• "no player has ever struck out more than three batters on nine pitches in a game." - Doesn't a strikeout, by definition, require three pitches or more? If so, this is fairly redundant to state.

• I linked the "more than three..." part to the section in the strikeout article discussing striking out more than three batters in an inning. If it makes it any clearer, I could change the wording to say "no player has ever struck out four batters on twelve pitches in a game." —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be a bit less redundant. Remember, it's "three strikes you're out at the old ball game" so there is no way to strike out four batters in nine pitches (which is what was implied by the sentence you had there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• immaculate inning - why the bold?

• It's a significant alternative title. I did not bold the main title because it's too long and "does not lend itself to being used easily…in the opening sentence." —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps, but it's awfully far down the lede. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• becoming the only player to achieve the feat in both leagues. - relation to MLB unclear

• Fixed. Changed to "becoming the only player to achieve the feat in both leagues of the MLB." —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What are the numbers in the "Batters faced" column for?

• It signifies a batter who has been the "victim" of an immaculate inning 2+ times. I've removed the (1) from the list in order to maintain consistency with the pitcher's column, which does not designate the first occasion. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Should preferably be in the key as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Similar concern with missing entries in "Ref" column. It just looks weird, although I understand the general ref covers this. Perhaps a better question is whether "Ref" should be renamed something else? Also, a footnote for individual entries that explains why they are empty would would remove the perception that the table is incomplete.

• Could I simply put a "—" through the empty cells? Or is there some way I can create a footnote that links directly to the "General" refs section? —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What do the refs for 1889 and 1902 entries provide if they are not boxscores?

• BR bio refs for Hall of Famers (see response below). —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do some rows have two refs and others only one?

• I included a ref to the player's BR bio if they are members of the HOF in order to verify their status as such. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Got it. Maybe a general ref to HOF listing like http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof.shtml would allow a dedicated boxscore ref column? n/a could be entered for those without a boxscore.—Bagumba (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Added general HOF ref at the bottom and kept the "Ref" column to just box scores. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You really should rename the "Ref" column; otherwise well meaning edits like this most recent one will add a reference thinking the entry is unsourced,and it wont be a boxscore as as you intend the column to be.—Bagumba (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Renamed to "Box" instead. Sorry for the late response. I just got back to uni—the internet WiFi there isn't working and the earliest it can be fixed is Tuesday. As a result, I haven't been able to edit for the last 3 days and can only make limited edits off my iPhone. :( —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

—Bagumba (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Are these nine pitches consecutive, I think it's sort of implied... (I'm just not familiar with the terminology of "on nine pitches", I'd expect that to be "with" nine pitches, but whaddoiknow?)

• Yes. Struck out on 9 consecutive pitches (three strikes for each batter). —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you consider adding "consecutive" for us non-experts? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For consistency, should "Batters faced" in the key be "Batters faced (x)"?

• Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What is referencing that 11 of the last 12 to achieve this feat are still "active"? (I would also consider changing that to "Active as of the 2013 season..."...

• It was suppose to be Baseball Reference.com. However, after a previous comment on individual HOF'er bios, I removed those and utilized a general HOF player ref. Would you like me to add the BR refs for active players into the table? And if I were to do so, what do I do for all the empty cells where individual BR refs are not necessary? (i.e. do I place n/a or — ). —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You could add the ref next to the name of the "active" player? That way you don't need a new col or n/a or en-dash or anything? Or, you could change Box to Ref(s) and add it there? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Mixed in the title as "Box & Ref", since I'd like to keep the boxscore explanation in the key. Also, instead of adding "Active as of the 2013 season...", I added a note explaining what being active entailed (as per Golden Spikes Award FL). —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not averse to the "Box" column containing solely boxscores. It's just that another column with blank, — or n/a symbols in it would look awkward. And the only reason why I needed a ref for active players (as oppose to inactive players) is because of the prose in the lead (i.e. "These requirements leave 11 players ineligible who are active") and their designation in the table. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless it's verified that the others are inactive, we would not know that there are not more than the 11 identified so far.—Bagumba (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As per List of Major League Baseball hitters with two grand slams in one game FL, there's no need to cite each and every single player's in a table. Asking me to do so would be downright cruel; that'll be 40 different BR refs I'd have to unnecessarily comb through. :) —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFF example doesn't address verifiability. However, I have an easier solution. The Baseball Almanac general ref lists all the players, which also has links to each player's profile where it can be verified if they are active/inactive. Therefore, I propose to remove the additional links for the active players as they are redundant to the general ref; otherwise for consistency, similar links should be added to verify which players are not active. If the links are removed, we can rename the column back to "Box" again.—Bagumba (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds good. Can I use Baseball Reference instead, for the sake of consistency (i.e. same source origin for HOF players and active/inactive ones)? —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That link is too general. The almanac link at least already lists all the players with an immaculate inning. I would just rely on the existing general refs.—Bagumba (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Removed all specific BR player bios. (P.S. Does this count as the "thorough review" you said on your talk page?) —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, just doing cursory checks :-(—Bagumba (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not convinced that a DVD cover can be justified by WP:NFCC. We don't need the image to understand the list, after all.

Yeah I guess. I could remove it. The logo is probably of importance and the art just represents the art style of the episodes. I would like your opinion if it should be removed, its image should be replaced, or if I can somehow satisfy NFCC. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "The episodes use five theme music". Feels like it's missing something before "theme", because the sentence isn't grammatical the way it is now.

"uses five pieces of"

Should be "use" after "episodes". Giants2008 (Talk) 21:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

• Episode 3: "Having reason to suspect his mother's death, Marianne vi Britannia, was planned by one of his relatives". Order would be more logical with "to suspect that the death of his mother, Marianne vi Britannia, was planned...".

Done

• "is the voice who lead them in the previous battle...". "lead" → "led"?

Done

• Episode 7: "Shortly" should be decapitalized, as should "The" after the semi-colon later on.

Done

• Episode 11: "amongst" → "among"?

Done

• "forcing him to eject and crash-lands near Shirley. Shirley...". Try not to have the name repeat from one sentence to another like this.

Second Shirley replaced with She.

• Episode 24: "The Black Knights are able to push the Britannian Army back and uses Ashford Academy as their headquarters." "uses" → "use".

Done

• Other English releases: "In Australia, Madman Entertainment released a DVD collection was released...". Last two words should be taken out.

Done

• Stage 9.33: "The girls fight over Lelouch and concludes with Milly demanding him to choose a girlfriend." "concludes" → "conclude"?

Done

• Stage 22.25: "and the media cuts all broadcast." I think the last word should be plural. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about this but I took your suggestion. Thanks for the review. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "into 9 volumes" nine.

Done

• "into 2 DVD " two.

Done

• What's UMD format?

Replaced first UMD with Universal Media Disc

• "a week before" -> "a week earlier"?

Done

• "was done by " don't like "done", reads clumsily.

Replaced done with produced

• Media tables need to comply with WP:ACCESS (i.e. MOS:DTT for row and col scopes).

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear about this, but do you mean I should add scope so rows and columns are clearer in the syntax? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added scope="column" in the media release tables. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also added rows which slipped my mind. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "3× platinum" → "platinum" should be capitalized.
• For styling consistency, I'd use a </br> in the Extended plays table to separate the parts of the "BEL (WA)" onto two lines.
• In the single tables, sometimes the additional information (i.e. the "featuring xxx" parts) is separated from the song title onto a new line, and sometimes it is not. Again, be consistent – I'd keep them all of separate lines.
• The reference for "Brutal Hearts" should be next to the song title and not the additional information. Move it before the line break.
• In the Promotional singles table, "Non-album release" should probably be plural, as there are two.
• "Everyday Things (Acoustic)" → is "(Acoustic) actually part of the title? If not, move it outside the speech marks.
• In the Music videos table, again be consistent with the use of line breaks.
• "Brutal Hearts"(Version two) → space?

Overall, a very well constructed list. If these issues are resolved, I'll happily support a promotion. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have made all of the changes. Thank you for your comments :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "It peaked at number five in Canada and France" well it peaked at number 2 in Wallonia...
• The promo singles aren't mentioned in the lead/infobox.
• Ah, okay, are you merging "promo singles" with "guest appearances" to get nine in the infobox? It's a little confusing because I don't see how "Everday", for instance, is a "guest appearance"...

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some changes and hopefully clarified singles/guest appearances. I must have never changed in during a previous edit :S Thank you for commenting. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• One portion of the lead reads "10 singles [...] and ten music videos". You should probably stick to one form of writing the number (either 10 or ten) for consistency's sake.

Holiday56 (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch! Fixed it :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The use of color should be fine. DTT says to ensure that color is not the only identifier in a table and it is not, both the emptiness of a cell and a gray background indicate that the character is not in the specified film here. As for the headers, I'm not sure if that's really an issue? The "solution" provided on the DTT would leave this page with about 10 tiny tables and counting, losing its flow, and also remove the section anchors from the TOC. Does the fact that their scope is specified as "row" in the wikitext not help? -Fandraltastic (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Color: I see what you're saying- the color does not convey information, but a lack of it. Rejectwater (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Column headers: You're saying that the size of the table and the table of contents are critical aspects of the page? I don't understand. Rejectwater (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I would think so, the page becomes really disjointed when it's split into 10+ small tables, and the table of contents allows the reader to jump to a specific portion of the table instead of having to scroll through the entire page. -Fandraltastic (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't thinking of splitting it into ten small tables but of adding a column on the left side of the existing table(s). The information in the column headers is useful, I don't think it should be deleted.Rejectwater (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I really do not see the need to add any more columns. As for accessibility, I tried it on multiple browsers with no issues. And this might seem like other stuff but List of Harry Potter films cast members was promoted with a very similar layout.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just asking. Personally I have a hard time understanding what standards to apply when. Thanks for the feedback. Great page, by the way, very nice work. Rejectwater (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead first sentence has "Marvel" three times and "film" twice. Feels a little repetitive.

• The first mention of "Marvel" is for the common name of the film series, the other two are the names of corporate entities. Not sure if there's anything that can be done about this. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• May well be worth noting that the film was called Avengers Assemble in the UK (and elsewhere?) so it wasn't confused with The Avengers.

• It's mentioned that it's the 2012 film, I would think that's enough of a disambig? Not sure where you could really slot in an alternate title like that. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems we refer to Joshua Dallas as Josh.

• Fixed. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Six lead paras is a little too hefty.

• Not sure what you'd like to have removed here. Don't think any of the paras are extraneous, really. Explain what the film series is, talk about the lead actors a little bit, talk about recasting, mention recurring characters, and then list a few of the notable actors who appear but don't recur. Yeah, there are a lot of paragraphs but they're all fairly brief and they all add to the reader's understanding of the topic, at least from my point of view. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Please check the tables comply with MOS:DTT for row and col scopes where appropriate.

• Looking into this, never done it before so I'm not sure what goes where. Will give it a go. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I think I've got the row/col scopes done. -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure about the various different font sizes, what's going on there? Looks a little like a school HTML project.

• I think you were referring to the small text in the headers? Removed that. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Check refs (avoid double hyphens, that should be an en-dash for example).

• Done. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Avoid SHOUTING in the refs (e.g. ref 27).

• And done. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm looking into the row and scope accessibility thing, will try to get that done. I think I've covered or addressed everything else, if you have any more comments or concerns please feel free to leave them. Cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "…to Indonesian actresses in recognition for their achievements…" – should read "in recognition of their achievements."

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Four other actresses have won multiple Citra Awards:" – might want to use a "—" instead of a colon, but optional, since I understand there may be minor formatting/style differences.

• I think the colon is better here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Four actresses (Jajang C. Noer, …) have" – I would use "—" instead of brackets, but once again, optional.

—Bloom6132 (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Spaced ndash used instead (I usually use endashes and not emdashes) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 2 → oscar.com shouldn't be in italics. Also, it doesn't link to a specific article. It just lists articles from 2013.
• In all refs: AMPAS → Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS). This shouldn't be written in italics either.
• Ref 3 → wikilink Entertainment Weekly. Add Time Warner as the publisher.
• Ref 8 → The Hollywood Reporter in italics. Add Prometheus Global Media as the publisher. Furthermore, it doesn't link to the article listed ("Milla Jovovich to Host Academy's Sci-Tech Awards").
• Ref 11 → BBC News shouldn't be in italics.
• Ref 13 → Daily Mail needs to be wikilinked. Add Associated Newspapers as publisher (Note: this is a tabloid newspaper and may not be reliable).
• Ref 15 → CNN shouldn't be in italics.
• Ref 16 + 64 → MTV shouldn't be in italics.
• Refs 19 + 49 → needs date retrieved.
• Ref 39 → Slate needs to wikilink to the publication.
• Ref 44 → Add News World Communications as the publisher.
• Ref 49 → Wikilink The Hollywood Reporter and add Prometheus Global Media as the publisher.

– Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed: I have fixed everything with some notations

• Replaced link 13 from Daily Mail to Denver Post an American daily newspaper.
• Reference 8 was supposed to link article mentioning Honorary Oscars for Oprah, James Earl Jones, and Dick Smith.
• Milla Jovovich reference link is number 9.

-Birdienest81 (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Order refs: [27][14] → [14][27] + [15][14] → [14][15]

• Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref. 42 is broken (please find another reliable replacement)

• Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Add Tribune Company to the publisher info for the Los Angeles Times

• Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Add author info (Alyssa Carnahan) and date published (January 4, 2013) for ref. 41

• Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• history.[1]. → remove the extra period

• Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Academy-Awarded' is not a word.

• Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Include the hypen in 'twenty-six'.

• Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The first paragraph says "individual in history" three times. Please find some way to combine these sentences.

• Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Commas are unnecessary in the first and second sentences of the second paragraph.

• Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The final sentence in the second paragraph should be shortened to say he consecutively earned nominations and won.

• Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The comma after 1939 in the third paragraph is unnecessary.

• Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• at the 5th Academy Awards. - Year?

• Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• won in the same category (Best Short Subject (Cartoon)) - This is an awkward construction. Any way to rephrase?

• How do you like this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• One minor change: "consecutively earned, and won, nominations" to "consecutively earned nominations and won". Nice reconstruction of the paragraph, I really liked it. Thank you. Surge_Elec (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Posthumously - Without a year of death we don't get the full implications of the word (I'd suggest having Disney's YOB and YOD in parentheses after his full name above: Walt Disney (1901–66).

• Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "significant screen innovation which has charmed millions and pioneered a great new entertainment field for the motion picture cartoon." - This is not NPOV unless it is a direct quote

• This should have quotation marks as below. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Added quotation marks. Kindly review. Surge_Elec (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• To Walt Disney, William Garity, John N. A. Hawkins - what's with the line break? Also, link names other than Disney

• Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Image issue: File:Walt disney portrait.jpg was flipped, so this is not an accurate representation of Disney. Any other pictures we can use? This would be nice if you can confirm there was no copyright symbol on the trailer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You should see if a copy of the trailer is on the internet (if it's really PD usually the internet archive will have it), then watch it and see if the (C) symbol is anywhere.08:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Here is a copy of the trailer. I did not see the (C) symbol anywhere.[8] Surge_Elec (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. That colour image should be fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Need a general reference that lists the highest scoring games to verify that the list is complete.

Done—Chris!_c/t 00:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Need more links to this article. It was an orphan until I linked Run TMC to it. Perhaps adding it to a navbox would help e.g. ((NBA statistical leaders)).

Done—Chris!_c/t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Be useful to breakdown the number of 20- and 30-point scorers (and perhaps even list the players) directly in the table among the number of double-digit scorers.

I don't know if that is a good idea. I don't want to overwhelm the note column and one can see that from the note.—Chris!_c/t 21:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The table already has notes like "3 players scored 40+ points". Granted 40 > 30 > 20, but 30 and 20 point IMO is more interesting than double-digit scorers, and this would also address your concern that the footnotes section is quite large. I know you've invested a lot of time into this, but I think this would make the list more concise and interesting for an FL.—Bagumba (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change to the first row. Is that the formatting that you prefer? I don't want the whole article just yet.—Chris!_c/t 22:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue this point at Talk:List of highest scoring NBA games.—Bagumba (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done—Chris!_c/t 00:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Might be more interesting to see the scorers breakdown per team, instead of an aggregate total for both teams.

Done—Chris!_c/t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Make a sortable column for whether or not the game went into overtime.

Done—Chris!_c/t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:CITEHOW, publisher is considered unnecessary for all but books. If it is to stay, Template:Cite web recommends to leave off designations like "LLC".

Done—Chris!_c/t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why include link to NBA season with the date? It would be more useful to link the teams to their specific season article (e.g. [[1958–59 Boston Celtics season|Boston Celtics]]).

Done—Chris!_c/t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The season is still in the date column, which looks clumsy to me. Perhaps you can explain the motivation for including it with the date.—Bagumba (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see the regular season list has removed the season, but the playoffs list still includes link to playoffs and note on which series it was (e.g. semifinals, finals, etc). I suggest instead to link the year in the date, i.e. "May 11, 1992", and add the series to the notes, i.e. "The Trail Blazers won the conference semifinals series 4–1".—Bagumba (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done—Chris!_c/t 21:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:SPECIFICLINK and WP:NOTBROKEN, link to [[city ,state]], e.g. [[Boston, Massachusetts]]

Done. I didn't change the links when the city name is the same as article name.—Chris!_c/t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reader is interested in {Denver in Colorado), not both Denver and Colorado. In any event, the state would always be in the lead in the city article. This to me seems like the spirit of WP:SPECIFICLINK. If it's a matter of effort, I'd volunteer to make the changes if there are no objections. I won't make this a condition for approval, either way.—Bagumba (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Might be worth mentioning Nuggets coaches Doug Moe and later Paul Westhead and their offensive philosophy, considering their teams appear multiple times on the list.

Done—Chris!_c/t 00:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need citations for Westhead using run and gun. Also, cites for both coaches tenures with Denver.—Bagumba (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done—Chris!_c/t 00:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Should discuss that scoring per team was in the 100s until the mid-90s. Here is one source [12]. The recent teams like Phoenix and Dallas were coached by offensive coaches Mike D'Antoni and Don Nelson, respectively.

Where do you think I should add this?—Chris!_c/t 00:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson coached the Warriors game mentioned in the lead, so that it one point to integrate him. The source says "As late as the 1992-93 season, teams were averaging 105.3 ppg" Since then, only Suns with D'Antoni and Nelson with Mavs are on the list. You could bring D'Antoni in there. Maybe you can find some other sources on scoring since 2005–06 (which is where this source stopped).—Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a b-r link that lists league scoring avgs per year.[13]—Bagumba (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added something. Did I address this point?—Chris!_c/t 22:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Only one post-1993 game makes the top-ten list": It wasnt entirely obvious the statement is limited to regular season. I was thinking to cover both regular season and playoffs with the trend analysis, as the eras for the records for both seem to coincide. Then Nelson can be mentioned with Dallas as well as GS.—Bagumba (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I made the change. I didn't add Nelson with the GS since I use the 1995-96 as the cutoff. I also moved the paragraph to the end as a way to conclude everything.—Chris!_c/t 00:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson can be mentioned in the regulation game record after Mullin and before Moe. Throw in Nellie Ball style of run and gum too. Then you can make note in last paragraph that his team is on the list again.—Bagumba (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned Nelson after Moe. Since the Moe part introduces run and gun and then the Nelson part brings in Nellie ball, a variation of run and gun.—Chris!_c/t 03:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Besides Vandeweghe, English, Thomas, Long ...": I wouldn't assume that a reader has read every preceding footnotes, so I would link names again and not consider it WP:OVERLINK.

Done—Chris!_c/t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Since † is used in Notes, which has full text, it seems more straightforward to add the short description "NBA record" directly into the notes instead of relying on the dagger and an entry in the key.

Done. The only thing I worry is that there too many notes.—Chris!_c/t 21:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I meant that "NBA record" should be in the "Note" cell, not relegated to a footnote.—Bagumba (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

done—Chris!_c/t 22:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

—Bagumba (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of those number of days are quite large. Use ((Age in years and days)) instead of having readers trying to divide by 365 in their head.—Bagumba (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done—Chris!_c/t 21:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Since there is already a dedicated "Notes" column, is there a reason to add more notes in footnotes in other columns as opposed to centralizing them all under "Notes"?—Bagumba (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Putting everything under "Notes" would overwhelm the column. This format allows readers to see basic info from the table and they can read the additional info from the footnotes.—Chris!_c/t 21:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that an entry is a former record is significant, and having "Former record" in "Notes" or using coloring in the "Total points" cell with an accessible indicator should be used. I agree that the duration of the record is semi-trivial and is suitable to remain a footnote.—Bagumba (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done—Chris!_c/t 22:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have the dates footnote after "Former highest-scoring record", to keep them together. I guess to keep the locations of the dates consistent, the highest on the list will need a "Current highest-scoring record" in the notes, with the date footnote after it too.—Bagumba (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done—Chris!_c/t 00:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "High scoring games were not possible in the early days ...": "not possible" sounds strange, as "high scoring" is a relative term, i.e. game could be high-scoring for their era. Needs rewording to convey point that scores were lower relative to the shot clock era. Quantifying with some numbers would be a plus.—Bagumba (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done—Chris!_c/t 22:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Games above 100 points were not possible ...": "not possible" still does not seem right. Maybe rare, but a ref that has PPG avgs doesnt prove definitively that nobody scored 100 in some games.—Bagumba (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Games above 100 points were rare ..."? Or do you have a suggestion?—Chris!_c/t 00:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest "Teams only averaged around 80 points per game in the early days ..."—Bagumba (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done—Chris!_c/t 00:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Need a source for 51 being Vandeweghe's career high.—Bagumba (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done—Chris!_c/t 22:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hyphens: Including the title of the article, there is an inconsistent use of hyphens with "highest scoring", "highest-scoring" and "low-scoring". I'm not an English expert, but MOS:HYPHEN seems to suggest using hyphens in this case. Googling news articles also shows inconsistent usage. Pick one and be consistent.—Bagumba (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done—Chris!_c/t 22:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For marking the games won by road team, it seems like the "Winner" cell should be marked instead. I find myself looking at the score marked as won by the road and then having to go back to the "Winner" cell to again see who won.—Bagumba (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The red shading for the road team wins is distracting, it makes this the focus off the list. I would suggest removing this color.
  An additional option could be to switch to home and away team columns, removing the star and denote the winning team by making it bold. This would then be more in line with normal NBA results (it had me confused for a bit).

Your suggestion is good though boldface should not be used for emphasis per MOS:BOLD. I want to see what others think.—Chris! _c/t 21:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, maybe an other alternative should be used, although I stand by my point that the red shading over emphasizes road wins. But waiting for other peoples opinion on this is fine. CRwikiCA talk 18:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't already an explicit MOS on this, I'd tend to agree that red is jarring (make people think back to red marks from their school teachers).—Bagumba (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Color changed—Chris!_c/t 02:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The softer color does add a more subtle emphasis which is good. It is a lot clearer this way. CRwikiCA talk 13:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The note about it being the record for N number of days would probably be more appropriate in the "Total points" column than the "Results" column.

Done—Chris!_c/t 21:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to "Record" per above.—Chris!_c/t 00:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Centering the numbers in the "Total points", "Result" and "OT" columns might make the table more visually pleasing.

Done, though WP:DTAB formatting prevents me from centering "Total points"—Chris!_c/t 21:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !scope="row" style="background-color:transparent" into | might do the trick, although I do not know what the disadvantages of this might be. CRwikiCA talk 18:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That formatting is required to satisfy WP:ACCESS.—Chris!_c/t 00:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, for my information, what is the reason you use the row-scope on the second element of each row and not the first one? CRwikiCA talk 02:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because that column shows the key entry of the table.—Chris!_c/t 03:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. CRwikiCA talk 13:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems strange that anything but the first col in a row would be scoped. Isn't the relevant part of the row the rank, since this is a ranked list? Otherwise, why isnt the pts col moved to first if it is more important. This seems inconsistent.—Bagumba (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found a way to force centering. I think points are most important as the list is ranked by points. The rank column helps readers see better and looks better locating to the left of the table IMO.—Chris!_c/t 01:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding from WP:DTAB is that screen readers read out the scoped header data first. If this is the second column, it seems to be a different experience from those who view the data directly. The rank column should be first, I just question points being used as scope.—Bagumba (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. WP:DTAB does not have clear explanation. I just thought the scope thing should be placed in the most important column. I would like to see what others think first.—Chris!_c/t 21:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit lost. What in WP:DTAB or WP:ACCESS explicitly prevents centering?—Bagumba (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is technical. Anyway I managed to go around it.—Chris!_c/t 01:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The playoff list might have an additional line in the notes stating who won the series.

Done—Chris!_c/t 21:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall it is a very good list, the only real big issue that could be brought up is the inclusion criteria

CRwikiCA talk 19:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "If the team fails to hit the rim with the ball within the allotted time, the team would lose possession." – sounds somewhat awkward with just "the team"; it'd be better if it specified "If the offensive team fails to hit the rim with the ball within the allotted time, they would…"
• "most field goals by one team (74), most assists by two teams (93)." – end of sentence, so there should be an "and" in between.
• "Most of the highest-scoring games happened before the 1995–96 season, where average scoring (points per game) per team was always in the 100s." – in order for it to sound grammatically correct, it should read "Most…happened before the 1995–96 season, when the average scoring (points per game) per team was always…"
• The key should have scope rows for the column on the left.
• Don't make the backgrounds of scope rows invisible per WP:DTT. The whole point of having the scope rows visible is to "clearly identify [the] headers."
• Table captions should be added (again, per WP:DTT
• Everything else appears to meet FL standards. If you have time, could you help review my current FLC, please?

—Bloom6132 (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The color doesn't matter. The purpose of making table into DTT is to allow blind users to better read the table using screen readers. Everything else done.—Chris!_c/t 18:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Six paras in the lead is a little hefty. If there's stuff here that's really important, I'd create a subsection for it and meet WP:LEAD.

I've restructured the article, so hopefully this is fixed.—Chris!_c/t 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• " in the early days of the" when was the early days? I'm not an NBA expert so there's no context for me here.

Sentence rewrote. Did it help?—Chris!_c/t 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• " with many fouls, boring fans and affecting attendance" I know what you're trying to say but the first time (and the second time) I read this, I got the feeling the fans were boring, not bored...

Sentence rewrote. Did it help?—Chris!_c/t 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "the NBA happened during the shot-clock era." again, I'm no expert, but aren't we still in the shot-clock era? If so "the NBA have happened during..."

Sentence rewrote.—Chris!_c/t 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Link overtime.

Done—Chris!_c/t 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nuggets are overlinked in the lead. At least twice.

Fixed—Chris!_c/t 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What does "in regulation" mean to a non-expert?

I added some clarifications in the earlier paragraphs. Did it help?—Chris!_c/t 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You reference a lot of things in the lead, but, for instance, you don't reference "Wilt Chamberlain scored an NBA-record 100 points." Any reason?

Done—Chris!_c/t 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Winner" -> "Winning team", "Loser" -> "Losing team".

Done—Chris!_c/t 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What's a "road team"?

Linked—Chris!_c/t 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "40+ points" ->" at least 40..."

Done—Chris!_c/t 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not at all keen on just the year being linked for the playoffs, definitely borderline easter egg.

I've tried to have a separated links in the box, but it overwhelms the box with too much info. I was then told by another reviewer to adopt the current format. Any suggestions on how to resolve this problem?—Chris!_c/t 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who suggested the egg-like compromise, but my preference would otherwise be to just remove it. the article already has links to the individual teams' season articles, which ideally would have details on the playoffs (if they were more developed). We don't have links to the general NBA season for the regular season entries, so it would be consistent to not have them for the playoff entries either.—Bagumba (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Check for dead links... ref 37 doesn't work for me.
  • I fixed ref 37. http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=List_of_highest-scoring_NBA_games now runs a clean report.—Bagumba (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "In fact, all of the highest-scoring games in the NBA have happened during the shot-clock era." Don't see why the first two words are in here. If this wasn't a fact, it wouldn't be worthy of a sentence.
• In the alt text for the lead images, we have "situates", which I'm not sure is a word. Wouldn't it be "situated" in each case?
• Arizona Veterans Memorial Coliseum caption: "playoffs" → "playoff"? This is also present a couple of times around the table itself.
• Summary: "The Nuggets and the Pistons both ranked as the first and third highest-scoring teams that season respectively." The "both" is a little confusing and the sentence doesn't need it; I'd suggest taking it out.
• Redundant use of "game" in "The highest-scoring regular season game in regulation is a game...". Replacing "is a game" with "was" is all that is needed to fix the issue.
• "In that game, Warriors' Chris Mullin scored a game-high 38 points." Needs "the" before the team name.
• General reference needs an en dash in the title for the year range, and it would be nice if Sporting News was italicized.

• Column heading "Ref." – replace with "Ref(s)", since some have more than one.
  • Remove the period that you put at the end of "Ref(s)".-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• You're missing a comma after March 28 in ref # 3.
• Make sure all tables have scope rows. It looks like only the "Tied games (1974-present)" section does.
• "Season" as well as the "Refs" should be centered.
  • "Ref(s)" should be centered like how "Seasons" is with each individual row.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I see. I think I fixed that there now; I thought you had been talking about the column itself. Toa Nidhiki05 03:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Note(s)" shouldn't sort.
• Make sure your consistent in what your calling a team. In most of the article, your saying "team" while in the "Total ties per club (1974-present)" the section and column refer to them as "Club".
• "Due to the rarity of tie games, some players who have been involved in them , such as former Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, have recounted that they did not even know NFL games could end in ties." This sentence sounds kind of funny, maybe you can reword it? Also, there should be no space after "them".

-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed all of the concerns except for the 'club' issue; strictly speaking, a club (or franchise) and team are not the same thing. For NFL purposes, the two are different - the league rulebook refers to 'teams', as those are the players participating in a game, while the league bylaws refer to 'club's, which are the organization. The word 'club' is therefore used on this page to refer to the organizations involved, because the teams are not static, while 'team' is used to refer to the group of people that play games. Toa Nidhiki05 20:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Notes" column still sorts and the refs in the "Ref(s)" column should be centered. There's also no period at the end of "Ref(s)".-- Astros4477 (Talk) 22:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those should be fixed now. Toa Nidhiki05 23:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps introduce the fact we're talking about American football in the lead.
• "tied games occur when a regular season game has" -> games ... game.. yuck, maybe "a tied game occurs when ... both teams... equal score .... in regular season."
• No images at all?
• Is it "Tie games" or "Tied games"? You use both.
• " since 1989" perhaps "since the 1989 season" appropriately linked (etc).
• Instead of soccer, say "association football".
• "They have been described as the least wanted result that a football game could produce, but a deserved outcome for the participating teams due to the poor play they exhibited" I find this whole sentence really awkward. "least wanted" and "due to the poor play they exhibited" are really awful phrases!
• "finished the season 8–7–1" what does that mean to a non-expert?
• " field goal tries" do you mean "field goal attempts"?
• "Total ties per club (1974 to present)" not sure this is relevant. You could add these to the main table I suppose with (1), (2) etc for the number of times they've tied....
• "Huffington Post" is The Huffington Post.
• Ref 10 needs an en-dash.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My responses to the issues

• I've added American football.
• I've modified it a bit. Does it work now?
• I honestly can't think of an image to include... Ties are a team occurrence, not due to any one player, and there aren't that many free images out there of tie games since they aren't very common.
• I was trying to vary the terms up a bit to be less repetitive. Do I need to stick with just one?
• Although the topic is in American English, I've added the term - 'soccer' is retained in parenthesis since many Americans are unfamiliar with the term 'association football'.
• I've shortened it to 'ties are the least desired outcome a football game can produce'.
• To any American, the term 8-7-1 would mean '8 wins, 7 losses, 1 tie'; I forgot the term would mean '8 wins, 7 ties, 1 loss' elsewhere, so I've updated the upper-alpha note to note that.
• Fixed to address that.
• I've removed it since it is not too important.
• Fixed.
• Added. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I haven't reviewed anything in two years, so bare with me.
• So there was a "rule change in 1974 that extended the existing sudden-death overtime for post-season games into the regular season", but when did that rule stop? In the first paragraph, it explains that overtimes are only 15 minutes.
  • Not sure what you mean here. The basic principle of the OT system has stayed the same since it was implemented, the only difference now is a field goal doesn't win it.
    • So are overtimes 15 minutes or sudden-death? When were overtimes changed from sudden-death to 15 minutes?! Apologies if I'm still not clear. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are both. The period is 15-minutes, with a modified sudden death system to determine a winner. If the period expires, the game is over. Toa Nidhiki05 17:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • A clarification would then be needed in the first paragraph. I would suggest "... a 15-minute sudden-death overtime period is held". --K.Annoyomous (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In regards to the pre-1974 list, I'd say keep it as it is. I'd suggest you have the show and hide function for that list.
  • Done. Toa Nidhiki05 16:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• For the table, it would be nice if there are indications of the number of times a team has tied a game; an example of this can be shown in NBA MVP.
  • Done. Toa Nidhiki05 16:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need a key/legend for that. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, it's an Oppose. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. Please message me on my user page when everything has been resolved. I am currently semi-retired, so it would be nice if you can do that :D --K.Annoyomous (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Each team selected a squad of 15 players which were finalised by 24 January 2013". "were" → "was".
• Add a comma after Charlotte Edwards, and after Mithali Raj.
• Images could use alt text.
  • South Africa image still needs it, but the others are now fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ooops! Missed out the "|alt=". Sorted now. Harrias ^talk 20:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• South Africa photo caption: "while they top run-scorer was Marizanne Kapp." "they" → "their". Giants2008 (Talk) 16:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done all, thanks. Harrias ^talk 19:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• London should be linked in the table for consistency.
• I don't think that the No. column should have the row scope
• "In Tests, he was most successful against England taking eight fifers." - ref needed.
  • I don't think we need a ref here as the fact is pretty obvious from the table itself. Anyways, I've added a ref. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The Symbol row in the key table should have row scope. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 05:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• All done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ..fewer than 40 bowlers have taken more than 15 five-wicket hauls at international...... → They are now exactly 40!
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• West Indies → the West Indies
  • More emphasis on the is not needed. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is grammatically incorrect, there should be the before West Indies! Zia Khan 21:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no such strict rule that it should always be accompanied by the. Take a look at [17] and [18] for eg., —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ... in the English soil... → on the English soil
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• It was noted the "Indian Bowling Performance of the Century" by Wisden in 2002. → Perhaps it should be: It was noted as the Indian "Best Bowling Performance of the Century" by Wisden in 2002.
  • The existing structure is the right one. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I couldn't find "Indian Bowling Performance of the Century" in the text of the citation you provided. Zia Khan 21:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ...against Australia in Melbourne. → "at the Melbourne Cricket Ground", for consistency.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• No need to abbreviate One Day International.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In the Key "starting date of the match" is sufficient in Date.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Eight-ball overs were bowled in this match. → the instead of this. Zia Khan 01:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't make any difference. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this makes difference, anyway no big deal! Zia Khan 21:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In what way? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to look at this for a while but couldn't find the time. Sorry about that.

• In the sentence ... 40 bowlers have taken more than 15 five-wicket hauls..., it should be at least 15 five-wicket hauls. If you say more than, it would exclude the four people with 15 hauls. Alternatively, you could leave them out altogether and say something like fewer than 40 bowlers have taken more than 15.
• You could use this custom query (Test, ODI, T20I combined) instead of/along with references 4 and 5 (individual Test and ODI numbers).
• Please check the reference titles for consistency. For example, reference 4 uses endashes only while reference 5 uses a colon for page titles with the same format.
• It'd be good if you could use the same date style in the titles and retrieved dates in the references.

Chamal's sock ^{SockMaster•C} 05:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comments. Fixed all —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments

• The line He was named the Indian Cricket Cricketer of the Year in 1964 and one of the five Wisden Cricketers of the Year in 1972 at the end of the first paragraph should be moved to the second paragraph I think, preferably to the end of it. Saying he became a cricketer of the year immediately after talking about how he started, and before even mentioning his debut seems a bit off.
  • Normally in these lists, we list all accolades received by the player in the first para while introducing the subject. Anyways I've moved that to second para as suggested by you. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In the first note, when you say the spin quartet refers to Indian bowlers Bishen Singh Bedi, EAS Prasanna and Srinivas Venkataraghavan..., that makes it sound like only those three were in the "spin quartet". It's implied since the fact is mentioned in the prose, but when taken literally that sentence is contradictory. Since this is going to be featured class, I'd say it's best to make things clearer than that.
  • Good catch! Fixed. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• It was noted, the Indian "Bowling Performance of the Century" – I think the original wording was better, and I prefer TRM's suggestion more. In any case, the comma is very out of place there.

Chamal ^T•C 13:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right, the comma is out of place. Done as suggested. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Could link cricket.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "atleast" space needed.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "in their cricketing careers" no need for "cricketing". They wouldn't be taking fifers in their plumbing or teaching careers.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• " developed an early interest in cricket" expand this, there's no context for what "early interest" is. Is it five years old? 15? 25?
  • Not sure about the age. Rephrased accordingly —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "It was noted the Indian" I'm not sure, but I'd say "It was noted as the Indian"...
  • I guess both are frequently used. Placed a comma after noted —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done as suggested —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 04:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "His career-best figures for an innings were eight wickets for 79 runs, which was " plural/singular problems here.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In the Key, Result doesn't need a full stop but the dagger does.
  • I guess there is no need for dagger too —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 7, surname, first name per all the other refs.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "first match played by England". Similarly for "last". Shouldn't it be India? Am I getting it wrong here?  Done
• Ref 1 and 3 should have an en-dash in the title.  Done
• Either link all, none or first instance of "ESPNcricinfo"  Done
• Ref 8 is dated April 2, 2011 and not 2012.  Done
• Add caption to the Key-Symbol-Meaning table  Done
• Caption for Test cricket, T20 and ODI does not go well with the table. (Take second opinion on this, if you want.). Also, it should be "opponent(s)"

•  Done As of the "opponent(s)" thing, I think it will be wrong since the opponents have not been grouped. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to have double links for "Tie+L: Number of matches tied and then lost in a tiebreaker such as a bowl-out or Super Over"  Done
• "W" should be small in "Number of matches Won"  Done
• I believe it should be "while calculating" or "for calculating" in "in calculating the result percentage".  Done

Rest will add later. - Vivvt • (Talk) 13:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to link "against" in "independent country was against Australia." Only "Australia" should be linked.  Done - Vivvt (Talk) 14:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not one but two typos in "six matches wee tied and 35 matches ha no result."  Done
• Another in "and were the join-champion with Sri Lanka in the 2002 ICC Champions Trophy."  Done
• "India played their first Twenty20 International match against South Africa, winning the match by six wickets." First, "the match" is a redundancy and can be removed without affecting the meaning. Second, what year was it held?  Done
• "and won 24 out of them". Remove "out".  Done
• The table caption has a formatting error, by the looks of it.  Done Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Too many "England" in the 1st para, try to avoid this.  Done
• They also won the 1983 Cricket World Cup and 2011 Cricket World Cup, → They also won the 1983 and 2011 Cricket World Cups  Done
• Many sentences start with "The team" in the 1st para, use India at some places as well.  Done
• The team has registered more wins against Australia than any other team, with 24 wins. → No need of "wins" at the end.  Done
• They have placed against Sri Lanka...???? You mean played? and no need of "playing" next to the comma.  Done
• In T20Is, India have played against 12 teams, and have played 7 matches with Australia and South Africa each. This need to be rephrased.  Done
• Add a "Total" row to the tables just like Harrias did to South Africa national women's cricket team record by opponent.  Done
• Check the tables for sorting and correct the data there is something missing since I only reviewed the prose.  Done

Zia Khan 15:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "the match was won by England by 158 runs" -> "England won the match by 158 runs" as the former structure doesn't sound too good  Done
• Pipelink "was also against England in 1932–33" to Indian cricket team in England in 1932  Done
• Add a note stating that "Madras Cricket Club Ground" was later renamed M. A. Chidambaram Stadium  Done
• "the team have played 472 Test matches" -> "India has/ve played 472 Test matches" since you have also explained about England in the previous sentence  Done
• "They have placed against Sri Lanka" They have played against Sri Lanka

•  Done I remember that I fixed this one, but it seems that I forgot to save the edit.

• playing with a winning percentage of 58.98 in 139 matches  Done
• "India have also", no need of also  Done
• "beaten" doesn't sound encyclopedic  Done
• "India have also beaten Sri Lanka more times than any other country" is a little confusing. Needs rephrasing  Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Finally, the image is not a good representation in my view. You could add something like the Indian team posing after winning a trophy or something like that.  Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

• was against against Australia  Done
• Too many "India have played" in the last para  Done
• later renamed to M. A. Chidambaram Stadium  Done
• One more "beating" in the last para  Done
• Image seems to be a copy-vio

• I have restored the earlier one till I don't get a new pic.  Done
  

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead image caption shouldn't have a full stop.  Done
• Opening sentences need some work, both are too simple and repetitive.  Done
• "Their next officially" => "India's...  Done
• "They got their first Test win" -> "They secured their first Test win...  Done
• Link "tie" in the lead.  Done
• " match with England" against.  Done
• "whereas they registered" -> "but registered...  Done
• "six matches were tied and 35 matches" don't mix formats, so "6 matches..."

• Didn't got you.

• Use "6" instead of "six". Zia Khan 00:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)  Done[reply]

• "match by six wickets.[10] The team won" -> "match by six wickets,[10] and won..."  Done
• "against whom India have" -> "against whom they have"  Done
• Suggest that a NR sorts as less than 0.00.

• Didn't got even this one.

• Make the "NR" sort as, say, -1.00, so when it sorts, it sorts "below" 0.00. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• But there is no -1.00 in the NR column. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 05:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Duh, silly me, I meant, make sure the en-dash in the Win% col sorts as if it was minus 1, so it sorts "below" the 0.00. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)  Done[reply]

• Note should be before references.  Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "whose lives are torn apart" sounds like an advert for the movie!
• Your short plot synopsis doesn't mention which war this "romantic war film" is based in...
• If it's a British movie, is there a good reason to publish the box office in US$?
• Pickier than my normal pickiness: " 5th Irish Film and Television Awards " our article has the "and" as an ampersand.
• The "British Independent Film Awards" is listed in the infobox but not in the list itself.
• "British Society of Cinematographers" has 1 win, 1 nom in the infobox, but just 1 nom in the list.
• Avoid using the semi-colon in the references to provide bold, that's not particularly accessible.
• Ref 3, check for WP:DASH in the title. Check others just in case.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully all have been fixed/resolved. - JuneGloom Talk 19:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]