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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by David Boon[edit]

Nominator(s): Zia Khan 14:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This list is based upon pre-existing lists of the similar type and I believe this is according to the FL criteria. Comments and suggestion are appreciated! Zia Khan 14:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 15:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Add "tied" in the key column. Adelaide Oval's picture can't be used in this list due to fair use policy. "Match starting day" is confusing in the case of ODIs. "Kingston, Jamaica" ---> "Kingston" No need of "List of" in Table captions. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 09:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Done. Thanks for the comments. Zia Khan 12:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 15:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Add "tied" in the key column.
Adelaide Oval's picture can't be used in this list due to fair use policy.
"Match starting day" is confusing in the case of ODIs.
"Kingston, Jamaica" ---> "Kingston"
No need of "List of" in Table captions. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 09:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks for the comments. Zia Khan 12:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 15:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 03:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} Boon made ~~both~~ his Test and ODI debuts against .... Done. Zia Khan 12:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] 1991–92 home series, by home you mean Australia? Yes. Zia Khan 12:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] "His accomplishments with the bat during the previous year led to him being named by Wisden as one of their Cricketers of the Year in 1994" – Wrong conclusion. The almanac names the players based on their performance in the previous English season. Jayasuriya may be an exception, not Boon. Done. Zia Khan 12:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] The title reads "Wisden – Cricketer of the year 1991 – Desmond Haynes" —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Fixed. Zia Khan 12:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] "ninth (with Neil Harvey) in list of Test century-makers for Australia" something missing here The original phrase is like: ninth (with Neil Harvey) in the list of Test century-makers for Australia. I don't know what's missing. Zia Khan 12:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] I was expecting something on the lines of ninth leading (or) in the all-time list. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Done. Zia Khan 12:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] scoring seven Test centuries ~~against them~~ Done. Zia Khan 12:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the comments! Zia Khan 12:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Additional comments (re-visit) You could use a secondary sort for the Test centuries based on date, though not a compulsion. I don't think this is necessary?! Zia Khan 12:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] No need to link "Tied" in the table. Unlinked. That was pipe-linked to the match. Zia Khan 12:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] You seem to have misinterpreted the license of the image. The original image (posted at Flickr) is ((cc-by-sa-2.0)) while a derivative of that uses a PD template. Further, this image should be hosted at the Commons as it's free. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] It looks like you've done this yourself. Zia Khan 12:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 03:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from —Vensatry _{(Ping me)}

Boon made ~~both~~ his Test and ODI debuts against ....
- Done. Zia Khan 12:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1991–92 home series, by home you mean Australia?
- Yes. Zia Khan 12:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"His accomplishments with the bat during the previous year led to him being named by Wisden as one of their Cricketers of the Year in 1994" – Wrong conclusion. The almanac names the players based on their performance in the previous English season. Jayasuriya may be an exception, not Boon.
- Done. Zia Khan 12:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The title reads "Wisden – Cricketer of the year 1991 – Desmond Haynes" —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed. Zia Khan 12:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"ninth (with Neil Harvey) in list of Test century-makers for Australia" something missing here
- The original phrase is like: ninth (with Neil Harvey) in the list of Test century-makers for Australia. I don't know what's missing. Zia Khan 12:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was expecting something on the lines of ninth leading (or) in the all-time list. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. Zia Khan 12:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
scoring seven Test centuries ~~against them~~
- Done. Zia Khan 12:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! Zia Khan 12:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments (re-visit)

You could use a secondary sort for the Test centuries based on date, though not a compulsion.
- I don't think this is necessary?! Zia Khan 12:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to link "Tied" in the table.
- Unlinked. That was pipe-linked to the match. Zia Khan 12:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have misinterpreted the license of the image. The original image (posted at Flickr) is ((cc-by-sa-2.0)) while a derivative of that uses a PD template. Further, this image should be hosted at the Commons as it's free.

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've done this yourself. Zia Khan 12:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 03:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue I can see is this: "His accomplishments with the bat during the 1993 English cricket season led to him [.....] and described him that he......" - his accomplishments with the bat didn't describe him as anything, also in English we don't "describe that" something. I would re-write the sentence to "His accomplishments with the bat during the 1993 English cricket season led to Wisden naming him as one of their Cricketers of the Year in 1994 and describing him as "the most assured batsman in the Australian team"". Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Zia Khan 12:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - you missed out a word when you put my suggested revised sentence in, but I fixed that for you -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2013 (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 10:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

List of songs recorded by Jason Newsted[edit]

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 02:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This one was progressing alright the first time around but then I had to go and disappear for a while (aliens). I think I've caught up to everything that had been mentioned the last time around, plus any relevant material from the intervening time has been added (along with a nice shiny picture). I promise I won't get abducted a second time around. GRAPPLE X 02:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - My comments were all addressed the first time around. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there not a template for the artist at the bottom? CrowzRSA 22:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Added GRAPPLE X 01:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - everything else looks good to me. CrowzRSA 16:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Shouldn't " two-hundred and fifty " just be "250" or "two-hundred-and-fifty"? "thrash band ... fellow thrash band..." not keen on the repetition and what's a "fellow" thrash band? It seems clear if they're both "thrash bands" then they'd be "fellows" of that genre. "his inability to work on side projects" was this because he was actively prevented from doing so? Should be made clear. Sad but True article has a small b for but, not necessarily part of this process but consider moving it appropriately. I count only 12 Moss Brothers songs. Ref 33 (for instance), avoid double periods. Is it Nuclear Blast Records or just Nuclear Blast (per our article)? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for having a look at this. Got all of these bar the "Sad but True" thing—should I move the song page or fix the casing in the list? I get the feeling it's the latter but I'm not 100% on how conjunctions work with title case (this is from an english BA too...). GRAPPLE X 05:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] No worries, and no problem with the redirect, they're not disallowed. I just prefer the reliable source solution, so opt for the one which RS's use. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] The albums themselves tend to use block capitals so I deferred to our article, which I'm pretty sure is how web and print sources parse it too. GRAPPLE X 23:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Shouldn't " two-hundred and fifty " just be "250" or "two-hundred-and-fifty"?
"thrash band ... fellow thrash band..." not keen on the repetition and what's a "fellow" thrash band? It seems clear if they're both "thrash bands" then they'd be "fellows" of that genre.
"his inability to work on side projects" was this because he was actively prevented from doing so? Should be made clear.
Sad but True article has a small b for but, not necessarily part of this process but consider moving it appropriately.
I count only 12 Moss Brothers songs.
Ref 33 (for instance), avoid double periods.
Is it Nuclear Blast Records or just Nuclear Blast (per our article)?

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look at this. Got all of these bar the "Sad but True" thing—should I move the song page or fix the casing in the list? I get the feeling it's the latter but I'm not 100% on how conjunctions work with title case (this is from an english BA too...). GRAPPLE X 05:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, and no problem with the redirect, they're not disallowed. I just prefer the reliable source solution, so opt for the one which RS's use. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The albums themselves tend to use block capitals so I deferred to our article, which I'm pretty sure is how web and print sources parse it too. GRAPPLE X 23:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lightlowemon

He played bass guitar with the group between 1987 and 2001. Any chance this sentence could be merged with the one before or after? It sounds like a fragment.
Merged. GRAPPLE X 20:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In his time with the band, Newsted was given writing credit for only three Metallica songs. I count six in the table.
I guess that does look a bit off. There are three actual songs which he has credits for ("Blackened", "My Friend of Misery" and "Where the Wild Things Are"), but there's also a bass solo from a live album listed there, which is his own work (I don't own it but I'm 99% sure it's actually the bass intro to "My Friend of Misery"), another live bass solo which might or might not be the same work, and a medley of songs ("Justice Medley") which includes parts from "Blackened" (here's a breakdown of the parts). I'm at a loss for how to succinctly explain that only three studio-recorded songs featured original work credited to him though. :( GRAPPLE X 20:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can think of is to adda note to those three songs and put it in a notes section at the bottom. --Lightlowemon (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, Newsted faced difficulty integrating with the group, and found little opportunity to add his music input. In his time with the band, Newsted was given writing credit for only three Metallica songs. to add his music input? The sentence sounds a little off, since this seems to be a cause and effect thing (as in the sentences are directly related), maybe merge these sentences somehow?
How does it look now? GRAPPLE X 20:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still not a fan of the term music input maybe musical influence? Other then that looks good. --Lightlowemon (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newsted wrote and recorded three albums with the band: Voivod, Katorz and Infini. You just mentioned three different bands in the sentence before, so you need to specify which one you are talking about (even if it is obvious due to the album titles. Also you mention these three albums and yet I only see one listed in the table, why is this?
Reworded it in the intro, but the three albums are definitely listed in the table (sort by "artist"; the first three Voivoid songs are each from a different album). GRAPPLE X 20:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, had it sorted by album name at the time. --Lightlowemon (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~I do find it a little strange that you have 13 artists yet only mention 9 in the lead, missing The Moss Brothers, Unkle, IR8 and Sexoturica and Sepultura~~
I couldn't find anything about his involvement with Moss Brothers beyond the raw credits in order to say anything about it, and I wasn't sure a one-song cameo for Sepultura was worth much of a mention. I could see about digging up some of the other stuff, though the IR8 and Sexoturica stuff is just one split demo that appears to have been a pair of self-released vanity projects. GRAPPLE X 20:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a point that would stop me supporting, just seems a little odd is all, especially since you've mentioned bands his done less work with. --Lightlowemon (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Several songs and a few writers are redirects, you don't have to do anything with these just pointing them out:~~

Songs - ...And Justice for All (both occurrences), Battery (both), Blackened, Die, Die My Darling (listed with an extra comma after the second Die), Sad But True (all versions; in regards to the above comment, it should be spelt however it appears on the album), To Live Is to Die, The Unforgiven II (links to section) and Welcome Home (Sanitarium)

~~Writers - Chris Exall, Clive Blake~~

I figure there's no harm keeping extant redirects in case they're expanded in the future; I'm not worried about creating anything yet though. GRAPPLE X 20:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Die, Die My Darling and Sad But/but True still need to be fixed (the extra comma and casing). I agree there's no harm in keeping them, just thought I'd let you know. --Lightlowemon (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Also, why is Papa Wheelie not linked in the navbox?~~
I kept reading this as infobox and wondering what I was missing—fixed now though. GRAPPLE X 20:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Echobrain is used as a reference name twice in the article.
Fixed the web ref to another name. GRAPPLE X 20:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~The AllRovi site seems to be down, any idea if this is permanent?~~

Looks good overall. --Lightlowemon (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About to start working through these now, but about the last one—apparently AllRovi has once again split into the two sites that merged to form it in the first place (AllMovie and AllMusic, where "Rovi" comes from is a mystery). Looks like the content still exists but just elsewhere. I'm going to poke around and see if it's an easy fix or if I need to replace all the URLs manually. GRAPPLE X 19:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Struck the comments that had been addressed and left comments. Once the reference and the remaining small issues are fixed I'll be happy to support. --Lightlowemon (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added in an extra line in the lead which should mean all acts are now covered, and have fixed the unnecessary redirects. I also managed to get the URLs fixed in the refs for AllMusic; as I had hoped it turned out to be a simple change that could be applied en masse to everything. GRAPPLE X 00:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My deepest apologies I thought I replied, due to the names implying they aren't lyrical tracks and are just audio, I'm happy to support this list. --Lightlowemon (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Arsenal F.C. league record by opponent[edit]

Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this again after no 'consensus' was reached at the first time of asking. A complete list of Arsenal's record against every team they have played in the league, which wasn't the case when I nominated this months ago. All feedback is welcome, thanks. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a totals row. Nergaal (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confused. There is already a totals row. Unless you mean something else? Lemonade51 (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he means at the very bottom of the article there should be a totals column for Arsenals overall record throughout their history. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether that is a necessary requirement. It'll be easy to accumulate the Premier League total, but very time-consuming for the other leagues Arsenal have played. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Anyway, other than what Eddie said I can not find anything wrong with this list. It has everything someone doing research would expect and more. Easily earns my support. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Eddie6705 (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Introduction First Division doesn't need to be linked twice in the first paragraph. Removed. Even though the article links to 2005-06 FA Premier League, i'm not sure it looks good having the words 'Premier League' as part of the link, as other season just have the years linked. I would suggest removing the words from the link. Same goes for 1894-95 Football League Season link. Done. " The team that Arsenal have played most in league competition is Manchester United, who they first met in the 1894–95 Football League season; the 78 defeats from 188 meetings is more than Arsenal have lost against any other club." suggest removing one of the mentions of Arsenal from that sentence, as the word Arsenal is used a lot in the last few sentences of the second paragraph. removed Arsenal at second mention. Key "The table includes results of matches played by Arsenal (under that name and under former names Royal Arsenal and Woolwich Arsenal) in the United League, the Southern District Combination, the London League Premier Division, the Football League and the Premier League. Matches from the abandoned 1939–40 Football League season are excluded, as are games in the various wartime competitions." Firstly, i would rephrase the first sentence to say The table includes results of matches played by Arsenal (including under the former names of Royal Arsenal and Woolwich Arsenal). Secondly, add 'the' between 'as are' and 'games' in the second sentence. Done and done. Table Burnley's figures to not total correctly. You are right. Fixed. Portsmouth away doesn't add up. Fixed Manchester United has 79 for defeats, yet in the article it states 78. Whoops. Updated the table after United beat Arsenal a week and half ago, but forgot to tweak the prose to reflect that. Done it now. There are several inconsistencies with the links to season articles. For example, Glossop links to 1899-1900 Football League, but Arsenal weren't in the same division as them that season. Also, Chatham is linked to 1899-1900 in English Football, while Chesterfield Town is linked to 1899-1900 Football League. There isn't a United League (football) article (or Southern District Combination one for that matter), where Arsenal first played Glossop and Chatham, so I linked them to the respective English football season articles. Changed to specific articles, albeit with red links. Hope that helps. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your thorough review! Lemonade51 (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Eddie6705 (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Introduction

First Division doesn't need to be linked twice in the first paragraph.

Removed.

Even though the article links to 2005-06 FA Premier League, i'm not sure it looks good having the words 'Premier League' as part of the link, as other season just have the years linked. I would suggest removing the words from the link. Same goes for 1894-95 Football League Season link.

Done.

" The team that Arsenal have played most in league competition is Manchester United, who they first met in the 1894–95 Football League season; the 78 defeats from 188 meetings is more than Arsenal have lost against any other club." suggest removing one of the mentions of Arsenal from that sentence, as the word Arsenal is used a lot in the last few sentences of the second paragraph.

removed Arsenal at second mention.

Key

"The table includes results of matches played by Arsenal (under that name and under former names Royal Arsenal and Woolwich Arsenal) in the United League, the Southern District Combination, the London League Premier Division, the Football League and the Premier League. Matches from the abandoned 1939–40 Football League season are excluded, as are games in the various wartime competitions." Firstly, i would rephrase the first sentence to say The table includes results of matches played by Arsenal (including under the former names of Royal Arsenal and Woolwich Arsenal). Secondly, add 'the' between 'as are' and 'games' in the second sentence.

Done and done.

Table

Burnley's figures to not total correctly.

You are right. Fixed.

Portsmouth away doesn't add up.

Fixed

Manchester United has 79 for defeats, yet in the article it states 78.

Whoops. Updated the table after United beat Arsenal a week and half ago, but forgot to tweak the prose to reflect that. Done it now.

There are several inconsistencies with the links to season articles. For example, Glossop links to 1899-1900 Football League, but Arsenal weren't in the same division as them that season. Also, Chatham is linked to 1899-1900 in English Football, while Chesterfield Town is linked to 1899-1900 Football League.

There isn't a United League (football) article (or Southern District Combination one for that matter), where Arsenal first played Glossop and Chatham, so I linked them to the respective English football season articles. Changed to specific articles, albeit with red links.

Hope that helps. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough review! Lemonade51 (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the season articles, and the fact that some of the years relate to different leagues (united league, football league etc) it night be worth adding some sort of note and symbol to show that the first match against a club was in either the united league or southern district combination league.

Adding symbols would mean adding a colour scheme and in the case of West Ham, it would have been conflicting as they are Arsenal's divisional opponents, who they first met in the London League. So left notes clubs Arsenal first played in the United League, the Southern District Combination, the London League Premier Division (ie: discontinued leagues). Lemonade51 (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably a better way of showing the information. All issues resolved. Support. Eddie6705 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2013 (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 10:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]

List of DS:Style products[edit]

Nominator(s): Pres N 22:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm finally nearing the end of getting all of WP:SE's lists to featured status- though of course, that means we're down to the even-more-obscure ones. Here we have what should be the bottom of that- the DS:Style line of educational software products for the Nintendo DS, which started out in 2007 with fascinating topics like gardening and yoga, and ended after 22 releases in 2011 with study guides for the Japanese real estate exam. Riveting stuff. The main point of notability for these Japan-only products is that they represented an attempt by Square Enix, a massive video game developer/publisher, to expand their product lines to include the non-traditional-gaming public. Turns out there's only so much you can do with that when producing software for a video game console. Anyways, thanks for reviewing! --Pres N 22:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ These lists really are getting to obscurity aren't they? Good luck on the last two Dragon Quest lists. Not sure what your position is on red links, but I'd consider linking LEC certification test, Japan Legal Mind, and even Tipness. They may not get articles any time soon, but a red link isn't necessary a bad link. Due to there being no parent article, a third paragraph in the lead with a bit of overviewing reception of the series from the reference links might give the article a bit of a boost. Also, just a heads up that all the Gamespot links are broken I believe. This is (as you noted) a very obscure list, especially as it doesn't have any English release and it's content is pretty much only concerning the originating language, good luck on the nomination. --Lightlowemon (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the broken links and added some redlinks. --Pres N 18:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are, mind if I ask for your feedback about a potential third paragraph? --Lightlowemon (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added one, but there weren't really reviews for them- they're really just software products, and as such after the first blip were largely ignored- they're the kind of thing you pick up in passing in the store, not the kind of thing you read big reviews of on websites, regardless of country. --Pres N 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I figured, but pretty much what you put up was what I was looking for, just a couple of sentences given that this list has no main article. I see nothing else wrong with this now. --Lightlowemon (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Everything seems to be in order. Well-references, well-written, and seemingly complete. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...}:

Make sure tables comply with MOS:DTT and utilize column and row scopes. If you're not a proponent of the bold row headers, you can use "wikitable plainrowheaders", but I'd suggest using row and column scopes anyway.
I'm very worried about the use of GameSpot as a reference for the items in the tables. Per WP:VG/S, GameSpot's database is NOT considered a reliable source. It is shared with GameFAQs, which is entirely user-contributed without editorial oversight, and GameSpot mirrors it in a rather deceptive fashion. Can you find another source for the games?

Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...I can't believe I forgot about that. Ugh. Of course you were going to call me out on that; you did on my last video game FLC as well. We're in luck; IGN covered most of the games, and the Square Enix sites for the others had the release dates (which they don't always). No Gamespot refs remaining, col/row scopes added. --Pres N 04:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with one more comment. Well done. I promise, I'm not trying to pick on you for that; GameSpot just happens to be rather deceptive because it doesn't look like it's a user-contributed database, yet it is. About the most that GameSpot can be used for are for staff-contributed opinions and statements, as long as they're verified staff members of GameSpot. Now, I'm already willing to support this list, but given the red links in the lead, can anything be said about some of the items linked to help understand the subject? For example, I'd understand the sentence about a study guide for LEC certification tests if we had such an article, but we do not, so can something be said about what an LEC certification test is for right after that? I didn't withhold my support because it's of little relevance to the subject itself, but it would help readers to understand what they're reading and what we're talking about when we don't have an article for something. Thanks, Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 13:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out LEC is actually a strange acronym for Legal Mind, K.K. (i.e. Inc.). Probably makes more sense in Japanese. Changed the text from the Japanese LEC certification tests to "Japanese professional licensing and civil servant exams". --Pres N 18:49, 28 November 2013 (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 10:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C)[edit]

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this a 2nd time for featured list because I still believe it meets the criteria. The first time around it was not promoted because the review timeframe expired and nobody seemed to have shown sufficient interest in the topic. Thanks to anyone willing to comment this time around. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~CommentsNot supported~~ Support by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the rank or date citations for several recipients are not cited for the date given in the table, only for Scherzer's alternative date, please check all the ones with a Note. The fact that this isn't seen in the Role and unit column indicates it may have been intentional, but I feel it is necessary for completeness. Examples include:
- Botho von La Chevallerie
- Dietrich von Choltitz

No changes made: It is a procedural question. I had built this list with the information from the AKCR/Fellgiebel. I cited this information in the Role and rank column only, one cite per row. In the second pass, I verified this with the information from Scherzer. Here I chose to cite every item of the table. This helps me keep an overview. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. I don't think a "one citation per line" approach is the answer to this query. Either all information on each recipient is clearly sourced, or it is not. My view (as described) is that it is not in its current form. I cannot support this nomination with that approach to sourcing, in my view a sortable tabularised list such as this is effectively incomplete without greater clarity of sourcing. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The citation style, citing every bit of info, follows the principles established during the reviews of List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A), List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1940–1941), 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945. All of which are featured lists today. Even if your comment warrants addressing, which I have, I feel that a final review comment "Not Supported", without first engaging in an open discussion, is not best practice. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the citation approach used is not adequate in its current form, regardless of the status of the other articles that might use it. The result of the citation approach you have used is that the source of some of the data (Fellgiebel) is not evident. I have changed my precipitate opposition to a tentative one, but I firmly believe this must be addressed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in my previous comment. I have implemented your suggestion! Have a look. The article lead already states that the list is based on Fellgiebel's book and deviations are derived from Scherzer's work. I don’t think that adding even more citations to this table helps clarity in any way. It would only impede load times. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where in the lead it says that "the list is based on Fellgiebel's book and deviations are derived from Scherzer's work". It states that the list (the assumption is the list of recipients) is drawn from Fellgiebel, but the point there is about the inclusion of a name on the list, not the details of the award itself in terms of rank or date of award. The addition of further citations from Fellgiebel is a significant improvement, but for example, Richard Czekay's rank of Hauptmann still needs to be cited, as does Erwin Clausen's date of award. When they are done I'll be happy to support. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It states "These recipients are listed in the 1986 edition of Walther-Peer Fellgiebel's book". Thanks for finding the other two citations. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the lead doesn't state that some of the data varies between the two sources, predominantly ranks and dates of award. A list of names is one thing, variances in data relating to the award between the two sources is another as far as I am concerned. Regardless, the additional citations from Fellgiebel resolve my issue, supporting. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there anything I can do to attract more reviewers? Help MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pop by in the next couple of days - ping me on Tues if I've forgotten by then. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support much like the other lists, this has evolved and improved over time to be a good example of what to nominate at FLC, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nice piece of work: happy to support on this. - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2013 (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 10:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]

List of chief ministers from Bharatiya Janata Party[edit]

Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all the criteria. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As somebody who's spent a lot of time on chief-minister articles, I've come across a number of difficulties which has prevented me from nominating any (except the relatively simple List of current Indian chief ministers) at FLC. I see a number of those problems here:

the primary one is sourcing. WorldStatesmen.org seems to be a crowdsourced project, and I thus doubt it can be considered as a reliable source. You'll have go to individual state-govts' websites and hunt for CM-related info. In several cases these don't even exist.
What makes photius.com an RS? Done
The Term (tenure length) column seems to be inspired by this. However that article was simpler in the sense that whoever was longest-serving was also the earliest occupant. In this BJP article, there's no way to use the sort function to rank by tenure lengths. There's also no mention of total length of tenures. Done
You don't need to use ref [4] in the lead. It is backed up by the table. Done
That map is extremely strange. It goes from lighter to darker shade of the same colour--giving the impression that a darker state has had more CMs than a lighter one. For eg.
IMO don't make any special indication for "regional party supported by the BJP". This article is about BJP's CMs, not BJP govts. Plus it's never really clear who is supporting who in Indian politics, so you'd need a source to back these claims.
On the whole: reconsider the purpose of the map. As a national party, obviously it will have a presence in nearly the whole country. Maybe just listing the four incumbent states is enough? Or maybe colour-code the states by no of CMs?

See below

"(First time)" and so on don't really serve any purpose. The tenures are clear without them. Done—indopug (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a thread here about the source. I will fix all other issues once it gets clear whether the source is reliable or not. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 13:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article is complete in itself with reliable sources. This article should be in Featured list.--Prateek Malviya^Talk 03:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments of §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C}

Comment by Dharmadhyaksha

How is this format?

Chief Ministers from BJP
State	Name	Portrait	Terms	Total tenure length (days)	Tenure description
Uttar Pradesh	Kalyan Singh	–	3	1311	24 June 1991 – 6 December 1992 (First time) (531) 21 September 1997 – 21 February 1998 (Second time) (153) 23 February 1998 – 12 November 1999 (Third time) (627)

In here the total terms and total duration in days are separated and both are sortable. Last column acts like description of the previous two without sorting. Feel free to rename the headers. This might be confusing.

Instead of using §, use a symbol which is easily searchable by Ctrl+F or at least § which is not in template. Also, we normally use symbols along with colours so for readers with visual impediment the symbol serves the purpose for distinction. But there's no reason to strain visually able readers to search for such tiny symbol. Use a shade of orange to highlight such entries.
About map i agree with Indopug. Why not make two maps; one for incumbent CMs and one with number of CM? If you wish, a map with largest tenure can also be made. (Its so easy to preach!) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't indicated the no. of CMs in the map because it will be misleading. The BJP has only one CM in Chhattisgarh since 2003, but had 3 CMs in Karnataka in just one term. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm! Thats a good point. Didn’t realize that before. I am happy with this current map. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But something is going wrong here. We are writing that Raman Singh has served 1 term. When actually they were 2 term, both consecutive. That point of he getting elected twice and becoming CM consecutively is missed out. Same with Modi, Chouhan and probably others. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source to get the number of terms. So I have replaced the title heading with Tenure(s), as consecutive terms are counted as one tenure. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to politics i suppose terms are more important. Party winning and nominating same person for the post is crucial which we are missing out here. If there are sources for dates of tenure, i don’t see what source is unavailable? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source counts consecutive terms as one tenure, and no information is provided about the terms or the elections. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 06:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from —Vensatry _{(Ping me)}
Comments Any reasons for not including the No. column? The CMs are initially sorted by their states. The No. column would had been appropriate if sorting would had been on the basis of name or something which is unique to each one. Rowscopes can be for "Name" column rather than the "State" column, as the former is more significant in this list. I have added "rowspan" to the "State" column and thus it automatically has row scope. I can add rowscope to Name column if you don't have any problems with two rowscopes. Since this list is about the list of chief ministers, I thought the "chief minister" column is the most important. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Done Is "worldstatesmen.org" as RS? same for "jagranjosh.com" Editors' views are not uniform when it comes to "worldstatesmen.org". I got only one response at WP:RSN regarding this, which suggested that this source can be used in this list. There is no alternative for this source. As for jagranjosh.com, it is a sister site of a well-known Hindi newspaper, and I am cent percent sure about its reliability. Could you name the newspaper? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Dainik Jagran Check whether all the images are free from cop-vio. Done However I am not sure in the case of File:Dhumal HP.jpg and File:DV Sadananda Gowda.jpg. Remove the second template as it doesn't link to the list. Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Shouldn't notes come before references? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC) Done[reply]

Resolved comments from —Vensatry _{(Ping me)}

Comments

Any reasons for not including the No. column?

The CMs are initially sorted by their states. The No. column would had been appropriate if sorting would had been on the basis of name or something which is unique to each one.

Rowscopes can be for "Name" column rather than the "State" column, as the former is more significant in this list.

I have added "rowspan" to the "State" column and thus it automatically has row scope. I can add rowscope to Name column if you don't have any problems with two rowscopes.

Since this list is about the list of chief ministers, I thought the "chief minister" column is the most important. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Is "worldstatesmen.org" as RS? same for "jagranjosh.com"

Editors' views are not uniform when it comes to "worldstatesmen.org". I got only one response at WP:RSN regarding this, which suggested that this source can be used in this list. There is no alternative for this source. As for jagranjosh.com, it is a sister site of a well-known Hindi newspaper, and I am cent percent sure about its reliability.

Could you name the newspaper? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dainik Jagran

Check whether all the images are free from cop-vio.

Done However I am not sure in the case of File:Dhumal HP.jpg and File:DV Sadananda Gowda.jpg.

Remove the second template as it doesn't link to the list. Done

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't notes come before references? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC) Done[reply]

Support —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Have sourcing concerns been addressed? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to Vensatry's comment. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 14:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ensure publication/access dates are consistently formatted. Done Wouldn't a more suitable See also be "List of chief ministers from India National Congress" rather than the rather vague ones you currently have? Done Shouldn't the title of this list be "... from _the_ Bharatiya..."? Done "Serving since October 2001 (for 12 years, 51 days), Modi is the longest-serving" repetitive use of "serving". Done "Given he has ... he/she..." consistency required. Done I would put the key at the top of the table rather than wait for readers to scroll to the bottom of the table before discovering what the colour and asterisk relate to. Done "for the least time-period" this isn't grammatically correct English. "shortest period" would be better. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Ensure publication/access dates are consistently formatted. Done
Wouldn't a more suitable See also be "List of chief ministers from India National Congress" rather than the rather vague ones you currently have? Done
Shouldn't the title of this list be "... from _the_ Bharatiya..."? Done
"Serving since October 2001 (for 12 years, 51 days), Modi is the longest-serving" repetitive use of "serving". Done
"Given he has ... he/she..." consistency required. Done
I would put the key at the top of the table rather than wait for readers to scroll to the bottom of the table before discovering what the colour and asterisk relate to. Done
"for the least time-period" this isn't grammatically correct English. "shortest period" would be better. Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2013 (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 10:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]

List of Cricket World Cup centuries[edit]

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've modeled this list based upon List of centuries in women's Test cricket. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – "the" is needed before the first mention of the International Cricket Council. Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Try not to start a sentence with a numeral, like in "24 centuries were scored in the 2011 World Cup". You could spell the number out instead, though, and that would be okay. Rephrased —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] "Adam Gilchrist holds the record the highest score in the finals...". Needs "for" after "record". Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Tendulkar photo caption needs "in" after "appeared". Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Don't think the first two words of the List of centuries section heading serve any purpose. Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] I'm not a fan of photo galleries in featured work, but that might just be my opinion. If it stays, the Viv Richard caption could use "in" at the end, like the Tendulkar caption. Agreed, but for a list containing 127 entries images could add some flavour. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Note 2: Should "his" be added before "ODI debut."? I don't think that's necessary, since the sentence is pretty straight forward. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Lastly, I urge you to reconsider the usage of the Taneja book. I've seen Gyan Publishing books that "borrowed" our writing without attribution to Wikipedia, and the first paragraph on the Cricket World Cup looks very similar to writing in our article. This problem was noted here as well. I don't want to give potential copyright violaters any credit by seeing citations to their work in featured content. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] Replaced, and thanks for the comments. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

"the" is needed before the first mention of the International Cricket Council.
- Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Try not to start a sentence with a numeral, like in "24 centuries were scored in the 2011 World Cup". You could spell the number out instead, though, and that would be okay.
- Rephrased —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Adam Gilchrist holds the record the highest score in the finals...". Needs "for" after "record".
- Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tendulkar photo caption needs "in" after "appeared".
- Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think the first two words of the List of centuries section heading serve any purpose.
- Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of photo galleries in featured work, but that might just be my opinion. If it stays, the Viv Richard caption could use "in" at the end, like the Tendulkar caption.
- Agreed, but for a list containing 127 entries images could add some flavour. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2: Should "his" be added before "ODI debut."?
- I don't think that's necessary, since the sentence is pretty straight forward. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, I urge you to reconsider the usage of the Taneja book. I've seen Gyan Publishing books that "borrowed" our writing without attribution to Wikipedia, and the first paragraph on the Cricket World Cup looks very similar to writing in our article. This problem was noted here as well. I don't want to give potential copyright violaters any credit by seeing citations to their work in featured content. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced, and thanks for the comments. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias ^talk

"Date" should sort as "No."
- I'm unclear, should I remove sortability for the No. column? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the superfluous second and third sets of "headings", which poorly affect the sortability. Harrias ^talk 12:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but won't it be helpful for the readers when they navigate through the list. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Players from teams that have permanent ODI status.." Should be "Players from all the teams that have permanent ODI status.."
- Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that Amiss' century was scored before Turner's? The matches were played on the same day, and as far as I can figure were probably played concurrently. Amiss scored slightly quicker than Turner, but I can't see any compelling evidence that he reached his century first? Unless you have more information than is being presented?
- Interesting question, but Amiss was the first man to score a century in WC. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would put in a placeholder flag for East Africa, so that the text aligns with the rest: ((noflag|[[East Africa cricket team|East Africa]])) should achieve it.
- Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It remained the highest individual total over the next two editions when Indian cricketer Kapil Dev scored 175 not out against Zimbabwe in 1983." Should be "..until Indian.." not "..when Indian.."
- Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Expand Ganguly's name on first use.
- Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think more explanation needs to be given of the relevance of Flower's century, at the moment it looks a little out of place. Is he the only player to score a century on ODI debut during a World Cup?
- Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Link not out and balls in the key. I know they both appear in the lead, but I link a bit of duplication is fine, given some people will skip straight to the list.
- Okay —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Century #69 needs a space between the comma and the town/city name.
- Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Century #114 doesn't give the town/city name. Harrias ^talk 08:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 19:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Could you provide a reference for the lead image's caption? Rephrased since there was misinterpretation. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Do you really need "the sport of" in the 1st sentence? The sentence also needs a reference. Nothing wrong in having that since there are people in some parts of the world who are not even aware of it's existence. Ref added —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Too many "players" in the 1st para, you may use "batsmen" instead. I prefer not to use batsmen as "Players" is more generic. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Link Australia and India at first use. Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] made → scored Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] "Following that, the record was broken by Viv Richards (181), Gary Kirsten (188 not out) and Sourav Ganguly (183) in the 1987, 1996 and 1999 editions respectively." → You mean that Ganguly's score of 183 was greater then Kirsten's 189? I think the sentence should be finished at Kirstan's score. I was talking about the Kapil Dev record so it was correct. Anyways I've removed. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] 1987, 1996 and 1999 etc. You may link the years to the corresponding tournaments where necessary. Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] You are missing 1992!? Zia Khan 20:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] "six centuries have been scored in the finals" → not supported by the current reference.And "of which five resulted in victories." is unreferenced. Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] New Zealand's, Australia's, Sri Lanka's etc. You may use something like "Indian batsman" or "Sri Lankan cricketer" etc. Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Last sentence is unreferenced. Zia Khan 22:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Ref. is not needed for lede if it's verifiable in the table. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Further comments – The symbols are not in the order as they are in the Key. Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Add a statement to explain the sorting of the table. Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] IMO, second and third heading rows are useless, at least the second one which goes up and down when click on the main header. Wouldn't it be helpful for navigation? I've removed the second header, as it messes up sorting. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] There no need of this. The main header is sufficient because this is a simple list to understand. Zia Khan 12:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] A table consisting of 127 entries looks simple? I need a second opinion on this. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] There is a difference between simplicity and lengthiness. I mean this list is simple to understand. You may list every World Cup centuries separately. Zia Khan 21:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Keen to know the difference between "lengthiness and simplicity". A table with 1651 cells is definitely complex IMO. The second header makes navigation easier for people who don't follow cricket, as these lists are not meant for cricket enthusiasts alone. Also there is no such rule that lengthier tables shouldn't have more than one header. If there exists such a guideline, I'd be happy to remove it. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Have a look at List of India Twenty20 International cricketers, which definitely has less number of cells, but the header is more complicated there. The second header doesn't help the readers at all, this is only helpful for the last 10-12 entries (if that's enough then you need to have 8-10 headers for 127 enrties). I don't think there exist any guidelines for having second and third headers etc. Zia Khan 10:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] It has only 45 entries and the table we are dealing with is almost thrice the length. When we navigate through the list the top header goes out of picture on the screen. Sure 8-10 headers may be helpful for table with 1000 entries. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] To add a little further, I've already said this was based upon List of centuries in women's Test cricket, an existing FL which uses three headers for 96 entries. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Many things have changed since that FL. Anyways, I'll wait for a third persons opinion. Zia Khan 20:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Many things? what exactly do you mean. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 04:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] I'll wait for Harrias as well. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] I was asked to comment on this issue by the nominator. If I'm reading this correctly, the question concerns the extra header at the bottom of the list. I've seen much longer lists without an extra heading, but have also seen shorter lists with one. I probably wouldn't put an extra heading there myself, but it's not something that stood out to me when I reviewed it. There aren't any guidelines, as has already been said, so I'm comfortable following the nominator's style. Others are free to disagree, of course. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Is this a sole criteria that is preventing this list to becoming a FL? If so, I'd be happy to change. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Could you align the contents of table to left instead of center (at least Team, Opposition and Venue columns) as they are looking odd. Zia Khan 20:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] The score column would look odd not the venue oppostion and team. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] At least two entries are wrong in the "Date" column. Check the rest of the table too. Zia Khan 12:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 19:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Could you provide a reference for the lead image's caption?
- Rephrased since there was misinterpretation. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really need "the sport of" in the 1st sentence? The sentence also needs a reference.
- Nothing wrong in having that since there are people in some parts of the world who are not even aware of it's existence. Ref added —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Too many "players" in the 1st para, you may use "batsmen" instead.
- I prefer not to use batsmen as "Players" is more generic. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Link Australia and India at first use.
- Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
made → scored
- Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Following that, the record was broken by Viv Richards (181), Gary Kirsten (188 not out) and Sourav Ganguly (183) in the 1987, 1996 and 1999 editions respectively." → You mean that Ganguly's score of 183 was greater then Kirsten's 189? I think the sentence should be finished at Kirstan's score.
- I was talking about the Kapil Dev record so it was correct. Anyways I've removed. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1987, 1996 and 1999 etc. You may link the years to the corresponding tournaments where necessary.
- Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are missing 1992!? Zia Khan 20:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"six centuries have been scored in the finals" → not supported by the current reference.And "of which five resulted in victories." is unreferenced.
- Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New Zealand's, Australia's, Sri Lanka's etc. You may use something like "Indian batsman" or "Sri Lankan cricketer" etc.
- Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Last sentence is unreferenced.

Zia Khan 22:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref. is not needed for lede if it's verifiable in the table. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments –

The symbols are not in the order as they are in the Key.
- Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Add a statement to explain the sorting of the table.
- Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, second and third heading rows are useless, at least the second one which goes up and down when click on the main header.
- Wouldn't it be helpful for navigation? I've removed the second header, as it messes up sorting. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - There no need of this. The main header is sufficient because this is a simple list to understand. Zia Khan 12:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - A table consisting of 127 entries looks simple? I need a second opinion on this. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is a difference between simplicity and lengthiness. I mean this list is simple to understand. You may list every World Cup centuries separately. Zia Khan 21:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Keen to know the difference between "lengthiness and simplicity". A table with 1651 cells is definitely complex IMO. The second header makes navigation easier for people who don't follow cricket, as these lists are not meant for cricket enthusiasts alone. Also there is no such rule that lengthier tables shouldn't have more than one header. If there exists such a guideline, I'd be happy to remove it. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Have a look at List of India Twenty20 International cricketers, which definitely has less number of cells, but the header is more complicated there. The second header doesn't help the readers at all, this is only helpful for the last 10-12 entries (if that's enough then you need to have 8-10 headers for 127 enrties). I don't think there exist any guidelines for having second and third headers etc. Zia Khan 10:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has only 45 entries and the table we are dealing with is almost thrice the length. When we navigate through the list the top header goes out of picture on the screen. Sure 8-10 headers may be helpful for table with 1000 entries. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To add a little further, I've already said this was based upon List of centuries in women's Test cricket, an existing FL which uses three headers for 96 entries. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many things have changed since that FL. Anyways, I'll wait for a third persons opinion. Zia Khan 20:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many things? what exactly do you mean. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 04:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for Harrias as well. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to comment on this issue by the nominator. If I'm reading this correctly, the question concerns the extra header at the bottom of the list. I've seen much longer lists without an extra heading, but have also seen shorter lists with one. I probably wouldn't put an extra heading there myself, but it's not something that stood out to me when I reviewed it. There aren't any guidelines, as has already been said, so I'm comfortable following the nominator's style. Others are free to disagree, of course. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a sole criteria that is preventing this list to becoming a FL? If so, I'd be happy to change. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you align the contents of table to left instead of center (at least Team, Opposition and Venue columns) as they are looking odd. Zia Khan 20:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The score column would look odd not the venue oppostion and team. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least two entries are wrong in the "Date" column. Check the rest of the table too. Zia Khan 12:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support good work! Zia Khan 19:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Çomments Add comma after "In 1992" Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Maybe you can add a key for centuries scored in the finals. Done. Nice idea —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] I don't see any need for an extra header. f the list is too big, then it should be split into two lists: "World Cup centuries (1975-1999)" and "World Cup centuries (2003-2011)" Done. Splitting the list would be a very bad idea as sorting/comparison of scores would become impossible. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] "Feroz Shah Kotla Ground" ---> "Feroz Shah Kotla" That would be wrong as the ground was named after the fort. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Mumbai was called Bombay before 1995. Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Chennai was called Madras before 1996. Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] "Players from countries that have permanent ODI status" is misleading because West Indies is not a country. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 07:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Çomments

Add comma after "In 1992"
- Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can add a key for centuries scored in the finals.
- Done. Nice idea —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any need for an extra header. f the list is too big, then it should be split into two lists: "World Cup centuries (1975-1999)" and "World Cup centuries (2003-2011)"
- Done. Splitting the list would be a very bad idea as sorting/comparison of scores would become impossible. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Feroz Shah Kotla Ground" ---> "Feroz Shah Kotla"
- That would be wrong as the ground was named after the fort. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mumbai was called Bombay before 1995.
- Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chennai was called Madras before 1996.
- Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Players from countries that have permanent ODI status" is misleading because West Indies is not a country. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 07:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:41, 1 December 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]

List of Welsh Premier League clubs[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loosely modelled on existing FL List of former Football League clubs (except that it in this case it features every club to have played in the league), I feel this meets all the requirements.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Bold links like the one in the intro are discouraged by the MoS. I suggest simply dropping the bolding. Redundant "league"s exist in "Since the league's formation, 38 clubs have competed in the league." First two words of the List of clubs section heading are unneeded and could safely be dropped. The Times champions column is currently sorting by fewest championships won, not most. Some sort templates would probably fix this. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] All sorted now I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Bold links like the one in the intro are discouraged by the MoS. I suggest simply dropping the bolding.
Redundant "league"s exist in "Since the league's formation, 38 clubs have competed in the league."
First two words of the List of clubs section heading are unneeded and could safely be dropped.
The Times champions column is currently sorting by fewest championships won, not most. Some sort templates would probably fix this. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All sorted now I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 10:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – "......a name it retained until 2002, it was the first national football league in the country." This needs inline citation. Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] ...currently only has 12 member clubs. → No need of only Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] I think there is a need of punctuation after ...professional clubs. Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Add a statement that explains the sorting of the table Not sure what you mean here - are you saying that it should point out that people can re-sort the table by clicking on the arrows? Or are you saying that I should put in a statement that the initial sorting is based on alphabetical order of club name? I would have thought that was pretty self-evident without readers needing it to be pointed out...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] In which way is the list initially sorted? Zia Khan 12:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Surely that's obvious without needing to be explicitly stated? IMO, putting "the list is sorted in alphabetical order" at the top would just look stupid. Is there a guideline that covers this....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] I don't know the guidelines. You may add a sentence at the end of the text like this one. Zia Khan 20:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Not 100% convinced, but have added it in anyway........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Ground name should be mentioned in the alt text. Zia Khan 12:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Zia Khan 22:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 10:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

"......a name it retained until 2002, it was the first national football league in the country." This needs inline citation.
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...currently only has 12 member clubs. → No need of only
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a need of punctuation after ...professional clubs.
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Add a statement that explains the sorting of the table
- Not sure what you mean here - are you saying that it should point out that people can re-sort the table by clicking on the arrows? Or are you saying that I should put in a statement that the initial sorting is based on alphabetical order of club name? I would have thought that was pretty self-evident without readers needing it to be pointed out...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - In which way is the list initially sorted? Zia Khan 12:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Surely that's obvious without needing to be explicitly stated? IMO, putting "the list is sorted in alphabetical order" at the top would just look stupid. Is there a guideline that covers this....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't know the guidelines. You may add a sentence at the end of the text like this one. Zia Khan 20:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Not 100% convinced, but have added it in anyway........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ground name should be mentioned in the alt text. Zia Khan 12:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zia Khan 22:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – meets the standards! Zia Khan 10:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GRAPPLE X 16:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments The New Saints should sort under "New" rather than "The", meaning it should slot between Neath and Newton. Use the ((sort)) template to keep it in place (((sort\|New Saints, The\|[[The New Saints]]))) Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Mostly an aesthetic change—and an entirely optional one—but you'd save a lot of scrolling/white space if the reflist was set to two or three columns rather than one. Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure you need "WPL" in the column headings; shorter headings tend to look better and between the article title and the overall table header there's certainly no ambiguity there. Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] You may want to consider alt text for the lead image. Image already has alt text -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Might just be me but I feel the lead is very comma-heavy, as you seem to be using commas for parenthetical statements quite often. For example, "Although it is the highest level of the Welsh football league system, the Welsh Premier League has never included the country's professional clubs, Cardiff City, Swansea City, Wrexham and Newport County, all of whom play within the English league system" might be better off using dashes or brackets between "clubs" and "Cardiff" and "County" and "all" to create that aside. Done - broke it up into two sentences and re-jigged it a bit -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Seems fine to me otherwise. GRAPPLE X 23:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GRAPPLE X 16:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments

The New Saints should sort under "New" rather than "The", meaning it should slot between Neath and Newton. Use the ((sort)) template to keep it in place (((sort|New Saints, The|[[The New Saints]])))
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly an aesthetic change—and an entirely optional one—but you'd save a lot of scrolling/white space if the reflist was set to two or three columns rather than one.
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you need "WPL" in the column headings; shorter headings tend to look better and between the article title and the overall table header there's certainly no ambiguity there.
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider alt text for the lead image.
- Image already has alt text -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Might just be me but I feel the lead is very comma-heavy, as you seem to be using commas for parenthetical statements quite often. For example, "Although it is the highest level of the Welsh football league system, the Welsh Premier League has never included the country's professional clubs, Cardiff City, Swansea City, Wrexham and Newport County, all of whom play within the English league system" might be better off using dashes or brackets between "clubs" and "Cardiff" and "County" and "all" to create that aside.
- Done - broke it up into two sentences and re-jigged it a bit -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine to me otherwise. GRAPPLE X 23:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks grand to me now. GRAPPLE X 16:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments "league based in Wales, although one member club plays its home games in England" not sure you need the caveat. A league can be "based" anywhere, and presumably have "foreign" input. Maybe you could leave the caveat until later when you explain which current club plays in England rather than hit us with the potential confusion in the opening sentence? Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] "currently has" I think we've be trained to avoid "currently" in favour of ((as of)).... Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] "Since its formation, 38 clubs have taken part in the competition" ->" Since its formation, 38 clubs have taken part in the Welsh Premier League". Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Not a major issue but you have several redirects for bad A.F.C./F.C. combos. Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] "most recent completed season" is there an article for this? Linked -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Avoid spaces between text and footnotes. Sorted, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Are all the notes satisfactorily referenced? The notes are all derived from the FCHD sources, which are included on the relevant row of the table. Do I need to include them again in the notes themselves? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Ideally....! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Then 'tis done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"league based in Wales, although one member club plays its home games in England" not sure you need the caveat. A league can be "based" anywhere, and presumably have "foreign" input. Maybe you could leave the caveat until later when you explain which current club plays in England rather than hit us with the potential confusion in the opening sentence?
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"currently has" I think we've be trained to avoid "currently" in favour of ((as of))....
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Since its formation, 38 clubs have taken part in the competition" ->" Since its formation, 38 clubs have taken part in the Welsh Premier League".
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a major issue but you have several redirects for bad A.F.C./F.C. combos.
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"most recent completed season" is there an article for this?
- Linked -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid spaces between text and footnotes.
- Sorted, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are all the notes satisfactorily referenced?
- The notes are all derived from the FCHD sources, which are included on the relevant row of the table. Do I need to include them again in the notes themselves? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ideally....! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Then 'tis done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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