Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2009

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 15:34, 7 November 2009 [1].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Virender Sehwag

Nominator(s): Abeer.ag (talk), Hometech

I am nominating this for featured list because it certainly meets the FLC criteria. Its been in FLC before but failed to pass because of lack of reviews. Abeer.ag (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Prose is like a bunch of dot points strewn together, particular with the repeated "He/His" sentence starts. Also the 201 in Galle needs a special mention, as it was named the Wisden Performance of the year, and carrying his bat, which broke some record(s). Also, is it uncommon to have only 3 victories in 15 centuries? This may be a reflection of most of them being on pretty flat pitches, or India's bowling being toothless (usually both) resulting in a stack of draws. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• What should I say about the Galle innings?

As long as there are citations for that :P SGGH ^ping! 10:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

CEntury on debut? Only one century in the second innings, none in runchases. Why is this disparity not mentioned? It's a very famous part of Sehwag's record. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• • He has 3 centuries in innings 3 or 4. Its not really that relevant mentioning victories I guess. And I do say "In 2001, he became the eleventh Indian player to score a century on Test debut, with 105 runs against South Africa"

Also, didn't he break a few records for hitting a lot of fours and sixes in some of these triple centuries?? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, doesn't he have the highest % of boundaries out of modern players? Or something along those lines. One series 5 years ago he scored 80% of runs from fours. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Its very hard to cite facts like that: [2] is the only link I could find, and it dosen't mention anything particularly notable.

Thanks For you comments. Abeer.ag (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • Opening sentence is, well, so practical that it is flat.
    • It might be basic, but it introduces the topic so non-cricket readers are not immersed in cricket terminology from the start. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it without adding any more terms. SGGH ^ping! 13:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• • The lead has too many choppy sentences, and not enough flow.
  • The lead does have good information, however.
    • I know.. I tried to fix it earlier as well, and this is the best I could do.
  • Of the tables, why is there no column for which Test of Sehwag's career it was? i.e. 5th Test, 23rd Test etc. I would have thought this would be useful information, helping to show particular runs of form or drought, and how many consecutive centuries there are.
    • The dates for the Tests are mentioned
  • I think an article on his centuries should perhaps have a shade more information on the man's career debut date, the date of his first century in the lead, things like that.
    • I menton " In 2001, he became the eleventh Indian player to score a century on Test debut, with 105 runs against South Africa"
  • Also, please replace the external link with {{cricinfo|ref=india/content/player/35263.html|name=Virender Sehwag}} ***Done SGGH^ping! 10:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank You for you comments. Abeer.ag (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorted. Cheers. SGGH ^ping! 13:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments - *You could probably say how he has scored 150+ in his last eight or so centuries (I think). You'll need to find a source though. Aaroncrick (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• • I do say that: "His last 11 centuries have been scores of 150 or greater, a record for the most consecutive hundreds of over 150."
• "He has been dismissed three times between 90 and 100 runs, and has made five scores of 200 runs or more, the most by an Indian opener, of which a record three have come against Pakistan." Is the sentence a bit long? Aaroncrick (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That part of the lead has gone through several edits, and that was found to be the best way to say that. Abeer.ag (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment – Tough one to review. There are no major faults that I can find, but I also notice the choppy nature of the lead. It's difficult to offer solid advice on this, but mixing up the beginnings of more sentences may help. Also, I wish the alt text for the graph had some description of the figures in the graph, since that would be of great benefit to those with screen readers. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the alt text for that should at least mention that the graph runs from 2001 through 2009, that there are peaks in early 2004 and early 2008 (and perhaps the value of those peaks), and that the moving average goes up and down around 50 for most of his career; that sort of thing. The current alt text leaves the visually impaired reader in the dark. Eubulides (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Changed. Thank You Abeer.ag (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments "scored in thirteen cricket grounds" scored "at" the grounds? Changed "of which eight", reverse it for my taste, but that is my opinion (i.e. eight of which...) That does sound better Can we find a link for "dismissal" for when you say "dismissed three times" (it's a bit cricket jargony) Done I would tend to agree with Giants on the slight feeling of disjoint - you mention dismissals then double centuries... I know... but what else can I do? "of which a record three" what kind of record? Most double centuries against Pakistan; explained by note "His first ODI century was ..." not sure you really need to repeat ODI century here. Changed "coming up off 60 balls" - not sure this is how I would write it, perhaps "coming from 60 deliveries"? changed "The number of the Test matches played in that series" - not really, it's the "The Test in which the century was scored against the total number of Tests in the series". No succinct, perhaps you could work that out a bit better than I could write it? The current caption kind of works... as you said, the alternative is not very suucint. I would make 201* sort above 201 as it's generally agreed that a NO finish is better than an out, right? Same with the 114* I don't know how to do that! I just used standard wiki sorting. SpacemanSpiff fixed it. In the lead image you use ODI but in the image a way further down you revert to the full usage. I'd do it the other way round. Done Your notes are really all References except for [7] which is a note. Changed Is India national cricket team linked anywhere in this article? Done The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments Abeer.ag (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments "MA Chidambaram Stadium, Chennai, where Sehwag got his highest score, 319 versus South Africa." ... reached his highest score, 319 versus South Africa? Aaroncrick (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Added a comma. Thank you. Abeer.ag (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Weak> Support - Nice work Aaroncrick (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose still nothing happening on the discussion of some of the notable things about Sehwag's centuries YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Abeer.ag added bit about scores of 150, however, I doubt there are refs for the other issues. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Added some data. Abeer.ag (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Like mentioned by Aaroncrick above, "He has been dismissed between 90....come against Pakistan." is too long and should be split. Also, ref 6 is really a note, so it should probably be split off from the references.
  • Changed
• Double referencing - #1 and #2 don't say anything different, so either should suffice for the first paragraph. Likewise #8, #9. In both cases, the reference quality isn't questionable, so is there a reason for adding the extra reference?
  • 8 & 9 cite different things; #1 and 2 are the result of a discussion on a previous FLC, its so that not all references are from Cricinfo.
• The three sentences from "His highest score of 130..." to "...coming from 60 deliveries" should be consolidated to two and the reference to New Zealand strengthened.
  • Changed.
• This is more of a stylistic preference, but should "between 90 and 100" be replaced by "in the nineties"?
  • Done

-SpacemanSpiff 01:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank You for your comments. Abeer.ag (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm sorry, I didn't notice the other comment. How do I do that? Or should I just remove it? Abeer.ag (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Done Abeer.ag (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Has YellowMonkey been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you add the info that the 254 v Pak in Jan 2006 was the largest score at 100+ SR? Also the fact that it was in a 400-run partnership and went with 4-5 of breaking hte WR by Roy and Mankad in the 1950s YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Added the second part;not sure about what you mean by the first part; his 319 also had a SR>100. Abeer.ag (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The 254 was off about 250 balls or something and was the record until the 319 broke it YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Added a bit about the 319 being the largest. Abeer.ag (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey himself added the other stuff as well. Abeer.ag (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - concerns have been addressed. -SpacemanSpiff 01:07, 3 November 2009 (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 15:34, 7 November 2009 [3].

---

Major League Baseball Comeback Player of the Year Award

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I was sitting on this nomination for a little while given the FLC nomination freeze, but Dabomb has now lifted that (hence my starting this up while 30 Rock (season 3) is still going). Yes it is a short list with only 10 award winners so far, but IMO it meets all the criteria including comprehensiveness. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5
Toolbox comments from KV5 2 dablinks: Aaron Hill and Depression. Fixed. I caught one Aaron Hill link but missed that 2nd one. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC) ELs all fine. I won't comment much on the quality of the alt text, but it's there; someone who knows better can check it out. Will return with more later. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24_[c]

Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24

Comment - Could explain more about the voting process. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC) A reply would be much appreciated. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Whoops, sorry about that. I'm not sure what else to expand on. The candidates are named and a fan vote names the winner. What would you like added? Staxringold talkcontribs 00:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC) According to this MLB source, it says that "The 30 Club beat reporters from MLB.com, [and] the official website of Major League Baseball" are the voters, not the fans. Also on this other MLB source, from looking at the voting numbers, it appears that 1st place votes are 5 points, 2nd place is 3 points, and 3rd place is one. Huh! To reply to the message you left on my talk page, it's okay, as long as the matter will be resolved. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Wow, weird, it was definitely a fan vote originally. I'll fix that section up. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC) There we go, fixed. I really do apologize. As far as I can tell the 05 and 06 awards were clearly fan vote and the 08 and 09 awards clearly with this voting structure. The 07 awards are the only unclear one currently, as the two comeback winner articles focus more on the Players' Choice Award than this. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Woot, found the source. 05-06 was fan vote, 07-current is the beat reporter vote. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Would probably comment again tomorrow (no school tomorrow!). Thanks for fixing up the voting section! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Support -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 02:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments – The quote in the first sentence is crying out for a cite. Done, it's the same first cite but I'll stick it on again just to be clear. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) For the first entry in the table, link the word batting to batting average for the benefit of non-baseball fans. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Carlos Pena: "and was released on August 16th, 2006." Drop "th" in the date. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) "and won the Rays first Silver Slugger Award." Apostrophe needed at end of Rays. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Cliff Lee: "going 22–3 with a 2.54 ERA and won the Cy Young Award." In this sentence structure, "won" should be "winning" instead. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Nomar Garciaparra: Another th to remove in August 5th. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Chris Carpenter: Dash needed for won–loss record. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) The National League table sorting for name is sorting by first name, not the usual last name. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Done. Dunno why it didn't have sortname. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Support – Meets FL standards after the fixes. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - no major issues that I see. —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Images: Licensing looks fine and alt text is provided. Goodraise 01:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Sources: Sources are formated properly and seem to be reliable. Goodraise 02:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 05:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs) What is a "shortstop"? Linked. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) What is "fielding"? We have no article on it. If this was a serious question, not just a request for a link, it's the act of a defensive player (fielder) going after a ball to try and get an out. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) It wasn't a "serious question" or a request for a link. It's an accessibility issue of the article. Goodraise 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Well what else can I do? I'll link to this article, but you can only link to so many things. Yes, it would be useful to know what "fielding" is when reading about baseball. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC) What is a "fly ball"? Linked. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "hitting ... 108 runs batted in" - This seems grammatically incorrect. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "and made the 2009 All-Star Game" - Does that mean he played in it? Yes. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "He also underwent major hamstring surgery in August 2004 having torn it from the bone, appearing in 83 games in the 2004 season." - This sentence appears to try to say too much. I don't understand it. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) More later. Goodraise 03:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "pleading guilty to assaulting his girlfriend." - Does that mean he was on trial? As the NYT article says "[he] pleaded guilty to assaulting his girlfriend by choking, bruising and scratching her and tearing out clumps of her hair." Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "and was elected to the 2007 All-Star Game" - That means he played in it, right? Yes. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "converted 41 saves in 41 chances" - What does that mean? Linked saves and save situations. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "First place votes are worth five points, second ..." - This is too abrupt a change in the line of thought from the previous sentence. Touched up to connect to the discussion of the two voting styles. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "Six players were elected to the Major League Baseball All-Star Game" - They were elected to play in it, right? This goes to your other two posts as well. GENERALLY you play in the ASG when elected. I'm not sure, but I believe all these elected All Stars played, yes. But the sourcing I provide is simply to the ELECTION to the ASG, because that is what indicates some level of performance (being elected president shows your popularity, even if you are shot the day before election day and never actually serve as president). Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) This goes for the other two cases as well. I don't have an issue with what you say, but how. They were't elected to a baseball game, they were elected to play in a baseball game. Goodraise 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Ah, but no, they were elected to the game. There is absolutely no guarantee, other than for the starters (and even they can get injured and replaced) that you will play in the All-Star game. Your election just gets you there, it's the game managers who get you in. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC) We're talking past each other here. "Six players were elected to the Major League Baseball All-Star Game" makes no sense. They don't become the game, they only play in it. This has nothing to do with whether they actually get to play. Goodraise 00:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC) But that's what I'm saying. They aren't necessarily elected to play. They are elected to the game. The same way you are elected to the presidency, but whether or not you actually serve depends on your surviving to inauguration day. I assume the sentence you'd rather see is "Six players were elected to play in the Major League Baseball..." but that would simply be an overgeneralization. Albert Pujols didn't play in the 07 All-Star Game, he's the best player in baseball, and his own team's manager was the NL ASG manager. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC) "They are elected to the game." What does that mean? Goodraise 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC) They are on the roster, available to the in-game managers, and will forever be known as a 19XX/2XXX All-Star. Again, Albert Pujols was named an All-Star in 2007 but did not play one single inning offensively or defensively. The honor is in the title, the playing is a whole other thing. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I see. That needs to be clarified to the reader. Goodraise 02:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Not to sound sarcastic or anything, but should I define baseball as well? This simply isn't confusing as a reader. Six players were elected as All-Stars. Period. That is a fact. If you want to get into the eccentric details of the All-Star game that belongs at those articles, not here. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC) If you write the sentence "Six players were elected as All-Stars." into the article, then you have to explain what an All-Star is or at the very least link it. Anyone familiar with baseball may know what an All-Star is, but our articles shouldn't assume that much knowledge on the part of the reader. Goodraise 02:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Major League Baseball All-Star Game is linked. And I changed it slightly to "named" since not All-Stars are elected (the managers name some). Staxringold talkcontribs 03:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC) With this, we're back at square one. A person can't be named or elected to a game. It doesn't make sense. They aren't baseball games, they're baseball players. Goodraise 03:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC) ...Yes they can be... "Named to the All-Star Game" returns 5.8 million hits on Google. I can change it to "Named to the All-Star team" if you want, but you absolutely can be named to a game, just like being named to a committee even if you aren't a committee yourself. There's a "to" in there, it's not saying they are named an All-Star Game, it's that they are named to it. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I never doubted that, among baseball savvy people, it is common to say so, but to me, as someone who isn't, the phrase sounds plain wrong. As for your suggestion, that would be acceptable, as long as "All-Star team" is explained and/or linked. Goodraise 04:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Done and done. This may have been my longest indent ever. :p Staxringold talkcontribs 04:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC) "Carpenter (NL) and Hill (AL)." - Could you convert this construct to prose? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Why are the positions given in acronyms? This is a common practice on all the baseball lists to keep the tables uniform sized without wasted space. The alternative is a "key" for the acronyms with the links at the top, but it's larger, messier, and for a table this size a key looks rather silly. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) It's in violation of the MOS. Goodraise 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Huh? And I quote directly from WP:MOS#Acronyms and Abbreviations: "it may be useful for reducing the width of an infobox or a table of data." That's precisely what is being done here and being done in dozens of other articles. Like I said, I can add a key if you want but it seems very odd. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC) The MOS says to "[w]rite out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence", which the article doesn't. I'd also like to stress the may in your quote. Using acronyms for width reduction is not warranted in this case. Goodraise 00:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I went ahead and did it. I understand, as you said in the Family Guy season 5 FLC, "The name of this page isn't Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/every Featured List in the Simpsons series/archive1," but at some point it becomes silly. Plenty of lists have used this abbreviation style. 00:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Following the MOS is silly? I beg to differ. Goodraise 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC) The MOS explicitly says the way it was was fine. I changed it to make you happy, but I quoted direct policy from the MOS page that speaks to this issue going to other way. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC) "The MOS explicitly says the way it was was fine." I assume you mean the passage "it may be useful for reducing the width of an infobox or a table of data"? This does not mean that you don't have to "[w]rite out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence" nor does it mean that it's generally fine to use abbreviations in tables. Goodraise 02:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC) So the MOS directly stating it may be useful to abbreviate in tables doesn't mean one can? Whatever, it's been changed. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC) That's right. The law may state that it's sometimes fine to shoot people, that doesn't mean I can run around doing it. If the MOS states that "it may be useful for reducing the width of an infobox or a table of data", then that means that "it may be useful for reducing the width of an infobox or a table of data", nothing less and nothing more. Goodraise 02:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC) But this is the stated situation (in your example a case of self-defense where you can shoot someone), it reduces the width of a table of data. What is a situation where you see such abbreviations as acceptable? Staxringold talkcontribs 03:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Okay, lets assume for a second that it was the stated situation, then the sentence "it may be useful for reducing the width of an infobox or a table of data" still doesn't free you of the need to "[w]rite out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence", which could happen in the prose preceeding the table. It is only an exception from the general rule not to use abbreviations when they aren't necessary. Goodraise 03:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Oppose for now. Goodraise 12:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC) I've stricken my oppose. Will give a new recommendation once I get the chance go over the article again. (I'm a bit busy right now.) Goodraise 23:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Weak oppose for now. Goodraise 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC) One more comment: The position columns currently differ in width. Goodraise 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Fixed, for some reason it decided to copy my early guess of 14% rather than the 9% I set for the final size. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It is my pleasure to support this nomination. Goodraise 05:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments "most overall points" - "most points overall"? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC) What do they actually win? The award. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Any money? A trophy? Or is it just the title? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Prize money and trophies are not mentioned in any of the press releases. I doubt there's any real "prize" (that's not common with baseball awards), and as for a trophy if there is one I can't find any sourceable info on it (even in the official MLB press releases on the award). Staxringold talkcontribs 19:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "Six players were elected to the..." do you mean six winners of this award were elected... because "in their winning season" could mean something very different... I mean in their award winning season, fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "an intestinal parasite" - just the one? Perhaps "an intestinal parasite infection"? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "in just 80 games" to non-baseball players that's a lot of games. Perhaps you could lose the only and add a "out of a possible x games" instead to give us all the context? Apply this to other instances of the "just x games"... Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "was traded to the White Sox" by whom? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC) First instance of Tigers, spell out Detroit Tigers (once again, for us knuckle-head no-knowledge types) - once again, apply this to other instances of just the nicknames... Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC) The software engineer in me is screaming out about the two-digit year format you have in your references.. any chance you'd change them to include the century? Just for me? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed to avoid Y3K problems. :) Staxringold talkcontribs 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Note MM-DD-YYYY is not a format used on Wikipedia; please use YYYY-MM-DD or a format with the month spelled out. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• WP:CITE#HOW: "There are a number of citation styles. They all include the same information but vary in punctuation and the order of the author's name, publication date, title, and page numbers. Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as each article is internally consistent." Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• WP:DATE#Dates: "YYYY-MM-DD style dates (1976-05-31) are uncommon in English prose." I find absolutely no policy that says what you are saying. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That citation style note doesn't really apply here, except for consistency. I was referring to the references, which are not prose. "11-01-2009" is a prime example of why we don't use these formats (is it November 1 or 11 January?), because they are ambiguous.
  • Also, see "Do not use date formats such as 03/04/2005, as they are ambiguous (it could refer to 3 April or to March 4)." This applies here, as MM-DD-YYYY is the same as MM/DD/YYYY (or DD/MM/YYYY), but with hyphens instead of slashes. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• How is YYYY-MM-DD any less ambiguous on those dates than MM-DD-YYYY. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Regardless, I changed the style. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Why no ref in the second paragraph?

• For all these baseball lists, information that in the lead simply summing up what's said in the table generally isn't ref'd. I'll find one for the Carpenter 04 Comeback win, though.

• Why no lead image?

• What would it be? I know of no trophy (and certainly no trophy image) and all the winners are listed below. If someone had an image of one of the players clearly pre-Comeback (like when sent down to a minor league team or walking off the field injured or something) that might be useful, but beyond that dunno what to use. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Why do the ESPN refs say "ESPN" twice in a row?

• They don't, one is the work and one is the publisher. This is Goodraise's work. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Major League Baseball" and "ESPN" only need to be linked once in the refs.

• This is how I've done up several baseball lists before it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it's right. BUC (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• No, it doesn't but why not err on the side of slightly overlinking so someone browsing the site can easily check up on the refs rather than underlink and cut into that simplicity? Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• There's no right way, as long as it's consistent. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure if this list is long enough to be a FL. But if it has gotten this far in prob is.

• WP:FL? criteria 3 (Comprehensiveness) requires only that the list "comprehensively covers the defined scope" (which it does) and "meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists" (which it does). Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• For example, List of Arizona Diamondbacks Opening Day starting pitchers or List of Tampa Bay Rays seasons. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• "and won the Rays' first" weren't they still the Devil Rays back then?

• Right you are, fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW "sponsorship agreement between MLB and Viagra" lol is that because the winners are generally old! BUC (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's partially a play on the term "comeback". Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (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 IMatthew 16:47, 7 November 2009 [4].

---

Timeline of the 1987 Atlantic hurricane season

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Jason Rees (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am re-nominating this for featured list because it meets all FL criteria and all concerns from the previous nomination have been addressed. In regards to the discussion on the HURDAT source, there is an article available on reading it located here. All comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Geraldk

Comment - What's the point of the "preceded by" and "followed by" box at the bottom of the page if it does not list to the preceding and following articles? Geraldk (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC) It generally does link to the preceeding and following years timeline, and there is talk of 1988 AHS getting a timeline though i believe nothings been done yet.Jason Rees (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC) The 1988 AHS does have a timeline, I've linked it in the box Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Also, where in the article is the explanation of HURDAT data listed or linked? From a readers perspective, it would make sense for the references that use it to have a note explaining what the data is that they will see and a wikilink to an explanation of it. Geraldk (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC) I believe it is linked to the references using Hurdat though ill doublecheck that later.Jason Rees (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Added a link specific reference just after the first use of the HURDAT reference. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 "The 1987 Atlantic hurricane season was a below-average season" - needs a reference; I don't know, and many readers will not, what an "average" or "below-average" season is. "making the 1987 season the fourth to do so since 1967." - wording is awkward, and should also have a reference Both are referenced by the reference at the end of the paragraph i would put Refname there but ive been shouted at by a certain JC on IRC and told its redudant. I think theres an article explaing what an average season etc is so ill find it and wikilink it.Jason Rees (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC) I don't know what a JC is, and I don't use IRC, but WP:V says that any statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged need a citation. The first one isn't being challenged, per se; it's just a matter of knowing if the facts are legitimate. The second one is being challenged, so it needs support. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Wow thats a rarety some one who doesnt know who User:Juliancolton is. Anyway im digressing as i said it appears they are both sourced to the first source in the article, which is the seasonal summuary written by the hurricane specialists after the season.Jason Rees (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC) I know who Juliancolton is; I've just never heard him called that before. JC is someone else to me, and I don't think He uses IRC. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Ah right anyway lets not digrese :). "a pre-season storm, Tropical Depression One, led to the season's starting on May 25" - reads awkwardly to me; suggest a pre-season storm, Tropical Depression One, opened the season early on May 25 Reason why the "related article" is in a box instead of a hatnote? I think both a hatnote and a related article box is redundant now sicne its linked to in the first sentance - i will take them out later.Jason Rees (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC) October 10 is missing a local time. Sorted Jason Rees (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC) I think me and CB have caught evreything but if not let us know ASAP. Jason Rees (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment The images need alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless im going blind they all have it.Jason Rees (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You apparently are going blind, most didn't have it :P I've added the alt text to all images now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Check the alt text link in the toolbox one more time. The Hurricane Emily pic does not have alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I was asked to look at the satellite images' alt text. It looks good, except please omit repetition of the caption and/or details that a nonexpert won't know (typically these are the same thing). The phrases I saw that need removal from alt text are "Tropical Storm Dennis" and "Hurricane Arlene". Eubulides (talk) 05:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Support I'm comfortable supporting now. A couple minor notes, though. For the June subsection, it's a little odd that the explanation that there was no activity looks like it's in the June 1 sub-sub-section. I don't know if there's anyway to fix that within the bounds of your project's syntax for these timelines, but wanted to point it out. Also, I can't figure out why, but in the wikilink to HURDAT in the ref, the preceding parenthesis is part of the title link, rather than simply enclosing the link, such that the title reads, "Atlantic Hurricane Best Track Database (". Anyone know how to fix that? Geraldk (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)

• File:Eye of Hurricane Emily 1987.jpg requires alt text.
• Ref. 4 is not actually a reference. Remove it or incorporate it into the article in another way.

Image licensing seems fine. Sources look good. Goodraise 17:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Added the alt text and changed ref. 4 to a note. Thanks for the review Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The 1987 Atlantic hurricane season was a below-average season" - What does that mean?
• "This season had fourteen tropical" - Make it "The season had fourteen tropical"
• A few more internal links would be nice in the lead.

Goodraise 17:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Links added, specified what a below average season is and made the minor fix Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Image licensing and alt text seems fine. Sources look good. I can support this nomination. Good work. Goodraise 18:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
" - swap pipe for semi-colon! Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC) "Exact time unknown" - no need for small font, just less accessible. Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Otherwise very good. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the review Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "$80.3 million (1987 USD, $154.2 million in 2009 USD)" Use {{inflation}} instead so that you don't have to constantly update this figure.

I cant figure out how to add it in and make it look tidyJason Rees (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Added the template Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• AST needs a link in the timeline. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

its already linked Jason Rees (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2009 (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 IMatthew 16:47, 7 November 2009 [5].

---

List of 125cc Motorcycle World Champions

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that is close to being at Featured list standard. NapHit (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments The point system mentioned at the prose is the current point system. I believe that in the older years the point system were different. I haven't had time to confirm this and find a reference, but I think it should be noted that the point systems weren't always the same. Other than that, it's a great list, good job on completing the list of champions to complement the previous FLs (250cc and MotoGP). — Martin tamb (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorted this, added a sentence to clarify. Thanks for the shout-out, still got the 350cc, and 50/80cc to come yet, as well as an overall list of winners. NapHit (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Great list, meets FL criteria. — Martin tamb (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Alt text while limited looks good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• "historically, there have been a number of different points system's." Remove apostrophe from last word.
• Why is there an empty Refs column in the table? Having a large empty row makes the appearance less appealing. Giants2008 (17–14) 16:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Done NapHit (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Support – Other than the couple of addressed comments, I found the list to be very good when I first read it. With no further comments, I see no reason not to support. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Made a few tweaks, but otherwise another good list motorcycling racing list. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Nice. I only noticed one thing, and that was "Great Britain riders". It just sounds wrong, but I'm not sure if it is. "Riders from Great Britain" is ok though. Support Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Is there a reason why Gilera aren't included in the constructors table?
• I count 14 individual Italian winners, lead and table say 13.
• The key may need some clarification that the rider won the other championship in the same season.

--Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 17:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I count 13, done the other requests. NapHit (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I also count 14 individual Italian winners (Bianchi, Cadalora, Capirossi, Dovizioso, Gramigni, Gresini, Lazzarini, Locatelli, Pagani, Pileri, Provini, Rossi, Ruffo and Ubbiali), fixed the lead and the table. — Martin tamb (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Slightly confused - you say that sidecar is discontinued but then link it to Superside which, as far as I can tell, is very much not discontinued. Would a link direct to sidecar be more appropriate? "125cc is the class in which young riders first participate in Grand Prix motorcycle racing. "125cc" refers to ..." Two sentences starting like this is not brilliant prose, and it looks even odder since one of the two 125cc's is in quote marks "Grand Prix Road-Racing World Championship" is this the formal name of the championship? It's only mentioned once. If it is the formal name then perhaps it should appear earlier in the lead. It is the official name of the championship, but I don't think it needs to be mentioned earlier seeing as before it is mentioned talks about the sport in general not the championship itself. NapHit (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC) "The driver's championship and constructor's championship are separate championships..." do we need that last (and third in the sentence) "championship"? Or could you remove the first one? "Results from all Grands Prix count towards the championships; in the past, only a certain number of results were counted." You should make it clear that the first part o the sentence is relevant to the championship today. 80cc is in the table but not mentioned in the lead at all. "Each link goes to the article ..." - "Each year is linked to the article..."? Worth being clear what "margin" means. And perhaps note in the lead who won with the largest margin. Do you mean "rider" instead of "driver" in the Multiple winners and By nationality tables? That note needs some context, date, referencing. Ref 3 has odd spelling of January. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Done all requests. NapHit (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment – Just a minor comment, are Morbidelli and MBA the same constructors? Perhaps a note should explain why are they considered the same constructor or a note that explains Morbidelli's total win of 5 includes 2 wins as MBA. — Martin tamb (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Or probably you should split MBA and Morbidelli as two separate constructors, Morbidelli with 3 wins and MBA with 2 wins. From Morbidelli's article, it mentions that MBA (Morbidelli-Benelli-Armi) bikes was produced in a separate factory and was helped by Benelli. In my opinion, they were two different companies producing different bikes. MBA was more like a joint venture between Morbidelli and Benelli. — Martin tamb (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've split Morbidelli and MBA win totals, because all the reference I found does not recognize them as the same constructor. — Martin tamb (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Support, seems to be a well constructed list, also well researched, no obvious blatant errors that I can see. --Lightlowemon (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

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