• Comments
  • Never dared get involved with these incredibly detailed articles so forgive me if I cross over old ground. Good news is I might see things that other hurricane addicts may have missed! So...
  • "during the time period" wouldn't "during that time period" be better?
  • "(2008 USD)" in the lead - explain more fully what this means, or reword the damage estimate (maybe link to US $ page).
  • "Category 4 hurricane" is in the lead. Needs linking or explanation for non-experts.
  • Any reason why you don't use ((convert)) template which gives you free non-breaking spaces and perfect (!) conversion?
  • "damage is fairly minor" - tiny bit POV - minor or not minor (unless it's a quote).
  • Can the modern estimates of damage be cited (as they seem to be inflated versions of the reported damage at the time)? Or is that covered in each citation?
  • "extratropical remnants of" - not clear to non-experts. All subsequent uses seem to be linked.
  • "overall damage was limited" - limited to what? (I know, it sounds churlish, but surely all damage that has ever occurred had a limit?)
  • Stats section is aesthetically displeasing (to me, at least!). Table needs some work (perhaps just Storms as a heading, centrally aligned, and a footnote to explain what Storms means) and the graph could do with being "thumbed" and captioned accordingly.
  • Deadly storms isn't defined (although it's clear to me...) and none of the stats are referenced. Also, direct vs indirect isn't defined either.
• So oppose for now until these are dealt with. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love a good review from a non-hurricane addict :)

• • "during the time period" wouldn't "during that time period" be better? - good idea. I changed "the" to "that", though once the context was established, I left the others as "the".
  • (2008 USD) in the lead I changed to in 2008 USD, with a link to USD. Is that good?
  • Category 4 hurricane I linked it to a relevant article
  • damage is fairly minor - removed fairly
  • Can the modern estimates of damage be cited (as they seem to be inflated versions of the reported damage at the time)? - there's never been a problem with the other lists. The tropical cyclone Wikiproject uses this site.
  • extratropical remnants of - got it.
  • The monthly stats are the tables that are used in every other hurricane list article. I tweaked it a bit, but I would rather the format be uniform among the articles. Also, I explained the difference between direct and indirect deaths. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hey, thanks for responding and reacting so quickly.
  • Still think you should use the ((convert)) template - it provides a wiki-wide consistent approach to units, non-breaking spaces and conversion.
  • Just noticed New Holland, North Carolina doesn't have an article - a good opportunity to expand the Wikipedia by creating a stub?!
  • Is it just me or is there a dot at the bottom left hand corner of the graph?
  • Sort on number of deaths doesn't work correctly. Suggest you have a glimpse at the ((sort)) template which can probably help here!
• That's about it for this round! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah yea, I forgot about the convert template. I got them. I was going to create an article on New Holland, but I added information and redirected it elsewhere (better to have a longer stub than to have two stubs). I found a way to fix the sorting. Yea, I think there's a dot on the bottom-left of the graph, though I have no idea why it's there, nor how to fix it (I admit, I'm not terribly computer savvy). That's it for this round :) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments looks like a very good and thorough list. Some specifics...
  • "metal" or "nu metal" (which is what their main article says)?
  • "Des Moines, Iowa." linked twice in consecutive paragraphs - not necessary. And I would tend to link it Des Moines, Iowa myself.
  • "...live performances; each member wears individual masks and matching uniforms during all live performances..." - repeated "live performance", could do with a little bit of rewording.
  • Is it worth linking the individual wiki-linked years to "... in music" articles?
  • Not sure why August is linked on its own?
  • Isn't Finland normally abbreviated to FIN? (just a question) - it is further down.
  • "U.S." or "US" - I think it should be consistent.
  • Another question: why is "Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat." listed under miscellany? Isn't it a studio album?
    • There is contention over what it should be listed as. Some argue that the band call it a demo and they certainly don't regard it as the same as their other albums. However other people argue that it is of a much higher quality than standard "demos". The mutual agreement was to list in Miscellany yet the decision whether to declare it a demo album or studio album in the main article hasn't been settled. REZTER ^TALK ø 09:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you could expand upon that in the article? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Videos & DVDs" section, my IE7 is showing "U.S." and "FIN" as left aligned column headings.
    • I honestly think this is a bug or something with IE7 - even with "style="text-align:center;"", it doesn't fix anything, and Firefox displays them properly. I've been having this problem with tables I've created too. -- Matthew

Comment Looks really good! I only have a few minor suggestions:

• Canada should be abbreviated as CAN, since CA usually means California.
• U.S. should be US.
• There's no point in having the UK, NOR, NZ, and FIN columns in the Live albums section.
• I don't think its necessary to wikilink the years in the tables.
• The album column in the singles table is way too big because of "Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses)". Put a <br /> or two in there and it'll look much better.
• Only wikilink to RIAA certification and Canadian Recording Industry Association in the first table.
  • May I ask why there shouldn't be a link to the BPI? REZTER ^TALK ø 21:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bad, I meant to mention that one too. All three should be wikilinked appropriately, but only in the first table. So basically unlink the RIAA and CRIA column headers in the Videos & DVDs table. Also, the Certifications column in Live albums is odd since it's not stated what organization did the certifying. So, since it's only one entry, I'd recommend naming the column RIAA certifications. Drewcifer (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The title of the Soundtracks section is a little deceiving. Should be "Soundtracks contributions" since they didn't do the whole thing.
• Billboard should only be wikilinked in the first citation.
• An external links section would be good. Take a look at other FL discogs for some ideas. Drewcifer (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Try and avoid abbreviations in citations (ie RIAA/CRIA/etc). Blabbermouth.net should also be linked in citation #29.Drewcifer (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, all points have been adressed. REZTER ^TALK ø 17:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The first RIAA citation (currently #14 should be wikilinked). Same with CRIA (#15).

• Comments - a nice list, very well illustrated. Some specific comments...
  • I'd use the ((convert)) template for unit conversions as it provides consistent units and conversion factors.
    • We had ((convert)) in List of Pennsylvania state parks and had to take it out as it was used so much it both stopped working and made the whole page very slow to load. While that would not be a problem here, we have avoided the template since. Will add it if you insist, or could add other conversion templates. Thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine by me. I didn't realise it caused issues with page loading and incorrect behaviour. All I'm really looking for is consistency (within the article as a minimum) in the way units are described and the non-breaking spaces (which I think you've done anyway). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • " There are no unincorporated areas in the county, since all territory in Pennsylvania is incorporated." - this sentence seems pretty redundant to me, perhaps just merge the second half into the previous part of the paragraph.
  • "according to Godcharles " - I'm no expert - who is this?
    • Added that he was Pennsylvania state librarian (I believe he was also director of the state museum at some point) in the 1930s. He wrote one of the standard histories of Pennsylvania counties. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove spaces before citations in the table column heading (specifically Remarks but there may be more).
    • Removed Remarks space, will double check others. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure the description column should be sortable - it's free text so sortability is a little irrelevant. And "sorting" by Map is a strange idea too. I'd make those two columns non-sortable.
    • Done, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the list is sortable by various columns, I would repeat wiki-links since there's no guarantee the first linked occurrence will be the first one the reader encounters (e.g. Cherry Township).
    • All "Formed from" townships are now linked. Since thre are two Shrewsbury Townships, if it formed while part of Lycoming County, I linked to Shrewsbury Township, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, but if it formed after the formation of Sullivan County, I linked to Shrewsbury Township, Sullivan County, Pennsylvania. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "County seat; Named " - capital letter following semi-colon?
    • Switched to "County seat; named for...". Also put it in the proper place (as the borough of Laporte is the county seat, not the township of Laporte - whoops!). Thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clickable map didn't work for me (using IE7) - the links within it worked but nothing else - was that the idea?
    • Yes that was the idea - sorry. This kind of map is much easier to make;-) I changed the sentence to: The map shown below is clickable; click on any municipality name to be redirected to the article for that borough or township. Is that OK / clearer? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• That's about it from me for now... Hope these comments are of use. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments This is a comprehensive, well-referenced list. I prefer some changes to be made, though.
  1. I don't like links to categories in the last paragraph of the lead. I think there has to be a link to township (Pennsylvania), instead.
     • Link switched, thanks. Please note the Township (Pennsylvania) article has at least one error - there are larger townships than the largest area (40 square miles) it cites (i.e. Davidson Twp here is 78.2 sqare miles). I need to do some research to find the largest township to fix it. My guess is there may be smalller townships than the area it cites too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There also should be a link to borough (Pennsylvania) in the lead instead of List of towns and boroughs in Pennsylvania.
     • Link switched, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think the gallery in the History section is not needed. The images can be right-aligned as thumbs.
     • Respectfully disagree - the table is 100% wide so I am not sure where the images would fit (not enough other text for 4 images). As noted above, there are two other Featured Lists (that I know of) that also use this "gallery and 100% wide tables" format that we are using as models for this list. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The references in the "Settled" and "Formed from" columns should be cited individually because there are more than two references. It just gets hard to verify the information when there are 3 or more references in the table header.
     • All now fixed, I believe. Thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I also prefer to see sq mi instead of mi².
     • Good catch - the MOS agrees with you, see Wikipedia:MOS#Unit_symbols_and_abbreviations. Have switched them all (although I think it looks inconsistent to have "sq mi" and "km²", that is what MOS stipulates). Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is just my personal preference and may be ignored. I just think those changes will make the list even better, that's all.--Crzycheetah 06:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks very much for your helpful comments - I will move the references to the individual entries per your suggestion above, but it will take me some time to double check them all and do the edits. When this is done, I will note it above. I also fixed the sq mi in the List of municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania and will check it for the other points raised here when this FLC is done. We will have to agree to disagree on the gallery. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The list looks great, and I only have a few extremely minor suggestions:

• Naming the main section "Main albums" is a little wierd. I'd just recommend making each of the current sub-sections into their own full-fledged sections. Done
• The catalog numbers should have a # before them, since it's kind of confusing without them. Done
• Chart positions should be Chart peak positions or Peak chart positions or something like that. Just to be more specific. Done
• Why is the Netherlands abbreviations as LND? It's typically NLD in discogs. Done
• I would recommend making all of the album title columns similar widths. It would like much cleaner that way. Done
• It appears that all of their videos charted on the same chart, so I'd say "U.S. chart peak" should be changed to Billboard Top Music Videos Charts or something like that. Not done because then that column becomes too wide. Also, since there isn't an article for "Billboard Top Music Videos Charts" nor is there an appropriate section for it in the Billboard charts article, why is the heading change required?
• MVDbase is not a reliable source. Most discogs don't source music video directors anyways, so you could just take that out. Done
• Some external links would be nice. Done

Comments yeah, looking good, a few comments:

• Don't like red linked extended play in the lead - is this ever likely to be an article? If so, perhaps make a stub for it? Also, I'd place (EP) after the "extended play" so when you use the abbreviation it's clear what it means (to the non-expert). Done
• "released it's debut" - rogue apostrophe I think? Done
• "quadraple" - probably quadruple! Done
• Move [3][4] to after the comma. Done
• "After six years of hiatus, Alice in Chains officially broke up.[8] In 2005, the band reunited with" - I'd merge these - the first sentence is a little too short and makes the prose read choppy. Done but a little differently.
• "release it's first" - apostrophe again? Done
• I'd like a space between 2xPlatinum so 2 x Platinum or 2x Platinum. Done
• Is CS abbreviation for cassette? Not clear. Done changed all to cassette
• Is there a reason U.S. has full stops and UK and NZ don't? Just a question really.

I think that's standard actually, I've seen it being said on quite a few peer reviews/FACs etc. Maybe its because "US" could be ambiguous as a capitalised "us". indopug (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Hi.

• The colours in the map are too similar. While it's easier to distinguish between the dark orange and red of Spain and France, perhaps because they're bigger countries, the Scandinavian countries of Norway, Sweden and Finland are smaller, and it's really hard (for my eyes at least) to identify the difference. I think the pinker colour of the 70s could also be too similar to the red.

• True. I'll get working on that now. Done.

• In the list itself, I don't see the importance of shading those countries that did not participate in 2007. If you're doing that, why isn't each year of non-participation shown – because it would be too much shading probably. Perhaps another column between entries and wins for, and you'd have to word it better than this, non-entries since debut, though each cell may call for ((ref label))s and ((note label))s or something to clarify which years they didn't enter.

• Before I started working on the table there was a column which said each country's most recent entry; but seeing as 80% of them said "2007" it seemed to make sense to change it to prose. I could bring that column back though.

What I meant was just putting the number of contests a country has missed since their debut appearance, so the UK would be "1", Lituania would be "3". Then again, with Morroco, it'd be "27", and a ((ref label)) for those years would be pretty big. So maybe not such a good idea. I still don't see the importance of pointing out which countries didn't take part in 2007, though. Why was that such an important year to miss compared to the others?

Because it was the most recent Contest. Countries generally don't pull out for one year only, so in most cases it's a good indicator of who's still interested, and who's not likely to take part in the future. I'll make that clearer in the article. Chwech 19:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You might want to put in the channels of the broadcaster, so instead of BBC, use BBC One and BBC Radio 2. It's not necessary though, and later I might think it's not a good idea at all!

• The problem with this is that some countries' channels have gone through numerous name changes etc. and that some (the UK, Ireland and France for example) show the semi-final on a different channel to the final. This could make the table very messy.

Okay, you convinced me. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 17:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Being in North America, I don't know why Canada would be in there (and it's not), but I seem to remember Celine Dion performed once and she's Canadian. Is this a country you missed? Perhaps it's allowed to enter due to its French and English ties?
• I don't like graphs as it is, and I have a couple of problems with the one for "contestants per year".

• When you're getting over to the right, it's kinda difficult to follow which point in the line is for 2004, which is 2005, and which is 2006. (Specifically the big spike up from 25+ to 35+, the jump to about 38 or 39, the dip to 36ish, and then the little spike up again.
• And that's another problem I have with it, it's not easy to make out whether it is 36, 37, 38, or 39.
• The line looks like it's gone to the very end of the table at the marker for 2008, but 2008's event hasn't happened yet.
• Following future contests, will an editor be able to update the chart, or does a new one have to be made? If it's the latter, it may not happen as more than likely, people will consider it a ball-ache.
• It looks like it was just plotzed in there as a last-minute idea. There's no prose to go with it, explaining for instance, does it mean (a) the number of countries that entered, or (b) the number of singers. If it's (b) does it include all band members, dancers, etc? Example, Ruslana is a solo artist, but she had a band there and a group of wild dancers, so what is being included in the count?

• I've changed "contestants" to "countries". I'll come up with some prose to make the whole thing clearer and make the gridlines a little more defined. I have a copy of the graph myself, but I see what you mean; it would be a pain for someone else to update it. Not sure what to do about it though :)

• I'm putting together a few paragraphs to explain the graph, but I think I've made it redundant now. I'm going to remove it and let the text explain it. Chwech 19:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC) - Done.[reply]

• The redlink of ERTT concerns me, primarily because I'm not sure of the rule myself. For me, if it doesn't already exist, then it's not notable, so it shouldn't be linked to. I've heard arguments to keep them too, incase the article is created in the future sooo....

• The article for ERTT was created before, and deleted: although looking at the deletion log, not much of an effort was made to establish notability. I should be able to write a stub.

Other than that, it seems all right. And I like the intro alot. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 00:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comments. Chwech 12:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Re Celine Dion: Canada isn't missing, since she represented Switzerland, somehow (and won, incidentally, with Ne partez pas sans moi). Bencherlite^Talk 01:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh! Then I'll strike out that part. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 01:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

  Well, I'm no expert in these Eurovision matters, so I'll review it from an outsider's perspective, sometimes that can be useful...!

  • Not sure why countries is bold - okay so it's in the title of the article but it looks weird to me. I'm sure I recall WP:LEAD has some suggestions here and I may be wrong, worth a look?
    • Unbolded.
  • "As of the 2007 Contest," and then "since it started in 1956" probably only need one of these, and I'd suggest ditching the former - it's an odd way to start an article.
    • True, and I added it in minutes before nominating as well. Removed.
  • I'd rework the opening paragraph to discuss a little bit of the history of the contest, then discuss qualification, countries who automatically qualify etc before going in with the stat-attack you currently have.
    • Doing. Done, I think. Chwech 21:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an eligible television service" what is this? It needs explanation, especially with it being in the first para of the lead.
    • I'll bring the EBU info above that, which would explain eligibility before it's mentioned in that context.
  • " has steadily grown" - "has grown steadily" would be marginally better.
    • Done.
  • "Kvalifikacija za Millstreet" probably deserves a translation in English here.
    • Done.
  • "Big Four" should be explained as well.
    • Done.
  • Colours on the map really make it difficult to see subtle differences, particularly the yellow/green combo...
    • Already doing per above. Done.
  • I would be sorely tempted to move the para after the table to beforehand as an introduction to what the reader is about to see.
    • Done.
  • Write at least a stub for ERTT.
    • Doing per above. Done.
  • I'd expand the contestants per year section with some prose instead of a huge graph with a lengthy caption.
    • Doing. Removed graph; see above. Chwech 20:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Hope these comments are of use. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Thanks, they're definitely of use :) Chwech 12:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The map's been changed and I've put together a stub for ERTT. I'll do more later. Chwech 13:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comments
  • Consider centrally aligned the year, number of entries and number of wins in the table, the current left justification with wide columns looks odd.
  • There ought to be some prose in the "Unsuccessful attempts.." section to introduce the data. Also, I would left align the notes, centrally align the references and make the first column wide enough to contain the flag and country name on a single line.
  • "forty", "forty-two" - usually number over 10 are written as numerals.
    • But not if they are expressed in one or two words (sorry to butt in!) -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 09:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite so. Ignore me! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Liechtenstein does not have a EBU-member broadcaster and is therefore ineligible to enter the Eurovision Song Contest." - no need for the Eurovision Song - you've used Contest consistently throughout so do so here.
  • The Times source for "Country duo quit..." is no longer available.
• Almost there I think! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done, I think. Chwech 21:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - a very good and comprehensive list. I have a few comments for you.
  • Just a minor format issue but The Simpsons' fourth season" looks odd with the apostraphe there - why not "The fourth season of..."?  Done
  • "Following the end of the production of the season, Jean, Reiss and most of the original writing staff left the show, causing more staff to be hired." - I'm sure this is relevant but if staff leave they're generally replaced. As this must be significant because it's in the lead, can this be clarified or expanded upon?  Done
  • "The season would be .." why not just "..was..."?  Done
  • You need a fair use rationale for the DVD cover specific to this article.  Done
  • "would leave" - why not just "left"?  Done
  • "original team" - your quotation or from someone else?  Done
  • "production eun" -typo I think.  Done
  • "would leave" x3 then "would return", "would stay", "would receive", "would return" in the Development section - odd tense and somewhat repetitive language.  Done
  • "return a few times" - not particularly encyclopaedic.  Done
  • "...series would win ..." as above.  Done
  • 60-1 - move Mr. Black to after "director of the camp, Mr Black, ..."  Done
  • 61-2 - "and manages to get" - "but manages"..  Done
  • 63-4 - "Guest stars: Bob Hope.[20] " - only one star?  Done
  • 64-5 - why is zombie capitalised?  Done
  • 68-9 - "demolishing and wrecking" - surely demolishing supersedes wrecking!  Done
  • 69-10 - Jeff Martin links to a dab page.  Done
  • 73-14 - "After leaving Bart alone at soccer practice, Homer's inept care for Bart prompts Bart...." triple Bart! Rephrase.  Done
  • 73-14 - "ventually" - missing an e?  Done
  • 79-20 - "Guest star: Barry White" not cited, seems like the only one?
    • The reference for the episode is one line lower. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page ranges in references should use en-dash, not hyphen.  Done
• That's about it from me. Hope the comments are of use. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have addressed all of your comments. Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - firstly I do like the previous lead more than this one - it provides a better introduction to the purpose of the council and the mechanisms of election, so consider replacing some or all of it... Other things I noticed:

   Done. Schutz (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Title of the section "List of members of the Swiss Federal Council in order of election" could lose "in order of election". The list is sortable so that may not be true, and to be honest, it's not really necessary to specify the ordering in any case.

     Done. Schutz (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is the sequence column all about? It stops pretty soon down the table and isn't really explained.

     Done. This was added just after the article got listed here; it is now complete, with a footnote to explain what it means. Schutz (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove spaces in front of citations, the citations should preferably be placed after punctuation.

     Done. Schutz (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You've colour coded parties and added the party in each row. Are both necessary?

    This was a feature; colours for quick recognition, and party for direct linking, to allow sorting and to prevent the need to go back to the key. I think both are useful. Schutz (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think "reelected" should be hyphenated.

     Done. So does my dictionary. Schutz (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Where are the notes referenced? For example, the suicide in office really ought to be cited.

     Done. All are referenced now, except for the ones that died in office (for them, last day in office=date of death, and it is easy to check). Schutz (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think the department headed column should be sortable, it's not particularly useful if the department you're looking for is second in the text.

     Done. Schutz (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Canton abbreviations need explanation (e.g. a key).

     Done, in the form of a footnote and a link (there are >20 cantons, that would make a large key). Schutz (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • For councillors elected in place of those declining, add a note in the table.

     Done. Schutz (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Presumably bold dates mean those councillors are still in the Council? Add it to the key.

     Done. Schutz (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems unfortunate that only three members don't have articles, and those are all in the same table. Consider a stub for each of these, surely notable politicians.

     Done. Schutz (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's about it for the moment. I hope these help, feel free to get in touch with me. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  This helps a lot, many thanks ! Please tell us if you have any other comment, or if you think one of your suggestions could be implemented in a better way. Schutz (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment
  • I don't like "only twice in living memory." in the lead - it's a little woolly - should be quantified in my opinion.

     Done. Schutz (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it possible to reference the claims in the last paragraph of the lead?

     Done. I've added a reference (the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland talks about this topic); ideally, I'd like to add a ref to the Church book (with the advantage that it is in English), but I had it through an inter-library loan and had to send it back already. Schutz (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Almost there I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For the following reasons:

• The lead is way too short.

>Check! (I think!) Sunil060902 (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The tables could be organized much better. The majority of my complaints stem from the list looking unlike the majority of other FL discographies. Also note that I realize much of this list is designed to look exactly like Dave Gahan discography, which is featured. However, I opposed its nomination then, so I would obviously oppose this nomination as well. So, some examples of what I mean:

• "Charts" is too vague, as is "Chart positions" in the singles table. It's the peak position on a given chart, so "Peak chart positions" of "Chart peak positions" is more accurate.

>Check! Sunil060902 (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is Switzerland abbreviated as SUI? I'm sure there's a logical reason, but most FL discogs use SWI, and that is the most logical English-language abbreviation.

>Check! Sunil060902 (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Charts should come before Certifications.

>Check! Sunil060902 (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The charts column could be organized better: instead of saying "BPI certification"/"RIAA certification"/"CRIA certification" in every single row, just divide the Certifications column into three separate columns, one for BPI, one for RIAA, one for CRIA. Then at the top, wikilink Certifications to be more clear. At the top of each column, wikilink as such: UK, US, CAN. Also, any column-wide references (RIAA and CRIA all share the same sources), one citation at the top would suffice for the whole column.

>Check! Sunil060902 (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The citations are over-wikilinked. Only wikilink the first instance of British Phonographic Industry. Same with All Music Guide. Drewcifer (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

>BPI dealt with, will have to reformat the AMG. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

>AMG now dealt with! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely looking better! Here's a few more things: the lead's looking better, but it introduces the topic a little odd. First, the bolding in two paragraphy is really strange. Second, the first paragraph should mention first and foremost what the article is about: their discography. The band's history is second to stating that it is a discography and expounding upon that. The very last citation is from Discogs, which isn't a reliable source. And I think that about does it. Drewcifer (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

>Lead improved (I think!), Discogs replaced with IMDB. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is looking better, though IMDB isn't a reliable source either... and I don't think Yahoo music is either. Drewcifer (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would you define as 'reliable sources'? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that complies to Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. And my mistake, NSR77 is correct, Yahoo! Music is reliable. So that just leaves IMDB. Drewcifer (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! Music is definitely a reliable source. NSR77 ^T_C 23:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've reinstated the Yahoo link for the box sets. Modern Girls is a bit problematic, so deleted the link and left the Wiki through to the film article on here, best, Sunil060902 (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments sorry I'm late but some bits to think about...
  • "comprehensive" in the opening sentence is unnecessary - this is an encyclopaedic article heading for FL so it's self-evident it should be comprehensive!

> removed!

• • "Depeche Mode are one of the longest-lived, most successful and influential bands to have emerged from the New Romantic and New Wave era." in the lead - needs citation really otherwise it's WP:OR.

? I think the discography speaks for itself, no?

No - I can't tell the band were influential from bare statistics. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

> OK, I have excised the statement from the lead. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I may have missed it but why not have one of those neat little infoboxes which summarises all the releases?

X OK considering it

> Check! (inserted info box) Sunil060902 (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • "(giving them more charting singles without a number one hit than any other artist)" - needs citation.

X will have to dig this one out

> Reluctantly, I will remove this for now, as I can't find a direct link to the statement, though I'm sure if someone has the time a search of the UK singles archive will provide an answer! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Other discographies have US as U.S. and I'm curious why you have AUT but not SUI.

> User:Drewcifer3000 suggested SWI not SUI (see above) (and I've told you about US!)

• • I'd keep Platinum capitalised, even when dealing with multi-plat.

> Check!

• • Big set of blanks in the compilation tables - the em-dash signifies didn't chart, what does blank mean?

> Blanks removed

• • "Other appearances" table is mis-shaped to me (I'm using Safari under Mac OS 10.5).

> seems OK in Mozilla/Firefox and IE!

• • "Track contributed: "Photographic", a version different from that on Speak & Spell. This track also makes an appearance on the re-released CD version of The Singles 81-85" missing full stop.

> Check!

• • "Track contributed: "Dirt" (a cover of an original song by Iggy Pop). This track appeared as the B-side to "I Feel Loved" released in 2001" ditto.

> Check!

• • "not released as standard singles" - what does this really mean?

> Changed to "singles"

• • "November 28 1991" comma missing.

> Was there this morning!

> Sorry missed the other one, now corrected. Sunil060902 (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • March 30 2004 ditto.

> Check!

• • Check punctuation (particularly full-stops) in the B-sides section.

> Check!

• • Odd bits of bold in the B-sides section. Why?

> Removed!

• So, I think there's a little work here before I can support. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best, Sunil060902 (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • "AIC" - what does this mean? Not clear to non-expert readers (like me!).

Technically speaking cinematographers typically have all the societies they belong to abbreviated after their names, ie. "Vittorio Storaro ASC, AIC" but since that's kind of techno babble to the layman, I've reworded it a bit, without the abbreviations. Drewcifer (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, but now you wikilnk American Society of Cinematographers twice in the lead and state he's a member of it twice in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Details, details.=) fixed. Drewcifer (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • "whom he has continued to collaborate with throughout his career" - "with whom he has continued to collaborate throughout his career" would sound better.

 Done Drewcifer (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • "Awards and Nominations" should be called "Awards and nominations".

 Done Drewcifer (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Just an aside really, it's a shame that half his films don't have articles... one of the possible FLC criteria is bringing together a set of existing articles in one place. Just a thought. Maybe something to do in your spare time!

I'd definitely say it meets that particular FL criteria, but you're right, it is a shame. Drewcifer (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Any reason the film titles are in italics?
    • MOS:TITLE dictates so. Seegoon (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought there was a good reason. Thanks Seegoon... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • BAFTA wins are explicitly cited where nothing else is, why?

Because all the other awards are covered by the second "General" reference, the All Movie Guide source. For some reason AMG doesn't mention his BAFTA awards, so I had to do those separately. Drewcifer (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Just a quick peek down at the external links, you have a search engine linked to there with instructions. This isn't particularly elegant, and not recommended under WP:EL - is there an alternative?

That's not an external link, it's a source. And it's there (and has to be there) for the same reason the BAFTA awards are sourced separately: the AMG source doesn't cover them all. Drewcifer (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • As per Woody Allen FLC, try to make column widths of each award table the same as it makes the appearance a whole load better. You can use the <br> where needed to force linebreaks in long award cateogries for example.

See comment at Woody Allen filmography FLC. I'm not sure what's going on with that. Drewcifer (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think I fixed it. EI strikes again! Drewcifer (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • "According to the same site, Storaro's films have grossed a total of more than $410 million, with an average of $25 million per film." link this as a reference as well.

See comment at Woody Allen filmography FLC. Drewcifer (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Again, mil. - why not just m.?

See comment at Woody Allen filmography FLC. Drewcifer (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's about it. Hope these comments are useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• This may sound a little lazy but can you apply the same comments I made to season 1 to this list? For example, the citation of award noms in the lead, episode numbers, etc?
  •  Done
• "for Canada's younger viewers. " pretty non-specific...
  •  Done
• "The second season had fifteen roles getting star billing. Thirteen of them returned from the first season." merge - "...billing, with thirteen of them..."
  •  Done
• "high-achiever and lonely" - "high-achieving yet lonely"...
  •  Done
• Lead said series premiered with "When Doves Cry" and Cast section says "...the series premiere, "Mother and Child Reunion"..." A different series? A little unclear.
  • That's correct. Season 2 did premiere with "When Doves Cry". In the cast section, "Mother and Child Reunion" was the series premiere, in which Pat Mastroiami guest starred. I could make it less ambiguous by saying "first episode of season one", but it seems clumsy as there is a clear distinction between "season" and "series" in American and Canadan terminology, unlike the UK where we use "series" for both.
    • Ok, I get it. The problem for me was realising a difference between series and season... Cool. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "D:TNG" is used for the first time in the Cast section without being explained - it's best to put this acronym after the first "Degrassi: The Next Generation" in the lead.
  •  Done
• Those age ranges could be written as 2 to 11. Or 2–11. But not separated with a hyphen as you currently have it.
  •  Done
• I hate stuff in parentheses so just write it out as the end of the sentence.
  •  Done
• Hmm, "teen" again. I know what you're saying but not keen - not 100% encyclopaedic in my opinon.
  •  Done - except where "teen" is used in a quote, but I could change those to "teen[aged]", "teen[ager]" or "teen[agers]]" where applicable if you want?
    • No, leave them in quotes. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The N - this needs linking or explaining again.
  •  Done - see lead.
• "stands on it's own" - did the quote really have that apostrophe?!
  • It's a reprint so I'm not sure. I've removed it though as it is incorrect. Done
• " the season had won or been nominated for" - why not " the season had been nominated for or won..."?
  • Because winning is more important than being nominated. I've  Done it though.
• Episode numbering confusion warning!
  • "episode fourteen, "Careless Whisper"
  • Table says Series #29
  • Production code 214.
  • End of the Episodes section starts using Production codes as episode numbers...!
    •  Done Each number is now changed to production code.
  • I'd suggest having Episode numbers from 1 to whatever and using those to describe episodes - there shouldn't be any confusion with other seasons.
  •  Done
• I'd tend to hyphenate re-run.
  •  Done
• 80's - not sure but I think the manual of style suggests we usually skip the apostrophe here.
  •  Done changed to "'80s" unless you think the century is unclear, per Wikipedia:MOS#Calendar items and I'll put "1980s", but most '80s dances I've heard of aren't called "1980s dances".
• "Jimmy takes advantage of the situation" - I think this needs explanation (my mind is racing...!)...
  •  Done - I think?
• "he's got" - a little too familiar - he has.
  •  Done
• Same for "can't " and "it's" in the following episodes. (check all episodes please!)
  •  Done
• "Liberty acts out in an attempt to show J.T. he doesn't know anything about her." - I don't get what this means, and "doesn't" is too familiar again.
  •  Done
• "sex-ed" - ucation.
  •  Done
• "honour" - would Canadian English put the u in honor?
  • According to Canadian English#Spelling and dictionaries, yes. Unfortunately, I don't know of a free online Canadian English dictionary website.
    • Fine. No worries, I'm British English so that's what I know best - sounds like Canadian English is part Brit part Yank! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Easy for you then! I'm a Brit who moved to New Zealand, then moved to America, and writing in Canadian. Ugh! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 16:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Craig feels a huge weight lifted with," - unusual turn of phrase.
  •  Done
• Canadian Awards database link is dead now.
  •  Done URL was wrong, but fixed now and all are checked with Link checker tool

Hopefully these are constructive enough to help push the article on to FL! All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review. All but 1 were  Done, further input would be appreciated for that one. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 01:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comment - Hey Matthew, going really well, need a couple more things...

• "date rape" or "date-rape"?
  •  Done - I'd actually changed it while going through your earlier comments!
• Not sure now if it's the right thing to do to relate to episodes by their production code - do you do that for season 1 (I can't remember)? We need to be careful and consistent across the articles.
  •  DoneI used words-as-numbers for season 1, so that's what I've done here.
• I've responded to a couple of outstanding issues above. Nearly there I think! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hope so! I've got season 3 to list, and season 4 to work on! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 16:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Oppose for now, some comments...

• Consider wikilinking "head coach" in the lead to help non-experts.
• " three major periods of continued success " - sounds tautological to me. either "three periods of continued success" or "three major periods of success".
• "period of success" is then used three more times in the next four sentences, it reads pretty poorly.
  • However, this "The most recent ranges " needs work, the most what? You need to add something here, preferably not "period of success" but something with a similar meaning to improve the prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re-phased Buc (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "AFL " - when you use American Football League the first time, put (AFL) after it to help the non-experts.
• What's the difference between a "winning season" and winning "Division Championships"? It's not clear why you've distinguished between them.
  • Winning season is having more wins than losses. Division Championship is comming first in your division. Buc (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not clear in the article so explain it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re-phased Buc (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "3rd " - third.
• "period of failure " repeated also. Reads poorly.
• "going 1-15 into..." this is jargon, needs explanation for non-expert readers, plus you need an en-dash there, not a hyphen.
  • What needs expaining exactly. Buc (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What 1–15 means! You know, I know, but people who don't know American football won't! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re-phased Buc (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*"They are as of 2008" missing comma or, better still, start "As of 2008, they are..."

• "They are as of 2008, the only team to win AFC West on multiple occasions since the NFL restructure in 2002 when the division was reduced to four teams. They have also been conference champions six times but only once since the AFL-NFL merger in 1970. In their 48-year history, the Chargers have played 748 regular and post-season games and have appeared in the post-season fifteen times." all these claims need citation.
• Reference [3] is unnecessary.
  • Someone asked why the NFL season were in bold. Buc (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was me. That was when the column just contained years. The note is no longer needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*"Italicized numbers mean that the records are subject to change each week due to regular season or postseason games being played." but in the lead you say this is a list of seasons "completed" by the Chargers. One or the other.

• • Well the season is over now so both are true. Changed wording anyway. Buc (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Why is that statement bulleted?

• Why use small fonts above the table?
  • Why not? I think it looks better. Buc (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why though? People who have difficulty reading small fonts or awkward colouring should be considered. It doesn't add anything to the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Fine, but I really don't think it looks as good. Many existing FL have it like that. Buc (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Which says "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument". Buc (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • And who's essence is that just because A exists, and B is like A, B should exist. So what if another FL has tiny fonts? It doesn't make it right. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • No but it gives a good indication of what the basic consensus is. Might take this up on the NFL wikipoject page after this nom is over. Buc (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*"Post Season Results" - why the capitalisation? Post-season results. *MVP should be wikilinked the first time it's used.

• • It is but I've added an appropriate link for the All-Star Game MVP. Buc (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Link Pro Bowl, and why is it in a set of parentheses on its own?
  • It is linked the first time it is used. Buc (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is Offensive Player of the Year wikilinked twice while Defensive Rookie of the Year isn't? Consistent wikilinking required.
• Ties total column is blank, why?
  • Can't have ties in the post season. Buc (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So add a zero and a footnote - not everyone who reads this article is an Amerian football expert and a blank cell is very uninformative. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Fixed

*Reference [2] is just floating around, it should be "tied" to something. *Superbowl champions in the key but not used.

• "1982 was a strike-shorten season " - shortened, presumably, and what strike?
• "The strike of 1987 " - what strike? Link it for non-experts or expand the point.

That's it from me. Hope the comments help push the article to FL. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've struck out the comments I consider completed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Ok all done now as far as I can tell. Buc (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• All done as far as I can tell. Buc (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I've done some cleanup; however, I have a question - do we really need all of the refs about seeding? What relevance does the seeding of the Steelers in the playoffs have to do with a list of the Chargers seasons? --Golbez (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It effected the Charger's seeding. Buc (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But I don't see the Chargers' seeding mentioned anywhere... like, for example, 1992, where does it say the Chargers' seeding? Is this a common thing on lists of seasons? --Golbez (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added the seed # in. Buc (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • But only in the footnotes? Is this needed information? --Golbez (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Where should it be? Buc (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Do other featured lists of seasons include the seeds, either in the table or the footnotes? It cannot only be in the footnotes, but then again I doubt it's needed in the table - people can click the article for the playoffs if they're really into seeding (which has no impact on the season, anyway). --Golbez (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I believe so. Don't do any harm to have them. Buc (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I disagree; they clog up the footnotes with irrelevant information and, as you can already see, beg questions from readers. I don't think the seed information is either needed or desired. --Golbez (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • How do they clog up the footnotes?Buc (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The reader comes across a footnote, which takes him to an irrelevant statement about seeding (Which had ZERO impact on the season), which annoys him. I say remove them. --Golbez (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments
  • You've now got "In their 48-year history, the Chargers have played 748 regular and post-season games, and have appeared in the post-season fifteen times.[2]" in the lead. This makes the article inherently unstable and would need it to be updated for every single game. This is about seasons, not individual games so I think this should go.
  • Shouldn't "conference" in the lead be capitalised? Same for "division champions" - Division?
  • Link the Superbowl win in the lead to the appropriate Superbowl article.
  • Full stop required in the caption for the image of the stadium.
  • "and recorded the worst record of any Chargers team in 2000," - reads odd - there's only one Chargers team in 2000?
  • "postseason" should be hyphenated in English. Or post season, but be consistent.
  • "AFL-NFL Merger" split in the table isn't needed - it should be a footnote. It doesn't relate directly to changes in the franchise (as the other complete rows do).
    • It does because it effected the Chargers. Buc (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• That's it for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Usually in these articles, it's a list of the seasons *completed* by the team. For some reason, this doesn't have that. That would make it much less unstable. As for conference and division, I don't think so, no more than you would capitalize league. The Conference Championship might be capitalized, but not "conference champions", the same way you would capitalize "President of the United States" but not "The American president." All of this IMHO, of course. I agree that the AFL-NFL merger could be moved to a footnote. --Golbez (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, as well as some of the above, the article still remains problematic in these areas...
        • "postseason" or "post-season"
        • "Division Champions" or "Division champions"
        • "Conference Champions" or "Conference champions"
        • "seasons (a season with more wins than losses)" plural vs singular.
        • "Italicized numbers mean that the records are subject to change each week due to regular season or postseason games being played." - there aren't any? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The season is over now. Buc (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • And this article should only ever deal with completed seasons, as you've been told many times. Remove the sentence and keep this article stable. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is the way NFL season articles are done. Many are already FL. Buc (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ever crossed your mind that this may be a shortcoming of the other FL articles? You know it undermines the stability of the article so just stick with completed seasons. It makes perfect sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems most people don't agree with you and the general consensus it what matters, all other NFL season articles are done this way and it didn't stop them becoming FL. Buc (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undoubtedly you're right Buc, as ever. The fact that this will stop me supporting is probably of little relevance to you, as is the time and effort I spend trying to explain to you how I think you can improve your articles. To be honest, I'm a little fed up of talking to a brick wall. Good luck in your endeavours. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm trying to implement these changes, Rambling Man, let me know if I've missed any. The only ones I disagreed on were capitalizing Division and Conference - they aren't proper nouns. --Golbez (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine Golbez. I just wondered. Let me know if you think you're done with updating the article and I'll re-consider my position. Thanks for discussing it with me... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I already did, which is why I asked "let me know if I've missed any." :) Thanks. --Golbez (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indeed you did! I'll go and have another look! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hey, good start, I have some comments which, despite their possible inclusion in the FL you've described above, I think should be addressed before I can support.

Thank you Mspraveen (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "a former Indian batsman with 34 Test centuries, coming second to him along with Ricky Ponting and Brian Lara..."
  • "coming second to him"? is second to him?
  • This could infer that Ponting and Lara are second equal with Gavaskar, is that what you mean?  Done
    • • Indeed, but you now need to heed WP:CITE to ensure the references are placed appropriately, i.e. immediately to the right of punctuation where possible. I'd place all citations at the end of the sentence. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Done[reply]
• Remove the full stop in the image caption, per the WP:MOS.
  • As per WP:MOS, complete sentences end with a period symbol, isn't it?
    • My apologies - a complete sentence takes the full stop, you're right! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Make the (as of January 2008) the start of the sentence with no parentheses. Done
• There's a Not out article you could link to for your explanation of asterisks. Done
• I'd prefer to see a Notes column for the references in the table rather than force the citations to be in the score column.
  • I created a # column and set the references within this itself. It fitted in perfectly, what say?
• I'm really not keen on the in-line linking to the test scorecards, but I won't oppose on this alone. I'd like to think of another way of doing this...
  • I felt that this would be appropriate as the corresponding Test scorecard can be viewed instantly.
• The dates need to be written out properly, the ISO format is unfriendly. The ((dts2)) template should help with the sortability.
  • The dates are sortable in their present format, aren't they?
    • Yes, indeed they are, but in their present format they're not really human readable. All I was suggesting was that you could convert them to really dates, i.e. 6 February, 2008, and ((dts2)) will sort them appropriately without having to rely on a YYYY-MM-DD format to get it right. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed, but the column has not a single date, but successive dates. So, will adding dates in the format you suggested be correct? Let me illustrate this: His highest score was scored on two days. If I write it your format, I would have to write it as 11 December, 12 December, 2004, isn't it? Or, do you have a better way of using the date format? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mspraveen (talk • contribs) 17:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course, it's a range. Hmm. Difficult. But whichever you approach this, the ISO format isn't good. You can do a lot with the more basic ((sort)) template, it means more work for you, as you can write what you like and then pipe it to sort against the ISO date you're currently using. I think you may need to experiment because right now those dates are pretty grim to read. Either that, or you change it to the date the innings was completed? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)  Done[reply]
          • Changed the dates to the date on which his innings concluded and also used the dts2 template for dates. Mspraveen (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I know Inn means innings, as do you, but some may not so expand it in the table or explain it below. Done
• Since the table is sortable, consider adding a # column so if it's re-ordered, it's still easy to see the temporal relationships between the various centuries. Done
• "...first innings collapsed for ..." should be cited as it sounds a bit POV to me. Done
• "record for the fourth wicket for India." needs citation. Done
• " record total of 705 for 7 declared" needs citation. Done
• Follow-on has an article which you could link to in the notes. Done
  • Already has a wiki-link. You might not have observed it.
• More POV/journalistic examples which need citation or work on the tone... (P.S. I recognise all of these are commonly used in cricket and make a lot of sense to the aficionado but if these notes are to be part of a featured article they need to be accessible to all).
  • "the Windies survived in their final innings. " - sounds POV again, journalistic even. Citation or neutralise the tone. Done
  • "Indian second innings collapsed " Done
  • "A quickfire South African second innings " Done
  • "The Indian second innings collapsed " Done
  • "making a draw all but inevitable" Done
  • "A close finish ensued with the Indians managing to hold out and scoring the winning runs with two wickets to spare. " Done
  • "India collapsed for 195 " Done
• "notable contribution " - why notable, because he made 162?
  • There are many such instances of "notable" within the article. This is to suggest the primary contributions by the players.

Hope that these comments help. Feel free to get in touch if you need anything further. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck out all those which are clearly addressed. The rest are retained with my comments so as to allow any further discussion. I thank you once again for taking out time in reviewing the article. Please feel free in letting me know of any further ideas so as to improve its quality. Mspraveen (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comments...
  • Make the default sort in chronological order, that's more logical. Done
  • The # column doesn't sort correctly.
  • Avoid leading zeros in the ((dts2)) like 02 December etc, it's not necessary. Done
• Keep up the good work! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
• Some comments before I can support.
  • I think the lead could use some expansion, particularly to improve upon the single-sentence opening paragraph.
    • The single-sentence opening paragraph is gone. If you still think the lead needs expansion, then please tell me what you would like to see there.--Crzycheetah 21:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • " 24 units " what is meant by a unit here?
    • Unit is a standard measure of a quantity. The very next sentence describes what those units measure.--Crzycheetah 21:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead could also use citation.
    • Cited one sentence only because I believe others are easily verifiable in the table.--Crzycheetah 21:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should congress be Congress? (Question, not sure myself).
    • Yes, it should.--Crzycheetah 21:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consder adding a <br> between "Date" and "established" to narrow the column, or force it using a width parameter.
  • Consider a Notes column so that the references and notes you've got scattered around the table are in one column.
  • It's a shame the images are so small, perhaps reworking the column widths will allow you to make them larger? I can hardly see the Antietam National Battlefield image at all.
    • I believe they're large enough now. How about you?
  • Because the table is sortable, you probably need to wikilink all rows (e.g. the repeated instances of Washington County etc) as they could appear in a different order from the one you currently have.
  • The notes also need to be referenced.
    • Added references to the first three notes. The last two are verifiable by looking at the map. Should I add an external map as a reference?--Crzycheetah 21:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hope these comments are of use. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments. Five out of nine are done, the rest I'll do in about 10-11 hours.--Crzycheetah 10:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're very welcome, as always. Feel free to strike out comments you have attended to. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd make the date established and notes columns centrally aligned. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • They're centrally aligned now.--Crzycheetah 21:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nearly there comments
  • Would you also consider providing metric conversions of the imperial units you've got in the table using the ((convert)) template?

I started adding conversions. --Orlady (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • "refreshing streams and scenic vistas" sounds a little tourism-esque to me - is this a quote? If so it needs to be placed within quotation marks, if not I think it's a little too adverty.

Replaced that segment with statement that park is in the Appalachian Mountains. --Orlady (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • D.C. or DC - needs to be consistent, as does whether its wikilinked on every instance in the Description column.

Converted all to "DC". Can fix the wikilinking.--Orlady (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • "signer" - is that US English for signatory? (question)

Answer: Yes. See Category:Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. --Orlady (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the icing on the cake really. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hello, I enjoyed the list, but have some comments before I can support.

• The comparative height chart is so small it's not really useful unless clicked on. Consider making it larger? Done _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 17:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Manchester has a recognisable skyline..." - can you qualify this statement? Unable to find a source so removed, although true in my opinion it may be a breach of WP:PEACOCK so best to get rid.  Done _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 19:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool. I agree entirely. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (Not a policy, but)... I prefer a more British English with Second World War rather than the US sequel variant of World War II. Done _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐
• Could link Beetham Tower in the lead. Done Rudget. 17:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "An even taller ..." - axe the "even" - "A taller..." will be fine..! Done Rudget. 17:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is "Inacity Tower" bold in the lead? No need.  Done _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 17:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (Not convinced by myself but....) isn't high rise hyphenated usually? Done _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "... the tallest town hall in the United Kingdom,..." needs a citation really. No source can be found on the net or in the books I have checked so removed.  Done _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 19:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• When image captions are complete sentences, they should end with a full stop (per the WP:MOS).
  • Hmm...would this be applicable here? As far as I can see, the captions are too short for full stops in my opinion. Rudget. 17:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well it all boils down to (a) whether you consider the captions to be complete "sentences" and (b) if you wish to comply with the WP:MOS. Seriously, such a minor point I couldn't really care less either way, but compliance with the manual of style is usually mandated for featured content... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point.  Done Rudget. 17:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Per one of the possible FLC criteria, 1(a)-1, it should bring together a set of existing articles. A number of these buildings aren't linked. Something to consider (since there are other criteria which could equally apply to this list) - I'd expect to see articles for each of these - some of the US lists of tall buildings are complete in that they have articles for all buildings in the list.
  • Criteria 1(a)3..."contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles". Most of the smaller buildings are simply residential apartment towers which have no notable features for an article. Obviously they can't be missed out from this list so they are added with no linked article but full statistical information. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 19:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I appreciate that criterion, I've used it myself. No worries, I won't object based on this by any means, just wondered if it was possible (although a lot of work) to create articles for the buildings not linked to at this time. Wouldn't hurt but in a way it's outside the remit of this FLC if we go with 1(a)3... so no bother! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done Great! Well thank you immensely for all your suggestions, you have been a huge help and incredibly prompt. Hope we can count on your support! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 19:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Consider central alignment of some columns in the table, particularly Built, Height and Floors. Also, narrow the Built column and expand the Use column, you may just about get every row on a single line (I'm running low-res so if I can see it, most can!).
  • I have changed some of the widths now, how does it look? I'm using a large 22" monitor so it always looked fine on mine and it looked fine on my 15.4" laptop screen. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much, much better, I'm on a 12" iBook and it works so I'm guessing everyone will enjoy it! Nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great stuff.  Done _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Any reason why you say "Office & Retail" and not "Office & retail"? No need to over-cap. Done Rudget. 17:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Why are Lowry House and Ramada Renaissance Hotel without Built dates? Done _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• While the tallest structures won't have a Floors column, try to make all columns beforehand the same width as above to make the tables look consistent where possible. Done _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 17:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope the comments help, and please let me know if I can be of any further use. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I think the lead could do with a bit of work - the opening paragraph should adequately describe what this list will contain, so it needs to expand upon not only how tall the buildings are but the number of storeys, the function of the building etc. You've currently got four paragraphs in the lead, I'd expect maybe only three, and the first one ought to tell me what I'm about to see. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 23:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have moved some of the lead around and added some more, I'm not great at leads but is this any better now? _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 23:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, thanks to some help from User:Jza84 a bit of info about Manchester has been added to the lead and about how significant a city it so justifies having these big towers. Is the lead stronger now in your opinion? _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 03:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Seegoon

I have a few grievances with this article, but all in all I'm very impressed.

• Is there any chance you could improve the lead image? I added a ((ShouldBePNG)) template to it, because it has compression artefacts that really aren't necessary.  Done _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 21:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The first and second sentences don't really run on to each other at all. I'd be tempted to put a paragraph break between them.  Done _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 20:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "1960s and 1970s including" - shouldn't there be a comma before including?  Done _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 19:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "including the 118 metres" - shouldn't this be "metre", the singular? You don't say "the 30 storeys XXX tower", for instance, you say "the 30-storey XXX tower". The same applies throughout the article.
  • The reason is says metres is because the ((convert)) template has been used which automatically generates the words, I have no idea if there is a way to change it to the singular form but your right, it should be metre. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 19:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Just found out how to make singular units. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 20:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As for the table - it would be useful if some columns were sortable. I'm not an expert on this however, I'm sure The Rambling Man might be able to help out. Another issue is your use of ampersands, which is generally discouraged at all times.
  • I'm happy to help with any tabular suggestions!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure a sortable wikitable will work here, I tried defining the table as "wikitable sortable" and it made a real mess of it, I think it is because two rows are used for the header of the table. If you know of a way to make it sortable without changing the formatting too much that would be great. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 23:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can actually make specific columns unsortable. The problem is that I think your table is fucking gorgeous the way it is and arse-ing with it too much would be a shame. Anyway, information on how to go about this can be found here. Whether it can work on headers split over two rows I don't know, but that'll be fun for you to try. It's not something I'd describe as a major grievance... Seegoon (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow you really like the table then! Anyway I tried the class="unsortable" and everything but it really does bugger the whole thing up, it moves the headers into the middle of the table, makes empty boxes and just makes a total mess. Either I remove all the pretty colours and formatting or leave it as it is, it's not a huge table but it would be nice to sort the years but I think people will survive. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 01:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Not done as the table will not sort with current formatting and is not totally necessary. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 03:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]