the last column would obviously be dispensed with). Nev1 (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Nev was waiting for more comment, while i thot there was enough consensus on this point. The table's appearance varies according to your browser and your open window size, but on my fairly narrow window right now it looks like the appearance would be improved considerably by removing that almost-empty column, to let the description column widen out. I wouldn't actually oppose FL status about just this, but why not make the improvement? I hesitate to move the references myself as I am not sure exactly which info in other columns is supported by the footnote references that would be moved over. --doncram (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've had a go at it, what do you think? Nev1 (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is better, thanks! And collapsing. --doncram (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems even better than at start of this review; looks great to me. --doncram (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This appears to me to be an example of how a FL should be.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: great -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Ref 8 and 10 have an inconsistency with the date format. Afro (Talk) 18:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency fixed. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have no problems with the list. Afro (Talk) 19:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –
- ~~Blenheim Palace: Drop second "the" from "the residence of the John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough"?~~
- Tower of London: "Additions were made by Henry III and Edward I in the 13th century made the castle...". Feels like "that" should be put in somewhere, because the sentence isn't flowing right at the moment. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon this should fix those problems. Nev1 (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support an excellent list, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments by Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)
Comments Country; of the four constituent countries that make up the United Kingdom" yet you have Bermuda and St. Helena etc in this column. - so key explanation needs more ~~Sorting by date gives 10th century, up to 19th century and then goes to (Bath Spa) 1st-19th, 2nd cent., 3rd millenia BC etc. Shouldn't these sort in date order?~~ Location. Should probably sort by COUNTY, TOWN/CITY etc. so all London ones group together etc. `((sort\|Greater London, Tower Hamlets\|[[Tower Hamlets]], [[Greater London]]))` Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Are the Pitcairn Islands and Saint Helena countries? Dealing with your first and last points, I think it may be worth considering merging the content of the country column into location given the trickiness of whether those two places are countries. Then it would make sense to sort by country/island, county, city. In the meantime I've tweaked the Greater London sites to group together when the location column is sorted as London and Greater London are basically synonymous. The date column should sort correctly now. Nev1 (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] If you look at the talk pages, you'll find that there's a lot of heat (and not much light!) about using the word "country" or "constituent country" even within the UK - Northern Ireland in particular! Pitcairn Islands are an overseas territory, near-enough to being a country. St Helena isn't, it's an administrative area of Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha following a name change a few months ago, and Tristan da Cunha is a separate administrative area within the same territory. One solution is change "country" to "country or dependency", change the text above the table, and change "Saint Helena" to Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha. TheGrappler (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] The isn't about the countries of the UK. I'm saying because the key says "Country; of the four constituent countries that make up the United Kingdom" you would expect to find NI/Wal/Eng/Sco in the Country column. So finding St. Helena is strange. Perhaps expand the key entry to "... of the the four constituent countries that make up the United Kingdom and its overseas terratories" (although there is probably a better wording) so it includes the possibility of having Bermuda etc. in the Location column. In fact, Nev, you correclty state Bermuda etc are not countries (but you 'have put them in the countries column). Perhaps "Territory" is actually a better heading although this is slightly strange and, for me, a better key explanation would suffice. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ok, as people seem to be leaning towards tweaking the heading and explanation rather than merging the columns, that's what I've done. Nev1 (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think it needs to be "country or territory" not just "territory"; never heard England being called a "territory". Also "Saint Helena" needs to be changed, as Tristan da Cunha is now no longer in Saint Helena. TheGrappler (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] And done. Nev1 (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments by Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Comments

Country; of the four constituent countries that make up the United Kingdom" yet you have Bermuda and St. Helena etc in this column. - so key explanation needs more
~~Sorting by date gives 10th century, up to 19th century and then goes to (Bath Spa) 1st-19th, 2nd cent., 3rd millenia BC etc. Shouldn't these sort in date order?~~
Location. Should probably sort by COUNTY, TOWN/CITY etc. so all London ones group together etc. ((sort|Greater London, Tower Hamlets|[[Tower Hamlets]], [[Greater London]]))

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are the Pitcairn Islands and Saint Helena countries? Dealing with your first and last points, I think it may be worth considering merging the content of the country column into location given the trickiness of whether those two places are countries. Then it would make sense to sort by country/island, county, city. In the meantime I've tweaked the Greater London sites to group together when the location column is sorted as London and Greater London are basically synonymous.
The date column should sort correctly now. Nev1 (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the talk pages, you'll find that there's a lot of heat (and not much light!) about using the word "country" or "constituent country" even within the UK - Northern Ireland in particular! Pitcairn Islands are an overseas territory, near-enough to being a country. St Helena isn't, it's an administrative area of Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha following a name change a few months ago, and Tristan da Cunha is a separate administrative area within the same territory. One solution is change "country" to "country or dependency", change the text above the table, and change "Saint Helena" to Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha. TheGrappler (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The isn't about the countries of the UK. I'm saying because the key says "Country; of the four constituent countries that make up the United Kingdom" you would expect to find NI/Wal/Eng/Sco in the Country column. So finding St. Helena is strange. Perhaps expand the key entry to "... of the the four constituent countries that make up the United Kingdom and its overseas terratories" (although there is probably a better wording) so it includes the possibility of having Bermuda etc. in the Location column. In fact, Nev, you correclty state Bermuda etc are not countries (but you 'have put them in the countries column). Perhaps "Territory" is actually a better heading although this is slightly strange and, for me, a better key explanation would suffice. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as people seem to be leaning towards tweaking the heading and explanation rather than merging the columns, that's what I've done. Nev1 (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs to be "country or territory" not just "territory"; never heard England being called a "territory". Also "Saint Helena" needs to be changed, as Tristan da Cunha is now no longer in Saint Helena. TheGrappler (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And done. Nev1 (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have capped my comments. Sorry I kind of forgot about all this as I'm preparing to go off-wiki for a fair while. I can see no immediate problems and the list looks very good. That said, because I have not reviewed it fully (and won't have time) I would feel wrong in offering my support. So I'll leave it as "looks good", "see no problems". Best of luck, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - overall the list is very good, however I do have one suggestion. The order information is peresented in the lead is not what I expect when starting to read the article. For example:

"The countries of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales together form the country and sovereign state of the United Kingdom. The UK is also responsible for the governance of 12 overseas territories, although they are not constitutionally part of the UK.[2]"

These are the second and third sentences, but they provide no information about "World Heritage Sites of the United Kingdom". One might expect the second and third sentences to contain the second and third most important infomation about "World Heritage Sites of the United Kingdom". I would suggest a slight re-ordering of information, and will make an edit to demonstrate what I mean. Suicidalhamster (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Suggestions: [28][reply]
Additionally the alt text for the images could do with some improvement. [29]. Suicidalhamster (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote the lead, I thought the immediate concerns would be first to explain what the United Kingdom is and what a World Heritage Site is. So my reflex was that the structure should remain like that, but your rewording mad it clear what the UK is (with the overseas territories). My one complaint would be that it doesn't immediately explain what a WHS is, but it's still done early enough (the second paragraph) so that the reader can take it in quickly. In a nut shell, I've restored your edit. Nev1 (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with some of the points made above and a few novel points. The "Country" column shouldn't be described as the "four constituent countries that make up the United Kingdom" since e.g. Bermuda is included. The first few sentences of the lede are in a surprising order. The sorting order of some of the columns is unusual: for the dates it's just plain wrong, and for location unhelpful. My novel points: the coordinate templates aren't looking too healthy at the moment. In general they should be more specific for e.g. a building, and less specific for a large area... on that basis the Cornwall/Devon coords look overspecific; possibly St Kilda too. I can't work out why Canterbury is very specific for E but not for N, and so on. Secondly, can some of the other tentative list/applicants be given red links or explanatory notes. Fountain Cavern for instance surely deserves a redlink and eventually an article, if it's a potential World Heritage Site. "Bronte Landscape" - is there something that can be done to link "Bronte" somewhere useful? (Some readers will understand the reference, but many won't.) "The Birth of the Railway Age, England" really doesn't give much away about what that would have been like as World Heritage Site, perhaps it deserves a footnote? A wikilink would have to be to a vague "History of railways in Britain" type of article (I think there is a case for such a link). Other v minor stuff: the purpose of note 2 eludes me, since the meaning of column headings are detailed above. The redundant note just makes that table look messier. ~~There's a typo "date" for "data" but I'll correct it myself.~~ Overall I liked this, am I being horrible and unrealistic for regretting the lack of map? I can appreciate that some of the sites are hard to pin down to a single location, so it would require a bit of craft mapmaking (and in making the links clickable) but the external sites that are linked out to will only place single pins. We can do better than that, and it would add a lot to the list (to be fair, not enough to make it unfeaturable without, but it would have been great with!) TheGrappler (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone some way to addressing the concerns mirrored by those above (ie: date sorting and order of introduction) and your opinion on this suggestion would be helpful.

The co-ordinates are the ones UNESCO provide themselves, so I'm loathe to change them. As far as the 38 suggestions for the Tentative list, I don't want to go into too much detail as they're really not what the list is about (they're not even on the official Tentative list, which is the UNESCO proposal list). I think it would be worth adding brief one-sentence explanations for the most oblique; apart from the ones you've mentioned, are there any others you think are unclear? The second footnote was a relic from before the table had a key, but is now gone. As for the map, I'm afraid it's just not realistic; it's not a question of pinpointing sites, but making it useful to a reader. For the map to be useful, it would have to name each site. Take a look at this to get an idea of how cramped it would be. The Bing and Google links, which allow you to zoom in and out and are far more interactive than anything I've seen on Wikipedia, do the job in a much tidier way. Nev1 (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If those are the officially provided locations, then they're a little crazy, but you're probably right not to change them! You're right, the Indian map is awful. To be fair, it's probably achievable if it had numbers and a key instead (e.g. this county map, tho the numbers could be clickable the same way as the labels in the Indian map are). But it'd be unfair to expect it for FL, especially since the external maps are provided. For date sorting: it seems more natural that "18th century" should be sorted before "18th and 19th centuries" before "18th–20th century". (I think it's just Ironbridge Gorge that needs to move.) I'm having a look through the Tentative List. I know it's not the main thrust of the piece, but as a reader, I'd like to emerge with some idea of where a place is and (for the more abstract ones i.e. if it's not just the obvious "city", "hill", "defences" etc), some idea of what is actually meant. For example Darwin's Home makes sense because Down House is wikilinked. Trying to be exhaustive: Fountain Cavern should probably be wikilinked (may be a redlink for now, but shouldn't be in the long run). "North Norfolk Coast" should have some sort of link (particularly since Americans have a rather different idea about where Norfolk is!) - the North Norfolk administrative area doesn't actually seem to cover the entire northern coast of Norfolk, so maybe just Norfolk should be linked? "Shakespeare's Stratford" shouldn't be a single link - it's overspecific, I thought it was actually going to send me to a page about 16th-century Stratford! Perhaps link William Shakespeare and Stratford separately. "The Birth of the Railway Age" - as a reader I have no idea what this is, or where. Maybe link it to History of rail transport in Great Britain or even History of rail transport in Great Britain to 1830 if the site was intended to be specific to the earliest rail pioneers - don't assume all readers know that it was Britain that gave birth to the steam railways! Do you have any idea where this was intended to be, or what scope of things it would cover? I think this one may need a brief footnote. Perhaps the same for "The heroic period of civil and marine engineering in England 1822", although at least this is clearly located in Bristol. None of the others seem to need footnoting. "Malone" in "Malone and Stranmillis Historic Urban landscape" should be wikilinked, I tried searching Wikipedia and have no idea what the "Malone" refers to (which is generally a good sign that an internal link is needed!). "Isle of Man" should be wikilinked on first appearance. "Bronte" should be wikilinked to Brontë family if that's what it refers to. That's all! TheGrappler (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the map (I did actually suggest including one on the Spain list, and by putting it in its own section at the end (unlike India) you can render it bigger and, therefore, reduce cramping. I agree with what you say about interactive Bing/Google being better but my only counter-argument would be how many people would bother to click through to these. My gut feeling is a much smaller proportion than those that would see an on-wiki map. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The county map you give as an example is one possibility, but given the cluster of sites in London I think it would still be too crowded even at a large size. To make it work I think you'd need about 4 mini-maps, one for each of the islands and a close up of Greater London, which would become unwieldy. I agree with you about Ironbridge, hopefully that's the last kink in the date sorting fixed. As far as the descriptions are concerned, I've added some details for the ones TheGrappler mentioned. Nev1 (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added descriptions much better thanks, perhaps the added descriptions should be in brackets to clearly distinguish them from the "official" descriptions? TheGrappler (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As part of one of the names on the Tentative list includes brackets (Manchester and Salford...), I don't think that would work. Nev1 (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, true enough! Footnoting them is another option, although that breaks the flow up. So I can't see any alternative that is clearly better than your dashes. The only outstanding complaint I have relates the "territory" issue, see above. TheGrappler (talk) 06:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Have any of these more recent comments been addressed?~~ Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting on it now. Nev1 (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status of these concerns? Has Rambo's Revenge been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing by and unfortunately no time for a full review. Just one question, why is the title: "List of World Heritage Sites of the United Kingdom"? As far as I can see other similar lists use "in" instead of "of". bamse (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was decided a while ago that "in the United Kingdom" wasn't quite right as the overseas territories do not form part of the UK itself. Nev1 (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks. bamse (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 12:44, 14 December 2010 [30].

30 Rock (season 4)[edit]

Nominator(s): ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE), Staxringold _talk^contribs, and Courcelles 22:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Behind schedule and over budget, this is the nomination for the fourth season of 30 Rock, hopefully just squeaking in time to save the FT. Courcelles 22:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Jujutacular ^talk 23:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments "8.4 out of 10 rating, noting it was "Impressive" and..." - any reason 'impressive' is in caps? I see the reflist specifies two columns, but I it only appears as one for me (I'm on Mac / Firefox). When I click 'edit' and 'preview' I see two, but not in normal view. Is there a fix? Jujutacular ^talk 22:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] First one fixed. I tried something on the refs, but on Windows/Firefox it made no difference. I've no access to a Mac, so I've no idea what you're seeing, but maybe it fixed the problem. However, per usual, the columns doesn't work when I try in IE. (And there is no fixing that.) Courcelles 23:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] That seems to have fixed it, thanks! Jujutacular ^talk 23:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] "With Avery deciding not to be his date at Cerie's wedding, and getting an unexpected visit from Nancy, results in Jack becoming more entangled in his love triangle between Avery and Nancy." Grammar seems a bit rocky here. Jujutacular ^talk 23:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Tried to smooth it out, see if I made it any better or worse. Courcelles 23:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Much better, thanks. Jujutacular ^talk 23:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Jujutacular ^talk 23:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"8.4 out of 10 rating, noting it was "Impressive" and..." - any reason 'impressive' is in caps?
I see the reflist specifies two columns, but I it only appears as one for me (I'm on Mac / Firefox). When I click 'edit' and 'preview' I see two, but not in normal view. Is there a fix?

Jujutacular ^talk 22:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First one fixed. I tried something on the refs, but on Windows/Firefox it made no difference. I've no access to a Mac, so I've no idea what you're seeing, but maybe it fixed the problem. However, per usual, the columns doesn't work when I try in IE. (And there is no fixing that.) Courcelles 23:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to have fixed it, thanks! Jujutacular ^talk 23:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"With Avery deciding not to be his date at Cerie's wedding, and getting an unexpected visit from Nancy, results in Jack becoming more entangled in his love triangle between Avery and Nancy." Grammar seems a bit rocky here. Jujutacular ^talk 23:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tried to smooth it out, see if I made it any better or worse. Courcelles 23:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much better, thanks. Jujutacular ^talk 23:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Everything looks in order, good work. Jujutacular ^talk 23:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 13:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see no problem with the list. Afro (Say Something Funny) ^{- Afkatk} 10:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments good luck with the FT save! Infobox image caption is a complete sentence so needs a period. Done. Courcelles Crew section - do you need to repeat first names of producers (for instance) that you've already mentioned, e.g. John Riggi's second mention could simply be Riggi, right? There seems to be quite a lot of this sort of repetition. It's not a mandate, but usually once we've mentioned someone unambiguously, we go with surnames thereon after.... Fixed. Courcelles "deemed "Season 4" as " mildly confusing, perhaps "deemed the first episode of the season, "Season 4" as..."? Done. Courcelles "6.684 million" and " 4.216 million " seems unnaturally accurate for me. That's down to the thousands. I'm sure viewing figures aren't that accurate. In the UK we don't go much beyond the nearest 10,000 and that's with a population that's a sixth as much as the US. Well, the source does go that deep, but it doesn't match the rest of the numbers, so rounded it off to one decimal to match the rest. Courcelles "the United Kingdom (UK)" do you really need to abbreviate this? Nope, should have seen that. Courcelles "personal relationships due to a relationship-advice" not the greatest with such a quick repeat of "relationship". Reworded. Courcelles "Jack becomes infected with bedbugs " do people really become infected with bed bugs? Changed to "inflicted" as they're not technically an infection, you're right. Courcelles You link elitist, but not "carbon footprint" for example. What's the general approach here? Linked carbon footprint. Courcelles Do you really believe that you need to link Christmas? Unlinked Courcelles Perhaps add (EGOT) after the explanation. Reworked. Courcelles I don't think you need 30 Rock as a category since 30 Rock episodes is obviously a better cat and a subcat of 30 Rock. Removed. Courcelles The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the comments, I've responded to all of them. Courcelles 19:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments good luck with the FT save!

Infobox image caption is a complete sentence so needs a period.

Done. Courcelles

Crew section - do you need to repeat first names of producers (for instance) that you've already mentioned, e.g. John Riggi's second mention could simply be Riggi, right? There seems to be quite a lot of this sort of repetition. It's not a mandate, but usually once we've mentioned someone unambiguously, we go with surnames thereon after....

Fixed. Courcelles

"deemed "Season 4" as " mildly confusing, perhaps "deemed the first episode of the season, "Season 4" as..."?

Done. Courcelles

"6.684 million" and " 4.216 million " seems unnaturally accurate for me. That's down to the thousands. I'm sure viewing figures aren't that accurate. In the UK we don't go much beyond the nearest 10,000 and that's with a population that's a sixth as much as the US.

Well, the source does go that deep, but it doesn't match the rest of the numbers, so rounded it off to one decimal to match the rest. Courcelles

"the United Kingdom (UK)" do you really need to abbreviate this?

Nope, should have seen that. Courcelles

"personal relationships due to a relationship-advice" not the greatest with such a quick repeat of "relationship".

Reworded. Courcelles

"Jack becomes infected with bedbugs " do people really become infected with bed bugs?

Changed to "inflicted" as they're not technically an infection, you're right. Courcelles

You link elitist, but not "carbon footprint" for example. What's the general approach here?

Linked carbon footprint. Courcelles

Do you really believe that you need to link Christmas?

Unlinked Courcelles

Perhaps add (EGOT) after the explanation.

Reworked. Courcelles

I don't think you need 30 Rock as a category since 30 Rock episodes is obviously a better cat and a subcat of 30 Rock.

Removed. Courcelles

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I've responded to all of them. Courcelles 19:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "The next couple of weeks the episodes would decrease its ratings, until the season's eighth episode—"Secret Santa"—was the highest-rated episode of the season with 7.5 million viewers." which was the. Only issue I found, once fixed I'll support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Cast: "the NBC network executive Jack Donaghy. Donaghy's...". Try to avoid having repetition like this from the end of one sentence to the start of another.
"and Damn Yankees, the latter that starred Jane Krakowski." Don't like the construction of this bit. How about "and Damn Yankees; the latter starred Jane Krakowski." The "that" is really the problem in the original.
~~Ratings: I still see "The next couple of weeks the episodes would decrease its ratings". I don't think this is fixed at all, and it's not of the standard that FLs should be at.~~
- ~~Now it's "The next five weeks saw lower ratings ratings". A repeat word needs trimming.~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, gosh. I'm an idiot. Courcelles 02:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Awards and nominations: "Alec Baldwin won up his second Golden Globe Award...". What is "up" doing here?~~
~~Missing word in "including fourth consecutive nomination for Outstanding Comedy Series".~~
~~Distribution: The Comedy Central link goes to the U.S. station, not the U.K. one, as seems to be the intention.~~
Episode 7: "and appoints Frank the head writer, who enjoys...". The "who enjoys" part is meant to be about Frank, and "the head writer" is getting in the way somewhat. I'd recommend moving it before Frank somehow, leaving the name directly before the comma.
~~Episode 8: "and a woman Jack had feeling for while in high school." Normally it would be "feelings", right?~~
~~Episode 9: "Jack decides to break into her into her house...". Get rid of the repeating.~~
~~Episode 17: "Liz forces herself to attend as many singles events...". I don't understand this. As many as who? Or as many as possible?~~
~~Episode 20: "by having the moms of its cast and staff arrive and to participate in the Mother's Day themed episode." To me, it reads better without the "to".~~
~~Reference 41 needs a PDF designation, like the one ref 38 has.~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on all of these, thanks for the feedback. Courcelles 20:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The summaries are way too short. They should each be at least a couple hundred words. Ω phois 00:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple hundred words? That would fail the NFCC by a country mile. Given that each episode has its own article, with a plot section that is around 300-400 words, the list keeps the plot information short. See WP:TVPLOT, and compare with teh prior two seasons. The plot summary is a derivative work of the show itself, even though written by us, and it is limited by the NFCC to absolutely no more than necessary. (And, let's face it, these aren't hard episodes to understand... more detail is readily available in each episode's article, where a better NFCC case can be made for including it.) Courcelles 03:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline you recommended still says a plot for lists such as this should at least be 100 words. Take "Audition Day", for example. The summary is: "Liz and Pete attempt to rig the TGS auditions to guarantee that their preferred candidate (Nick Fondulis) will be selected by Jack. Meanwhile, Jack becomes inflicted with bedbugs and learns a valuable lesson about humanity as most of the cast ostracises him." This reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic summary. Simple details such as what lesson did he learn and the outcome of each sublplot need to be included. Ω phois 17:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked ThinkBlue to look at this, as she wrote the episode articles. Courcelles 02:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, been busy. I'll expand the episode summaries tomorrow. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked over the changes so far. While I appreciate the effort, I'm sorry to say that some parts are poorly written. For example, from summaries randomly chosen:

"Problem Solvers": "Jack offers Liz a chance to create a television pilot based on her "Dealbreakers" sketch but after Jenna and Tracy convince her to explore all of her options first Liz hires an agent." and "From his arrival, Danny treats Kenneth politely and does not ask him to run any errands for him which leads Tracy and Jenna to question their demanding ways resulting in the two asking less of Kenneth which upsets him."

"Stone Mountain": "Liz objects, nonetheless decides to see Wayne and heckle him." and "Meanwhile, after two other celebrities die Tracy fears for his life when he hears that celebrities tend to die in groups of three. Tracy fears for his life but he is relieved when he learns that Pumpkin "died"."

"Season 4" has multiple grammar issues throughout it.

Sorry, but I must ~~Oppose~~ until the summaries have been properly copyedited. Ω phois 21:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These have now received two separate copy-edits. Courcelles 05:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still some minor issues, but I think you've cleaned it up enough. Ω phois 05:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article seems to meet the criteria. CrowzRSA 20:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:06, 12 December 2010 [31].

Hugo Award for Best Professional Editor[edit]

Nominator(s): Pres N 18:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite saying that I was done for a while, I'm back with the Hugo Award for Best Professional Editor. As always, comments from previous FLCs have been incorporated into this list. This one is a bit different from the others, though, in that not only is it given for a person, not their work, but also in that the work that they did isn't even mentioned. That is to say that Ben Bova won the inaugural year (1973, to coincide with the removal of the "Best Professional Magazine" category) but what it was that he was editing wasn't listed. Since I found that a bit boring and uninformative, I've added in a (non-comprehensive) list of what the editors worked on in that year, and then cited it, which balloons the ref count to 108. Thanks for reviewing! --Pres N 18:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:
- Hugo Award nominees and winners are chosen by supporting or attending members of the annual World Science Fiction Convention, or Worldcon, and the presentation evening constitutes its central event. delete Worldcon, because it links there
- Starting with the 2007 awards, the Professional Editor award was split into two categories: Best Editor (Long Form) and Best Editor (Short Form). The Long Form award is for "The editor of at least four (4) novel-length works primarily devoted to science fiction and / or fantasy published in the previous calendar year" in the official Hugo Award rules (in paragraph Long Form) the "(4)" should be deleted
- The Best Editor Short Form award, also started in 2007, is defined as being for "the editor of at least four (4) anthologies, collections or magazine issues primarily devoted to science fiction and/or fantasy, at least one of which was published in the previous calendar year. the same here

-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't delete "Worldcon"; the term is used afterward in the text as shorthand. Removed the two "(4)"s, though those were direct quotes. --Pres N 19:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments En-dash in infobox for year range. Done, I always forget those. Any reason why infobox has Short Form and Long Form capitalised while the rest of the lead doesn't? Not one that stood up to scrutiny when I thought about it, now all capitalized. " The two editors which have won three..." agh. Perhaps "The two editors tow have won three..."? Fixed. "received the greatest number of total nominations" why not just "received the most nominations"? Fixed. Ref -> Ref(s) and please, if possible, put them in numerical order. Ow, reordering them was a non-trivial matter. Fixed. Note 1 should be Note A and needs reference. The reference is in the text/table directly after the note; not sure how to nest references or change the numbering scheme. I'll look into it. Alright, the nested ref is done (I have a ref in a ref in a reflist!) but I still don't know how to make a ref group use letters instead of numbers. --Pres N 21:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Replied in-line. --Pres N 21:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

En-dash in infobox for year range.

Done, I always forget those.

Any reason why infobox has Short Form and Long Form capitalised while the rest of the lead doesn't?

Not one that stood up to scrutiny when I thought about it, now all capitalized.

" The two editors which have won three..." agh. Perhaps "The two editors tow have won three..."?

Fixed.

"received the greatest number of total nominations" why not just "received the most nominations"?

Fixed.

Ref -> Ref(s) and please, if possible, put them in numerical order.

Ow, reordering them was a non-trivial matter. Fixed.

Note 1 should be Note A and needs reference.

The reference is in the text/table directly after the note; not sure how to nest references or change the numbering scheme. I'll look into it.

Alright, the nested ref is done (I have a ref in a ref in a reflist!) but I still don't know how to make a ref group use letters instead of numbers. --Pres N 21:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied in-line. --Pres N 21:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent work as usual. I made a couple minor fixes, but the list is up to snuff. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a section summarizing multiple winners (or those that won more than twice). Nergaal (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ? There is, the fourth paragraph in the lead. --Pres N 06:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant a small table like the last one in List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners. Nergaal (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm. Well, I disagree- in this list, unlike in that Olympic one, you can just click the sort by button next to editor and it will bunch up each editor's awards/nominations, making it easy to see who has won multiple. Combined with that paragraph that summarizes the multiple winners/nominees, you get all of the information that you couldn't get in the Olympic list without that table. --Pres N 20:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support per above-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Much as I want this FLC to finally be closed, you already voted. --Pres N 19:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops ^^.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I examined it with a fine-toothed comb, but was unable to find any issues. Good work once again. Regards, Jujutacular ^talk 02:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 01:53, 11 December 2010 [32].

List of first-class cricket centuries by W. G. Grace[edit]

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 14:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because Grace was the first cricketer to pass 100 centuries, and was a turning point in the history of cricket. The list is modelled on the international century lists. Harrias ^talk 14:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"He scored over 50,000 first-class runs" is it possible to put this into context for non-expert readers? This may be useful? Reworded this sentence, how is it now? "including over 120 centuries,[5][6] becoming the first cricketer to score 100 or more centuries" reads a little awkwardly... Reworded with above. "Disputes and variations in first-class cricket statistics centre around a number of matches in which W. G. Grace played, resulting in varying career statistics." this is in trouble too - you say "variations" then "varying" and repeat statistics too. It's not ideal I'm afraid. Reworked this too, any better? Last four sentences of para 2 all have "Grace" in them, I think you could substitute two of them for he or his or whatever's appropriate, as you never wander far from the subject. Removed a few counts of 'Grace' ", appearing for the Gentlemen" not sure you need the comma or "appearing". Gone. "but did not score his first century until his tenth match, scoring an unbeaten 224" score, scoring... repeat... Removed the repitition. MCC overlinked in lead. Delinked on second use. Not sure you should have two blank cells for the two yellow No. - they ought to sort in the same numerical order as date. I'm not so sure, the date column allows sorting by date, and most statistics count 124 not 126 centuries these days. Leaving them blank allows them to sort together, making it easy to locate the two matches via sortability. No 107 has a missing [ Fixed. Ref 1 needs an endash for the year range. Fixed. Compare ref 8 with 11 vis-a-vis cricinfo/espn etc. Be consistent. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your comments, have reworked a few of the sentences and fixed a lot of niggly bits I missed! Harrias* ^talk 22:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*"He scored over 50,000 first-class runs" is it possible to put this into context for non-expert readers? This may be useful?

- Reworded this sentence, how is it now?
"including over 120 centuries,[5][6] becoming the first cricketer to score 100 or more centuries" reads a little awkwardly...
- Reworded with above.
"Disputes and variations in first-class cricket statistics centre around a number of matches in which W. G. Grace played, resulting in varying career statistics." this is in trouble too - you say "variations" then "varying" and repeat statistics too. It's not ideal I'm afraid.
- Reworked this too, any better?
Last four sentences of para 2 all have "Grace" in them, I think you could substitute two of them for he or his or whatever's appropriate, as you never wander far from the subject.
- Removed a few counts of 'Grace'
", appearing for the Gentlemen" not sure you need the comma or "appearing".
- Gone.
"but did not score his first century until his tenth match, scoring an unbeaten 224" score, scoring... repeat...
- Removed the repitition.
MCC overlinked in lead.
- Delinked on second use.
Not sure you should have two blank cells for the two yellow No. - they ought to sort in the same numerical order as date.
- I'm not so sure, the date column allows sorting by date, and most statistics count 124 not 126 centuries these days. Leaving them blank allows them to sort together, making it easy to locate the two matches via sortability.
No 107 has a missing [
- Fixed.
Ref 1 needs an endash for the year range.
- Fixed.
Compare ref 8 with 11 vis-a-vis cricinfo/espn etc. Be consistent.
- Fixed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, have reworked a few of the sentences and fixed a lot of niggly bits I missed! Harrias ^talk 22:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

~~Very picky prose point: in "a feat only achieved by six other cricketers", the "only" would be better positioned right before "six".~~
~~No need for two Cricinfo links in the lead. You're better off with one Cricinfo link and one CricketArchive link; the latter currently isn't linked in the lead.~~
~~In the table, I see an extra bracket in the location of Grace's 107th century. Sort the venue column and you'll find it easily.~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, fixed all three issues. Harrias ^talk 09:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A very good list which is highly accurate and I like the way you have dealt with the two disputed centuries without excluding them. I have just three points to make:

You can provide links to articles about the North and South cricket teams via North of England cricket team and South of England cricket team

Done, linked. Harrias ^talk 21:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should also link to Gentlemen and Players for consistency although the two teams do not have individual articles

Done, linked. Harrias ^talk 21:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where Grace played for and against Rest of England teams, these should be shown as such because they were not the England national team as the entries signify and the England flag is inappropriate for these teams too. I know CricketArchive calls the teams "England" but they were actually "The Rest". You could call them England which would be historically correct.

I'm not sure about this. Both Altham and Grace refer to these matches as being 'England', and in addition to CricketArchive, that is what is verifiable.Harrias ^talk 21:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, though, and maybe one day the parent article itself will be featured. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 17:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I might add re "(Grace) is generally considered one of the greatest cricketers of all time" that in fact he is widely regarded as THE greatest cricketer of all time (see the main article).
- I looked at the main article, but the looking around a number of websites and written sources, and I would say that generally he isn't considered THE greatest. I might be able to find one or two sources that claim it, but generally he has paled away behind Bradman and Tendulkar. I feel what I have put reflects the general mood better. Harrias ^talk 21:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another point is "many modern statisticians" which should be "some modern statisticians". Remember that Wisden and Playfair still hold with the "traditional" figures and they have far more influence and credibility than the little-known ACS which has influenced the CricketArchive figures. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, changed to 'some'. Harrias ^talk 21:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support. Where Harrias and I differ is on subjective points that cannot be resolved and so his approach is satisfactory. How to define "England" outside international cricket is one to ponder. Overall, this is good work and deserves to be featured. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 15:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs tweak unless I misunderstood - isn't Gentlemen v Players a match, not a team? It doesn't make sense for that to appear in both "for" and "against" columns. I'm guessing it should be a piped link e.g. Gentlemen - takes you to the right article, but makes it clear which of the two teams is being specified in the For or Against column. TheGrappler (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, don't know what I was thinking when I did that! (Presumably I wasn't really thinking at all!) Fixed now. Harrias ^talk 08:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! TheGrappler (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article currently gives both versions of the statistics, with the explanation that a couple of games are not universally considered First Class. But obviously some other people do consider them as such, so there are going to be discrepancies if someone looks this stuff up elsewhere. With that in mind, is it possible for the article to give a very brief explanation (in footnote form, perhaps?) of where a reader is likely to see which version of the disputed figures? I'm guessing that it's traditionalists who will hold out for the two disputed games, and more modern historians/statisticians who will disagree? TheGrappler (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the article covers the main ones: Cricinfo and CricketArchive both use the shorter list, while Wisden the longer. Beyond that I don't really know myself! Harrias ^talk 16:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do me fine :-) I imagine there is some underlying philosophical divide between the two "sides" but so long as an indication like that is given, I'm happy. The bottom line is that Wisden is being traditionalist, I guess. TheGrappler (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 01:53, 11 December 2010 [33].

Abingdon Boys School discography[edit]

Nominator(s): NocturneNoir (talk · contribs)

Hello all. It's been a while. I'm back again, but this time with a unique discography from the underrepresented section of Japanese bands. I believe this page meets FL criteria and will do my best to make any improvements as necessary. Thanks. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 18:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment いらっしゃいませ！
- LEAD The band's two studio albums both reached #2 on the Oricon charts; singles such as Blade Chord and From Dusk Till Dawn have peaked at #2 and #3 respectively on the Oricon charts. what about Both of the band's first studio albums reached #2 on the Oricon charts...-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done the fix. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 21:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (quick look) Why is "video album" a red link here, something I've not seen in any other discog? No images at all? "one compilation," ... album. "was started in 2005 " formed in 2005. "named the band ABS after Ebisu, Tokyo, Japan" not clear to a non-expert. Is this a linguistic thing? " signed under Epic Records Japan" I think conventionally bands are signed "to" not "under" a label. "Their music.." (etc) you seem to use singular and plural "Abingdon Boys School" interchangeably. As a Brit I have no problem with this, but others may. "#2" - MOS says avoid this use of #. Ensure reference `title` comply with MOS, i.e. no OVER-CAPITALISATION for instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Done most of those. No images of the band are available on Wikipedia or Commons, though I suppose there must be a way to port one over via Flickr. I'm unfortunately not an expert at that process, though I would welcome instruction and guidance. I'll have a look on Flick for suitably licensed images. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I checked Flickr myself; no such luck to suitably licensed images of the band. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 02:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] A-B-S is pronounced similar to Ebisu in Japanese. 'A' would be "eh", 'B' would be the standard English "bee", and 'S' could be "esu". The trick here is that "bi" would be pronounced "bee" as well. Not entirely sure how to clarify this however. A note would be very useful because to non-Japanese speakers, this is far from clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Take a look at the note at the bottom; I think this should be sufficient. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 02:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the review. Let me know what you think. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 21:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (quick look)

Why is "video album" a red link here, something I've not seen in any other discog?
No images at all?
"one compilation," ... album.
"was started in 2005 " formed in 2005.
"named the band ABS after Ebisu, Tokyo, Japan" not clear to a non-expert. Is this a linguistic thing?
" signed under Epic Records Japan" I think conventionally bands are signed "to" not "under" a label.
"Their music.." (etc) you seem to use singular and plural "Abingdon Boys School" interchangeably. As a Brit I have no problem with this, but others may.
"#2" - MOS says avoid this use of #.
Ensure reference title comply with MOS, i.e. no OVER-CAPITALISATION for instance.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done most of those.

No images of the band are available on Wikipedia or Commons, though I suppose there must be a way to port one over via Flickr. I'm unfortunately not an expert at that process, though I would welcome instruction and guidance.

I'll have a look on Flick for suitably licensed images. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Flickr myself; no such luck to suitably licensed images of the band. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 02:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A-B-S is pronounced similar to Ebisu in Japanese. 'A' would be "eh", 'B' would be the standard English "bee", and 'S' could be "esu". The trick here is that "bi" would be pronounced "bee" as well. Not entirely sure how to clarify this however.

A note would be very useful because to non-Japanese speakers, this is far from clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the note at the bottom; I think this should be sufficient. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 02:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Let me know what you think. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 21:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose All of the notes are full sentences, so need full stops ~~JP: Gold - while we, contributors, may know that this is a certification, some readers who have not read many WP discographies in the past may not~~ ~~Why does 'Compilation albums' table have a column for Orion chart position, but no entries?~~ ~~Per MOS:TITLE - singles should not be italicised, but enclosed in quotation marks~~ Every single has a note, 'The title track...'. Obviously, being a single, they are title tracks. These need rewording, ie for "Innocent Sorrow" write 'The single is used as the first opening song to the anime series D.Gray-man' ~~What on Earth are 'Contributions'?~~ Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Responses: Notes like "Only released in Europe" are not full sentences and thus cannot have periods after them; I would much rather have conformity with regard to punctuation, so I prefer no full stops. I still don't find this acceptable, but I'll wait for others' opinions Have clarified JP: Gold. I put the Oricon chart positions for all sections for the sake of conformity. Fixed the singles bit. Japanese singles almost always include additional songs, or B-sides. While "The single" would refer to the title track, the clarification, "The title track..." solidifies the claim that the title tracks are the opening song The lead notes that the discography includes "seven contributions to releases not under its name"; how may I clarify this further? How about 'Other appearances' or similar? You need to clarify what each album is. Are they all compilation albums? I suppose? Contributions was used both here and here while this, this, and this use Other appearances. I've switched it, regardless and yes, they are all compilation albums with the exception of "Buck-Tick Fest 2007 on Parade", a live video album. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^talk 23:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your review. I hope I've answered all of your concerns. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^talk 07:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] There is also an excessive use of boldface in the 'singles' table. I've debolded, but I honestly think it looks quite terrible now. This discography does not share the format with the large majority of other discographies; the single chart follows the album chart layout and I thus think the formatting should remain the same: bolded titles to highlight them. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^talk 23:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hmmm, I don't seem to mind, either way now. However, the 'Album' column in the singles table definitely needs unbolding. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ah, now that makes sense. Apologies for the misunderstanding; I've done that now. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^talk 23:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose

All of the notes are full sentences, so need full stops
~~JP: Gold - while we, contributors, may know that this is a certification, some readers who have not read many WP discographies in the past may not~~
~~Why does 'Compilation albums' table have a column for Orion chart position, but no entries?~~
~~Per MOS:TITLE - singles should not be italicised, but enclosed in quotation marks~~
Every single has a note, 'The title track...'. Obviously, being a single, they are title tracks. These need rewording, ie for "Innocent Sorrow" write 'The single is used as the first opening song to the anime series D.Gray-man'
~~What on Earth are 'Contributions'?~~

Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responses:

Notes like "Only released in Europe" are not full sentences and thus cannot have periods after them; I would much rather have conformity with regard to punctuation, so I prefer no full stops.

I still don't find this acceptable, but I'll wait for others' opinions

Have clarified JP: Gold.
I put the Oricon chart positions for all sections for the sake of conformity.
Fixed the singles bit.
Japanese singles almost always include additional songs, or B-sides. While "The single" would refer to the title track, the clarification, "The title track..." solidifies the claim that the title tracks are the opening song
The lead notes that the discography includes "seven contributions to releases not under its name"; how may I clarify this further?

How about 'Other appearances' or similar? You need to clarify what each album is. Are they all compilation albums?

I suppose? Contributions was used both here and here while this, this, and this use Other appearances. I've switched it, regardless and yes, they are all compilation albums with the exception of "Buck-Tick Fest 2007 on Parade", a live video album. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^talk 23:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I hope I've answered all of your concerns. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^talk 07:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also an excessive use of boldface in the 'singles' table.

I've debolded, but I honestly think it looks quite terrible now. This discography does not share the format with the large majority of other discographies; the single chart follows the album chart layout and I thus think the formatting should remain the same: bolded titles to highlight them. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^talk 23:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I don't seem to mind, either way now. However, the 'Album' column in the singles table definitely needs unbolding. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now that makes sense. Apologies for the misunderstanding; I've done that now. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^talk 23:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I still don't like the layout of the notes, but I suppose I'm just being fussy. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. It's a legitimate concern; one I'd like very much to clarify at some point. Thanks for the review and the support nonetheless. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^talk 23:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Ref 3's date is wrong its September 28 not November 28. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 09:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure how I messed that one up. It's been fixed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^talk 14:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have no issues with the article. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 16:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:07, 9 December 2010 [34].

List of World Heritage Sites in Cuba[edit]

Nominator(s): Grsz¹¹ 15:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all of the critera. It is modeled after List of World Heritage Sites in Peru and List of World Heritage Sites in Spain, both recently promoted. The main list only has nine items, and I know some reviewers tend to look for ten, but with the "Tentative list", I feel this is sufficient. Thanks. Grsz¹¹ 15:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I see no problems with nine elements at all. This is a standalone list in my mind. I think the map would be a better lead image. But that's my opinion. "meet natural criteria" may not be obvious to readers. Reworded. Not convinced we need a 90% font size (which on Safari looks more like a 60%) Made 100%. Don't think you need to link Spanish to Spain. Done. "The complex of magazines, bastions, and batteries is amongst the most complete and well-preserved Spanish-American example." doesn't read quite right to me. Reworded. Criteria numbering is given in italics in the intro to the table, but plain text in the table. Why the difference? Though italics would be helpful making it stand out, but I've removed it for consistency. Avoid bold links (in the tentative list section). Done. Note 1 is unreferenced. Added a source. You've used only UNESCO as sourcing throughout. This appears to be a primary source. It's a shame you couldn't find alternatives. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I see no problems with nine elements at all. This is a standalone list in my mind.
I think the map would be a better lead image. But that's my opinion.
"meet natural criteria" may not be obvious to readers.
- Reworded.
Not convinced we need a 90% font size (which on Safari looks more like a 60%)
- Made 100%.
Don't think you need to link Spanish to Spain.
- Done.
"The complex of magazines, bastions, and batteries is amongst the most complete and well-preserved Spanish-American example." doesn't read quite right to me.
- Reworded.
Criteria numbering is given in italics in the intro to the table, but plain text in the table. Why the difference?
- Though italics would be helpful making it stand out, but I've removed it for consistency.
Avoid bold links (in the tentative list section).
- Done.
Note 1 is unreferenced.
- Added a source.
You've used only UNESCO as sourcing throughout. This appears to be a primary source. It's a shame you couldn't find alternatives.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Introduced some new references with the comments below. Grsz¹¹ 04:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Afro (Talk) 15:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments - The center alignment of N/A seems unnecessary. wouldn't the UNESCO data in the key need some type of citation? Afro (Talk) 08:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Done. Thanks. Grsz¹¹ 22:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Why isn't the 3rd paragraph in the lead referenced? It just summarizes the contents of the list. Alejandro de Humboldt National Park, "as well as animal species such as the endangered Cuban Solenodon." Cannot verify this in the source. Added a source. Desembarco del Granma National Park, "The national park is named for the yacht which carried Fidel Castro, Raúl Castro, Che Guevara and the other 79 members of the 26th of July Movement to Cuba to overthrow Fulgencio Batista." Cannot verify this in the source. Added an explicit source. Historic Centre of Camagüey, "is distinct from the more common, organized style of the Spanish settlements." I reworded it a little, if that was the problem. The goal was to convey that the Spanish typically had a very orderly design to their cities (plazas, streets) but Camaguey was not. Old Havana and its Fortifications, you wrote that it was one of the main cities however in the source it says specifically it was the main city for ship building I would think this needs some clarification. Reworded this. Trinidad and the Valley de los Ingenios, The sugar industry is obviously a period of significance which Ref 7 states began in the 18th centuary, any reason why this isn't included in the description or period column? In the column I started with 16th, when the city of Trinidad was founded. Added a bit in the description. Urban Historic Centre of Cienfuegos, "It became prominent.." no mention of prominence in the source only that it was a trading place (which I assume only means that its notable). Afro (Talk) 00:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Reworded this. Grsz¹¹ 04:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] On the third paragraph, I would repeat some of the references you've used in the table, it may be a summary of the table but it does contain details which I would think need citing. Afro (Talk) 13:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Done. Grsz¹¹ 15:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Afro (Talk) 15:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments - The center alignment of N/A seems unnecessary. wouldn't the UNESCO data in the key need some type of citation? Afro (Talk) 08:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Done. Thanks. Grsz¹¹ 22:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the 3rd paragraph in the lead referenced?

It just summarizes the contents of the list.

Alejandro de Humboldt National Park, "as well as animal species such as the endangered Cuban Solenodon." Cannot verify this in the source.

Added a source.

Desembarco del Granma National Park, "The national park is named for the yacht which carried Fidel Castro, Raúl Castro, Che Guevara and the other 79 members of the 26th of July Movement to Cuba to overthrow Fulgencio Batista." Cannot verify this in the source.

Added an explicit source.

Historic Centre of Camagüey, "is distinct from the more common, organized style of the Spanish settlements."

I reworded it a little, if that was the problem. The goal was to convey that the Spanish typically had a very orderly design to their cities (plazas, streets) but Camaguey was not.

Old Havana and its Fortifications, you wrote that it was one of the main cities however in the source it says specifically it was the main city for ship building I would think this needs some clarification.

Reworded this.

Trinidad and the Valley de los Ingenios, The sugar industry is obviously a period of significance which Ref 7 states began in the 18th centuary, any reason why this isn't included in the description or period column?

In the column I started with 16th, when the city of Trinidad was founded. Added a bit in the description.

Urban Historic Centre of Cienfuegos, "It became prominent.." no mention of prominence in the source only that it was a trading place (which I assume only means that its notable). Afro (Talk) 00:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded this. Grsz¹¹ 04:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the third paragraph, I would repeat some of the references you've used in the table, it may be a summary of the table but it does contain details which I would think need citing. Afro (Talk) 13:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Grsz¹¹ 15:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have no issues with the list. Afro (Talk) 15:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minor points - what is the initial sort order? I can't seem to recover it by resorting the table, in which case sorting by order of Name alphabetically would seem sensible. This might just be me being slow. Date sorting gives a slightly odd order: I'd expect "N/A" at the beginning (prehistoric geology; not sure if a more helpful description than "N/A" is possible?) and it seems more natural for me that "19th and 20th centuries" would come after "19th century", not before. (If there were "20th century" too, I'd hope it came in between, if that makes sense.) TheGrappler (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The initial sort is the year added, making the list chronologically. When you click to sort the data column the first time it doesn't change (atleast not to me). I've adjusted the sorting so 16-19 and 19-20 come after 16 and 19 respectively. N/A means the historical period is irrelevant, and as these parks aren't just noted for their physical appearance, I'm not sure if prehistoric is an accurate description. (Compare it to List of World Heritage Sites in Spain, where Prehistoric and Palaeolithic are accurate descriptions). Grsz 11 22:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you said about N/A works fine for me, thanks. I'm about to be super-pedantic so please bear with me (sorry). An initially chronological list makes sense, but when you have a sortable table, it seems to me that on principle, the initial sort order should be "restorable" using the sorting buttons provided. Otherwise there is information in the initial sort order, which is not displayed in the table. Hope that makes sense. Why not include "Year added" as a column? That way it would be obvious why the table is displayed as it is (I know I was confused a lot by that, which is why I brought the point up), and the initial sort order is recoverable. I know that this information is also presented in the text above, but it would be presented much more clearly in the table. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise, but this seem more natural to me. TheGrappler (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the original order recoverable when the sort in the "UNESCO data" section is pointing up? Grsz 11 21:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh thanks! That'll do me, I'm perfectly happy to support this. TheGrappler (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support

~~I'd maybe tweak the opening sentence so it states how many WHS there are in Cuba, but this is a minor point.~~
- Done (in second sentence).
"Sites include La Cabaña, the Cathedral of Havana and the Great Theatre of Havana": it might be worth swapping "Sites" for "Landmarks" or something similar as having sites within a World Heritage Site sounds a little odd, although it's clear what is meant.
- Done.
"It contains many endemic species, including 16 of Cuba's 28 endemic plant species": it might be worth considering swapping the second "endemic" for "unique" to avoid repetition, but only if you don't think it changes the meaning.
- Reworded a bit.
"Cienfuegos was founded in 1819 by the Spanish colonists, though it was originally settled by French immigrants": I'm not quite comfortable with this sentence. Does the second bit mean the French settled the general area before the Spanish founded the settlement?
- Ok I figured out the meaning, thanks to a section of the source further down the page. It was founded by the Spanish, "but settled by French from Bordeaux, Louisiana, Philadelphia and Guarico." [35] I clarified a bit.
"The city exhibits additional modern ideas including in hygiene and urban planning": it's difficult for a city to exhibit a concept such as hygiene, so you mean the infrastructure associated with hygiene such as sewers?
- I'm not sure it's overly important. It could all be considered under urban planning.
  - Ok, fair enough. Nev1 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the tentative list section I think it needs to be explained that the years in brackets after each name refer to when the site was first added. Alternatively they could be dropped altogether as they're not really important; what counts is whether they're on the list now, rather than for how long.
- I've removed the years. You're right, they aren't really important. Grsz 11 05:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a handful of changes that you'll want to double check to ensure I haven't inadvertently changed the meaning of anything. This is a very promising list. Nev1 (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits you made Nev, I've address your other comments above. Grsz 11 05:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support the minor points I raised have now been addressed. Nev1 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments – Considering that the list has a solid-looking structure, it's disappointing to find that a majority of the descriptions have a grammar error lurking in them. Fortunately, they're easy to fix. I'm more alarmed that these are in here after the list has received four supports, but that's a topic for another time. Old Havana and its Fortifications: "Historical landmarks in Old Havan include...". Is Havan a typo, by chance? Desembarco del Granma National Park: "The park features a unique karst topography with features terraces, cliffs, and waterfalls." "with" → "which"? Alejandro de Humboldt National Park: "It contains many species biological species". One "species" too many. Urban Historic Centre of Cienfuegos: "though its first inhabitant were French immigrants." The word "inhabitant" should be in plural form. Historic Centre of Camaguey: "from the typical orderly construction of most other the Spanish settlements." At a minimum, the second "the" should be removed; you may want to do more, depending upon what the intended prose was. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] No worries, all easy fixes that have been made. As a note, most were a result of other changes made. Grsz 11 05:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments – Considering that the list has a solid-looking structure, it's disappointing to find that a majority of the descriptions have a grammar error lurking in them. Fortunately, they're easy to fix. I'm more alarmed that these are in here after the list has received four supports, but that's a topic for another time.

Old Havana and its Fortifications: "Historical landmarks in Old Havan include...". Is Havan a typo, by chance?
Desembarco del Granma National Park: "The park features a unique karst topography with features terraces, cliffs, and waterfalls." "with" → "which"?
Alejandro de Humboldt National Park: "It contains many species biological species". One "species" too many.
Urban Historic Centre of Cienfuegos: "though its first inhabitant were French immigrants." The word "inhabitant" should be in plural form.
Historic Centre of Camaguey: "from the typical orderly construction of most other the Spanish settlements." At a minimum, the second "the" should be removed; you may want to do more, depending upon what the intended prose was. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, all easy fixes that have been made. As a note, most were a result of other changes made. Grsz 11 05:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:07, 9 December 2010 [36].

Venues of the 2010 Commonwealth Games[edit]

Nominator(s): ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 12:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This list is similar to articles such as Venues of the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics and Venues of the 2010 Winter Olympics. Thank you for taking the time to review. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 12:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 12:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Another Believer _(Talk) 15:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—At least on my screen, the table in the "Competition venues" section starts below the column of images that appears along the right-hand side of the screen. The results is a large amount of white space above the table. I am not sure of the exact cause--maybe try designating the images as right, upright thumbnails like seen here ("right\|upright\|thumb\|" in the image coding)? --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've used ((Fix bunching)). You can check again; it should be fine now. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 16:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Problem still exists, at least for me. I have no idea what the best solution is, just pointing out the issue. I will let other reviewers decide if the issue needs to be resolved or if the list meets FL criteria. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] The problem comes from the navbox placed in the lead section just below the image. It's too big and pushes the images in the section below aside and thus the table gets pushed down. I really think these navboxes should be converted to horizontal collapsible templates at the bottom of the page. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Would it help if the stadium image located in the lead is decreased in size? --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't think it would. At least, the image would have to be pretty small (smaller than default size) so that the navbox doesn't cross into the section below. Parutakupiu (talk) Should be fine now. I just reinforced stacking by adding new parameters. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 13:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Still problematic for my computer (and my work computer), but perhaps it is a personal settings issue. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oh it didn't work for my computer after a while. I've decreased column width, please do tell me its alright now. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 06:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, better. Well done! --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Another Believer _(Talk) 15:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—At least on my screen, the table in the "Competition venues" section starts below the column of images that appears along the right-hand side of the screen. The results is a large amount of white space above the table. I am not sure of the exact cause--maybe try designating the images as right, upright thumbnails like seen here ("right|upright|thumb|" in the image coding)? --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've used ((Fix bunching)). You can check again; it should be fine now. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 16:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Problem still exists, at least for me. I have no idea what the best solution is, just pointing out the issue. I will let other reviewers decide if the issue needs to be resolved or if the list meets FL criteria. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem comes from the navbox placed in the lead section just below the image. It's too big and pushes the images in the section below aside and thus the table gets pushed down. I really think these navboxes should be converted to horizontal collapsible templates at the bottom of the page. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Would it help if the stadium image located in the lead is decreased in size? --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think it would. At least, the image would have to be pretty small (smaller than default size) so that the navbox doesn't cross into the section below. Parutakupiu (talk)
        Should be fine now. I just reinforced stacking by adding new parameters. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 13:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Still problematic for my computer (and my work computer), but perhaps it is a personal settings issue. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh it didn't work for my computer after a while. I've decreased column width, please do tell me its alright now. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 06:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, better. Well done! --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
~~Hockey venues seats 20,000 i thought. Aaroncrick ^TALK 11:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Yes you are correct. 2,500 refers to one of the two pitches in the stadium. Updated, thanks. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 13:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Has Aaroncrick been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"A total of five venues were newly constructed for the games; the Dr. Karni Singh Shooting Range, the Siri Fort Sports Complex, the Thyagaraj Sports Complex, the Yamuna Sports Complex as well as a rugby sevens facility in Delhi University." Why semi-colon instead of a colon?
The is used a ridiculous number of times in the prose.

Aaroncrick ^TALK 23:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Afro (Talk) 16:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I'm a bit confused over the "type" column for the competition venues section, also per WP:COLOR colored cells should have accompanying symbols (e.g. * ^ †) to comply with WP:ACCESS. Ref 24, 25 have no publishers. Afro (Talk) 16:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Changed; I've used footnotes to explain. I've also removed the colors, even though I kind of miss it. Regarding refs 24 and 25, the error's been corrected. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 07:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] After looking at the previously featured 2010 Winter Olympics medal table I think the sections need to be more descriptive, and it shows the table could be better formatted. I'm just throwing this out there. Afro (Talk) 14:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] You mean add more prose to the "Competition venues" and "Training venues" sections? Sorry what do you mean by the table can be better formatted? Thanks. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 06:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well it doesn't have the dubious type column which could be explained better if it were to be in text, plus it has the location of the venue. Afro (Talk) 10:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't know, I was just thinking since its a recently featured list that maybe this FLC could be modelled more after it. Afro (Talk) 02:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Haha so to add prose or not to add? Venues of the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics on the other hand does not have prose in the respective sections (and its a newer FL). So? ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 10:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] I do think it would help the article, my suggestion would be to add them. Afro (Talk) 13:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] The sorting function on the Competition venues table seems to be sorting everything by max capacity, would it be better to sort these by minimum allowed rather than maximum allowed? Shouldn't the notes come before the See also section? Afro (Talk) 08:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] It is sorted with regards to the venue's seating 'potential'. It makes more sense to sort by the maximum rather than the minimum. As for the placement of the Notes section, I believe the protocol is to have the See also section above "Notes". ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 11:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Afro (Talk) 16:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I'm a bit confused over the "type" column for the competition venues section, also per WP:COLOR colored cells should have accompanying symbols (e.g. * ^ †) to comply with WP:ACCESS. Ref 24, 25 have no publishers. Afro (Talk) 16:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed; I've used footnotes to explain. I've also removed the colors, even though I kind of miss it. Regarding refs 24 and 25, the error's been corrected. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 07:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - After looking at the previously featured 2010 Winter Olympics medal table I think the sections need to be more descriptive, and it shows the table could be better formatted. I'm just throwing this out there. Afro (Talk) 14:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You mean add more prose to the "Competition venues" and "Training venues" sections? Sorry what do you mean by the table can be better formatted? Thanks. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 06:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well it doesn't have the dubious type column which could be explained better if it were to be in text, plus it has the location of the venue. Afro (Talk) 10:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't know, I was just thinking since its a recently featured list that maybe this FLC could be modelled more after it. Afro (Talk) 02:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Haha so to add prose or not to add? Venues of the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics on the other hand does not have prose in the respective sections (and its a newer FL). So? ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 10:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I do think it would help the article, my suggestion would be to add them. Afro (Talk) 13:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sorting function on the Competition venues table seems to be sorting everything by max capacity, would it be better to sort these by minimum allowed rather than maximum allowed? Shouldn't the notes come before the See also section? Afro (Talk) 08:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is sorted with regards to the venue's seating 'potential'. It makes more sense to sort by the maximum rather than the minimum. As for the placement of the Notes section, I believe the protocol is to have the See also section above "Notes". ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 11:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I see no problems which would discourage me from supporting. Afro (Talk) 14:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – "The venue which had the largest venue was the Jawaharlal Nehru Sports Complex". Prose redundancy with the multiple "venue"s; is one of them supposed to be a different word? Corrected. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 08:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The opening and closing ceremony links seem to be reversed from their intended order. Corrected, didn't realise argh. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 08:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Commonwealth Games Village: The em dashes should be made unspaced per the Manual of Style. Done. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 08:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "adopted by the OC CWG Delhi 2010." Are all the abbreviations short for something, or is this the name of an organization? For those who may be unfamiliar with the Commonwealth Games, like myself, this is more than a little confusing. (P.S.: Okay, I've read a little further now and see where the abbreviation is explained. Still, I think it should be given with the first full use to avoid such issues) Sorry, now corrected. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 08:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] What is the CGF? This is another unexplained abbreviation. Explained. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 08:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Concerns over readiness and state of venues: "Delays in the construction of the Games' venues was linked to...". "was" → "were". Done. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 08:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Note 2: "it is taken that training for the sports of athletics and aquatics were provided in that venue". "were" → "was". Exactly the opposite of the suggestion above. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Done. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 08:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

"The venue which had the largest venue was the Jawaharlal Nehru Sports Complex". Prose redundancy with the multiple "venue"s; is one of them supposed to be a different word?
- Corrected. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 08:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The opening and closing ceremony links seem to be reversed from their intended order.
- Corrected, didn't realise argh. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 08:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commonwealth Games Village: The em dashes should be made unspaced per the Manual of Style.
- Done. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 08:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"adopted by the OC CWG Delhi 2010." Are all the abbreviations short for something, or is this the name of an organization? For those who may be unfamiliar with the Commonwealth Games, like myself, this is more than a little confusing. (P.S.: Okay, I've read a little further now and see where the abbreviation is explained. Still, I think it should be given with the first full use to avoid such issues)
- Sorry, now corrected. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 08:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the CGF? This is another unexplained abbreviation.
- Explained. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 08:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns over readiness and state of venues: "Delays in the construction of the Games' venues was linked to...". "was" → "were".
- Done. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 08:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2: "it is taken that training for the sports of athletics and aquatics were provided in that venue". "were" → "was". Exactly the opposite of the suggestion above. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 08:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments No bold links please. Corrected. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "in Delhi and India" well, Delhi is in India, so just "in India" would be fine. Done. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "namely, the" not convinced that you need "namely, " here. Corrected. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Type column should be left-aligned. Is that necessary? Centre-alignment seems fine to me. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "total of twenty training venues were used in the Games. Of these 20," - twenty v 20? Corrected. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I dislike "(see above);" in an interactive, clickable encyclopedia. Corrected. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Connaught Place is overlinked. Corrected. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "as Canada found" - had found? Corrected. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Is it Times of India or The Times of India? And why link the last one in the refs, but not the others? Corrected. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Note 3 is unreferenced. I have removed Note 3, and I have no recollection how those information came about. Since the two venues involved already existed prior to the games, they are henceforth noted as "Existing". The "new" things in Note 3 actually refers to facilities within the venues. It does not affect the standing of the two venues as "existing" venues. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 11:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

No bold links please.
- Corrected. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"in Delhi and India" well, Delhi is in India, so just "in India" would be fine.
- Done. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"namely, the" not convinced that you need "namely, " here.
- Corrected. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Type column should be left-aligned.
- Is that necessary? Centre-alignment seems fine to me. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"total of twenty training venues were used in the Games. Of these 20," - twenty v 20?
- Corrected. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike "(see above);" in an interactive, clickable encyclopedia.
- Corrected. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Connaught Place is overlinked.
- Corrected. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"as Canada found" - had found?
- Corrected. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it Times of India or The Times of India? And why link the last one in the refs, but not the others?
- Corrected. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note 3 is unreferenced.
- I have removed Note 3, and I have no recollection how those information came about. Since the two venues involved already existed prior to the games, they are henceforth noted as "Existing". The "new" things in Note 3 actually refers to facilities within the venues. It does not affect the standing of the two venues as "existing" venues. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 11:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support no issues on a revisit. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have no issues with this list.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:52, 6 December 2010 [37].

1994 College Baseball All-America Team[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is of similar caliber to the 1991 and 1992 FLs and the 1993 FLC that seems likely to be promoted. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am competing in the WP:CUP and hope this nomination can be closed by the end of the month.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Image caption should comply with WP:MOS so "four no-hitters" and prose should be used, so "two-time" rather than "2x". Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] "team" is mentioned three times in the first sentence. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] "A total of 5 players " - five. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] "unanmous" typo. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] "The team included four future Major League Baseball All-Stars Garciaparra is a two-time American League batting champion" grammar.. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] "All-star" or "All-Star"? Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] "per 9 innings pitched" nine. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Cruz, who won a Gold Glove in 2003 in the National League, has led the National League in putouts as a rightfielder (2003) and the American League in putouts as a centerfielder (2000), but has also led the American League in errors committed as a rightfielder (2004)" - repeats of National League and American League make this sentence poor. I have abbreviated the leagues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Don't use "x" as a multiplier. Look at recently promoted discographies where they use another character similar to x to make the point. Fixed on all four (1991-1994) lists.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Retrieve dates (in fact, all dates in references) should be in the same format. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Image caption should comply with WP:MOS so "four no-hitters" and prose should be used, so "two-time" rather than "2x".
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"team" is mentioned three times in the first sentence.
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"A total of 5 players " - five.
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"unanmous" typo.
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The team included four future Major League Baseball All-Stars Garciaparra is a two-time American League batting champion" grammar..
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"All-star" or "All-Star"?
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"per 9 innings pitched" nine.
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Cruz, who won a Gold Glove in 2003 in the National League, has led the National League in putouts as a rightfielder (2003) and the American League in putouts as a centerfielder (2000), but has also led the American League in errors committed as a rightfielder (2004)" - repeats of National League and American League make this sentence poor.
- I have abbreviated the leagues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use "x" as a multiplier. Look at recently promoted discographies where they use another character similar to x to make the point.
- Fixed on all four (1991-1994) lists.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieve dates (in fact, all dates in references) should be in the same format.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – No need for two Jay Payton links in Accomplishments. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] In parentheses: "when he led the NL in wins with 22 and winning percentage .846". Don't think the last part works grammatically. How about "and a winning percentage of .846."? Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] De-capitalize Home Runs in the sentence following the above. Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] "He accumulated over 1100 hits and 200 home runs." Comma needed for the hit total, I believe. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

No need for two Jay Payton links in Accomplishments.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In parentheses: "when he led the NL in wins with 22 and winning percentage .846". Don't think the last part works grammatically. How about "and a winning percentage of .846."?
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
De-capitalize Home Runs in the sentence following the above.
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"He accumulated over 1100 hits and 200 home runs." Comma needed for the hit total, I believe. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – For the second comment I made up there, when I saw the fix on the page I didn't think it was the improvement I originally believed, so I tweaked it further (basically the old text plus some parentheses). Sorry about that. Anyway, everything looks fine to me now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Courcelles 17:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments "As of 2010 Jason Varitek, R. A. Dickey, Mike Hampton, and Jay Payton remained active." Sentence fragment, and active where, exactly? (I know you mean MLB, but needs to be clearer). Fixed, I think.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Adding what you did fixed everything. Courcelles 17:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] "~~A total of~~ five players were selected by all three" Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Courcelles 16:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Courcelles 17:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments

"As of 2010 Jason Varitek, R. A. Dickey, Mike Hampton, and Jay Payton remained active." Sentence fragment, and active where, exactly? (I know you mean MLB, but needs to be clearer).

Fixed, I think.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding what you did fixed everything. Courcelles 17:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"~~A total of~~ five players were selected by all three"

Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles 16:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Courcelles 17:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Good raise 00:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Although the honorees generally do not compete together as a unit" - Italicized part appears to be redundant. (Won't mind if you keep this.) O.K. and fixed for 91-93 as well.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] "As of 2010 Jason Varitek, R. A. Dickey, Mike Hampton, and Jay Payton remained active in Major League Baseball." - Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd put a comma after 2010. Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] "As of 2010 Jason Varitek, R. A. Dickey, Mike Hampton, and Jay Payton remained active in Major League Baseball." - Use present tense. Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] "The team included four future Major League Baseball All-Stars." - You may want to mention their names in this sentence. Perhaps along the lines of "With A, B, C, and D, the team included four future..." Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Varitek is a three-time All-Star (2003, 2005 & 2008)" - Don't use an ampersand here. See WP:&. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Serial comma usage is inconsistent. Fixed, I think.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Hampton is a two-time All-Star (1999 and 2001), Gold Glove-winner, and five-time Silver Slugger-winner" - The and is a bit premature. The list goes on. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] "(when he led the NL in wins with 22 and winning percentage (.846))" - The inconsistency makes this awkward to read. Put both figures in parentheses or neither. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] "who was a two-time All-Star (2000 and 2004)" - He's not a two-time All-Star anymore then, I take it? Perhaps you mean "who was an All-Star twice (2000 and 2004)". Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] "was the 2002 Lou Gehrig Memorial Award winner." - The tenses again. He still is the 2002 Lou Gehrig Memorial Award winner, or is he not? Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] "He led the NL in putouts as a leftfielder in 2003 and in assists as a centerfielder in 2004" - Adding an in there aids the reader's understanding. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] "but has also led the AL in errors committed as a rightfielder" and "but he has also led the NL in errors as a centerfielder in 2000." - Italicized words can be cut. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] The table would probably look better with the hooks and dashes in the ABCA, BA, and CB columns being centered. Thanks. I did it for 1991 and then forgot to do it for 92-94. I have fixed them all.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] "POY – Player of the Year" - This key is used only once in the table and only in the notes column (where space isn't limited). Just write it out. O.K. But it is now inconsistent with the 1991-93 lists.-TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] I really think this should be changed back for that reason.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Major League Baseball number one overall draft pick (1994)" - Source? Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] "2002 Lou Gehrig Memorial Award winner." - Source? Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Several commas missing in the notes column. Fixed, I think.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Don't end notes with periods unless they are complete sentences. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Opposing for now. May also have a few more comments regarding the accomplishments section. Good raise 01:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] These two are resolved as far as I'm concerned. I'm keeping them uncapped for the time being only so that I can reply to them. ~~"Various organizations selected All-American lists of the best players for the 1994 NCAA Division I college baseball season." - The italicized part is redundant. Isn't it?~~ Good raise 01:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Although All-Americans and best players are somewhat synonymous, many casual readers would not understand this to be the case. I think it is actually helpful expecially, since there are some specialized All-American lists such as Academic All-American or USILA Scholar All-American where All-American does not necessarily mean best player, but may mean something slightly different. This is strictly a best player selection and clarifying that is not wasteful, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Fair enough. I'd like to note though, that I'm about as "casual" a reader as you're going to get. I'm not living in the US and I have virtually no knowledge of baseball. And seeing as both the page title and the first sentence make it clear that this article is about a team, confusing readers seems unlikely to me. Well, you probably know best. Good raise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] ~~"He has caught a major league record four no-hitters." - I don't get this. Isn't a no-hitter something you throw (as opposed to something you catch)? Please explain or clarify.~~ Good raise 01:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] The catcher calls the pitches.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] He "calls" them? OK, I give up. As you apparently know what you're writing about and since the sentence isn't essential to understanding the rest of the article, I'll just let this go. Good raise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] In baseball, the catcher (using a system of hand gestures called signs) tells the pitcher what pitches to throw and in what locations. Courcelles 06:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Some more: ~~"MVP" - Unnecessary abbreviation. Please expand it.~~ Good raise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] ~~José Cruz, Jr. vs Jose Cruz - Pick one.~~ Good raise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] ~~Why is MLB (sometimes) used in the table's notes column, when AL and NL are not?~~ Good raise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] ~~"but he also led the AL" - Unnecessary he.~~ Good raise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Good raise 00:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

"Although the honorees generally do not compete together as a unit" - Italicized part appears to be redundant. (Won't mind if you keep this.)
- O.K. and fixed for 91-93 as well.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"As of 2010 Jason Varitek, R. A. Dickey, Mike Hampton, and Jay Payton remained active in Major League Baseball." - Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd put a comma after 2010.
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"As of 2010 Jason Varitek, R. A. Dickey, Mike Hampton, and Jay Payton remained active in Major League Baseball." - Use present tense.
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The team included four future Major League Baseball All-Stars." - You may want to mention their names in this sentence. Perhaps along the lines of "With A, B, C, and D, the team included four future..."
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Varitek is a three-time All-Star (2003, 2005 & 2008)" - Don't use an ampersand here. See WP:&.
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Serial comma usage is inconsistent.
- Fixed, I think.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Hampton is a two-time All-Star (1999 and 2001), Gold Glove-winner, and five-time Silver Slugger-winner" - The and is a bit premature. The list goes on.
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"(when he led the NL in wins with 22 and winning percentage (.846))" - The inconsistency makes this awkward to read. Put both figures in parentheses or neither.
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"who was a two-time All-Star (2000 and 2004)" - He's not a two-time All-Star anymore then, I take it? Perhaps you mean "who was an All-Star twice (2000 and 2004)".
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"was the 2002 Lou Gehrig Memorial Award winner." - The tenses again. He still is the 2002 Lou Gehrig Memorial Award winner, or is he not?
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"He led the NL in putouts as a leftfielder in 2003 and in assists as a centerfielder in 2004" - Adding an in there aids the reader's understanding.
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"but has also led the AL in errors committed as a rightfielder" and "but he has also led the NL in errors as a centerfielder in 2000." - Italicized words can be cut.
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The table would probably look better with the hooks and dashes in the ABCA, BA, and CB columns being centered.
- Thanks. I did it for 1991 and then forgot to do it for 92-94. I have fixed them all.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"POY – Player of the Year" - This key is used only once in the table and only in the notes column (where space isn't limited). Just write it out.
- O.K. But it is now inconsistent with the 1991-93 lists.-TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I really think this should be changed back for that reason.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Major League Baseball number one overall draft pick (1994)" - Source?
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"2002 Lou Gehrig Memorial Award winner." - Source?
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several commas missing in the notes column.
- Fixed, I think.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't end notes with periods unless they are complete sentences.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing for now. May also have a few more comments regarding the accomplishments section. Good raise 01:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These two are resolved as far as I'm concerned. I'm keeping them uncapped for the time being only so that I can reply to them.

~~"Various organizations selected All-American lists of the best players for the 1994 NCAA Division I college baseball season." - The italicized part is redundant. Isn't it?~~ Good raise 01:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although All-Americans and best players are somewhat synonymous, many casual readers would not understand this to be the case. I think it is actually helpful expecially, since there are some specialized All-American lists such as Academic All-American or USILA Scholar All-American where All-American does not necessarily mean best player, but may mean something slightly different. This is strictly a best player selection and clarifying that is not wasteful, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. I'd like to note though, that I'm about as "casual" a reader as you're going to get. I'm not living in the US and I have virtually no knowledge of baseball. And seeing as both the page title and the first sentence make it clear that this article is about a team, confusing readers seems unlikely to me. Well, you probably know best. Good raise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~"He has caught a major league record four no-hitters." - I don't get this. Isn't a no-hitter something you throw (as opposed to something you catch)? Please explain or clarify.~~ Good raise 01:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The catcher calls the pitches.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - He "calls" them? OK, I give up. As you apparently know what you're writing about and since the sentence isn't essential to understanding the rest of the article, I'll just let this go. Good raise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - In baseball, the catcher (using a system of hand gestures called signs) tells the pitcher what pitches to throw and in what locations. Courcelles 06:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more:

~~"MVP" - Unnecessary abbreviation. Please expand it.~~ Good raise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~José Cruz, Jr. vs Jose Cruz - Pick one.~~ Good raise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Why is MLB (sometimes) used in the table's notes column, when AL and NL are not?~~ Good raise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~"but he also led the AL" - Unnecessary he.~~ Good raise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not revisited comments from Good raise 03:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the accomplishments section would benefit from some sort of introduction, one or two sentences. How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] What do you mean by "accomplished college baseball players" and in what way are they the most so? Good raise* 08:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I have tweaked this with "highly-regarded".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The sentence "As of 2010, Jason Varitek, R. A. Dickey, Mike Hampton, and Jay Payton remain active in Major League Baseball" does not really fit into that paragraph. It also strikes me as odd to start the section with this. Intuitively, I would place ongoing developments at the end of the paragraph or section. Moreover, this doesn't appear to be an accomplishment in any sense of the word. How about removing it? I have tried to clarify its purpose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Now I understand the purpose of that sentence, but the paragraph as a whole no longer satisfies "professional standards of writing". I'll try to help with that once I understand what you mean by "accomplished college baseball players". Good raise 08:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Is there a particular reason why the first column lists the positions? In a list of people, I'd normally expect the first column to contain their names. The very first WP:FL I loooked at in response to your query (2007 NFL Draft) has names in the fourth column. I don't think there is any policy regarding this so I am just using the same format as the other three College Baseball FLs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hardly a good list to compare this one with (draft picks vs team members). The three columns preceding the "player" column have no equivalent in this list. Not to mention that the NFL list places a player's position after his name. As for the other three college baseball FLs... In the absence of a "policy", you'd repeat somebody else's mistake rather than think for yourself? Well, leave it like this, if you must. Good raise 08:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I opened up three more lists and 2.5 of them did not have names in the first column. (List of Atlanta Falcons first-round draft picks and Major League Baseball All-Star Game Most Valuable Player Award, plus List of Atlanta Falcons head coaches sort of doesn't either) I don't see any reason to move this around and since the change will affect four lists, I am going to leave it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Danny Graves, who is a two-time All-Star (2000 and 2004), is the only Vietnamese-born player in MLB history and is the 2002 Lou Gehrig Memorial Award winner." - Might be better to move his place of birth out from in between his baseball achievements, like so: "Danny Graves, who is a two-time All-Star (2000 and 2004) and won the Lou Gehrig Memorial Award in 2002, is the only Vietnamese-born player in MLB history." Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The abbreviation MLB is not being introduced. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Should be introduced on first occurrence. Good raise 00:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Seeing as neither Jason Varitek nor Nomar Garciaparra appear in the lead, it would seem appropriate to mention their membership in the team in the captions. You might be able to avoid redundancy by using ((multiple image))'s footer parameter to make both images use the same caption. I think it goes without saying that the subjects of the main images are members of the team and adding the long team name would make long captions longer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Nothing wrong with having longer captions. As far as I'm concerned, they're too short. Neither of them "establishes the picture's relevance to the article" and they also leave unclear why you've chosen these two to be the only ones with pictures. For example, why is there no picture of Mike Hampton? It's not like you'd have to go far to get one. Good raise 08:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] No longer opposing, not yet supporting. Sorry about the wait. I didn't find much time for editing this week. Good raise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not revisited comments from Good raise 03:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*I think the accomplishments section would benefit from some sort of introduction, one or two sentences.

- How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What do you mean by "accomplished college baseball players" and in what way are they the most so? Good raise 08:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have tweaked this with "highly-regarded".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "As of 2010, Jason Varitek, R. A. Dickey, Mike Hampton, and Jay Payton remain active in Major League Baseball" does not really fit into that paragraph. It also strikes me as odd to start the section with this. Intuitively, I would place ongoing developments at the end of the paragraph or section. Moreover, this doesn't appear to be an accomplishment in any sense of the word. How about removing it?
- I have tried to clarify its purpose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now I understand the purpose of that sentence, but the paragraph as a whole no longer satisfies "professional standards of writing". I'll try to help with that once I understand what you mean by "accomplished college baseball players". Good raise 08:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a particular reason why the first column lists the positions? In a list of people, I'd normally expect the first column to contain their names.
- The very first WP:FL I loooked at in response to your query (2007 NFL Draft) has names in the fourth column. I don't think there is any policy regarding this so I am just using the same format as the other three College Baseball FLs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hardly a good list to compare this one with (draft picks vs team members). The three columns preceding the "player" column have no equivalent in this list. Not to mention that the NFL list places a player's position after his name. As for the other three college baseball FLs... In the absence of a "policy", you'd repeat somebody else's mistake rather than think for yourself? Well, leave it like this, if you must. Good raise 08:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I opened up three more lists and 2.5 of them did not have names in the first column. (List of Atlanta Falcons first-round draft picks and Major League Baseball All-Star Game Most Valuable Player Award, plus List of Atlanta Falcons head coaches sort of doesn't either) I don't see any reason to move this around and since the change will affect four lists, I am going to leave it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Danny Graves, who is a two-time All-Star (2000 and 2004), is the only Vietnamese-born player in MLB history and is the 2002 Lou Gehrig Memorial Award winner." - Might be better to move his place of birth out from in between his baseball achievements, like so: "Danny Graves, who is a two-time All-Star (2000 and 2004) and won the Lou Gehrig Memorial Award in 2002, is the only Vietnamese-born player in MLB history."
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The abbreviation MLB is not being introduced.
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Should be introduced on first occurrence. Good raise 00:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as neither Jason Varitek nor Nomar Garciaparra appear in the lead, it would seem appropriate to mention their membership in the team in the captions. You might be able to avoid redundancy by using ((multiple image))'s footer parameter to make both images use the same caption.
- I think it goes without saying that the subjects of the main images are members of the team and adding the long team name would make long captions longer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing wrong with having longer captions. As far as I'm concerned, they're too short. Neither of them "establishes the picture's relevance to the article" and they also leave unclear why you've chosen these two to be the only ones with pictures. For example, why is there no picture of Mike Hampton? It's not like you'd have to go far to get one. Good raise 08:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No longer opposing, not yet supporting. Sorry about the wait. I didn't find much time for editing this week. Good raise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not finding time to edit. Remaining neutral. My apologies. Good raise 03:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Some of my comments may apply to multiple lists. Please make changes to those articles as well, when necessary. "This list only includes players selected to the post-season All-American first-team for each selector." No hyphen in "first-team"; it's not a compound adjective. I am never sure about that, but I take your word for it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "highly-regarded" No hyphen in -ly adverbs, see WP:HYPHEN. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] No mentions of the colleges played for in the prose? Also, Georgia Tech had three All-Americans that year (and not surprisingly made the CWS); is that not worth mentioning (not a rhetorical question, I don't follow baseball so I don't know if it's a regular occurence or not). Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "(i.e., 1 – pitcher, 2 – catcher, etc.)" "i.e."-->e.g. (yes, there is a difference!) Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I have studied latin and know what these phrases mean. In this case, i.e. seems correct to me because we are explaining the prior statement instead of giving an example.

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

Some of my comments may apply to multiple lists. Please make changes to those articles as well, when necessary.
"This list only includes players selected to the post-season All-American first-team for each selector." No hyphen in "first-team"; it's not a compound adjective.
- I am never sure about that, but I take your word for it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"highly-regarded" No hyphen in -ly adverbs, see WP:HYPHEN.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No mentions of the colleges played for in the prose? Also, Georgia Tech had three All-Americans that year (and not surprisingly made the CWS); is that not worth mentioning (not a rhetorical question, I don't follow baseball so I don't know if it's a regular occurence or not).
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"(i.e., 1 – pitcher, 2 – catcher, etc.)" "i.e."-->e.g. (yes, there is a difference!) Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have studied latin and know what these phrases mean. In this case, i.e. seems correct to me because we are explaining the prior statement instead of giving an example.

'Support: -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment before I promote, could you please have a look at this discussion involving a newly promoted FL and the use of general references. I think we solved the problem, so I'd like you to consider that approach too, primarily to avoid another brouhaha. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I honestly don't understand what you are asking me to do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - We had a problem with an editor complaining about the use of a general reference instead of inline citation(s) for the whole contents of a table. This list currently exhibits the same issue. I'd like you to familiarise yourself with the previous discussion and act accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you are asking me to add an inline citation, which I just did.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:43, 5 December 2010 [38].

Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island[edit]

Nominator(s): Magic♪piano 21:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second order of battle I've nominated for Feature List consideration. The first was the Order of battle of the Battle of Trenton (review), passed in July; it is the only featured order of battle for a land battle. The format I used is pretty much the same, although there are minor differences due to what sort of figures are available to report. I hope it meets with your approval; it has been through a MILHIST A-Class review. Magic♪piano 21:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comment~~

I presume that the battalions of light infantry and grenadiers were assembled from those companies of the individual regiments? Otherwise looks nice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would presume so, yes. I've added some words explaining how those units are formed (sources don't identify which units contribute to which brigades, alas). Magic♪piano 16:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comment~~. The British forces, under the overall command of Lieutenant General William Howe, successfully flanked Continental Army positions on western Long Island ... This sentence repeats the following sentence from the second paragraph: The British forces, ... made a successful flanking maneuver around the American left while occupying the American right with diversionary battle. Ruslik_Zero 19:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is generally not written in chronological order and its first and second paragraphs partially duplicate/contradict each other. Ruslik_Zero 20:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure what you thought was contradictory, but I've rewritten the lead. Magic♪piano 13:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is much better now. I have another problem, however. In the last table I read Glover's regiment, stationed on Manhattan during the battle, was sent over to Brooklyn on September 28, and was instrumental in evacuating the army on the night of September 29–30.. What is this sentence about? As I understand Brooklyn was abandoned on 29 August when the army was evacuated from Long Island? Was there the second evacuation at the end of September? Ruslik_Zero 16:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Thanks for catching that; it was supposed to be August, of course. Magic♪piano 16:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to support. Ruslik_Zero 11:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 15:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments - "Maj." and "Brig." do not fall under WP:ABBR#Widely used abbreviations in Wikipedia so should be written in full. Some of the rows are empty this is acceptable for the notes row but not the others. I am a bit confused over your use of the column spans example "British units" wouldn't this be best used as a section header? you've explained in the prose (though official titles should be added) who the Commander-in-cheif and Second in command were do you need a column span for this? I think it would also be more beneficial for the reader to convert the casualties row into a more suitable format such as seen here. I would suggest the removal of any small html tags in the tables to comply with MOS:TEXT. Afro (Talk) 05:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I'm leery about dis-abbreviating only "Maj." and "Brig.", because you end up with ugliness like "Brigadier Gen.". I see a few options:

Dis-abbreviate all titles. This adds text, and will probably wrap most of the text in the commander fields (I abbreviate the titles to minimize occurrence of this).
Identify the abbreviations when they appear in the text ("Brigadier" does not currently appear in the text), or in an explanatory paragraph in the key.
Leave it as is.

Preferences? Magic♪piano 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you still want to keep the abbreviations 2 would be the best option. I see you've taken into account my comments on some of the column spans, however you haven't addressed the other comments about the column span for example on "commander-in-chief". Afro (Talk) 22:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting to the other items, just wanted to clarify the above. Currently the text does not explicitly identify the second in command; I need to figure how to work that in. Magic♪piano 21:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've redone the British table to detail the casualty numbers in separate columns. Because of the way this affected column spacing, I expanded the ranks to full spelling there, putting the commanders and some units onto two lines. I've also reformatted the notes for brigades that didn't have more specific notes for the subunits so that they occupy the space beside the subunits as well, which helps reduce the size of the tables some. I've also added text explaining the rank abbrevations to the key, and removed the column-spanning banners at the top of each table. Magic♪piano 01:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the list "1 missing" looks out of place wouldn't it be better to formulate this type of information in a note? Why is ther e an excessive use of bold in the Unit column? also I don;'t understand the use of valign=top in the table head. I'm also a bit confused over the rowspan for the notes, is there not a better way to formulate this information in the table it just seems excessive. Also the occasional center alignment seems out of place surely theres a better way to convey this information. Afro (Talk) 08:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The unit column needs to differentiate three levels of hierarchy (division/brigade/regiment) in a fairly restricted space. If you don't like the bolding and centering as a means of differentiation (as explained in the key), feel free to propose an alternative. The notes spanning rows is intended that the note applies to the hierarchy of units covered by that span; why is this confusing? As to the "valign=top" in the table head, the next reviewer will probably complain that "Unit", "Commander", and "Notes" don't line up with "Casualties" if I remove it.

I've shortened "missing" and "captured" to "M" and "C", with explanation in the key. Magic♪piano 17:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off on the "valign=top" issue, the alignment of the table head hasn't been issue on the discographies, why it is here I do not know. On the center alignment of the off rows, it may be better to formulate this into a colspan. Also you may have unabbreviated the British units section but Hessein's units and the American units. Not sure if I've mentioned or not but the Command staff in the American units looks terribly un-organised not to mention there's a column missing on the right. Afro (Talk) 16:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, there's a column missing? Please explain. Ditto on the "terribly un-organised" American command staff; this is the order in which they are presented in sources. Magic♪piano 15:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not see the missing column directly under the American Units column span? Afro (Talk) 16:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call that a missing cell; it's not like an entire column was missing, something I've seen before. (And no, I didn't see it because it had no visible effect when rendered in my browser.) Magic♪piano 17:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made further changes to address your issues. I've changed the division headings on the British units; please tell me what you think. If this is acceptable, I'll propagate the style to the other tables. Magic♪piano 19:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it looks fine without the centering. Also on "Royal Artillery" in the british table you use valign=top again but don't seem to use it anywhere else. Also 3rd and 5th Pennsylvania Battalion have the same note for consistency I don't see why you haven't used the rowspan. Also I don't understand the use of the break you use for many of the commanders ie "Lieutenant Colonel Friedrich von Minnigerode", "Doctor John Morgan", I don't see what advantage the user gets by these breaks. Afro (Talk) 18:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Artillery was aligned to top because it is the only place where the casualty figures are only available as an aggregate; however, I've removed the alignment. As far the line breaks in the commanders, I would prefer, if the table is sized in a narrower-width window, that the line break between the title and the name, rather than between the first and last names. I should probably try experimenting with non-breaking spaces in the names to control this behavior rather than forcing breaks. Magic♪piano 22:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed to forced breaks and replaced them with non-breaking spaces, so table resizing works smoothly. Magic♪piano 17:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very iffy regarding format for the American Units command staff I would think this could be formatted a different way right now it looks out of place on the table. Also I don't understand the column span for as example "Major General Israel Putnam", is Israel Putnam the Unit as well? Afro (Talk) 10:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the command staff, and denoted the division commanders with "Commander" in the Unit column. Does that work for you? Magic♪piano 17:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Hessein and American units have the same Casualties format in their tables, just for consistency. Also the American units column span isn't needed. Afro (Talk) 11:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the American units header; you're right it's no longer needed. As for the casualties, do you really think adding four columns that are blank to the Hessian and American tables will improve them (on the altar of consistency)? The sort of numbers that are available is already documented, and really makes such columns unnecessary. Magic♪piano 14:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have no outstanding concerns. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 15:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have Afro, Sturmvogel and Ruslik0 been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support- I dont think there is much more detail out there unless one starts researching through primary sources.XavierGreen (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"buy time" seems a little colloquial for me in the image caption.

Rephrased. Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, what is "Continental Army"?

Linked; good catch. Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"the early morning hours " reads a little odd to me, just "early hours" is normally acceptable, but it could just be personal preference I suppose.

Changed. Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"are identified only by bold text" I'm not sure this meets WP:MOSBOLD to be honest. I've learned recently that "table headers" are all col headings and all row headings, so this seems to fall between the gaps and be anomalous.

If you can think of a better way to distinguish brigade-level entries from smaller unit entries (that satisfies WP:ACCESS and any other MOS that applies), I'm all ears. Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure you need to keep repeating "General" when you refer to "General Howe" but it could be a MILHIST thing so I won't get to worked up about it, it's just a little repetitive.

Agreed; I have reduced. Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" the officer's rank is sometimes abbreviated" I'm wondering why, after this point, you don't just abbreviate all ranks for consistency.

Well, after the back-and-forth with Afro above, I ended up changing all of the ranks to be fully spelled out; I've removed the comment about abbreviation. Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hessian units table, you have a rowspan for the first four and the second four units, but the same comment. Why?

Because I wanted to limit row-spanning to the brigade level. Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The basis for this order of battle is a return prepared" tense? why not "was a return prepared"?

Because I'm talking about the order of battle in this article? Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 14 needs a space between pp. and the page range.

Fixed. Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments – Just a few tiny formatting issues. Even a pedant like me is scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

The last note in the key has no period, while the others do. Is this intentional?
American forces: No need for two John Sullivan links in this section. Just the first one will do.
At the bottom of the American table, the citation note has a period at the end. This is not true of the British tables. I don't really care which way it is done, but it should be consistent throughout.
Reference 62 has a space between the page number, unlike the other multiple-page refs. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking in; I've fixed these. Magic♪piano 18:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:43, 5 December 2010 [39].

List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England[edit]

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 21:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is the only comprehensive list of the relevant churches, under the care of the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England, and provides locations, graphics (where available), coordinates and additional information about each of the 62 entries in the list, supported by extensive references. It is based on a list format by User:Peter I. Vardy and copy edited by User:Malleus Fatuorum. — Rod ^talk 21:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 4 dead links: here-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that was quick - The four Wiltshire "get churches" URLs were working this morning & still give the same URL after searching though the list at http://history.wiltshire.gov.uk/community/church_search.php. I believe this is a temporary server glitch. Working on the others.— Rod ^talk 21:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They had changed their server path today - I believe they are now fixed.— Rod ^talk 21:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*~~Not too fond of the parentheses in the first sentence. Can it be rephrased/removed somehow?~~

Reworded

~~What is the meaning of "safe" in: "The trust's primary aim is to ensure that the buildings in its care are weatherproof and safe."?~~

Reworded

~~Is the definition of "South West England" due to the Churches Conservation Trust or only used in this list?~~

The CCT use a definition of SW England which doesn't include Gloucestershire whereas South West England and West Country include it (based largely on government department definitions). The ongoing debates on their talk pages demonstrate there is no single definition.

I don't want to join the discussions on this issues. Just wanted to make sure that the CCT uses the same partition in SW England, N England,... as this list. They do, right?

Yep these lists are all being based on CCT regions. Their list of SW England is here

~~Please remove doubled information: "Rural churches dominate the list" and "The majority are rural village churches..."~~

Reworded

~~Some overuse of "largely" could be copy-edited.~~

Some reworded

~~Empty cells should be filled with ((center|—)) AFAIK.~~

Added

~~The link for footnote "C" does not work.~~

Fixed

~~Should "St Nicholas (old)" be replaced with "Old Church of St Nicholas"?~~

Done (& also in a few other cases)

~~What is Thurlbear in "St Thomas, Thurlbear, Orchard Portman"? A church, village or town?~~
Same for a couple of other entries ("St Mary, Maddington, Shrewton",...). The column heading suggests that there are only two things appearing while sometimes there are three. Maybe reword the heading to something like: "Church name and location".

I've changed the column header as suggested. these are often where a tiny village within a parish doesn't have an article & therefore the parish is wikilinked.

~~I am a bit confused by the note in the reference section ("The Heritage Gateway website is published by...). What is it supposed to tell me?~~

We are supposed to give the publishers of the sources used. Heritage Gateway is published by a consortium of three bodies. The note is intended to prevent the repetition of this information in every reference, which would make the section large and ugly. It was deemed acceptable in the FL Friends of Friendless Churches.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can add the full publisher info to eeach of these references if that would be preferable?

I see and it is perfectly fine with me not to repeat the publisher information. However at the moment I have a problem locating the Heritage Gateway references. The term "Heritage Gateway" only seems to appear in the note and not in the references.

I have removed this as heritage Gateway is not used in this list.

~~Categories referring to the Churches Conservation Trust such as "Charities based in London" should be removed as this is a list about churches and not about the trust.~~

These cats removed

Thanks. If you wish, you could also get rid of category "Conservation in England" since the category "Churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust" is in that category already.

Removed.— Rod ^talk 10:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~A navigation template for other similar lists (Northern England) might be a good idea for the future.~~

Yes that would be a good idea - but several of the lists haven't been written (yet)

But hopefully will be written. In any case it is not essential at the moment.

bamse (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you comments. I hope they have now been addressed.— Rod ^talk 08:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments mainly on the notes column... (to be added to as I read along) bamse (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~The main table is currently in the section "Key". Maybe create a special section "Churches".~~

Done

~~Should "over looking" be one word?~~

Taking advice on this one

Done - all one word

~~"...there is evidence of a wooden church in about 700 AD...". Surely the evidence is not from 700 AD. Possibly "in"->"from"?~~

Done

~~"Outside the tower is a stone dedicated to John Coumbe, said to have lived from 1484 to 1604 – outliving the entire Tudor dynasty." Is this essential for the church?~~

Removed

~~"The 15th-century tower houses three bells, two of them medieval and one 17th century", maybe add something in the second part of the sentence.~~

I don't understand what is wrong with this one

Reworded

~~Same for: "The nave of Whitcombe Church dates from the 12th century, with the chancel being added in the 15th"~~

Again this seem allright to me - what needs changing?

Reworded

~~"...and altar rails, and the remains of wall paintings", maybe get rid of the first "and"~~

Done

~~Capitalization in "St Antoninus King and Martyr." correct?~~

Changed

~~What's a "Gurney Stove"? Maybe add a footnote.~~

named after inventor added

~~"The presence in the floor of the church of trapdoors..." reads cumbersome.~~

Reworded

~~"a ... tree in the churchyard suggest it was", maybe "suggests that it was..."~~

Reworded

~~"The manor was held by Shaftesbury Abbey's manor of Tisbury". The manor was held by a manor, correct?~~

2nd "manor" changed to endowment

Taking a break (at "St Mary, Maddington, Shrewton") now. Will continue later today or tomorrow. bamse (talk) 10:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all comments so far - I will try to catch up with you.— Rod ^talk 11:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~You use "28 feet (8.5 m) by 17 feet (5.2 m)" and on the other hand "62 by 12 feet (19 × 3.7 m)". Use the same way throughout (also check other occurrences. I'd prefer the second version.~~

This will take a little while. I think I've done all these now.

I think so too.

Capitalization of "Perpendicular" correct? There seem to be both small and capital versions in the list. Also at least one of the "perpendicular" is linked to perpendicular and not to Perpendicular Period. Please check.

Changed

~~What is a "rectar"?~~

Typo - changed

Something should be changed in: "A church was established on the site, overlooking the River Parrett, in the 12th century, was valued at £5 in 1291,[122] although the majority of the fabric of the current building dates from the 14th."

several full stops added

~~"It is now in the care of the Churches Conservation Trust." Isn't this redundant given that the church is mentioned in this list?~~

Removed

~~Something is missing in: "It is currently on the English Heritage Buildings at Risk Register,[128][129] flood damage from the River Chew in 1968."~~

added "following" flood damage

~~Something should be changed in: "It has a perpendicular three-stage tower has an octagonal stair turret on the south wall."~~

"with" and octagonal...

~~Unify spelling of medieval/mediaevel.~~

This will take a little while.— Rod ^talk 18:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Standardised

Done with the notes column. I also fixed some obvious things, but please check that I did not change any meaning. bamse (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~There is likely a typo in ref 104. bamse (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Done.— Rod ^talk 18:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think there is at least one "Heritage Gateway" reference, so you might want to put the note back or add publisher information directly to the reference.~~

I can't find this one

Edit the whole article and search for "www.heritagegateway.org.uk". I find two occurrences, one at "[St Giles' Church, Imber" and the other at "St Mary's Church, South Tidworth".

Thanks - now done.— Rod ^talk 20:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~There is something missing or amiss in the sentence: "It includes a collection of medieval carvings, in the form of elegant corbel-heads, roof bosses, and externally in the form of fearsome gargoyles"~~

Reworded

"Fearsome" might violate WP:NPOV, though personally I don't see a problem here so I leave it up to you to decide what's best here.

fearsome removed (even though it was supported by the ref).

Welcome, and on it goes...

"The first record of the church is an agreement dated 1226 between William, son of Arthur de Clopton and Richard of Keynsham Abbey." If possible, can you add what kind of agreement or in which way the church is mentioned in this agreement.

Detail added

Thanks. Possibly it should be "in an agreement"!?

"in" added. I will try to get to the references this evening.— Rod ^talk 12:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~What makes [40] a RS?~~

The Newton Ferrers & Noss Mayo is a non-profit organisation and has a mechanism for correcting any errors (from home page)

I have removed this one the info is covered by the Images of England ref already included

~~What makes [41] a RS?~~

Nadder Valley Focus is "a non-commercial site maintained by volunteers" and has a mechanism for correcting any errors from Contact us page)

I have removed this one and sourced the information by reuse of the British History Online reference

~~What makes [42] a RS?~~

Replaced with a ref from North Wiltshire Council

~~What makes [43] a RS?~~

Replaced with ref from Pastscape (English Heritage)

~~What makes [44] a RS?~~

Ref removed as info already covered by RS

~~What makes [45] a RS?~~

I've removed the info re minton reredos at Fisherton as I couldn't find an alt source

~~What makes [46] a RS?~~

I've removed the claim re the plaque at Holcombe as I can't find an alt source

~~What makes hiddendorset a RS?~~

"Hidden Dorset was initially funded by Leader+ Chalk & Cheese; Arts Council England; a partnership of Dorset County Council, and the six borough/district councils in the county. It is now independent of these bodies." from About page

Unfortunately this does not tell anything about the current situation or who is writing material for the site. If they were still funded by those bodies, I'd believe that they are reliable. The fact that they "are now independent" could mean that the funding bodies were not happy with the content for instance. bamse (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the claim about the bells which was supported by this reference.— Rod ^talk 10:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~What makes [47] a RS?~~

Ref removed as info already covered by RS

There are still two refs using this site.

Thanks I hadn't spotted them - now replaced/removed.— Rod ^talk 10:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~What makes [48] a RS?~~

See their Policy page

What part of the policy page should I look at? Apparently about-bristol is written by several members of the Stiles family according to About us. How do I know that they are reliable?

I have replaced the ref supporting the quote about a "Wedding Cake Church" with one from the Churches Conservation Trust.— Rod ^talk 10:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes everythingexmoor a RS?

Everything Exmoor describes itself as 'by the Community for the Community' but does undergo editorial control before publication About Page. It is a stable site already used as a source on multiple wp pages including List of museums in Somerset (FL), Exmoor (FA), Somerset (FA), Minehead (GA) and Geology of Somerset (GA) without any problems,

Material can be submitted by everybody. Not sure where it says that there is editorial control. I guess it would also matter who the editor is. bamse (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes megalithic.co.uk a RS?

According to wikipedia article The Megalithic Portal "Its listings are often referenced by noted web sites[2] and in recent books on megaliths[3] and Holy Wells[4]...Founded by chartered engineer Andy Burnham, ... The Megalithic Portal has existed in its current form since February 2001. .. In 2002, Archaeology Magazine reviewed the Megalithic Portal, describing it as 'useful, fun, and accurate'.[6] As of January 2010 the Megalithic Portal has been constituted as a non profit making membership society[7]. From the site About page under terms and conditions and see The Charter of Responsible Megalithic Webmasters.

According to terms and conditions, they cannot guarantee the accuracy of material submitted by third party contributors. Is the material cited in this list by third party contributors?

I've removed lots of the non RS sources and either removed the accompanying information or used other (RS) sources which cover the same information. I am convinced "Everything Exmoor" and "Megalithic Portal" should be allowed as Reliable. "Hidden Dorset" and "About Bristol" have suitable policies in place about quality controll etc and I think are probably RS but would be happy to compromise on these two.— Rod ^talk 18:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will have another look as soon as I get time. bamse (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am far from an expert on RS issues. However Hidden Dorset and About Bristol look less reliable to me than the other sites (see comments above). To make sure I asked the experts at WP:RSN. bamse (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Everything Exmoor the About page states in "the only limiting factor will be the time available for the volunteer editor to process the incoming information." this leads me to question how they factually check the information. Also in the About is "All the information is provided 'by the Community for the Community'" considering what you're sourcing with the information it leads me to believe it may not be factually accurate. I'm not sure on Megalithic however the information which you are citing appears to be user submitted with no expert knowledge in the field. Afro (Talk) 07:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Although it pains me to do so (because it means I should go & check all the other FAs, FLs & GA which use it) I have replaced the reference to everything exmooor with the reuse of the Images of England one which has the same information. I have also replaced the megalithic reference with one from British History Online.— Rod ^talk 19:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will support after the display problems of refs 119 and 131 are fixed and "church" is capitalized in ref 130. bamse (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I must be getting too close to this I didn't even spot those - now fixed.— Rod ^talk 18:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support bamse (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"It was legally established ..." - you've talked about several things between the Trust and this sentence, so suggest you make this "The Trust was established..."

Done

Any ideas if the Trust has been affected by the recent austerity measures to be implemented by our gracious orange/blue government? If it's partly financed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, is it likely to see this funding disappear? (Just a question really).

This was discussed at Talk:Churches Conservation Trust with various people checking different published lists - but it appears to have survived (so far)

For anyone interested,the latest info is here. Basically the grant from the DCMS has been cut by 20%.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"2,000 volunteers" spare space here.

Done.— Rod ^talk 21:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Table captions (and well done for giving the ACCESS thing a go here) should not be bold (but that may not be your fault) and, if incomplete sentences, shouldn't have full stops, like the one for the Key currently does.

This comes from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)#tables which was recently pointed out to me & I can't see how to change bold. Full stop is gone

Caption says "year of construction" but you sometimes have just the closest century.

I've changed this to year or era

Not keen on bold at the start of each row, but hey...
"The church is now one of three in the care of the priest-in-charge of Gerrans and Philleigh." no ref.

Removed as I can't find a reliable source

I seem to remember asking about this once before but Ham stone redirects to Hamstone. Is there a reason you use the former?

I think about stone from Ham Hill but now changed

"with 4 bells" four.

Done

" 1833[92] during " I see no major problem with dropping this ref to the end of the sentence.

Done

Ref 1 title - The Trust, not "The trust".

Done

Similarly for ref 3, trust is capitalised in the page title.

Done

Check all ref dates are in the same format - ref 5 has an ISO date while rest (or, at least, the majority) are human format.

This was a date of publication as opposed to accessdate but changed, I hope I've got them all now

BBC refs, in general, have publication dates, like ref 82 was published 12 April 2009. Please add these.

Hope I've got them all

PDF refs should have format=PDF

I've never understood the rationale for this but Done

Ref 121 needs an en-dash for page ranges. Check others.

121 was a reuse of 119 so have reused that. I've looked for others but having never understood the rationale for this one either they don't jump out at me.

Ref 132 has a bare URL, a bit odd.

This was the same with 119 - neither used the cite web template - now fixed

Do you need Category:Churches in England when the Churches preserved by... is a much more specific category which is a second-level sub-cat of the former?

Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Hopefully done but a couple I didn't understand eg As in lead & ? ALT or what for images

Any chance of an update to the As of in the lead?

Sorry I don't understand this

Sorry, the date after "As of..." in the lead, i.e. November 2010 now.. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I see now - I have removed the "as of.. date" it is not an exact number "over 340" and unlikely to change frequently

Nicholas's vs Nicholas' - source says one, table says t'other.

This has been debated in several places for what to do with the apostrophe when the saints name ends in "s" - eg Talk:Churches Conservation Trust#Apostrophes I don't think a final solution has been achieved.

I just want internal consistency within the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thnk I've got this now.— Rod ^talk 17:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we persist with these captions, (and again, this is a question, not a directive), what do we do about purely visual columns, like the "Photograph" column here. Photos aren't mentioned in the caption, but there's no alt text, so I'm not sure what a screen reader would make of this.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting. I thought ALT tags hadn't become required but will add them if you think they are needed?

The caption still appears to have a full stop, but what I mean about using it for access purposes, you should mention that there are also photographs of each church in the caption for it to be explicit and complete. The boldness will soon be okay with MOSBOLD, so not to worry there. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had removed the full stop from one table caption but not the other - now done, & added "with photographs".— Rod ^talk 17:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Rod, per those bold row headers for each church, if you're not already aware, it may be worth having a glimpse at this discussion. You can now "unbold" those and keep it accessible, should you wish to do so. Next up is a discussion about captions... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I think I'll wait for consensus to emerge (everywhere) before making more changes & tackling all the other lists (FL & otherwise) I've been involved in.— Rod ^talk 17:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and rightly so. I think this list is probably the one of the first to take these changes into account, so I just wanted to ensure you were aware of changes/discussions going on here and there. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Afro (Talk) 10:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - I'm glad to see you've added symbols to grade "II" however where are the symbols for grade "I" and "III"? Afro (Talk) 14:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't understand that comment. The grades are I, II* & II - there is no grade III. Do you mean the asterisk "*" - if so this is a part of the grading - see Listed building#England and Wales or the English Heritage web site. What are you asking me to do?— Rod ^talk 14:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry grade 3 was me jumping ahead of myself, anyway per WP:COLORS, colored cells should have accompanying symbols (e.g. * ^ †) for accessibility reasons. Afro (Talk) 15:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the text in each of the boxes is different ie I or II* or II, so the colour is not the only way of differentiating them, therefore I can't see why a symbol is needed as well. If the colour were removed the cells would still provide the relevant information.— Rod ^talk 15:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I seem to be jumping ahead of my a lot lately, ignore my previous comment. Afro (Talk) 16:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can Note B, be phrased better the thing which confuses me is "or the exact years over which it was built if known". Grammatical error on Ref 179. Ref 183 I can't find where it cites this information in the source. Coding error in Ref 190. Afro (Talk) 18:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to reword note B. English capitalised on ref 179. Ref 183 moved as it supports the POWs buidling the chu8rch but not being the only one. cite web coding sorted on ref 190.— Rod ^talk 19:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article is over 100,000 bytes wouldn't it be better to remove one of the images in the lead? maybe the bigger of the images. Afro (Talk) 16:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing an image will not reduce the file size much, however I can do this if required, although I was advised that for a long list it would be useful to have a couple of lead images.— Rod ^talk 16:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who were you advised by may I ask? Afro (Talk) 18:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. When I tried removing a lead image it reduced the size of the list from 102 kb to 102 kb. It's not one image that makes it a big list, it's the amount of info it gives — and that's not the nominator's fault!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a query on whether it'd be better in reducing the loading time, no worries. Afro (Talk) 19:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have no problems with the list. Afro (Talk) 13:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – These are from a skim of the church notes.

St Thomas the Martyr: The hyphen in 1791-3 should be a dash. Also, the formatting is inconsistent with 1896–97 later, in regards to the amount of numbers (one after the dash in one, two in the other).
St Andrew, Northover, Ilchester: "It was also the site of as minister church...". "as" → "a".
All Saints, Leigh: "between 1896 and 1897 in 1896". Which is it? Or is this referring to two seperate things?
St Martin, Cathedral Close, Exeter: The dash in the year range should be an en dash, not the larger em dash. A few of the column dates toward the end also have this problem.
St Mary, Wilton: Had trouble understanding the following sentence: "The ruins of the three arches of the south arcade, and fragments of the north arcade and the altered eastern arch of the west tower or west window within the churchyard."
St Mary, South Tidworth: "the construction work was supervised by G. H. Gordon. for Sir John Kelk of the Kelk Baronets, The chancel...". The comma and period should be reversed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thanks for spotting these. I have never understood the rationale for the emphasis on en dash v em dash/hyphen, but I've been through & hopefully got all these & other identified problems.— Rod ^talk 09:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support An interesting list, I didn't expect visitor numbers to the churches to be so high. The lead is well developed, explaining clearly what the trust does and providing some stats about the churches in its care. The descriptions are detailed and well written, and the table sensibly laid out. An excellent list. Nev1 (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:12, 2 December 2010 [49].

Jesse Owens Award[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I found it interesting, sourced everything nicely and hopefully did a reasonable job of sorting etc.. Thanks for your time in reviewing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support

On my screen the image of Jesse Owens is longer than the text next to it, creating some annoying white space between the lead and the table.
- I guess this is because you are operating at a reasonably high horizontal resolution. The only possible solution is to make the lead image a bespoke size (it's currently an upright|thumb) or delete it altogether. Which would you prefer to see? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm... I guess! I never really think of my work laptop as being that wide, but I suppose 1280 is larger than the norm! I should probably stop using my PC screen (1680 width) to design pages! I'm not too sure to be honest, because having the image much smaller would limit its value I think. I suppose I just have to put up with having a bit of white space when using a wider monitor. I'll give it some more thought, but I've switched my comment to support in the mean time anyway, it's a nice list. I won't hide this under a resolved header so that other people can offer any opinions on this topic.Harrias ^talk 18:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, it's easily done. And some people don't like the space between the table and the column of images, but it's either that or stick them right to the side of the table which looks odd if you have an image in the lead which is over on the right-hand side. Difficult...! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you make the reference column unsortable.
- Done, good spot (I blew it when I added accessibility code!) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise no real issues from me. Harrias ^talk 15:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Harrias! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support The only problem I have is whitespace between end of lead and first header (I use Chrome). It's not that nice. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Support – ~~Only issue I see is that reference 2 doesn't include a publisher.~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dang, it was there but there was no = sign between it and publisher. Fixed now, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support cannot see any issues with the article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:36, 1 December 2010 [50].

List of Buso Renkin episodes[edit]

Nominator(s): DragonZero (talk · contribs) 04:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list since I believe it is also on the same level of quality as other featured anime episode lists. Criticism will also help improve the article for it to reach the featured standards. The sources are reliable and archived. Thanks for the time. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 04:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Quick comments

~~I think Xebec (studio) is what you mean to link to (refs, etc.) not the Mediterranean sailing ship.~~

Fixed.

~~Per MOS:NUMBERSIGN you can't use "#" in "EP#"~~

Replaced with Ep No.

Where are the references for Title, Director, Writer, Animation Director?

They're the same references used for the dates, I didn't want to spam the same reference onto the three directors since its messy.

Can I suggest adding a "Ref" column then, and put the references in Aux4= (use aux4 not aux3 so it goes to the end). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went with that so I think its fixed.

Basically, these don't reference the Director/Writer/Anim. Dir. or if they do it is in Japanese. You are giving English names so the cite should be of English names. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got the English names through the English episode's credits, I could source them directly to the episode or to their DVDs, which would be a better choice? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the information on DVD notes or the back cover?If so use ((Cite DVD-notes)). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is only found on the episode credits. I could add a Template:Cite episode to every episode later. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Seems a bit strange, but I guess primary source is better than no source. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went with sourcing the episodes to their DVD sets since they would be too empty with the cite episode template as the episodes were not aired. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up before but I can't remember the outcome. The majority of this is WP:NONENG which states that they should include "both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote". So there may be concerns about the abundance of Japenese sources here.

I added the Viz Anime website to the episodes so their contents can be verified for non-Japanese speaking people.

I was thinking more for director/writer/an. director which Viz doesn't seem to cover. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC

Yeah, the only English translation I've seen for them is from the English DVDs, I could source them with that if needed. No English sources of equal quality and relevance are available for the information otherwise.

Per above, whatever is needed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done this.

Not sure what the precedence for this is, but I notice this is effectively the main article Buso Renkin (anime) as it is the only article predominently about the show (Buso Renkin#Anime is the only brief mention elsewhere). As such should there be a history of how the series was proposed, who voice actors are that kind of thing. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Typically the episode list is a sub-topic of the article and there is only certain information that goes into the list article, the primary coverage is in the main article. Although the Buso Renkin animated adaptation is only specifically mentioned in that one paragraph, the article in its entirety is about both the manga and the anime. We can only really include production information if its available. --Kraftlos (Talk

Takao Kato or Nobuhiro Watsuki need sources. They aren't mentioned (in English) in any of the sources.

I might have gotten these from the episodes, I will investigate further when I get the chance

Are these now properly sourced? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They should be properly sourced with their DVDs now; they were found in the opening credits of the episodes.

I find the themes 真赤な誓い, ホシアカリ, 愛しき世界 in the reference, but the transliteration and litary translation are unreferenced. The WP:NONENG rules are not clear cut as to how far we must go with this in featured content. Might be worth asking directors about this.

The romaji were taken from the episode credits themselves, but the literal translations were done by me, I could remove them if suggested.

I have sourced the romaji's with the DVD and could remove the literal translations if necessary. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for all of the first production paragraph which I can't verify myself. Assuming good faith it is there in Japanese, but I don't really know.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These might also be from the episodes and I will investigate by Monday. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sourced them with the DVDs after confirming the names were on the opening credits. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a brief readthrough, this article seems like it's at the same quality level as the other FL episode lists. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Link Buso Renkin in the opening sentence (but don't bold it)

Done

Should you be consistent with italicising Buso Renkin?

I think I got it all

Consider linking "Alchemic" to something relevant.

Linked to Alchemy

In prose I consider leading zeros to be pointless, so avoid "04 October" for instance.

I think I got it all

"were later collected by Geneon Universal Entertainment" what do you mean by "collected by"?

Reworded to "The episodes were later released in nine DVD compilations between January 25, 2007 and September 21, 2007 by Geneon Universal Entertainment."

"The episodes use three pieces of theme music: " perhaps add "each" after "episodes" here.

Reworded to "The series use three pieces of theme music"

Is "Animation Director" really capitalised that way?

Replaced Director with director

Refs in episode titles should be outside the quotation marks.

Couldn't be done since its a template so I took the refs out and placed them in the reference section under the general heading.

"uses a Kakugane to " does that need to be a capital K?

Replaced all Kakugane's with lowercase k.

L.X.E. or L.X.E - be consistent.

Replaced with LXE as dubbed by Viz.

You link " in his great-great grandfather's" and " Dr. Butterfly," to the same thing, it's confusing to non-experts.

Fixed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I can, I think I got most of it. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 23:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Guyinblack25 (talk · contribs)

Comments:

The list looks to be in good shape. Here are the issues that stood out to me.

Grammar issues
- Not necessary, but I'd switch "which" → "that". "That" is a stronger word that is more appropriate than "which" for definite statements.
  - In the lead: "...Viz Media announced the release of the English dub which would be released in two DVD sets..."
  - In EP 4: "Koushaku explains he intends to turn himself into a Homunculus with a specially made Homunculus matter which will turn him into a Human-type Homunculus;"
- Switch "that" → "the" in EP 4: "...to be ~~that~~ the monster from his dream..."
- Excess words (struck out)
  - In EP 1: The second part of the sentence after "and" sounds like it is being quoted, while the first part is not.
    "These monsters are created from alchemy and ~~that they~~ can only be destroyed by specialized weapons..."
  - In Ep 8: "While" in this case suggests that the two verbs should match in tense"...while Tokiko ~~is given the task of~~ protect~~ing~~s the kakugane..."
- Missing commas:
  - Commas are necessary for introductory phrases and words (underlined).
    - EP 3: "After learning that the Homunculus creator is a student at Kazuki's school Kazuki and Tokiko attempt..."
    - EP 9: "However the twins are actually humans..."
  - Commas are necessary when connecting two independent clauses (underlined) with a conjuction.
    - EP 3: "Kazuki and Tokiko attempt to search for him on the school grounds but they fail to find him."
    - EP 3: "A Plant Homunculus appears and prepares to finish off Kazuki but Tokiko intercepts its attack and kills the Homunculus."
- Missing "that" (underlined): I'm not sure on the grammar rule, but I believe that "that" is necessary after certain words depending on the usage, like describing dialog rather than quoting it. I'm not certain on this, so please double check me on it.
  - EP 3: "...promises to Tokiko that he will work harder..."
  - EP 4: "...Koushaku explains that he intends to turn himself into a Homunculus..."
  - EP 8: "...declares that he will defeat Kazuki and then leaves the scene."
  - EP 16: "...tells her that Kazuki will be killed."
- Pronoun order: I would consider moving Kazuki's name earlier in the sentence and them reference with a pronoun at the end:
  EP 17: "Tokiko manages to find ~~his~~ Kazuki's body in the ocean and is able to revive ~~Kazuki~~ him."
Structure
- The "Production team" section seems more appropriate for an article rather than a list, but I don't see any problem with it being here.
Images
- An image expert may need to be consulted on this, but File:Buso Renkin Staff.png is a non-free image of living people. Since they are not actors portraying a character, I believe this fails WP:NFCC number 1: "No free equivalent". As such, it should be replaced with a free image of the people or removed.

Once the items above have been addressed, I'll be happy to support. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

As for the production team, it was suggested to be added to the list, but if there's a general consensus to move it to the article, I wouldn't mind. And for the image, I'm having it checked out right now, if it is suggested to be removed, I'll remove it. Thanks for the review. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 02:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Support: my concerns have been addressed and I believe this list meets the FL criteria. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Have all reviewers been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about this. I'll go ask. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Jujutacular ^talk 04:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"Kouhei Tanaka directed the opening and ending themes while Gyo Yamatoya composed the music used in the episodes." - a comma would be nice to break up this sentence

Done

"... he is killed by a monster after trying saving a mysterious girl" - trying saving?

Done

"After a long enduring battle" - wording seems strange, with 'enduring' describing the battle. Should it be "After enduring a long battle"? (I'm open to comments).

Took your suggestion, I thought it sounded okay to begin with.

"The Butterfly of Black Death" summary. Ambiguous use of "he" and "him" etc. Who turns into a Homunculus?

I think its fixed.

"having been resurrected by the LXE's leader whom is also his great-great grandfather" should be who

Done, thanks

"to return Kazuki back into a human being" - how about turn him back?

Done

"Tokiko and Gouta are able to defeat the enemy, Shinobu Negoro and proceed to search and regroup with Kazuki" - probably needs another comma before 'and'.

Done

I noticed some of the titles do not include Japanese counterparts. Any reason?

The titles were presented in English even in the Japanese version. I could add a note if needed.

I believe a note would be beneficial. Jujutacular ^talk 04:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note beside the titles. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jujutacular ^talk 00:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching the missed grammar mistakes. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - great work all around. Jujutacular ^talk 04:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I see no further issues beyond what's already been fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Quick ones from the episode summaries...

Episode 2: "that someone was using the lab to create Homunculus matter." From later description, it sounds like this should either be "Homunculus matters" (if more than more were being created) or "a Homunculus matter" if only one was created. Of course, you'd need to have seen the show to know for sure, and I haven't.

Done

Episode 10: "while at the same time, receives Shusui's wound on her own body." For a little better flow, try "while at the same time receiving Shusui's wound on her own body."

Done

Episode 26: "Papillion, uses his white kakugane restore Victor's humanity and the two begin their long awaited duel." The comma would be better placed after "kakugane", though this is a minor point.

Done

Decapitalize Human later in this summary, unless the capitalization is intended. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the review. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments late, so apologies, but some things:

"announced by the release of..." what form did that take? Was it cinematic/internet/something else?

Added internet before trailer.

Second para is a little clunky to read. Lots of single-fact, stubby sentences. Consider merging a couple to make it flow better.

Just tried my best to fix it, it should be a little better.

"In December 20, 2009," should be "On".

Got it.

"uploaded weekly henceforth" not keen on henceforth, and since it was historical, shouldn't it really be thereafter?

Replaced with thereafter.

"for the rest of the episodes is" perhaps "for the remaining episodes"?
Thanks.
"coordinated the colors" I'm by no means an anime expert. Is this phrase commonplace?

I was unsure how label someone who chooses what colour this and that object should be.

Would be good to say where Salami studios is (I assumed Japan, but it turned out to be Hollywood).

Added "located in Hollywood" at the end.

Picky - table headings - Ep. No. should be Ep. no. (no need to overcapitalise that No) and Ref. should really be Refs.

Fixed.

"the leader Homunculus" would make more sense to me if was "the Homunculus leader".

Fixed

"using the lab to" ->laboratory. (and other instances of this)

Fixed.

"parasitic embryos that turn its host into" shouldn't that be "turn their host" since embryos is plural?

Fixed

"but they fail to find him" no need for "they".

Fixed

"intercepts its attack and kills the Homunculus" "and kills it" is fine, no doubt in the subject here.

Fixed

"turn himself into a Homunculus with a specially made Homunculus matter that will turn him into a Human-type Homunculus; a humanoid Homunculus" reads poorly to me, Homunculus is noted four times in this sentence, "turn ... into" twice. And no need to capitalise H of Human, is there?

Rewritten

"and declares that he will defeat Kazuki and then " replace first and with a comma.

Fixed

A number of uses of "proceed to" which usually seems quite redundant to me, e.g. "Tokiko proceed to defend the..." could be "Tokiko defends the..."?

Fixed some, should be less now.

"and is soon overwhelmed" perhaps "but" instead of "and".

Fixed

"is able to pierce through Bravo's buso" why not just "pierces Bravo's buso"?

Fixed

"accepts the fact Kazuki has become" just "accepts that Kazuki has become" would be tighter.

Fixed

Episode 21, "battle" is repeated three times in a single sentence, not great.

Rewritten, should be better now.

Note A should go outside the quotation marks.

I don't know how to get it outside the quotation marks since its a template.

Again, apologies for popping by so late in the day, but I think these are mainly trivial so shouldn't be too difficult to resolve. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 12:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support a lot of work done, good effort. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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