Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2012

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 15:08, 28 August 2012 [1].

---

List of songs recorded by Faith No More

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 21:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list for the usual reasons. Although modelled on List of songs recorded by Chrisye, a Featured List, I've dispensed with the alphabetical TOC since this one is sorted chronologically. The sort function will allow for alphabetical sorting; but if the table format of the Chrisye list is preferred I'm willing to take the time to switch this over.

For those who'd like a little background, Faith No More are a band of dubious genre, who released several critically-appreciated albums between the mid-80s and mid-90s. The Real Thing yielded a degree of commercial success, which the band responded to by increasingly distancing themselves from that album's style. Unlike some of the other lists in this format, I've not listed it as incomplete as I believe it is wholly comprehensive. The only song not listed here is one that's been doing the rounds on the band's recent live dates, which has yet to be recorded on any actual release (though there are scores of Youtube bootlegs). So if you're keen on flicking through a list of songs about licking toilets, stock market crashes, meeting transvestites at bossa nova concerts or instrumental tributes to Woody Woodpecker cartoons, I eagerly await your comments. GRAPPLE X 21:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

*"which exists in two different versions on both Mosley-fronted albums" - As in, there are four recordings in total? Clarified, one version on each. GRAPPLE X 00:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Images may be better with the "upright" function Done, amended the multi-image templates to match. GRAPPLE X 00:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC) The "writer(s) column looks rather cramped. Should I force the width to be greater or how do you think this could be dealt with? GRAPPLE X 00:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Why the change from purple to green? The model for the Chrisye song list, List of songs recorded by Rihanna, also used purple, and it may be standard on featured lists of songs I had used the green from {{won}} due to its prevalence, but I replaced it with the purple in this edit; let me know which is preferable. GRAPPLE X 00:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Please ensure sentences in captions end with a period. Done. GRAPPLE X 00:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC) I did a copyedit, be sure to verify. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Looks good, thanks! Thanks for looking at this for me. GRAPPLE X 00:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Images: File:GG Allin Grave.jpg needs an English description Added. GRAPPLE X 00:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC) File:BrixtonAcademy.jpg needs an information box and English description Added. GRAPPLE X 00:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC) File:Faith No More - Flickr - p a h (9).jpg could use a crop File:Cuba Gooding Jr. 2012.jpg could use a bit of editing to remove the lady Otherwise, all clear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC) For the latter two, should I upload them as separate files or as new versions of the existing ones? GRAPPLE X 00:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC) I think Commons prefers them separate — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Hudson now replaced with File:Jon Hudson crop.png; working on Gooding now. Let me know if that upload looks okay. GRAPPLE X 01:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Yeah, that's fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC) File:Cuba Gooding Jr. 2012 (crop).png uploaded now too. GRAPPLE X 01:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Looks a little off centre. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Try it now. GRAPPLE X 03:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Yeah, that's better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support on images (see enclosed review) and prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments San Francisco-based band Faith No More → Faith No More, a San Francisco-based band Done. GRAPPLE X 00:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Unlink San Franciso per WP:OVERLINK Done. GRAPPLE X 00:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC) "under the name" → "as" Done. GRAPPLE X 00:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Write out the full names for those writers It's already been raised above that the column is cramped, I don't know if full names is going to help that. I did gain a bit of white space by converting the images to upright 170px width so I can try it to see though. GRAPPLE X 00:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC) "List of" is unneeded. I mean, we do already knno that this is a list I disagree, it's still standard practice to include "list of" in most list titles. GRAPPLE X 00:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC) WP:DASH problems are in many references, mainly those Allmusic references, and a few others I see Crisco already saw to that one. GRAPPLE X 00:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Categories should be in alphabetical order. Done. GRAPPLE X 00:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC) That's all for me. Great work on the list, looks like you put a lot of effort into it. TBrandley 00:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. TBrandley 03:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Comments Would remove hyphen on 'already-written' as I'm certain it isn't appropriate in this use Where is the work for Ref 7? Full stop should be removed on 'Ref(s)' heading in the table Lemonade51 (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Sorted; thanks for your comments. GRAPPLE X 21:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Lemonade51 (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Personally I'd disagree with the comment that "already-written" doesn't need a hypen – the first thing I thought when I read the sentence as it is now is that it was missing one. Would be interested to hear third opinion though. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that a hyphen would be helpful, and will add that the last sentence of the second paragraph has a semi-colon instead of a comma, which would be better there. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Got them both. Thanks. GRAPPLE X 19:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments Looks very good, overall. I'd change the column header Album to Release or something, as obviously some of them are not albums. Songs and albums that begin with "The" or "A" need to sort under their second word. Similarly, releases in the Album column with quotation marks need to sort under their first letter. I think the normal convention is for titles of double A-sides to be separated by spaces, i.e. Quiet in Heaven/Song of Liberty -> "Quiet in Heaven" / "Song of Liberty" Either pictured [year] or pictured in [year]. Personally, I prefer the latter, but it's up to you. WP:ISBN suggests using the 13-digit ISBN if available, which, for the two books you've listed, would be 978-1-898141-15-0 and 978-1-906002-01-5. As a website, I don't think Allmusic needs to be italicised. I also don't think the photographs of Keanu Reeves, Alex Winters, Emilio Estevez or Cuba Gooding Jr are entirely necessary – their connection to the list is only very tangential. In the last sentence of the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second, you slip into the conditional tense, i.e. "would become" rather than "became", and "would leave" rather than "left". I found this a little jarring on my first read-through. Once these issues are resolved, I'd be happy to support. Incidentally, I've got my own FLC: List of songs recorded by Guillemots. If you have the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC) I think I've addressed all of these now. I'll look in a little bit to find something more relevant to replace the actors' images; and although I had been leaning towards "already-written" being correct I think another opinion might be a good idea to settle it cleanly. Thanks for your comments, they've been really helpful (especially the sort stuff, I'll need to remember that as I have a larger one of these planned). GRAPPLE X 13:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Looks good, just "A Small Victory", "The World Is Yours" and The Real Thing need to resorted, and the caption for the Roddy Bottum image is now missing an in. Also, is there any particular reason why Jim Martin's name is spelt out in full, but the Gibb brothers only have their first initial? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Good catch; missed those three with ctrl+F as they were linked. Added "in" to Bottum's picture, and stuck in images of Burt Bacharach and Lionel Richie to replace the removed images. I also took out the "Jim" from Martin's writing credits as he was the only one to have his full first name (the Gibbs get initials to avoid the confusion of three "Gibb"s pointing different directions). GRAPPLE X 17:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, those images seem far more appropriate for this list. Just had another look over the article, and there are no other major issues that I can see, so I support this nomination. Great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments You could briefly explain what type of "band" FNM are. I could but it wouldn't be brief; they change genre from song to song quite often. In addition; most of their album articles suffer from frequent genre warrior edit wars so I'm not really keen on introducing an element to be warred over. GRAPPLE X 21:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Allrovi -> AllRovi. Done. GRAPPLE X 21:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC) "including the single "This Town Ain't Big Enough for Both of Us".[12]..." that, according to our article, was the lead track on a 1974 album, 7 years before FNM founded? This Town Ain't Big Enough for Both of Us#Cover versions; the song was re-recorded by Sparks and Faith No More on the 1997 album Plagiarism, which featured several of the former band's older songs being re-recorded. GRAPPLE X 21:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC) When you have "Writer(s)" should that be "Credited as writer(s)"? Changed for now, but List of songs recorded by Chrisye et al just use "Writer(s)". GRAPPLE X 21:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Not sure if it's entirely logical to have it listed in chronological order when the first column is the name of the song... I'll start ordering by song title if that's what you think would be better. GRAPPLE X 21:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Ordered by song title now. GRAPPLE X 21:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Also not keen on "Notes" then "Footnotes" with "References" as a subset of those. I would just have Notes and References. Done. GRAPPLE X 21:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 15:08, 28 August 2012 [2].

---

The Simpsons discography

Nominator(s): Theleftorium ^(talk) 11:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for featured list status because I think it's interesting and meets the criteria! Theleftorium ^(talk) 11:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The history section should be removed as too comprehensive and the Simpsons is a simple show. The lead should be about 4 paragraphs long and should mention briefly the recordings. For example the first paragraph mainly chronicles their life, but not the recordings. Off-topic comments can be found throughout the text. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The Simpsons is "a simple show"? What are you talking about? This is a good summary of all the Simpsons music releases, that doesn't go into too much detail (the details belong in the articles for the different releases). You're oppose is not based on any policies and is therefore not valid. Theleftorium ^(talk) 11:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Discographies should just summarize the most important content about the recordings. You have a lead plus a large section. For example, most of the content is rather about the recording histories of each albums. You could easily trim it down. I am striking my oppose so others can judge whether the text is not too large. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
      • But this isn't an ordinary discography. Discographies for actual artists wouldn't need history sections because that information is already in their own articles. The Simpsons doesn't have an article that talks about the history of all its music releases. But maybe this is just my opinion. If others agree with you than I'll consider shortening the article. Theleftorium ^(talk) 14:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments "The Simpsons is an American animated television sitcom created by Matt Groening that has aired on the Fox Broadcasting Company network since December 1989" re-write to: "The Simpsons is an American animated television sitcom created by Matt Groening for the Fox Broadcasting Company, which premiered on December 17, 1989" No, the first sentence is better. Your sentence implies that the Fox Broadcasting Company premiered on December 17, 1989. Theleftorium (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Link The Simpsons in "History". That's the first mention of it in the real article Link Fox Broadcasting Company in "History". Link Matt Groening in "History" Link "show's writers" to List of writers of The Simpsons Link Billboard in "History" Link The Simpsons Sing the Blues for the first time in "History" Link those countries in "History" Countries should not be linked. Theleftorium (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Various other linking issues for "History" Any reference for "The Yellow Album", "Go Simpsonic with The Simpsons", "The Simpsons Movie: The Music", "The Simpsons: Testify" Can you be more specific? Theleftorium (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Oh, that's okay. I see another reference there. TBrandley 02:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Referencing issues for "Albums" and "Singles" Can you be more specific? Theleftorium (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Oh, that's okay. I see another reference there. TBrandley 02:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Order those categories in alphabetical order please Done! Theleftorium (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC) TBrandley 19:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, links are only required once. All the things you suggested are linked in the lead. Theleftorium (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC) (talk page stalker) The LEAD is separate from the body of the article. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC) I know that. But Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking says that links in the body are not required if they are linked in the lead. I've added them now anyway to please you guys. Theleftorium (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. And disagree with GreatOrangePumpkin's comment. Great work on the list; it should be represented as one of the best lists here at Wikipedia. TBrandley 02:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks! And thanks you for reviewing. :) Theleftorium ^(talk) 10:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments I agree with TBrandley and Theleftorium, the history section should remain, as is stated this is not a conventional discography, so it should remain. The main is that tables do not follow WP:DISCOGSTYLE, and therefore do not meet MOS:DTT and WP:ACCESS, this is the most pressing issue Terribly sorry, I didn't realize the tables were out of date. Should be fixed now! Theleftorium (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC) "have ever managed a longer run at that position there." think this could be tighter perhaps "have managed a longer run" Done! Theleftorium (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC) "that features" -> "that featured" Done! Theleftorium (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC) "and as result it was not released" comma after it as well Not quite sure I understand what you mean. I made a change in the article but I don't know if that's what you meant. Theleftorium (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC) "It contains" -> It contained Done! Theleftorium (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC) "intended" ->intend Done! Theleftorium (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC) For the Allmusic refs the publisher (Rovi Corporation) needs to be added Done! Theleftorium (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the review! :) Theleftorium (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

;Comments from Crisco 1492 "Alf Clausen works as the composer for The Simpsons, co-writing, arranging, producing, and conducting almost all music that is used on the show. Much of his work was included on Songs in the Key of Springfield." reads very jolty. How about "The album featured much of the work of the show's composer Alf Clausen, who has co-written, arranged, produced, and conducted all music that is used on the show." Done! Theleftorium (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC) After "It reached number one on the singles charts in Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom" - That's a ton of refs. Can they be combined somehow? I removed the refs for New Zealand and Norway, as those chart positions are verified by the Australian source (see [3]). I hope three refs in a row are okay because I don't think there's anything else that can be done. Theleftorium (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC) "quickly wanted to produce a follow-up album" - "wanted to quickly produce a follow-up album" or something similar. Was his wanting quick, or did he want the production to be quick? I removed the word as it's not needed. Theleftorium (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC) "and latest album" - That should be avoided per WP:DATED unless you use "as of" Fixed! Theleftorium (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC) After "was popular and appeared on the singles charts in several countries, reaching number three in Ireland, eight in New Zealand, 14 in Norway, 23 in the United Kingdom, and 53 in Sweden." also has a pile-up, as does "became a top-twenty hit in Ireland and the United Kingdom." I removed the refs for Norway and Sweden, as those chart positions are verified by the New Zealand source (see [4]). I hope three refs in a row are okay because I don't think there's anything else that can be done. That last sentence you mentioned has been reduced to two refs. Theleftorium (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC) That's it from me. Images look fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks a lot for the review! Theleftorium (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good. I had The Yellow Album way back when... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Well it's a good thing someone bought it, I don't think Fox made as much as they wanted on it. ;) Theleftorium ^(talk) 10:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments "...when after the ..." would expect a comma after "when" here. Done! Theleftorium (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC) "got the idea " reads clumsily to me. Hmm, any suggestions? Would "came up with the idea" be better? Theleftorium (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Couldn't it just be something like "decided to..."? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Sure, fixed! Theleftorium (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Where are the release dates referenced, and for which country/countries are they applicable? The release dates are referenced in the text by ref #2, 17, 16, 21, and 24, do I need to add them to the tables? They are the American release dates, you want me to note that in the tables? Theleftorium (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, sorry that you're the guinea pig here, but it just struck me while reviewing this discog that we never actually say where the release date is pertinent to... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Heh, no worries! I've added the refs and the country to the tables now. Theleftorium (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Can you give the tables unique captions, e.g. "List of studio albums, with selected chart positions and certifications"? Done! Theleftorium (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support looks good. I would add a sentence on The Simpsons Theme which is probably the best known song in the scope of the topic. There should also be a sentence on "The Streets of Springfield" since it does not have an article and nobody would have any what is up with it. You should try to make a topic using this as a lead article. Nergaal (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support, but I disagree about your comments. The theme song hasn't been released as a single (other than the Green Day cover), and so it doesn't belong here. "The Streets of Springfield" never charted and hasn't received any coverage in reliable sources such as magazines, newspapers and books; if people want to find out more about it they can follow the footnote to AllMusic, but the song is way too unimportant to be mentioned in the history section (just like the compilation album). Theleftorium ^(talk) 16:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral =)--Kürbis (✔) 16:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • To be honest, that's not very helpful. What could be done to improve the list? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 15:08, 28 August 2012 [5].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Steve Waugh

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all the criteria. It is based on similar new FLs such as List of international cricket centuries by Mohammad Yousuf and List of international cricket centuries by Kumar Sangakkara. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose "Steve Waugh is a former Australian cricketer and captain." should expand to say former captain of Australian cricket team, just saying he was a former makes no sense Changed it to "Steve Waugh is a former cricketer and captain of the Australia cricket team" —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC) refs should come after punctuation, ref 3 currently does not Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC) "away his wicket easily and is someone who valued his wicket", comma should be a full stop I think you should read the sentence once more. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC) "He was named as a Indian Cricket Cricketer..." Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC) we have ten and 10 in close succession, be consistent, should really be in digits above 9 Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Srilanka -> Sri Lanka Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC) "2003-04 series against India" hyphen should be an en dash Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Table is formatted strangely we have all figures aligned centrally except the score column which is not, be consistent. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Country, venue and date column should be aligned to the left, looks untidy aligned centrally Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC) I don't see the point in the I/N column, can't see how it can be referenced either As I already said the list was modeled based on Mohammad Yousuf's list where M/N was included in a separate column. I feel Innings played by a cricketer is a proper representation rather than Matches played. The reference for that column would be the Innings by innings list from ESPNcricinfo —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC) You also say the Sangakkara list is a model and that list does not have that column. Remember Wikipedia is not a statistics website, as far as I can see this is information that does not add anything to the table, and is irrelevant information. NapHit (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC) I never said this was solely based upon the Sangakkara list. Both the lists are different in some aspects. If wikipedia is not a statistics website then why do we have articles on List of records that too some of them being FLs. Anyway I've removed that since it bothered you. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC) I understand its solely based on one list, but regardless the information was not needed. Records are notable, such as centuries, what is not notable are some of the stats that accompany the notable record, in this case the number of innings. NapHit (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Should have a separate column for refs Why should refs have a separate column. Is there a reason for it.—Vensatry (Ping me) 06:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC) It makes the table look neat for a start. As they all at the end of the table anyway, they should be in a separate column. NapHit (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Done. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC) The column should be unsortable. NapHit (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Forgot that! Fixed. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Why do you have B/F and S/R in ODI table but not test column? I would remove these columns In Test cricket balls faced really doesn't matter, where as in limited–overs cricket it's a prominent figure. Other similar lists doesn't have balls faced in the Test centuries table. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC) They also don't have it in the ODI table either, most have S/R but not B/F, I'm not convinced its needed. NapHit (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC) What if someone wants to know the "balls faced". The Mohammad Yousuf list has the column and as I said earlier this article was modeled based on that. I don't have problems removing the S/R, but I don't think it makes sense if we remove the "Balls faced" column altogether. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Just because one list has the column doesn't mean its needed, not convinced by your argument that its more important in ODI than test, why is that? Surely its relevant to both? Anyway you've not adequately explained why the column should remain, people wanting to know is not a reason. Still think it should be removed, just stats overload as far as I'm concerned. NapHit (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC) In Test cricket balls faced doesn't really matter. You could see many Test matches where Balls faced was not recorded before some 30-40 years. That's not the case with ODIs. I see S/R in almost every century list in the ODI table. So what's harm in having S/R in ODI table. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Read the strike rate article, it seems more relevant to ODI, so happy for that to remain. NapHit (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Key should be arranged in order of columns in the table, so test should come after Inn. instead of before Pos. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC) A number of refs have hyphens when they should be en dashes, nearly every ref from 26 onwards Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC) ref 57 still has a hyphen. NapHit (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Fixed. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Quick (mild oppose) comments " Middle–order batsman" no need for M and hyphen, not en-dash here. You link middle order batsman, but not right-arm medium bowler in the lead. "Waugh took Australia " led rather than took. "honored" I know in BritEng that should be honoured. What about AusEng? "Test–playing" hyphen, not en-dash. " a Guinness record" just say a world record. "Waugh's position is seventh in the list" -> "Waugh is seventh..." "for Australia over a period of nineteen years" -> "for Australia for nineteen years". Ref 24, for instance, en-dash needed. Ref 25, for instance, publisher needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Fixed all. —Vensatry (Ping me) 20:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 06:12, 16 August 2012‎ (UTC)
Comments In the tables, debold the headers per WP:MOSBOLD Align references to the center in the tables Categories should be sorted in alphabetical order TBrandley 19:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Fixed all. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments – "He was named as Indian Cricket Cricketer of the year in 1988". Capitalize "year"? Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC) "Waugh made his Test debut against India on December 1985". Unless a more precise date is given, "on" should be "in". Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Should "International" be capitalized in "Waugh retired from International cricket"? Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Could remove List of from the two section headers, since it's obvious they're lists. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Not done. I still see them. All you did was remove the table captions, which were helpful and should be restored. I meant the section titles themselves. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC) What is intended to be sourcing the first note? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Do you think it's unnecessary. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC) I think sourcing the note would help. That's why I brought it up. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC) I think I've addressed both the comments. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. TBrandley 02:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. No concerns. Meets the standards. Zia Khan 23:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from --Kürbis (✔) 10:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

*Comments "cricket cricketing captains" - jawbreaker; could be just cricket captains "He was named as Indian Cricket Cricketer of the Year in 1988, and Wisden Cricketer of the Year the next year.[10][11]" - to avoid repetition, perhaps: "He was named Cricketer of the Year in 1988 by Indian Cricket, and a year later by Wisden." "In January 2010, the ICC honoured him by inducting him into the ICC Cricket Hall of Fame.[12]" - perhaps just write: "the ICC inducted him into the..." "In Test matches, Waugh has scored centuries against all Test cricket playing nations, and is the second player to do so.[15][N 1]" - no need for "and is" Man of the Match is a proper noun, therefore should be capitalized That is all. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Fixed all. Thanks for stepping in. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support --Kürbis (✔) 10:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 15:08, 28 August 2012 [6].

---

List of Delhi Daredevils cricketers

Nominator(s): TheStrikeΣagle 10:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all the criteria for FL TheStrikeΣagle 10:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose for now – Nominator is not a significant contributor to the list. He has performed just a single edit. It also appears that he hasn't consulted the regular editor so far. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was only the one who asked Strike if he feels that the list meets the criteria. I can't nominate because I already have 3 nominations. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The parent article seems too small even with the inclusion of present squad, former players, player salaries, etc., Don't you think it violates the 3b criterion. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. The prose might be a little low, but there is a lot of material in the main article. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick comment - I think it's fine against 3b, but I am concerned that the article is effectively an orphan, the only place it's linked is in the navbox at the bottom of another one of these list articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Quick comment – MOS:FLAG suggests that flags should only be used in tables with the country name attached to them. For example, at this size, it is not immediately obvious whether Bracewell is an Australian or a New Zealander. Personally, I'm not convinced that the player's nationality is relevant to this table anyway, as the players are representing a domestic team, not their country. Also, for sportsmen, the flag should representing sporting nationality so if you are including them, Andre Russell's should be West Indies, not Jamaica. Harrias ^talk 11:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Done. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Minor, but a comma would be nice after Deccan Chargers in the second paragraph. done Also, I wish the repetition in "His score of 119, scored..." could be fixed by changing one of the "score"s. done "but only the records of their games for the DD are given." Don't think the second "the" should be there, especially as it's not used in other similar cases earlier. done Not sure the photo gallery at the start of the Players section is helpful. Usually we discourage galleries at FLC or FAC. There are many FLs with such galleries, and they provide statistics which are helpful. Also they have alt text, so including them doesn't costs much. :) Something appears off in the table in Rajat Bhatia's bowling average column. done Again minor, but the semi-colon in footnote 1 could just be a comma instead. done I don't do this often, but I'd recommend having reference 4 archived as soon as can be done. The AFP links from Google go dead very quickly, and archiving it now will save the trouble of finding a replacement later. This isn't really a requirement for FL status, just some advice to prevent future difficulties. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC) done Changed it to Yahoo! link. Thanks a lot for your comments. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose needs copyedit. "one of the participating team of the" teams. In fact, "one of the teams participating in the ..." would be better still. "They played ..." vs "DD has reached ..." plural vs singular. Be consistent. thrice -> three times. " In total, 54 players have appeared in Twenty20 cricket for DD" - do DD play any other form of cricket than T20? "69 since his first match in 2008." -> perhaps "69 since his debut for the franchise in 2008"? "aggregating 2013 runs" reads odd. Scoring would be better. "and Kevin Pietersen has scored" -> have scored. Consider linking "run". "and is listed alphabetically" initially perhaps, but it's sortable. Don't like that gallery at all, why not just place them down the right-hand side of the table? And a caption with "has balled the" really proves the need for a copyedit. Morne Morkel has a diacritic missing. As does Moines. No need for a No. column when it's meaningless, just sort alphabetically by name. "T20I captains" are you sure these are T20I?! You should add a "accurate as of" note since the Champions League is in a couple of months... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC) done all. You may like to review your !vote now. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments "scoring 2013 runs" would change to 2,013 runs, just so no thinks it refers to the year "seventeen runs" 17 should really be in digits for consistently with other figures, especially as we have 13 in digits Think Inn should come under Batting in the table and Balls under Bowling as well, ca should also be under Fielding Would move the IPL portal banner as it obscuring an edit button NapHit (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC) done all. :) Hindustan Zinda bad 16:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support: looks good! Thine Antique Pen 08:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Looks just great! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 15:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments Link playoff done After the first occurrence, you've entirely used DD for "Delhi Daredevils". Why the players table caption alone reads "Delhi Daredevils cricketers". Be consistent done Any reason for cite killing ref #3. I think you should go for it only when more than three different (types) sources are used How is that "cite killing"? I said no need to cite kill that. Go for the normal method —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC) done When sorting the batting average by ascending order, dashes should occupy the bottom of the table Dashes should come at last. Its a general practice. Nope, a player who hasn't been dismissed in any of the innings that he has played has a batter average (statistically) than others. See List of India Twenty20 International cricketers for sorting —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC) done Any special reason for including Pathan's image. Also the text in the caption "next to Morkel who has bowled one ball more" is not really required as it adds little encyclopedic value done The batting averages of Doug Bracewell and Roelof van der Merwe are statistically better than KP's. So its better to add a note which defines the minimum criteria (like balls faced or runs scored) like what you did for bowling average No, because batting average doesn't apply to Bracewell and Merwe. Add a note —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC) done —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC) All your comments have been addressed now. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 17:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from --Kürbis (✔) 10:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

*Comments "Sehwag is DD's leading run-scorer, scoring 2,013 runs.[8] " - perhaps change to active: The leading run-scorer of DD is Sewag, who scored 2,013 runs." to avoid the odd "run - scorer - scored - runs" "which is the highest score by a DD batsman" - confusing; you stated that he scored 2,013; perhaps you mean the highest score in one game? "while he has also made the highest number of stumpings: 13.[14]" - while also making the... "The first list includes all players who have played at least one match" - should this be "in at least"? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Done all :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support--Kürbis (✔) 10:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:13, 20 August 2012 [7].

---

List of Grey's Anatomy episodes

Nominator(s): TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs), Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I had worked on this article occasionally for the past year or so, and finally developed it to FL quality recently. I am the third-most frequent contributor, and after a recent peer review, I believe this list is now ready. Jonathan, the co-nominator helped bring this article up to quality this past year. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2012‎ (UTC)

Comments Netflix.com should just Neflix Done, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC) U.S. ratings should Nielsen ratings Done, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Add "specials" and "webisodes" to the series overview table Not necessarily, per List of Lost episodes, a featured list. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Per Jonathan, not done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Why is there a [ in Ref. 37 Fixed, and I also fixed a few others with the same problem. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC) TBrandley 19:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC) I'll address those ASAP; as a matter of disclosure, TBrandley was the peer reviewer. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC) All the above issues are done; I hope you can support. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Great work on the list. It can for sure be represented as one Wikipedia's best lists. Great work again. TBrandley 05:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments Any reason why the lead image does not have a thumb and description? Done No production codes available? There is no WP:RS available for the codes. Sorry :( TBrandley 01:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Is it appropriate to have three external links which more or less cover the same thing? Consider WP:ELNO. No, see List of Awake episodes, a recently promoted FL, and various others.. Thanks. Oh, and also, epguides should be kept as it contains production codes not seen in any other external links. TBrandley 01:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Lemonade51 (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC) I have addressed all of the issues that can be fixed; others are noted. Thanks for reviewing! TBrandley 01:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for taking care of the above issues TBrandley. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC) No problem. I'm happy to! TBrandley 05:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Lemonade51 (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Sofffie7 (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments Would spell out EST on first use, readers not in the USA, may not be aware what it refers to, probably link it as well Done "On May 11, 2012, the series was renewed for a twenty-four episode ninth season, which is scheduled to premiere on September 27." could do with a ref Since its below in the actual article, it is not needed. Some references have Medianet American Broadcasting Company, while others have ABC Medianet, be consistent, all should be the same Done. Though it may take time to show on the table on this list It's done. I fixed it originally but some user accidentally reverted it. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC) ref 33, 36, 39 hyphen should be an en dash Done As far as I'm aware IMDB is not considered a reliable source, so probably best to replace those refs As explained in a peer review, "the source is not verifying an extraordinary claim, but merely the existence of these specials. If you search the title of the specials, they pop up on IMDb, TV.com, YouTube, blogs, etc. So clearly, they are real. The task was picking which out of those was the most-reliable, so I thought IMDb was." I'll leave this up to the original nominator though. I think it is reliable in this case; IMDb and TV.com both show the same information, so clearly it is true. Besides, titles and credits are written by the editorial staff—it's not user-submitted. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC) title image could do with alt text Done I see another user mentioned but we really don't need four external links, should really be no more than two I'll leave this to the original nominatior I reduced the external links to two. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC) I have addressed all of the issues that I could fix. Thanks for reviewing! TBrandley 17:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for taking care of the above issues again TBrandley. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC) series overview table does not MOS:DTT, need to add row and colscopes to ensure it does Done I still don't see any col or row scopes in that table. NapHit (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC) I'm very unfamiliar with table styling. I hate to ask, but could you explain how to do it? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Not to worry, I've done it anyway. NapHit (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Source comments –

• About.com (ref 13) isn't a reliable source. Surely something better can be found to cover a Golden Globe Award?
  • Done; replaced with ABC.com source. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• What makes The Futon Critic (a general citation and refs 207 and 215) a reliable source?
  • I think it meets WP:RS. It is also used at House (TV series), a FA. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
    • You may think that, but do you have any firmer evidence? Just because it's been used in an FA doesn't automatically make it reliable; it might have been added after its FAC, or the FAC reviewers might not have noticed it. If there was proof that it was found reliable at an FAC, I'd be much happier. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I'll take a look through archives. But just as a note, the source was there before, during, and after its promotion. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) I have many reasons. #1 that The New York Times cites references to The Futon Critic itself.[8], [9]. #2, as noted on the web page, it is just press releases from NBC, where is fairly obviously. #3, is that it runs a great staff, as noted on its web site, it has many deicated staff members. For more reasons on why so, so Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of The Simpsons guest stars/archive1 under TBrandley (my) comments which asks the same questions. Hope these points work. Cheers, TBrandley 04:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) Ok, found something. A user asked about the reliability of the website here, and it was deemed reliable for basic production information, but not extraordinary claims. After it being deemed okay, the user used it at No Such Thing as Vampires, the source was accepted, and the article was promoted (the source was and is still there). Rolling Stone [mentioned the website as a page that networks often view as well. Per what I found, I believe this meets WP:RS, and can be included in the article. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
            • Seeing the great Ealdgyth strike out The Futon Critic at an FAC is reassuring by itself. That, along with the other evidence presented, is enough to convince me to strike this out. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• What makes IMDB (refs 210–214) reliable?
  • I'm having a real problem with this. Grey's Anatomy aired five specials in its early days. It did not receive much attention, which is why it isn't covered by renowned websites. I know IMDb isn't usually considered reliable, but the title and credits are not user-submitted, they are written by the editorial staff. Furthermore, the first special "Straight to the Heart" for example; IMDb, TV.com, and TV Rage (can't link because it's blacklisted) all show the same information, so clearly it aired and the information is factual. You can actually watch the special on YouTube, and confirm all is true. Three "skeptical" sources all display the same information, in addition to the actual special on YouTube. I understand that they are not considered "high-quality", but clearly they are real and I feel this article would have gaps and not be comprehensive if the specials were not mentioned. I picked IMDb out of the three sources, because I feel it is the most reliable out of the three. Let me know, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually, there's a fourth option you didn't consider: citing the episodes themselves. There's a cite episode template that can be used for this. I know secondary sources are preferred over primary, but if there are no real good sources to support the information, don't be afraid to use the episodes themselves in this case. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks for that; what a great idea! I've replaced all the IMDb sources with {{cite episode}}s. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Although ref 204 is to the Twitter account of the show's executive producer, I'd still feel better if something a little stronger was used. Twitter has its limits as a reliable source on Wikipedia, though to be fair I'm more concerned about the other sites I pointed out. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Not only is she the executive producer, but she is the creator and showrunner. I haven't been able to find another source, but I will look. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I have been unable to find an alternate source for the claim of 24 episodes. However, since she is the showrunner, I think she would know how many episodes they are producing this season, more than some magazine. Regardless, if you do not feel the source is strong enough, I'll remove it along with the claim. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I would feel better if the source was removed. The information can always be readded once it appears in a stronger source. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Removed. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "lead-out" is not common term outside the US and pubs like Variety and Hollywood Reporter
  • Reworded. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• "All episodes are an estimated forty-three minutes" why "estimated"? "Approximately" is more appropriate
  • Fixed. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• "Since its premiere, Buena Vista Home Entertainment has distributed all seasons onto DVD" Isn't it ABC studios nowadays?
  • No, their DVD line is still titled Buena Vista. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Is there a special reason for making a little coloured box next to each season in the Overview table?
  • Yeah, it corresponds with the season's DVD color theme. It can also be seen at other FLs such as List of Family Guy episodes, List of 24 episodes, List of The Simpsons episodes, and List of Lost episodes. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Can you make all the columns in the episode tables the same width for each season? Each season's table's column lines are all over the place and there's no similarity to the previous or next seasons'. It makes scrolling or reading them a bit of a strain.
  • It is set on an auto-width. This is because some seasons' titles, writers, or directors are really long, and others are short. I thought it would look odd for one table to have all these huge gaps if I set them all equal. However, if you feel otherwise, I'll be happy to change it. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• {{episode list}} was updated a few months ago with new parameters. One of them is "viewers=" so you don't have to use up an auxiliary one. It won't affect the layout or display of the information, but an FL should use up-to-date fields of templates for when other editors reference it when making more potential FLs.
  • Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

My internet is currently patchy at best, so please leave me a message on my talk page so I know you've replied here. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 05:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Support - I made a couple of minor changes. Tables look nice and neat now, and I can't find anything else to pick at. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 18:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments Why aren't similar columns the same width from section to section? It looks messy right now. It is set on auto-width. This is so that seasons with short titles do not have big gaps. Would you still like it to be changed? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Fixing the widths would look tidier. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Done; column widths standardized. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Tables could use captions per WP:ACCESS. I don't know what that means; can you explain? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Check MOS:DTT, it should explain to you how to add "captions" to tables to help with accessibility. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC) "series has aired eight seasons" reads odd to me, I would expect it be active, i.e. "The series has aired for eight seasons"... Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC) You already abbreviated ABC so why have all that "American Broadcasting Corporation" in the refs? Is it necessary to change? They are all consistent throughout the citation section. However, if you feel it is necessary, let me know. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC) What make JB Hi-Fi's online store a reliable source? It is really the most reliable source I could find for region four release dates. It's also used in List of Lost episodes and List of Family Guy episodes; two FLs. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC) It may the best you can find, but can you demonstrate how it meets WP:RS? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC) I replaced all the JBHiFi sources, with EzyDVD ones (Australia's largest online and off-line specialist DVD retailer). TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Date ranges in titles for some of those Amazon links need en-dashes, not unspaced hyphens. I don't know which sources you are referring to. The only Amazon sources are DVD release dates, and those are all spaced en-dashes. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC) My mistake, I meant the Medianet ones, refs 17, 20, 23 etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:13, 20 August 2012 [10].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Inzamam-ul-Haq

Nominator(s): Zia Khan 12:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that this meets all the FLC criteria. This is loosely based upon existing FLs, List of international cricket centuries by Mohammad Yousuf and List of international cricket centuries by Kumar Sangakkara. Comments or suggestions are appreciated... Zia Khan 12:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments The prose needs some copy-editing. The first para could do better with the stats, instead of opinions. Both would anyway go in his side. :) The first para always introduce the article. But add some more stats. I can't even in his rank in the century scorers. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Adding more to the first para would be excessive. The rank is alawys given at the end, in this case I've already put his Test in the related para. Zia Khan 12:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Added his position at the end. Zia Khan 13:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Why not move the stadium pic to the key section. It will save some space. Done. Category:Test cricket records is not applicable here. Why not? 25 centuries, 329 runs in innings, century in 100th Test, etc. are Test cricket records. But there are ODI 100s too. Also 100s list is a stat, not a record. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC) I think all the 100s list include this category. Zia Khan 12:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Then Category:One Day International cricket records is also applicable. What I could suggest is, Category:Cricket records and statistics is the best choice. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Done. Zia Khan 13:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC) I might be getting a lot demanding, but I think you could add "List of centuries by opponent" and "List of centuries by year", similar to what has been done at the 100s list for the god himself. I think these things are unnecesary and also I've already said that the list is based upon existing FLs, Yousuf and Sangakkara. Ok then, I would not press much hard on that. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Add a key for ref, or merge the ref with the result. Is this really important to add a key for this? Most of our readers would need that. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Done. Zia Khan 12:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC) There is no mention of Faisalabad and Karachi in the lead, where he scored the most 100s, 3 each. Three centuries at a ground are not as sagnificant as this: "Inzamam scored Test centuries at 18 cricket grounds, including 13 at venues outside Pakistan." Fine. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Good work overall. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. Zia Khan 11:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• "As of August 2012, he is fourteenth in overall among all-time combined century-makers". Remove "in" from this part to fix the grammar.
  • Removed.
• Last word of the Notes and References heading should be de-capitalized. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Retitled by Lemonade51. Zia Khan 04:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments "His first Test century came a year later against West Indies..." should be "against the West Indies..." there is another one further down the article as well Done. "His score of 329, made against New Zealand..." Done. no need to ref 9 just twice in same sentence, just use it once at the end of the sentence Fixed. "In ODI matches, Inzamam is fourth in the all time list of highest run scorers in an ODI career, with 11739 runs from 378 matches..." in an ODI career is redundant already established we are talking about ODI Fixed. "a position which he shares..." Done. Don't need ref in the key, clear what that column is for This was suggested by Vaibhav Jain. Any way, I've removed this. Is that key description for Date correct? To me it infers the day the match between the teams started, shouldn't it be the date Inzamam scored the century? I think this is more suitable because dates only coincide ODI centuries. It may take two different dates to achieve a Test century. Source seems to list start date, as day match started so not a problem, just wanted to clear that up. NapHit (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. Zia Khan 16:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments Caption "most number of centuries" - no need for "number of". Done. "and made 8820 runs" would prefer "scored". Done. I would also prefer to see 8,820 and thence 11,739... Done. "at Edgbaston Cricket Ground," I would pipelink that to just Edgbaston. Done. "at Antigua Recreation Ground," at the Antigua...? Similar comment applies to other Grounds. (Look at the caption you've written, for example, ".. at the Gaddafi Stadium, ...") Done. Four paras in the lead is perhaps a little too much, the list isn't that long. Removed some text and merged 3rd and 4th para. Ref 20 doesn't need "Pakistan records" in the title. Fixed. M in M Chimmaswamy has a full stop after it. Fixed. Zia Khan 15:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Don't think you need the No. column, but there appears already a passive consensus above to accept it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • We know that 25 centuries are there in the "List of Test centuries", but to confirm this we'll need a No. column, I think. Zia Khan 21:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments 8,820 runs in Tests, why not 11,739 runs? He scored 11,739 in ODIs not in Tests. I meant the comma which was not there in 11739 —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC) "BBC in 2005", year is not required Removed. Edgbaston -> Edgbaston Cricket Ground It is suggested by The Rambling Man, see his comment above. Any reason for it. Except this you have specifically used the ground names for all others —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Edgbaston Cricket Ground is commonly known as Edgbaston, Birmingham. Zia Khan 21:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Edgbaston is the name of a locality in Birmingham —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC) 11,739 runs from 378 matches in the third para is repetitive Fixed. "he is thirteenth in the overall list of most hundreds in a Test career" -> most hundreds in a Test cricket (or Tests) Done. "2006 series between the teams" -> 2006 series between the two teams Done. "He made 11 not out in the match". This fact is not required. A mention of this can be meaningful only if his highest score is close to hundred. You can directly say something like he never made a hundred in T20I Done. "a position he shares with Sunil Gavaskar, Viv Richards, Herschelle Gibbs, Desmond Haynes, Steve Waugh and Chris Gayle". This can be included under a FN Done. Inzamam shares the position he with... —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Fixed. Zia Khan 21:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC) While sorting the score column in descending order, 112 off 109 balls should sort before 112 off 163 balls Fixed. The cricinfo link at the EL shouldn't be there, since it's already used as a ref Removed. Zia Khan 14:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC) —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:13, 20 August 2012 [11].

---

2008 Summer Paralympics medal table

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this article now meets all the criteria and is on the same level as the other Olympic/Paralympic medal tables. I thought I'd dabble with a Paralympic one for a change seeing as the next Games is due to kick off in a few weeks and this article should get a higher number than normal of visitors. Miyagawa (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

;Comments from Crisco 1492 This was the thirteenth Summer Paralympic Games - The subject of the first sentence was "medal table". Don't think the table was the thirteenth Summer Paralympics "2012 Summer Olympics" - Similar to medals for games which hadn't happened yet? 76 countries - You say "NPCs" earlier. Used interchangeably? If so, may need to be noted. "Hosts China" - Hosts? The one wide image casts a lot of white space in the article. What's the copyright on the underlying work at File:2008 Summer Paralympics Gold Medal.jpg? Probably still copyrighted. Other images look okay. On 14 September 2008, Rebecca Chin was stripped of the silver medal she had won in the F37-38 discus competition after the IPC overruled a change in her classification made earlier in the month making her ineligible to have won the medal as she became a F44 competitor instead. - Way too long, needs to be split. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC) I did a copyedit, be sure to check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the review, I made the modifications as noted (changing those two countries to NPCs as they should be) - that 2012 one was a rather daft typo on my part! File:2008 Summer Paralympics Gold Medal.jpg is a cropped version of File:Andreas Vevera Wien2008.jpg. Miyagawa (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC) The medal image is a derivative work of the medal itself, as well. That medal may be (probably is) still under copyright. The original image (of Vevera) is probably okay because of de minimis, but the zoom-in of the medal... BTW, you have "nation" in the "Changes in medal standings" table. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Other issues have been addressed satisfactorily. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC) I've replaced the image in question with a different fair use image showing all three medal types. Miyagawa (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Looks up to par. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Quick comment – Alt text would be nice for the lead image, especially since the other photos have it. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'd done a typo on the image code - the alt text should be showing up now. Miyagawa (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments People's republic of China shouldn't be linked per WP:OVERLINK Changes in medal standings table does not meet MOS:DTT NapHit (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC) I disagree on the first comment China at the Games has been linked twice (same as GB and Australia) and People's Republic of China has been linked once. Afro (Talk) 10:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC) From WP:OVERLINK, "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions." Therefore it should not be linked, it doesn't link to the article on China at the games but China itself. NapHit (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC) "An article is said to be overlinked if it contains an excessive number of links" How is one or two links excessive in anyway? Afro (Talk) 13:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC) I think it's more the point that, like we don't link "United States of America" (massive, obvious geographical entity), we don't need to link China for the same reason. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC) What TRM said, the guideline is quite clear I'm not sure how you can dispute it. NapHit (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC) I've removed the link as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments "débuts" no need for accent. Changed as noted. Miyagawa (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC) "was similar to that of the" -> " was similar to those awarded in the " Changed as noted. Miyagawa (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Why not tell me what sports the individual multiple winners participated in? Added - had to do a bit of a modification to the wording as two of the athletes were from the same sport. Miyagawa (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Don't think you need the "see also" for Olympic medal table, you could just incorporate that link in the prose before the table, e.g. "The ranking in this Olympic medal table is based..." Its a link to the 2008 Summer Olympics medal table rather than Olympic medal table (unless someone else came in and removed Olympic medal table!) Miyagawa (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC) "Dias" picture, is that centre left or actual far left? Changed to center left (taking care not to use my English English!) Miyagawa (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Sorting by Gold multiple times results in multiple sorts, there should just be two orders. Same for silver, bronze and total. (btw, I'm using Safari). "Changes in medal standings" table doesn't appear to be using the header properly. General ref needs a publisher. Added, and added it to the other BBC inline citation. Miyagawa (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Avoid the use of the semi-colon for the bold effect, it's not got for WP:ACCESS. I've changed it to subsections for References and Notes. Miyagawa (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC) What is ref 8? Online? Magazine? Dunno what happened there - I must have forgotten to paste the url into the template. Haven't done that in a while! Miyagawa (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Second external link has a typo. Fixed the typo. Miyagawa (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - looks nice! Consider archiving the online references with the archiveurl and archivedate parameters and a source such as [www.webcitation.com webcitation.com] or The Internet ARchive, so that if the referenced sites are removed or modified you don't lose your citations. --PresN 05:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:13, 20 August 2012 [12].

---

Kelly Clarkson discography

Nominator(s): Woofygoodbird (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after making a overhaul of the article by rewriting it, by adding and cleaning reliable sources, adding catalog numbers for the releases, and applied guidelines according to Wikipedia:DISCOGSTYLE. I think it now meets the criteria for FL status. Woofygoodbird (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Toa Nidhiki05

Early comments – *Neutral - Content is neutral, discography is comprehensive. I have a few concerns, however: In singles, As a solo artist is not needed as it is the primary table and thus has all non-featured, non-promotional singles. It might also confuse some readers into thinking Clarkson was part of a band or group. done Woofygoodbird (talk) 12 48, 30 July 2012 (UTC) While it isn't required, discography tables are allowed to show positions for charts that are not the main chart for the country - as such, 'collaborations' could have the charting positions on the US Country chart, where "Because of You" hit No. 2 and "Don't You Wanna Stay" hit No. 1. Once again, not required but it might give more context into the songs' success. I didn't put it yet because those songs already charted at the main chart and might trigger some other editors to assert that she's not a country artist and their country music discography guidelines don't apply to her. (See Talk:Kelly_Clarkson_discography#"Because of You (remix)") But if you insist, it's okay to me. Woofygoodbird (talk) 12 48, 30 July 2012 (UTC) "Other charted songs" needs to note that the 118 peak for "If I Can't Have You" was on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Chart, not the Hot 100. This could be done with a footnote saying something like ""If I Can't Have You" peaked at number 18 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles Chart, which ranks the top 25 songs that have not yet entered the Billboard Hot 100. done Woofygoodbird (talk) 12 48, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Citation 6 should be a note, not a reference, as it is not directly referencing anything. done Woofygoodbird (talk) 12 48, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Citation 30 'Billboard' should be italicized, 'Hot 100' should not. 'under' should be capitalized and should have a space between it and 'Hot'. done Woofygoodbird (talk) 12 48, 30 July 2012 (UTC) I'll support this if the issues are fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 20:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Support - All major issues are fixed. Good job! Toa Nidhiki05 15:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Sufur222 As well as everything Toa Nidhiki05 has mentioned, there are some other things I have noticed: The Extended plays and Other charted songs tables have no legend at the bottom, even though there are empty cells. done Woofygoodbird (talk) 12 48, 30 July 2012 (UTC) WP:DISCOGSTYLE states that certifications should be listed by provider, not country (for example, US becomes RIAA). See WP:DISCOGSTYLE#Listing certifications for a full list of certification abbreviations and information on making changes. done Woofygoodbird (talk) 12 48, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Just a point: the certifications are now no longer in alphabetical order, which they still need to be even if they are listed by provider. They need reordering. Bear in mind, of course, that RIAA should still be at the top, as that is her home country. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 12:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC) I'll do this one myself. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC) And have done it. Both Video albums need references to prove that they were released, as they did not chart. done Woofygoodbird (talk) 12 48, 30 July 2012 (UTC) "Cry" and "Go" need references to prove that they were released as singles. done Woofygoodbird (talk) 12 48, 30 July 2012 (UTC) All of the Other appearances need references to prove their existence. done Woofygoodbird (talk) 12 48, 30 July 2012 (UTC) None of the music videos don't have references proving their existence (the notes don't count). done Woofygoodbird (talk) 12 48, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Just a point: if you're going to list the director names, you need to make sure that their names are mentioned in the sources you have used. If not, either find an alternate source or leave the cell blank. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 12:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC) done all sources for the videos (except Go and One Minute) now mention the names of their respective directors in it. However, I left the director cells for Go and One Minute empty because I can't find an alternative source for it. Woofygoodbird (talk) 16 32, 30 July 2012 (UTC) That's fine. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Apart from all of these things, this is very impressive. I'll have no reservations supporting if the issues are fixed. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 07:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Support Looks very good. Keep up the good work! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 16:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments – The single bolded word in the lead doesn't serve much purpose, and I'm pretty sure the Manual of Style would discourage this kind of bolding. It's best to do away with it here. done Woofygoodbird (talk) 08 20, 31 July 2012 (UTC) In fourth paragraph, in parentheses: "RCA parent company". Grammatically, it would be better as "RCA's parent company". done Woofygoodbird (talk) 08 20, 31 July 2012 (UTC) "released by Sony Music and the Ford Motor Company" seems better suited inside parentheses, like other items in this sentence. done Woofygoodbird (talk) 08 20, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Alt text would be nice for the lead image. done Woofygoodbird (talk) 08 20, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Note 1: Redundancy in "no physical single or radio release was released". One of the "release"s should be changed, ideally the first one. done - I rephrased it, but please check. Woofygoodbird (talk) 08 20, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Publisher of reference 3 (TIME) should be decapitalized like our article on the magazine has it. done Woofygoodbird (talk) 08 20, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Is the Youtube video in ref 61 obtained from an official source such as a record label's page? If not, it's probably a copyright violation and we shouldn't be linking to it. If it is official, no problem. I replaced the YouTube link with 2 references at ford.com (since the official video was taken down from YouTube after the promotion ended.) Please check. Woofygoodbird (talk) 08 20, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Also, shouldn't it be YouTube? done Won't be needed since replaced. Woofygoodbird (talk) 08 20, 31 July 2012 (UTC) All caps in the title of ref 73 should be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC) done Woofygoodbird (talk) 08 20, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Bunch of references have hyphens in their titles that should be en dashes instead. I recommend scanning through the list of refs and seeing how many you can find and fix. done I replaced the hyphens with dashes. But please check if I left something out. Woofygoodbird (talk) 08 20, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Still see hyphens in 7, 8, 44, 47, and 48. A good number of them have been fixed, though. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC) done Woofygoodbird (talk) 23 43, 31 July 2012 (UTC) What makes Discogs (third site in ref 16, and used in 43, 44, and 45) a reliable source? I used Discogs in the references because it has the UPC numbers of the releases, which could prove that the songs/albums were released to retail. Anyway, I replaced some of them (ref 44, 45) to Amazon. But please check. Woofygoodbird (talk) 08 20, 31 July 2012 (UTC) done Woofygoodbird (talk) 23 43, 31 July 2012 (UTC) done I removed all the discogs references and replaced them. Woofygoodbird (talk) 14 08, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Current ref 45 is still a Discogs page. Giants2008 (Talk) 16 11, 1 August 2012 (UTC) done Woofygoodbird (talk) 13 20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Statυs (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

;Oppose— First of all, the lead only seems to focus on the US. Why is that? I added a few stuff from other countries as well. Woofygoodbird (talk) 13 57, 1 August 2012 (UTC) A paragraph for only one sentence? That's not really a paragraph then. Merged with the second paragraph. Woofygoodbird (talk) 13 57, 1 August 2012 (UTC) In 2005, Clarkson's recording deal was extended to six albums. --> Source for this information? "In 2005, Clarkson's record deal was extended to include an additional four albums." Removed since it's unsourced. Woofygoodbird (talk) 13 57, 1 August 2012 (UTC) The album stirred an internal conflict with RCA which was quickly resolved within that year. --> Doesn't give the reader anything at all. What kind of conflict was there? Mention how they wanted her to change some of the songs on the album, but try not to go into too much detail. I've put some detail regarding My December. Woofygoodbird (talk) 13 57, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Despite being certified platinum by the RIAA, the album failed to match the sales of its predecessor by suffering poor publicity for its uncommercial nature and thus became her poorest-selling album to date. --> This sentence just doesn't make any sense. "Despite being certified platinum by the RIAA"? That makes it sound as if a certification is dependent on how the album actually sold. Of course it isn't, but it isn't. "The album failed to match the sales of its predecessor by suffering poor publicity for its uncommercial nature and thus became her poorest-selling album to date." is fine. Additionally, I'm going out on a limb here, but I assume that My December has actually outsold Stronger, as Stronger is newly released. Rewrote the whole thing. But according to an article by Yahoo Music, Stronger had already outsold My December. See the link here. Woofygoodbird (talk) 13 57, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Branching from the above, what are her worldwide numbers? I inserted her worldwide figures (Only for albums, since it's the one with the reliable source) Woofygoodbird (talk) 13 57, 1 August 2012 (UTC) The final paragraph in the lead just a complete and utter mess. Other than having no business here; try reading it aloud. Removed Woofygoodbird (talk) 13 57, 1 August 2012 (UTC) The lead, basically, doesn't summarize the article. It only mentions the US, mentions only three of her 21 singles and is quite choppy throughout. You may wish to take a look at Jennifer Lopez discography for an example of how the lead should look. Rewritten Woofygoodbird (talk) 13 57, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Released --> Release date Label --> Label(s) or Labels, there's more than one Format --> Format(s) or Formats, same as above I've just copies the wiki code (Released, Label, Format) from Wikipedia:DISCOGSTYLE, since it was the OFFICIAL guideline after all. Woofygoodbird (talk) 13 57, 1 August 2012 (UTC) iTunes Session sold 13,000 copies where? USA Today. See the link here. I've already put it in the references Woofygoodbird (talk) 13 57, 1 August 2012 (UTC) "...or was not released" If the album or single was not released, why is it on this article? I've put the ""—" denotes a recording that did not chart or was not released in that territory." instead (since it's the one on the Wikipedia:DISCOGSTYLE ifself). Woofygoodbird (talk) 13 57, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Why is Certifications linked so much? It should only be linked once. I don't think it was linked so much. But you can double-check. Woofygoodbird (talk) 13 57, 1 August 2012 (UTC) List of other artists' singles where Clarkson appeared in duet or other collaborations --> This is very poorly written. It's now re-written. Woofygoodbird (talk) Promotional singles and Other charted songs --> Where's the taglines for these? Be consistent. I added it now. Woofygoodbird (talk) The Billboard Hot 100 is a 100 position chart. I added a note "Bubbing Under Hot 100" above the references, just like in other FL-class discography articles (Kelly Rowland discography, 50 Cent discography, Rage Against the Machine discography). Woofygoodbird (talk) Video albums --> Missing the nice little bullet for the certification. I added it now. Woofygoodbird (talk) Ref 74 --> Not sure why when I click on that page it wants me to print it. Additionally, where in that page does it show it was a promotional single? It just says the song was used for background music in their commercial. I've temporarily removed the "Go" song since I can't find enough reliable references for it being released. Woofygoodbird (talk) Additionally, the dates in the refs are inconsistent. Pick one. January 3, 2012, 3 January 2012, 2012-01-03 or 2012-03-01. Statυs (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC) I replaced the dates like this 3 January 2012. Woofygoodbird (talk) SMH... 1 dab link The CMT link works fine. Woofygoodbird (talk) 2 dead links Statυs (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Fixed the links. Woofygoodbird (talk) 13 57, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Just one more thing... Why is there no mention of her winning Idol in the lead? Kind of a big deal, to anybody whose won. But especially her because, you know, she was the first. Also, isn't she also considered the best selling Idol contestant? I don't see that anywhere either. Statυs (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC) There's now an American Idol part Woofygoodbird (talk) 13 57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Now that all the issues I have pointed out have been resolved, I feel confident in supporting the article. The lead looks so much better! I'm sorry if I came off a bit on the harsh side, but hey, the article looks much better now. Great work! Statυs (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments' Few of the tables don't meet WP:ACCESS. Other appearances table needs rowscopes and music videos table needs col and rowscopes done Woofygoodbird (talk) 14 14, 12 August 2012 (UTC) "charting in twenty-eight national charts around the world..." don't think we need around the world, its redundant, not exactly going to chart outside the world is she :p done Woofygoodbird (talk) 14 14, 12 August 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comments Ref 1 has no retrieval date. Ref 2 has no retrieval date or publisher. Ref 4, 5, 19, 23(4) has no retrieval date. Ref 8 is a document which should be pointed. Per WP:Date dates should have a consistent format in the references. Afro (Talk) 12:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

done - Although Ref 19 already has a retrieval date, it's quite hidden. So I'm not sure if you saw it. Thanks. Woofygoodbird (talk)

• Support I have no issues with the list. Afro (Talk) 16:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments Not keen on the lead image with the weird left hand and the mic obscuring most of her face. Commons seems to have a wealth of alternative images you could choose from. done Woofygoodbird (talk) 14 30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) "video release" or "video album"? done, video album. Woofygoodbird (talk) 14 30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) First three sentences have "Clarkson" in them without mention of anyone else. Variety, e.g. use "she" perhaps? done Woofygoodbird (talk) 14 30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) "double A -side" odd spacing. done Woofygoodbird (talk) 14 30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) People outside US may not know what a "sophomore album" means. done, rewrote it to second album. Woofygoodbird (talk) 14 30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) " the music mogul Clive Davis" presumably he worked for her label? Worth saying it. done Woofygoodbird (talk) 14 30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) "most-successful" no need for hyphenation here. done Woofygoodbird (talk) 14 30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Not sure when CS became a known abbreviation for cassette. Why not just say cassette? done, although I actually copied it from the Samples section at WP: DISCOGSTYLE. Woofygoodbird (talk) 14 30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Where is "The Smoakstack Sessions" referenced? done, it's now referenced. Woofygoodbird (talk) 14 30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) "List of non-singles" but the section title is just "other charted songs"... done Woofygoodbird (talk) 14 30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) "(You Make Me Feel Like A) Natural Woman" sure that closing parenthesis is in the right place? Do you mean the "(You Make Me Feel Like A)"? I believe it is. It says there in Amazon. I think it's kind of like "(There's Gotta Be) More to Life". Woofygoodbird (talk) 14 30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Does that mean Wikipedia's article is incorrectly named? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC) done Sorry, I was looking for the parentheses ["()"] as a whole. It's now "(You Make Me Feel Like) A Natural Woman" Woofygoodbird (talk) 10 08, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Two blank director cells, these need explanation. Like a note or something? Woofygoodbird (talk) 14 30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Yeah, some discos have N/A in a greyed out cell if the info isn't available. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC) done Woofygoodbird (talk) 10 08, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Ref 1 v Ref 20, publication date format consistency required. And if you write a date out in English, don't use leading zeros. done Woofygoodbird (talk) 14 30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment

• Can we get a better picture? You can barely see who it is, with her eyes shut and everything. Statυs (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to something better.  Done Woofygoodbird (talk)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:13, 20 August 2012 [13].

---

List of songs recorded by Guillemots

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. It is a fairly comprehensive list of the songs that indie group Guillemots have recorded over the course of their career. The article is heavily based on the FLs List of songs recorded by Rihanna and List of songs recorded by Chrisye, and I welcome any ways that it can be improved. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick comments I'd move the incomplete template to above the list itself rather than have it at the top of the article. Done. "single, "Trains to Brazil".[4] "Trains to Brazil" was" repetitive. Done. "copies of each respectively" don't need "of each". Done. Perhaps link The Observer for international readers. Done. "second album, Red.[12] Red was " see above, a little repetitive. Done. " On 7 May 2012, the band announced their intention to release four albums during the year..." it's now late July so will this list need an update next month? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Quite possibly, yeah. Thanks very much for the review! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Okay, well perhaps we need a "as of" date on the list so we can be sure it's accurate to a certain point in time? Just a thought. Otherwise, you're welcome, as ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Makes sense. Added one to opening sentence.. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Quick drive-by comment - I notice the {{Inc-musong}} tag on the list - could you clarify in what way the list is thought to be incomplete? If the list covers all the songs on their releases to date, in what way is it thought that there might be others out there....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• The Japanese version of From the Cliffs apparently contained two extra songs, and the US edition of Walk the River had a bonus track too, but I haven't been able to get my hands on a copy of either album to verify that. The FLs List of songs recorded by Rihanna and List of songs recorded by Chrisye both use the {{Incomplete list}} hatnote, so I kind of assumed that this would be okay too. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Fair enough :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

;Comments from Crisco 1492 Isn't {{Inc-musong}} usually at the top? I was advised by another editor to move it to above the actual list, but have now put it at the top of the article again. "The album was nominated for the 2006 Mercury Music Prize and was well received by critics: review aggregator Metacritic gave it a score of 81 out of 100, suggesting "universal acclaim"." - We're talking about songs, not albums. Perhaps this isn't necessary. "that featured a different song written by each member of the band" - "that featured one song by each member...", perhaps? Changed. "which had previously been available to download for free from their official website." - Not sure if this is relevant to the topic at hand. Removed. "Red received less critical acclaim that their debut; Metacritic awarded it a score of 60 out of 100, suggesting "mixed or average reviews"." - This too. For a discography, definitely. Not sure if a list of songs should have that. "Reviews of the record were generally favourable, with Metacritic reporting a score of 69 out of 100." - This too My reasoning for including the Metacritic scores were that, since the songs comprise the albums, then an album that was well-reviewed would suggest that the songs were well-reviewed too, and that seems relevant to the list. But if you think that the list would be better without, I'll happily remove them. I did a copyedit, be sure to double check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks very much for the review and the copyedit, Crisco! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - If further comments come up about the MetaCritic data you can in/exclude as consensus dictates. I'd plug my nom, but there's no app for that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for the support! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GRAPPLE X 21:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

*Comments I'm not sure if "multinational" really adds anything here, could probably be stripped out. Changed "multinational music group" to "indie music band". Is that better? When an image caption mentions a band, but only one member is depicted, it might be worth mentioning which one's pictured. I guess you could say Mike Skinner is The Streets but I'd say identify Pete Doherty in the Babyshambles image and Alex Kapranos of Franz Ferdinand. I'm still seeing a good inch or more of white space after the last image so I wouldn't worry about having long captions. That's a good idea, done. Ha, thanks for bringing that video to my attention too. Aside from that I'm not seeing anything jumping out at me; would lean towards supporting this. GRAPPLE X 18:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Thank you very much for the review! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good to me. For what it's worth I'm okay with the Metacritic mentions; they're brief enough to not colour the text the wrong way while still offering a broad view of reception by nature of being aggregates. GRAPPLE X 21:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• That's great, thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 14:57, 18 August 2012 [14].

---

List of The Simpsons video games

Nominator(s): Statυs (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating List of The Simpsons video games to become a featured list because I believe that after my hard work on it, over a period of several months, it now meets the FL criteria. The issue in the article's first nomination was mainly the table, which has, for the third time, been completely reworked. The article has gone from this and this to this and its current state. Statυs (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support The new table is quite interesting and attractive. Also, prose comments and other issues were fixed during the previous candidacy. No reason yet to oppose. Regards. —Hahc21 02:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your support! Statυs (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support as on the previous nomination. I can't find issues with the list. All looks good. — Tomica (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your support! Statυs (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments That image should only should what is in it Not sure what you mean here. Statυs (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Unlink American per WP:OVERLINK; it is a common term done Statυs (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC) For the rare reader, make a note that its a television series, by placing "television" between "animated sitcom"  Not done Following how their main article, The Simpsons, is done; which itself is a FA. "Television animated sitcom" just sounds weird. Statυs (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC) "(Fox)" is not needed, that only for abbreviations done Statυs (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC) After reading the prose, I have found way too many "the", how about changing it up "it", "this", etc. done Statυs (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC) "The shorts became a part of The Tracey Ullman Show on April 19, 1987. After a three-season run, the sketch was developed into a half-hour prime time show and became a hit series for Fox" two short sentences, consider merging, same for various others done Statυs (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC) There should be three paragraphs in the lead, as it looks As it looks, what? Statυs (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Unlink prime time per WP:OVERLINK done Statυs (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Unlink pinball per WP:OVERLINK done Statυs (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC) For the list of video games, is small text size really needed? It is, or else it can not fit comfortably. Statυs (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC) "See also" is not needed Hmm? Per? Statυs (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC) FN1: Link 20th Century Fox done Statυs (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC) FN2: The Simpsons.com is missing publisher (Fox Broadcasting Company) How is Fox the publisher of their website? Statυs (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC) FN3: Stern Pinball is missing publisher (Stern)  Not done Not a publisher, linked to Stern (company). Statυs (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC) FN3: Link Stern Pinball See above. Statυs (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC) FN4: IGN is missing publisher (News Corporation) done Statυs (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC) FN4: Link IGN done Statυs (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC) FN5: IGN is missing publisher (News Corporation) done Statυs (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC) FN6: Link MobyGames done Statυs (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC) FN6: Link GameFly done Statυs (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Various ref: Two publishers? One should be "work", for MobyGames. GameFly in various ref.s GameFly is the publisher of MobyGames. Statυs (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC) "The Simpsons Arcade Game re-release" is not needed there Per? Statυs (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC) FN7: IGN is missing publisher (News Corporation) done Statυs (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC) FN8: IGN is missing publisher (News Corporation) done Statυs (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC) FN28: EA Mobile is missing publisher (Electronic Arts) done Statυs (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC) FN29: EA Mobile is missing publisher (Electronic Arts) done Statυs (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC) FN31: IGN is missing publisher (News Corporation) done Statυs (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC) TBrandley 19:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. TBrandley 06:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your support! Statυs (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492 File:TSAG DOS front.jpg needs an updated fur (page has been moved by the looks of it. done Statυs (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC) "The Simpsons video game series has" - is it one series, or a number of unrelated games? If the latter, "The Simpsons video games have" done Statυs (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC) "as of 2012" - Month, perhaps? Also, why not use {{As of}}? done Statυs (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC) "A detailed overview of each game can be found in their corresponding articles." - For those that don't have articles? This might be a good solution to this, but I'll leave it up to you Status. :) Theleftorium (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC) done Statυs (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC) You still need to add descriptions for The Simpsons Bowling and Itchy and Scratchy Land, though. Theleftorium (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC) What Leftorium said. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Almost there. Now perhaps note that there are footnotes after "A detailed overview of each game can be found in their corresponding articles." If you have a good reason not to, I'm all ears. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Do you have any suggestions on how to word that? I'm not 100% sure what you mean. Statυs (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Perhaps something like "Games without articles have a brief overview in a footnote" or something like that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC) done Statυs (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Not many comments from me, really nice list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Alright, I'm on it. Statυs (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC) done Statυs (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Thank you very much! Statυs (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Rest of it looks pretty good. Just waiting on those descriptions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Looks like a good list, oppose !votes are unconvincing . Spread the cheer! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your support! And your help! Statυs (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments from GreatOrangePumpkin (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Quick comment Why is the standard template {{Video game titles}} not used here? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC) To be frank, it's quite ugly and it doesn't give what this list is to accomplish. Statυs (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC) It is redundant whether you like it or not as it is not your page, but the main point is that the table should cover important things, but the current one has missing information. So I am afraid I have to Oppose its promotion. You do not state the release dates of every platform, while the standard template includes this information. Also, I am not sure if using colour without a key passes WP:ACCESS. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC) I never stated that I didn't like it. I said that "it's quite ugly and it doesn't give what this list is to accomplish". There is actually no set guideline for how video games lists are supposed to look like, so quite frankly, you have no premise to oppose on that. It's not as if there is a WP:DISCOGSTYLE for this type of list. The release date of every platform is available on each individual article, it does clearly state: "A detailed overview of each game can be found in their corresponding articles." As for the colors, somebody else will have to comment on that. Statυs (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC) I have to agree with Status regarding that template. It's downright hideous and not very intuitive. The current list gives a much better "at a glance" overview of the topic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC) As an aside, that template looks perhaps useful for inclusion in an article (especially with limited entries), but for a list like this it would be a wall of grey with too much text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC) I too agree with Status on this. Theleftorium (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC) I'm no expert on the subject, but I agree with Kürbis that the colours may fail MOS:ACCESS – how would the Key look to someone who is colourblind? They'd think that they're missing some important information. To be honest, I'm not entire sure that that colours are even really needed for this article – it seems reasonable to me that if a cell of the table doesn't list any consoles for a particular game, then it wasn't released on that platform. Another way to convey the same information without the colour (and therefore pass MOS:ACCESS) might be this, for example. Take it as you like. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC) I left a message on the talk page asking users to check it out. Statυs (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Contrast ratio for  text coloured like this  is 9.53 according to this tool, so the text is WCAG 2.0 AAA compliant. I also think that it meets the first bullet of WP:COLOUR, because the coloured background is not the only method used to convey certain information: all green cells contain at least one item of text, whereas all pink cells are blank. Would welcome second opinion though. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Maybe a solution could be just to remove the key altogether. What the colours represent is pretty intuitive, so there's probably no need for it. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Actually, just seen that the text in the key has been changed. Never mind then. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC) @Redrose64: your review is accurate as always, it's good to have you around. :-) @Status: it was a good idea to ask the accessibility project for advice. In such cases, we should always check color contrast and ensure that color is not the only mean to convey information. In this case the table meet the accessibility guidelines. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 11:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Weak support Still not a fan of the table at all =). I feel it should be consistent with similar articles. It is just missing many information, and many readers just don't like clicking on the articles. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments – "The Simpsons Game, developed by Radical Entertainment, further expanded the game franchise, releasing the game for new systems...". Reads like the game released the game. Surely the developer did? Rewrote the sentence. Just a correction, the publisher actually releases the game. Statυs (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC) "Due to its longevity, The Simpsons video games have also spanned across...". Can't have "its" and "have" like this. Maybe try "Due to the series' longevity". done Statυs (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Note 1: "all in which" should be "all of which". done Statυs (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Note 2: "a" needs to be before "psuedo-3D". done Statυs (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Giants2008 (Talk) 20:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Let me add one more thing: I agree with a couple of the other reviewers that having colors without matching symbols violates WP:ACCESS, and am reluctant to promote the list as long as this is an issue. Frankly, I'm not sure what purpose the colors actually serve. They basically indicate whether or not a video game was released on a platform. Sounds like a job that system names and dashes would do perfectly well on their own. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC) This table does not violate WP:ACCESS. When color is used to convey an information, there is a need for a redundant textual information. It can be achieved by text, symbols such as a dagger, etc. In this case, red cells are empty and green cells contain some text. The redundant textual information is there. You have the right to dislike the layout of the table, it's a personal choice. But there is no accessibility issue here, you can trust me on this as I'm one of the main authors of WP:ACCESS. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC) I think that solves that, no? There's already be an OK that the table does not violate WP:ACCESS. Statυs (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Not necessarily, WP:ACCESS states "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information." At the moment the red cells are not doing this, I just think it would be simpler to remove the colours and just have the platforms and dashes instead of red cells. NapHit (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC) That may indeed be your opinion, but one of the main contributors of WP:ACCESS stated that it is not an issue. Statυs (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC) It is my opinion, but as you have a number of reviewers who have expressed concern about this, I think it would be wise to remove the colours altogether so there is no concern, despite what the WP:ACCESS editor has stated. NapHit (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC) I think I'm gonna take my advice from a main contributor of WP:ACCESS. Statυs (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC) @NapHit: Several reviewers were right to express concern that this table "might not" be accessible. They stated that they did not knew much, but they did know that colors inside a table "might" be an issue. It is a special case that needed a review from the accessibility project. Fact is that red cells are empty, and green cells are not emtpy. This is a textual information that blind users will get instead of the colors. That is all there is to it. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments Firstly, great work on the table looks a lot better than the previous nom. Its definitely an improvement and I would not recommend using the template advocated above, its outdated and does not meet MOS:DTT refs should come after punctuation, currently ref 2 does not done Statυs (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Why is the table and key 90% font size? No reason why it shouldn't be full size. All full size, it doesn't entirely fit. Statυs (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Fits fine on my computer, hardly halfway across the screen. NapHit (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Full screen on mine (1024*600) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Not sure why ref 29 has been archived the original link works fine for me, same applies to ref 8 I've been working on archiving all the links in the article; actually forgot to finish it. As Crisco said, it's a "just in case" sort of thing. Statυs (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Would add a note saying Simpsons Arcade game has been re-released, when I saw the IGN links I initially thought it was a new game "The Simpsons Arcade (2009) is a re-imagining of the original The Simpsons Arcade (1991)." ? Statυs (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Regarding archives, sometimes it's best to be proactive. I started habitually archiving all references last October, and that came in handy after several sites reorganised (including putting some articles behind paywalls) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC) One quibble with the table is that just has one release date, whereas the template has three for Japan, USA and PAL. What I would do is have Release as a column header and then dates and details underneath, so you've got both info. It would look similar to the Platform(s) column but with just two columns instead of five This is a list detailing the most important information of a release. Things other than the first date it was released is irrelevant, and as the little intro says: "A detailed overview of each game can be found in their corresponding articles". Statυs (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC) I disagree, currently, we have varying styles of release dates, I see a single year used, a month and a year and a precise date, you should be consistent throughout the list. Obviously this will be an issue as games get released on different dates in different regions. Providing dates for the three regions I outlined above would solve the issue. I don't think its irrelevant at all, currently a naive reader could assume the titles are released on the same day throughout the world, which is obviously not the case. NapHit (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Do you actually expect there to be exact release dates available for releases from the 90s? I've looked, and there's no reliable sources for such information. It's almost impossible to find any information on those ones what-so-ever. Unless specified in small letters beside it, each release came out on the same date. Unless, of course, it's not specific, which, quite frankly, I can't do anything about. Statυs (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC) IGN has exact release dates for some of the games, so you've obviously not looked hard enough. Fair enough about three different release dates, as majority of the games have mainly been released in the US. I would add a note stating release dates are when it was released in the US, and explain about the small letters beside the release date, as currently this is not elaborated on. NapHit (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Found exact release dates for Bart vs. the Space mutants, Bart Simpson's Escape from Camp Deadly, Bart's house of weirdness, Bart vs. the Juggernauts, Krusty's fun house and Bartman meets Radioactive man on IGN, so much for the info not being there. NapHit (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Oh, right. I forgot about that website. Yes, I did the dates a while ago, so I was just incorrect in what I was saying. I found some dates for some of them, but a lot of the ones I found were conflicting. IGN, for example, said one thing, while another said another. I decided to just use the same source (MobyGames) for all of the dates because of this reason. Again, I sorted that out a while ago, so I forgot on the scope in which I had originally done it. Statυs (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Well I'd go with IGN as the main source, as it is more comprehensive then moby games. Not entirely convinced by the reliability of Moby games. NapHit (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC) IGN does not include every Simpsons game released, most notably their first one, whereas MobyGames does. So now you don't believe MobyGames is reliable? Not sure why you seem to keep coming up with issues. Statυs (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC) I keep finding issues because as a reviewer that is what I'm supposed to do, if there were no issues I wouldn't find them. The main issue I have with Moby games is that it appears that anyone can edit the content on the site, which does not indicate to me that the site is reliable. Here is IGN link for the first game you stated was not on there. NapHit (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC) I searched for The Simpsons Arcade Game and it failed to appear, weird why it says The Simpsons: The Arcade Game as its title. Anyways, I looked into the website; registering for it. Users cannot edit entries on the website, they can submit corrections to articles that are then approved or denied. Let me just direct you to its use in an FA Donkey Kong (video game). If other users feel as if IGN should be used instead (for whatever reason that may be) and that they do not consider MobyGames to be a reliable source, I might feel more inclined to change them. But it appears that the site is fine with 5 other reviews who left their support of the article's FL promotion. May I also just note that sourcing with IGN would be a bitch, considering they don't have a nice clean list like MobyGames does, and instead have a different entry for each type of release. Statυs (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC) After looking at the site, and our own page on the site I'm still not convinced the site is as reliable as other sites such as IGN or Gamefaqs. The fact it seems to be similar in ways to Wikipedia has me worried. The fact its used in a FA is irrelevant, especially as that article was promoted six years ago, standards change quickly here. Anyways I've capped my resolved and will leave the resolved ones here for a few days so other users can have their say, as I think we've reached a bit of an impasse. NapHit (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC) I thank you for your comments. I will wait to see what others have to say about the matter. As it's quite a big thing to change (basically every reference on the article) I would require more than one user who has a problem with the source; which I hope you understand. Statυs (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC) As long as most of the references are to a source that is as questionable as it appears to be, due to its user-open nature, I'm going to have a hard time promoting this article. I'd strongly suggest following NapHit's advice and switching as many of the references as you can to IGN, which I know is reliable enough to be used comfortably. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC) I will begin changing the references later today. Statυs (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Okay, as I was looking through IGN, I noticed a lot of their dates saying January 1 and December 31. To me, that looks like random placeholder names. GameFAQs seems to have an indept look at the release dates, including their product IDs. Users can, also, contribute to that website, which has to approved. The site has received awards and is owned by CBS. Is that fine to use? Statυs (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Per WP:VG/S, GameFAQs is not a reliable source. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Yeah, you shouldn't use IGN because they don't have the exact release dates. I've noticed that while writing some of the Simpsons video game articles. I don't know if Gamespot has the same problem. Theleftorium (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Blarg. Theleftorium, do you have a suggest on what to use? Statυs (talk) 10:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Looking through that, I didn't know Rovi had a game database. I've used Allmusic for a lot of music articles, and they always have the right information. Gonna use Allgame. Statυs (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC) They don't have specific dates for older games, though. :/ I really don't know what to do... Statυs (talk) 10:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Don't give dates for the older games. FAs on older albums like Blonde on Blonde don't. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC) That's true. Alright, so with sourcing Allgame, they have separate pages for each game on a different platform. Can I just cite one of them? At the bottom of each page, it says "also available on". And if so, how would I do this? Would I add a note in the reference? Statυs (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC) I'd say cite the earliest, but that's me. Dunno how others feel. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Done All references have been replaced with Allgame. Statυs (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Looking much better now, one thing I noticed is that the names of the authors are not right. For instance ref 11 has Brett Allen, but the page gives Brett Allen Weiss, few other instances as well. Other than that, page looks great. NapHit (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC) I'll take a look through all the authors. I used webreflinks (I know, I'm lazy) to format them, then fixed the work and publishers, so I'll go take a look at those. Statυs (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC) I think I've gotten them all. Statυs (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Having colours without Symbols violates WP:ACCESS, would remove colours altogether, and just have dashes in replace of the empty cells I don't know if you read the above, but we got a clear that the table passes WP:ACCESS. Statυs (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC) You got a clear that the green cells pass WP:ACCESS, not the red cells, I'm sure they don't in their current guise, one solution would be to add dashes as well as the colour, that would make it comply. NapHit (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC) I saw no need to analyse the contrast of the pink cells, because every single one is blank (and intentionally so). When a cell qualifies for text, its background should be changed to green at the same time. But since you have asked, the contrast ratio for  text coloured like this  is 8.17 according to this tool, so any hypothetical text would also be WCAG 2.0 AAA compliant. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Happy the list meets the criteria, great work. NapHit (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your support and assistance! Statυs (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 14:57, 18 August 2012 [15].

---

Nebula Award for Best Short Story

Nominator(s): PresN 21:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Another month, another list—Following novels, novellas, novelettes, and all those Hugo Awards, here is the Nebula Award for Best Short Story—shorter works and fewer links. As always, comments made in prior reviews have been replicated here. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 21:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Comments 1969's Robert Taylor needs disambiguation. Heading in table should be Short story, not Short Story. Perhaps a bit of explanation as to why Tuttle refused her award would be good. Otherwise nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Done, done, and done. --PresN 22:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support--Kürbis (✔) 10:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Why are archived links posted for the Refs when the original still works? Afro (Talk) 10:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps to avoid dead links. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 20:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems like you're trying to prevent a problem which doesn't exist yet. Afro (Talk) 02:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

1) Yes, preventing the problem before it happens is better than preventing it after it happens and the links are dead. 2) What's the problem with providing archive links in case the websites go down? --PresN 05:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean this as an interrogation, but are you expecting The Guardian or Locus magazine's to website to go down? I'll throw in my Support since it meets the criteria, I'm just interested in the answer. Afro (Talk) 10:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Not really, but it's a habit now- I do it with all my FAs/FLs, and the refs here are copied from the Nebula Best Novel article. I archive them all with a python script, so it doesn't take more than a minute to do, so why not. --PresN 17:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's an excellent idea, and wish I'd done it on some of my lists from 2007.... !! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

For the websites that are expected to be stable in the future, the cite templates have a deadlink= option that you can use. By typing in deadlink=no in the citation, the original link will show up at the front of a reference, and the archived link will be there at the back, ready to be moved up if the original goes dead. I've seen this utilized at FAC in the past, and think it's a solid idea. Not something I'd withhold a promotion over, but useful nonetheless. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

And I see that's how this page already uses archived links. That's why it's always helpful to read something before making comments. :-) Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 14:57, 18 August 2012 [16].

---

List of Texas hurricanes (1980–present)

Nominator(s): TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 03:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that this article meets all the FLC criteria, and is engaging and comprehensively details all Texas hurricanes 1980-present in an effective and encyclopedic manner. This list mixes in the elements of all other similar types that WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has produced to create a unique, special, and FL-worthy article. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 03:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - still unit inconsistency. Make sure every unit is abbreviated like the unit in parenthesis. For example - 2 ft (6 m), 2 in (50 mm), 2 mi (3 km). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

done - Ah! I hadn't caught the 0}} and the 1}} earlier! Made it all tidied up. All units should be abbreviated. --TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 03:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"200 mi path (320 km)" - fix, and make sure all of the storms are in chronological order. I noticed an error. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

What's the problem with the 200 mi path again? And fixed the chronological issue. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 04:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be "200 mi (320 km) path". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 04:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment non-breaking spaces are missing for stuff like "$250 million" and "12 tornadoes". YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

done - Fixed the examples, as well as other places. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 15:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Categories need non-breaking spaces as well. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

done - Completed. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 15:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

More info on Tico, and Hermine. I'd remove the second sentence about Don as it is not that important. There appears to be some missing systems on mostly EPAC storms. The storms are Polo 84, Rachel 90, Rosa 94, Juliette 95, Danny 97, Madeline 98 though all but two of these systme never did that much. Also, why is there a need for {{clear}} after the 1990-94 section? And, David Roth works for the HPC, not the NWS. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Added info on Tico and Hermine, as well as added the two storms (Madeline, Rosa) that you mentioned. Will add the rest of those storms tomorrow, if they affected Texas. Also, the second sentence on Don seems important. --TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 03:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

done - Added only Rachel of 1990, as there was no other sources that I could find for the other ones. Also fixed Don, as you asked. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 21:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikilink stuff in the refs on their first usage. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

done - Finished... I think. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 19:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Support now. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments Why is the lead in past tense while the rest of the article is in present? "The first storm to impact the state during the period was also Hurricane Allen in August 1980, and the most recent was Tropical Storm Don in 2011." – "and" → "with" (refer to first comment). "At least 12 tornadoes are also reported as a result of Allen, with one causing $250 million in damages after damaging hangars and aircraft at Robert Mueller Municipal Airport" – The usage of damages and damaging in close proximity to each other is a bit redundant. Find another word? "Two people are killed, one due to the driver deliberately driving their vehicle into flooding water." – You mentioned how one died, why not the other? "Mid-November 1980 – Hurricane Jeanne over the Western Gulf of Mexico causes tides to rise up to 4 ft (1.2 m) above average along the Texas coast. Coastal flooding also occurs with the worst being near Galveston. Minimal damage is reported." – A comma is needed after "Mid-November", with another needed after "occurs" in the second sentence. "Late-August, 1981 – Tropical Depression Eight moves ashore northeast Mexico on August 29 and into the United States on August 30. As an ill-defined surface low, a large thunderstorm complex formed near its center that day, which unleashed very heavy rainfall in a 50 mi (80 km) wide band covering a 200 mi (320 km) path from Seguin to north of Houston. The highest rainfall amount reported is from Cheapside, where 18 in (460 mm) fell in the 24 hour period ending on the morning of August 31. Five die in the town of Shiner due to the heavy rains. Heavy rain in downtown Hallettsville causes floods and torrential rain, reaching a peak of 5 ft (1.5 m). Significant flooding occurs along the Lavaca, Guadalupe, and Colorado rivers in Texas. Damages from the floods amount to nearly $21 million." – You swap between past and present tense here. "October 13, 1981 – Hurricane Norma produces 21 in (530 mm) of rain near Dallas-Fort Worth, killing five after making landfall on the Pacific coast of Mexico. Multiple tornadoes touch down in six counties in the region, injuring three. Hurricane Norma causes $50 million in damages and kills three people in Texas." – Switch the order of this sentence so it read landfall in Mexico --> impact in Texas and not impact in Texas --> landfall in Mexico like it does in its current state. "September 11, 1982 – Tropical Storm Chris makes landfall near Sabine Pass, causing wind damage to Port Arthur." – Any specifics? "August 28, 1983 – Hurricane Barry, a weak Category 1, makes landfall just south of Brownsville and forces the evacuation of 4,000 people, but causes minimal damage." – This may sound picky, but there is no such thing as a weak Category. Use minimal and then replace the use of "minimal" at the end of the sentence with "minor". "Mid-September, 1984 – The remnants of Tropical Storm Edouard cause severe flooding in South Texas, with some amounts in excess of 20 in (510 mm)." – That's not worded too formally. How about, "The remnants of Tropical Storm Edouard cause severe flooding in South Texas, where some isolated locations receive totals in excess of 20 in (510 mm)"? "Hurricane Bonnie makes landfall in Southeast Texas as a Category 1 hurricane near High Island. Bonnie kills four people in Texas and heavy rainfall causes street flooding, with rainfall peaking at 13 in (330 mm) and many areas picking up at least 10 in (250 mm). Bonnie also spawns four tornadoes in Texas." --> "Hurricane Bonnie makes landfall near High Island in Southeast Texas, killing four people and producing heavy rainfall that causes street flooding. Some areas receive totals above 10 in (250 mm). "An unnamed storm makes landfall near High Island, Texas producing over 1 in (25 mm) of rain over East Texas." – Comma after the first use of "Texas", and change "East Texas" to "the eastern portions of the state". "Some areas receive 11.8 in (300 mm) of rain, causing some localized flash flooding." – Redundancy with the word "some". More vauge-ness with some sentences across the article. State specific rainfall totals, not just say "it causes some rainfall at location X". Make sure all windspeeds are rounded to the nearest five (ex. 135 mph = 217 km/h). done - believe I tidied up all the issues. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 04:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Now. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Works) 15:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Mid-October 1994: "The floods kill 22 people and causes $700 million in damages." "causes" → "cause". This one's still there. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC) done - fixed. No, it's not. Please look again. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Refs 22, 23, 63, 71, 81, and 108 have hyphens in their titles that should be en dashes instead. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC) I'm noticing an issue where the en dashes you added are preceded by visible pipes. This goes for the section headers and these ref titles. Also, ref 111 still has a faulty hyphen. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC) I did fix reference 111, but what exactly do you mean that the en dashes are preceded by visible pipes? TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 02:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC) All of the headings, and the en dashes you added, look like this: 1980

For full disclosure, I did fix the last issue since I was apparently the only one who saw it. Normally I wouldn't work on a candidate like this, but this is a special case and I didn't want this to hold up the process. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments Could make lead image bigger so we can see more detail. "at least 69" vs monthly stats table which lists 68... I would expect the lead to be a bit larger for an article of this size per WP:LEAD. Don't think you need to link common terms like "hangar" or "aircraft". Or "tide". Something a bit odd with ref 17. And isn't it The Gainsville Sun? Ref 102 could use an access date. Ref 110 uses the format=pdf parameter, most, if not all of the other PDF sources don't use this. Be consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC) done - fixed up all your comments, might want to check the extra paragraph I added in the lead for errors. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 21:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment You should be consistent with your date formats in your refs "24 July 2012" or "July 24, 2012", you also shorten July in Ref 132. Afro (Talk) 10:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

done - completed. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 20:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Support I have no issues with the article. Afro (Talk) 04:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support I did some copy editing for the article, but I think it passes all the other FL criteria at this time. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment

• In the Deadly storms section, the total deaths table does not meet MOS:DTT, you need to add col and rowscopes. Also not evident what is referencing the table. I notice ref 1 has a list of deaths from hurricanes, would out the ref next to the caption so its evident what the ref for the table is. NapHit (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The col and row scopes point is valid, but each death total is already individually referenced in the prose sections. I suppose a new column could be added to list the refs for each storm, since it's not the same ref for all of them. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

done - Added the col and rowscopes, and subsequently added a references column in case. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 21:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 14:57, 18 August 2012 [17].

---

List of Rosenborg BK seasons

Nominator(s): Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Another Rosenborg list, this one took quite a lot of tweaking for all the columns to sort correctly, so hopefully it is good enough for FL. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments Lead image caption isn't exactly what I see, I see the opening of a Champions League match with both teams (tiny, weeny people!) lined up beside a massive trampoline! Found a better image on Flickr and added it, which is hopefully slightly better. Arsenikk (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC) "it was not permitted to play..." is there an easy way to say why? I gave a quick and dirty answer, difficult to give much detail in the little space. Arsenikk (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC) "the club varied between " not really, "the club moved between..."? Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC) "Their only European trophy is co-winning the..." ->" Their only European trophy came when they co-won the..."? Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Should Att be "Average attendance" rather than just "Attendance"? Yes. Arsenikk (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Ref -> Ref(s). Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Non-cup seasons should sort the Cup below Q1. Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Would prefer to see refs in numerical order. Done. Arsenikk (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Is it "Union of European Football Associations" or "Union of European Football Association"? Check refs. I checked this on Wikipedia and it claims that the spelling is with a plural, so I made it consistently such. Arsenikk (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sorting by D several times gives many different results!
  • Hm, mysterious. Some of the columns "work" and others don't (including D). I don't know how to fix this issue, although it does sort the items in the correct order, its just that when there are multiple rows with the same value they seem to change place. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I've had a little more look at this and as far as I can see this is a consequence of the multi-sortability functionality of the software (where one can sort a list multiple times with more rows to sort for instance chronologically given a set criteria). Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments File:Rosenborg vs Chealsea at Lerkendal 2.jpg is missing alt text. Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Some inconsistency with how numbers larger than 10 are written out; e.g. we have "Fourteen league titles were claimed", then in the next sentence we have "Rosenborg won 13 consecutive league trophies". That one instance of writing "fourteen" was to avoid starting a sentence with digits. Arsenikk (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC) "Rosenborg has played 186 matches and 27 seasons" - perhaps "Rosenborg has played 186 matches in 27 seasons"? At the moment it kind of sounds like the matches are independent from the seasons. Done. Arsenikk (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC) "The best performance is reaching the quarter-finals" - perhaps it would be worth expanding this sentence by mentioning who Rosenborg played? Sure. Arsenikk (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Shouldn't "League key" be something more generic like "Competition key" since it includes the Champions League and the Europa League, which aren't leagues? Good point. Arsenikk (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Do we need tooltip when the key explains what the initials mean? My thinking is that the tooltips are helpful for those that have support for them, and they don't hurt others. Arsenikk (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC) They certainly do no harm, just they seem a bit unnecessary when the initials are already explained. But if you think they're beneficial for readers I won't dwell on it. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC) The Average attendance and Goals column don't seem to be sorting properly; em dashes appear when I'm expecting to see the highest value. This should be fixed now. Arsenikk (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Could the footnote format be changed so they take up less room; footnote 1 is a bit of a nuisance by enlarging the width of the Season column. This list, for example, uses a more appropriate format. I placed the note on a second row, so it takes up less space. I had originally tried to place the canceled season note in the table, but this made it impossible to get everything to sort correctly, so I removed it (see this old version). Arsenikk (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC) The key doesn't explain what is denoted when boxes contain yellow backgrounds and a diamond. Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC) "References and notes" - should it not be the other way around since the notes are presented first? Sure. Arsenikk (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the review—everything is seen to or explained. Arsenikk (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments – "it was not permitted to play Football Association of Norway-sanctioned matches until 1928 because of restriction on the number of teams allowed to join the regional football association." Should be either "because of restrictions" or "because of a restriction", not what is there now. Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC) "Rosenborg has experienced two golden era". "era" → "eras". Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC) "Their only European trophy came when they co-won the the 2008 UEFA Intertoto Cup." One too many "the"s. Ups. Arsenikk (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC) "and participated twice in Royal League." Should there be a "the" before Royal League? Added. Arsenikk (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC) The 1960–61 and 1964 seasons in the table have faulty color formatting in the cup column, which shows up to the reader. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC) This issue seems to be created by {{sort dash}} messing up the rows and was solved with hard-substituting part the template. This is most likely caused by a short-coming in the template itself, which should perhaps be investigated further. Arsenikk (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the review and my apologizes for my inability to respond during the past week. Arsenikk (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Notes and References sections should be separated. Place the Notes section right above the References section. Place the Bibliography subsection at the bottom of the References section. Change the name of the References subsection to "Footnotes" (so that the "References" title won't be utilized for both section and subsection) (see FA Mariano Rivera if you need help with formatting the References section). All three issues ammended. Arsenikk (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC) "9 times" –> nine times "After World War II" – comma after II "19 league and 6 cup" – use "nineteen" and "six" instead "13 consecutive league" – use "thirteen" instead "20 times,[12] and reached the group stage 11 times" – use "twenty" and "eleven" instead If changing digits to words makes you happy than it is fine for me, but there is nothing from what I can see in the MOS that warrants such a change and I am uncertain if it increases readability. Arsenikk (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Actually, Wikipedia's Manual of Style addresses the use of numerals. Basically, numbers from 0 to 9 are to be spelled out. Above nine, they are either spelled out or in numerals. For me, I always spell out a number if it is expressed in one word. However, it must be kept consistent, so what you did here is correct (with "twenty-two" and "nine" rather than 22 and nine). —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC) —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

All fixed. Thanks for the review and again, my apologizes for not being able to respond swifter. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Support – a very through and comprehensive list. Good job! —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Two minor comments 1953-54 entry in the cup column does not appear to be sorting correctly ref 2, the hyphen should be an en dash NapHit (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Both fixed. Thanks, Arsenikk (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 14:57, 18 August 2012 [18].

---

Timeline of the far future

Nominator(s):User: RJHall, User:Spacepotato, User: Joe Kress, User:Arthur Rubin, Serendi^podous 20:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has been heavily improved since its last FLC and I think it is ready. Serendi^podous 20:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

;Comments from Arsenikk (talk) The key should be placed under the table of contents, for instance in a key section. I would like to have seen the statements in the lead referenced, even though they also are in the tables. Generally speaking, leads in lists do not have the same "lead reference wavier" that articles have. The use of symbols needs some sort of ALT text for non-graphical readers. Hopefully someone with a bit more experience at accessibility could look at the issue, but in my understanding the ALT should provide information on the symbol's meaning (math, astro etc.) rather than its shape in this case. Arsenikk (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC) In the first table, three of four sentences in a row start with "by this time". Perhaps rephrase at least one to vary the text more. "carbonate-silicate cycle" should be carbonate-silicate cycle" A bit cryptic from me as the latter should have included an endash. I've fixed this myself. Arsenikk (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Why does eukaryotic life die out? Anything that "practical observational limit" could link to? Don't think "Cosmic Microwave Background" should be capitalized. What does "§IID" and the like refer to? Those are chapter/paragraph references, I think. Serendipodous 23:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC) I would recommend including these in the references, as they are neither user-friendly nor intuitive. Arsenikk (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Under astronomical events I would have included an additional column for the exact date. The very few entries without a specific date can have a centered emdash. Why is the shared year number of the Islamic and Gregorian calendar marked as astronomic, while the one-year separation of the Julian and Gregorian calendars marked as mathematical? I would have though they would have had the same category. Arsenikk (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Issues resolved :-) Serendipodous 09:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to have an experienced reviewer have a look at the ALT texts for the key symbols before I support the nomination. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments from RexxS:

This is an attractive list and I found it very enjoyable reading. It's clear the nominator has put a lot of effort into pulling together many disparate sources to produce a compelling narrative. I have a few points that could be considered:

• I assume that it is not intended to be an exhaustive list of predictions, so it might be useful for the nominator to say something in the introduction about the criteria used to determine inclusion in the list.
• Good alt text on images is a real help for visitors who are using assistive technology like screen readers. The list would be improved if the top image had alt text that gave a blind visitor an idea of what they would reach if the followed the link there. Since such text is read out immediately before the caption, it needs to complement, not duplicate the text in the caption. Of course if the caption contains all the relevant information, then it becomes difficult to think of things to put into the alt text, which is one of the reasons why it is omitted so often in our articles. Nevertheless we break WCAG guidelines if we have a image that links elsewhere without text that lets the reader know where the link goes. The experience for a visually impaired visitor would be improved if the alt text read something like "View the media page" or "View the black hole image page". In other words, we have the opportunity to give some useful information to the screen reader in the otherwise unused alt text.
• Similarly for the symbols used in the key, we have an opportunity to use the alt text to give information directly to anyone using a non-visual user agent (like screen readers and text-only browsers). What sounds better:

"A five-pointed star; 36,000; The small red dwarf star Ross 248 passes within 3.024 light years of Earth, becoming the closest star to the Sun." or

"Astronomy and astrophysics; 36,000; The small red dwarf star Ross 248 passes within 3.024 light years of Earth, becoming the closest star to the Sun."

• I'd say the latter because it does not require the listener to remember all of the symbols used in the key when traversing the tables. A sighted visitor can easily find the key table and refresh their memory, but a non-sighted visitor will have much more difficulty. I'd recommend replacing the alt text for each of the symbols with the classification that it represents (change "a Greek letter psi" to "Particle physics", for example).
• Have you considered using list defined references to move the bulk of the references out of the tables? In featured content that is not likely to undergo much change they can help make tables much more readable for an editor to "tweak". This is, of course, only personal preference, so feel free to ignore it.

As each of the tables follows close to a second level heading, a caption would almost certainly duplicate the header, so it would probably not improve the article to include table captions. Additionally, none of the tables contain obvious row headers, so I would not insist that they comply with that element of Wp:DTT. I hope I've been able to give some food for thought. --RexxS (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• • I hope I've managed to answer your concerns re: alt text
  • I haven't got the hang of LDR yet. I'll need time to practice. Serendi^podous 21:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I haven't really thought about inclusion criteria. The only things I've decided to keep out were contradictory, such as when all eight planets will align on one side of the Sun (by the time this is possible, the Solar System will be planetless). Serendi^podous 21:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks, that's all good work and will be appreciated by visually impaired visitors. I notice that TRM has worries about compliance with WP:DTT, so I've added column scope to the column headers in the first big table as a demo for you. You should apply the same markup to the column headers in the other tables, or if you're uncertain, I can do it for you. It's only a small improvement, but it helps ensure that all screen readers will correctly identify the headers for each column. I could ask User:Br'er Rabbit to work some magic and clean the bulk of the references out of the tables for you, if you would like? --RexxS (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Serendi^podous 14:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that for me. Didn't want to seem like a shirker but I'm on GMT and went to sleep soon afterwards. :-) Serendi^podous 07:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This is how you do LDR. That's about half of them done. Before doing the rest, the <ref> need |name= assigned. fyi, you've seen my work before. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I've had a go. Serendi^podous 10:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So I see. And I've been in there, too. The tool to do this is User:PleaseStand/References segregator:

var SegregateRefsJsAllowConversion = true;
importScript('User:PleaseStand/segregate-refs.js');

You need that var set true; see the doc. I did some of Ralph's suggestions; expect you saw. There are 5 still refs that should be re-cast in citation templates. Some you may want to shift to being explanatory notes using {{efn}} and {{notes}}. Interesting read, terima kasih. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what needs doing. As far as I can tell the refs have all been converted. Serendi^podous 14:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The ones not using templates are:

• <ref name="hl">
• <ref name="mini2">
• <ref name="solex">
• <ref name="greg2">
• <ref name="sublight">

Have a look and see if you think a few would be better as notes. I'm thinking "hl", "solex", and "greg2". Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Done, though for some reason Wikipedia can't read the last two references. Serendi^podous 20:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:REFNEST. mw:Extension:Cite/Cite.php (ref tags) can't nest, so footnotes inside of endnotes don't work. (This is avoided by harv/sfn referencing.) Anyway, I fixed it by putting the footnotes alongside the endnotes in the prose. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• I am just wondering if the list would not be more useful if all tables are merged with an extra category column. Nergaal (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would make the list unreadable. Serendi^podous 19:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick comments thanks for your good work with RexxS on improving the accessibility of the list, excellent stuff. Not keen at all on the opening "... this list of predictions ..." which we've tried to avoid quite seriously for the past year or more at FLC. If you want to link planet, do it the first time in the lead. " renders the constellations unrecognisable" really? All constellations will be unrecognisable? I guess you mean compared with today's version in any case? You convert km but not km3 into Imperial measurements, be consistent. "3200 km3" vs " 7,000 km " comma or not? conversion or not? What's the criteria for adding a ~ to the year claim? Surely all of the far future years are ~? "Approximate time until the..." no need for "Approximate time until.." because all entries could start like this. " Chandra X-Ray Observatory " r of Ray is not capitalised. Link K on the first occasion. Be consistent with relinking, you relink magma but not black dwarf, for instance. " extremely rare astronomical events" what's the inclusion criteria for "extremely rare"? Basically, I can find a source for it. Serendipodous 17:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Other issues resolved. Serendipodous 17:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's a crying shame to nominate such a crap. Not only a content crap, but also a typography crap with various a-z s and  x 10² es visible by the naked eye. I leave an article with a better typesetting after one random edit. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your interest in the process. If you could provide some constructive comments that the nominator(s) could work on, based on the FL criteria, that would be great, otherwise just designating a notation as "crap" is poor form and will be disregarded. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, there are no lame-hyphs: "carbon-oxygen star" is correct indeed. But there are x's. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, that's certainly useful to someone, but constructive comments that can be dealt with by all of us would be appreciated. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Leaning support - I looked through this, found it fascinating and frightening at the same time. Attractive list, well referenced, prose looks fine. Leaning support as I'm not a subject matter expert here and as such can't vouch for the accuracy of the article. Would prefer someone with greater knowledge vet it first. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support pretty much what Crisco said. The table was a very good idea. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comments You're inconsistent with the dates in the references using 3 date formats example "2007-10-29" "2 April 1994" and "June 11, 2009". Ref 1, 40 isn't working. Ref 14 has no retrieval date. Ref 14, 16, 18 month is shortened ala comment made earlier. What does "Personal web site" mean in Ref 47. An ordinary user may not understand "Minitial" in Ref 48, it may be useful to internally link it. Ref 79 "Solex" doesn't need to be in all caps. Ref 84, 90 doesn't have a publisher. Ref 88 might be better served with their about page. Afro (Talk) 10:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I've resolved most of your issues but am not sure what the problem is with ref 18. Serendi^podous 12:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well the number may of changed to 16, per WP:DATE dates should follow the same format, they don't in the refs. Afro (Talk) 09:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Serendi^podous 10:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If a subscription is required for Ref 5 it should be noted otherwise it doesn't seem to mention anything regarding what's sourced.

I believe you have an extra square bracket on Ref 27.

Not that I can see. Serendi^podous 14:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ref 39, 40, 50 dates aren't consistent with the rest of the refs.

Ref 79, 82 have no publisher.

I am still interested in what "Personal web site" means on Ref 47.

Thought I got rid of that; it's not a personal web site, it's published by his university, so I don't know why that's there. Serendi^podous 14:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

How reliable is Universe Today, the site looks like a blog and their contact me page suggests it's enthusiasts.

I'm going to call into question think-aboutit.com as well for Ref 62 the sites disclaimer isn't encouraging regarding the accuracy of what they post.

bluewaterarts.com I'm calling into question regarding their credibility, mainly Bill Spencer who seems to of compiled this list mainly his background in science or lack of. Afro (Talk) 11:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Other issues resolved. Serendi^podous 14:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

On Ref 27 it reads "[astro-ph.EP]." extra square bracket?

It's how the template displays it. The only option is to remove it. Serendi^podous 08:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again dude inconsistent date formats which seem unresolved I only harp on it per WP:DATE.

Afro (Talk) 04:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I have raked through the references til they bled. If there are any missed dates now, they exist in another dimension. Serendi^podous 08:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GRAPPLE X 15:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

*Comments. A very fascinating subject, I really enjoyed reading this list. That said I do have a few small issues to raise. The icon-based key, while interesting, does create a bit of an issue with scrolling as I found myself having to return to the key every time a new icon appeared. If the images all had a caption defined, then mousing over them would produce the relevant text and save some time. This only needs to be the same as the alt text, so for example [[File:Five Pointed Star Solid.svg|16px|alt=astronomy and astrophysics]] would become [[File:Five Pointed Star Solid.svg|16px|alt=astronomy and astrophysics|Astronomy and astrophysics]]. An example of how this works in practice can be seen on any of the images on the Main Page if you'd like to see it. I assume you're working with the short scale here; perhaps a brief mention of this would be useful as it's not as readily recognisable to a reader as things like ENGVAR differences (unless you write out digits, "billion", "quadrillion", etc, mean vastly different numbers in different countries). A note after the first use of "billion" might be the best way. I'm not sure about note b and its intention; surely it would apply as readily to quite a few entries on the list as well, such as the entry two places above the one it's attached to. Aside from these I think this is a solid entry and I'd be inclined to support it. GRAPPLE X 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Done. Serendipodous 08:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Changes look good to me, happy to support. GRAPPLE X 15:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Support I've done a quick run through of some of the incorrect date formats and there appears to be no other issues with the list so I'll support. Afro (Talk) 08:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hold. Unfortunately, the recent changes to date styles have left the references with a mish-mash of styles. I am not referring to having just month and year, or just year; that is not the problem. But whenever you use full dates for publication dates, they must be consistent with each other. Similarly, all access dates also must be the same format as each other, although it is not a requirement that they use the same format as publication dates. There's a summary at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers #Consistency.

I'm sorry but what do you guys want? I made all the dates consistent, and then they were all changed. So which do you want? Serendi^podous 12:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've gotten most of them, I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Crisco. I'm sorry I wasn't sufficiently specific, Serendipodous. If you look at the article as it was when I commented, you'll see, for example, that reference #16 had a publication date of "2009-07-29" while #30 had a publication date of "1 May, 2008" and there are others. For future reference, you need to pick a format for publication dates and stick to it for all of the references (bearing in mind that some will necessarily be just "1999" and some may be like "April 1997"). I think that the article in its current state meets my concerns and I've struck my request to hold. --RexxS (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A note to Serendipodous, I stuck with DD-MM-YYYY since that's what the majority of in-text dates were written as. WP:DATESPROJ has several scripts that can help. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

My rationale regarding the dates was and I apologize if I read it incorrectly but I didn't spot anything in WP:DATE regarding the month and year solely on there own and thought 2006-04 for example would be somewhat misleading and harder to understand for a reader so I didn't change that but 1 May, 2008 was an incorrect date format and I thought it was inconsistent with the Year-Month-Day format for the publication format. Afro (Talk) 09:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I looked through the list, and could not find any issues. Congrats! TBrandley 16:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Just scanned the references quickly, and noticed that reference 2 is to a book without page numbers. Seeing as page numbers help with verifiability, would it be possible to add some to cover the points this book cites? Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope that's not a deal-breaker, because sorting it out would take hours in a library. Serendi^podous 22:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Amazon.com have a "look inside" option for the book in question that might help solve that, search for the key terms being cited and it should at least indicate the pages mentioning them, if it doesn't outright display them to read. GRAPPLE X 22:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Can't find it. Serendi^podous 11:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 14:57, 18 August 2012 [19].

---

Grade I listed churches in Greater Manchester

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete list of the Grade I listed churches in Greater Manchester. The text has been copyedited, and the format is precisely the same as that used in the recently promoted Grade I listed churches in Cheshire. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments from RexxS

A very engaging article, and copiously referenced. I have a few observations that might be useful:

• Alt text is present and sensible on each image; that meets what we recommend for accessibility.
• The table doesn't identify the scope of the column headers as suggested at WP:DTAB. That would simply require adding scope="col" to each of the present headers.
• The table has no row headers but since the full, unambiguous name of the churches doesn't appear in the fields, I can't see a good candidate for row headers. There's probably nothing to be done about that.
• The initial sort order is almost by 'Location', but sorting on 'Location' reverses the two "Manchester" and the two "Stockport" churches in my browser. Not a problem, but might be worth checking.
• I wonder why you specify column widths? You set the overall table width to 100%, but also specify each column width in pixels, which obviously will conflict. One problem that may result is that different fonts have different metrics and you can't guarantee that 100px for 'Name' will fit as well as 100px for 'Location', for example. The other problem is that you've set the portrait images to be centred, but not the landscape ones, which works ok with browser windows up to about 1280px. After that, the 'Photograph' column increases beyond 100px and the misalignment starts to become apparent. You could centre all of the images, or simply remove the width for the 'Notes' column - those give different effects, so you might want to try each to see which you like better.

Overall, a lot of work has gone into producing this list, with a lot of attention to detail. Only minor adjustments should be needed for it to meet our criteria for a Featured List. --RexxS (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You have spotted that I don't really understand the instructions for formatting data tables (!) so your comments and advice are very welcome. I confess that I have copied from other lists, and if it seems to work ....it seems to work. So, up to now I have added scope="col" to the column headers; and I've removed the width for the 'Notes' column. And I think I've sorted out the sorting. It works on my computer; will it work on all? Many thanks for the helpful advice. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You've sorted out all of my concerns, Peter. You've marked up the the column headers perfectly, but don't forget you can always ping me if you're not sure with tables. I can't guarantee I can always find a solution, but I'm always happy to do my bit to help. The sorting works on the four common browsers I checked it with (FF, IE9, Chrome, Opera on Win7) and no doubt The Rambling Man will check it on the latest Safari on his Mac. You could always ask Gimmetoo if he still has his old copy of Safari 4.0 to check the sorting, but it should be fine.

I'm happy to support this nomination as I believe it satisfies our requirements for accessibility and usability. --RexxS (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments as usual, nice work. Manchester is over linked in the lead. One instance unlinked (the others are in titles of churches). You only link "Saxon" of "Saxon features" but it links to an architecture article so I think it would be legitimate to link all of "Saxon features". Fixed The name of St Mark's you give here as just "St Mark". Is that conventional or should it really be "St Mark's"? Same comment applies to all the others... I think this is a convention. Pevsner and his collaborators, and Alec Clifton-Taylor, seem to use this style. It assumes "Church of"; using the possessive seems to require "Church" after it. And it avoids the complication of should it be ... s' or ... s's. "monument to Francis Egerton" don't think there's a need to repeat Francis. Fixed Just a minor personal thing, I'd prefer to see all the images the same width, it looks a little untidy going from portrait to landscape... I chose to do it this way because if the portrait images are the same with, they appear to be disproportionately big in comparison with the landscapes; too dominant for my personal liking. It also produces more white space in the Notes column. Centering the images helps to reduce any untidiness. I prefer to keep the images in better proportion and make a minor sacrifice to "tidiness", but am willing to change it if the consensus determines otherwise. Don't think the C in Lady Chapel needs to be capitalised. Fixed " bomb damaged in" shouldn't bomb-damaged be hyphenated in this sense? Fixed Note: sorting works marvellously for me in Safari 5.1.7 on my Mac. That's a relief! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support now images are checked, and Bencherlite's (and my) pedantry has been satisfied, I'm happy to support the list, great work Peter. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments from Bencherlite

Resolved comments from BencherliteTalk 13:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Another lovely list, of course. To add to TRM's comments: "Buildings are listed on the recommendation of English Heritage to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who makes the decision whether or not to list the structure" --> perhaps "Buildings are listed by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, on the recommendation of English Heritage" Much neater; amended. When you're fixing "Saxon features" as TRM suggests, you could do the same for "Norman material" (lead and table) Done I think the third paragraph would be best swapped with the second - the third para is more relevant than the second, which is just background detail Swapped. Can we avoid "region... regions" in the opening line of the second para? Perhaps "Greater Manchester is mainly urban, and is one of the most densely populated regions in Europe" (also cuts out the self-referential word "list") Agree; fixed You give the first names (or initials) for some but not all of the architects in your name-checking in the lead, which looks odd. If you wanted to vary the format slightly, you could do something like this (but I'm not forcing it on you!) "Churches from the 19th century include some of the finest works of the leading architects of the period: George Gilbert Scott (St Mark, Worsley), Alfred Waterhouse (St Elisabeth, Reddish), George Frederick Bodley (St Augustine, Pendlebury) and Charles Barry (All Saints, Whitefield)." I like that idea: done I don't think you really need to link [[Middle Ages|medieval]] in the lead or the table, as it's a common-enough term. I also wonder about "effigy", "sandstone", "slate", "parish church" - but I think you're probably right to link church terminology, even words like "nave" and "chancel" (I've been pulled up on this in the past on GA reviews and on balance I think linking those terms is preferable) Not sure about this. Unlinking as you suggest would be fine for the reasonably knowledgeable Brit, but we have to look towards our more general readership. I know that WP is used a lot by schools, and I wonder if the pupils all know precisely what we mean by "medieval", or what an effigy is. And looking towards our international readers, not all may have sandstone and slate in their countries; and the term "parish church" may be a mystery in some parts of the world. [[Tuscan order|Tuscan]] columns might be better relinked as [[Tuscan order|Tuscan columns]] (same for Ionic and Corinthian) Fixed I wonder whether you need to link any of the boroughs in the table, in fact - you link them in the lead, and if people want to click a location in the table, they're more likely to want to check the specific town than its borough Agree: done St Edmund Rochdale "and a cost £28,000" Fixed "Easter sepulchre" or "Easter Sepulchre"? WP's article has a capital "S" but I can't say that I've come across the term before - we don't get them in Anglesey! Done

• Should "National Heritage List for England" be italicised in the first para?
  • I'm not sure. It's the title of a work, and I would welcome advice.
    • I don't think it's a creative work along the lines of those mentioned in MOS:ITALIC, and the article National Heritage List for England doesn't use italics. Bencherlite^Talk 13:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks; it's done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The sourcing looks excellent but I've not double-checked the details yet, nor have I checked the images (although I can't imagine that there's going to be anything too badly wrong with them). I look forward to continuing this review and supporting in due course. Bencherlite^Talk 22:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment Thanks to you both for your detailed advice. I admire the trouble you have taken to look at the detail; I find this sort of work horribly boring, which is why I do little in the way of reviewing. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Image review: No copyright related problems found. Goodraise 15:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – "Churches from the 19th century include some of the finest works of the leading architects of the period: include...". Second "include" seems redundant, and it is grammatically incorrect on top of that. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry; it was left in by accident following a recent edit. Deleted. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Query An editor has changed all the file sizes to 100px, without any discussion. What is the consensus opinion about the disproportionate appearance of the churches now? I think The Rambling Man prefers it like this. I don't like the disparity, but will of course accept the consensus. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I prefer it this way, yes, as I noted in my review, but I certainly wouldn't want to enforce it, so I'm happy either way. (That doesn't really help, does it?!) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I quite like both of the two versions, so I'm not much help in deciding either. I suppose it's worth remembering that the thumbnails are only meant to give an impression of the church in each case, and a much larger image is only one click away for those who want to examine detail. I'd advise you, Peter, not to worry about it. This is a remarkably fine article and it loses nothing by small variations in the width of the portrait-oriented images. I've looked at both versions at several different screen resolutions and although one or the other may look slightly better at very low or very high resolutions, there's no clear winner for me across the range. --RexxS (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I'll leave it as it is, then. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Couldn't find a fault with it. Great work. GRAPPLE X 23:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 14:57, 18 August 2012 [20].

---

List of songs recorded by Leona Lewis

Nominator(s): Aaron • ^{You Da One} 22:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I have addressed the points from the previous nomination and also performed a copy edit of the article. I think that it is pass worthy this time :). Aaron • ^{You Da One} 22:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick comments No link for UEG? It's not linked because there's no article. UEG redirects to Jellium, a type of gas. Aaron • You Da One ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC) "GB£" why not just link £? I did have it as that, but someone changed it to say the country. Aaron • You Da One Well it's no big deal, but I'd just stick with £. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC) I've just realised that it is a template, that's why it appears like it. Aaron • You Da One "Cowell conceptualised the song " I may be just stupid but can you explain exactly what you mean here? The picture of him says "Simon Cowell came up with the idea to use some of the lyrics from the poem "Footprints" on Lewis' song "Footprints in the Sand", and was credited as a songwriter.". Shall I put this exact in the lead? Aaron • You Da One I think it's fine, let's see if anyone else finds it an issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Most of the lead seems to deal with music that was released, which I would assume I'd see in a Leona Lewis discography article. Shouldn't you be focusing on the songs she recorded that don't feature in the discog? I do. The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face, Don't Let Me Down, Love Letter, Iris, Colourblind, Glass Heart, Come Alive. I'm placing more emphasis on the writers, some which happened to be singles. Aaron • You Da One Okay, I'd do more to avoid the released singles etc, but no major issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Have spoken about "Here I Am" from Spirit and "Can't Breathe" from Echo. Aaron • You Da One "premièred" no need for the accent. Removed. J. R. Rotem -> J.R. Rotem. Changed. Aaron • You Da One Ref. -> Ref(s) Changed. Aaron • You Da One You relink writers (e.g. Leona Lewis) but not Artist(s). She doesn't needed to be relinked for the Artist column. It was suggested to link her in the Writer(s) column. No big deal but if you relink her in the Artist column, there's no logical reason not to relink her throughout. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC) "Best Kept Secret[note 1] [17]" why the line break? Not really sure what you mean? Can you explain please. On my screen, the [17] is on the line below the [note 1], it's not a big deal but I just wondered why. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC) There isn't a reason really lol. Aaron • You Da One When I click on a "Broadcast Music" link, it tells me it's by BMI Repertoire. What's the deal? Broadcast Music, Inc. publishes/owns the repertoire. Fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks for leaving comments TRM :-) Aaron • You Da One 21:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Sanders11 (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

* I still don't see the rationale for including remixes. Removed the remixes from Best Kept Secret. Thanks Forgiveness and Misses Glass have the wrong year. Corrected. Aaron • You Da One The two references for Best Kept Secret have slightly different tracklistings, any idea why? iTunes includes two more remixes, but that's irrelevant now as they aren't included. Aaron • You Da One In general the article could do with a bit more polish: the writers aren't all formatted the same (some commas, some separate lines; some linked, some not), the notes aren't formatted the same, look at how you've placed the references for I'm So Into You and Bad Boy, is that the best way to display the artist for 1000 Lights etc Any writer who isn't linked means they don't have an article. All comma's have been removed. I didn't put a reference like that for I'm So Into You and Bad Boy, and I didn't put Javier there either. But removed. Aaron • You Da One 13:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Sorry the unlinked was referring to Inaspetatta which didn't have Biagio and Leona linked, but thats moot now. OKay. Aaron • You Da One 11:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Sanders11 (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's an improvement but there are still some flaws.

• A large number of songs are missing, I See You, Love is Your Color etc, and even things like Come Alive which you mention in the lead. Please go through the list and actually check all the songs that should be there are.

  I had to remove I See You and Love is Your Color, as well as others, because ASCAP changed how you view their webpages, so the citations lead to dead links. I've said this on the list's talk page. Also, we don't know who wrote Come Alive, so I hadn't included it. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  I'm pretty sure there are other references you can use, fair enough for the unreleased stuff but there must be places that mention the released stuff. You have added plenty of songs without the writers so you can do that here too if you can reference that she recorded a song called that.

  ASCAP has sorted its website now and you can look at individual songs, but the URL is only the URL to the search bar, not the specific song URL. Is this okay? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  I don't see why not, the BPI certifications link to a search box. Failing that you could reference the album liner notes.

  Added back I See You, I Know Who I Am, Love Is Your Colour etc. from ASCAP. Added a few unreleased ones too. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  No Trouble, Come Alive, Save Me?

  Where is Trouble supposed to go? We know it's the second single, but it's still unreleased. Come Alive, again, is on the album but is unreleased. And I've not heard of Save Me. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

  Well given there was a section of unreleased songs I would have thought there would be a logical place for Trouble and Come Alive. Save Me is a duet she did with a Japanese artist.

• In the vast majority of the unreleased songs there is no actual evidence that Leona recorded a version and wasn't just a songwriter for it. The leaked column is never going to be able to be referenced but I can see it's value so I'm not too fussed about that but can understand if others can.

  I see what you're saying, but they are on Youtube. I've heard even more leaks than the list includes, simply because there are no sources. I've actually got about 20 leaks from Echo. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  I do too, and I agree that it is pretty likely that she did record a version of these songs, but I think since you are nominating it for FL these kinda things need to be mentioned.

  I've changed the name of the section heading to "Unreleased written/recorded songs". Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  See comments below

  Replied. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see the value of a different colour for foreign language songs, it just opens the door for having a different colour for all different kinds of songs, and causes issues for situations like this where the song was a single so should be purple?

  I've never actually seen a source saying that "Unexpected" was a single, nor have I seen a release date. I don't even think it's on the Italian iTunes. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Yeah I had a nightmare looking into it when I was trying to update the discography. And actually looking at the source on the discography page although it is his website it seems to have been taken from the Italian wikipedia :S

  So that's why I haven't listed it as a single. If it was a single, I'm sure it would have charted in Italy. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Not sure what you want me to do about this one really. There's nothing to do about it. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not saying you have to do anything, we are allowed to have different opinions, you think a different colour of foreign songs has value and I don't. You don't need to change it if you don't want but I'm not going to put it under resolved comments as it isn't resolved.

  Only because I haven't said I'd change it. I said I don't want to, and you've agreed that I don't have to, so to me that is resolved. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• There are a lot of notes and I find them quite distracting. I had a think about how to best reflect the version of Spirit the songs were from and noticed discographies don't mention deluxe versions or whatever so I think you could probably get away with just saying they are all from Spirit and not bothering with the note about different versions since it probably just causes more confusion. Can you see if any others could be removed or altered, or consider changing to the [A] type notes instead of [note 1]?

  How do I do that? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  I just copy and paste from another article that uses them (like the discography) but I'm sure there's a page somewhere explaining them.

  So you want me to use A, B, C etc instead of Note 1, Note 2. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Well you don't have to it was just a suggestion to make the notes less obtrusive.

  I tried doing it but it won't work as I have notes from both section tables, therefore the notes won't all be together. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  Fair dos but you should at least have a consistent way of displaying the notes. Some appear right next to the word, some have a space before the note and some appear on the next line.

  Because some notes are related to the song, while others are related to the album. That's not inconsistent on purpose. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

  Compare "Forgiveness" [note 2], "Heartbeat"[note 3] and "Inaspettata (Unexpected)" •[note 4]. There is no reason for those three to be different.

• Can you make the two tables line up?

  I'll have to play around with some codes. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  I've made all but one column match up, not sure why the Ref(s). column won't match up. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  It isn't lined up on my screen. Could you not add an image to the unreleased stuff so that it lines up?

  They are perfectly lined up on my screen. That's not my fault that it's not on yours. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments "...and featured songs on albums..." are you trying to say she has featured on songs in other artist's albums? Its not entirely clear at the moment, would reword this to make it clearer what this refers to. Added that they are on other artists albums. Aaron • You Da One "though Lewis revealed that she had never signed a contract that stated that" Removed. Aaron • You Da One have no conversion for first use of GB£, then in next para we have a conversion to dollars, be consistent There was only a conversion for one at that time's conversion rate. Removed the dollar equivalent. Aaron • You Da One Ref(s) should be Ref as only one ref is used for each song Removed. Aaron • You Da One Likewise in unreleaed table Artists(s) should be Artist, as its only Leona Lewis in the column, which also means the column should be unsortable Done. Aaron • You Da One ref 15, surely there is a better source for this than the sun, pains me to see that used a reference Lol, what's wrong with The Sun? Aaron • You Da One 23:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Let's just say its not the most reputable newspaper around, anyway I found an alternative ref from the guardian, which i would use instead. NapHit (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Replaced :). Thanks. Aaron • You Da One 12:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC) One further comment, noticed that you have Broadcast Music and Broadcast Music, Inc, in the refs, not sure which one is correct, but you need to be consistent, also smart is no the author of ref 15. NapHit (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC) All say Broadcast Music now. And that was a mistake on fn15, I forgot to write first= lol. Thanks. Aaron • You Da One 15:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose – I think it's pretty cool that we can present reliable information about unreleased songs thanks to publishers' databases, etc., but so long as the "Leak" column remains citation-free, this list should not be promoted. There is a citation that attests to one song's leak, but the rest are original research. A leaked song is available on YouTube, you say? How do you know it's the track in question and sung by Leona Lewis, and not some talented unknown who produced a track based on a song title and attributed it to Lewis so as to get "discovered"? Also, absent a citation, how can one definitively say that a track has not leaked? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 20:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• You oppose everything I nominate so this is hardly surprising. All the songs which have not leaked are listed under her registered name on BMI and ASCAP, so yes, they are her songs. The songs which leaked and are on Youtube are songs from BMI and ASCAP which list her as a songwriter and is her voice singing them, so don't go all "what if it's another talented person" because that's bull. The only one which has leaked is sourced saying that is has leaked and for what album it is intended for. And one can say that a song has definitely not leaked because there is no source to say it has, as that would defeat the point of there being a source. I've removed it anyway, Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

One more thing: To adequately summarize the content of the list, I advise a minor rewrite of the lead. Something like: "British singer-songwriter Leona Lewis has recorded ## songs that have been released through her own albums, EP and singles. She has also collaborated with other artists for duets and featured songs on albums on other artists albums, charity singles and soundtracks. In addition, Lewis is credited with co-writing ## songs that have not been released. Before winning..." Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 13:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be original research, and is not necessary. We don't know how many songs she has actually written. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"...is credited with co-writing at least ## songs..." – Problem solved! It is necessary to summarize the contents of the list, as you know. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 17:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not necessary. I promoted List of songs recorded by Rihanna and it was promoted on its second nomination, and no one ever said about writing how many songs should be written. Also, it's a list of recorded songs, not written by Leona Lewis list. That's why it's not necessary. It would make it look like the songs she has co-written are more important and carry more weight. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't figure out whether you're making an argument against the inclusion of content you previously added or just foot-dragging... Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 17:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm against writing that she has written a certain amount of songs. It's a list of song's recorded by her, not written by her. What info have I just added to the article? Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You have a section entitled "Unreleased written/recorded songs". It sounds like you're advocating for the removal of that section, but if not, I don't believe it's putting undue weight on it to summarize it in one sentence in the lead. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 18:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

What? I've never said that section should be removed. What are you on about? Aaron • ^{You Da One} 09:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a disconnect between your insistence that 1) the list contain a primary section devoted to Lewis' unreleased songs, and 2) said section must not be mentioned in the lead, lest we give it undue weight. Either this section is worthy of inclusion in the list (I believe it is), in which case a one-sentence summary is warranted, or the section should be removed entirely. (In case it's the "written" part you're getting hung up on, we don't know how many of these unreleased songs have actually been recorded, so "Lewis is credited with co-writing ## songs that have not been released" is the most we can say.) Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 10:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of saying how many songs she has co-written in the lead. It makes it sound like the songs she co-wrote are more important and carry more weight. Rihanna's list doesn't state how many songs she has co-written, and I promoted it to FL. That list is how I structured Leona's list. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 10:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't see the relevance of saying it in the lead, but you do see the relevance of giving it its own primary section. Help me understand that. By the way, reviewers sometimes miss things, so other FLCs are precedent-setting to the point that we cannot question aspects of the list that match a promoted list. Your FL was promoted with a partially-unsourced "leak" column, for example, which I'm off to remove right now... Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The section is songs written/recorded for Lewis, she didn't co-write all of them. And the songs on Rihanna's were sourced if they had leaked. You can't provide a source for a song which hasn't leaked because you can't comment on a song which hasn't leaked. Get it? Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, pardon me for missing that not all of those tracks were co-written by Lewis. Still, that's easily corrected: "In addition, Lewis has recorded and/or co-written ## songs that have not been released." Re: leaks – Saying (on Wikipedia) that a song has not leaked would require that a reliable source has confirmed it with the artist/management/label, which is entirely possible. If such a source doesn't exist, you can't say whether the song has leaked or not, because it takes original research to match what your ears are hearing to a specific entry in a specific list-class article. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I just don't see the relevance. How it's worded about her three albums, EP, soundtracks, featured songs etc. is better. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 12:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the relevance of the "Unreleased written/recorded songs" section? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 12:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Because the table demonstrates what unreleased songs she has written/recorded. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 12:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And this would be detrimental to mention in the lead because...? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 15:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The title of the article is List of songs recorded by Leona Lewis, therefore should only include songs she has recorded. If you want to include songs she has written you should rename it to something like List of Leona Lewis songs. That way you could possibly include songs she wrote that other artists released. Sanders11 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No, because all lists like this have the name "List of songs recorded by..." There's no problem. I've resolved this by making a separate article for her unreleased written and recorded songs. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Just cause other lists have that title doesn't make it the most accurate for this list. And her unreleased stuff in general isn't notable, it's fine as part of this but not as a standalone list. See WP:Articles for deletion/List of unreleased Lady Gaga songs. Sanders11 (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

These are just contradicting statements now. The unreleased stuff is no longer in this list, so I have resolved the issue of it. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with Two Hearted River, at the same time I question the relevance of the column. Afro (Talk) 06:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Because they are still songs written and recorded by her. That's the relevance. I've removed it anyway. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 12:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I wasn't questioning the section, just the column. Pending Sanders issues get resolved I'll Support. Afro (Talk) 09:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 14:57, 18 August 2012 [21].

---

List of Top Pops number-one singles

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs), Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

I am nominating this for featured list because I happened to notice that Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) had got it into a pretty good state before apparently going inactive, and it only needed a few tweaks to meet the criteria. I have listed Rambo's as a co-nom even though he has not edited for several months. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments - thanks Chris for finding this and bringing it here, despite Rambo's absence. Personally, I miss him here, so it's nice to see you promoting his work as a collaboration. General question: Not to be confused with Top Pops? Is this Top Pops worthy of an article? If not, is it worthy of a list of its singles? I'd say a national newspaper/magazine is probably notable. I have created an article on it.... Consider linking "single". Done "The charts and paper became weekly..." -> "were published weekly..."? Done Any idea where the samples were being taken? London? England? Britain? UK? Source doesn't say, sadly Middle para is interesting, but not really specifically related to this list, right? I think part of it is relevant in explaining the relationship between the various charts around at the time and what is now considered "official", so I have trimmed some "fat" and merged it with paragraph 3...... "The Official Charts Company" is just the "Official Charts Company". Done When you sort the table, the "mid-headings" all bunch up, which makes them pointless. Hmmmm, the same problem seems to exist for all the existing lists of number ones which are FLs, but I can't figure out how to fix it. I don't think they're actually necessary for a list as short as this one, so I have removed them..... Could use a bullet point before the only Source. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment from inactive co-nom

Apologies to TRM and others for a prolonged absense due to real-life time constraints (something I can't see changing imminently). Also thanks Chris for doing a good job with the final polish and taking it through FLC - there might be a couple of others not far off too.

• Only point of note is that, by removing those intermediate rows before the contents of years becomes broken as the internal table anchors no longer exist.

Finally, these extra headers were removed because "|class="unsortable" no longer seems to work. It used to fix a row and make others sort through/around them. Had I the time, I would love to chase this up as I see this as a detrimental loss of functionality that does affect many other lists. Any list people know why this was made, or can identify where (Meta etc.) and if it was, perhaps, a mistake.

Regards to all, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• That's a good point about the TOC, I've removed that too.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • No need to apologise Rambo. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

*Comment I'm also really disappointed that the class=unsortable code no longer works. For those interested, a bugzilla ticket has been raised about the issue (bugzilla:31060), but I've got no idea when the situation will be rectified. With regards this particular list, the MOS does suggest a method by which you can visually separate where one year begins and another ends without the need for mid-headings – it may be something worth thinking about. I'll come back for a full review sometime in the next few days, hopefully. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Cheers Thousand. After 5pm today I'll be off WP till Monday morning, but if you review the article in the meantime I will respond to any points as quickly as possible upon my return..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Don't worry, I doubt I'll be reviewing until after then either. You're not off to Latitude as well, are you? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Nope, the wife for some reason wouldn't agree to be taken there for her birthday ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Comments I think this list still has some way to go before it reaches FL status. I've made some alterations here; please revert if I've made things worse. I think one of the biggest problems with the list is how many red links there are. Given how short the list is, four's quite a lot. It would be better to have them just link to stubs rather than redlinked, especially since three of them also appear in the lead. Two fixed, turns out they were just linked wrongly The list currently doesn't meet MOS:DTT requirements – scopes are needed for each column and row. Done I've mentioned above how MOS:DTT suggests a way to visually separate each year in the chart without mid-table headings – not a FL requirement or something I'd oppose over, but just something to consider if you'd like. I had a look at that, and as far as I can see the table looks OK initially, but once you sort on any column the span breaks down into loads of rows which would all say, for example, 1969. Personally I think that would look silly and would rather not go with it. I don't think it's vital that the list be visually separated into years, personally.... There are couple of things not mentioned in the lead that I assumed would be, like how many singles topped the chart in total (55, right?). It may also be worth mentioning that "Mony Mony" was the only song to return to number one. Done I think it would be simpler and neater to make the key a table, rather than its current state. Done Song names that begin with "The" need to resorted under the second word. Done WP:ISBN suggests using 13-digit ISBNs rather than the 10-digits ones. For Forty Years of "NME" Charts, this would be 978-0-7522-0829-9. Done Since the ♦ symbol is only used for "Young Girl", it may be easier to just add a [nb 2] note to the song, which explains that it was number one for four weeks because it topped two fortnightly charts. Done Incidentally, I've got my own FLC: List of songs recorded by Guillemots. If you have the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Many thanks Thousand, all done bar the DTT stuff, which is new to me (not been around FLC much for a while) - I will have to read up on how to do all that jazz, and will get it done over the next few days. Cheers, ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Chris, it's easy, but if you get stuck, ping me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Managed it (I think!) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC) I think the row scopes would need to go before the Singles cells, as that is what the list is of. I also think it needs to be !scope=row rather than scope=row. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC) "(Call Me) Number One" needs to sort under C. Done Since Rolf Harris's song was number one before Deep Purple and George Harrison, I personally think it might be worth moving his photo above theirs. Done Would it be worth highlighting which songs topped the Top Pops chart but not the Record Retailer chart (which is considered canon for dates before Feb 1969)? Done (nice and easy - there weren't any AFAICS) The caption for the Robin Gibb image says that "Saved By the Bell" didn't top the Record Retailer chart in August 1969, but by then the BRMB chart was canon, wasn't it? Done -- A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Done all bar the scopes, using !scope=row just breaks the table....??!?!? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Figured out what I was doing wrong, should be sorted now....hopefully ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Aaarrggghhh, it's still not right. How do I get the background colour on the cells I just "scoped"? I can't figure that out at all...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Ah. I'm really not sure, I'm afraid. Sorry about that. The Rambling Man might know. Or otherwise maybe the problem could be raised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial... A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure how you can get a colour to overlap the scoped row cells. In my opinion, this list isn't in a drastic need for row scopes, I'd be happy to see just col scopes implemented unless there's a genuine fix out there.... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC) OK, I'm happy to remove the row scopes if there's some sort of consensus that it's OK to do so..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC) A possible solution could be to add a No. column that lists the chart procession, as in, say, List of number-one singles from the 2010s (UK), and then make that the row scope. Up to you though, of course. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC) OK, have done that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. Made a couple more small changes here; please revert if I've made things worse. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope, all looks good to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support--Kürbis (✔) 10:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support I see no issues with the list. Afro (Talk) 12:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 14:57, 18 August 2012 [22].

---

CZW World Junior Heavyweight Championship

Nominator(s): WillC 07:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm back with another FLC. This will be the fourth CZW Title I've nominated and hopefully the fourth to be an FL. If you have a list you would like me to review, leave the link on my talk page.--WillC 07:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments very pleased that you've incorporated a neat history section, much appreciated! I remembered you requested one for the Iron Man Title so I did it for this as it was probably expected. Plus it helped me get the article to qualify for a DYK.--WillC 20:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Is "weight limit" really hyphenated? Usually it is, but I guess it can be done either way. Removed.--WillC 20:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC) "championship, which is 220 lb (100 kg; 16 st)" the championship isn't 220lb etc, it's the weight limit that's 220lb etc. So that needs a rephrase. I would also link "st" because many people may not know what a stone is. Rephrased, I didn't even notice it was converting it to stone. I removed that.--WillC 20:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC) "on February 19, 1999 at CZW's Opening Night event by CZW." repeats what was said the previous para, no need. Perhaps just say "on Opening Night." Done--WillC 20:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC) " with only one reign" you said only in the previous sentence, no need to repeat. Done--WillC 20:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Several rows in the table have no refs. About 6 reigns don't have a single ref, but the general reference covers them. I couldn't find anything about those events at this time. I'm still looking around for stuff.--WillC 20:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Ref 22, avoid CAPS in the title. Fixed--WillC 20:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Went through the list and didn't spot any problems. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support NapHit (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Image review: No complaints. Goodraise 01:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by the wrestling ignorant Goodraise

• Isn't putting this wrestler's picture in the infobox a bit much? I'd expect to see a picture of the trophy in that place. They do award a belt or somthing, right? And a few pictures of other champions would also be nice to have.
  • No image of the belt exists on Wikipedia and a lot of the former champions images have poor license tags too or are in bad shape.--WillC 21:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    • That sounds to me like there's still room for improvement.
      • Pretty much I included the only image that would seem to work. It featured a former champion and had a good enough license which had all the right information. Most images fail that or don't show the wrestler in the right way that it would help the article.--WillC 07:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Considering that this is a list of public figures, whether they should be considered actors or sportsmen or both, I'd expect more than just one picture, unless, which I find unlikely, such images cannot be obtained by reasonable means.
• "Event The event promoted by the respective promotion in which the titles were won" – This confuses me. What does it mean?
  • The name of the show the promotion held on the day the title was lost. Like Wrestle A defeated Wrestler B on June 10, 2012 at Show A. Show A is mentioned in that column.--WillC 21:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I see. Please reword it in the article.

• • • • Done--WillC 07:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• "+ Indicates the current reign is changing daily" – This is slightly confusing. Reword it please.
  • Any better?--WillC 21:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    • "Indicates the current reign is on-going" – The word current would appear to be redundant.

• • • • Removed--WillC 07:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• The main tables lack captions. (See MOS:DTT.)
  • Never had to deal with captions before. Gave it my best shot.--WillC 21:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Better, but they could still be more descriptive. Also, "former champions" would indicate that the current champion isn't listed. By the way, + doesn't appear in the key to the second table.

• • • • Tried again--WillC 07:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• "Wrestlers Reign Date" – Shouldn't it be "Wrestler"?
  • Could be an argument for both but meh, changed.--WillC 21:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• "double pinfall" – Can you wikilink or explain this term?
  • Linked Pinfall, should be common sense after that.--WillC 21:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• "Taylor was stripped of the championship." – Why?
  • Information unknown, noted.--WillC 21:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• I must admit, I'm not as familiar with the jungle as I used to be, but shouldn't dollar signs in titles be replaced?
  • No idea, how the event was promoted. Stylistic preference, etc. Something along those lines. Way the titles were wrote so just done it like the sources.--WillC 21:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I'll drop it for now. Will have to get back to reading guidelines again at some point.
• "Footnotes" – Change the section name to "Notes" as some of the references are footnotes too.
  • Done
• Reference titles aren't freestyle. Taking the first as an example: I don't see "CZW Junior Heavyweight Title history" anywhere on that page.
  • Changed--WillC 21:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    • (I'll look at this later.) There's still several more inaccuracies. Goodraise 14:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • • The rest are from the articles. Name a few if you see. Only one I didn't take directing was the history reference.--WillC 07:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
        • The general reference and ref. #2 currently have different titles, despite being the same source, both of them wrong. It should be "CZW Title History: CZW Jr. Heavyweight Champions". I also found mistakes in the titles of references #4, #13, #16, #20, #26 and #32. Plus, the title-casing is done inconsistently. Examples: "Best of the Best", "Cage Of Death", "Down With The Sickness Forever".
• In references, when naming the publisher, skip "Inc." and don't use italics.
  • Done--WillC 21:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Overall, the prose is a bit bland for my taste, but I won't oppose over that, considering the topic. Goodraise 01:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Revisited. Goodraise 18:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• One more thing: Make sure that only full sentences are ended with a full stop in the Key tables.

My apologies for the late revisit. I sort of forgot about this. Anyway, the article is decent work, but until more pictures are added or a convincing rationale is supplied for why useful additional images cannot be obtained by reasonable means, I'll have to define my stance as weakly opposed to promotion based on the article not meeting criterion 5b. Goodraise 12:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps because there is no place for more pictures? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems there are quite a few decent images of former title-holders, one or two could easily be slotted in the white space beside the "Combined reigns" table to alleviate this. File:Jun Kasai on March 12 2009.JPG, File:Eddy Dorozowsky entrance.jpg and File:AlexShelley1.JPG all look good to me. GRAPPLE X 21:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me note that the FL criteria do not require images. It is perfectly acceptable for an FL to have no images, although a photo or two does improve a list greatly. If there are no free images of the title belt, then we should only have an image of it if the image meets WP:NFCC. If that isn't the case, I'd say an image of the belt isn't "appropriate to the topic", and that 5b is not broken. Another picture of a title-holder could be snuck in by the Reigns or Combined reigns heading, if deemed necessary. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There's two related but distinct issues here. I'm objecting, and this is a minor issue, to the placement of a picture of the record holder for longest CZW WJHC reign in the infobox, as I think it gives him unduly much weight. I'd find leaving that spot empty or filling it with a picture of whatever trophy is awarded or even a picture of the current champion to be more appropriate, but that isn't my reason for opposing and I'm not at all insisting on a picture of the trophy being added. I'm opposing (and I suppose I should have put that more clearly) based on the list's general lack (one picture being insufficient in my opinion) of media files. At this point, it seems, we have a disagreement on what criterion 5b means. It says that a featured list "has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic". I suppose one could take this to mean that only images appropriate to the topic should be included, but that would just be pointing out the obvious, wouldn't it? Of course there shouldn't be a picture of a professional wrestler on a list of extinct plants. I'm therefore inclined to take it to mean that for topics where illustrations or other media would be appropriate they are expected content for featured lists (unless such media cannot be procured using reasonable means). Just to avoid any more confusion, I'll put it yet differently. The way I understand the criteria, they in fact do require images to be present in some lists, just not in every list. Either way, I have no strong feelings on the matter. But if your reading of 5b reflects the consensus view, then we might want to think about tweaking its wording to be less ambiguous. Goodraise 21:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox picture has little value. I would move the infobox picture to the last section with the table and replace it with a picture of a trophy, belt or similar. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I did't even know those photos existed besides the Shelley photo and he isn't really important in the title history. I don't have any images of the belt that I have seen unless new ones have been uploaded. The only image I can get of the belt is a fair use one if I'm lucky. If I had one of the title I'd surely include it over any of the others. The current infobox image was chosen as it was the only one I could find of a former champion that was featured well with good quality, resolution, licensing, etc that had some significance. I'll include the Shelley image if wanted.--WillC 06:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support looks good. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support looks good, the only issue I have is the lack of third party sources. Afro (Talk) 05:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Comments Split the references into two columns. Categories should be in alphabetical order. TBrandley 19:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC) I just fixed those issues, because I have noticed that that user has not been active in a couple weeks. And, the issues are only minor. TBrandley 19:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good. Great work! TBrandley 19:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:19, 11 August 2012 [23].

---

List of Malmö FF chairmen

Nominator(s): Reckless182 (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the criteria. This is the sixth FLC so far on the theme of Malmö FF and hopefully not the last. Reckless182 (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments I don't think the text in parentheses in the image caption needs to be italicised. Removed. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC) I think the second paragraph could offer a more complete summary of the club's chairmen; there have been nine chairmen, but we're only told about three. I'll work on it. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Actually I'm not so sure that we need to introduce all of them in the lead? The lead already introduces the current chairman and the most notable chairman in the list. Most of the chairmen lack titles and not much is known about them so I'm not sure if the reader would gain a lot from being introduced to them in the lead. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC) I wasn't advocating detailing each chairman, was thinking along the lines of just another sentence or two at most. But on second thoughts, I'd say the third paragraph is sufficient in providing a summary of the club's chairmen. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC) "there are been" -> "there have been". Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC) "Werner Mårtensson, Fritz Landgren, Bror Hansson, Oscar Persson and Hjalmar Nilsso" - are they in any particular order? If not I'd recommend them being ordered alphabetically. Now ordered alphabetically.--Reckless182 (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC) The remaining sentences in the same paragraph are uncited. Is there a need though? All of the information in the sentence can be found in the table below where it is referenced.--Reckless182 (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC) "From 1916 to 1934, Fritz Landgren" - we've already been introduced to Mr. Landgren so I'd remove Fritz. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC) The "After 1934 and the Eric Persson years (1934–1974)" section seems a little short compared to the other sections, especially considering it covers a 30 year period. Could it be beefed up a little? I'll work on it. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Added quite a bit more. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Describing the club's 1978–79 European Cup performance as its "largest achievement" during the stated period seems a little subjective and could be debated. I rephrased it a bit, is that better? --Reckless182 (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC) "21st century's first decade" seems a little wordy; wouldn't 2000s suffice? Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC) "Madsen retired from chairmanship" -> "Madsen retired from the chairmanship". Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Håkan Jeppsson needs wikilinking. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC) "The exact dates for Werner Mårtensson's arrival" - don't you mean departure, seeing as the exact date for his arrival is given in the table? Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC) "C. E. Eriksson's arrival in February 1934" - not sure we need the date, considering it's not given for the chairmen mentioned previously. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC) "The exact dates for arrival and departure is" - plural, so should be "The exact dates for arrival and departure are". Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC) With the other honours, should being runner-up count as "honours the club won"? Being Allsvenkan runner-up isn't deemed noteworthy, so why is being runner-up in other competitions deemed to be? I've gone for the same set of honours as in List of Malmö FF managers. Removing the runner's would remove the European and Intercontinental cup's, and just removing Svenska Cupen runner's up's and keeping the international runners-up spots wouldn't be right. Adding all the runners-up spots for Allsvenskan would add 14 more years to the table and possibly giving it quite an awkward format. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Do the other honours need to be in small font size? I've done a preview with them in normal font size and it looks perfectly fine to me, not to mention that it'll make things easier for readers who are hard of sight. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC) General references tend to be displayed above specific references. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC) One last query; it's mentioned that Johansson started his second period as chairman in January 1927, so shouldn't this be stated in the list too? Mattythewhite (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for spotting that, that's an error on my part. His exact arrival is unknown so I've removed it. --Reckless182 (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks man! --Reckless182 (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support, I see no problems. It reads well and is generally clear, and is concise and through so far as it can be. The list is well illustrated with descriptive and sourced captions. Alt text is present and of a high standard. All in all this looks good to me, well done. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Cheers man! --Reckless182 (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• After 1934 and the Eric Persson years: "Perssons joined the club as member in 1925". Add "a" before "member"?
• "of" should be after the first word in "seven whom were foreign born."
• Bengt Madsen: "stood ready for the club in April 2009, when the club...". Redundant use of "the club" here. See if you can mix it up a bit. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • All done! --Reckless182 (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support--Kürbis (✔) 10:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments "adding up to a total of 19 league titles for the club." -> for a total of 19 league titles for the club "Malmö FF went down..." -> Malmo lost "hitting 12 goals..." -> scoring 12 goals "an educated economist and CEO," would of thought most economists are educated, would remove it and perhaps say what he had been a CEO of? NapHit (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC) All done!--Reckless182 (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 08:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:19, 11 August 2012 [24].

---

List of accolades received by Miami Vice

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 19:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. The list culls information from two parent articles—Miami Vice and List of Miami Vice soundtracks—and presents it in a further level of depth than elsewhere; it also contains a degree of unique prose including the famed EGOT hubris of Philip Michael Thomas. The majority of the formatting has been derived from the FL List of accolades received by David Lynch, while the section on music charts has seen me attempting new formatting which I believe meets MOS:DTT. I'm open to any and all suggestions regarding the list but I'm confident in its layout and content as is. For those unfamiliar with the subject, Miami Vice was a police procedural drama whose production values and use of cinematic techniques helped pave the way for modern television drama; its visuals, music and fashion helped to turn it into a pop-culture touchstone for the 1980s. Thanks for any input offered. GRAPPLE X 19:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Comments Olmos caption in infobox needs a period. "Awards & Nominations" -> "Awards & nominations" "several award nominations, including twenty Emmy Award nominations..." nominations is repetitive in this sentence... "Johnson and Olmos would win " why "would win" and not just "won"? "it would go on to " -> "it went on to..." or simply "it won..." "fared less well" again, "well" is repetitive, rephrase? Would prefer to see column widths the same from section to section. Nominee should be Nominee(s) in tables where multiple nominees are listed. After you've introduced people fully (e.g. Edward James Olmos), you only need to refer to them by the surnames thereafter unless there's some ambiguity. Because of the row spans, when I sort the charts table, the 9 and the United States switch columns, which is wrong. Same with the Singles table. Completely messes up when sorted. Ref titles should comply with WP:DASH i.e. spaced en-dashes not spaced hyphens. "The Official Charts Company" is just "Official Charts Company". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks for such a prompt response! I've addressed everything so far except the charts tables, I'm looking at those now to see what the issue is. GRAPPLE X 14:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC) No worries. My initial instinct is that there's a mix of row spans which the software can't cope with. I think the latest update made it cope with one column having a row span, but not two or more... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Bugger, I was hoping it was just something in my tabling that I could rectify. Would skipping the rowspans in favour of listing the same field in each row be preferable? I was going to scour a few FLs to see how rowspans were handled elsewhere in case it's something fixable. GRAPPLE X 14:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Yeah, where appropriate that may do it, but it may also look utterly naff with so many repetitions. Dunno. Might be worth leaving as-is with no sortability...? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Had a look through some featured discographies for comparison. I think the "Albums" table could stand to have its only rowspan removed for a duplicate, it would just leave "United States" across two fields. It seems the singles table I've used is utterly different to how FL discographies go about things, as I've listed albums and they tend not to; removing that field would help lessen the reliance on rowspans to clean things up a bit. I could either split it into three tables, one per album, or include NB notes to list which album they've been taken from. Thoughts? GRAPPLE X 14:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Makes me wonder if these tables really belong in an "accolades" list. I mean, peaking at No. 90 in Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart isn't really what I'd consider an accolade.... ? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC) I figured it was a logical follow-on from the fact that the series' music had earned Grammy nominations; it felt odd to me to list Grammies for Hammer's music without the chart positions for it too as though I was drawing a line somewhere. If the general feeling is that it's out of place then I can move it to the relevant parent article; though to me, reaching #90 in a given chart is probably as useful to know as being nominated for "Outstanding Sound Mixing" at an awards show. GRAPPLE X 20:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC) I think what you've said is fair enough. After all, there aren't many shows like Vice which spawned so many different types of award-winning (or charting) accolades. Ok, so let's focus on either making the table unsortable, making it sort properly with just one row span, or do the impossible and make it sort as it was originally...! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC) I tried playing about a bit, reducing the number of columns by eliminating countries, album names etc; if I remove a column that switches with another column when sorted, then two different colums switch around instead. I think it's looking like the best option is to just lose the sortability of the tables until the root cause can be fixed—even if I strip out the country column, and break the singles into three tables, one for each album, there's still a necessity for rowspans for the songs and the artists; artist and chart columns then switch places when sorted. I've switched the table to be unsortable for now. GRAPPLE X 18:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC) I don't blame you. The nuances of the Wikimedia software really make this kind of thing too difficult. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments What channel was it broadcast on? Its stars included → The show starred focussed should be focused Ref. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, Academy of Television Arts & Sciences should not be linked as it is linked above Ref. 20, 30, 35, 39, 42: Hitradio Ö3 should not be linked as it is linked above Ref. 45: Procter & Gamble should not be linked as it is above TBrandley 23:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC) My understanding is that WP:OVERLINK does not apply to references as there's no expectation that they'll be read sequentially, unlike the article itself. I've left those links in but I have made the other suggested changes. GRAPPLE X 10:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC) I agree re: ref linking, I tend to link all or none. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments "...nomination for his work helming..." not keen on the use of helping, not even sure if its actually a word, would change it to overseeing perhaps? WP:CONTEXTLINK advises against using bold links. This has been brought about by the use of row scopes to rectify this, add plainrowheaders to wikitable and the issue will be solved. "Thomas' nomination was to be his only award nomination for his Miami Vice work..." nomination is used quite a bit in this sentence, would change the last bit to "...only one for his Miami Vice work..." NapHit (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks for having a look here. I've added plainrowheaders to each of the tables, and made the change suggested in your third point. For the first point I just changed it to "his work on...", as the fact that it's a directing award makes it clear what his role was and this obviated the need for a specific verb here. GRAPPLE X 23:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Quick comment - in the "singles" table of the music section, why is "Smuggler's Blues" centred and in bold....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

  Fixed it, turns out it was a rogue quote mark causing it. GRAPPLE X 09:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Great work! TBrandley 16:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

;Comments from Crisco 1492 Tense pile-up: first sentence of the lede is in the present tense, but the last is (somewhat illogically, IMHO) past tense I changed the tense of the last sentence of the first paragraph; or was it the third paragraph (the music releases) you were after? It might need a rewrite of that paragraph to change. First paragraph, sorry. How's my rewrite? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Looks good. Thanks! GRAPPLE X 02:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC) What's with the present perfect tense? The show hasn't seen a nomination in 20 years. I feel a little guilty asking with an English degree but present perfect? I assume that's my awkward habit of "would go on to", etc? I've stripped a few of these out. "Since its debut, Miami Vice has received several award nominations", "has received seven Golden Globe Award nominations during its tenure," "Miami Vice has won two People's Choice Awards," etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Ah, I see. Well, I felt that it worked in a more detached, overview-ish manner to phrase it like that; there's a sense of direct activity to use the "Miami Vice received" phrasing. If it's a problem I can strip it right out in no time. GRAPPLE X 02:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC) I did a copyedit, please review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Seems good to me, though I only saw the implementation of things like non-breaking spaces. Thanks for having a look through this one for me. GRAPPLE X 02:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Regarding the present perfect used in the article, I still feel it is awkward (and would have my students change it) but two separate reviewers have not had a problem, so I'm probably in the minority. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

  I stripped the majority of it out, just to be awkward. GRAPPLE X 03:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Great work on this list. One list issue, as per naming convensation, this list should be name List of "awards and nominations" rather than "accolades". TBrandley 05:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

  Looking at WP:FL, "accolades" is much more common amongst featured lists; in past FLCs I've been asked to change "awards and nominations" to "accolades", rather than vice versa. GRAPPLE X 05:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

  TBrandley, you've already !voted. Perhaps a cross-out? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

  Oh, whoops! Lol. Okay. Thanks,TBrandley 19:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

  Actually, for some reason, television lists are actually titled "awards and nominations," whereas film lists are titled "accolades." See WP:FL. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

  Hmm, I see that now. That's pretty strange. I wonder if one set is more recent than another and has seen a change in preferences; might be worth me trying to suss that out. I still prefer "accolades" in this instance, though, as the chart positions can be described as "accolades" in a way that they couldn't really be called award or nominations. GRAPPLE X 00:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support, meets FL criteria. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Ref 13-15 have no retrieval date. Afro (Talk) 06:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

  Good catch; added now. Thanks. GRAPPLE X 18:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support I have no issues with the list. Afro (Talk) 09:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:19, 11 August 2012 [25].

---

List of Sri Lanka Twenty20 International cricketers

Nominator(s): ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 18:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. The format is similar to List of England Twenty20 International cricketers and List of India Twenty20 International cricketers, both featured lists. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 18:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: The main table should be centered like the table of captains, and the gallery should be reinserted at the end of the article.--Blackknight12 (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Reinserted the gallery. But I'm not sure whether it fits at the end of the T20I captains table. Updated the T20I captains table to comply with WP:ACCESS. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 18:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments Spell out ODI before using it as an abbreviation. Done. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 16:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC) "In this match, Kenya w..." why not something like "In reply, Kenya..."? Done. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 16:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC) " to Pakistan by 8 wickets" eight. Done. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 16:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC) "won his first Twenty20 cap" -> won his first T20I cap (and just link cap). Done. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 16:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Not keen on the gallery, would prefer those images down the right-hand side, but it's just a preference. Removed the gallery. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 16:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Win%, stick to same accuracy. Done. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 16:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Ref 60 has unspaced hyphens, would be better to be spaced en-dash per WP:DASH. Done ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 16:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC) "Player Caps" -> "Player caps". Done. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 16:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• I get some odd sorting results in IE when I sort by 4WI (keep sorting and check out the order of the Cap number).

• The sorting results are not shown in any particular order only for the entries with the same value. In this case, only 2 players have a non-zero value in the 4wI column. All other players have zeros. It is possible to sort the players with no 4wI by artificially assigning a sort order number to such entries, just like the way we brought up Dilhara Lokuhettige's highest score of 18* ahead of Gihan Rupasinghe's 18, by leaving apart the last digit of the {{sort}} to denote the state: "out" or "not out" (0 for out, 5 for not out). But I guess this might overly complicate the table since some columns, for example 4wI, have dozens of entries at the same state (This problem is common to all columns that deal with numbers). I don't know whether there is a simpler fix for this matter; but I didn't find one yet. I will look into it further. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 16:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• A MediaWiki software fix to the tablesorter has been proposed by Anomie. Hopefully this would solve the issue once it passes the review process. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 10:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• That's good news. Please ping me if this is resolved successfully! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Same with batting HS (i.e. the top Cap result goes 2, 37, 2, 27, 2, 41, 2, 32...)

• Same as above. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 16:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments need to add (ICC) after the first use of International Cricket Council Done. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 09:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC) "Dilshan has made the most appearances for Sri Lanka in T20Is" could add how many matches he has played for some context Done. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 09:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC) You have 50 in the table yet no explanation of it in the key Done. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 09:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Bit odd having 4wi as a column, I thought 5 wicket hauls were more notable? Changed. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 09:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC) No need for the colours in the columns its already evident what stat applies to which discipline Done. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 09:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Captains table needs a caption Done. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 09:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC) ref 2 needs the date of publication added to it Done. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 09:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support --Blackknight12 (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Remove "the" from "Mendis took 6 wickets for 16 runs during the Australia's 2011 tour of Sri Lanka". Done. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 11:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC) "The" could be added at the start of footnote 1, and I think that would improve the sentence. Or "team" could be removed, either way works. Done. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 11:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Since none of the references are printed sources of any kind, the publishers shouldn't be italicized. I've seen conflicting views on whether the BBC should be italicized or not, but I'm fairly positive that ESPNcricinfo shouldn't be. I thought ESPN EMEA is the publisher here. But without using the publisher parameter, I've used ESPNcricinfo and BBC Sport for the work parameter, in line with the last FL List of international cricket centuries by Kumar Sangakkara. Do you think ESPNcricinfo should be the publisher? ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 11:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Going through several similar reviews, resolved to remove italization of the parameter. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 09:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Given that all refs but 9 have the publisher linked, you may as well link that one too. Done. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 11:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Giants2008 (Talk) 20:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

;Comments from Harrias talk You need to remove the rowspan="2" parameter from Cap, Name, First, Last and Mat, given you've added "General" in the row above, contrary to precedent. Done. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 04:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Do you have references to support those players that have retired? Also, given that in twenty years, a large number of these players will have retired, meaning that the list will be covered in this symbol, it is really necessary? Removed. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 04:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Personally I don't think {{sort dash}} is appropriate for the Bowling average column, as it means that the players without a bowling average sort above the best average of Mendis. I would prefer those players to sort at the end. Done. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 04:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC) External links shouldn't include anything already listed as a reference: in this case it replicates Ref #15, so should be removed. Done. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 04:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC) On the whole, pretty good work, mostly minor technical fixes needed. Harrias talk 11:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Harrias ^talk 06:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support I spot no issues with the article. Afro (Talk) 06:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:19, 11 August 2012 [26].

---

List of Maya Angelou works

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because not only does it met the criteria, it is an important list of works by an important figure in American literature. My eventual goal is to have a Maya Angelou FT, which requires that lists in the topic be featured. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comments First, this is a nice piece of work and I learned something more from the lead. I assume that other listings without in-line citations are cited from Maya Angelou: A Glorious Celebration. ? One minor mistake is that you are using a spaced m-dash for ranges (for example "1954—1955"); instead, it should be an unspaced n-dash. I found the same format in Ref 9. If you fix those I am happy to support. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 09:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. Yes, the other listings are from the Gillespie et al. source, as stated in ref1. I fixed the dashes, and other things I saw. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• I fixed the first and other small nitpicks. I think it meets the criteria :), so supporting. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 12:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose primarily on lack of refs and possible lack of comprehensiveness. But ref1 states that the list is from the Gillespie et al. source unless otherwise stated. There are several lists of Angelou's bibliography, but some of them are incorrect and outdated. Gillespie is the most recent list, so that's why it was included. The lead is very well sourced, I think. George Orwell bibliography has even fewer refs than this one currently has. Do you have any suggestions about how to better handle it? Avoid bold links in the lead per WP:CONTEXTLINK. Fixed. The first sentence doesn't read well at all for me, there's a mix of singular and plural, there's a number of run-ons, and it makes for awkward prose. Improved, hopefully to your satisfaction. "is best known for her series of six autobiographies" this isn't in the reference, it says she's "best known as a writer". Clarified. I don't understand the relevance of the final sentence of the first para of the lead. Removed sentence. "Angelou has used the same ..." this sentence runs on too many times for me as well. Improved, including removing the final phrase and clarified Loomis' retirement. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC) "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, 1969." why is 1969 in italics? And why the period? Ooo, good catch. Can't believe that you're the first person to see that! Notice that there are periods after each item. Is that wrong; should I remove them? Actually, there aren't periods after every item (e.g. A Song Flung Up to Heaven, 2002[21]), but in any case, yes, I would remove them, these are not complete sentences and as such don't need periods. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Removed periods as requested. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Is this list complete? If not it should be tagged with {{incomplete list}}. For instance, the template at the bottom has "Adjoa Amissah" but that's not in the article anywhere... Well, it's complete as far as Angelou is concerned. It includes everything she's done in her career up to today. When she publishes or does something new, it will be added, even though that's probably doubtful because she's in her eighties, you know. ;) I don't think that the tag is necessary. Um, sorry for being dense, but I don't see Amissah anywhere. Have a look at the {{Maya Angelou Literary Works}} template, it's listed in there under Plays. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Ah, now I see, thanks. Got it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Are you sure that's it? I didn't check all of the template, that one stood out for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Entire template checked and corrected. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC) "(writer/director]," should be a closing parenthesis not bracket. Ooo, another one! Nice! ;) "Nicholas Ashford and Valerie Simpson),[17] " no opening parenthesis. "A Song Flung Up to Heaven (2002)[23]" why is year in parentheses? Fixed the above two silly typos. Thanks. "Talk Host" do you mean "Talkshow host"? Um, no; it's two words [27] Okay, do you mean "Talk show host"? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Duh, yah. Fixed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Should ref 2 be The Smithsonian (i.e. italics) like ref 21? Again, you got it, thanks. Ref 18 isn't a ref, it's a note. Actually, it's an "explanatory note", and according to the MOS (WP:EXPLNOTE, it's appropriate to use them with citations. The Washington Times has a publisher, but The New York Times and The Guardian don't. Be consistent. I double-checked. The reason The Washington Times has a publisher is because the article was from the Associated Press. The other articles were written in-house. But who writes the articles isn't relevant to who publishes the newspapers, surely? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC) According to this [28], it's okay to use the newswire service under the publisher parameter. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC) I'm not arguing against that, but for the publications which have proper publishers, like The Guardian, why wouldn't you include the publisher? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Because for the AP, it's important to note that's where the article came from. I've never seen publishers listed when the sources is written by a reporter from the news outlet. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Not wishing to persist the argument, but I normally expect to see publishers for those works which may be ambiguous, e.g. not sure how many The Guardian there are, or The Times etc. I'd either use a location or a publisher or both. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Fine. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think The Guardian is the only news outlet that's unclear. Added as requested. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the catches; this is exactly why we need reviews, so that other sets of eyes can catch stuff main editors miss. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Some works are referenced directly, some have no indication of any reference, where would I find those cited? Again, as ref1 states, anything not referenced was from Gillespie et. al. The references are sources that discuss the item. Perhaps just at the top of the list, you should have a statement like "Unless specifically references exist, works are sourced to [1]..." or similar because most of us wouldn't read across the note in ref 1 (which is a footnote, so goes missing in the refs) to understand it means that some items don't need individual refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Not a problem. Where do you recommend this going? The top of the lead, or in the lead's first paragraph, or at the end of the lead, or right before the list begins in the "Literature" section? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC) I would say just before the list begins in the "Literature" section. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Ok, done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Um guys, this has been languishing here for awhile--it is the oldest entry. Is there anything else that needs to be done? To me, it seems like every concern has been addressed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, like all other featured processes, we need to get some kind of community consensus to promote. I suggest you contact the relevant projects and those editors you think who may be interested in such a list to come here and give their review. We don't just promote lists because no-one's here to review it, nor would FAC, FTC, etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GRAPPLE X 21:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

*Comments. I'm leaning towards supporting this one but I've a few minor things to raise. The quote box might be better served being raised up a little, perhaps being inserted between paragraphs one and two; as it is, it seems a bit out of place. Done. You're right; it does look better now. I'm seeing a lot of items that have relevant links that aren't being linked to; most prominent is "On the Pulse of Morning", but Roots, How to Make an American Quilt, Down in the Delta, etc, are all just plain text. Is there a rationale behind this? Got it. I'm thinking that "...poetry, plays, and screenplays for television and film" might read better as "..poetry, plays, screenplays and teleplays"; there's some brevity gained but the use of another "–plays" might necessitate switching "poetry" and "plays" around. Just throwing it out as an idea, as currently there are two instances of this list in the exact same wording; one of them should really be changed to some degree. Ok, done as suggested. Definitely include a link to PBS, it's not something I expect non-Americans to recognise. Done. Overall the list looks comprehensive and well-sourced, there's just the above issues with presentation. If you do decide to link everything that's relevant (the films, poetry, etc. There's more than just what's specified above) then I don't mind actually sitting and doing that myself but I didn't want to trundle in without inquiring why it's not already present. GRAPPLE X 19:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks, I think I got all the links that needed to be added. Let me know if I missed anything, please. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Changes look good to me. Supporting in anticipation of the below points being seen to, though they aren't major deal-breakers for me. GRAPPLE X 21:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry I've been a little slow in getting to the last comments; I've been out of town over the weekend and have been playing catch-up. Will address the rest now.

Comments from Crisco 1492

• Quick little comment: As of this date stamp there are eleven nominations older than this at FLC

• Why is the title List of Maya Angelou works and not List of works by Maya Angelou

This has been an issue in the past with this list. Its original title was Works of Maya Angelou, but it was eventually changed by another editor to List of Maya Angelou works; see diff. I assumed good faith and trusted that he was correct in the title change.

• autobiography or autobiographies?

Um, not sure what you're asking?

• Why isn't the list chronological? In the film and television section, for example, I see 1972 - 1990, then suddenly 1975, then 1968

Fixed.

• You seem to be missing a couple links (Georgia, Georgia, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings (film), Sister, Sister (1982 film).

Got it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• I don't mind fairly bare bones lists, but perhaps a bit of bibliographical information would be useful (publishers for books, network for TV, studio for films, etc.)

Made the additions. If there's anything else I should add, let me know.

• I did a small copyedit, be sure to review it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comments Ref 4 needs a date. How reliabe is Houston Progressive? Afro (Talk) 06:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Simple fixes: added the date, and changed to a more reliable source. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Support I have no issues with the article, there is a cite error but I'm sure that'll be quickly fixed. Afro (Talk) 09:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:19, 11 August 2012 [29].

---

Golden Eagle Award for Best Foreign Language Film

Nominator(s): GoP_T^C_N 07:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing much happened since the first nomination. The recent winner was The King's Speech by rising star Tom Hooper, the first non-American production since 2007. The Russian Golden Eagle Awards is equivalent to the Golden Globes. I think that this category is the foremost under the Golden Eagle, so I decided to nominate this first and will think twice if other subarticles should be nominated here. Regards.GoP_T^C_N 07:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Support Looks like this list meets all 6 FL criteria. The prose flows well. The lead (though relatively short) is succinct and to the point. Structure is well-organized (though for the table key, you could choose to centre the title and remove the headings "Sign" and "Meaning," as other FLs like 3,000 hit club don't utilize headings for table keys). Style is aesthetically pleasing and follows MOS. Obviously very stable. In addition, the references used are vast and encompass every detail in the table. Overall, an extremely impressive list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your review :). Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 16:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose, though I'm not sure how necessary the # is for winners, since you have already highlighted them in blue. Also, should the † symbol come after punctuation? AGF on the Russian sources. Ruby 2010/2013 20:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I moved the daggers after punctuation. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 15:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments In response to above, # (or some other symbol) is required along with the colour, per WP:ACCESS. Ref(s) is just Refs since there are always multiple ones. I only count 16 USA noms. Joanne Sellar is JoAnne Sellar. "Yahoo!." Avoid the double dot here, you may need to be clever about the use of templates. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Done all. Thanks for your comments. Regards.--GoPTCN 11:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 16:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Comments – "The nation with the most cumulative nominations are the United States". "are" → "is". Sounds odd. I thought the United States are a plural? Nevermind. Changed to is Could add "the" before United Kingdom. Done What makes IMDb (ref 18) a reliable source? Giants2008 (Talk) 00:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC) It is actually Yahoo. Thanks for your comments. Regards.--GoPTCN 08:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• The Producer column is sorting by first name and not last. Could try sorting it by the last name of the first director listed, although I grant that it's difficult to have sorting that works well for a column with multiple items like this one.

• Yes, that is the reason why I did not change it.--GoP_T^C_N 08:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Quick comment: I'm having problems. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think it is your browser, as it is fine for me on all resolutions and on all browsers. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• No, errors on Chrome as well. I'm stuck at 1024*600 px (netbook) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know. Does this error occur only if you view this article, or also on other similar articles, eg Golden Eagle Award for Best Motion Picture? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Same issue. How much of our readership is stuck on such a small resolution? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• I added "upright" to the pictures. How about now? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yep, that's peachy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Not much prose, and didn't see any mistakes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and support. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support per above. I removed the hashtags from the winning films, since they were unnecessary due to the shading. Nice work -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think they should be there as per WP:ACCESS, but let's see what others think. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep a symbol is necessary per WP:ACCESS, as colour blind user won't be able to identify the shading. I wouldn't use the hashtag as the symbol though <code>{{double dagger}} would be better. NapHit (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Done--Kürbis (✔) 16:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:19, 11 August 2012 [30].

---

Chrisye discography

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is a comprehensive look at Chrisye's musical output. He never really went international, and Indonesia has not had a single national chart (let alone a long-standing one) like Billboard in the US, so there is no charting information included. The discography is based on the featured lists Rihanna discography and Radiohead discography, and has had a couple quick comments before FLC by GOC. The prose is a bit longer than my previous FL (List of songs recorded by Chrisye), but as there are several milestones which should be brought up in text I see no issue with it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support The discography is easily "Warm as chicken shit" =)--GoP_T^C_N 11:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No matter how many times I read that quote I still chuckle. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick comments No images? No free images of the artist, other discographies don't have images of collaborators etc. Would an image of the albums edge on, like at List of James Bond novels and stories, be suitable? Any collaborations that should be here? Outside of the singles, Jurang Pemisah, Guruh Gipsy, the first Badai Pasti Berlalu, and the soundtrack for Seindah Rembulan, nothing major (we could count Senyawa as a collaboration with numerous artists, but I've included it as a studio album since Chrisye was the only artist who appeared on every track) "2 tribute or cover albums" which one? 1 tribute album, 1 cover album; will note in the table that Dekade was a cover album No need to abbreviate LCLR since you never use it again. Done "went on to sell over 9 million copies" nine million. Done "Because of disappointment with his only major acting role" whose disappointment? Refactored "having found his muse" explain? Refactored "three more were released the year of his death" which was when? Says 2007 in the first paragraph. Have duplicated it. En-dash for sales/certifications needs to be explained. Done Can you confirm ref 12 says that sales were "poor"? Quick and dirty translation: "The album was called Pantulan Cita. No hits came out of it. I was seeing critical shadows." FN29 also supports that the sales were poor if you want me to cite it Which country certification are you using? Probably need to explain what it all means. Indonesia. It appears the certifications have changed since they were established (the music industry has been on the decline for a while), so sales on Aku Cinta Dia (which went gold) would be something like 15x platinum now. No sources on what the sales figures used to be, but we can compare Aku Cinta Dia (1985; gold) to Dekade (2002; double platinum) and tell that the standards have changed dramatically. For comparison, current numbers are 35,000 for gold 75,000 for platinum. (source) Some sales are individually referenced, some aren't. Why? Combined to the first row. I had kept those with sales referenced to different sources as separate footnotes Similar comment to the one item with "Poor" reception. Removed (I had missed that when GOP commented that the tables should not have uncertain data) "with director and date" mostly "without director" and year, not date. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC) How's this?

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments Should the lead be ideally trimmed down to four paragraphs, five at most going by WP:LEAD? - Lemonade51 (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Down to five, I'd like further suggestions for removal (if there is content considered extraneous) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC) This was published on 2 August 2008, not 22 as it is stated on the bibliography "to sign Chrisye;[8] Chrisye would stay with the company for the rest of his career" To avoid repetition, replace bold bit with 'He'. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Done both. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Lemonade51 (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Quick comment – The Ade Irwansyah-authored article needs to have a publisher indicated. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GRAPPLE X 01:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

*Comments' Do Jumpa Pertama and Pergilah Kasih both translate as "first meeting"? Nope. Fixed. There's a few cells in the Singles table that could be given a rowspan to read easier; all of the "Single only" cells for 1990 and 1992 are consecutive and could be merged with a rowspan of 3; the final two of the table could also be merged. Done. The "year" fields change width quite drastically between tables; I'm not a stickler for uniformity but the extreme narrowness in the Music videos table could be expanded a bit, I'll look into this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Is it your monitor, perhaps? They both look the same to me (year fields are only in singles and music videos. I could force the table width, but that would result in a lot of white space. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Not sure what's causing it, but under "Singles" the column is 110px, under "Music videos" it's about 35px wide. Maybe force them both to be 45, 50px? GRAPPLE X 00:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC) How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Hmm, now the first field in the singles chart is stretching way beyond 16em, but I think it's just on my end as changing the width did nothing. If it displays fine to you then leave it as is. GRAPPLE X 01:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Inclined to support this one, nothing I've seen is a deal breaker. GRAPPLE X 19:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Changes are good, I'm happy to support. GRAPPLE X 01:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support I see no issues with the list. Afro (Talk) 06:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks both for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:19, 11 August 2012 [31].

---

List of colleges and universities in South Dakota

Nominator(s): Ruby 2010/2013 19:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Another colleges list, this time of the Midwestern state of South Dakota. This is part of my ongoing project to improve these lists. This one is relatively short and shouldn't take much time to review. Thanks in advance for your comments. Ruby 2010/2013 19:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Sorting "Control" in Safari gives me many different results each time I click on sort.

• How interesting. It does that for me too (using Firefox). Is that a problem? How would I go about fixing that? Ruby 2010/2013 19:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure, sorry! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm seeing the same thing in Chrome. The rows aren't jumbling up or anything though, the information stays correct but just sorts differently, so I'm not convinced it's anything to be too concerned about. GRAPPLE X 16:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment General comment, this lists are okay, but there's no real "wow" moment for me. Is there anything beyond the pure stats you could tell me in the lead? Is there anything special about any of the institutions, or any alumni I may have heard of? Anything? I'll see what I can find. Ruby 2010/2013 18:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC) It appears that the "American Dietetic Association" is now called "Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics", should that be updated? Updated Ruby 2010/2013 18:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Ref -> Ref(s). Done Ruby 2010/2013 18:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Any reason why defunct table isn't sortable? I've tried to learn from each FLC. In the recent Wisconsin list FLC, you said "Defunct institutions - ref col doesn't need to be sortable". I can make it sortable if it you wish it now, but just wanted to clarify. Ruby 2010/2013 19:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Yeah, ref cols should never be sortable, but other cols can be. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Fixed. Ruby 2010/2013 03:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC) External link claims that it lists "accredited" establishments, yet the "National American University-Ellsworth AFB Extension" is listed on that site, despite being called "unaccredited" in this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Clarified. Sorry about the delay in responses. I've responded to all but one (still working on finding more information to add to lead, though my search has been disappointing so far). Ruby 2010/2013 03:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC) You shouldn't assume that readers know that AFB is an airforce base. I don't think it is necessary to inform readers about this. Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota is just a click away for those who are interested. Ruby 2010/2013 03:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC) I disagree. You shouldn't be using abbreviations without explaining what they mean. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC) A fair point. I have changed it to Ellsworth Air Force Base. Ruby 2010/2013 21:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The table was incorrect; I've fixed it to reflect that the institution in question is regionally accredited by HLC. Ruby, please be more careful; labeling an institution as unaccredited is a pretty big deal and we have to get that right. ElKevbo (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

As I stated in the edit summary, the National Center for Educational Statistics entry on National American University-Ellsworth AFB Extension says "No accreditation data reported for this institution". Please stop adding information without properly citing it. Regards, Ruby 2010/2013 19:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It's an online branch campus of an accredited institution and it's specifically listed on HLC's website.

If you don't understand higher education, I suggest you stop editing this article or seek assistance when delving into specialized topics such as accreditation. ElKevbo (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you want to get technical then the information contained in IPEDS - which is where College Navigator gets its data - covers institutions participating in Title IV. Institutions must be accredited by an agency recognized by the Department of Education to participate in Title IV so it's trivial to conclude that all institutions in College Navigator are accredited. Theoretically it's possible that there are accredited institutions that don't participate in Title IV but is highly unlikely. ElKevbo (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I would advise you to change your tone. Wikipedia is a collaborative process where editors are meant to work together, not against each other. Today I personally contacted the HLC to verify that their accreditation applies to online branches of accredited campuses, as this is not made specifically clear at the HLC entry on NAU nor at the NCES page. A representative of the HLC has confirmed to me that Ellsworth is accredited, so the issue has been resolved. Ruby 2010/2013 21:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Comments Images in lead could do with alt text ref 9 does not appear to be a PDF, the extension seems to be ASHX (whatever that is), would remove the format parameter altogether NapHit (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC) I have made both suggested fixes to the article. Thank you for looking it over! Ruby 2010/2013 00:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing! Ruby 2010/2013 04:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GRAPPLE X 03:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

*Comments Could be wrong, I believe the key requires row scopes as well. I'm thinking the aside about Redfield's merger with Yankton could perhaps be moved to a note, as is it gives that row a disproportionate height which looks unseemly. You mention that Sisseton Wahpeton College is the smallest post-secondary institution; it might be worth noting that the Sioux Falls Seminary has a smaller intake (also maybe that it's a Baptist seminary, but that's not vital). Other than those minor issues I'm inclined towards supporting this one. GRAPPLE X 04:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Just noticed you left comments, so my apologies! Based on my other recent colleges lists (like this one), I don't think the key really needs row scopes, though I'd be willing to add them if you or someone else deems it necessary. Otherwise, I have hopefully made the necessary changes. Thanks for reviewing this one, Grapple. Ruby 2010/2013 19:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC) I'd say add them anyway; the benefit in terms of accessibility is huge compared to the effort. Other than that I'd say I'm happy to support this one. GRAPPLE X 11:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Added! Ruby 2010/2013 14:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support (clarifying after boxing off comments). GRAPPLE X 03:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! Such colorful comment caps... I wish the reviewers at FAC used these. Ruby 2010/2013 04:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Image review: No apparent copyright problems and well kept File: pages. Goodraise 19:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for looking it over. Ruby 2010/2013 19:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: Augustana College source says it was founded in 1860 not 1889. The Enrollment source presents different numbers than what's presented in the table. Sinte Gleska University says nothing regarding the founding. Neither of the sources specifically mention Columbus College closing in 1929. Freeman, Huron, USD - Springfield, Wessington and Yankton don't seem to be listed in Ref 31. Afro (Talk) 06:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I have no idea why Augustana said 1889, but I have now fixed it. This provided different enrollment numbers because it was based on fall 2010 data; the website must have updated their data, so I'll I adjusted the table accordingly. One of the sources does specifically mention Columbus College closing (-> "In 1929 Columbus College Closed, an early victim of the Great Depression). And Ref 31 was a slight error - it was synced to the Wisconsin list rather than the SD list. Easy fix. Ruby 2010/2013 14:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Everything seems to be fixed and I have see no issues with the article. Afro (Talk) 20:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review and support. Ruby 2010/2013 04:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments Referencing problems for the main key Categories should be in alphabetical order please. TBrandley 03:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Adjusted categories accordingly. What kind of referencing problems? Ruby 2010/2013 03:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Just no references in that key. Add if possible; thanks. TBrandley 04:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Ref 6 covers the actual information for the relevant field; the key is just a guide to the acronyms used. I fail to see why that would need to be cited. GRAPPLE X 04:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Agree here with Grapple. A bit of a unique situation, but I believe the links themselves provide sufficient verification, considering they're just corresponding with acronyms. Ruby 2010/2013 04:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC) They're only essays, not guidelines, but WP:BLUE and WP:CHEESE are worth having a look at. GRAPPLE X 04:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Very interesting. A bit... shall we say, amusing, that someone requested a cite for humans having five fingers... Ruby 2010/2013 04:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Okay. Fair enough. This is fine. TBrandley 04:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Support. Great work on this list! It should be represent as one of Wikipedia's best lists. TBrandley 04:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 04:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:19, 11 August 2012 [32].

---

List of The Simpsons guest stars

Nominator(s): Gran², Lemonade51 (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

After months of redesigning and sourcing, we both think this meets the FL criteria now and is worth a shot at nomination. The Simpsons is perhaps renowned for its celebrity guest stars; the main table offers a comprehensive list of every guest star who has appeared on the show, on what episode and their role as well as detailing the origins, the process of how the producers court a star, and celebrities who have rejected making an appearance. We both welcome any suggestions, feedback, critique, et al. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ruby 2010/2013 05:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Some comments from Ruby2010 "Two guest stars—Ricky Gervais and Seth Rogen—wrote the episodes in which they appeared" - possible semantics here, but technically Rogen co-wrote the episode (maybe reword a bit to reflect this)? Done, though sounds a bit clunky. Perhaps change to "Two guest stars—Ricky Gervais and Seth Rogen—wrote or co-wrote the episodes in which they appeared"? Ruby 2010/2013 21:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Done. Gran2 21:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC) According to Groening, guest star choices "come from the writers saying, 'Wouldn't it be cool to have [such a person on the show]?'", while showrunner Al Jean has stated the philosophy is "we want to meet our heroes." I'm not a fan of the italicized part of this sentence (something about "the philosophy is" grates on me) Lemonade51 has addressed "...but was redubbed with Harris who the producers felt was a better fit." I assume you mean Jo Ann Harris? I might repeat her full name, as it is first mentioned in passing Done Is it worth mentioning any reception of the guest stars? Like maybe the favorite guest stars of television critics? I found these lists: [33] [34] [35] [36] Not sure if you cited it yet, but this is potentially useful. Ruby 2010/2013 21:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC) I would personally say that a reception (section or whatever) isn't really necessary for something like this. I mean 1) The page is already huge and 2) A reception section stands to be more empty and meaningless than most receptions sections, due to the sheer number of guest stars so it would largely just be "this guy like these people, so did this guy, this guy liked this other person, he was so funny" and so on - so in my view it would just be trivial. Thanks for the comments. Gran2 22:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Support I'm satisfied with the above fixes and current state of the article. Ruby 2010/2013 05:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments "The shorts was developed... " not grammatically correct for me. "show which began in December 1989.[1] The show finished" quick repeat of "show" here, mix it up a little. "The show finished its 23rd season in 2012, having aired 508 episodes." while factually correct, this reads a little too final for me, perhaps say, "As of the end of the 23rd season in 2012..."? "has continued the amount appearing" -> "the number of those appearing" "have had recurring " -> "have appeared as" or "have featured as recurring" " over 20 times" -> twenty (since all the other comparable values in this sentence are spelt out). " on the show.[A] This figure rises to 601 if The Simpsons Movie is counted as well." ->",[A] rising to 601 if The Simpsons Movie is included." You have "some guest stars" but surely the verb, in the context of "so-and-so has guest starred" should be hyphenated? I'm not sure what you mean/are referring to. I mean shouldn't it be "Mr X has guest-starred in...." The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Ok, done (at least the only one I could find). Gran2 18:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC) " over the phone" telephone. "for the episode "Stark Raving Dad". After "Stark Raving Dad", " quick repeat of episode name is dull. "have consistently failed to get any former" I dislike "to get" here, maybe "to persuade" or "to convince" or similar. "as well as musicians Bruce Springsteen and Bob Dylan" this run-on is odd, perhaps "; musicians ... have also rejected invitations to appear on the show." " Michael Caine,[17] Tom Cruise, Clint Eastwood and Anthony Hopkins[18][19] " how do these refs work? One for Caine and two for three others? Moved the Cruise one, Eastwood and Hopkins are covered by the same ref "in the DVD." the "season" DVD perhaps? "with Jo Ann Harris " who she? She was one of the show's supporting cast members, this is already mentioned and she is already linked earlier in the section. The first col of the table needs a heading, like "Season". "used for season 15–19 and 21–23, " seasons. Ref. -> Ref(s). Once I re-sort the table, there appears no way of sorting it back in the original order. The # column restores it (albeit with the movie at the top) Exactly, it doesn't restore the original order. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Not sure if there's a more elegant way of doing it, but this is done. Gran2 18:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Image captions which are complete sentences should end in a period. Check spelling of "Boy-Scoutz 'n the Hood " "I Am Furious Yellow" also. And "That 90's Show". "The Tiger Lillies" are just "Tiger Lillies" John Lovitz appears to be actually called Jon Lovitz. Sally Stevens has guest-starred three times in the show but is red-linked?! Yeah. She's a local LA singer they have occasionally brought in. She doesn't seem to have much notability other than here singing roles here. Multiple appearances on The Simpsons doesn't confer notability? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Well if by notability you mean reliable secondary sources, then no. Nothing obvious on Google bar IMDb and her official site; Newsbank search for "Sally Stevens" + "The Simpsons" brings zero results. Gran2 18:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Note Z episode title missing an apostrophe. What is FOX in some of the refs? IGN or IGN? It's The Wall Street Journal. Don't SHOUT in the ref titles. ref 453, since when was Reuters a work? You relink The New York Times but not Yahoo! Tv. in the refs, be consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC) All done (I think) unless noted. Thanks for the comments, Gran2 20:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Quick comment MOS:HASH tells us not to use the hash to indicates rankings etc, would rename to something along the lines of episode number? Kudos on a great list. NapHit (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Gran² 21:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments Unlink American per WP:OVERLINK Done "since its first season" isn't needed. I think it is; it sounds awful without it. "aired" should be "originally aired" Done Guest stars have appeared on The Simpsons since its first season. I'd imagine that, perhaps re-word I don't see an issue. Just because it may be obvious doesn't mean it shouldn't be stated. What makes Ref. 412, 419 (The Futon Critic) a good source The pages in question are just copies of the offical Fox press releases for those episodes because they are no longer listed on the Fox website. Futon is genreally considered one of the most reliable TV sites of all; it's been cited by Rolling Stone as being used by networks, and the New York Times. Those book sources should be linked to the actual general source above before the citations Is this strictly needed? I mean, I'm sure there's nothing more fun and useful than linking some 200 references. But in this case it seems pretty pointless. Add to that create excessive and wasteful bytes. The list is already the 27th longest page on Wikipedia. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC) TBrandley 06:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks. Gran2 09:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• "Hartman has made the most appearances, appearing 52 times." Not a big fan of "appearances" and "appearing" coming back-to-back.
• "Two guest stars: Ricky Gervais and Seth Rogan earned writing credits...". Instead of this awkward colon, try bracketing commas around the names. It will read better if you add them.
• History: Semi-colon in the first sentence of the section should be a regular old comma.
• The List of guest stars heading doesn't need the first two words. The similar heading that follows doesn't have them, and they are a touch redundant in any case.
• Period needed after (i.e. BABF, CABF, etc.) in the pre-table notes. Otherwise the sentence this is in never ends.
• What makes Simpson Music 500 (ref 455) a reliable source? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • All done. Simpsons Music 500 is the official blog of the show's music editor Chris Ledesma. Thanks for the comments! Gran² 06:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Image review: Making a conscious effort to restrain my nitpicking instinct, I can say I found no major copyright related problems. Goodraise 19:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support I don't see any issues with the list. Afro (Talk) 05:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:19, 11 August 2012 [37].

---

Ronald Reagan filmography

Nominator(s): – Lionel ^(talk) 10:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC), Happyme22 (talk)

This filmography is representative of the best that Wikipedia has to offer. The lead amply covers Reagan's film career, activities in the Air Corps movie unit, his TV career and transition to politics. Much of the prose has been copied from our Featured Article Ronald Reagan itself (nominated by Happyme22).

The filmography features 9 embedded files! 5 of the files are videos!!! This will be the only FL filmography with any video whatsoever. Including video is a natural and obvious addition. We hope this filmography will serve as a model demonstrating how to incorporate rich media. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments - quick comments. Lead, well we should refer to WP:LEAD. You currently have ten paras in the lead, I would expect no more than three. You could create a section to explain Reagan's acting career, but make sure the lead just that, a lead which summarises the whole article. Done – Lionel (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Maybe a little too much trimming. I said around three paras in the lead, summarising the whole article! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Un-trimmed. – Lionel (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC) For God and Country is a dab link. Done – Lionel (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Don't mix date formats for things like accessdate or date. Be consistent. Done – Lionel (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Don't shout in the ref titles (e.g. ref 6). Done – Lionel (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC) IMDB refs, we don't consider IMDB to be a reliable source so you need alternatives for refs 17 and 18. Ha!!! I copied that verbatim from the Featured Article! I tagged it over there. I'll wait a couple days for them to fix it--if not I'll take care of it.– Lionel (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Done (commented out) – Lionel (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC) "May 02, 2012." no need for leading zeros in dates. Yikes. The stuff that somehow gets in these articles. Fixed. – Lionel (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC) What is the purpose of [more] which leads our readers into the depths of other namespaces? It allows the reader to find all films downloadable at Internet Archive. It seems to be an intentional feature Template talk:Internet Archive film built into the template. – Lionel (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Not for me, it simply links to a list of pages which use that template. It's not useful in the slightest... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC) It's used on a several thousand pages, and I'm hesitant to change it without consensus. I've started a discussion and asked for input from WPFilm. – Lionel (talk) 06:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Then I suggest you dump the template and hand-code it. The list of "what links here" contains User pages, template pages etc, and shouldn't be for our readers to consume. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Done--removed link per "overwhelming" consensus at template talk.– Lionel (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks, TRM. Hopefully this will wrap up before you-know-who finds out about it. ;-) – Lionel (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC) More Pat O'Brien is a dab link. Done– Lionel (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC) New York Times should be The New York Times. Done– Lionel (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Taft-Hartley should take an en-dash not a hyphen. Done– Lionel (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Still have some concerns over the large number of shortish paragraphs. How does it look now? – Lionel (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC) "Knute Rockne, All American" seems to have a comma, not a space or a hyphen as you variously have it. Done– Lionel (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC) "Academy Award Nomination - Best Short" en-dash, not hyphen. Check others. Done– Lionel (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC) "Best Short" is linked on its first and third time, not the second, why the relinking in this way? Done--only 1st is linked now– Lionel (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Ref 26 is just floating and isn't really telling me what it's supposed to be citing. Changed column header to "Notes/References" – Lionel (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC) "Academy Award Nomination and Win " well you can't win without being nominated. And after this you just say "Win..." Done– Lionel (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Format of ref 26 needs work. Done– Lionel (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Not sure all the external links are really necessary. Got rid of a couple.– Lionel (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments there should be no spaces between the dash in the first sentence done – Lionel (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC) could link army air force His assigned unit, First Motion Picture Unit, is linked. Would linking AAF be too much?– Lionel (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC) likewise academy award for short film Opted to link 1st mention of "Academy Award."– Lionel (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC) You have Screen Actors Guild in one sentence then abbreviate it to SAG in another without providing the abbreviation after the original use done – Lionel (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC) "sixteen weeks out of the year, often demanding of him fourteen" you have 19 in digits earlier these two should be in digits as well done – Lionel (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC) you have GE and general electric close together, yet you never provide an abbreviation, provide it after the first use and stick with it done – Lionel (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC) link kings row in second section Hmmm. It appears to be linked already. Could you post part of the sentence you're referring to. – Lionel (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Sorry, should have been more specific, the sentence is "Many film critics considered Kings Row to be his best movie" in third para of the entertainment career section. NapHit (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Kings Row is linked in the immediately preceding sentence, as well as being linked when it first appears in the lede. This should be enough. – Lionel (talk) 03:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• The main issue I have is that the tables do not meet MOS:DTT, I also think they can be rearranged slightly so that the film is the first row not the year, this format was used in Jennifer Lopez filmography was promoted recently.

• working on MOS:DTT... Personally I think the year in the 1st column is easier for the reader to understand. Let's get a 2nd opinion on moving the title first.– Lionel ^(talk) 23:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave this one up, so others can post their opinion. Regardless of whether the move is supported or not, rowscopes will need to be added to the tables which they have not at the moment. NapHit (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• I reviewed MOS:DTT and fixed "Correct table captions". The rowscopes have been added. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I've amended the first able as exclamation marks need to be used instead of pipes for the rowscopes, the same will need to be done in the tv table. NapHit (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for handling Films--I fixed the TV table. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the cleanup NapHit– Lionel ^(talk) 04:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks NapHit! – Lionel ^(talk) 23:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments Ref 17 should be BBC News  Done Per WP:YEAR: A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given so 1953–1954, 1961–1963, 1964–1965 need to be adjusted. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)  Done Thanks for the observations Lemonade – Lionel (talk) 02:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Toa Nidhiki05
Neutral - Very good article on Reagan's filmography. The only major issue I see is the television table, where it appears some sections of the table are mixed up or in the wrong area. Withholding support until table is fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 19:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Oops. Must've broke when I was fixing something else. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support As table was fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 14:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Great list. Very informative. Ryan Vesey 01:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 16:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Bold links in the lead are discouraged by the Manual of Style, and I personally don't see a need to bold any of it. Doesn't MOS require that "filmography of Ronald Reagan" be bold? Perhaps "His acting career began..." could be replaced with "Ronald Reagan's acting career began...". I fixed the em dash issue and warner bros. Ryan Vesey 23:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Thank you, Ryan. @Giants, I moved the wikilink. I believe the sentence now complies with WP:LEADSENTENCE. – Lionel (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Okay. In that case, can we please fix the "Reagans acting career" and turn it into "Reagan's acting career" now? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)  Done– Lionel (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Minor, but the MoS discouages unspaced en dashes (the little ones). You can switch to the larger em dash, or just make the en dash spaced. Ryan fixed this, thanks. No, he didn't, at least not for the one I saw. The one in the first paragraph, which is the one I was commenting on, is still there. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)  Done Got it--and rechecked the article. – Lionel (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC) "such as Recognition of the Japanese Zero Fighter and Beyond the Line of Duty. Beyond the Line of Duty...". Not an easy thing, I know, but try not to have something repeat from one sentence to another like this. It's not that appealing to read.  Done – Lionel (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Is it "Warner Bros. Studios" or "Warner Brothers studios"? The lead and body differ. Ryan fixed this, thanks. The capitalization of "studios" is still inconsistent, and should be made to be one style or the other. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)  Done consistent now – Lionel (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Entertainment career: No need for the comma in "April, 1942." Also no need for it in later instances.  Done – Lionel (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC) "in particular those of Lemuel Boulware. Boulware...". More repetition from sentence to sentence.  Done– Lionel (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC) What makes Nndb.com (ref 19) a reliable source? From their website: "Additions or corrections to profiles submitted by users are not included automatically. A member of the NNDB staff vets any submitted change, and applies any changes selectively and manually." And the page has additional info on their fact checking policy. The editorial oversight makes it RS. – Lionel (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC) I just don't like using a user-generated source for a sentence such as "Reagan, a liberal Democrat, began to shift to the right as his relationship with Republican Nancy Davis grew." There has been so much written about the Reagans in reliable books, newspapers, and magazines that we shouldn't need to rely on such a questionable source, which is no different than something like IMDB (also frowned upon). Why settle when there are plenty of better sources you could use? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)  Done Got rid of it.– Lionel (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Giants2008 (Talk) 23:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

Comments from Crisco 1492 "includes many motion pictures and television screen work." - Any way to rework this so we don't have "many ... television screen work"? changed to "many motion pictures and a selection of his television screen work" – Lionel (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC) That begs the question of what the exclusion criteria are. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC) The inclusion criteria is all of his works which are covered in the General references: Metzger, Allmove and the Reagan Library. Most of his work is listed, so there wouldn't be much to to which to apply an exclusion policy. – Lionel (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Perhaps, but it's still not phrased too well. "includes many motion pictures and television episodes", perhaps? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)  Done why didn't I think of that – Lionel (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC) "the latter having won the Academy Award for Best Short film." - Not when he narrated it, surely. Perhaps "the latter of which later won ..."  Done – Lionel (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC) "Before the film Santa Fe Trail" - do you need "film" here? It's implied from the context  Done – Lionel (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Fix CN tag for direct quote  Done– Lionel (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC) (officially, the "18th AAF Base Unit") - Do you need those quotes? What purpose do they serve  Done– Lionel (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC) "He met fellow star Nancy Davis" - You just said he never regained his star status, so how could she be a fellow star?  Done changed "star status" to "stardom" – Lionel (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC) "the marriage would be one of the closest in U.S. political history, and the couple had two children: Patti and Ron." - Illogical joining. Perhaps "the marriage, one of the closest in U.S. political history,resulted in two children: Patti and Ron.:  Done much better, thanks – Lionel (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC) "making films such as The Voice of the Turtle, John Loves Mary, Bedtime for Bonzo, Cattle Queen of Montana, Tennessee's Partner, and Hellcats of the Navy (where he costarred alongside his wife)." - What makes these worth individual mentions? FYI the list was copied from the FA article Voice: loved it at imdb; was "the best of these [post war light comedies]" --Cannon John: Patricia Neal's first film Bedtime: well, it's Bedtime for Bonzo! Winning Team: "best picture of this period [post war]" --Cannon (and poster uploaded by Crisco!) Cattle: impacted Scorsese; "the best [of his post war westerns]" --Cannon TN: inspired one of the greatest hits of The Four Seasons, and Rhonda Fleming ooh-la-la Hellcats: Erick Harper says it has "historical value" Actually, I would probably drop John Loves Mary and add The Hasty Heart.– Lionel (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC) I've done a film list before (not at FLC yet!) and generally I prefer keeping only films significant to the development / reception of the subject in the lead text; the list can handle the minor works. That being said, I don't know enough about 40s and 50s Hollywood films to identify offhand which of those are important and which aren't. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC) That works for me. I'll review the impact/legacy of his later films and get back to you. Your list is fascinating. Have you thought of going for GA before FLC? That way you could snag another WP:FOUR. I know it isn't technically an article--but the right reviewer would do it I think. – Lionel (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks, but I don't think four would even apply for FLs. Did you see my comment above? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Yes to "TV edisodes" and to "only films significant..."--working on 'em. – Lionel (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC) In his book [38] Lou Cannon puts Reagan's films into historical context: the list has been adjusted to reflect Cannon's perspective What makes General Electric Theatre "The Dark, Dark Hours" and "Ronald Reagan on TV" by Billy Ingram, at TVParty.com. valid external links? The first may fail ELNO for copyright infringement, while the second doesn't seem to be a notable website. Alright, just drop a note here when you're done (watchlisted) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC) The Dark, Dark is a rare clip. I think it holds interest for our readers. I changed the link to the full page at The Atlantic which isn't known for infringement. TVParty.com is notable. "A twisted walk down memory lane!"- Sharon Edry, TV Guide, "Top Five Sites! Interviews and articles... are must reads." - London Sunday Times and other positive reviews at the website. – Lionel (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Alright, be careful not to have too many though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC) If you only knew what the section looked like before the FLC lol.– Lionel (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC) I did a copyedit, be sure to check it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Thank you – Lionel (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Important point that I want to bring to the community's attention: on my talk page, the nominator states that he copied text from the main Ronald Reagan article for use in this one. What do we think about this? I'm not a fan of copying since there are potential attribution issues, and I don't like the concept of making our best work by taking excessively from other best work. I know some style and formatting elements are similar from list to list, and in the leads of these lists, but I'm concerned that we're pushing things a bit here. I don't want to outright oppose, but want the community's input before a possible promotion. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Copied content is located in the Entertainment career section. This is essentially a "bonus" section. I.e. there is still enough "original" prose for the list to rise to Featured quality without the section. But it would be a shame to trim it. The original Reagan article has already started to drift away from the copied content. And the version here, through the FLC process, has also undergone numerous improvements and corrections of errors that were in the Reagan article. I believe this version is better than the FA. IMO the section enhances the quality from FL to premier FL.– Lionel ^(talk) 22:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• So long as there is attribution, copyright-wise we are fine. I think it's fine for FLC too, because some lists generally use boilerplate introductory text (those lists of centuries and medal tables, for example) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Text was copied in a single edit with the edit summary "(copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ronald_Reagan_filmography/rewrite&oldid=494433585)". The article and exact version are specified. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Using {{copied}} would be a good idea — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

•  Done– Lionel ^(talk) 07:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good to me. I think the use of spaced en-dashes is possibly a more European English thing, though. Could be wrong about that. GRAPPLE X 23:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Media files review

• File:Ronald Reagan and General Electric Theater 1954-62.jpg – Where does this come from? I don't see it on the linked page. How do we know that this picture was "prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties"?

•  Done A substantial amount of GE Theatre material was donated to the RR Library. I emailed the library to confirm that this was included. Even though this is probably PD, I've removed it pending confirmation and replaced it with a substitute. I may also just license it Fair Use: it adds enormously to the list.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 00:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• File:Ronald Reagan in Knute Rockne-All American 1940.jpg – Same source, different rationale. The linked page asks users to credit with "Courtesy Ronald Reagan Library", but nothing is said about the images being in the public domain.

•  Done There is a good chance that this is a non-copyrighted film studio promotional poster. This was routine for the era. However in the instance that this is in fact (c) by Warner Bros, I've replaced it with a substitute pending confirmation. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 00:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Having done a lot of free poster-related uploads, I can tell you that WB was pretty good at giving a copyright notice on their poster after about 1933 (MGM, on the other hand...). Now, it may have not been renewed in whatever year renewal was due (28 years after publication) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Other than these two, I found no copyright related problems. Goodraise 18:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:09, 4 August 2012 [39].

---

Polar Music Prize

Nominator(s): GoP_T^C_N 17:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the requirements for becoming a featured list. It is a list of some of the greatest musicians of the 20th and 21st centuries.GoP_T^C_N 17:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment - just a quick one, I think the "reason" quotes border on copyvios since many of them have a vast amount of directly reproduced text. It may be worth asking someone who knows about these sorts of things (e.g. User:Moonriddengirl is extremely helpful) to have a look. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I shortened the quotes as far as I could. Moonriddengirl meant that they are ok as long as they are shorter. Regards--GoP_T^C_N 09:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I asked here whether the quotes are acceptable, and I was told that they are. As long as I correctly attribute the sources to a reliable site it is right. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 13:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

What Moonriddengirl said was that she was "uneasy with using that much non-free content from a single source in an article". I don't see any change so far, there are hundreds of words copied in this list that are unnecessary. You could make the quotes briefer. The list currently seems to be a collection of copied quotes and nothing much else. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Then what else should be shortened? Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 20:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• "Laureates are awarded 1 million kr.[5][5]" Ref 5 is duplicated twice at the end of this sentence. Only one is needed.
• Change "Ref(s)" –> "Refs", since there are 2+ sources for each year.
• "USA" should be wikilinked in the 1993 row rather than the 1994 one (i.e. wikilink the first mention of a subject).
• As previously mentioned, quotes under "Reason" column need to be a bit shorter (i.e. only keep what is needed and essential).

—Bloom6132 (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Done everything except the last. This is not easy to shorten the quotes =/ Thanks for your comments. Regards --GoP_T^C_N 19:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support – All but one point addressed sufficiently. I'll let the last point go, since it is important to include the full reason as to why the award was bestowed (i.e. you'd rather err on the side of caution by making it detailed than to leave out the essential points). Looks like this list meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Cool, thanks! :)--GoP_T^C_N 19:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments "...where it was awarded to" where should be when Replaced "...and 2003, awarded only to one composer" -> "and 2003, when it was awarded to one composer." It is a repetition of the first phrase, but I changed it anyway. "other experienced members of the music industry" this quite vague what do you mean by this? It could refer to a lot of of people in the music industry, I would be more specific I don't know what is meant, but I will ask the person who added this. Simply experienced.--GoPTCN 10:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC) "and members of the Stig Anderson family selects the prize recipients from nominations" -> "and members of Stig Anderson's family select the recipients from nominations" Reworded "representatives of several international music industry organisations." again this is vague what organisations, providing would provide a bit of context for the reader. Looked at the ref and I find this sentence misleading, the representatives are mainly from Sweden which dispels any notion of international music industry organisations being involved in this. You should reword this to accurately reflect this. The source is [40], which states the organizations. However, most have very long names, and many readers won't understand these organizations anyway. I added one example. I don't think there is any point in having the columns coloured, it is also obscuring the sort buttons so I would remove it. Previously the sort buttons were always present, but now they aren't anymore. I asked at the Village Pump. Personally, I would have each recipient on their own row instead of having them together in one year, this allow better sorting the winners and make it more clear which quotes refer to each recipient I think this is odd, as they are all winners. Also I then have to write the years for each row, which is more confusing. Not at all, since the table isn't sortable you can use a row span for the years and separate rows for each winner. I agree with NapHit. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC) So you want a non-sortable table? How odd...--GoPTCN 10:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Actually, since you only have two sortable columns, and one is nonsense because it shares people's names (i.e. how do I sort Isaac Stern??), then yes, in this case it would be better to be non-sortable. Having said that, if you use only one rowspan then the software seems to cope okay with sorting, by filling in the cells on your behalf if someone does sort it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC) I reformated the table as NapHit proposed.--GoPTCN 11:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Images could do with alt text Added.--GoPTCN 10:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC) "...best known as the manager of the Swedish pop group ABBA, with a donation to the Royal Swedish Academy of Music." I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, the meaning of the sentence appears to have been lost. Was the award a donation by Anderson to the Royal Swedish Academy of Music? if so this needs to be made more explicit The source states: "The award was established in 1989 by Stig Anderson, manager of Abba, through a donation to the academy. ". It is clear for me, but you are always welcome to propose a better wording Do we really need a see also section with a link to List of prizes, medals, and awards? I would question the need for the section at all, it seems superfluous to me NapHit (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC) It is interesting for non-Swedes.--GoPTCN 09:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC) I'm a non-swede and i don't find this section interesting there is no need for it. There appears to be no relevance to some of the links, in fact some of appear to be there simply because they are Swedish awards. The section needs removing. NapHit (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Removed.--GoPTCN 17:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC) ref 2 needs an access date and Nay changing to May Done Still see 17 Nay instead of 17 May. NapHit (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Done--GoPTCN 18:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and support. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 21:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Support –

• I've come here as a result of the request at MoS. I think the quotes are far too extensive, amounting to a copyvio and going against WP:QUOTE:
  • Using the original words from something like a prize citation is responsible and we can argue that such a citation was written in order to be quoted. These citations are however rather verbose and in some cases there is a long justification for the prize but no separate citation (right hand column of the web page under the photo if present). Long quotes from every prize description page on the site undiluted by any original content are in my view addressed by: "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." (WP:NFCCEG, policy).
  • Although there is "no need for an arbitrary limit" (WP:QUOTEFARM, essay), "Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose" (WP:LONGQUOTE, essay). If you argue that this is a list so we don't expect lots of original prose, the counter is that we don't expect lots of text in a list, whether quote or original, it's a list.
  • The entries for Lutosławski, Quincy Jones and Springsteen are fine, at part of a sentence from the original source. I think you should present the other entries at that sort of length, for example: "...his achievements encompass almost four decades of constantly changing modes of creativity, ..." is enough for Dylan.
  • On the other hand, the entry for Jarrett does not say enough. Here the source has lots of text but no citation as a separate entity, so I think you need a short entry in original words. Perhaps something like: "The prize was awarded for Jarrett's outstanding musical contributions in fields as diverse as classical interpretation and jazz improvisation."

-- Mirokado (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I now removed many useful content describing the reason of the awarding. Also it would have been better to respond not so late. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 08:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks much better now (from my point of view, sorry you disagree, and apologies for responding a bit late). I have tweaked a bit and changed to support. Just one point which I will make without the pressure of formally opposing: each Reason entry consists of a bulleted list with a single entry. This adds little to the visual display and means that the user of a screen reader has a redundant level of structure to navigate. Please consider removing those bullets. --Mirokado (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and support. I removed the bullets. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 09:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I've tweaked again and another question: Kinnarps is a redlink in the references. Perhaps better to unlink that unless you are intending to create an article "soon"? The redlink is not currently adding value to the reference. --Mirokado (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I delinked it. I won't create it due to lack of reliable sources. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 09:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose lots of little things.... Where is "Exceptional achievements.." referenced? Lead says "significant achievements"... The caption is not a quote "Exceptions were the years 2001..." perhaps just "Exceptions were made in 2001.. and in 2003..." Reworded "one inventor"? You probably need to expand on that in the lead as this is a music award. I removed the second award in the first sentence. Hope it is clear now. Isn't "celloist" actually just "cellist"? Corrected "The Polar Music Prize is regarded as Sweden's foremost musical honor.[8]" well, this is out of place in the lead, and if the award really is considered the "Nobel Prize" of music, it's more than just Sweden's foremost musical honour isn't it? Clarified "of the Stig Anderson family" -> "of Anderson's family". Shortened "and members of Stig Anderson's family" ditto. Shortened "In recent years..." more specific please. Removed Refs -> Ref. Shortened For the Baltic States band, why not just Baltic states for nationality? Fixed Nope. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC) If you link something once in a sortable table, link it every time. Linked Did Reich really win it twice in 2007? Corrected "Witold Lutosławski was the first classical musician to win..." you mean "solo" musician because "The Baltic States" won it the previous year as classical musicians, right? "Paul McCartney was the first winner." likewise, the first "contemporary" musician to win, right? And likewise the first man to win Stern and Bacharach's citations are still too long. B. B. King -> B.B. King. Corrected "The English band Led Zeppelin became the first musical group to win the award." what about "The Baltic States"? And they're British really since you have UK against their nationality. Laureates template appears to need updating. Updated--GoPTCN 11:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC) (stalking) "The Baltic States" really are the three countries, see the citation in the reference. If the wikilink does not make that sufficiently clear (or might look like an incorrect link) perhaps replace by "the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia)" since that first award was unlike most of the following ones. I'm aware of that, having visited them all. I'm saying it shouldn't need to be expanded if a suitable wikilink is given in the nationality column. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC) You refer to "The Baltic States" as a band above. They are not (or if they are that is not what is being referred to), the prize was given to the three countries themselves (and thus WL was the first classical musician to receive the prize). --Mirokado (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Oh, I see. How odd. Point taken. In which case, the winner should be "Baltic states", not "Baltic States"... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Lutosławski was a composer (who also conducted his own works from time to time) so I think that description is OK. --Mirokado (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Sure, but he wasn't the first classical recipient of the award. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC) What do you mean? He wasn't the first recipient of the classical part of the award. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC) The caption says "Witold Lutosławski was the first classical musician to win the award." which is entirely correct, the countries are not musicians. I think it is OK like that. --Mirokado (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Check abbreviations, if you don't use them, why abbreviate terms? Reworded No, you still have abbreviations that you don't use, e.g. STIM. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC) I removed the abbreviations. No, you still have ECSA. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Removed You link pop but not "contemporary" or "classical". I linked pop as it is often confused with popular music Why not be consistent with what you link then? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC) I changed to "Swedish band", hope it is clear now That really wasn't the point. The point was you linked "pop" but not "classical" or "contemporary", which was inconsistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC) "the British musician and one of the founders of The Beatles, Paul McCartney, and the Baltic States." would just say "the British musician Paul McCartney and the band, the Baltic States". It is not a band Fine, but you don't need "one of the founders of The Beatles", he's entirely a musician in his own right. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC) The point is that he was actually awarded mainly for being the found and a member of an influential band. His solo-career was rather minor compared to the Beatles period.--GoPTCN 20:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Um, not really, he was in the Beatles for about nine years, then had a solo career (and Wings) for the next 40 or so. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Does not matter if he was 99 years a solo-artist and 1 year in the Beatles band, he was still awarded mainly for being one of the founders of the group. Also do you really oppose only because I disagree with you? Regards. --GoPTCN 08:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Well the citation says he was awarded it for the work in the past 30 years, i.e. 1962 to 1992, he was a Beatle for only 7 or 8 of those years. But hey ho. And as for opposing, I did so because the list was unsatisfactory. As you know, I always revisit lists and as you know, I'll revise my opinion accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Removed that bit--GoPTCN 17:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 17:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Alt text would be nice for the lead image. Added Recipient column should be sorting by last name, not first. Sorted In the caption "Joni Mitchell was the first woman award recipient", having "female" instead of "woman" would be more pleasing for the reader. Corrected More from captions: Both Paul Simon and Yo-Yo Ma have "the most recent winner", which is technically inaccurate since they are both the most recent winner. To fix this, maybe the category that they were awarded for (contemporary or classical) can be added. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Added (more stalking) Agree we need to sort by last name for people: I suggest using {{sortname}} for that, for example replace [[Dizzy Gillespie]] by {{sortname|Dizzy|Gillespie}} which results in Dizzy Gillespie (see template documentation for other parameters). --Mirokado (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks, but I am familiar with this template.--GoPTCN 11:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• One more note from checking the replies: B.B. King still appears to be sorting by first name, as opposed to last. Everything else from my end looks resolved at this point. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

BB King is his stage name, so I think it should not be sorted. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 11:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:09, 4 August 2012 [41].

---

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Brett Lee

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 09:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. Prior to this nomination it underwent a peer review and improvements have been implemented. It is based upon existing FL, List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Anil Kumble —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 09:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Comments Link cricket the first time round. "during his career" repetitive (you said pretty much the same thing in the previous sentence). Lead image caption needs a full stop. Dinesh is Denesh. cricinfo is linked in ref 6, but is mentioned both before and after unlinked. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC) All fixed. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments "... one of the fastest international bowlers in modern cricketing era." the should come after in Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC) I don't see any reason why you should use less than 100% font size, both the tables should be full size I adopted a style which is similar to Kumble's list. Anyhow, now I've increased the table width. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Exclamation marks should be used instead of pipes before scope=row NapHit (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Since I could not find a single important column, "row scopes" are not used. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment you may wish to update the lead as a result of this. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• "and his first five-wicket haul came in the second Test of the series; a match which Australia won." Semi-colon should probably be a regular old comma instead.
• The "as of 2012" in the third paragraph was fine when the FLC started, but now that he has apparently retired there is no longer a need to have it. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed all. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ZiaKhan 05:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Comments – You may link "Brisbane" in the second para. I think there is no need of [N 2] at the end of 3rd para and in the 2nd last sentence of the last para. Since he has announced his retirement from international cricket you should use past tense in the last para, specifically in the 2nd last sentence. ZiaKhan 18:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Fixed all. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Support – Meets the standards. ZiaKhan 05:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support – peer reviewed the article, happy it meets the FL standards. Harrias ^talk 11:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Gimmetoo 01:35, 5 August 2012 [42].

---

Songs, sketches and monologues of Dan Leno

Nominator(s): Cassianto (talk) and Ssilvers (talk)

We are nominating this for featured list because... having successfully promoted Dan Leno to featured article status we have now completed this list of his recordings and sketches using all of the major sources about this subject. We believe that it now satisfies the criteria for Feature List status as the article has completed a peer review where issues were raised and addressed to the satisfaction of the reviewers. The subject, Dan Leno, was a leading music hall comedian who was also a notable actor in Victorian burlesque and pantomime. We hope that you enjoy reading this exhaustive list as much as we have enjoyed researching and writing it, and we look forward to all comments and suggestions -- Cassianto^Talk 07:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support I participated at the Peer Review and the two issues which hindered its promotion were resolved. --GoP_T^C_N 08:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and your helpful comments at peer review! -- Cassianto^Talk 21:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Ditto.  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments Image caption is not a complete sentence, no need for the full stop. Fixed, thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Is it "beefeater" or "Beefeater"? Not sure what you are asking - the title of the sketch was "The Beefeater". -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Ok, the other use of beefeater is not capitalised, that was all. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Where are his birth/death dates referenced? In the first line of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC) In the paper source? The Rambling Man (talk) In the book sources, obits, etc. See Leno's main article. All sources agree, and there is no question or controversy, so a cite need not be given directly following the dates (just like in Leno's main article). I think this is consistent with WP:V etc. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Ok, cool. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Since this about a quintessentially British subject, it should be written in British English, e.g. organization should be organisation. Fixed, thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC) "He originated and popularised many popular songs..." I'm not keen on him "originating" a song, that reads very strangely to me. I disagree. It is very common in the arts to refer to originating an acting role, character or song. See, for example, this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Okay, as I said, it reads odd "to me". No need to change it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC) You may wish to appropriately link sketch. Done, thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC) "for the His Master's Voice (HMV)" no need to link it twice in a row. Fixed, thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC) "début" no need for the accent, debut has been adequately anglicised. Fixed, thanks! "discs " again, BritEng, disks. I think you are backwards. Disc is international, while disk is American. See disc. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Well, I'll assume you don't mean I am backwards, rather I have it the wrong way round. Fair enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Haha! Sorry, you are correct! I didn't mean to imply any physiological or temporal backwardness, only metaphorically directional.  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC) No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC) How is "a Spanish bandit" part of London life? Haha! Good point. Modified. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Recording Number -> Recording number, check all other table headings. Done, thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC) "GC2–2518" should that really be "GC–2–2518"? Done. -- CassiantoTalk 15:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC) "A sketch by Alfred Bryan of Leno as a dame from 1890s." caption doesn't need a full stop. Fixed, thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Recording number doesn't sort back to its original order, so you can never restore the table to its original format (essentially, the recording number column doesn't sort properly). Fixed. -- CassiantoTalk 08:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Consider making year sortable. Now sortable. -- CassiantoTalk 15:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Year performed column doesn't sort correctly, because of the "c. ...." entries. Fixed. -- CassiantoTalk 08:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Ref 4 and ref 5 are the same. Not now. -- CassiantoTalk 15:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Ref 3 New York Times should be The New York Times. Thanks, fixed! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Ref 27, probably worth specifying which The Times it is (London). By a link or "(London)"? -- CassiantoTalk Most refs I've seen would just have (London). You could alternatively link The Times? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Changed in my absence. -- CassiantoTalk 20:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC) " 1901 - 1907 " en-dash, not hyphen. Thanks, fixed! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Not sure you need Category:Music-related lists since you have Category:Lists of musical works. Removed. -- CassiantoTalk 20:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, and the title isn't right because the list also includes monologues.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

We are reluctant to have such a long title. On the other hand, I don't think "works" is correct, as I believe that Leno wrote some longer pieces that are not included here (Cassianto, please confirm), and "short works" sounds kinda silly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes that's correct. Leno's pieces ran between a few minutes to over an hour. These longer pieces are not included. "Works" to me doesn't sound right. It's ambiguous IMO. I also disagree with a name change to incorporate "monologues". Way too long. -- Cassianto^Talk 15:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the current name is incorrect, so you need to come to a compromise! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's "incorrect", although it is arguably incomplete (one might consider that "sketches" also covers monologues. See comedy sketch.) Perhaps other commentators have a better suggestion or opinions on this item? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes you're right, it's not simply "incorrect", but it doesn't adequately describe the contents of the list right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, The Rambling Man, for all of these corrections! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments on sorting from RexxS

Looking at the Discography table, the values in the "Recording number" do not have an intrinsic order. (By the way using "Recording<br> number" as a heading is not so good for screen readers as they will announce the line break - we don't need to force that and really ought to let the browser set column widths.)

The JavaScript sorting function will treat the "recording numbers" as numbers as far as it can, so they will range from 1066 to 1129; then 3222 to 3496; followed by 43 to 50; and finally 23117. An easy fix is to make the script see the 43 to 50 as bigger numbers. I've done a demo edit which adds a hidden "40" onto the 43 to 50 series making them appear as 4043 to 4050 to the sorting script. However, the entries are still not in order of recording number as 'Spiritualism' (3462/3) is listed later than 'The Shopwalker' (3478/9) and 'The Muffin Man' (3480/1). As a result, the usual sorting will not restore the order that we first see them in (although reloading the page will). If there is no particular reason for the position of 'Spiritualism', I'd suggest placing it before 'The Shopwalker'. You should also check the recording number of the 'The Lecturer' (showing as 3484/5), as it is the same as that given for 'Wait Till I'm His Father'.

If you can check the accuracy of the recording numbers, and make any changes if necessary, I'd be happy to return to this and make the sorting work for you. Did you really want to sort on 'Issue number'? If so, make sure that the order you have is correct and I'll use the {{sort}} template to set a usable sort order for you. I should warn you that Safari browsers prior to version 4.1 won't sort properly with values containing en dashes, but we can deal with that if we set a full sort key. (Incidentally, I've replaced the html entities &ndash; with actual – (endash character) as it's so much easier to read and in line with the advice about Character encodings in HTML, but you can revert that if you don't like it.) --RexxS (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The duplicated recording number has been altered as per Brandreth. All other's have been checked too. Some can be found here for those who would wish to check on further accuracy. I agree with the en dashes character rather than the formatted version. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, for the advice RexxS. I'm using Safari 5.1.7 for what it's worth, and the sorting is definitely out of whack on that right now. I was using IE earlier and it wasn't quite so odd but still not correct... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks RexxS, so a non-technical explanation would be to sort the Recording numbers into numerical order? -- Cassianto^Talk 18:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The Discography table seems to work as expected now. Check with TRM. I've applied a full sort key to the "Year performed" in the Unrecorded songs, sketches and monologues table and it seems to work ok with all the browsers I have available to test with. I think Gimmetoo and Ucucha have copies of Safari 4.0, and you could ask them if you want to check the worst case. --RexxS (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Great work! Your input here has been truely invaluable. TRM does this satisfy your concerns? -- Cassianto^Talk 21:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, RexxS! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, now all you need to fix as far as I'm concerned is the title of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Renamed to "Songs, sketches and monologues of Dan Leno". -- Cassianto^Talk 19:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It may be that I've contributed a little too much to have my !vote counted, but I'm sure the closer will take into account that I would support the promotion of this list, as I feel it satisfies all of my concerns regarding accessibility and usability. --RexxS (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Your advice during this article has been tremendous RexxS. Your ability to not blur the line between advisor and contributor, has helped me understand lists and tables so much better. Thanks for the support. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments by User:Indopug

• All the song titles should in quotes.

Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 11:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If the song titles must be in quotes, then so must the sketch and monologue titles. See WP:MOSTITLE. I've done the rest. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Capitalisation of the titles isn't done properly. For eg: The Tower Of London → "The Tower of London". I am Waiting For Him Tonight → "I Am Waiting for Him Tonight". Refer MOS:CT.

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sorting by Title: should The Bandit, The Detective and The Jap be sorted by B, D and J respectively, instead of T?

Sorry in advance for my lack of knowledge on "sorting" issues. Would that mean de-capitalising "The" and leaving caps on for "B" "D" "J"? -- Cassianto^Talk 11:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

No, don't de-capitalize the "The" - just ignore "The" and "A" in sorting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have completed this on both tables. Indopug, can you check to see if this is now correct and let me know here if it's not? -- Cassianto^Talk 14:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, User:Indopug. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 17:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments – In the discography table, "The Hard Boiled Egg and the Wasp" doesn't seem to be sorting in the right order. Fixed by adding missing inverts. Giants2008, has this fixed it? -- CassiantoTalk 10:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC) In the second table, a space is needed after ref 25 in the "Never More" note entry. Space added. -- CassiantoTalk 10:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Minor point, but reference 16 uses a style of shortening the second page number that isn't followed elsewhere in the article. Not a big deal, but it would be nice if the references were consistent throughout. Fixed -- CassiantoTalk 10:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC) I expect that the answer to this question is no, since this has clearly been thoroughly prepared, but is there a page number avaliable for the New York Times article? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Sorry but the answer is no. In light of this, I have linked the reference to the article for a better understanding. Will this be OK? -- CassiantoTalk 10:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Support all my concerns have been resolved.—indopug (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:09, 4 August 2012 [43].

---

List of Awake episodes

Nominator(s): TBrandley 09:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I, personally, think it now meets FL criteria. After a peer review, and a copy-edit from Wikipedia's wonderful editors, I now think it is ready. Thanks, TBrandley 09:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: The description for "Turtles All the Way Down" seems quite jumbled. A nice copyedit would be good. Guy546^(Talk) 15:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done
• Comment: Prose is a bit choppy, an example: "It was well received by television critics, who praised it storylines" should be 'prasied its storylines'. I agree with Guy546 that this could use a bit of copyediting. TRLIJC19 (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done
• Comment: I agree that the page is in need of some serious copy editing. How about starting with the word 'Michael', which is spelled Micheal at least five times on the page? Many of the episode descriptions are choppy and have ambiguous parts. I'm not about to list examples here so that you can just add a "done" check mark. Get another copy editor to go over the page with a fine-toothed comb before considering FL. Honestly, if you cannot notice that you spelled criteria wrong in your nomination above (creitia), you don't have the eye for it. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• After a little bit of copy-editing, I'll be willing to support this list. Will put the article on my watchlist to keep an eye on it. Otherwise, good job. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support pending this fix: I still see "Michael" misspelled twice. TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done. TBrandley 03:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. This is fine now. Just make sure to work on the rest of the episodes after this ;). Guy546^(Talk) 13:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Sure thing :) TBrandley 13:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Paper Luigi (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Comments Comments - These are suggestions from the automated peer reviewer: "where the voice at the drive thru says that he can't go to Portland" - "can't" should be "cannot"  Done The Nielsen ratings header shouldn't be wikilinked.  Done The article links to a disambiguation page (Variety).  Done Paper Luigi T • C 22:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - with one final comment: the "1" in the Nielsen ratings box is a broken wikilink. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 21:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done. Thanks! TBrandley 21:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments Additional comments from Logical Fuzz. Despite my previous suggestion that you find someone to copyedit the ep summaries, I can't see that there has been any real change/editing as of yet. I still think it needs a once-over by a good editor. Lead - praised, praised, praise. Very repetitive. Find another word.  Done "Episodes "Pilot" and "Say Hello to My Little Friend" were particularly praised"....for what specifically?  Done. It was for the main storylines. "By late May, Awake had averaged 4.8 million viewers per episode and was 125th in Nielsen ratings." This is a series-end average, correct? The wording makes it sound more like episodes in late May were pulling in 4.8 million. How about: Awake averaged 4.8 million viewers per episode and ranked 125th in viewership for the 2011-12 television season.  Done with en-dash per WP:DASH In the ep summaries, when you first mention the main character for an episode, you refer to him in various ways: Michael, Michael Britten, Detective Michael Britten, Detective Britten. Other than in the first ep (when you are introducing the character), I think you need some consistency with this.  Done "Michael Britten deals with a case at his work with a homeless man Bernard Mackenzie and his death." Awkward. ...deals with a case of the death of a homeless man, Bernard Mackenzie.  Done "Michael's old retired partner Jim Mayhew (William Russ) is call in to help with the case," Tense: called in.  Done Old retired partner? Rather than his new retired partner? Get rid of old, it is unnecessary.  Done "The serial killer, Gemini contacts Britten at the end of the episode." Consistency with the commas: Gemini, contacts  Done. Also, see below at Giant2008's comments. "In an effort to calm down Gabriel Wyath (Billy Lush) -- a patient who has threatened to blow up a mental hospital -- Britten is compromised," replace the double hyphens with a dash  Done. Also, see below at Giant2008's comments. "Meanwhile, Rex introduces his girlfriend, Emma, to his dad and Bird shows concern over Britten's lack of focus due to his sleepless nights." needs a comma: to his dad, and  Done "drive thru" is hyphenated, drive-thru  Done Michael deals with a case with a football fan that was found on the ground dead, in his "red reality". Rearrange. In his "red reality", Michael deals with a case of a football fan found dead on the ground.  Done "He is unable to switch lives, and realizes that Ed Hawkins (Kevin Weisman), a cop in his department, was trying to kill him for his occupation at the police department, after seeing him as a hallucination." This is awkward and ambiguous, reword: Who had this hallucination? Hawkins, or Michael?  Done Switch lives, or realities?  Done. It is realities, which are lifes. But, because of the rest, are realities, I'll use that. Thanks for noticing that! "for his occupation?" Sounds strange, no one talks (or writes) like that.  Done. After watching "Two Birds". Ed killed him for a different reason, which is explanined in the "Two Birds" summary. I have removed. department is repetitive.  Done "Hannah asks Michael to speak to Emma's father, Joaquin (Carlos LaCamara) to be more sympathetic about Emma's pregnancy." Ambiguous, needs clarification/rewrite: Is Michael speaking to Joaquin so Michael seems more sympathetic, or does Joaquin need to be more sympathetic?  Done Another comma: father, Joaquin (Carlos LaCamara), to  Done Nielsen ratings table looks terrible. Either reduce the width or center the data.  Done That's what I found rather quickly, I am sure there is more. Like I said above, I still think it needs a once-over by a good editor. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks so much for your comments. I have fixed your, and the below issues. Thanks again. TBrandley 03:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 16:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments – "On May 11, 2012, the series was canceled and aired its final episode on May 24, 2012." Two things. First, the year doesn't need to be repeated here or in the previous sentence. It's obvious from the context that this all took place in 2012, so it shouldn't be restated over and over. Second, the series can't air itself; the network does there. With that in mind, shouldn't the sentence say "and NBC aired its final episode..."?  Done The "has had large fan support campaigns" bit may be a bit outdated, considering that the network decisions for next season may be over and done with by this point.  Done Alt text for the lead image would be nice.  Done Episode 1: The red and green realities aren't explained well at all here, as opposed to the lead, which I actually found to be pretty clear.  Done Episode 5: Comma needed after Gemini.  Done Episode 6: The instances two consecutive hyphens should be en dashes instead per the Manual of Style.  Done What makes reference 4 (She Wired) a reliable source?  Done. Have removed. There are two others. What makes ref 7 (The Futon Critic) reliable?  Done. I still have replaced with Los Angeles Times and The Huffington Post. However, it is a good source, because, this is a press release from NBC, and is noted for its sources on other articles/lists. Like I said, I have replaced that source anyway. Thanks for your concern. Both of the above refs, and ref 9, need en dashes to replace hyphens in their titles.  Done Giants2008 (Talk) 01:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks so much for your comments. I have addressed the issues. Hope you can support now! TBrandley 03:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Episode 13: Comma after "accident" could be a semi-colon to go with the others there.  Done I meant the second usage of the word, not the first. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)  Done. Oh, Sorry! TBrandley 16:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC) As a note for the future, please don't cap somebody else's comments. It makes it more inconvenient for us reviewers when we go check changes, especially when further issues need to be brought up. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Sorry for that, and thanks for those comments. TBrandley 16:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Episode 4: "run in" should be plural since there were two incidents in question.  Done No, it isn't. This is still singular when it shouldn't be. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)  Done. Oh, Sorry!TBrandley 16:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Sorry, but that's still not been done as requested. In addition, you have now mangled the sentence that starts the summary: "While investigating an alleged suicide during an upscale yacht party with Detective Vega and Britten ran into Rex's former babysitter Kate." Put that back the way it was originally. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)  Done Nope, neither request is done correctly.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Have changed back to this version of the page. Only for that part. TBrandley 20:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC) This one's still outstanding, along with LF's justified concern that the first sentence of the summary has gotten worse. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Note this is the first time I'm ever doing this; I couldn't really find anything except ref #11 Metacritic should not be in italics its a website. Further no issues. Regards AdabowtheSecond (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment on your comment: the {{cite web}} template automatically displays whatever is in the "work" parameter (the parameter for the name of the website) in italics. It's supposed to be like that. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 02:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
    • That's what I would have said :) Thanks for noting, Paper Luigi, and thanks for voting, AdabowtheSecond! TBrandley 03:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
      • If it is not a print media, then it should not be italicized. Therefore you should place two apostrophes on each side.--GoP_T^C_N 10:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Copyedit's done, and now I believe meets the criteria. Nice work, TBrandley. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 14:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks! TBrandley 14:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Still more comments from Logical Fuzz.

• "Episodes "Pilot" and "Say Hello to My Little Friend" were particularly praised"....for what specifically?
  •  Done. It was for the main storylines.
    • That's not what I meant. Yes, it is the storylines, which are mentioned in the previous sentence. But what about the storylines was so good? What specifically was praised?
      • Yeah, now its done.
• In the ep summaries, when you first mention the main character for an episode, you refer to him in various ways: Michael, Michael Britten, Detective Michael Britten, Detective Britten. Other than in the first ep (when you are introducing the character), I think you need some consistency with this.
  •  Done
    • Well, for sure I'd call that "partly done", but it is better than it was. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
      •  Done. Now, it is fully done.

Thanks for checking again! Have addressed new issues. TBrandley 03:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• I also commented under "Episode 4" in Giants2008's second round of comments. You missed that.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Nope, still not done correctly.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support: The article looks good to me. (Un)fortunately, I didn't find any issue ;-). --Sofffie7 (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments minor as I've helped out in a previous review and a PR. "Although it was inspired by the processes of dreaming, its script " say "Although it was inspired by the processes of dreaming, Awake's script "  Done "Two weeks later, Awake premiered in the United States on NBC on March 1, 2012" don't think you need both date references.  Done "it did have large fan support campaigns" -> "it had large..."  Done "have also met with praise among" -> "have also been praised..."  Done "AOL, Inc.." double period.  Done Same for the Time Inc. ref.  Done The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Can you confirm where production codes are referenced?

Thanks for you comments. Think I have fixed most issues, expect for the ref. for production codes. Other article do not have refs. Thanks again ! TBrandley 03:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

List of The Simpsons episodes is a FL, and it cites the production codes under "Episodes- Key". List of Lost episodes is also a FL, and doesn't include the production codes at all. So my opinion is to reference them or remove them completely, because if you leave them there uncited; there is no way to confirm that they are not made up. TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Watch the episode, and you'll see that is very true. Thanks, TBrandley 03:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Seinfeld episodes also references production codes. Is there no way you can find something that references these codes? TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Could I use http://epguides.com. It is used for Seinfeld Season 9 on that article. TBrandley 04:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that's fine. TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Have listed at WP:HD to make sure! TBrandley 04:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure about the site and have questioned it in the past. Will be interested to see what the response to it is. Also, the one uncapped issue I have is still a problem, along with the grammar issue created by subsequent editing that has been noted. How six people can be supporting this with something as blatantly problematic as that prose error, I will never know. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Giants, can you explain what the prose error is? I'll try to fix it. TRLIJC19 (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Although I am not completely certain of what the issue is, I think I may have resolved it. TRLIJC19 (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That was one of the two issues. The phrase "run in" should be made into "run ins", which is what I originally asked for. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done, TRLIJC19 (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not the issue. The "runs into" from before was correct, and is now incorrect. The issue I had was in "tries to make sense of his run in with these two very different versions of the same woman"; the "run in" should be "run ins" instead. It's disturbing that every time I bring this up, a change is made that makes things worse and doesn't fix the original issue. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Sorry for us getting it wrong. But, anyway, Thanks! TBrandley 16:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Well Giants, in the future, if you specifically know the issue, and it is unclear to other users what you are asking for, how about you just fix the issue. After all, this site is a community effort and the primary goal is to help out Wikipedia. TRLIJC19 (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Because it's not up to any one person to fix issues in a nomination. Because if we don't help nominators understand where issues need to be fixed, how would we help improve nominations when presented here? The community effort comes from people like Giants taking an enormous amount of their own time to help you understand what needs to be fixed. Please don't assume that we're all here to fix issues which we see day in day out, that's not our job. We're all volunteers, but instead of just assuming we'll fix your issues, please know that we'd rather help you understand what needs fixing. "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not intend to come off as rude. I think it's typically appropriate for the reviewer to leave comments, and not fix the issues themselves, but since it appeared multiple users could not figure out the meaning, I think it would have been better for Giants to have fixed the minor issue. TRLIJC19 (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

In an ideal world we could all understand every nuance of everything we say to each other so nothing subjective remains. That doesn't happen. Giants works hard here to help all nominations progress and I'm certain he would avoid ambiguity wherever possible in any comments he makes. He (and other reviewers) really want to help and that means helping nominators and other reviewers understand what we're looking for at FLC. This is no different. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying; please understand that I did not intend to express rudeness with my comment. TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries. We're all doing the best we can. Hopefully we can get this list promoted soon and encourage you and other editors to keep up the great work! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That being said, are there anymore issues to be addressed? Thanks, TBrandley 15:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments on Lead: Regarding the last paragraph of the lead, where you are mentioning critics/commentators. It appears to me that you need additional sources in order to use the plural critics and commentators.
The sentence: Episodes "Pilot" and "Say Hello to My Little Friend" in particular have received positive reviews from commentators for their "heart wrenching" storylines.

• This is cited to just one critical review. Has more than one critic called these heart-wrenching?
  •  Done
• The review you are citing is talking only about "Say Hello", it does not mention "Pilot".
  
  •  Done. I have removed. It said it was the best since the pilot

The sentence: Various cast members have also been praised by critics, particularly Isaacs' performance as Michael Britten.

• Again, the use of plural "critics", despite one source.
• I don't see where in the given source the praise for "various cast members", just Isaacs.
  •  Done. Added two more ref., now with 3 in all.
    • I wouldn't call that done. Three refs, so what? Ref 15 gives no praise of any of the cast except Isaacs, and all Ref 16 says is "well acted". Not what I was hoping for. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
      •  Done. IGN praises the main cast, and The Washington Post praised BD Wong and Cherry Jones.

Either more refs are needed, or the sentences need to be rewritten and in singular form {a critic, a commentator).--Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

All of those have been properly addressed. Thanks! TBrandley 23:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly, see above.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• One more note from another look at the list: in "'Say Hello to My Little Friend' was generally considered the best episode of the series since pilot by commentators", "the" needs to be placed directly before "pilot". Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:09, 4 August 2012 [44].

---

List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes

Nominator(s): Khanassassin ☪ 11:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because a lot of hard work has been put into this list and I believe it meets the criteria now. Khanassassin ☪ 11:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "Ed, Edd n Eddy is an award-winning 131-episode animated television series" - is that 131 stand-alone episodes or 131 segments?
  • "Segments", but there considered to be episodes. --Khanassassin ☪ 07:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• Lead section seems lacking somewhat. Could more be added about awards, the series end, or its history on CN?
  • Added a bit of history and awards info. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 08:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• The series overview table also looks a little bare. Not sure what you could add, though.
  • Added a bit of DVD release dates, similar style as in List of Family Guy episodes. So, done. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 09:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• Does the sixth season really need its own article?
  • I don't want it to be a black sheep. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 09:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• The Big Picture Show is wikilinked to itself.
  • Not anymore. Done. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 07:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• No production codes for the specials?
  • Sadly, there not listed anywhere. They are at TVRage, but that page is unreliable black-listed on Wikipedia. --Khanassassin ☪ 07:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• WP:FLCR requires that a featured list be well-illustrated and include images.
  • Done. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 09:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 20:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice work. I also touched up a few things like hyphens, commas, etc. just now. The last sentence of the intro doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the paragraph, though, but that's all I noticed. As for the production codes, where did you find the ones for the other episodes? Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 20:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You can find it in the "General" sources: The Addic7ed source. It has been named as a reliable source recently at a discussion at the talk pag of WikiProject Television. :) The last sentence isn't really needed, but is not a real problem either. --Khanassassin ☪ 20:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

How about Epguides.com as a source for the other PCs? I checked out TVRage and they seem to match. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 20:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• One more thing, the lead closely mirrors the one on the main EEnE page. Think you could re-word it a bit so it doesn't look blatantly copied? Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 21:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Added the Epguide source and codes. I also changed the lead slightly; Not perfect, but it's the best I can do. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Great. Ok, a few more things I noticed:
  • The article could use an external links section.
  • "All specials written by..." could those names be incorporated into the table?
  • The series overview table says that S3 has 25 episodes, but I count 26.
  • It also says that S4 has 25 episodes, but I count 24.

Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 19:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The episode-count was my mistake, sorry. Taken care of. I don't know if including the writers' names in the Specials table would be the best idea, as the writers are the same for each episode. :/ - They could be added, but maybe not the best idea. :) Totally forgot about the external links, sorry. Added. So... Done. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 15:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. No further comments. I support. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 21:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments – I've been hard on certain issues with this list before, and don't want the nominator to feel like I'm on their case too much, so I'm leaving others to check for close paraphrasing/plagarism. Please, someone check the film summary while this is here; typing a few random bits into Google should be sufficient for our purposes. Now that that's addressed...

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 17:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

*Alt text for the lead image would be nice. "which would be produced similar to classic cartoons from the 1940s to the 1970s." "similar" → "similarly"? Don't need two Cartoon Network links in the lead. Don't like to see "amongst" instead of "among"; why make the writing more stuffy and formal than it needs to be? Missing "a" in "out of total of ten nominations". And I assume this means award nominations? Remove the all caps from reference 4. What makes Addic7ed or Epguides reliable sources? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Took care of all the issues, minus the source-related one. OK, here's the thing: At first, I wasn't completely sure about the reliability of the Addic7ed source, a discussion at the WikiProject Television talk page resulted like this: Although not the best source, and it would be better if some better-known site could be used as a source, Addic7ed is still a good subtitile site and reliable source. About Epguides: Well, I simply thought it was reliable, however, I noticed the top of the site says "Epguides and TV Rage present" - and I believe TV Rage isn't a reliable source, but wanted to make sure by waiting for a comment by a more experienced editor which would confirm the site being an unreliable source. If the Epguides source goes, the list'll only lose the movie's special episodes' production codes; If the Addic7ed source goes, the list'll lose all the episodes' production codes. If an absance of production codes doesn't prevent the list from getting featured, that's fine by me. I personally think they're useless, and believe readers are never interested in the production codes - I sure am not. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 19:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Let it be noted that I checked a couple of short passages from the movie summary, which was the area I was most concerned about. Aside from a couple of Wikipedia mirror sites I'm not concerned about, there were no matches with other sites. I know I said I'd let someone else do it, but since no one did a check I wanted to get that out of the way, and am happy that no issues were detected. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Lead image caption doesn't need a period. Sure. Done. :) Table column widths should be the same from section to section. I believe I have resolved this issue. :) Done. No, and the Series overview table has gone nuts... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Um, the table that needs equal column widths is the Series overview table, right? Or are you referring to the episode tables? -OK, that's a bit strange. The tables have 5 sections, and why would I give 20% width to the "No. in series" alone, where there are only a few numbers (1, 45 etc.) and give the same width to the Written by section, where there are like 2 to 5 names? :/ No, I don't mean that, I mean from season to season the same column in each season should be the same width. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Oh, OK. Now, did I do it right? The tables are the same, with an exception of the Special episodes table --Khanassassin ☪ 13:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC) "due to high demand by fans" bit clumsy, not encyclopaedic, perhaps "as a result of its popularity" or something. Done. :) "Their plans usually" -> "The Eds.." (because last group you mentioned were the cul-de-sac kids). OK. Done. :) "Feeling confined to gross and edgy work" I don't really get this at all. Can you write in more encyclopaedically? Well, I don't see what's not to get. He felt that he was confined, limited, couldn't do as much etc. with his previous works, which were more adult-orientated, featuring gross and edgy content "which Antonucci refused to give" probably don't need "to give" here. "Done. :) "A number of..." how many? Four. Done :) "The first five seasons in addition to the Big Picture Show film are " would expect comma after seasons and film. Done. :) "Viewed from 31 million households worldwide in 29 different countries..." which series? all of them? The Ed, Edd n Eddy series... No other. Lol. Are you referring to the English alternative for "season"? -Well, the sentence stands for "throughout its run"... So, the series in general, no season specified. Would split DVD table in two so the "other work" section is a different table. Done. :) Avoid use of the semi-colon for the headings in the refs. Just use standard bold. This is a recent WP:ACCESS concern. Done. :) Why is Amazon.com a "work" (i.e. in italics) when it's clearly publishing this information? Oh my God! How could I have done that! I should... OK, whatever, Done. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 19:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC) I truly believe that the list doesn't deserve an oppose, and I believe the issue are resolved. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 19:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Per WP:TVLEAD, "It is not recommended that the phrase "award-winning" be used in the first sentence of the lead: it provides insufficient context to the reader, and subsequent paragraphs in the lead can detail the major awards or nominations received by the television show." TRLIJC19 (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 11:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Support: I believe this list now meets the featured list criteria. TRLIJC19 (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments What kind of animated series is it? Comedy, etc. Done. and produced by Canadian-based a.k.a. Cartoon → and produced by Canada–based a.k.a. Cartoon Done. "and Cartoon Network" should be "and the Cartoon Network" Sorry, but this is not true: I know what you want to say. CN is never referred to as "the Cartoon Network", for example, commercials on CN say "Samurai Jack, only on Cartoon Network", not "only on the Cartoon Network". :) "The first five seasons, in addition to the Big Picture Show film are available for download on the iTunes Store" needs reference It is referenced in the "General" section of the refs. Ed, Edd n Eddy was generally well-received by critics → Ed, Edd n Eddy received generally positive reviews from critics Series overview should have different cols for each DVD realease date, like in this article, at the side where it says "DVD realease date" for clean-up, so it doesn't look so messy That is just one way to do it, which wouldn't be the best in this article: The only DVD that's not Region 1-only is the Complete First Season DVD, so it would be useless to have a whole column for only one date and a bunch of "N/A"s. Overlinking for references. Animation World Network is linked on Ref. 1, 2, 25, 26, 27, 28, while it should only be linked once Done. Overlinking for references: Nickelodeon is linked twice Done. Ref. 3: IGN is missing publisher (News Corporation) Done. Ref. 4: The Huffington Post is missing publisher (AOL) Done. Ref. 6: "Cartoon Network compilation DVDs featuring selected Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes:" is unnecessary Done. Ref. 8: DVD Talk is missing the publisher (Internet Brands) Done. Ref. 17, 18: Nickelodeon is missing publisher (Viacom) Done. Ref. 20: Amazon.com should be linked (only on Ref. 20) Done. Add external link for IMDb episodes of the series IMDb's lists only work for One-season episodes. - There's no full list, only for seperate seasons. Add external link for epguides' list of the episodes Done. iTunes Store is missing publisher (Apple) Done. TBrandley 22:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Support. Great work! TBrandley 16:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

My comments:

• "Antonucci decided to produce ... would be produced" - avoid using the same verb twice in one sentence.
  • Done. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• "go in his own direction" - feels a bit too informal, might be just me
  • Meh, seems good to me... not sure what the replacement could be, though. --Khanassassin ☪ 16:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• "A first full to seasons" - what does this mean? Is it an industry term for DVD releases? Consider replacing with a less specialized term
  • Sorry, should have been "full first two". :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• Have you considered using the transclusion trick found in List of Bleach episodes to generate episode name tables by transcluding the season pages? It might save time down the line when you're improving the season pages. Also, it's really cool.
  • I agree it's very cool, however, a user in the previous FLC noted that the season lists are not featured, meaning they can not be transcluded... sadly. :/ --Khanassassin ☪ 16:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I did not know that. I don't see that listed anywhere in the FL criteria... Well, it looks like you've had that setup in the past so it should not be difficult to revive it if/when you get the individual season lists up to FL. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, Axem Titanium (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Support. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:09, 4 August 2012 [45].

---

List of protected cruisers of Germany

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's another list of warships of Germany - these are the eight protected cruisers built by the Imperial Navy in the 1880s and 90s. This list is the capstone to this Good Topic, and is the third of four components for this massive project. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose many issues, mostly minor...

• Don't we normally use a {{lang}} template for things like "Kaiserliche Marine"?
  • [Note: TRM and I are actually both arguing about the {{lang-de}} template here, the one that begins "German:". Psychic, or daft? Your call!] It's redundant to say "German" twice in the same sentence. People sometimes get a bug up their ass about the "semantic web", and if we could get some solid support from Google, possibly through their Wikidata project, I'd be all in favor of helping them make it work. But I'm not going to champion bad prose in the meantime, just because they're promising to get to work on that semantic web, oh, any day now. - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I was thinking about WP:ACCESS for blind people or screen readers etc, not about people with "a bug up their ass" whatever that means. Of course, no need to say thanks for the review. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
      • The answer to your question is: no, we don't, if the name of the language is already nearby, because it would be redundant, per any style guide you can name. Certainly not at Milhist, and not that I've noticed at FAC. WP:ACCESS has been a haven for bad copyediting advice for years. (If the screen reader is making wild guesses about pronunciation, even when given clues like "German" and italics and words that occur in German but not English dictionaries, it's time to upgrade, not kowtow to the whims of the screen reader.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
        • So you don't wish this list to comply with WP:ACCESS then, is that what you're saying? (And by the way, I thought the template would link to German language, not just say "German" as you assert)... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
          • So, you insist that the article should begin, "The German Imperial Navy (German ..."? [with a link]. I don't drop by FLC enough to know Giants' position on that; I'd be interested. - Dank (push to talk) 11:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
            • Don't really see an issue with that at all since the German link goes to the German language, no-one loses out and people who need to use accessibility software to browse Wikipedia will have an enhanced experience. I can't see why you'd prejudice against those readers, but you seem dead set against it so I guess further discussion here with you is pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
              • [Some bits deleted.] Let me see if there's a parameter to that template that will fix what I see as the problem. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
                • Oh, oops! The lang template you requested is fine, as long as we don't have to repeat it every time. The template I meant to object to, in this context at least, is {{lang-de}}. I'll make the edit. - Dank (push to talk) 19:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• "starting with the two ships of the Irene class in the 1880s." not sure you need to repeat "in the 1880s".
  • • Removed. - Dank (push to talk) 22:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• What's a "fleet scout"?
  • A scout...for a fleet? Shouldn't this be obvious?
  • Is there a link for it? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Apart from the general reconnaissance article, no.
    • I see both sides, actually. Changed "fleet scouts" to "scouts for the fleet". - Dank (push to talk)
• "and a greater number of" what's wrong with "and more"?
  • I like to be wordy :P
    • Parsec changed it. - Dank (push to talk)
• Lead image could be expanded, and that nasty Warships of Germany navbox could be relegated (it looks terrible in the lead).
  • Sometimes I forget that I have my preferences set to 300px. As for the navbox, where do you suggest it go?
    • Parsec expanded to 300px.
• "Irene in 1894" well, not really, it's an artistic vision of what she looked like in 1894 isn't it?
  • I suppose so.
    • Parsec added "Painting of".
• AG Vulcan or AG Vulcan Stettin?
  • It's commonly referred to simply as AG Vulcan (since there isn't an AG Vulcan Bremen, for instance).
    • Guess we should move our article then... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
      • You are of course free to request the move...
        • Please stop linking me to pages you know I'm well aware, it is somewhat patronising. I just wondered why it wouldn't be entitled by its common name. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Then please stop making daft comments. Plenty of things have more than one frequently used name, especially for institutions that were around for a hundred years and had several official names. It's perfectly fine to have an article at one location and be referred to by another name elsewhere.
            • Oh, "daft comments". Okay, I'll refrain from making any comments on your lists in future, that'll probably make both of our lives a lot easier. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Can we just agree that this entire thread is daft? TRM, I think I'm going to side with Parsec on this one, on the theory that I'm being nice to you, me, and reviewers everywhere by rejecting the "I refuse to fix this article until you fix that one" argument. That is, I'm not interested in what people are doing over at AG Vulcan Stettin, I'm only interested in whether AG Vulcan is a common name for the company, and my understanding is that it is. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• Stettin is now Szczecin, for consideration to others, perhaps consider a note that says that Stettin is modern-day Szczecin in Poland?
  • It's already linked; for the average reader, who doesn't know Szczecin from Szechuan, that should suffice.
    • Assuming that no English-language name is relevant, this question can be a really tough one, in general. If the connection between the old town and the new town is weak (for any number of reasons ... because the town is small or has shifted slightly or because people have been actively trying to distance themselves from the history, for a long time), then I'm fine with not mentioning the modern name. Otherwise, I prefer to mention the local name, which is more or less the position of WP:NCGN.
• What's a "goldmark"?
  • Linked
• What version of English is this article written in? I see "maneuvred" but then I see "armoured". Needs logical internal consistency.
  • 'Muhrican - I don't know how that "armoured" slipped in.
• "21-centimeter (8.3 in) guns and eight 15 cm guns" consistency with hyphens, conversions etc.
  • Hyphens are only used with spelled out units, abbreviations don't get them. Conversions are also usually only appropriate at the first use of the measurement.
• You relink "East Asia squadron" a couple of times, but then you don't later. What's the rationale for over linking in some place but not others Where?
  • Mainly because I'm incompetent :P
    • Parsec delinked one. - Dank (push to talk)
• While you're fixing the above, suggest you fix Annapolis to link to Annapolis, Maryland.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• • It does, just via a redirect, which isn't a problem. Thanks for reviewing the list and identifying these issues. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'm well aware of that, that's why I said "while you're fixing the above". Silly to know about redirects and not just taking one second to fix them when you're making other fixes. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
      • The guideline seems to support Parsec's take on this, TRM, and I don't even remember (much) controversy over this point before. I hope we've dealt with your points to your satisfaction. Thanks kindly for this review and all your reviews. - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
        • On this last point, we may just be misunderstanding each other, TRM, but WP:LINK#Piped links also recommends against what you're asking for, at least in this particular case: "do not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term that fits well within the scope of the text". - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• TRM's last edit was in June, and I can't tell which if any of these points he feels haven't been addressed. I've pinged him. - Dank (push to talk) 13:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Meets criteria.--GoP_T^C_N 11:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comments - some of these are a bit warship-geeky, but, hey, that's what I'm here for. ;-)
• Support - happy now. :-) The Land (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • First sentence. Why did the German Navy bother building these ships - what was their role? A sentence or two about this would make a lot of difference here.
    • See the 4th sentence - overseas work and fleet scouts.

I think it would make more sense putting this in the first and second sentences - would read better that way.

• • The summary information for each ship could be a little more detailed, for instance

  Guns - I'd prefer to see links to the individual gun types (even if redlinks). Giving only the calibre obscures the improvements between marks.

  Done.

  Any reason why the number of torpedo tubs isn't mentioned in the armament? They're just as important as the gun armament.

  In these lists, I've generally limited the armament description to the primary offensive battery and left out secondary guns and torpedo armaments.

  I think that for a protected cruiser of the period, torpedo tubes are just as important as guns.

  Machinery. Can we have the manufacturers of the engines noted, and also the horsepower.

  In the tables or the text? The machinery boxes already have more info than the others - I don't really want to cram more into them.

  Horsepower is quite important, in my view. Perhaps I'm an unusual reader caring about the power of a ship's engines, rather that just her speed, but it's useful information for the well-informed reader and deserves to be in the summary...

  Alright, I've added the ihp figures. Parsecboy (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

  What was the thickness of the armoured decks and how much of the length did they run?

  Added thickness, but I don't have figures for the length of the hull protected.

• Otherwise great work, look forward to supporting. :-) The Land (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reviewing the list :) Parsecboy (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Support

• I deleted the redundant link to Imperial German Navy and Kaiserlich Marine in the beginning of the first class description.
• I would oppose any further info added to the ship descriptions; they're purposely kept very sparse. See any of the FL-class ship lists at WP:OMT; they lack most everything you're asking for, except, possibly shaft or indicated horsepower. All of my more substantive comments were addressed at the ACR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Fine by me on the link, and thanks for reviewing the list again. Parsecboy (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I made the following edits: - Dank (push to talk)

• "due to": because of (modifying the clause, not a noun)
• "They were built between 1886 and 1889 at the AG Vulcan and Germaniawerft shipyards in Stettin and Kiel, respectively. The class comprised two ships, Irene and Prinzess Wilhelm": Built between 1886 and 1889 at the AG Vulcan shipyard in Stettin and the Germaniawerft shipyard in Kiel, the class comprised two ships, Irene and Prinzess Wilhelm. - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 August 2012 [46].

---

MercyMe discography

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 02:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all the criteria for a featured list. The lede is engaging, albeit a bit long, and the coverage of the topic is comprehensive. Toa Nidhiki05 02:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Early comments – oppose Infobox still has "singles" in the title. Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 23:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Year range in lead uses hyphen, should be en-dash, see WP:DASH. Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 23:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC) "It's second single" Its. Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 23:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC) a 2x Platinum certification " use the multiply sign, not an x. Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 23:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Infobox caption doesn't need a full stop. Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 23:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC) "copies,[9], " remove spare , Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 23:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC) "to release he band's third album," typo. Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 23:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Oh, where are MercyMe from? Note that in the lead. Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 23:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC) "in December of 2004[9]" no need for "of". Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 23:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC) No need to relink "holiday album" in the lead. Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 23:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Nor video album. Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 23:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC) "Traces of Rain, Volume 2[28]" why does that span two lines for me? No need to constrain the width here. Expand these tables out. Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 23:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Where is "The Change Inside of Me" referenced? Under the Mikecurb.com citation. Toa Nidhiki05 23:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC) If no. 1 on the Christian chart, why isn't "Joseph's Lullaby" at least red-linked? Good point, fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 23:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support can't see any major issues now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments "All That Is Within Me, was released by in 2007..." doesn't make sense Another editor added material and that must have resulted from it. Corrected. Toa Nidhiki05 01:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC) The other albums table does not meet MOS:DTT and is not formatted in sync with the other tables Changed to the format used by other tables. Does the 'Other Appearances' table in the 'Singles' section need to be changed as well? Toa Nidhiki05 01:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC) No its fine. NapHit (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Commments – In each case where there is a "Month of Year", the "of" should be removed. Don't need the multiple Billboard links in the lead. One word too many in "which was released with in 2004...". Also don't need multiple Christian Albums links. "and marked the their first album under Columbia." Remove "the"? The last sentence of the lead is the kind where I would expect to see an "As of XXXX" designation, as the source itself isn't some kind of running tally.

• What makes Jesus Freak Hideout (refs 1, 26–31, and 39–41) a reliable source? Giants2008 (Talk) 23:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed issues 1-6. As for the seventh, there are numerous reasons - their 'About Us' page notes that they adhere to journalistic standards. They have an editorial board and have enough standing in the community to get interviews with some of the bigger acts in the Christian music industry, such as Third Day, Skillet, Switchfoot, and Michael W. Smith. Toa Nidhiki05 01:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to consider. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• One more thing I saw: the second Billboard 200 link in the lead should be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Sufur222 Looks mostly fine, with just a few issues: * In the "Video albums" and "Other albums" tables, the US (Billboard 200) album columns are not needed, as the albums on the tables did not appear on that chart. * Replace the RIAA link in place with a more direct one --> http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?artist=%22MercyMe%22 * Should read "Other charted songs", not "Other charting songs". * Pleased To Meet You --> Pleased to Meet You * Singles certification for "I Can Only Imagine" should be RIAA, like all of the album certifications. Once these are fixed, I would have no reservations about supporting, as Jesus Freak Hideout does appear to be reliable, presuming that they do indeed comply to journalistic standards. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 10:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Corrected all of these issues. Toa Nidhiki05 15:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Looks fine now. Well done! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support: I have one small observation, though, you have a dash note on "List of albums, with selected chart positions and certifications" but the sole album did chart. Seems superfluous, inconsistent. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• That was a holdover from when another column was included, removed. Toa Nidhiki05 01:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 August 2012 [47].

---

List of accolades received by Mr. Nobody

Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. Earthh (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments Probably been noted and answered elsewhere, but what makes www.subtitledonline.com a reliable source? Subtitledonline.com was founded by award-winning British music editor and journalist Darren Howells. I added another source from Empire magazine. Ok, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC) "the film received the Biografilm Award. " and " and the Audience Award at the Biografilm Festival. " is this the same award? Those are two different awards: the Biografilm Award was given at the 66th Venice International Film Festival in 2009 while the Audience Award was given at the Biografilm Festival in 2010. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Infobox title needs to have Mr. Nobody in italics. Done. Seems a shame the "Date of ceremony" column is so narrow it pretty much always goes onto two lines. There's no problem with the Date of ceremony column, it goes onto two lines only three times.. maybe it's your browser. Not my browser, perhaps my horizontal resolution though. Are you basing your format on an 800px wide monitor or wider? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC) It's wider, so I think that this depends on the horizontal resolution of every pc...--Earthh (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC) List of films considered the best really? Really? Is this a genuine "encyclopaedic" article?! I thought that List of films considered the best could be an encyclopedic article since it's on wikipedia. However I removed it.--Earthh (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Just because a crappy article exists on Wikipedia, it doesn't make it right! I may well tag that particular article for deletion as it is inherently POV. At best it should be "List of films stated as "best" in their genre by a (perhaps) reliable source". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Not sure in Safari why I'm seeing thicker lines between the award ceremonies, no need for that. I modeled this article like FL List of accolades received by Black Swan and List of accolades received by 127 Hours where these thicker lines are used.. I'll remove them if they're wrong. Not that they're wrong, they're just, well, unnecessary. I'll leave it for others to decide on a consensus as it's not that big a deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC) What happened to this?--Earthh (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Nothing yet, you need more reviewers to form a consensus. Suggest you contact appropriate wikiprojects or editors you know who may be interested in this kind of thing to encourage them to get involved here. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments "Mr. Nobody has received honors in categories..." I think you should use accolades instead of honours in this sentence Changed. Table does not meet MOS:DTT, you need to add col and row scopes to ensure it does Done. There is no reason why the table needs to have the font size at 95% this should be removed Removed. I agree with TRM about the thicker lines, its pointless, I would remove them Removed.--earthh (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. TBrandley 16:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Athough, I am not sure it's a complete list. We are never sure about these lists being complete anyway. As for this list, good work!--Cheetah (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 August 2012 [48].

---

List of battlecruisers of the United States

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC), - Dank (push to talk)

I am a little hesitant to nominate this list after the warm reception that List of battleships of Greece received, but I welcome discussion as to if this is really a stand-alone list or if it has sufficient items to qualify for FLC's unwritten length criteria or if it's really an article in list disguise. In format it matches the other WP:Ships FLs like List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy or List of battlecruisers of Germany with a paragraph or two explaining the class history and the notable activities of the ships. I believe that it meets all the FL criteria as given. This is a co-nomination with Dank (talk).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I jumped in at the A-class review to help with language and organization, and I'm happy to help here too. - Dank (push to talk) 13:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments – First off, great to see Dank helping out at an FLC. Welcome aboard!

Ahoy! - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• To get the major comment out of the way, as a critic of the Greece list, I think this one has enough entries to justify having a list. It's much closer to the other similar lists in terms of number of entries than the Greece one, and I have no 3b concerns myself.
  • Glad to hear it. But I think that a minimum size ought to be specified to avoid any further incidents like that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• One other thing, from Alaska-class: "and she was scrapped with her sisters in 1960 and 1961." The table says the Hawaii was scrapped in 1959, not 1960. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Good catch; she was sold for scrap in 59, but the actual process began the following year. I've rewritten that bit to clarify that it refers to the sale date.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • I don't know why I didn't catch this at the ACR, but right now, the lead implies that the Japanese had battlecruisers at Tsushima; they used armored cruisers as the fast wing of the battle line.
  • Maybe worth spelling out that the WNT was an arms limitation treaty - this is clear to us, but probably not to the average reader.
  • Maybe specify that the Alaskas were decommissioned two years after the end of WWII, not a vague "several years later" (which implies a longer duration, at least to me).
  • Is the "Found using Google Scholar" thing really necessary on the last entry in the further reading section? Parsecboy (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    • All done. Thanks for the review! - Dank (push to talk) 21:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Looks good to me. I fixed the lead photo/navbox problem, and added a "see-also" link to List of battlecruisers, btw. Parsecboy (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments This isn't the venue for another 3b/minimum items discussion. As was said beforehand, it entirely depends on the list/article in question. This is just about sufficient to be a "list" as opposed to an article with a couple of tables in it, so it's fine to be here. I'll comment accordingly. I really dislike that navbox in the lead, and would by far prefer an image one of the battlecruisers, it would really help engage readers who perhaps aren't even sure what a battlecruiser is or looks like. The navbox is common to all of the national ship lists.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Would it be possible to have some sort of image above the navbox? - Dank (push to talk) 23:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC) I've modified it with a picture; intended to be above the navbox, but they're both fighting for the top right spot. Anybody know how to modify the code appropriately? I'm not fond of this idea because it breaks consistency with all of the other US ship lists.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC) That navbox doesn't want to play nice. I've changed the paragraph break and anchored it to the next paragraph down; that fixes the whitespace problem. - Dank (push to talk) 23:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC) "battlecruiser" is quickly over linked in the lead. "of an armaments limitation treaty" not significant enough for an article? "The Navy subsequently..." reinforce US Navy since the last "Navy" you mentioned was the Royal one. Our article is called Kongō class battlecruiser while you have "Kongo-class battlecruisers", I would suggest consistency within the MILHIST project. For some reason WP:SHIPS has ignored grammatically correct English and not hyphenated ship class articles. They're a compound adjective modifying the word "class", which requires a hyphen.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC) "to pack an offensive punch " not encyclopaedic at all, more like a tabloid newspaper review of materiel. Unless it's a quote, in which case it should be in quote marks with a direct ref. Did the [four] above, except the navbox. - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC) "as part of the massive 1916 building program" what is this? Did you mention it/link it before? "So when Congress authorized a large naval building program in 1916", 1.5 paragraphs above. - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Would link "long ton" the first time round since it's uncommon these days. Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Is "cancelled" USEng? I thought it was "canceled"? Tables aren't sortable so no need for over linking things like "scrap". (especially since you don't link scrap at all in the next table......) "They were popularly known, and known by historians, as " ->" They were known, both popularly and by historians, as..." perhaps to avoid the "known" repeat? Did these four, except "cancelled", which is in M-W. I'll leave the rest for Sturm when he gets back. Thanks much for the review! - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Ref 13, isn't the publisher NH&HC like the preceding refs? Same for ref 15. Done these two. - Dank (push to talk) I looked at ref 23 which was supposed to tell me that Alaska had spent 32 months in service. Couldn't easily find that in the ref. Suggest you show the reader how you came to that conclusion in a footnote. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Sturm, Nick agrees with this; please see User talk:Dank#RfA observation. I also didn't field the "navbox in the lead" point. I think I got the rest of them. Thanks much, TRM. - Dank (push to talk) 01:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC) OK, I've reworded this to a simpler statement that they never left Bayonne until they were scrapped, which is easier to verify. Effectively, they're in reserve/decommissioned once they get there, but the Navy doesn't formally do that for another year or two; very aggravating as I can't simply just say that they were placed in reserve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmvogel 66 (talk • contribs)

Support - I've made a couple of small tweaks to the list; please check to make sure I haven't inadvertently changed any meanings. Overall a very nice little list, no concerns in my mind with regard to criteria 3.b. One minor comment, that does not change my support:

• Why are there a couple of works duplicated between the References and Further reading sections?

Other than this, everything looks great, so I'm happy to support. Dana boomer (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• • The changes look great, thanks for your support! I generally defer to Sturm on anything in the end-sections, although I'm wondering the same thing as you. - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Nope, no duplication. Look more closely, one is Friedman's carrier book and the other is the cruiser book. Much the same with two different volumes of Conways. Thanks for the fixes and the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support as it meets all the criteria, but the gigantic whitespace caused by the U.S. Navy ship types box is really distracting (see where the {{clear right}} is). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks. Okay, you're not talking about the space to the right of "Key", right? Is it vertical space between the first and second paragraph? In Firefox on a 13" laptop, I have to drop down to a microscopic font to get that. - Dank (push to talk) 09:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

  It's between the second and third paragraphs. I've sent you and Sturm a screenshot via email. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

  Okay I see it. The problem is that the US Navy template is long, and sits above the next image, which sits above the next table; pushing the template down makes thing look wrong further down, in a variety of font sizes. I haven't done a formal survey, but anecdotally, most people have smaller screens and/or use a bigger font than you're using, Ed, and any larger font size makes that little bit of white space disappear. Do you have anything that solves all the problems at the same time? - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

  I despecified the Alaska picture size, which helps a little bit, but I'm not sure what to do unless we can somehow get some of the lede to fill in to the right of the key.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 August 2012 [49].

---

List of field marshals of the British Army

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This list has become something of a labour of love. It's something that, for over a year, I've picked up, dropped, picked up, dropped again, and picked up again, but now I think it's finally ready for recognition as a featured list. It's been through two A-Class reviews by the Military History Project, of which the second was successful. It has undergone some structural changes recently, and there has been fiddling to incorporate the two most recent promotions, but it is now stable.

The article provides a fascinating snapshot of he history of this highly coveted rank, and indeed of the British Army itself. My hope and aim is that even people with little interest in military ranks or military history will find this article to be a good read, and will find something interesting or amusing in it!

Hat tips are due to (in no particular order), Jack Merridew, RexxS, Courcelles, Opera hat, and the MilHist A-Class reviewers. Thanks for reading. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments from RexxS

A fascinating read. Congratulations on the most appropriate set of alt texts that I've seen on images for a long time. A couple of minor points:

• I think the table would probably be improved by a caption (something as simple as 'Field marshals of the British Army', perhaps?). Its distance from the nearest navigable text (the section heading) indicates that a caption would be a convenience for anyone using a screen reader such as JAWS, since they could jump directly to the table on subsequent visits. Also, a caption makes the table a complete entity in itself, and therefore more useful to our re-users.
  • You've already sold me on the value of a caption. Could you explain how I add one? You've probably told me before and I'm just being thick. --HJM
• In the prose of the first paragraph of the section List of field marshals there are multiple occurrences of a count of the number of field marshals. You have followed the general guidance in WP:NUMERAL that 0-9 are words and 10+ rendered as numerals, as well as remembering not to start a sentence with a numeral. However, the switching around does jar with me a bit and contravenes the second common exception in that guidance: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." It's not crucial, but have a think about the 'comparable quantities' and see if you can find room for improvement.
  • That seems eminently sensible now you raise it. Given the number of dates as figures, it's probably best to switch all the numbers of field marshals to figures. --HJM

In any case, neither of these issues should be construed as making the article unsuitable to be considered as one of Wikipedia's best lists. Excellent work! --RexxS (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review (although I haven't done a lot here). No objection to changing "eight" to "8"; does that work for you, RexxS? This is one of those problems where no one approach seems to make everyone happy all the time; all we can do is respond individually. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This wikitext:

{| class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders" style="margin-right: 0;"
|+ Field marshals of the British Army
|-
! scope="col" | Name and style{{efn|Titles and styles are those held by the field marshal when they died, or those currently held in the case of living field marshals; in most cases, these are not the same as the titles and styles held by an officer upon their promotion to the rank, nor (in the case of operational field marshals) those held when the officer retired from active service. All post-nominal letters, with the exception of "VC" (denoting the [[Victoria Cross]]) are omitted.}}
! scope="col" | Regiment{{efn|The regiment given is the regiment into which the field marshal was commissioned. This is not necessarily the regiment the officer first joined, nor is it necessarily the regiment in which the officer spent most of his career. A "—" indicates either that the officer did not lead a career in the British Army or that the officer was not initially commissioned into a formal regiment.}}
! scope="col" class="unsortable" | Image
! scope="col" | Born
! scope="col" | Died
! scope="col" style="width: 10em;" | Date of promotion{{sfn|Heathcote|loc=Table 1|pp=320–326}}
|-
| ...
|}

Produces:

Field marshals of the British Army

Name and style	Regiment	Image	Born	Died	Date of promotion
...

HTH --RexxS (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Jack beat me to it, but I'll know for next time! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments hesitant as I am to delve into another MILHIST list (note, list) for fear of MILHIST reprisals because we're not the same as FAC when it comes to WP:ACCESS etc, I offer the following remarks. Of course, they can be entirely disregarded. Lead image has an incomplete sentence for a caption so needs no full stop. Fixed. --HJM Instead of "five-star rank" isn't it more appropriate to call it an OF-10 rank (since this isn't a US list, it's a UK list, and NATO is more relevant than US equivalents here)?"At least 57 field marshals OF-10 should probably be worked in somewhere, but five-star rank (although originally derived from the US) is a commonly used and widely understood term. --HJM We don't tend to use abbreviations without explaining them. I know this puts you into an awkward position with "Royal Air Force" (which you simply refer to as RAF from the get-go) with your current prose structure but there may be people who don't get RAF off the bat. Yes I know, but "Marshal of the Royal Air Force in the Royal Air Force" is redundant redundancy. I linked the abbreviation specifically with this in mind, though. --HJM "in contrast to the more subdued insignia" I take it that's from the reference rather than just someone's opinion? Do our readers know what the equivalent insignia are for Navy and Air Force? I've removed the comparison altogether, because the differences with the insignia of the other services are difficult to get into without getting wildly off-topic and it gets complicated trying to describe insignia that we can't display because of fair use issues. --HJM Is there a good link for "British Indian Army"? There is; I hadn't realised it wan't linked. --HJM Prince Charles is referred to in two different ways in the lead and overlinked. Unlinked on the second occurrence. The terms of reference is deliberate—the first occurrence is his proper style; the second is the less formal, more common style. --HJM "to all three five-star " do you mean in all three services? Be explicit. Done. --HJM Could link Colonel-in-Chief. I considered it, but the article says nothing about the title in the context of the sovereign. --HJM "At least 57 field marshals..." seems like an odd thing to say, I guess the source says this? I would have to check to be sure, but I think so. Records from before the early 20th century are often sketchy. --HJM "Just four field marshals..." don't really see a desperate need for "Just..." It's not needed, but it's justified for 4 out of 140, and it means the image caption doesn't repeat the prose word-for-word. --HJM "field marshal ever to become" no need for "ever". Quite right. Gone. --HJM For blank images, I would add a centrally aligned en-dash. I worry this would conflict with the emdash in the regiment field and wouldn't add much value. --HJM "François de La Rochefoucauld, marquis de Montendre" has no regiment, but perhaps that needs explaining? (and any others). It's explained by note "b" at the very top of the regiment field. --HJM PDF links normally come with format=pdf. The only PDFs I can see are London Gazette entries, and they're generated from a template. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency ... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope ... Our *four*... no ... - Dank (push to talk) 18:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Hi Rambling Man, thanks for having a look. As a MilHist coordinator, I apologise if some members of the project have brought it into disrepute at FLC—I can only promise you that I wasn't aware of it, and if I had been, I would have had something to say to those responsible. As for fear of reprisals, I know you respect Rexx, so you can ask him—he'll tell you I'm harmless. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

      (not if you're a bottle of scotch;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I was over this in detail some months ago and the table semantics, citation mechanism, and notes system are all solid. I trust that the ACR sorted issues of comprehensiveness, and so lend my support to this. Ya do need to address the dead Lethbridge (Britain at War) link. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Very much obliged. I'll see what I can do about that link; in the meantime, I've added another source that backs up the statement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. (The last edit will need a few days to show up, the toolserver needs time to catch up.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• First two words of the List of field marshals section title could easily be removed, and I personally like it better when section titles don't have them. It's obvious to the reader that it's a list, after all.
  • They could, but I prefer it how it is. I think it makes clear that what follows is the list of field marshals and information about the list entries, and not just more information about field marshals in general or the rank itself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Don't think Earl Roberts' first name needs to be used a second time in this section.
  • It's actually his title, but you're right—we don't need it twice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Most importantly, there is a dead link tag for the Britain at War Magazine article, and I'd be reluctant to promote a list with a tag in it. You could try citing an offline version of the article, which won't have this issue, or you can see if the Internet Archive has a copy. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I see that the problematic link has been removed. Any response to the couple of other things I pointed out? Giants2008 (Talk) 16:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Support. After stumbling upon the list I was wondering why it wasn't featured, then I saw it was up as a candidate. I notice that the Lethbridge, JP. "From Private to Field Marshal" reference is a dead link - can you find this on an archive site? Cheers, Zangar (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Support I think that the FL criteria are met. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 August 2012 [50].

---

Backstreet Boys discography

Nominator(s): KingdomHearts25 (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I have addressed the comments in the previous FLC and I think the article is now ready for FL status. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I am confused that you abbreviate "Billboard 200" to "BB", while the singles chart to "US". I think this should be changed. Otherwise an excellent list. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 09:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't find "Billboard 200" abbreviated to "BB" anywhere. Can you please tell me where it is? KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. The US looked like "BB" on my screen. I am now supporting. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 12:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick comments " A.J. McLean" -> "A. J. McLean".  Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Is it "Backstreet Boys" or "the Backstreet Boys"? Their official name is "Backstreet Boys" but since they're 'boys', a 'the' should come before. eg. If you're talking about a particular group of boys who have died, you don't say, "Boys are dead". You say, "the boys are dead". KingdomHearts25 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC) "entered the top-ten " don't think that needs to be hyphenated.  Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Would link "certified" in the lead.  Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC) "It sold over 30 million copies internationally.[10][11][12]" do you need three cites for one fact?  Done. Removed the other refs. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC) "As of 2010..." it's mid-2012, any chance of an update? Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any update. I could remove "As of 2010" though. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Remove spaces between text and cites/notes.  Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) "Cassette" doesn't need to be capitalised, and I thought MiniDisc was one word.  Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC) "US: 13× Platinum[40] (Diamond)" you probably should explain this.  Done. Removed 'Diamond' KingdomHearts25 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC) ""—" denotes items which were not released in that country or failed to chart." this note only appears in one table, mid-way through the article.  Done. Added the notes to the other tables. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Certifications in the Singles table are bullet pointed, those in the Home videos section are not bullet pointed. Would be consistent.  Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC) "Alan Calzatti [85]" and "Ray Kay [102]" etc etc etc, remove the space between the text and the cite.  Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Avoid SHOUTING in the refs.  Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Check for publication dates on your refs, e.g. BBC refs usually have publication dates like ref 12 (15 Feb 2000).  Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Avoid spaced hyphens or em-dashes in the ref titles, use unspaced en-dashes where appropriate.  Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments A link to SoundScan would be helpful to provide the reader with some context  Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Home and Music videos tables do no meet MOS:DTT and will need to be formatted the same way the previous tables are  Done but I have to say that the Home video section looks a bit awkward with the new change and I don't see the same thing being implemented on most other discographies eg. Spice Girls discography and Lady Gaga discography. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC) This hasn't been done, I see no col or row scopes in either table. I've asked of every discography I've reviewed recently, so just because two lists don't adhere to this doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Maybe you misinterpreted what i meant, but the table should match the format of the ones before, currently they don't. Have a look at Kelly Rowland discography to see the way it should be formatted. NapHit (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I completely misunderstood you. Is it correct now? However the "Years" column in the music video section is different than in the rest of the discography in the Kelly Rowland discography, and now in the Backstreet Boys discography. Should I change it? KingdomHearts25 (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC) I've fixed the table, I removed the year column as it was redundant due to the year being mentioned with the release details. NapHit (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC) ref 7 needs date of publication.  Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC) date on ref 15 is actually January 4 2000, not 2001.  Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC) ref 22 needs date of publication and author adding.  Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments – "and Kevin Richardson. Richardson...". I never like to see blatant repetition like this from one sentence to the next. See if you can separate the two Richardsons a bit.  Done KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Alt text for the photo would be nice.  Done KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Music videos: The Director column is sorting by first name, instead of the more customary and preferable last name.  Done KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC) What makes PerezHilton.com (ref 2) a reliable source? Can we find a better source for Kevin Richardson rejoining the group than a gossip site like this?  Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Refs 7 and 9 are supposedly to Nielsen Soundscan, but neither goes to a Nielsen website page. Instead, ref 7 is to a personal website (not reliable) and ref 9 is to backstreet.net (unreliable if it isn't the group's official site, which I don't think it is).  Done Changed the information a bit, and replaced the source. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Refs 26, 43, 49, and 52 have hyphens in their titles that should be dashes instead.  Done KingdomHearts25 (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Is a page number possible for ref 57?  Done KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Giants2008 (Talk) 23:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC) The only other thing I noticed is that ref 38 has a couple of improper hyphens in the title, which should be en dashes. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)  Done KingdomHearts25 (talk) 06:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 07:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Sufur222 No Austrian certifications? There are many here. No Swedish certifications? There are many here, here, here and here. No Swiss certifications? There are many here. There are already certifications for seven different countries and I don't see the need to add three more, especially given that the aforementioned countries are not major markets, unless there is a rule that says that there have to be certifications for ten different countries, in which case I'll add them. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Although nothing says you have to list these certifications, it is generally common practice that you list all of the certifications available for the countries you use in the discography. Also, what do you mean by "major market"? Surely they all are. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC) The Swedish certifications are a bit confusing, do you mind if I put Finnish or Dutch certs? (there are already three IFPIs) KingdomHearts25 (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC) I agree that it is difficult to search certifications on those pages, as they're very lengthy. However, as long as you use the correct distinguishing letters for each IFPI cert (IFPI SWI for Switzerland, etc.) then there is no limit on the number of IFPIs that can appear in one table – like I said, all the certs possible for the countries in the table should be used. If you like, I can add the Swedish certs in myself. Also: Finnish certification link here. The link to the Dutch certification database gives no certifications for the Backstreet Boys (their proper database has been down for ages). If you cannot find a replacement link, you should remove these certifications as they are thus unverifiable. To avoid confusion, European certifications should be listed as "IFPI EUR" instead of just "IFPI", otherwise it is unclear where the certification is for. For some of these albums and songs, New Zealand certifications can be found at rianz.org.nz/rianz/oldchart.asp?chartNum=xxxx&chartKind=x (replace x's where appropriate). However, as these are quite complicated to search for, I can put these in too if you want.I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 08:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC) I would appreciate it if you can put the Swedish and the NZ certifications KingdomHearts25 (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Done, and added the Finnish ones (and fixed the European ones) for good measure. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 15:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks, but are you sure it's EUR and not EU? KingdomHearts25 (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Annoyingly, there's nothing at WP:DISCOGSTYLE on this one. As all of the other IFPIs are abbreviated to three letters, I would stick with EUR. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)  Done in any case, Dutch certs have been removed and the others added, with your help, of course. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC) You don't need all of the empty cells in the Live albums table. Just use the ones for the countries necessary.  Done KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Per WP:DISCOGSTYLE, the certification providers should be listed in the certification columns, not the countries (for example, "US" becomes RIAA). See WP:DISCOGSTYLE#Listing certifications for a list of certification providers and further information on making changes.  Done KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC) If these things are fixed, I will have no reservations supporting. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 15:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Everything fixed, so supporting. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 07:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Now looks very good. Well done! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 07:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 August 2012 [51].

---

List of Formula One circuits

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the list meets the criteria necessary for it to become featured. NapHit (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "held usually" - shouldn't that be "usually held"?
  • "The first race at the circuit used the 22 km (14 mi) circuit," - would remove the repetition of "circuit". I am also confused what you really mean. Is it about the Nürbugring or Silverstone? Which circuit you are referring to?
  • Too many repetitions of the same word in the next sentences.
  • "New circuits have been used in Asia and America, the change has been a recent occurrence." - shouldn't that be replaced with a semicolon? At least it is so in English.
  • "The Circuit of the Americas is set to become the latest different circuit to host a Grand Prix; when" - you can not place a semicolon ahead a non-complete sentence, can you?
  • "The longest circuit to have hosted a Grand Prix is the Pescara Circuit, which hosted the 1957 Pescara Grand Prix. " - How about "The Pescara Circuit have hosted the longest circuit, the 1957 Pescara Grand Prix"?--GoP_T^C_N 11:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Overall nice.--GoP_T^C_N 14:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

done all apart from the last one which would make the sentence dramatically incorrect, thanks for the comments. NapHit (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Supporting now :)--GoP_T^C_N 11:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

;Comments by Arsenikk (talk) "has been a recent occurrence" is rather vague, could you at least specify a decade. The next sentence states that half of the races on the calendar were not on it before 1999, so I think that suffices. NapHit (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC) "most recent different circuit" reads rather awkward and at first I didn't even understand what was meant. reworded sentence. NapHit (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Similarly the term "latest different circuit". changed to newest. NapHit (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC) The text mentions "street" and "race", but what does "road" refer to? Is there a difference between "race" and "race circuit"? road refers to circuits that are held on public roads and sometimes a mixture of public roads and permanent track facilities as far as I'm aware. No there is no difference between race and race circuit, that's me not being thorough as they should have just race, road or street in that column. NapHit (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Several of the "current season" marked circuits have 2011 as the last year. this is because they haven't hosted a race in 2012 yet, I can change to 2012 if you like as barring unforeseen circumstances they will host a race. NapHit (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Okay, makes sense. Either way would work, I guess. Arsenikk (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC) I am a little confused regarding the referencing. The ESPN link only contains the current circuits and the book only contains up to 2002. How is information on other circuits referenced and how are years post-2002 references. As it is a book, should it not be referenced using page numbers. The ESPN link contains all the circuits. If you type the name of a circuit into the search box it brings up the circuit. Not sure about the page numbers, I'll add them anyway to be on the safe side. NapHit (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC) If the information needs manually searching to be found (I tried out the ESPN search and it is a rather long process) then it would be better to link directly to the relevant subpage on ESPN for each entry, given that it provides a unique URL (which seems to be the case here). That is the way I always reference things at least, even if it does produce a bit of paperwork. Arsenikk (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC) I disagree, its not a long process, typing the name of the circuit and bringing it up takes about 30 seconds. I'm not keen on linking directly to all the pages when the overview page is there which provides the gateway to all the circuits. As a compromise I could add a note saying to find circuits no longer in use type them into the search bar? NapHit (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC) It was a somewhat cumbersome affair getting at the information. I'll wait and see what other reviewers say on the matter, but my primary stance is that there should be direct references to the information. Arsenikk (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC) I used to be a bit retentive about this sort of thing, but I'm more inclined now to accept that most of our readers who would be fussed about going hunting for a reference would be capable of using a search box on an external website. I think this is just fine as long as adequate instruction is provided to the reader on how to do this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Otherwise an impressive list. Arsenikk (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• "The 25,800 km long circuit in Pescara, Italy, held the annual Coppa Acerbo race, in 1957...". Comma should be a semi-colon.
  • I meant the last comma in this bit, not the second one. My fault for not being aware of how many commas there were. Basically, the comma after Italy should be restored and the one after "race" is the one that should be changed. Sorry about that. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries, should be right now. NapHit (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• In the circuit column, Osterreichring isn't sorting in the proper order.
• In ref 5, "Formula1" needs a space for consistency with other refs. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Giants, I've fixed them all. NapHit (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support – per above discussion and comments. Overall, a very impressive list. Good work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments participated in the PR, so not much to add. " 22 km (14 mi)" vs "25.800 km (16.031 mi)" - not keen on the super-high accuracy second time round. Would prefer some level of consistency in presentation. brought it in line with the other lengths in the article. NapHit (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC) "Therefore street is a circuit held on closed city streets, Road refers to a mixture of public roads and a permanent track and Race.... " do you mean "Street"? I did, fixed. NapHit (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Do we know for fact any of the 2013 circuits? Not for certain the FIA is going to release a provisional list at the end of this month I think, so should be a little clearer then. But when the circuit was announced it was said it would hold a race in 2013. That is subject to a lot of factors obviously, but I think the section reflects that. NapHit (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC) "Retrieved 17 June 2012.To find circuits" could use a space after the date. done NapHit (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the comments TRM, I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 August 2012 [52].

---

List of Pakistan Twenty20 International cricketers

Nominator(s): ZiaKhan 05:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think this meets the criteria to become a featured list. Also, this went through a Peer review before nominating here. Any comment or suggestion will be appreciated.... ZiaKhan 05:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments ESPNCricinfo or ESPNcricinfo? Be consistent. Done. "The list is arranged " -> "initially arranged". Done. "Year of latest game" -> "Year of most recent game"? Done. Win %, you have one 100% and the others as 2 d.p. without % symbol. Done. Total row shouldn't move when sorting the table. Done. ZiaKhan 13:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Table sorting issues for me, I get four results when I click on HS for instance. Four results? I didn't get you. I don't know now, it seems fine now I've revisited!! Never mind! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Ah, now I've got it. Keep clicking on HS, you'd expect the Caps to order in just two ways, but the Caps keep ordering differently every time you click. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Fixed. ZiaKhan 04:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Similar effect when sorting by 50s. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Fixed. ZiaKhan 20:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Same with bowling Avg. Perhaps there's a generic issue here that needs to be fixed? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Fixed. I don't khow what's the problem. ZiaKhan 20:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Yeah. NO doesn't sort properly either now. Suggest instead of fixing individual columns, there's a fix for the whole thing, or a Bugzilla bug is lodged. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC) I think, I've done. ZiaKhan 02:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Still getting odd results on, say, sorting by Last now. I don't know how to fix it though. Sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC) sorting by Last now? ZiaKhan 07:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Columns now sorted according to the Caps! ZiaKhan 01:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Comment good work on the sorting. Note that when sorting by BBI, Anjum and Ahmed are out of order, and a batting average of 0 looks odd when all others are to two decimal places. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks, fixed. ZiaKhan 11:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments Got 50 in the table, yet there is no explanation of it in the key The explanation of the columns in the key should be in the order they appear in the table. At the moment this is not the case in the Bowling section I think adding the disclaimer in the fourth para of List of Sri Lanka Twenty20 International cricketers would be a good idea NapHit (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks, fixed. ZiaKhan 06:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Vensatry

Initial comments Link "run". "2009 ICC World Twenty20" is linked twice in the lede. You have used the "As of June 2012" FN in several places. According to WP:DATED, these should be mentioned in text. "The first T20I was played -> The first such match was played". T20I is repetitive here. at County Cricket Ground, Bristol -> at the County Cricket Ground, Bristol. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Fixed all!. ZiaKhan 09:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC) ESPNcricinfo is not a publisher. It's a work parameter. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Please, have a look at the comment below by Giants2008. I'm confused. Zia Khan 12:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC) I don't know what you did before. ESPNcricinfo isn't a print media. Since this being the name of the website, you should include that under work parameter. The publisher for ESPN cricinfo is ESPN EMEA. The choice of including publisher parameters is upto you. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC) I disagree, in this case the "work" is more or less the publisher of the site (ESPNcricinfo is published by ESPN), this is very self-explanatory, and I do not feel the need of a seperate clarification. Zia Khan 16:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Not at all. The Publisher is ESPN EMEA. As I already said, if the website is a self-publishing one publisher parameter is not mandatory. You may or may not add the publisher parameter. —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC) In that case, I'll wait for a 3rd opinion! Zia Khan 05:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC) You may start a discussion at WT:CRIC —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC) No discussion is needed. Giants and Zia are correct Italics should only be used if it is a printed publication, as ESPNCricinfo is not, italics don't need to be used. Simple. NapHit (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Although I agree with the usage of italics, you may have to look at similar lists like India T20 cricketers and List of fifers by Kapil Dev. Why this idea wasn't suggested in those reviews. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC) I don't know why this was not suggested at these lists but you may have a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/ICC Women's Cricketer of the Year/archive1. This is the most recent featured list. Zia Khan 10:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Support – Good work with the list. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 09:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• In the captains table, the winning percentage doesn't sort well at all. It either doesn't sort at all, or sorts one way but not the other. I have a hunch that the colspan used in the total column is causing the problem.
• None of the reference publishers should be italicized; the italics are used for printed publications, and I don't see a single one in this group that fits the bill. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed. ZiaKhan 04:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

*Comments The last para of the lead has no description of the captains list. Done. Replace Number with No. in the second list. Done. "The first such match was ... runs at Eden Park." No need as it makes the lead off-topic. The first para is just an introduction to T20I and the sentence is an example. There is no refs which lists the wicket-keepers. You may use this for that. Added. The lead has no description of fielding and wicket-keeping records. Added. No need of having a NR column when no match has ended with that result. Removed. This is my first FLC review so please excuse if there is any error in it. Good work although. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. Zia Khan 11:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• You need to remove the rowspan="2" parameter from Cap, Name, First, Last and Mat, given you've added "General" in the row above, contrary to precedent.
  • Done.
• Given that in twenty years, a large number of these players will have retired, meaning that the list will be covered in this symbol, it is really necessary?
  • Removed.
• Personally I don't think {{sort dash}} is appropriate for the Bowling average column, as it means that the players without a bowling average sort above the best average of Mendis. I would prefer those players to sort at the end.
  • Done.
• ESPNcricinfo is overlinked: I would suggest linking to it from the first reference, but not thereafter.
  • Done.
• Refs #22, #23, and #33 need date of publication, and author adding.
  • Done.
• In the Captains list, why does Inzamam-ul-Haq have a win percentage listed as 100%, while the rest are XX.XX. Surely, he should have 100.00?
  • Yes, the only match he captained was won by Pakistan.

• I don't doubt that, but my point was that it was written in a completely different format to all the others, and should be the same for consistency. Harrias ^talk 17:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Zia Khan 19:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Given that Tanvir Ahmed has 1 against his innings column, he should have a total listed in runs and HS, or there should be dashes in Inn, NO and 50.
  • Done.

• Hmmm, having a look at his page on ESPNcricinfo, I think you went the wrong way with this: it looks like he hasn't batted in T20I. Shahid Afridi's stats are also wrong: I would recommend going through and checking all of the others are correct. Harrias ^talk 17:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Corrected. Zia Khan 18:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice work. Harrias ^talk 11:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Zia Khan 14:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose pending further checks on accuracy of statistics provided. Harrias ^talk 17:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: User:Sahara4u has informed me this has already been promoted. Harrias ^talk 17:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 August 2012 [53].

---

50 home run club

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly over the past year and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

<font=white>Resolved comments from – Muboshgu (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments Comment Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility, the "scope" parameter is needed in the table for the row and column headers. Full review to come later. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC) "Stats" seems too informal. Let's use the whole word. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC) "Babe Ruth was the first to achieve this, doing so in 1920. By reaching the milestone, he also became the first player to hit 30 and 40 home runs in a single-season, breaking his own record of 29 from the 1919 season.[4] Ruth also became the first player to reach the 50 home run club on four occasions, subsequently achieving the milestone in 1921, 1927 and 1928.[5][6]" - Something about this text, starting with the second sentence, just doesn't do it for me. It's important here to stress that Ruth was the first true home run hitter in MLB, and while this sort of gets that point across, I think it just slightly misses it. I attempted to reword the sentences without significantly altering the essence of it. Does it sound better? —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Seems odd to mention handedness in the second paragraph but not include it in the table. Yeah. I just didn't want to clutter the table with semi-trivial info that would be more appropriate to include solely in the lead. I know you previously stated that "the other FLs aren't sacrosanct," but they do provide a good example of what should be included or left out. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC) "The New York Yankees is the only franchise to see - I guess "Yankees is" is grammatical, but it still sounds weird, especially with them "seeing" the players reach the milestone. What does "see" mean? It strikes me as a bit colloquial. Can we rephrase to something like "Only the New York Yankees have had..." Done. I rephrased it as, "The New York Yankees is the only franchise to have four different..." Is that alright? —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC) "their 50 home run club season" --> "their 50 home run season" Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC) My !support will also be conditional on the |scope="row"| issue below. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Done. And thanks for the example lists you provided below. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support nothing else I can see to hold this up. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments "...achieved their fourth 50 home run season in 1999 and 2001." not sure you need 50 home run season, you've already established what it refers would change to "matched his feat in 1999 and 2001." Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC) "MVP award" you use an abbreviation without identifying what it refers to. I would spell it out on first use, so the reader (especially ones who are sports ignorant) understand what it means I think "MVP" is generally understood to mean Most Valuable Player. The abbreviation has somewhat become it's "own word" over the years, to the point that MVP used outside the context of sports. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC) In America maybe, but not necessarily the rest of the world..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC) The word is already wikilinked, so anyone not knowing: (1) the abbreviation or (2) what the MLB MVP Awards encompass can simply click the word for more info. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC) If this is to be classed as among wikipedia's best work, then I would expect the reader to not to have click the link to find out what the abbreviation means. The fact that MVP itself is a disambiguation page means that the abbreviation needs to be spelt out. NapHit (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC) No need to SHOUT in refs, write them out normally Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC) I've never understood the point of including quotes in refs personally I would remove as I'm not sure what purpose it serves I only included quotes for sources that a quite long. Basically, it makes it easier for the reader to find the section that verifies any claims made in this list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Images could do with alt text Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Per WP:ACCESS, it is best not use semi-colon for bolding as is done in the reference section. Screen-readers don't pick them up very well apparently so best to use the three apostrophes instead Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

;Comments by Arsenikk (talk) If I was writing the article, I would have linked years to the appropriate MLB season article. Years are already linked in the table. The reason why I didn't link years in the lead section is because under WP:MOS, overlinking would make the lead "hard to read." Will MLB season links in the table suffice, or is it absolutely necessary to link them in the lead as well. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Perhaps mention in the lead who has the highest number of home runs in a season. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Has the number of games per season increased through the league's history, and could that explain the increasing number of members? It increased from 154 games to 162 in 1961 (the same year Maris broke the single-season HR record). But that does not explain why there were only 3 members from 1962–1994 (33 full seasons). As mentioned in the last sentence of the lead, many club members are found to have used PEDs. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC) In the key table there is no need to bold the first column, as they are automatically formatted by the software. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC) I notice the main table uses the formatting |scope="row"|, which aaccording to WP:DTT should be !scope="row"| (replace | with !). I took the formatting off the 300 win club list. The reason why both lists have |scope="row"| is to prevent the entire row from being bolded (which would be an extreme eyesore). Is that alright? —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Sorry to interject here, but 300 win club should not be used as a reference point. I intend to nominate that page for FL soon, but it's not quite ready yet. One of the things I need to change on that page is this very issue. Check out 1992 Major League Baseball expansion draft and Babe Ruth Award for a couple examples of how to handle this. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Forgot to mention to add "plainrowheader" to the table class, but looks like you figured that out. Arsenikk (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Arsenikk (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support nice work! Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support --GoP_T^C_N 18:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose wow, lots of early support, good to see. Nevertheless, to be addressed... "Two of these players " of which players? Last set of players you talked about were switch hitters. Two of the entire group of players I mentioned in the last sentence (i.e. not just limited to the last group). The context is two out of all the batters mentioned previously, regardless of handedness. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC) But it's not good prose because it's no longer clear which group "these players" are any more. The Rambling Man (talk) It's actually pretty clear. It wouldn't make sense if "Two of these players" were to be derived from switch hitters, since there's only one S.H. As with the next point below, I expect common sense to prevail. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Perhaps just worth explaining what the 500 home run club is (i.e. I guess it's 500 career home runs, but that's not clear given this is the 50 home run club and it's 50 in a season). All other baseball stat club FLs mention 500 home runs only by name, without going into detail. I think the wikilink here suffices, as I wouldn't want to stray off focus here. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC) No harm in explanation here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC) I'm sticking with the standard established by all other baseball FLs. It wouldn't be good if the style and formatting for this list deviated from other FLs, would it? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Times change, standards improve. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC) True. But the golden standards withstand the test of time. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Yep, and we've yet to find one. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC) It's pretty obvious here. Hitting 50 home runs in a career is shameful and it's impossible to hit 500 home runs in a season (unless one has completely ODed on PEDs). Explaining will either require a footnote (i.e. back and forth) or be included in the lead (thus disrupting the flow of the article with explanations). Again, "References on style...do not always agree." —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC) It's obvious if you know MLB, it's not obvious if you don't. You have a global audience. Consider them rather than your own golden standard. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC) I do consider my global audience. And I wouldn't treat them as idiots, as I know they have common sense to differentiate 50 is hit in a season from 500 hit in a career. I also know they can piece 2 and 2 together and figure out that achieving an average of ten 50 home run seasons will get you to the 500 home run club (and not vice versa). As I previously said, the wikilink here suffices. If (in the unlikely event) a reader was really unsure about 50 vs. 500, he just needs one click of the button to find out. How hard is that? This list is here to explain 50, not 500. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Could note the Fielder family record? I actually deleted mention of this when I was cleaning up this article, as I found this not very significant or notable. In contrast, the reason why I included Barry and Bobby Bonds in the 30–30 club list was because they both share the record of joining the club the most number of times. For Cecil and Prince Fielder, both are "one-hit wonders" (at least for now). —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC) It's notable, one of your sources actually has a title describing that junior wanted to beat senior to shut him up! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Father–son relationships should be mentioned only as a footnote to a greater accomplishment. As I previously stated, Barry and Bobby are listed only because they achieved a record number of 30–30 seasons. If it hadn't been for that, I wouldn't have mentioned them as father–son at all. Mentioning Cecil and Prince Fielder in the lead only because they are father and son (and for no other reason, as they don't even have multiple 50 homer seasons) is completely nonsensical and only glorifies triviality. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC) No, not "completely nonsensical" at all, the ESPN ref you use is titled " "Prince hits 50, but it's 52 he wants to 'shut up' his dad"" so it's directly relevant. Perhaps your own reference glorifies triviality but I'd like to think it actually provides some additional and useful info. You know what, this is more relevant and interesting than knowing that Barry Bonds was 37 when he "joined the club". Seriously. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC) What's in a name? You can't just take an article's title and blow it out of proportion. It looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree then. You're fully entitled to your own opinion and so is everyone else who has participated in this discussion. I'm adhering to an established standard and I'm sticking to it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Ok, I thought it was equally interesting that Bonds was 37 and that a father-son combo are members of such an exclusive club. I'm not blowing anything out of proportion. In fact, I'm beginning to not understand most of what you write here. It's not "completely nonsensical", it's not "glorif[ying] trivialit[y]":, it's not "blow[ing] it out of proportion". I'm also bemused by your direction to "an established standard", what exactly is that standard you refer to? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC) The "established standard" I'm sticking to is the same one used in the 30–30 club. Familial relations are mentioned only because of significant achievements and records achieved by them, not just because they are related to each other. As I had previously stated, Bobby and Barry Bonds are mentioned as father and son only because both of them share the record number of 30–30 seasons. We can see that their unmatched, sublime standalone success truly "runs in the family." On the other hand, both Fielder father and son have only one 50 homer season to account for. One. Does that merit any mention? No. In a modern society, no one should be expected to be mentioned simply because of their birth. Being born into a baseball family does not give you the right to be automatically called "significant." It's a person's outstanding achievement that should take precedence. Do the two Fielders hold the most 50 homer seasons, either overall or consecutive? No. Do they even have multiple 50 homer seasons individually? No. So that concludes this argument. Do Cecil and Prince Fielder deserve to be mentioned in the lead as father–son (just because they are father and son)? No. As I previously stated, let's agree to disagree then. Even the FLC page stated, "References on style...do not always agree." You can hold your own opinion regarding this list and I completely respect your view. I even respect your protest that you're "beginning to not understand most of what [I] write here." I'm sorry to hear that, but four other people (soon 5+) have openly expressed understanding to what I write, the current version in place. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Giants2008 already stated this "seems trivial" so this further reinforces why it will not be included. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Yes, and I respect his opinion, but why you couldn't add "(after his father)" or something in the lead, like three words, which would actually enhance the engagement with the reader, particularly the reader who isn't an MLB expert, is beyond me. Still, the "golden standard" apparently exists for you which precludes making this interesting rather than purely statistical (like most baseball lists sadly). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC) You can't just add "after his father" as Prince Fielder is mentioned only once in the lead (as the youngest). It wouldn't make sense, after saying Prince is the youngest, to add on "after his father." Cecil was never the youngest (Mays was), so mentioning it will confuse the reader even more. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Yes, it was just a conceptual suggestion, i.e. that you could just "tag" the relationship with a simple couple of words which would make the prose engaging and interesting to non-MLB fans, so it wasn't just a wall of statistics (per your golden standard). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC) I just don't think trivia deserves any mention whatsoever. Giants2008 agrees with this stance, so at the end of the day, it simply won't be added (no matter how long you continue to argue with me over this point). —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC) " to achieve this, doing so in 1920" not sure you need "doing so" here, seems redundant to me. I feel it's necessary to keep the sentence like this. If I said "Ruth was the first to achieve this in 1920," that would make it sound like he was the first player in 1920 out of many others to get 50 home runs (causing confusion to whoever reads this). —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC) That's why you keep the comma in place. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC) I still think the sentence should remain. Though it may be redundant to some, it sounds more complete. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC) "replicating the achievement" prefer "repeat" to "replicate". Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC) " Barry Bonds hit the most home runs to join .." you should say he holds the record for most home runs in a season. The focus of the lead should be on joining the club, not the single-season home run record (which is already designated in the table itself). —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Is there a reason why José Bautista doesn't have his diacritic in the lead? He does in the table. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC) "players to achieve the 50 home run club " in the lead caption - I don't think people "achieve" a "club", they "join" a club. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Why do you need ref 6 and 7? Ref 6 seems to do the trick. Ref 7 is a specific source from MLB documenting Bautista's recent achievement and providing coverage for all previous 50 home run seasons. I don't want to keep using BR ad nauseam. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Link "plate" appropriately. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC) " one active member of the 50 home run club" reference for "active"? Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Think you should explain the "Mantle and Maris" (M&M) thing, i.e. why you would relink the pair, perhaps say "known as the M&M ..."? Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Bonds doesn't have a "days" in his age when he achieved the feat unlike the youngest. Unfortunately, the NYT source (the only reliable source I found for Bonds' age record) does not provide a "days" in his age. It's better to leave it in it's current state than to make an unverified claim. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC) "back in 1954" no need for "back in". Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC) "home runs in that year" you mean season? Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC) "The statistics are updated through July 18, 2012" needs a period. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC) To make the next sentence read more enjoyably, I'd rephrase "to hit 30 and 40 home runs " to "to hit 30 and then 40 home runs..." Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC) "He remained the sole leader" what do you mean? You mean he was the only player to have hit 50+ four times right? Rephrase. If I were to rephrase the current wording, this section would become extremely repetitive. "Ruth...became the first player to reach the 50 home run club on four occasions" followed by the new sentence "he remained the only player to achieve 50 home runs in four seasons" and ending with McGwire and Sosa "becoming the only players to achieve four consecutive 50 home run seasons." Basically, it'll be a repeat of 50 in four ad nauseam within two sentences. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC) So rephrase, because "sole leader" doesn't make much clear sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Done. Rephrased from "sole leader" to "only player to accomplish this." Does it make more sense now? —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC) I've addressed most of the points you brought up, and you still oppose. Great! A one-man opposition against the majority. We all know where that's heading. History has shown that you cannot derail the majority when they have spoken. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC) I see the only reason why you oppose is because we disagree on style. As WP:FLC clearly states, "References on style...do not always agree." Why don't you just respect that and move on. The changes you proposed were made after all four support votes came in. And you want to oppose this FLC just because you don't get your way. Wow! What's really unfair and unjust would be the majority kowtowing to the whims of one person. Just because you're an admin doesn't mean you're entitled to impose your style and your ways on others. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Perhaps you need to just relax a bit. I get back to most FLCs in due course, and this will be no different. I add comments as an editor, not an admin (prove me wrong, I dare you!), so your comment about me being an admin is entirely irrelevant. I'm very pleased you have so much support right now, quite unusual for a list here these days (and more so considering the various issues you've corrected as a result of my review), but I'm also entitled to my opinion, and if I wish to maintain an oppose, then I will, and I'm sure the closing director will take all arguments into account as they always do. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Let me guess. You're one of the closing directors, aren't you? You are listed under WP:FLC as one of the 3 FL directors who "determines the timing of the process for each nomination." Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised that, even if I get 6 votes of support against your lone opposition vote, that this list will still not be promoted (and definitely not by you!). Would you have the guts to promote this list should it get the 6–1 overwhelming consensus, even if you don't completely get your way? It's the only way for you to prove you "add comments as an editor, not an admin" (i.e. whether you're impartial as opposed to biased). —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC) You really need to check your facts. If you paid any attention, you'd know that I usually review just about every list here. I rarely give a position but when I do, it's for good reason. If I do place a !vote, I will usually redact myself from closing the list. Asking me if I "have the guts" to promote anything is quite rude. Being a director is nothing to do with being an admin so your last statement is completely inaccurate. I suggest you go over your comments and strike out those which are completely baseless as right now you're not doing yourself any favours. In fact, until you do so, this conversation is at an end. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC) What goes around comes around. It's extremely rude on your part to "dare [me]!" openly earlier. Glad this conversation is over. I offered you to agree to disagree twice and twice you refused it, instead taking on an aggressive stand to impose your views on all of us that only escalated. Oddly similar to this incident here. Why am I surprised? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Nope, you've lied about my edits, my motives, abusing my position. So you need to rethink it all and redact the lies. I won't "agree to disagree" if I think you're wrong. I have no aggression here. You said my position was "completely nonsensical", that I wanted to "glorify triviality", that "Just because you're an admin doesn't mean you're entitled to impose your style and your ways on others", that "And you want to oppose this FLC just because you don't get your way", that "It's the only way for you to prove you "add comments as an editor, not an admin" (i.e. whether you're impartial as opposed to biased). ". "It's extremely rude on your part to "dare [me]!" openly earlier" so go ahead and show me where I abused my position as an admin in this FLC? Please. All lies. Pure fabrication. Completely revolting. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC) "History has shown that you cannot derail the majority when they have spoken." I can't speak to what the standards were in 2007, since I wasn't here. In 2012, FLC is not a pure vote, and an oppose coming after four supports is just as valid as one at the start of an FLC (you'd be amazed at how many blatant glitches I detect in lists with multiple supporters). Will it "derail" the FLC? It depends on what the complaint is. If someone complains about terrible prose or copyvio issues, it doesn't matter how many supports something receives; it's not getting promoted until it's fixed. I actually agree with you that the Fielder stuff doesn't need a note (seems trivial to me as well), but TRM's other points seem reasonable enough. He's got more experience than anyone here, and he's trying to help your list be the best it can be. Why not listen to his advice? And please don't say him being an admin, or an FL director, has anything to do with this. TRM doesn't carry a supervote based on his positions, though many of us will consider his views carefully because of his vast experience. In reality, he's just a reviewer like this rest of us, and his opinions will be weighted in that light. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Thank you for clearing things up and reassuring me that TRM is "trying to help [the] list be the best it can be," as his recent comments suggested otherwise. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC) TRM, you've resorted to more below the belt tactics now. The claims you made about me are completely false. And you're now calling me a liar? Let's see: You falsely claimed that I "lied about....abusing [your] position." Wrong! I correctly pointed out that you are one of the closing directors. That's all. Not once did I say anything about abusing position. In fact, the only time this has been said throughout this conversation is from you. You falsely claimed that I "lied about [your] edits." Wrong again! I merely asked you a valid question. Are you going to "promote this list should it get the 6–1 overwhelming consensus, even if you don't completely get your way?" You falsely claimed that I "lied about [your] motives." I merely pointed out facts. Never before have I ever been openly "dared" by another WP user, ever. The fact that this is completely unprecedented gives the impression that this is indeed an "aggressive stand." "I won't "agree to disagree"" – that just proves your aggressive stand. I even stated "I completely respect your view." Yet, you refuse to negotiate and insist on a "my way or the highway" approach, even after I made valid points explaining why I prefer my style (which is also preferred by the majority). You falsely claimed that I "said [your] position was "completely nonsensical and glorifies triviality"" – once again, false. I said mentioning Cecil and Prince in the lead (only because they are father and son) is completely nonsensical and glorifies triviality. My quote "you want to oppose this FLC just because you don't get your way" is completely true. Other reviewers have commented on the list, have voiced their opinions and I have actually rebutted some of their points and stated why I'd prefer to use the current version. This is exactly what I've done with you. Yet, instead of opposing, other reviewers have compromised and know that in life, you just can't get your way 100% of the time. You, on the other hand, openly chastised me by saying "I think you're wrong." Again, who's opinion is this based on? Your quote "I have no aggression here" is completely false. First, you "dare[d] [me]" and then proceed to call me a liar. Too bad I've proven your claims to be false. So much for no aggression. Judging from the use of words throughout this, I've actually been very positive ("I respect your view," "I'm sorry to hear that," "let's just agree to disagree.") while you've used the most negative terms to talk to me ("you've lied," "All lies. Pure fabrication. Completely revolting."). From above, I completely blew your argument out of the water with regards to your claim that I lied. Who's the liar now? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC) See above. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Saw above. All that means is that Cecil and Prince will not be mentioned. In the meantime, answer the question. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC) P.S. One should really mean what they say and say what they mean. I take back not even one iota from the above conversation. On the other hand, you stated that "this conversation is at an end." Why isn't it? Instead, you proceed to call me a liar (which I have completely disproven). —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Until you tell me where I've abused my position as an admin and redacted those lies, I see no purpose in this discussion. I'm still entitled to my position, I'm sure your list will be promoted in due course (as Giants has noted, he disagrees with me but in a manner that is becoming to normal discourse) but your unpleasant manner has really spoken volumes. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC) As I have previously stated, I never said you "abused [your] position as an admin." So stop using that as an argument, as it's invalid. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Rubbish. "It's the only way for you to prove you "add comments as an editor, not an admin" (i.e. whether you're impartial as opposed to biased). ". Utter rubbish. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC) You're the one who said you "add comments as an editor, not an admin" (and proceeded to dare me to prove otherwise). I simply stated that your actions will prove that statement (as actions speak louder than words). —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC) You said " (i.e. whether you're impartial as opposed to biased)" which is a pure lie. I can (and always do) edit as both editor and admin and be impartial. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC) You've completely taken my quote out of context (again!). I simply stated that your actions will prove that statement, which means your actions will indeed prove whether you're impartial as opposed to biased. That's completely true. The whole quote is dependent on what you do. Once again, you've resorted to unjustifiably calling me a liar. This violates WP:No personal attacks under the clause of making "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." In fact, you've gone one-up and made false accusations that not only lack evidence, but are completely baseless. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Not at all. It's entirely in context. The "whole quote is dependent on what you do"? Rubbish and pure lies. I won't do anything. I'm entitled to my opinion and I'm sticking with it. Such a shame that you'd sideshow a perfectly good FLC. It was going fine and then you launch an attack on me. How odd. It'll still be promoted, but now I know the kind of editor I'm dealing with, I'll be sure to remember that in future. This really, really is the end of discussion. You go ahead and have the last word, be my guest. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC) "You launch an attack on me." Excuse me, but you definitely have all your facts mixed up. You openly "dare[d] [me]!" to prove you wrong. That's where it all started. I finally pinpointed the origin of when this discussion began to escalate. And it all started with you, not me. Go ahead and think whatever you want, but as one person brilliantly summed it up to you here in this discussion, "[y]our continued passive-aggressive harassment speaks for itself." —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC) "Due to the rare occurrence of the 50 home run club," the club's occurrence isn't rare, but the entry of people into it is. And check the position of the ref here: "home run club[8]) " The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC) editor and admin Can I instead say "low membership of the 50 home run club" (i.e. just like I did with the 20–20–20 club? I know membership is starting to grow rapidly, but relatively, it's low considering the number of years the MLB has been around for. And I'm guessing ref 8 should go at the end of the sentence, right? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Perhaps "due to infrequent addition of members to the 50 home run club" or something like your suggestion. Don't mind really, it's just not right at the moment. And I would move the ref to the other side of the punctuation, i.e. the other side of the closing parenthesis. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Done both. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments – "The New York Yankees is the only franchise to have four different players reach the milestone while on their roster". "is" → "are" for plural tense, which is what's usually used with nicknames and matches "their". Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC) "Mantle is the only player to have earn the Major League Triple Crown". "earn" → "earned". Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC) I see a couple uses of "50 home run club season" in the key, which I've never heard used before. Is there any reason we shouldn't use the more common "50 home run season" instead? Most intelligent people will realize from reading the lead that a 50-homer season gets someone in the club. Done. Changed all to "50 home run season." —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Is it Sports Reference or Sports Reference LLC? The references should be made consistent one way or the other; I've seen the latter method used most of the time. Done. Utilized "Sports Reference LLC" for all. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Another inconsistency with ESPN and ESPN.com, and the latter one shouldn't be in italics anyway. Done. Changed all to include both "ESPN" (for work) and ESPN Internet Ventures (for publisher), as per 20–20–20 club and 30–30 club lists. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• There should be an extra table listing the multiple winners. Nergaal (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, adding such a table would be completely redundant. This list is a stat club, not an award (where a multiple winners table would be more appropriate, such as FL Cy Young Award). Even then, baseball FLs for awards such as Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award don't include multiple winners table and instead utilize numbers beside multiple winners. In this case, small numbers are already included after multiple winners and that alone will suffice. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

If you explain to me how a reader can easily figure out which palyer had the most/the second most/ etc. 50+ HR seasons then I will agree that such a table is redundant. Nergaal (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Players with the most 50+ HR seasons are already noted in the first paragraph of the lead. The player with the second most (i.e. A-Rod) is already listed in the table with (3) denoting the # of seasons he's had. My hunch is that the reader would have at least read the first paragraph of the lead before proceeding to the table. I'm also assuming that the key would play a part in them understanding that the small number beside a player's name would denote the # of HR they had accomplished at that point. The table is sorted chronologically, so reading the number beside a player's name makes it pretty easy to figure out which players have the most (i.e. whoever has the highest number has the most). These are reasonable assumptions, aren't they? —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 August 2012 [54].

---

List of Malmö FF players

Nominator(s): Reckless182 (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fulfils the Featured List criteria. The list is complete with references and any information the reader would want to know from available sources. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

;Comments by Arsenikk (talk) The key should not be in boldface Fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC) I am a bit concerned about the international apps list. As far as I can tell, it lists each player's total caps; this is a bit misleading as I would expect to see the number of caps which they claimed while playing for Malmö. Are there for instance players who have been capped, but never capped while playing for Malmö? Yes, the list show the total amount of the players caps, not just the caps while playing for Malmö. The vast majority of these caps were won by the players while playing for the club but of course there are exceptions. Is it enough if I specify this in the key section or do you think the caps should reflect only the caps won while playing for Malmö? For the references I have, the books (one which is published by Malmö FF themselves) indeed count all of the caps, not just while at the club and that is why I chose to do the same for this list. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC) I am very in favor of stating who has had international caps. I would have preferred a "caps while at Malmö" solution, but that of course requires sources. If this way of presenting the information is the best that can be references, then it is good enough for me. Arsenikk (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC) I generally don't mind flagicons in sports-related articles, but in this case it is excessive. The international list contains only Sweden and the nationality list contains only two non-Swedish players. Had a quarter or half of the players been foreign, I would not have reacted to this at all, but given the Swedish dominance, I find the use of flags distracting and without practical use. I'll see what I'll do about the flags. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC) OK so I removed the flags from the nationality section but not from the international selection section. Is this better? --Reckless182 (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC) I don't want to dictate you on the issue, just expressing my view. Flags are a contentious issue and there will never be a "correct" way of doing it. The current solution is perfectly acceptable. Arsenikk (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC) The MOS specifies that countries should not be linked without due reason, so I would recommend that "Sweden" etc be delinked in the table. (The MOS permitting repeating of links in the table only applies to entries which should be linked in the first place). This does not apply to the national teams. Interestingly, the one place I would have linked "Sweden", in the lead, is not linked. I agree, I will de-link Sweden in the table. Where would you link Sweden in the lead? --Reckless182 (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC) The last reference uses ISO dates instead of regular dates that the rest of the refs use. Fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Otherwise a nice list. Arsenikk (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support well-crafted list. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks man! --Reckless182 (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments Does the appearances include European matches etc? If so would mention the relevant competitions in the first bullet point No, they only include league appearances as is already stated in the key section. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Instead of including the note about utility player I would use this link Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC) ref 7 the dashes should be end ashes Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC) I noticed that Arsenikk suggested the removal of bold from the key. Personally i have the opposite view I think the bold should remain as I believe it is helpful to reader. states that definition lists are allowed to use Bold, I would classify a key as one of these lists so I would rebold the words. I'm not sure what to do about this, I'll think about it. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure if my interpretation of MOS:BOLD is the same as yours. It is only the headers that are in bold text in the example for definition lists. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC) It says bold can be used for definition lists, as they are essentially the headers in the key than they should be bolded. NapHit (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Alright, done now. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Three players are not sorting correctly by name Do you mean Ågren, Öberg and Österlin? They are indeed correctly sorted as the Swedish letters of Å, Ä and Ö are sorted after Z in the alphabet, it would be very confusing for a Swedish reader if they were sorted under A and O. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC) That was also my initial reaction for Æ, Ø and Å back when I started making featured lists. However, this is the English Wikipedia and we tailor to people who speak English. They see Å, Ä and Ö just as diacritics and will find it very confusing when those letters are not sorted with A and O. Arsenikk (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Do you know if there is any guidelines to this in MOS? I can't seem to find anything on it. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC) I've given this a bit of thought, think it would be best to ask at Wikipedia:Village pump what policy is. Like you I can't find anything about, and as the letters are not in the English alphabet, I'm a bit more confused. I think a few more opinions are needed on this. NapHit (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC) I've written a post here, hopefully we'll be given some advice. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC) OK so I got a response from a user who suggested that we should use the European ordering rules. He says that "I believe that would mean sorting (the whole name) according to the notional base letters and then sorting the whole name by diacritics (so that Müller immediately follows Muller).". I think that it makes sense to follow something like that. Do you think this is acceptable? --Reckless182 (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC) The sorting should be OK from this perspective in the table now. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Would include the third bullet point in the first section in this list Do you mean "Statistics correct as of match played...", this sentence is already featured in a more fitting place (in my opinion). --Reckless182 (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Sorry the link didn't work, I meant the bullet point that starts: "Positions are listed according to the tactical formations..." NapHit (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC) I'm not overly keen on the international section in the table, I don't see the point in it being included. Fundamentally, this is a list about Malmo players including international caps is redundant as it is not related to Malmo. I'll bow to consensus if there is for it, but preferably I would like to see it removed I added this to the list to add more facts about they players as I didn't have references for subs, and total caps which can be seen in other FL of these sorts. It is relevant to the specific players but as you say not to Malmö FF. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC) I understand why you added it, i Just don't think its relevant to the list. Its a list about Malmo players as far as i'm concerned there should only be statistics about their time playing for Malmo anything else is superfluous. NapHit (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Alright, should I remove the column altogether or save information about caps that were made while at the club? I could use eu-football.info for this if you consider the source to be a reliable source? --Reckless182 (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Nevermind, I removed the columns altogether and added total apps and total goals instead. Hopefully this should be sufficient. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments Not keen on the see also hat note, would reformat manually and pipelink so to avoid cross-namespace and hashes. OK, will do. I have one question though, how do I link Category:Malmö FF players in a wikilink? --Reckless182 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC) I'm pretty sure you can just do a pipelink like normal, so Malmö FF players? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Standard note, you have pre-1960s and post-1960s, but what about the actual 1960s?! I have used 1960 as the breaking point, thus it's essentially pre 1960 and post 1960. Should I change the note to reflect this? --Reckless182 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC) No, you've used 1960s which is a decade, hence my question! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC) What I mean is that I have used the old names for player playing pre 1960 and the new names for players playing post 1960. I have reflected this in the note. Do you still find it confusing? --Reckless182 (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC) I understand, but your key say pre-1960s and post-1960s so the question is what happens in the 1960s decade? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure that I understand what you mean. In the table below I've used the old position names for players starting their careers pre 1960, so year X until year 1959. I've then used the new names for any players that have started their career post 1960, so year 1960 until present year. I could just remove the "s"'s in the key and it would be less confusing? --Reckless182 (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Well "post-1960s" means after the 1960s i.e. 1970 onwards. Pre-1960s means before the 1960s, i.e. 1959 backwards. So my point is what happens between 1960 and 1969? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Your question is answered in the key: "Positions are listed according to the tactical formations that were employed at the time. Thus the change in the names of defensive and midfield reflects the tactical evolution that occurred from the 1960s onwards". I've removed the "s"'s so that it says Pre-1960 and Post-1960 in the key now. --Reckless182 (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC) "Appearances and goals are for first-team competitive league matches only" vs " The number of games played in all games for the club including friendlies." so friendlies count or not? Friendlies only count in the "total" collumns, I'll clarify the first mentioned note. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC) In the Symbols key, the Meaning notes don't need a full stop. Removed. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC) I think (and this may be just an instinct) that instead of a pretty much empty notes col, you should place the notes next to the player's name? Agreed, I'll fix this. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC) "Bo Larsson made the fourth-highest number of appearances for Malmö FF." not according to the table, unless you mean "league" appearances. Fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC) "during his ten seasons with " his table entry says 1957–1968, 1970, is that ten seasons or 12? Fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Could be a lot to ask for but is there any kind of English language sources you might be able to add here? I'm sorry, all written sources I have are in Swedish. It shouldn't be a problem. I've used English language sources where available for online sources. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure the comment at the end of the lead regarding Patrik Andersson's 96 caps between 1992 and 2002 is really relevant now the caps column has been removed. It's also more than a little misleading given that he left the club in 1992, and didn't come back until 2004. Other than that this looks to be shaping up into a very strong list. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Good that you noticed. I've removed it from the lead. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Support, meets standards now in my book. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Cheers man! --Reckless182 (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Well writen lead and list, belive it meets the standards.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment – The footnotes section should utilized this style, since this is the most up-to-date style for a list that embeds references within footnotes (and only uses each footnote once). All you have to do is place the info of the footnote in the refcontent section of the markup. You can ignore the "name" section, while the group name in this case would be "upper-alpha" (since all your footnotes right now are upper case letters). Follow the instructions on the page and just ask me if you need any help. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Thank you for pointing this out! --Reckless182 (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• You're welcome. I'm happy to be of help. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Support – Meets all 6 FL criteria. An extremely impressive list. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• Hatnote at top: "This list is about Malmo FF players with at least league 100 appearances." Flip 100 and "league".
• Don't need multiple Allsvenskan links in the lead, or for "the highest tier of Swedish football" to be repeated from the material in the second paragraph.
• Key: "and" is needed before "Division 2 matches."
• "the player with the most goals scored are ranked higher if two or more players are tied." "are" → "is".
• The List of players heading would be better as just Players. The readers are smart enough to figure out that it's a list by its appearance. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • All done! --Reckless182 (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments The italicised opening sentence ought to be indented, and I'd also remove the pipelinks, so "Category:Malmö FF players" instead of "Malmö FF players" and "Malmö FF#Current squad" instead of "Current squad". Sentence is now indented. I disagree with the links, the current way seems to be the more clear alternative. The issue was discussed and dealt with under The Rambling Man's comments. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC) For me it makes more sense to show what is being linked to, as it makes it more apparent to the reader what they're accessing. Also, displaying the full links seems to be common across other lists of this type. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC) I agree with you on the category as that needs to be specified, but I think "current squad" is self explanatory. --Reckless182 (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC) "Total appearances and goals are for first-team matches only, including all competitive and friendly matches" - I thought we tended not to include friendly matches in official statistics? The reference I have for total amount of apps include friendlies, I have no other sources that omits friendlies, therefore it is friendlies or no total apps column at all. With that in mind I think that we can include friendlies. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC) "Players are listed according to the total number of games played" - it appears to me that players are listed by league appearances, not total appearances. Corrected. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

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