Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2010

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 10:51, 26 August 2010 [1].

---

Grammy Award for Best Rock Album

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 21:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and closely resembles other Grammy-related featured lists I have successfully nominated, including Best: Alternative Music Album, Dance Recording, Female Rock Vocal Performance, Male Rock Vocal Performance, Metal Performance, and Traditional Pop Vocal Album. I realize another Grammy-related list is currently being examined by reviewers, but many of the concerns have been addressed and the list has received support already, so I thought it was acceptable to nominate another list (and I have other lists waiting as well). Thanks, as always, to reviewers for taking the time to examine the list and offer suggestions! --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 05:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments - you know what you're doing! Thanks! I've done a few of these now... (and more to come!) :p --Another Believer (Talk) 20:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC) "and from Canada and Mexico once. " dull, no need, padding, remove. As per discussion here, I will leave the sentence as is unless another reviewer asks that the sentence fragment be removed. I think consistency is key, plus I do not want readers to think Canada and Mexico were overlooked. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC) I wonder, and this could be radical, is it worth looking into the "success" of the nominated albums, so you could add a few different lines into lead (e.g certified albums, worldwide sales figures?), might be a nice bit of background? Hmm. My only concern is that the article should be about the award itself. Sales and certifications belong on the artist or album pages. If I were to come across an article specifically discussing the impact an award had on an artist's or album's sales, then I would certainly be inclined to include that in the lead or have a separate section for those details. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your suggestions! Let me know if you feel strongly about removing the nationality claim in the lead or if there are any other concerns that need to be addressed. The nomination process is certainly becoming easier since I have done several of these Grammy lists now and know what is expected prior to a nomination! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC) I think it wouldn't be out of place to just note how well successful albums have done, I'll defer to you on the "single-winners".. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC) OK, I will see what I can come up with... --Another Believer (Talk) 21:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC) I am frustrated as I cannot really find much information about there that links the award with album sales. This article highlights awards received and album sales associated with Sheryl Crow, but I think claims in this list should relate specifically to the Grammy Award for Best Rock Album. For example, if an article made the claim that as a result of winning a Grammy Award, "x" album spiked with 100,000 new sales or something along those lines. Simple album sales figures belong on the album articles. I have read article about the awards for Best Polka Album and Best Native American Music Album and how they impact album sales, but no such luck for Best Rock Album. Also, keep in mind that there is no artist or group on this list that has won the award numerous times--only three artists or groups have won two times each. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: shouldn't the countries and bands/singers (e.g. Elvis Costello, U2, DMB, etc.) be wikilinked only on their first mention? Yvesnimmo (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• No. According to the "Repeated links" section of the Manuel of Style, links should be repeated in a table (where each row stands alone). --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Yvesnimmo (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 22:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
*Comments Ref 12 has an author available Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Ref 4; "Los Angeles Time"? Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Good list. I love it when I have to nit-pick referencing to see anything wrong :) Courcelles 16:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the feedback! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 22:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) As usual, not much to quibble about here: "Beginning in 1996, award recipients often included" Could probably be "Since 1996, award recipients have often included" Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC) "The band Foo Fighters holds the record for the most wins in this category, with a total of three" Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC) The source for 1995 says Sleeps with Angels was by Neil Young and Crazy Horse, yet there's no mention of Crazy Horse. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks, as always! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Well made list. Though that one note seems somewhat superfluous. Goodraise 20:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Everything looks fine to me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:10, 25 August 2010 (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 21:48, 24 August 2010 [2].

---

Grammy Award for Best Hard Rock Performance

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 22:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and closely resembles other Grammy-related featured lists I have successfully nominated (see profile). Here is one more! Thanks again to reviewers for taking the time to examine the list and offer suggestions! Another Believer _(Talk) 22:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - "Metallica, which were expected to win...." reads extremely strangely to me. Over here in the UK, where band names are treated as plural nouns, we'd say "Metallica, who were expected....." In the States I believe the correct form is to regard band names as singular nouns, so I guess you'd say "Metallica, which was expected....." The current wording seems to me to be a hybrid of both and not correct in either version of the language...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In this case, I think "who were" sounds best. I corrected the lead. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments I feel harsh even thinking about saying this, but the image captions, while perfectly adequate from image to image, could be more, well, diverse on their way down the page. Could you be more imaginative with what you're saying in each caption than follow the same formula half-a-dozen times?! Is that a little better? I tried to mix up the wording a bit, and add more detail such as date or location of pictured performance. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC) "and from Armenia and the United Kingdom once." not sure this is really necessary. Out of curiosity, why is that? All of the other Grammy-related FL lists contain nationality details in the lead (some even more specific that this one, such as the recently-promoted Grammy Award for Best Dance Recording). --Another Believer (Talk) 20:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC) It was just the "one-off" awards that I thought were a little irrelevant... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Well, I almost never disagree with a reviewer's suggestion (and do realize how much I respect and appreciate your time and suggestions), but I have to say I think it would be best to leave the sentence as is. Acknowledging Australia, while omitting Armenia and the UK, will look as though the nations were overlooked. And for the sake of consistency with other lists, I would leave all three exceptions to the US. If, down the line, there become too many singular exceptions (Best Dance Recording could get to that point easily), then I think it would be more appropriate to acknowledge only nations with multiple award recipients. If you feel strongly about removing the aforementioned part of the sentence, or if another reviewer agrees with you, I would be happy to make the change. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC) No no, it's no big deal. That's why my original comment said "... not sure ...", no strong feelings at all, so I'm not unhappy with the text as it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC) OK. Thanks, as always, for your feedback. Let me know if there are any other concerns that need to be addressed. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support job done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support can't see any other issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 00:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

*Comments I'm going to scratch the barrel and nitpick, because I've cast one too many !votes lately. Compare ref 1 and 3. If The New York Times Company is in parenthesis, so should be the Tribune Company. Same with ref 6; and for a publication that doesn't have their city in their title, a location would be beneficial here. refs 7, 8, and 9. I think you're using the cite web template when you ought to be using cite news, but don't hold me to that. Ditto ref 10, and needs a location. ref 19 has an author available. Prose looks good, clean up the referencing and I'll gladly support. Courcelles 06:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC) The difference between References 1 and 3 are not something I have control over. I believe the "cite web" templates can produce different ways of displaying the information based on which parameters are used. I added the location for References 6 and 10 (Salt Lake City, Utah for the Deseret News; Wilmington, North Carolina for Star-News). Changed References 7, 8, and 9 to the "cite news" template format. Added author to Reference 19. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 00:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – Only minor issue I see is a tense conflict between singular and plural: there's a "were" for Metallica and a "was" for Living Colour. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Done. I added "The band" in front of Living Colour, making the subject singular (so "was" is appropriate). Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)

Comments A really good job has been done in this list with the help of the above reviews, of course, so I am going to nitpick a little. Can you prove that Rock on the Net is reliable? When I was active here it wasn't considered a reliable source, I'd like to know what changed. It was apparently proved reliable at this FAC, but I don't see why... will keep searching. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC) I believe we should move that link to the external links section until it's proven as reliable.--Cheetah (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 07:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Current citations #4 and #5 have a retrieval date as "December 11, 2009", but the page wasn't edited on that day. It looks strange. I think that claim was copied from here. Perhaps I should have updated the accessdates the day I updated this article, but I failed to do so likely because I just didn't think of it or remember to do so. Lesson learned, though, because I can see how that might look confusing when examining the article's construction history. --Another Believer (Talk) 06:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Same thing with citation #3 that has "December 14, 2009" as a retrieval date. Ditto. --Another Believer (Talk) 06:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Some citations have "The New York Times. The New York Times Company" while the others have "The New York Times (The New York Times Company)." I know it must be because of a template (from the above review), but my question is what's the difference? Why did you use different templates for the similar links? Correct--the use of one template can result in reference displays that differ from one another based on which parameters are entered. In this case, I originally used "cite web" templates, as I almost always do, but was asked to change some of them to the "cite news" template by a previous reviewer. --Another Believer (Talk) 06:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC) I think all links to newspapers should have cite news template for consistency.--Cheetah (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 07:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Why is the navigational template called "Grammy Award years"? Isn't it simpler to just name it "Grammy Awards"? Since there are links other than the "years". I don't know. I use templates, but I don't name them. Discussion about moving or renaming the navigational template should probably take place at the talk page for that template. --Another Believer (Talk) 06:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC) What's the difference between List of Grammy Award categories and Category:Grammy Awards? I know one is a list and the other is a category. They have the same links, isn't one of them redundant? If they are somehow different, why isn't the link for that list a part of the navigational template next to the category's link? The difference is the category helps users navigate around Wikipedia, while the list provides users with information about each of the categories (this would especially be true if the list were expanded properly and to its fullest potential). Ok, then why isn't that link in the navigational template?--Cheetah (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC) It is, actually. "Major awards" along the left side of the template links to the list. --Another Believer (Talk) 07:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC) It's really hard to notice, wouldn't it be better to move that link in place of the "category" link? It's very unusual to have a category link in the template, actually, I think that link should be used as a category, I mean put [[Category:Gramy... in all pages related to Grammy. Oh yeah, and remove that "see also" section.--Cheetah (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC) I am terribly sorry, but I am confused by what you wrote. Are you asking me to make changes to the list, or the Grammy template? If changes regarding the template are in order, I think that discussion should take place on the talk page for the template. I am simply using the template and displaying the "See also" section that appears in all of the other Grammy Award-related lists that have featured status (Best Alternative Music Album, Best Dance Recording, Best Female Rock Vocal Performance, Best Male Rock Vocal Performance, Best Metal Performance, and Best Traditional Pop Vocal Album, as well as the related featured list MusiCares Person of the Year). Since they were minor edits, I went ahead and made them.--Cheetah (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC) --Cheetah (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support --Cheetah (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to offer suggestions. Please let me know if there are any additional concerns that need to be addressed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 06:14, 22 August 2010 (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 16:33, 24 August 2010 [3].

---

The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates

Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 06:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FLC requirements. The list is complete and covers not only the current list, but past list members and previous lists. If adjustments are needed in structure or appearance, I will gladly make them. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks pretty good, though the Alt text needs sorting though. Afro (Say Something Funny) ^{- Afkatk} 17:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that alt text is no longer part of the FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

ah ok, well then I have no problems with the list if thats the case, I'll throw in my support. Afro (Say Something Funny) ^{- Afkatk} 17:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Btw, I will add alt text once the community can define exactly what alt text should include. If I remember correctly, this was the reason why alt text was removed from FAC and FLC requirements. I think alt text is a good thing, but it takes time to think about and write, and I don't want to have to do it twice for every article I write. Anyway, thanks for your review and your support! – VisionHolder « talk » 00:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments now then, this is my kind of bag. Title will need some work. I know this was discussed beforehand, but in five years time, this won't (necessarily) be true... Unless, I guess, you stake it in the ground to the point where IUCN said "this is it". The problem is that the list is published by 3 entities, not just the IUCN. I'm still open to suggestions on the name, but no one's making any comments. However, I do not see how this will be irrelevant in five years time. The title (or this part of it) is generally sticking with every 2-year publication. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Two (important) redlinks in the first couple of sentences could be resolved. Since when has the task of fixing redlinks become part of the FAC or FLC process? I can try to create articles over the coming week, but that's a lot more involved than repairing a candidate list. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC) It hasn't been the task of FLC but it's incongruous having two important red links in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC) I'll see what I can do over the next few days. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Those 2 redlinks have been fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Okay, so this is the 2008–2010 list. Perhaps a discussion over naming is useful (it would be encyclopedic to have a ongoing record of the IUCN's list of 25 most endangered primates over time...) The list name is based on the report name, which has contained the words "The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates" in all five previous publications. Furthermore, the previous lists are summarized in a table at the bottom, and a list of former members is provided to help track which species have been on the list for how long and when. I had no intention of making this a list for a single publication, followed by more lists for future and past publications. (See another reply further down.) – VisionHolder « talk » 02:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC) "could fit into a football stadium" this is virtually meaningless to a lot of people. And do you mean Australian or Association football? I know it seems picky but there's a big difference. I have contacts at the IUCN, so if we wanted, I could probably get a clarification on the statement. If the difference is big, then tell me the general seating capacities for the two and I'll tell you which one he meant. But given that Russell Mittermeier is American, he was probably talking about American football or possibly Association football. Either way, the statement still has general meaning. Whether a stadium holds 10,000 or 150,000, the statement implies that the total population counts are very, very small for all 25 species combined. If, hypothetically, the human population crashed and we said we could fit the entire human population into a football stadium (of any type), I think everyone would agree that that means the population is terribly small. Fit 25 species into one stadium (of any type), and that's 25 times worse... for all species involved. Do you see what I'm getting at? – VisionHolder « talk » 02:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC) I just don't feel the analogy is necessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC) I'd like to hold out to see what others have to say about this, both for the sake of comprehensiveness and to preserve an interesting piece of information. Also, although it may not help much, I've sent an email to my contacts at the IUCN to see if they can help get an answer. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC) I would agree with The Rambling Man that this needs further clarification. The figure is a little too vague. Jack (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC) I'm trying to get more information from the source (Mittermeier) since the two cited references aren't very helpful. I'll email one more person (at the IUCN) who might be able to clarify and see if he replies. But out of curiosity, what are the ranges between these two types of stadiums? Are they really that significant compared to healthy species population numbers? – VisionHolder « talk » 01:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC) I just got a reply from Dr. Anthony Rylands, and he agreed that it statement was a little too vague and suggested deleting it. However, I have a DYK hook in the queue based on that quote, and since the statement is properly referenced (though a little vague), I'm going to leave it in until after the DYK posts, probably on August 18th. After that, I will—unfortunately—delete it. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC) The DYK has come and gone (drawing 7.5k hits, even without a picture!), so now the statement has been removed. Anything else? – VisionHolder « talk » 02:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC) You have "Current list" - is this going to change rapidly?" should we (per my earlier comment) think about making it a "20xx" list? "Change rapidly" is a relative term. This list was published at the end of 2009. A new list won't be published for another year or more. And I do plan to keep updating the list as new publications come out, just as I do with the List of lemur species as new species are published, which at this rate is more frequent than publications related to this article. Anyway, creating separate lists makes it difficult to have summaries of previous list members and side-by-side comparisons. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC) More soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support enjoyable read. Reg. title, if the common name is used, I'm quite satisfied. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 07:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the former list members should also have the information given for the current list members (distribution, threats, perhaps reason they're no longer on the list). Ucucha 07:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

  That would be nice, but the current and previous reports don't summarize or consistently provide that information. The current report offers this info in a table while the others do not. Although I could extract a list of "threats" from the text for the past two years, the previous reports are no longer accessible (from what I can tell) and were much shorter. (I think the first report was 1 page long, the next only a few pages more.) Also, there has not always been a full explanation of why each species was taken off the list. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

  Per your recommendation, I have expanded the table for the former list members. At your convenience, please let me know if it looks okay. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I did some work on the taxonomy of the old lists and other aspects of the list, and I think it now covers the subject comprehensively. Ucucha 08:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Well written and well sourced list. Although the title gave me a pause when I read it the first time—I was thinking about a different kind of primates at that time. I have one question though. Among threats to Gray-headed Lemur are mentioned cyclones. Why are they so dangerous to this species? Ruslik_Zero 17:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks for your review and support. The short answer is that their limited range is frequently damaged by cyclones on a yearly basis. Since it's a fruit-eater, it can be hard-hit when fruit trees are damaged a fail to produce fruit. Let me check the source when I get home, and if it explicitly states this, then I will try to clarify briefly in the table. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

  Actually, I was able to download the document at work, and it just noted that a cyclone in 1997 cut the population in half, but did not give details. But I do know from other sources that damage to food sources is a severe threats to many eastern rainfoest lemur populations. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Well written and well presented article. I was wondering about the lead, which generally sums up the article and doesn't contain information that isn't covered in the rest of the article. This means references are generally avoided in the lead as they come after in the main text (something I know you're already aware of). Is this different in list-class articles? If not there should be more about the inception of this list in a separate section. Jack (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

  That's a good question. I haven't written for FLC in a while, and I was going on off an older FL of mine, List of lemur species. If it needs to be shuffled somehow, just let me know. But given that I've already got a few supports so far and no one has said anything about it yet, I'm not sure if that's a requirement. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 11:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

*Comments Great list, two minor stylistic quibbles, but otherwise nothing wrong I'm seeing. I may be missing it, but I don't see any expansion of "IUCN" anywhere. It should be expanded on first use. In the notes, there are three incidents of citations like "[59][60][1]" Can these be reordered in numerical order, please? Courcelles 07:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC) No problem. Both have been fixed. Thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 11:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Good work. Courcelles 11:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you! – VisionHolder « talk » 03:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support but why Sunda Loris & Eastern Black Crested Gibbon don't have pictures? (there are pictures at the respective articles) --Egmontaz♤ ^talk 15:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

  The pictures do not specify which subspecies is shown, and given that these animals belong to specific subspecies, I don't want the pictures to be misleading. Thanks for the review and support! – VisionHolder « talk » 03:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

  fair enough, thank you for answering. --Egmontaz♤ ^talk 09:20, 23 August 2010 (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 16:33, 24 August 2010 [4].

---

1976 Winter Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Parutakupiu (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I still have 1988 Winter Olympics medal table nomination undergoing but with 4 supporting users and another one's comments addressed, so I hope you don't mind if I open a new nomination procedure for a similar type of list. Thanks in advance for all comments. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 20:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support meets criteria. Quick feedback on the image! Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 11:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 21:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

: what makes Sports-Reference.com a respectable sources? Per [5], the contributors are noted Olympic historians, also responsible for the Journal of Olympic History. Bill Mallon, in particular, has published multiple books on the Olympic Games. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Sports-reference.com also hosts sites such as basketball-reference and pro-football-reference, which have been praised and cited by reputable sources, including Sports Illustrated, The New York Times, and ESPN. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC) the medal picture is a derivative work, and I'm not sure it is thus properly licensed. How come? It's has the exact same license(s) as the original, as required for derivative works. Parutakupiu (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC) I mean the medal is copyrighted and therefor so is a picture of it. At least that's the impression I get from the image reviews, but I'm not certain. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 16:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC) See clarification on that here. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments If the medal pic is fine, then at least tell me which kind (gold/bronze) it is! I wish I'd know. The author/uploader did not discriminate that... Nonetheless, there's this image (File:Dorothy Hamill gold medal.jpg) of a gold medal from these Games. In fact, it's from the same photo collection of File:1988 Calgary Olympic Winter Games gold medal.jpg which I used for the 1988 Winter Olympics medal table list. I could switch to this one, though I would prefer to crop it and thus have to make a derivative work (if no one is against...). Parutakupiu (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC) "were a winter multi-sport event" sorry, I'm usually pretty easy going with the discretionary plural but this doesn't work at all. "were a ... event"? Corrected. Also corrected in the 1988 list. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 1000->1,000. Corrected this and other instances. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC) "and only four of them" remove only. Rephrased clause, it didn't sounded as good without the "only". Parutakupiu (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC) "Liechtenstein won its first Olympic medals in the alpine skiing slalom events, thanks to two third-place finishes by Willi Frommelt and Hanni Wenze" would rephrase perhaps to say "Liechtenstein won its first Olympic medals in the alpine skiing slalom events, with bronzes to both ...."... Rephrased. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC) "contributed to three " or simply "contributed three"? did she win them solo? She won two golds solo but the third was in a team event, so she wasn't solely responsible for that third gold, hence the "contributed" ... Removed "to". Parutakupiu (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC) "Great Britain's last Winter Olympic medal had been a single gold at the " -> last ... medal ... had been a "single" gold. No need for "single" if you're saying that was GB's "last ... medal". Absolutely right! Removed. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC) "None of these teams won any medal." I feel a bit dirty here, but this reads nasty, maybe (using a US-vernacular and modern parlance) you could say "None of these three teams medalled", and merge it back using a semi-colon?! Done. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC) The vertical image gallery. Why bold text? It's the default style of {{multiple image}}. It wouldn't be bold if I placed it at the bottom (footer), but I believe it makes more sense at the top. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 02:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

*Comments "For the fifth time since it first participated at the 1956 Winter Olympics, the Soviet Union clinched the first place in the gold and overall medal counts, with 13 and 27, respectively." This isn't in either of the general refs, so it needs a citation. Couldn't find a single ref confirming its first places in the previous four occasions. I could add separate refs to each Games' medal table they won, but they'd just clutter the text and I prefer to just remove that statement. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC) "Liechtenstein won its first Olympic medals in the alpine skiing slalom events, with bronzes to both Willi Frommelt and Hanni Wenzel." This sentence needs something; it reads as if these were Liechtenstein's first alpine skiing medals, not first medals overall. Rephrased sentence. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC) "In a repeat of that performance, the British medal was won by figure skater John Curry in the men's singles with a still-standing record total score." The first clause doesn't actually make much sense- Britain's medal in 1964 was in bobsleigh... Rephrased so it becomes clearer in that aspect. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC) ref 2, the paper's title in 1976 was simply the Daily Record ,give Ellensburg, WA as the location. Done. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Location for The Spokesman-Review Location added. Thanks for the review! Parutakupiu (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Courcelles 21:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Good work. Courcelles 02:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Support – "she came close to win a third in the giant slalom". "win" → "winning", I believe. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Corrected. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Well made list. Goodraise 20:55, 22 August 2010 (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 16:33, 24 August 2010 [6].

---

List of St. Louis Cardinals first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Wizardman 15:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list as a result of this list being requested. Naturally, this ended up being one of the largest lists; I don't think any other franchise we've written about yet has 66 draft picks. You would think a franchise with this many titles would have more recognizable names, but it happens. Anyway, here's the next one in the draft pick collection. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 15:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Many of the pictures are of poor quality, including the lead one. Are there no better ones available? If not, wouldn't it be better to use a higher-quality lead picture and leave some of the poorer ones further down? Ucucha 15:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  I could replace a couple and move some around, i just didn't want the pictures to be full of just players from the past ten years. I can probably move the Brian Jordan pick up as the lead image since he had a strong career as well and the pic is better. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  I swapped a couple, including the lead. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 20:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

*Comment Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 07:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Why doesn't 2002 always sort in the bottom? Not sure what this means. There's no draft pick to sort so it naturally goes to the end of the list if that's what you mean. There is the class=sortbottom, so it always goes to the buttom, ascending or descending order. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 11:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Added it in, though it remained in the same area. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Why isn't location sortable? It wouldn't do much good, sorting by the first name of the high school or college, at least I don't think it would. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Lead isn't the best in the world, being a summary of the stats table. Would like some subjective opinions on who of the drafts had the greatest career, failed miserably, etc. A bit more flavour. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 20:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support I changed UCLA to University of California, Los Angeles due to my general dislike of acronyms in an article that doesn't expand them. (In the interest of full disclosure, I have made several edits to this article in the past, but still consider myself impartial in evaluating it.) Courcelles 23:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments "and one second basemen were also taken. The team also drafted one player, Leron Lee (1966), who played as an infielder.[3] " what makes the one second baseman less significant than Leron Lee? i.e. why pick out one singleton draft over another? "they used on Braden Looper" no need to repeat first name. "J. D. Drew (1998) is one of four first-round draft picks " vs ""MLB First Round Draft Picks". ESPN.com. ESPN Internet Ventures." consistent hyphenation (even including erroneous websites) please! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Issues fixed. For the first one, I added it in separately as drafting someone as an infielder rather than a specific position is rather rare; I've only seen it twice in all the lists created. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment - "Seven outfielders, six shortstops, six third basemen, six first basemen, four catchers, and one second basemen were also taken. The team also drafted one player, Leron Lee (1966), who played as an infielder." - The word "also" was used in consecutive sentences. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment from KV5

• As far as I'm aware, general practice is still to redlink young players who are still in baseball (not retired) at the bottom of these lists so that if articles are created for them in the future, they will be properly linked here. — KV5 • Talk • 14:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  It was like that originally but was changed, not sure why. Redlinks put back up. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  Support, well done. — KV5 • Talk • 13:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. The only thing I would tweak would be "Two of the Cardinals draft picks...". The team name could possibly use an apostrophe at the end, although I'm not 100% sure it's needed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. I could find no problems. Because I live in the St. Louis area and I am a slightly disinterested Cardinal's fan, I gave this list an extra critical review because of the potential of conflict of interest. --Dan Dassow (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2010 (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 16:22, 24 August 2010 [7].

---

List of cities and towns in Utah

Nominator(s): Bgwhite (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list. The only other FL city lists are Tennesse and Arizona. I've added the etymology column used in county lists such as Utah's. Bgwhite (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Does "concentrated along" (last paragraph of lead) mean "concentrated in"? Ucucha 18:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Added wikilink to Wasatch Front. The use of "along" or "in" depends on what is your definition of Wasatch Front. It can mean the western side of the Wasatch mountains, so "along" would be correct. It can also mean the general area including the valleys and mountains, so "in" would be correct. Common verbiage in Utah is to say "along" no matter what definition of Wasatch Front you use. Bgwhite (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
    • But it doesn't say concentrated along the Wasatch Front... it says concentrated along four counties, in which case the proper phrase should be 'concentrated in'. --Golbez (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
      • You are correct and I'm wrong. Changed to "in". Bgwhite (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular talk 21:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments Title needs to be changed: either "municipalities" or "cities and towns". 'Cities' doesn't cover the whole list. Agreed. I vote for "cities and towns". Should the move be made after FLC or now? Sorry, I've never moved an article. Bgwhite (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I've inquired with Dabomb. Jujutacular talk 21:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC) "Cities and towns are granted "the authority..." Where is this authority granted? Fixed. Added Constitution of Utah. Bgwhite (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC) "where they created Salt Lake City" Strange word choice - how about "founded"? Fixed. Bgwhite (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Is there a difference between a blank etymology box and "Unknown"? If sources state the etymology of a city is unknown, I put "Unknown". If I couldn't find a source for the etymology of a city, I left the cell blank. What is the best way for dealing with this? Bgwhite (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I think you've finally discovered what Donald Rumsfeld was talking about with "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns". You know some of them are unknown, but some of them you don't know if they're unknown. :P --Golbez (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I see, leaving it as is would be fine with me in that case. Others may have a better idea though. Jujutacular talk 21:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC) What makes http://www.ghosttowns.com/ a reliable source? Removed reference. Bgwhite (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Congratulations (condolences??) on just being made an administrator. Does this mean I owe you $50 instead of the usual $25 for supporting an article? :) Bgwhite (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC) $25 is the usual?! My agent must have been skimping! Jujutacular talk 21:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Jujutacular talk 16:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. Jujutacular ^talk 21:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Note. Page moved from "List of cities in Utah" to "List of cities and towns in Utah" per discussion above and request here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments Lead image could be increased in size. And the caption for it needs a full stop. I would link municipal charter as it seems quite relevant here. "the first European settlement." where? Clarify for the non-US readers. "Initial colonization along the Wasatch Front were mostly..." "was mostly" (colonization is singular). Wasatch Front is overlinked in the lead. Note A just says "city" but some of the places with note A are towns according to your definition in the lead. Why does sq mi not have a leading zero for areas of less than 1 sq mi while sq km does? Lots of blank cells in the Year settled column, a note would be useful to let us know why. Same for etymology. Especially since you have at least one "Unknown" there. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC) I think I've addressed your quibles. But, I'm not sure about where first European settlement and the wording on the three new notes. Bgwhite (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC) I guess I'm saying you need to state clearly that it was the first European settlement on mainland US, notes are poorly formatted right now, did you preview? (I never do..!) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Has to mean first European settlement in what is today Utah. --Golbez (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Say it then. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Ok, fixed. Sorry I misunderstood you. Bgwhite (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Golbez (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

*Comments: "As of 2008, there are 243 incorporated cities and towns in the U.S. state of Utah. A municipality is called a town if the population is under 1,000 people. If the population is over 1,000, the municipality is called a city." I suggest combining these sentences; "As for 2008, there are 243 incorporated municipalities in the U.S. state of Utah. A municipality is called a town if the population is under 1000, and a city if it is over 1000." or something along those lines. That way, you aren't repeating as much, and you do in two sentences what was done in three. Changed the wording Bgwhite (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Out of curiosity, are any county seats unincorporated? No Bgwhite (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC) I see a redlink... which brings up a problem. There's no specific reference saying Central Valley exists, and there's no general references provided for the list. Don't make me hunt through the specific references; you need to either provide a general reference outside of the reflist, or (not as good IMO) source each entry individually. Either way, as it currently stands, at the very least the Central Valley entry is considered unsourced. Duh, best if I added the source where I got the 243 cities from to the article... stupid me. The list comes from the Census Bureau. Bgwhite (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC) --Golbez (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Comment - "Named" is overused in the etymology column. Since that's what etymology means, it's not necessary to use it, and it's used somewhat randomly. Compare "Named after the grove of cottonwood trees found in the area" with "Red-colored mounds west of town", or "Named after Saratoga, New York and the local springs" with "Naples, Italy." Some of these make some sense (the entry for Enterprise, for example), but if possible, try to prose the word "Named" out of the column, where appropriate. "Etymology" is basically fancy-speak for "Named for", so don't repeat yourself. ;) --Golbez (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC) But, but.... fixed. Bgwhite (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I made some changes, but the etymology for Enterprise is strange. "Name reflected the ability to adjust to problems experienced by the first settlers" Who's adjusting? Should it read, "Name reflected the first settlers' ability to adjust to problems"? Fixed Bgwhite (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC) I'm still a little concerned over the redlink for Central Valley; I know the town was incorporated since the Rambot run, but perhaps a stub could still be thrown up based on what we know? I created a page for Central Valley. It is a stub. Bgwhite (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Finally, the 'settled' column ... is there information on when a municipality was incorporated? If so, and if it's complete, this should be added to the table, I would suggest possibly at the expense of the elevation table. Utah is high, we get it. ;) I'm not sure the elevation contributes significantly to an understanding of the list entry...

• As other city pages used incorporated, I was originally going to use it. However, it was slow going to find info. I was getting information on about 1/4 of the cities. I called three cities to find info and they said they had the year settled on their letterhead, but they would have to ask somebody on when the city was incorporated... I gave up and just used settled. BTW... Utah is not high :) BYU was just named the most stone-cold sober school for 13th year running. However, Utah leads the nation in per capita use of prescription drugs, especially anti-depression drugs. (Insert jokes here). Bgwhite (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Heh, my school (GWU) was named, I think, the #2 party school in the country by Playboy when I was there in the 90s. It thoroughly confused us. ;) Hrm. The incorporated thing nags at me, but if there is no easy sourcing for that then I'm fine with letting that slide... for now. ;) Keep up and you might find some source at some point, but as the list is it's good enough. :) Support. Though, one last comment: Dabomb suggested ^, #, and *, and I personally think * is a much better 'first indicator' than the others, and suggest you replace # with * in the article. --Golbez (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Comments A few comments:

Resolved comments from Ruslik_Zero 18:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

**Initial colonization along the Wasatch Front was mostly made by individuals with no direct involvement of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Does this mean that along the Wasatch Front Utah was colonized by non-Mormons? No. Most individuals were Mormon. Individuals decided where they wanted to settle with no involvement from the Church... ie, wherever the farmin' was good. I say "mostly" because there were a few places, such as Provo, that the Church organized. It should be written less ambiguously. Ruslik_Zero 14:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Add that the individuals were Mormon to the article. Bgwhite (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Should not the table have a key or a footnote for the county seats per WP:COLOR ? I hoped by also saying county seats were also in bold would satisfy WP:COLOUR. Does it or should I also add a footnote?Bgwhite (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC) A footnote is a must here. Ruslik_Zero 14:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Add a # symbol per Dabomb87's suggestion below. Bgwhite (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Ruslik_Zero 19:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Enjoying the continuing series of Utah lists... Not directly related, but I noticed that Town does not mention the definition of a town in Utah. Perhaps you could add one? Also, pipe the town link to [[Town#United States]], or [[Town#Utah]] if you add that section. You link Church of the Latter-Day Saints, but perhaps you should link "Mormon", too. "The largest city is the state's capital of Salt Lake City with a population of 181,698 and the former coal mining town of Scofield is the smallest town with 26 people." A bit of a run-on. Add a comma after "181,698", I think. Perhaps mention that William Jennings Bryan was a presidential candidate? Bold used as an indicator is generally discouraged by the MOS. I'd suggest a symbol, such as ^ # * What makes http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/h/HUNTINGTON.html reliable? The article appears to have been written by Edward A. Geary; is he a reputable historian in this subject? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC) All comments addressed. I had to look up Edward Geary. He is an English professor at BYU. However, I base the Huntington article as reliable because it is from the Utah History Encyclopedia. The encyclopedia was originally published by the University of Utah and edited by Allan Kent Powell, a very notable Utah historian.

• On a side note, I've noticed I only get about 1/2 of the updates in my watchlist from the towns in Utah article and other FLC articles I've nominated. I didn't get yours or Ruslik0's latest comments in my watchlist. Is this just me or a common problem? Bgwhite (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • No, I experienced the same problem. Granted, my watchlist is very busy right now, but I just double-checked and did not see your response at all. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Egads, I'd hate to see your watchlist. You probably have it set up like a stock ticker, updated pages just scrolling by... flc cities up 50 bytes leeds fc down 674 bytes.... Bgwhite (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Actually, I use Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:Featured lists/Candidate list as my "FLC watchlist". If I didn't, I probably would give up on my watchlist altogether :) Dabomb87 (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Good job - the list is comprehensive from Springdale and Hurricane to Moab and Salt Lake City...Modernist (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - It appears to meet all FL criteria. --Dan Dassow (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2010 (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 14:32, 21 August 2010 [8].

---

List of FC Barcelona records and statistics

Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This has gone through PR. It has just been merged with List of FC Barcelona honours (that seemed to be the consensus), which was also through PR. It's based on the other FL stats-pages. Comments are welcome! Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Disclosure: I have informed all non-usual reviewers of the previous article I've had here, to garnish reviews.

• Comment—a dab link to River Plate; no dead external links. Ucucha 17:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • fixed Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 17:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Support—The list is logical and understandable. It appears to be properly cited. My only concern is that the list may not be of general interest. --Dan Dassow (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the support. Reg. "general interest", there exist a long-established consensus on WP:FOOTY that these list are appropiate. It is also used in the existing featured topics on football.Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 13:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with Sandman, there is definitely consensus for doing it in this way. As a side note, if the statistics of one of the biggest sports clubs in the world isn't general interest, then I've wasted a heck of a lot of time on various Hertfordshire, Watford and Seattle Sounders lists! --WFC-- 22:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I've changed my vote from "Weak Support" to "Support". I still have the concern whether this list is of general interest, but that probably says more about my general lack of interest in sports, than on whether the list is of general interest. --Dan Dassow (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose (and yes, it's good to see you back) "various numbers of records" no need for "numbers of" "have set a record in winning" - set records. "Since it began playing in regional competitions to the end of the Catalan championship in 1940 they won..." - it->they... reads badly. "On the domestic level " maybe just "Domestically.."? "still running" hyphenate if you use this phrase. "The club has a tradition for high-profile players; paying large transfer fees for some of the most accoladed players" comma, not semicolon. Maradona should be Diego Maradona in the lead. And stop repeating "they" here. "When they paid a record £5 million for Maradona in 1982 they sold him two years later for another record £7 million to Napoli. " no, they didn't get 7 million back "when they paid a record-5m", they got it two years later. what do you mean? If they sold him for 5 million and a pound it was still a new transfer record. It's not profit record, just transfer. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 08:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC) He means that it is wrong to say "when they paid....in 1982.....they sold him two years later", that is completely grammatically incorrect. A better wording would be something like "The club paid a record £5 million for Diego Maradona in 1982 and sold him two years later for another record £7 million to Napoli" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Oh okay. Inserted. Thanks :) Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 08:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC) "The clubs players have received...." club's. "thereby setting a record number of awards received by clubs." forget this, just say "The club's players have received a record number..." That's a start, i.e. the lead done. More to come when you've resolved this. Oh, check for hyphens (I've seen a few) instead of en-dashes... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Check all I believe Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 08:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Oppose "they have set record in winning" records? And perhaps instead of this, "they have won record numbers of both official and unofficial competitions" (although I would question the inclusion of anything considered "unofficial" here without good reason). Where else to include the Inter-cities fairs cup? Shd it not be mentioned? Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 14:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC) "Since they began playing in regional competitions to the end of the Catalan championship in 1940 they won a record 23 times out of 38 possible." -> needs a comma after 1940, and what did they win 23/38? "regional competitions"? Finally, would say something more like "they won a record 23 titles from a possible 38." Done Domsetically -> typo. Done "Copa del Rey and Spanish Supercup of the still-running competitions." wrong way round. Both of these are still-running, so you could say "Domestically the club has a record number of titles in the still-running competitions, namely the Copa del Rey and the Spanish Supercup"... or something similar. took your phrase "The club has a tradition..." is this referenced or is this personal opinion? reworded "for high-profile players," instead of "for" these players, do you really mean "signing" these players? per above Any reason why European transfers from club to club are in British pounds? to compare across time. GBP existed since the transfer of Maradona. "23 times during the span, 1901–1940, of the tournament" perhaps "during the entire span of the tournament (1901-1940)". Or maybe "during the 40-year span of the tournament"? last option sixtuple->sextuple. ofcourse "back left to front right" doesn't work for me, what order are the ones in the middle because the front right is fifth. Why not just from left to right? from left to right starting with the back? "however they rarely, if ever, field their first team." needs a reference. removed Under honours, you don't link Madrid and do link Bilbao, why? RM was linked earlier. wl now. Is the plural of Copa del Rey really just Copa del Rey? I think you've asked this before. On here you capped it. FIFA uses a plural s. Is that a better solution? "FC Barcelona is the only European side to have played continental football in every season since its inception in 1955." referenced? And what do you mean by "continental football"? Consider a non-expert reading this. Removed. I only have a management book as source, but user:lafuzion likes to add it, I'll ask him about it. hereof is possibly grammatically correct but reads very strangely in a modern sporting article. "10 of which..." Done "it was their first world cup trophy." be careful here, stick to the same terminology in case someone says that Barca didn't win the World Cup. Done Enough for now, I'll get onto the statistics once you deal with these comments. Cheers for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC) all answered. thanks for review Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 14:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment What makes The-Sports.org and Soccerlens.com reliable sources? All other refs look good, and nice touch in #43. Not sure why that isn't more commonplace. --WFC-- 22:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Replaced with LFP and NY Times. Thanks! Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 14:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments : Been trying to find enough time to give this a proper review but it's not going to happen, sorry, so a few quick comments only. The arbitrary nature of the content of records and statistics lists makes them difficult to review quickly

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

*Can you be consistent about closing year format in seasons. e.g. in La Liga winners, you use a full closing year 1928-1929, whereas in runners-up, you use only the last two digits 1929-30. Either is allowed, per MOS:NUM#Years, but just the last two digits is more generally used with football seasons. of course. shd be consistent now. Also, be consistent about whether or not you have a full stop (period) after each string of seasons ofc. dotted now. If the new Catalan Cup is a reserve-team competition, as per the prose, does it belong in the Regional titles section? Cannot find source so prose is removed. I struggle with the use of italics in the scorelines to denote Barcelona's scores (might be just me) to be honest, bold really works well here. IAR? Some of your scorelines have hyphens rather than endashes found two. Unofficial titles. What is one? For instance, the Fairs Cup trophy playoff isn't a title, it was a game to decide who kept the trophy oh yes that's true. Removed. The Pyrenees cup is not considered a trophy by UEFA/FIFA/LFP, but was the most prestigious tournament in which Barcelona participated until 1920 (Murray, Bill; Murray, William J. p. 30). Also, I'm not comfortable with the inflation adjustment, the British Consumer Price Index doesn't really have any relevance to football transfer fees in Spain. If there were a Football Transfer Index, it'd be another matter Football transfer index? Euro and pesetas are convertible to pounds, so it tells the reader how expensive previous signing where in current time. Copa Eva Duarte. Without any explanation of what it is, 1952 and 1953 don't make sense. And there's no need for the microscopic font size :-) Was given without competition as Barcelona won Spanish Cup and La Liga better? Still no explanation of what it is: the English reader of a list like this is likely to know what La Liga is, and the Copa del Rey, but less well-known competitions might need explaining I've included a brief description. I don't know whether a footnote wd be more aesthetically pleasing. Friendly competitions. Do pre-season friendlies really belong in a list of "honours"? I'm quite indifferent. What does the people say? The general public has no opinion, so away they go. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 13:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC) References or notes columns in tables shouldn't be sortable oh of course not. I'm having problems making it unsortable with the current "width=5%" parameter. restrict the overall width. But I'm not sure whether there are better ways of making fixed-width columns: what works on one browser/screensize may not on others. Perhaps someone with more technical knowledge might advise Done I believe. What's the source for the top five transfer fees being the top five? This isn't just you, I'm generally uncomfortable with lists of "top" transfer fees, on the basis that most of the time fees are undisclosed anyway. No source. Shd it be "list of transfer fees" removing top? I see all the other Stat pages have the same problem reg. transfers Standards differ, over time, and depending on individual reviewers' attitudes to sourcing. It'd be nice to know why you believe they're the top five, all the same. Ah, okay. Well Ibra and Villa has been mentioned in the world top ten, so those two are pretty certain. I've thought of making a more free list of transfer fee progression, which the man utd list uses, but I cannot find any sources for the earlier transfers (pre 1980). Image captions: full stop (period) after whole sentences, not after fragments I cannot tell the difference. Honest to God. If it's got a verb, it's a sentence. If it hasn't, it's a fragment. "Johan Cruyff is the only Barcelona player to win the Ballon d'Or twice" has a verb, "is", so it's a sentence. "Johan Cruyff, the only Barcelona player to win the Ballon d'Or twice" doesn't have a verb, so it would be a fragment. By that token the three images starting with Valdes shd be dotted, and so they are now. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 13:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Ref #62, the career of Maradona, isn't the BBC, it's h2g2, which is a collaborative project hosted by the BBC, and as such not a reliable source found more respectable ref. from which you've omitted the title :-) titel ->title in parameters :) Overall scorers. What's the source for the top ten? The cited source at the Barca website only has top five, and doesn't have any detail even for those five Oh sorry, seems to be a mix-up, I'll get to it. Couldn't find the original source. I have replaced with a list of top-scorers in Europe (a bit rough, but I'll fix the minor glitches), of which the source is clear that this is the top-scorers. I'd expect a stats and records list to have a top scorers in competitive games section. It's hard to believe that this really can't be sourced, for such a big club included a table with goals scored only. It is manually updated from then (late 2008), is that ok? Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 13:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Prose in general needs copyediting by a native speaker, but particularly in the Players section Or if you can't find one, have a read of some of it yourself. The first line of the Most official appearances section reads "This is a list of the highest number of officials appearances for the club. ... In the column "Europa" are included all matches in UEFA competitions." Your English is better than that. had a go at copyediting. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 13:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Try The "Europe" column includes all matches in UEFA competitions, and the "Others" column includes all ... included. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Most official appearances. What does "official" mean? excluding friendlies. Including all official (FIFA/UEFA/LFP) tournaments. So only competitions "owned" by those organisations are "official"? That's confusing for the English reviewer. But if that's the case, for consistency with that definition, you'd have to move your Fairs Cup titles out of European titles and into Unofficial titles. Why is that confusing? What does the average Brit consider an official tournament? Fairs Cup moved. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 13:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC) It's the word "official". When my club entered the Fairs Cup, for instance, they did so officially, put forward by the Birmingham County FA and with the knowledge of the football authorities domestic and international. Towards the end of that competition's existence, teams qualified for it by domestic league position as they do today for the UEFA comps. Just because the current European governing body didn't run it and resented its existence because it took interest away from "their" European Cup, doesn't make it "unofficial". Further, are you sure FC Barcelona makes this definition of official? as far as I can tell, they count the Fairs Cup as the same thing as the UEFA Cup. Certainly on the source you use for the Top scorers in international competitions table, Mr Kocsis has 11 goals in the "UE", and he finished playing 6 years before the UEFA Cup was invented. Strikes me that FC Barcelona's "official" is what the Brits would call "competitive". okay, I see. I've changed the list of trophies to only reflect competitive matches, regardless status with FIFA. I've listed the one they try to have recognized as unofficial. I've changed the wording in most app/goals to competitive. In the references, there are several months called Jule They are now called July Ref #61 has a typo fixed Thanks for the review, I'll get to the rest soon. All should be dealt with Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 07:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC) One more comment. Many of the La Liga records have a source that says Barcelona got so-many points or scored so-many goals, but no source to say that was a record. Struway2 (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC) It's from their own list of records but the reviewer in PR found that unacceptable so I tried to supplement with LFP refs, perhaps I've deleted the ref to the record list in the process. So put it back? Sorry, I didn't expect you to reply so quickly, normally it takes a couple of days, I was in the process of going through all of the records again, I should have said so. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Yet one more comment. What is the source for the breakdown by competition in the Most official appearances figures? The cited source includes totals only. I've deleted the breakdown. I was certain there was a source, but it appears not. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC) The list of trophies not-won is in the seasons list :-) Have a look see if List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics#Team records gives you any ideas, that list has best and worst for pretty well everything they include, and the structured layout helps readability. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I've applied same structure, I believe.

• In the record scores and wins part, there's an awful lot of best wins and winning streaks but not much worst losses and losing streaks

• There's also a list of trophies won, but not of how many not-won. :)

• I think that longest losing streaks should be provided alongside longest winning streaks, and that longest run without winning should be provided alongside the longest undefeated streaks. This will add context to the achievements, and in nearly all cases. For instance, your Longest unbeaten run at home in League matches is 67 games. Admittedly I'm guessing, but I imagine that the longest winless run at the Nou Camp in La Liga is closer to 6 or 7 games. --WFC-- 17:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• longest winless run at Nou Camp is 5 in la liga. longest non-winning away-run 10. both added :) Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 19:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I'm too busy to give this FLC any more time. It's concerning that I'm still finding tables like the one mentioned above that are basically unsourced. Again, apologies for not being able to complete the job I started. Struway2 (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Dabomb asked me to return, so I have.

• Again I'm sorry, I've should have written I was on it. Thanks for the review so far though! Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Where did the losing streaks go?
    • It can be included depending upon the answer to below. I'm not sure whether this is against or within wikipedia policy. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Please restore the reference to FC Barcelona's records page to the top of the Team records section. That source is better than none, and some of them still have none. It'd be easy to do if there were any prose in the section. Perhaps a sentence saying "FC Barcelona's team records include the following:" (insert reference here) and hope it really does cover the unsourced ones...
    • Hmm this touches on a delicate subject. Is it reasonable to back up a claim with a finite number of sources? I could of course cite all of the other seasons to prove that the 2002-03 season is the season with lowest point-tally, with 3 points for a win. Wikipedia policy demands verifiability, and it is possible to verify the claim, although its extensive. So is a qoute to the season enough? Should I also note a "access other seasons via the search button" ? Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Has the All-time most appearances table ever had a source for those being the all-time most appearances? If you can't find a better one, use http://www.fcbarcelona.cat/web/english/club/historia/jugadors_de_llegenda/segarra.html
    • used Segarra. I know there exists a better one. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Likewise the All-time overall scorers? neither of the cited sources above that table verify it. Try http://www.fcbarcelona.cat/web/english/club/historia/jugadors_de_llegenda/escola.html . It says Escola was 5th all-time, so if the other four have more goals, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume those are the top five
    • Found better source. Even included the original top-scorers breakdown now. Much better. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning to Weak support. I haven't given this list a full review. It would take too long, given that AFAIK there's no established consensus as to what should be included, and this list doesn't follow the structure of the previously-featured (English club) lists, where I'm well acquainted with what sources exist. It's much better sourced than it was when first reviewed, but even today on my third (fourth?) visit I'm still finding unsourced tables (see above). MoS is fine, structure's adequate. Still bothers me that for a club the size of Barcelona there's apparently no accessible book source for statistical stuff. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry there isn't a book on the subject, but I can't find any. I'll be happy to use it if it exists. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• ConditionalWeak support You've had two fantastic reviewers above me, so I'll defer to their judgement on the prose. I have a pretty minor concern over whether the list is complete, but I am happy that the information is accurate, reliably sourced, well structured and appropriately illustrated. --WFC-- 17:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Changed to weak support based on Struway's final comments. I do differ with Stru on one point though: I don't think the lack of consensus on football lists in general should be held against this one. Especially given that Sandman has gone to quite extraordinary lengths to try and get consensus over a period of months. --WFC-- 17:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I didn't hold lack of consensus against the list. I cited lack of consensus about what should be included, which meant I didn't know what I should be looking for, as one reason why it would take too long to give it a thorough review. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose – Too many grammatical errors for my taste. A lot of them are in table lead-ins, where they are easy to miss, but they should still be resolved if this is to be promoted. The financial figures in the lead ($5 million and $7 million) should have non-breaking spaces in them; I included examples of the formatting here. Done. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FAC 18:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Honours: "10 of which in official UEFA competitions." "in" → "were" or "came in". were "having failed to do so on two previous occasions". The only time they participated in the Club World Cup that I can see was 2006. they also participated in the 1992 intercontinental cup Is that the same event though? Our article on the Club World Cup is somewhat unclear. It says the tournament was first held in 2000, although it was apparently supposed to succeed the older Intercontinental Cup. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC) I cannot find many sources that discus the history of FCWC, but "club+world+cup"&hl=en&ei=AOxkTMWOOJHb4gbaqoTRCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=fifa%20%22club%20world%20cup%22&f=false this book does equalize FCWC with intercontinental cup. Mourinho also recently said that even though Benitez shd win the intercontinental cup it wd be his trophy. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 07:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC) The Club World Cup and the Intercontinental Cup are completely separate competitions. First, the two competitions ran in tandem in the 1999-2000 season; and second, one is run by FIFA, the other was not. The closest the Club World Cup comes to being the successor to the Intercontinental Cup is to say that it is the Intercontinental Cup's "spiritual successor", but that doesn't mean anything in terms of the actual history of the two competitions. – PeeJay 18:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Okay sentence changed. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FAC 18:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC) In the photo caption "Barcelonas 1952 Latin Cup", it should be "Barcelona's". done In Unofficial titles, spell out RFEF. done It now reads, "after the Royal Spanish Football Federation is considering...". "after" makes it sound like this has already happened. Is that the case or is this still ongoing? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC) re-written and updated. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 07:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Players: "was one of the club's first football players the club had...". Glaring redundancy in the prose. done "This makes it the club with most FIFA World Player awards received by the players." Add "the" before "most". the added Most official appearances: "officials" should be "official". Done All-time most appearances: Add another "the" before "most appearances" in the prose? There's a similar issue in All-time overall scorers. 2x the added Topscorers scorers in all competitions: Title is a little funky. -scorers, split topscorers "This list all topscorers in competitive matches." "list" → "lists". added s Transfer fee received: "This list transfer fees received by Barcelona." Similar issue to the last one. The next section has another similar flaw. added s in both Space needed after reference 39. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review! Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 22:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think this kind of article should only be applied to the greatest 10 or so greatest clubs in the world in any given sport. Barcelona is indeed one of them, this could be a good "bet". I vote for promotion. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Congratulations for the good job done. I had a look and the article seems properly structured and cited.--Jordiferrer (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review and copyedits, much appreciated. Looks like I'll soon be done with this process, only one list left :) Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FAC} 20:49, 17 August 2010 (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 23:39, 20 August 2010 [9].

---

List of Colorado Rockies first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Courcelles (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got two open nominations, but each has attracted some support, and I'm a secondary or tertiary nominator on both of them. Go back a ways and there are some fairly good players on the list, even if the more recent names are a little lacking in star power. A gold glove winner, All-Stars, a rookie of the year, and even an Olympic medallist, they've covered all the bases. I hope you enjoy, and don't pick me off for making bad puns! Courcelles (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 15:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments May have missed this in all the other draft FLs, but "Since the franchise was established in 1992 the Rockies have selected 25 players in the first round. " is stated before a description of what the "first round" means. If the Rockies are an expansion team, perhaps worth noting that in the opening part of the lead. "with four more coming from Texas and" no need for "more" here in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC) The first one may be a common problem with several of these. Re-ordered the first paragraph. Added expansion team, and removed more. Thanks. Courcelles 20:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Quite so. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• In the caption, Rockies should have an apostrophe immediately following.
  • Done. Courcelles
• Don't think Teams in "All-Star Teams" should be capitalized.
  • Wasn't sure when I wrote it, agree, odds are you're right. Courcelles
• Commas before and after Casey Weathers?
  • Reordered the clauses in that sentence, and added some commas Courcelles

Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. Courcelles 22:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

*Comments: "Since the franchise was established as an expansion team in 1992 the Rockies have selected 25 players in the first round." Typically that's the third lead sentence; jumping from the NL West note to the draft note is a bit jarring, so moving that up would help. ", the Rockies' 2007 selection, won a bronze medal " There's no name there. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Well, the second one is why I shouldn't copy and paste to rearrange sentences at work. I've tried a third tact with your first point, because it was arranged that way, but TRM wanted it changed. Courcelles 19:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Comments "...MLB's annual June draft. Officially known as the "First-Year Player Draft",[1] the Rule 4 Draft is..." - mind as well just link Major League Baseball Draft onto "MLB's annual June draft". "One pick—2002 selection Jeff Francis—was taken out of Alberta, Canada." - Do we really need the "Canada" in it? It's like saying Ohio, United States. Fixed unneeded redirects. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Moved the link. I unlinked "Canada", I agree it was WP:OVERLINKing, but the word itself needs to stay; there are plenty of Albertas. Courcelles 02:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC) I was talking about "MLB's annual June draft" being linked, as it could. Would like the phrase "non-American draft pick" instead of saying "taken out of Alberta, Canada", but doesn't really matter. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Okay, revised, but I used "Outside of the United States" because of the inherent ambiguity in "non-American". Courcelles 17:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment Support

• In this case, I am pretty sure Baseball Reference is wrong, and Jeff Francis was drafted out of British Columbia (UBC) and not Alberta (U of Lethbridge). Its (UBC) what his MLB.com profile lists as well. Canada Hky (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you're right... Changed in the table, and handled the disagreement with a footnote. Also sent an e-mail to Baseball Reference, so hopefully the note can go away before too long. Courcelles 17:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

• "Since the franchise was established as an expansion team in 1992" - comma after
• "in which the Rockies filled their roster" - should probably be through which
• "one player at each of catcher, first baseman, and third baseman." - awkward wording, perhaps one player each at catcher, first base, and third base.
• "The Rockies' 2002 selection Jeff Francis is the only selection" - I would put "Jeff Francis" in parentheses (or some other kind of set-off, it's wrong as is), and re-word to avoid the repetition of "selection... selection".
• As far as I'm aware, general practice is still to redlink young players who are still in baseball (not retired) at the bottom of these lists so that if articles are created for them in the future, they will be properly linked here.

Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 14:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've taken care of all of these, thanks. Courcelles 20:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Support — KV5 • Talk • 12:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

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