Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 2011

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 21:47, 24 October 2011 [1].

---

Edgar Martínez Award

Nominator(s): – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the featured list criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 Tables need row-header markup, captions, etc., per WP:ACCESS; see MOS:DTT for more details. Year ranges like "1997-98" should use en-dashes instead of hyphens. Link Safeco Field. All captions are complete sentences and thus need periods/full stops. No stats in the table? It seems very dry without them. Perhaps it would help to support the idea that the player was the "best" designated hitter in any given year. Remove spaces between daggers and their entries. Replace Unicode daggers with {{dagger}} and use appropriate alt text per WP:ACCESS. Remove superscript from asterisks as they are already superscripted by nature. In the lead, after you have named the teams with three or more players, I don't think it is necessary to enumerate all of the teams with two award winners; that is to say, leave the team names, but the player names can be removed. If the reader wants to see that in-depth, he can look at the list proper. The lead is currently 5 short paragraphs; I think some could be combined to get a solid 3. In the "See also" section: A sub-bullet link to the Silver Slugger winners at DH would not be amiss Direct-link to Major League Baseball Triple Crown rather than a redirect Re-format dates in references to either US or UK date formatting instead of ISO. That's all for me for now. — KV5 • Talk • 21:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC) All good ideas. I'm on it and will let you know when I've completed those changes. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC) All done. Unless you think the table needs a caption, which I think would be redundant with the section title. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC) I think the table captions are important, but for a definitive answer, I would query User:RexxS. Couple of things from after the edits: Can't use bold to indicate a league leader per MOS:BOLD. I suggest italics instead. Dagger template should still be superscripted. Row-headers aren't showing as headers; this is because the code line for the header (the player name) still starts with a pipe instead of an exclamation point. So that would complete that. Key needs row-header markup too. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 11:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Table captions are normally a welcome improvement to the accessibility of a table, particularly as a screen reader like JAWS can call up a list of all the table captions on a page and allow the user to jump directly to a desired table. However, Graham87 tells me that he tends to navigate our articles by calling up a list of section headings in JAWS and going directly to the appropriate section. What this means for us is that if a table is (more or less) the first element in a section, then screen readers gain hardly anything from a table caption if it merely duplicates the preceding section heading – and you may attract criticism from sighted viewers for effectively creating redundant content. We need to be sensitive to the issue that improvements for the disabled may result in making things worse for the sighted, as we have to maintain cooperation between all users to advance the accessibility agenda in an effective manner. Tldr summary: I wouldn't insist on captions directly below headers if the caption only repeats the section header. In this case Key and List of winners are the most likely captions and that means you could omit captions here without any real loss of accessibility. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Thank you RexxS. That means I've completed all of KV5's suggested changes successfully. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Support — KV5 • Talk • 11:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Bagumba (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Bagumba Why a column for hits instead of the more traditional batting average? Or perhaps standardize with List of Silver Slugger Award winners at designated hitter and include AVG, OBP, and SLG.—Bagumba (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC) I took guidance from Hank Aaron Award, which used the same three stats I used here. I'm open to changing it to a different statistic if that would be an improvement. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Aside from the magic 200-hit mark, it seems hits in a season aren't as notable as BA. Further addition of OBP and SLG would be even better still.—Bagumba (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC) I disagree. I think that hits are appropriate here, as the player's position is a designated hitter. — KV5 • Talk • 11:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Considering that the lead makes mention of Edgar's career BA, HR and RBI (because the ref'd article mentions those stats), maybe I should switch out hits for BA? Or should I add something else in addition? Hits and BA would be redundant. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Whoops, still drinking my morning coffee here. I thought his stats were mentioned in the Seattle Times article about how the award was being renamed for him. Those stats are sourced by B Ref and I believe were chosen by someone else before I started working on this page, so I'm not married to them. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC) I would support at a minimum swapping hits with BA. Sampling the sources in the article that announce the last four winners of Guerrero, Lind, Huff, and Ortiz, none of them mention their hits for that season. 4/4 mention BA, 3/4 SLG, and 1/4 OBP.—Bagumba (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Ok, will do. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC) More comments: The article title should also be mentioned and bolded in the first sentence and noted as its common name. Redirects should exist for official and alternative names. Reorder the content of first paragraph with the second. Explain to the reader who currently awards it and how before discussing previous association with AP and why its now named after Martinez. Remove the listing of teams with 2-time winners. Its already large with seven teams, and is only going to become larger and less significant over the years (not to mention overhead of remembering to maintain the trivia). I sorted the table by team and thought at first that the lead was incorrect. Then I realized that maybe the lead should mention teams by how many times their players have won the award (as opposed to number of players who have won.) For MLB.com references, publisher should be MLB Advanced Media. For newspaper references (e.g. Seattle Times, Providence Journal), use "newspaper" param instead of "work" and "publisher". Boston Herald reference should add {{subscription required}}. Reference to All bat, no glove: a history of the designated hitter should use "pages" parameter instead of "page" in cite tempate. No need for "Footnote" section, include the footnote at the bottom of "List of winners". Otherwise, per WP:ORDER, notes go after "See also" Remove (1) from players in the list from their first instance if they won multiple times, as in Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award. Otherwise, its not immediately intuitive why other 1-time winners don't have (1) also. I've never found it in MOS, but I have seen on other pages where editors comment that consecutive citations should be in numerical order (e.g. for Edgar Martinez entry use [2][5] and not [5][2]. Remove the external link per WP:ELNO, "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." There isnt any added value to this link. Alternatively, it can be cited as a reference. Is this considered an official MLB award? Just wondering since Selig made the announcement of the rename. If so, relevant navbox can be added. See also section Worth mentioning above that Ortiz won the Hank Aaron Award in 2005 as the top overall hitter, not just top DH. Aaron Award can then be removed from "See also" Silver Slugger not needed; one can get to it from inside List of Silver Slugger Award winners at designated hitter. Remove Major League Baseball Triple Crown removed as it's not an award and not directly related. This Year in Baseball Awards not needed when there is already a link to Baseball awards, unless there is evidence it is more relevant than other awards. They are handed out by MLB.com, which for whatever reason (marketing?) is a separate entity from MLB awards. List List of Major League Baseball awards before more generic Baseball Awards —Bagumba (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I will get to them on Monday, as I'll be unable to edit much if at all this weekend. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC) To answer the question you asked, no this is not considered an official MLB award. I know it becomes confusing considering that it was Selig who announced the award would be renamed, but the award is maintained by BBWAA, not MLB. I have completed your suggested changes with one exception, and that regards the "See Also". KV5 suggested adding the list of DH Silver Sluggers, and now you're suggesting I take it out. Which should I follow? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC) To clarify, I was suggesting to leave List of Silver Slugger Award winners at designated hitter but remove Silver Slugger. I dont think that is in conflict with KV5.—Bagumba (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC) I suppose not. I've removed it, so you can consider your suggestions completely incorporated. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC) Followup comments (some are new, some I might only be noticing now): Convention:Suggested add suggested delete "... in the American League (AL) in Major League Baseball (MLB)since 1973." Should mention MLB early in the lead, otherwise non-baseball fans wouldnt figure out for a long time this is a baseball article. "The Outstanding Designated Hitter Aaward is voted on by club beat reporters, broadcasters and AL public relations departments.": No need to mention original name again. "The Boston Red Sox players have won the most Edgar Martínez Awards with eight": more accurate Clicking on footnote "a" for 1994 row doesnt bring me to the footnote. Missing a {{reflist}}? dont need a bullet for the footnote at end of table "In addition to Martínez, David Ortiz has won the award five times." Didnt realize the significance at first reading, but I guess its the most times anyone has won. Should mention in the previous Martinez paragraph. "In addition to Martínez, David Ortiz has also won the award five times, all in consecutive seasons (2003–2007). Ortiz won his five Edgar Martínez Awards in consecutive years.": combine sentences, Ortiz's years werent mentioned before "Other repeat winners of the Edgar Martínez Awardaward include three-time winner Hal McRae (1976, 1980, and 1982), and two-time winners Willie Horton (1975 and 1979), Greg Luzinski (1981 and 1983), Don Baylor (1985 and 1986), Harold Baines (1987 and 1988), Dave Parker (1989 and 1990), and Paul Molitor (1993 and 1996)" reword —Bagumba (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC) All done, except the comment about adding Ortiz to the earlier paragraph. I feel that it flows well as is, with the first paragraph about the award, the second paragraph about the award namesake, and the third paragraph about other winners, with Ortiz listed first because he has tied Edgar (and for all we know, could surpass him with his sixth award for this season). If you insist, I'll try to find a way to rewrite it, but I feel it's better as is. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC) What I meant to convey was that the Martinez paragraph should say that five is the most times ever won. Then when we get to the part about Ortiz, we would know implicitly that Ortiz is tied for the most also.—Bagumba (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC) I see. I can do that. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Done. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support All concerns addressed.—Bagumba (talk) 05:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Quick comment Support – Only thing I see is that the lead photo's caption has a glaring redundancy: "Edgar Martinez, for whom the award is named, won the award...". Double "award"s here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The caption has been changed to remove the redundancy. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's been six days since anyone has posted here? Are we done, closing admin? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2011 (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 21:47, 24 October 2011 [2].

---

List of Christmas number one albums (UK)

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I have compared this article to its equivalent singles list, and I hope that it is of a similar quality. I feel that this list meets the FL criteria, and I welcome any comments about how it could be improved. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• The table currently fails WP:ACCESS, see MOS:DTT for info on how to rectify this

• Which parts of WP:ACCESS does it fail? I've added !scope=col to the main column header – do you mean the cell that identifies where the chart stopped including compilation albums?

• Links should not be bolded, to stop this happening add the parameter plainrowheaders in between sortable wikitable

• I think I've done that, but it doesn't seem to have made any difference...

• I would create a separate section for the Notes and not make them small.

• Done.

• Regarding the six references bunched together at the end of note a, they have all the information that is in the table in them. So I would use them as general refs and remove the individual references in the table.

• Completely remove the fifth column? Okay, done.

• Images need Alt text

• Done.

• Ref 11: Daily Telegrph needs to be italicised

• Done.

• Ref 14 is a dead link

• Replaced.

• What makes Gigwise a reliable source?

• Gigwise has editorial oversight, and I'm reasonably sure that it also has the fact-checking that we require from reliable sources. From what I remember, I found that particular page in a Google News search, and they're apparently notable enough for a Wikipedia page, so I took that all to mean that it was sufficiently reliable for us to use.

NapHit (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the comments! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments The list doesn't sort properly. The cell with the text "From 14 January 1989, compilation albums featuring various artists were no longer included in the UK Albums Chart." gets thrown into a position where it makes no sense. I made that particular row unsortable, simply because that cell is only really relevant when the number ones are sorted by year (the list's default position). Ideally, the row would disappear if the list were sorted by anything else (i.e. artist, album or weeks at number one) because then it is no longer relevant, but I can't think of any way of achieving this. Any suggestions? Yes. Take it out of the list and place it as a note right above the list. Jimknut (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC) The picture of Deborah Kerr: Are you sure she is on the soundtrack of The King and I? Her singing voice was dubbed in the film by Marni Nixon and I think it's Marni's voice on the album as well. Jimknut (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Ah, wasn't aware of that... Changed. Thanks a lot for the comments! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC) BTW, I've got my own FLC: David O. Selznick filmography. Care to take a look? Jimknut (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC) I'm afraid that I don't know all too much about filmographies on Wikipedia, but I'll take a look. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)]]

Support – looks good. Jimknut (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "and each week's new number one is first announced on Sunday evenings by on the The Radio 1 Chart Show." The "by on" has at least one excess word, maybe two. Agh, how did I miss that? Fixed. Should "per cent" be one word? According to MOS:PERCENT, "per cent" is the British spelling. Number-one albums: Remove hyphen from "most-successful"? Done. Could move the Take That link up one sentence to the first mention. Done. Hot Press should be italicized in ref 8, as a printed publication. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC) Done. Thanks very much for the comments! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from WFCforLife

• This list's use of "as of 2011" is problematic. Usually when an article makes potentially dated statements such phrases are useful. The problem in this specific instance is that Christmas hasn't come yet, and the lead will be incorrect whilst appearing up-to-date when it does. I have offered suggestions on how to get rid of it below.
• I'd suggest changing the bookmakers paragraph, from "For example, in 2010, British bookmakers William Hill and Ladbrokes both issued odds of 2/5 on for Take That to top the album chart at Christmas—as of 2011, these are the shortest odds that William Hill has ever offered for a prediction on the festive number one album." to "For example, in 2010, British bookmakers William Hill and Ladbrokes both issued odds of 2/5 on for Take That to top the album chart at Christmas—at the time, these were the lowest odds William Hill had ever offered for a prediction on the festive number one album." Using this wording means that the phrase will not go out of date even if a new record is set.
• The "21 of the past 25" statistic should be reworked to explicitly state the years involved. "As of 2011" is ambiguous; "between 1986 and 2010" is not.
• Finally, I would suggest changing "As of 2011, 52 different albums..." and "As of 2011, there have been 52 different..." to "As of Christmas 2010, ...".
• Just as a note, I've done the access work that I believe was being referred to above.

Once the above is done, as I assume it will be, I can be considered a Support. I think that the list is great, and would be a good candidate for today's featured list on Boxing Day. I like how on top of highlighting key aspects of the list, the prose gives additional background information on why the list matters. —WFC— 22:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've made all the above changes that you've suggested, although I have put "December 2010" rather than "Christmas 2010", simply to make use of the {{As of}} template. If you think "Christmas" would be better, I'll happily change it again. Thanks very much for the review and the support, and thanks also for fixing the access problems - much appreciated! Happy editing, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments (sorry to have taken so long to get here) "The Beatles have released seven Christmas number one albums, more than any other artist." would prefer "any other act" (as I find it hard to accept "artist" being used for a group. Done. I see no good reason to capitalise "Original Soundtrack" in the table, just "Original soundtrack" should be fine. Done. "Singer Marni Nixon provided vocals..." reference for this? Done. "Elton John has topped the albums chart twice at Christmas, in two consecutive years." No need for the "two" here as it's self-evident. Done. Do you need to abbreviate OCC? You only use the abbreviationce once but use "The Official Charts Company" a number of times afterwards, mainly in the references. Fixed. I see no relevance in the last two external links to OCC's Xmas Number 1 albums. Removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Thanks a lot for the comments! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support good list. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2011 (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 21:47, 24 October 2011 [3].

---

List of 1960 Winter Olympics medal winners

Nominator(s): A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) , Courcelles 19:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Time to bring another of this series here. Squaw Valley, the little town that came from literally nowhere to host these Games. Biathlon is contested for the first time, and amazingly, the host committee just didn't build a bobsleigh track! Hope you enjoy the latest entry in this series. Courcelles 19:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments: I'm reluctant to chip in here on this because: I've never even nominated a list or other article for FA or FL; I can only imagine how much hard work has gone into this; I don't have clear instructions for how to address the comments I want to make; and my remarks will come across as negative, when there's clearly more to praise here than criticize. Having said that, however, permit me to respectfully offer these remarks. I won't be opposing or supporting, but offer these thoughts for other reviewers. It looks as though the last 36 of the 41 refs here are all from the same Web site. That makes me a bit itchy, as I worry that we mostly just copied somebody else's work (last January). The general reference verifies the list, if you know how to use the IOC's database. That's a tricky proposition, so the links are there for one-click access to verify the individual names. This was a change made in this series of lists after the stink made at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners/archive1. Courcelles 21:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC) The tables don't look very accessible to unsighted or even sighted users. It seems that the Event columns should be row headers; here they look like just another column. And a heading like "Men's" just seems incomplete. I don't know what to suggest here, other than to ask those more experienced in WP:accessibility issues (like User:RexxS) to see what they think. Thanks to someone figuring out what to do with {{MedalistTable}} to accommodate the scope arguments, this is now sorted, row scopes added to the event fields. As to the "Men's", well, that's the description of the event. There's nothing else to call the event, the general type of event is always taken from the level 2 header above the table on these. Courcelles 22:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Update, going back to put the row scopes in the last one of this series, the Cortina list provided the solution. They now say "Men's individual" instead of just men's. Only one event per discipline, so not strictly necessary, but it worked a few weeks ago when the 1956 list came through. Courcelles 22:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC) "Men's details" seems even weirder (or naughtier) the more I look at it. Maybe some parentheses around "(details)"? I think you're overthinking this one, parenthesis around details would just look silly, and break the format of all Olympics lists, a couple dozen of which are already FL's. Courcelles 22:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC) I'd prefer to see the "details" redlinks done away with. They seem less useful than, say, 2012 Hurricane Season, or some sure-to-be-notable-someday politician or actor, where at least the target is obvious. Per WP:NSPORTS, all events at the Olympics are considered notable enough to have their own article -- that's why the redlinks are there. Courcelles 21:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC) I think what bugs me here isn't that there's a redlink text (to what deserves to be an article some day) in the middle of some prose, but more of a bait-and-switch, teasing offer of here-are-some-details — psych out! no there's not, ha ha, sucker!. Do you see what I mean? We gone out of our way to separately offer some – oops! – non-details. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC) And anyway, why aren't these things linking to subsections of Figure skating at the 1960 Winter Olympics? Isn't that what most (all?) of the other details links are doing (to the respective main articles)? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Done as an interim measure, though someoen is going to have to remember to undo that once the articles get written... Courcelles 15:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Sometimes country names are italicized, sometimes they're not. It seems they should be consistent, unless there's some reason for the inconsistency, in which case that should be (better) explained. They're templates, that you'll find on any of thousands of pages concerning the Olympics, see {{FlagIOCathlete}} and {{FlagIOCteam}}. Courcelles 21:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC) As a sports ignoramus looking at the speed skating table, I'm wondering why, in the Men's 1500 metres event, no silver medal was awarded. Perhaps a footnote? Two racers tied for first, in which case no silver is awarded (as placings are tied for first, tied for first, third). Added a footnote. Courcelles 21:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Again, I don't feel strongly enough about these (perhaps minor) details to get up on my hind legs to oppose the nom, but they seem like enough (in my mind) to keep the article from deserving "Featured" status. I nevertheless congratulate and thank the editors who've worked on this page; I do sincerely appreciate their efforts. Maybe the FLC process will both improve the article and get it to "featured"? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe I can support the featuring of this list, now, too. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments Great lead photo! "of the sport of bobsleigh" perhaps "of bobsleigh events" would read slightly better (in my humble opinion of course...) Fixed by Courcelles A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC) "part in the sports of" don't think you need "the sports of" here. Fixed in two spots, one by Fluffernutter, one by Courcelles A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC) "won the highest number of medals with a total of three" -> "won the most medals with three" Fixed by Fluffernutter A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC) "won two medals including a gold medal in the" remove second medal.. "including a gold in ..." Fixed by Fluffernutter A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Thoma caption, worth clarifying the other two were medallists at the summer games... Fixed, probably a little awkwardly, by Fluffernutter A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Shouldn't 10000 and 3000 metres be comma'ed? The ref is comma'ed... Not sure what the MOS says about commas for this - I'll leave it for Courcelles to address. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC) It's a "may or not" job, see Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Delimiting (grouping of digits), but if you do one (i.e. the 10000, mandated) then you should be internally consistent and do the 3000, 5000 etc.. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Fair enough. Commas added. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Ref 42 could use a format parameter. Fixed by Courcelles A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments Support –

• Comma would be well-place before "omitting bobsleigh and adding men's biathlon".
• Does "Men's" need to be capitalized three times in the last sentence of the lead? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Both handled, thanks, Giants. Courcelles 23:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments: I do not think WP:ITALICS applies to VIII Olympic Winter Games. I actually think the italics was your idea a few of these lists ago... WP:ITALICS is not absolute likeWP:BOLD is in any respect. Courcelles 06:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Really? I can't remember... Possibly. If true, now I don't see a reason for the italics. But I won't push this one further, although uniformization across these series would be ideal. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC) "... 1956 Winter Olympics omitting bobsleigh, and adding men's biathlon..." – I'd put the first comma right after 'Olympics'. Fixed A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC) "... the latter being biathlon's first appearance in Olympic competition" – I'd make this a new sentence ("This was biathlon's first appearance...") and link it to the following about military patrol. Tweaked to read "...and adding a sport new to Olympic competition, men's biathlon. The sport of military patrol, similar to biathlon, had previously been a medal sport in 1924..." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC) "... was by necessity; the venue..." – the semicolon could be replaced by 'as'/'since'/'because'. I think 'site' would sound better than 'venue', as I tend to associate the latter with an individual infrastructure (arena, stadium...). I think the semicolon works here better than a conjunction would. Changed "venue" to "site." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC) The clauses scream "merge!" for me, but it's your call. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC) "... lacked an existing bobsleigh track" – 'existing' is extraneous. Fixed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC) You think it is necessary to state that women also competed at these Games? In my guess, this would be far more relevant for earlier Games, where women were in fact a small percentage of the competitors and took part in very few events... but in the 60s this was not considered 'exotic' anymore. It sore of was strange, in the early 60's, of the eight sports, women were barred from competing in four of them. (Indeed, only in Sochi will women be allowed to participate in ski jumping!) Courcelles 06:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC) OK, then I would rephrase to emphasize how relevant that situation was. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC) "The Soviet Union was awarded the most medals, with its athletes winning seven gold medals, five silver medals, and nine bronze medals, for a total of 21 medals overall." – 'medal' overdose! De-medalified. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC) "...12 of the available 18 medals in that sport, and..." Changed to "..winning 12 of the available 18 cross-country medals and the remaining six medals being won..." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC) No need to say "cross-country", the sport's been stated at the beginning. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Right, fixed. Courcelles 18:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC) — Parutakupiu (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2011 (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 21:47, 24 October 2011 [4].

---

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1945)

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this as the last of the five Oak Leaves lists for featured list because I feel this list may meet the criteria already. The number of read links is less than 15% and within the limit of what I have seen to be acceptable here. Due to the few number of recipients in the years 1940 and 1941 the two years had to be merged into one list. Now completed the five lists 1940–1941 (currently a featured list), 1942 (currently a featured list), 1943 (currently a featured list), 1944 (currently a featured list) and 1945 will comprise all of the generally accepted 882 recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves. I welcome any constructive feedback. Thanks in advance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments MOS:DTT suggests the use of col and row scopes to better aid screen-reading technology. You should apply that here and to your other, similar lists. Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC) "15–18 March 1945[149]" why the range, he could only have died on one single day! Hm, it seems that the exact date is unknown today. Scherzer states that he was killed sometime between 15 and 18 March 1945. Suggestions? MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC) A footnote saying just that would be fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Then why does his article list a specific date of death, vice a range? PumpkinSky talk 01:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Good question. I don't know. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC) While that is a good question, it's not within the remit of this nomination to fix all the other junk in Wikipedia. It would be helpful if the information a FL linked to was consistent though... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC) I update his article reflecting my sources MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Reviewed through most of the notes; will look at the rest later. In note 9, a space is needed after the parenthetical part. Note 20: "from SS-Bridadefuhrer Joachim Ziegler, Ziegler...". Wish the repetition from one sentence to the other could be avoided. Comma would be nice after "who was verifying the Oak Leaves presentation of behalf of Fellgiebel". Next-to-last sentence of this note could use a semi-colon or two to to replace the commas. Contraction needs fixing in note 21: "didn't". Note 31: "There is no reference that the Oak Leaves awarded to Adalbert von Blanc in the German National Archives." Missing "were" before "awarded"? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 11:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the constructive feedback! I believe to have addressed all of the above comments. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Note 33: "The accompanying letter is presented by Franz Thomas. Franz Thomas...". Another case of repetition from one season to another. You could combine the sentences into one, or if that's too long change the second one to "He" or something. There's also something like this in note 43, with two Burgdorfs back-to-back. Note 36: Is "on the 21 April" acceptable phrasing in British English? Not too familiar with it since I use American myself. Another contraction here: "isn't" about halfway through this note. And "wasn't" a little later. Note 39: The comma after "decided 'Oak Leaves yes' but deferred" should be something else: either a semi-colon or period. Note 42: Remove second "the" from "The presentation date was later assigned by the Fellgiebel."? The same is in notes 43–46. All this assumes that this is the book author, not a group (it's easy to lose track of things in a multi-part review). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks again, all addressed MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Support As the last in a long series of similar articles, most of my concerns together with what has been recorded above have been addressed and I can see no reason not to support. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support, but wouldn't it be better to use a diff symbol than a question mark, as it looks like the names are in questioned, maybe even ^ or others
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2011 (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 21:47, 24 October 2011 [5].

---

List of Florida Marlins managers

Nominator(s): Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria, and also because it's one of the remaining few managerial lists that isn't yet featured. The other three post-90 teams have only had a few managers, so they don't have enough to fit the guidelines. The Marlins, however, have had 11 managers in not even 20 years. Take that for what it's worth. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments "division in MLB. The team joined MLB in " consider merging to "division in MLB, joining in..." "losingest " seriously, what is happening to the English language these days...! Seriously, we certainly don't see that commonly in BritEng, can you say "the coach with the most losses" or something similar? "the manager position, and his second stint as manager" repetitive, reword please. "is part of the" wouldn't "is inducted in" or "is a member of" better? Never quite sure but shouldn't season-and-a-half be hyphenated? "took over for Girardi" I thought normally we "took over from"... "and after a one-game stint by Brandon Hyde,[13] McKeon returned for a second stint as manager." two x stint, repetitive. # isn't in the key. "Elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame [14]" remove space before ref. "Interim Manager" -> Interim manager. The hash column doesn't sort correctly, and I would still expect the second stints to sort in correct order once it does. Not sure PA, PW etc does either. Don't mix date formats in the references. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Issues fixed with the exception of the hashtag; I would think most readers would know that that means managerial number/order, but if you think otherwise I could add that in. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC) I think it needs to be added so people understand what the em-dash means. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Added. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments on accessibility

• Images all have substantial alt text - well done.
• The main table has column headers marked up and scoped. Although tables generally benefit from having row headers, this may be one of those less usual cases where no unique row headers are available.
• The main tables and the Key use the symbol † which is inaccessible (common screen readers don't recognise it). I'd strongly recommend using our accessible templates instead. You could use {{†|alt=Elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame}} and {{‡|alt=Interim manager}} to replace † and ††, for example.
• Tables generally benefit from captions, but as all three tables are positioned almost immediately after a level two heading, either the caption or heading would be redundant, and choosing to have headers and no captions is acceptable in cases like this.

--RexxS (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Access key on the table is fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry I wasn't very clear about the accessibility problem with † and ‡. A screen reader like JAWS just drops those symbols silently, so a blind use would never hear anything to tell them that Tony Perez was elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame and was an interim manager, for example. The templates replace the symbol with an image, allowing us to use alt text to say something useful when the screen reader encounters the template (like speaking out "Elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame" after saying "Tony Perez"). So we need to replace every occurrence of † or ‡ with the corresponding template. I've done that for you; hope that's ok. Unfortunately, because they are images, we can't superscript them as you had done with the text symbols, but you might want to consider whether superscript is a good idea anyway, since the superscripted star ^* is tiny and may be missed by anyone with poor vision. --RexxS (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

  Noted; I went ahead and removed the asterisk superscript too, since I could barely see them myself. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

  I believe that the article is now as accessible as it can be reasonably made, easily meeting our FL criteria for access, and would support on those grounds. --RexxS (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support – A short one, but the content looks good. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

• "in MLB, joining MLB" - seems a little redundant, any way to re-word?
• Lead para should be 12 managers.
• "season-and-a-half" isn't a compound noun; remove hyphens or change to 1+1⁄2 seasons or one-and-one-half seasons (wherein "one-and-one-half" is a compound number").
• "who was only manager"
• Change to direct links for the following players in lead and table: Fredi González, Tony Pérez, Edwin Rodríguez, and Ozzie Guillén.
• I do think that the row headers would be beneficial, especially since one table has them and one does not.
• Remove spaces surrounding en-dashes, per MOS:DASH.
• Remove spaces between indicators (daggers, asterisks) and their entries (ex. "Joe Girardi*" instead of "Joe Girardi *").
• Superscript daggers and double daggers as they are cap height.
• Got a red/dead in the ref list.

That's all for me. — KV5 • Talk • 00:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Will get to in a couple days. McKeon's retirement and Guillen's swift hiring threw off most of my list modifications and I'll probably have to rewrite the lead now, since some records may have been changed. I'm learning not to be a fan of the Marlins after doing this list. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll be back to check in. — KV5 • Talk • 22:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Issues fixed with the exception of the superscripts and spaces on the daggers/asterisks. I had them like that originally but per above comments, they were too small and hard to see, so this helped for accessibility. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I struck the two concerns above that were completed. The rest haven't been. The claim that the daggers can't be superscripted isn't correct. I do it all the time, and it doesn't make them any smaller, so they should still be superscripted. The concern was with the asterisks, which are still spaced and shouldn't be. — KV5 • Talk • 15:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed except for the rowheaders, because I can't seem to get them to show properly. I'll keep trying though. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll get it for you. Can be tough the first couple times round. — KV5 • Talk • 15:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. This list has my Support. — KV5 • Talk • 15:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:12, 21 October 2011 [6].

---

Toni Braxton discography

Nominator(s): Novice7 (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it now meets the criteria. (I developed this article in my sandbox first.) I have formatted the tables per WP:ACCESS (Please do let me know if the current format is awful. I didn't follow the WP:DISCOGSTYLE format on this discography.), added sources for chart positions, sales et cetera. Thanks in advance for your comments, Novice7 (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Some suggestions: " ... twenty-one music videos. Her mother, an opera vocalist ..." > I just think something should go in between these two sentences. Possible example: "Braxton was born in [state] in [year]." "The song failed to chart; however, Toni Braxton's voice caught the attention of producers" > "Although the song failed to chart, Braxton's voice caught the attention of producers" "In 1991, Braxton recorded songs for the soundtrack album of 1992 film Boomerang starring Eddie Murphy" > "In 1991, Braxton recorded songs for the soundtrack album of the 1992 Eddie Murphy film, Boomerang." "Toni Braxton, the album, has sold about ten million copies worldwide." > " The album sold over ten million copies worldwide." (We already know it's self-titled album, plus "about" seems too vague) "It also cracked the top-ten in many other countries including Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK." > How about "made" or "reached" rather than "cracked"? "... became Braxton's first number one single in the US" > Spell out "US" as "United States" here and elsewhere in the introduction. Likewise, spell out "UK" as "United Kingdom". "It also charted within the top ten in countries like Canada, where it topped the Canadian Albums Chart, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK." > What country is "like Canada"? How about saying "it topped the charts in Canada, France ..." or "It topped the Canadian Albums Chart and also the charts in ..."? The lead single "He Wasn't Man Enough" became another top-five hit in the US for Braxton and the second single "Just Be a Man About It" became a top-ten R&B hit." > What chart was it a top-five hit on? Also, put commas before and after the song titles (i.e: ... single, "He Wasn't Man Enough", became...) "The album charted within the top twenty in the US and received a gold certification in the US." > "In the United States the album charted in the top twenty and also received a gold certification." (Better not to have "United States" twice in one sentence.) "... signed a record deal with Blackground Records. The first album release through Blackground, titled Libra, debuted at number four ..." > "... signed a record deal with Blackground Records. Libra, the first album release through them, debuted at number four ..." "Later, in October 2008, it was announced that she had signed a record deal with Atlantic Records and her seventh studio album titled Pulse was released in May 2010." > "In October 2008 she signed a record deal with Atlantic Records. Pulse, her seventh studio album, was released in May 2010." The lead single from the album "Yesterday", peaked at number twelve on the R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart." > " The lead single from the album, "Yesterday", peaked at number twelve on the R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart." "With a career spanning over a decade..." > "In a career that has spanned nearly two decades..." Change all the charts so that the font-size to all of them is 100%. Jimknut (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Addressed comments. Novice7 (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Support – Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Jimknut. Novice7 (talk) 06:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from — Status {talkcontribs 21:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

A few comments Compilation albums include greatest hits AND remix albums. They should be in the same section. Box sets are not linked in the infobox. I wouldn't say "Solo singles" is the proper to use for the singles, as some of them have guest spots, thus they are not "solo". I don't see why there needs to be a "Music video appearances" section when it can just be a part of "Music videos". Not too sure what the notes add to the article. For other charting, that's what separate articles are for. — Status {talkcontribs  01:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your comments Zach. I've fixed the first three issues. As for the fourth issue, I don't think they should be merged as I want the "featured" appearances to be separate. Featured singles and featured appearances. I hope you get what I mean. Now the last issue, well, I think the notes should stay. I was told in a previous FLC that even if songs/albums have separate articles, references or notes are needed to verify their existence in the discography. Novice7 (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Everything looks good. :) — Status {^talk_contribs 21:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Status! Novice7 (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments – The lead gives one of the songs as The Good Life, but our article is omitting The. I'd imagine we should follow what the primary article on that song calls it, assuming the article is accurate.\ Remove hyphen from "newly-formed". More hyphen issues: one sentence has no hyphen in "top ten", but there is one in "top-five". This should be made consistent, no matter which way you go. Also, "top-ten" is hyphenated later, so there are multiple inconsistencies. "which asked for a release from the contract." Since the contract itself hasn't been mentioned before (other than signing), I'd prefer seeing "her contract" or something similar. "The album debuted at number two on Billboard 200 chart...". Missing "the" before Billboard? Extended plays: Minor, but a comma would be nice after "previously unreleased track" in the third entry. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Fixed/Done. Thanks for your comments Giants! Novice7 (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

;Comments:

• Compilation albums: Sales and Certs section serves no purpose as there is nothing listing. Please remove them.
• Infobox says 21 music videos, i only count 20 with 4 appearances. Please address this.

- (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed and removed the two columns. Thank you for your comments Lakeshade. Novice7 (talk) 05:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Alright I'm not seeing any other issues so I will support this articles' promotion. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much Lakeshade. Novice7 (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:12, 21 October 2011 [7].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Africa

Nominator(s): _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk), Arsenikk ^(talk) 02:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

One of hopefully six lists that feature World Heritage Sites to be nominated here. World Heritage Sites in Africa have had a rough time properly maintaining what gave them the prestigious label in the first place: diverse fauna and flora, important historical sites, culturally significant locations, and above all else, the fact that they have been relatively unscathed from the effects of continuous human evolution. Various risk factors have come into play in recent years, such as civil wars, poaching, illegal timber exports, and unrest; reasons for which UNESCO has placed 12% of the continent's site on their List of World Heritage in Danger, the highest percentage worldwide. Hopefully this list is satisfactory and reviewers enjoy reading it. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Very glad to see this list at FLC. Looks very good. Just a couple of comments/questions/suggestions...

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

*"0 sites" should be mentioned in the map legend. If possible technically, the legend could be arranged partially horizontally to save space. If by "0 sites" you mean sites whose area is marked with an em-dash, the information is mentioned under the description for the "Area" column. As for your second request, I'm sorry but you may need to clarify, as I don't quite understand what you mean. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC) I mean countries without any sites (marked white in the map). In my opinion each map color should be defined in the legend. The second part of my request is not that essential, but on my screen the legend in the map caption is arranged vertically which leaves some empty space to the right of it (within the caption area) and stretches the whole image/caption thing vertically. I forgot to respond to this. The legend was modified but now the new map is ready and has been placed on the article. I'll get a legend done once I get to my computer later tonight. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 13:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC) The new map looks very good. My only suggestion (in addition to the legend) would be to give it a bit more space, not to have the dots merge with the image frame. bamse (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC) I'll see what I can do. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC) Done. Guess I'm not that useless with Inkscape after all, haha. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC) If you want to practice more with inkscape ;-), you could change colors a bit (but not at all essential) for two reasons: i) countries with "1-2 sites" seem to merge because the color is too similar to the border color; ii) the color used for "no sites" is a bit too prominent for my taste; I'd prefer the brightness to increase gradually from 0 to 7+ sites. bamse (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC) Better? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC) IMHO, countries with few sites are too prominent due to the choice of color. I'd prefer a color scheme like this increasing gradually from white for no sites to red for 7+ sites (or green or any other color you like). If the bright colors are too similar to the border colors, border colors could be changed to black or dark grey. bamse (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Sorry, you said "I'd prefer the brightness to increase gradually from 0 to 7+ sites", so I thought you meant darker for 0 sites and brighter for 7+ sites. Changed the colors again, I'll update the legend later. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Sorry my fault. I meant "darkness" (not brightness) to increase gradually. The present map is perfect if you also update the color in the caption/legend. bamse (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Done, and tweaked the colours a little. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC) How should overseas territories (both, with the main country in the map and the main country outside of the map area) be covered by the map? I had never even thought of including, for example, Spain on the map. I consider it supplementary information provided in the Legend section. As for the overseas territory, see the next concern. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Not including Spain, etc. on the map is fine with me, for the rest, see below. bamse (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Apparently Canary Islands (belonging to Spain), one on Madeira (belonging to Portugal), one on Réunion (belonging to France), and one on Saint Helena (belonging to the United Kingdom) are not marked in the map. As noted on the talk page, User:Arsenikk had made a different map which covered this issue. I would edit it to remove the wording, but I'm an absolute novice when it comes to vector graphics, and I have no idea how to do so. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC) I could edit it, but don't have an svg-editor at the moment. Did Arsenikk color these islands and if yes, in what color (including sights in mainland Spain for Canary Islands, i.e. 7+ sites color or not?) bamse (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC) He did not. None of the territories were large enough to be included in the original source map, apparently. Only a dot was placed. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC) The scale bar in the map is too small to be readable for me. I don't think it is really necessary for this kind of map, so I'd get rid of it. Yeah, it was on the source map and I had not noticed it until I uploaded it. As I said, I'm a novice with the SVG file type. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC) I'd do that, but as mentioned, can't at the moment. Probably either WP:GL/I or WP:GL/M could fix those map issues in a second. bamse (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC) I posted a request, thanks for the suggestion. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC) As mentioned, requests have been fulfilled. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC) Also, did you make sure that the map projection is equidistant when you added the scale bar? Answered just above. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC) "Several efforts have been devoted..." by whom? Done. [8] Clarified the link between that and the following sentence. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC) "to do this" does not read well IMHO, maybe better spell it out what is meant here. Tried to re-word it, but I'm not sure if it's clearer. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Not sure what "(see below)" refers to or whether it should be used in wikipedia at all. Done. It's no longer necessary with the link to the Danger article, which was further down the lead. But it was a bad addition to begin with, I agree. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Is there a better way to write "The fund was ... funded..."? Done, indeed there is. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC) " funded by South Africa (US$3.5 million)" suggest to replace parentheses with "with". Done. Agreed. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC) "...conserving and protecting the regions..." not sure what regions are meant here? Changed to "areas" because it's meant to designate the "human origin sites"... I don't know how to better specify without repeating the word "site". EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC) How is table sorting implemented for sites that are in multiple countries or in more than one region? Done. Described in legend. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Multiple regions should probably also be mentioned in the legend. bamse (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Done, tried to word it concisely. I'll admit though, they were sorted randomly, so I'm going to go through them to change that. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC) "Location – at city, regional, or provincial level" Should the country be mentioned in this legend? Done. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Will continue with a table review later. bamse (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the initial comments. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Table review: "a aquatic" -> "an aquatic"? Is "park is in the zone"->"park is located in the zone" better? It's what was there before I copy-edited. User:Epbr123's prose checklist notes it's redundant. Is "housing" a good word in "housing of refugees in the park" Not too fond of the uKhahlamba Park description (which is marked as direct quote) since it relies on "exceptional beauty" which might give issues with NPOV. I realize that it is not always easy to transform UNESCO's language full of superlatives to something suitable for an encyclopedia, so if you tell me that a direct quote is the only way to go here that's fine with me as well. I whipped something up with fresh eyes. "ranging over than 100,000 years." should probably be edited. Capitalize "Christian". I was told not to do so when it acts like an adjective... Googled it and found it was a bunch of crap, haha. "The groups of stone circles are among over 1,000 monuments along the Gambia River." Do you mean "monuments of this type" or any kind of monuments? Clarified. "The site was deemed to be in danger as of 1999..." Has the reason for being in danger changed or should 1999 be replaced with 2011? Nope, just bad writing on my part. "spread across an area 200 km (120 mi)..." reads a bit confusing to me at first since I'd expect to find an area, not a length after the word "area". Only if it is confusing to you as well, maybe it can be phrased differently. "between Sahara and Europe." article before Sahara? I'd remove "is an exceptional area for the study of fauna and flora" from the Lake Turkana description since it not really neutral and would probably also apply to other natural sites in this list. Removed all instances of the word. "helped cemented the World Heritage Committee's decision"... "The city remains, which is surrounded by a wall and feature buildings with Hindu and Arab influence, later transformed to gain a Baroque style by Jesuit missionaries." needs a copy-edit. "resulting in a diverse species and large mammals." Is there something missing or should it be rephrased? Still not too happy : "resulting ... in large mammals" needs an extra word or two such as ("the existence"). Done. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC) "including the Great White Pelican, the Purple Heron, the African Spoonbill, the Great Egret, and the cormorant", replace "cormorant" with the species name ("cormorant" itself is the family) or replace "the cormorant"->"cormorants" "Many endangered species are in its surroundings as well", possibly "its"->"their", but honestly I don't really know what this sentence is telling me. Possibly needs to be rephrased. Fixed with "within its boundaries". In Al Qal'a of Beni Hammad: "The ruins... was founded..." Still needs a copy-edit. My point was that the "capital" and not the "ruins" were founded. bamse (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC) Sorry, got it this time. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC) In "It features an 8-bay, 13-aisle mosque, and is one of the largest in Algeria." possibly "and is one"->"which is one" "as of 2009, its position remains unchanged" why not as of 2011? Seems to reflect the year I had written the sentence. Must have looked over it this year. "in 2001, due to recent cave-ins" Recent at the time, no? bamse (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the detailed review and copy-edit. I didn't reply to everything you mentioned, but they have been corrected. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks for corrections. I am happy with almost all of it. Please see responses above for those that still need to be addressed. bamse (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC) "list of sites in danger"->"list in danger" (and possibly capitalized) since that's how UNESCO refers to it (i.e. always without "sites"). I'm thinking of moving the page to reflect this as well. After the FLC, of course. Which page do you want to move where? bamse (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC) "List of World Heritage Sites in Africa" to "List of World Heritage in Africa", similar to the danger list. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC) Hadn't realized that UNESCO doesn't use the phrase "List of World Heritage Sites..." (correct?). If true, the page should be moved (can be done by an admin now but doing it after FLC is fine with me). bamse (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC) "...has designated 121 World Heritage Sites in Africa." and "...there are 76 cultural, 39 natural, and 4 mixed sites." Why is there a difference of two sites? bamse (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC) ...whoops. Should be 127 sites, 81 cultural, 41 natural, 5 mixed. Done. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 12:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC) I think you forgot to fix it in the article. bamse (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Hahaha, I was in class and I completely forgot to save it. Good thing I posted here first though! EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Can't say whether it is an issue since I am not a native speaker, but when writing about the World Heritage in Danger, you use "loose/gain status" which to me has negative/positive connotations while on the other hand losing/gaining the status is rather a positive/negative thing. bamse (talk) 10:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC) I can see how reading it at first glance can be somewhat confusing; I don't believe it's confusing to the point of requiring a change, though. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 12:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Support bamse (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and your support! _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 18:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 11:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Archaeological Site of Leptis Magna: "who was had been born there." Excess word or two in there, depending on what the intent was. Medina of Tunis: "testifying to Tunis golden age from the 12th to the 16th century." Should Tunis have an apostrophe at the end when used like this? Mosi-oa-Tunya / Victoria Falls: "The falls of the Zambezi River, which is more than 2 km wide, plunges down...". "plunges" → "plunge". Tipasa: Don't need one link to the city in the description, much less two. There's already a prominent link on the left for anyone interested. Missed this, thanks. Refs 30, 63, 64, 114, 117, 128, 136, 142, and 162 have hyphens that should be converted to en dashes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC) All done, thanks. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• In the map, you should add a note above the color squares that the dots on the map are the locations of the sites. As it would help the user understand better.
• Also I would change the † to {{†|alt=In danger}} per ACCESS for JEWS readers and such.
• Some of the PDF refs do not have |format=PDF in thier cites, you should add them.
• In the Legend - The picture of sorting is now diffrent than what it uses now. If you want to use it I would change it to the ones used (due to WP updating to version 1.8) or better just write to click on the triangles in the header.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. And I would appreciate if you could change the sort image as well, because I can't seem to find the image on Commons, if it even exists. Thanks for the comments. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 01:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Support - just the bellow part is need, and the image it self is called File:Sort both.gif.
        – HonorTheKing (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Just one thing from above, Can you do the {{†|alt=In danger}} as above ?.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you wanted them all changed? Okay, fixed. Also I reverted your change to the map's legend; I originally made the first change you requested but changed the alt text instead of the caption. Oops, haha. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: This is a very good list, but there's just one detail that troubles me: having "List" as a section title. Perhaps changing it to "Sites"? Parutakupiu (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. I wasn't sure what to call it. Thanks for the suggestion! _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 23:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Two more things:

• Could you mark the Réunion site in the map?
• "Gough and Inaccessible Islands" are not located on "Saint Helena" but in Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha. This needs to be fixed in two places: in the intro and in the table. bamse (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. Good catch on the map. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:12, 21 October 2011 [9].

---

List of Real Madrid C.F. seasons

Nominator(s): AdrianRO ^talk 15:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it respects the criteria needed for promotion. AdrianRO ^talk 15:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments "Spain's first truly national league" truly is redundant remove it Done.AdrianRO talk 07:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC) "Real Madrid enjoyed a successful start" enjoyed isn't particularly encyclopedic I would change it to had Done.AdrianRO talk 07:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC) "Real Madrid enjoyed a successful start in La Liga, finishing second in the competition's first season." I would move this to after the bit about the copa del rey Done.AdrianRO talk 07:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC) "In the 1947-48 season" you need to use an en dash instead of a hyphen and is there no link to an article? Done.AdrianRO talk 07:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC) "Real Madrid had finished" remove had its not needed Done.AdrianRO talk 07:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC) "Real Madrid went on to win" this could be shortened to "Real Madrid won" Done.AdrianRO talk 07:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC) "club in terms of domestic titles is the 1960s" its past tense so it should be was Done.AdrianRO talk 07:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC) "managed to win" again won would be better Done.AdrianRO talk 07:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC) "having achieved this performance" change to which it has done twice Done.AdrianRO talk 07:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC) the 1955-56 link needs an en dash Done.AdrianRO talk 07:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC) "being also the first ever winners of this tournament" change to and were the first winners of the competition Done.AdrianRO talk 07:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC) "It also managed to win the first five editions of the European Cup, and as of today it is the most successful team of the competition, with nine titles (the last of them being won in 2002)" sentence doesn't read well change to Real Madrid won the European Cup five years in succession since its inception, it won the competition a further four times, the last of which was in 2002. Its nine victories is the record number of victories by any club. Done.AdrianRO talk 07:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC) The links to the seasons redirect to the current page this needs fixing Please be explicit. I don't know what you mean here.AdrianRO talk 07:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Basically the links to any seasons articles should have the years at the start not at the end like they currently are, as at the moment they don't link directly to the page. NapHit (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Done.AdrianRO talk 15:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Sorry, but this has not been done, the La Liga links still have the years the wrong way round. The champions league ones need en dashes instead of dashes between the years. NapHit (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Done. AdrianRO talk 09:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Real Madrid is the team with more European trophies than any other football team (12). That defenitely needs referencing as this list suggests otherwise Done.AdrianRO talk 08:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Generally numbers over 10 need to be indicated in figures Done.AdrianRO talk 07:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC) The Super Cup and Intercontinental Cup need linking in the lead Done.AdrianRO talk 07:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC) That's alot of comments to deal with and that's just the lead, the table also needs alot of work to get it up to scratch. Here's my comments for the table Firstly I would merge the two tables and just put dashes in the areas that are not affected by the early regional championships Done. AdrianRO talk 09:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC) The referencing is a major problem for me is there not a book that covers the majority of Real's history which can be used. The top scorer columns are unreferenced as far as I can see reffed in column note. Sandman888 (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC) You don't need the RSSSF refs for every UEFA competition is there not a ref that covers Real's participation in competitions season by season? The table fails WP:ACCESS see MOS:DTT for more info Using Template:Football season start would solve the pint mentioned above and make the table sortable which is a must in my opinion Any idea how to make it sortable without using this template? Cause using this template means starting out from zero with the table, and that's hard job to do. And, as you can see, I am for a while the only one editing this article. AdrianRO talk 08:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC) If I were you I'd just use the template its easier, look at the Watford list and the Liverpool one to see how. Yes its a lot but all your doing essentially is translating the information over so it won't take that long. NapHit (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC) If your using colours there needs to be a symbol used alongside as well C and 1st are perfectly readable for the colourblind. Sandman888 (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Points total should not be bolded Done. AdrianRO talk 13:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC) The first general ref should be removed it inly plots league position and doesn't provide any other information so its usually useless as a general ref Done. AdrianRO talk 15:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC) As a guide I would look at List of Watford F.C. seasons and List of Liverpool F.C. seasons for help on the table which is a major problem at the moment. The lead is not great either but it can be fixed fairly easily. As there are a number of problems I'm going to oppose for now but if the problems are cleared up I'll be happy to revise that. Cheers NapHit (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC) I just used List of FC Barcelona seasons (which is also a FL) as a guide. The tables structure is quite similar. I worked a lot to introduce every result in the table, so a change in structure will take some time. But why List of FC Barcelona seasons is still a FL while it is very similar to this article? AdrianRO talk 08:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC) The Barcelona list was promoted a while ago and since then guidelines have moved on, as lists such as this now use sortable tables then future lists that are up for candidacy must follow suit. Its WP:POINT to say this list is featured list while mine is exactly the same. The fact is it was promoted a whil ago and the guidelines have moved on, there is nothing more to it. There was an issue about this sort of thing fairly recently see here where you can see the debate about the tables. NapHit (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Nearly there a few more comments: The position column should be after the points column, this is standard practice in seasons lists in wikipedia, it looks weird having that column first, it should come after the results to represent how the season progressed Done. AdrianRO talk 15:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC) You need to use † instead of using † per WP:ACCESS Done. AdrianRO talk 15:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Also move the symbols next to the letter and superscript, an example would be: W* Are you sure about this? Maybe just the symbol needs to be superscript, not together with the "W". AdrianRO talk 13:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Done. AdrianRO talk 15:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC) You use C and F to represent champions and Finalists I would go for W and RU to instead. F makes it ambiguous in my opinion and as use Runner-up in the Key you should use the abbreviation, and as most lists concerning trophies refer to them as winner, I think you should use this. Done. AdrianRO talk 15:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support I feel the list now meets the criteria after the nominator put in some great work to get it there, great work. NapHit (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

comment sortability is not as clear cut as naphit make it out to be. E.g. Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Watford_F.C._seasons/archive1 in the FLC of watford it was very much a debated point. Also naphit you misquote wp:point. wp:point wd be nominating the list of fcb seasons to flrc due to sore feelings after getting this rm list rejected. wp:point is not otherstuffexists. Also the reason the santos list failed seems more to be about the nominator being dishonest than anything else. just 2 pennies. Sandman888 (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the debate at the Santos FLC makes it clear that sortability is clear cut. Its been proven that it is beneficial and I would like to see it implemented, as it is useful to the reader. NapHit (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose lead only, copyedit required. Say "association" football club just to be sure to our US/Aus friends etc. Done. AdrianRO talk 05:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC) "when it entered the semi-final" what? You mean it played that match, right? And against whom? And what happened? Done. AdrianRO talk 05:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC) "Initially Real Madrid .." so after playing someone with some unknown result in the Copa del Rey, the club started playing local clubs etc? Confused. Perhaps you need to put that cup appearance into context. Done. AdrianRO talk 05:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC) "In the period from 1902 to 1929" don't need "In the period". Done. AdrianRO talk 05:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC) "Real Madrid had a successful start in La Liga, finishing second in the competition's first season. The club did not win the league until 1932." reads poorly to me. Merge this and remove the feeling that they should have won it sooner (i.e. you say, they didn't win it until..., big deal... why should they have?) Done. AdrianRO talk 05:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC) "which it has done twice " -> " a feat which it has achieved on two occasions..." Done. AdrianRO talk 05:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC) "in European competition during the 1954–55 season" what season? European season? Spanish season? Done. AdrianRO talk 05:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC) "when they played in the Latin Cup. It won" plural/singular reference to Real Madrid. Be consistent. Done. AdrianRO talk 05:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC) "It won its first European trophy, the European Cup, during the 1955–56 season, and were the first winners of the competition." horrendous. Perhaps something like "Real Madrid won their first European title, and the inaugural European Cup, during the...". Done. AdrianRO talk 05:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC) "Real Madrid won the European Cup five years in succession since its inception, it won the competition a further four times, the last of which was in 2002. " do you mean they won the first five editions of the European Cup? this English is a little difficult for me. Done. AdrianRO talk 05:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC) " Its nine victories is the record number of victories by any club" repetitive - victories, victories. Done. AdrianRO talk 05:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC) "first double of league championship and Cup in 1962." you link La Liga for 1962 but no link for "Cup"... Eliminated the La Liga link because the 1962 Cup link redirects nowhere. AdrianRO talk 05:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC) "are the second most successful club in UEFA competitions winning 15.[5]" - ref 5 doesn't back up the claim of second most successful club as far as I can see. The 15 trophies are depicted in the right of the page, where it says "Trophy cabinet". AdrianRO talk 05:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Fix/copyedit lead, and I may be tempted back to review the remaining part of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "when it lost with 3-1 the semi-final of the Campeonato de Copa de S.M. Alfonso XIII against FC Barcelona." First part of this sounds better as "when it lost 3–1 in the semi-final...". Don't forget that the score needs an en dash, like the one I put in here. Done. AdrianRO talk 09:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC) No need for a second FC Barcelona link in the first paragraph. Done. AdrianRO talk 09:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Also don't need two European Cup links in the lead. Done. AdrianRO talk 09:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC) "It won its first double of league championship and Cup in 1962." The Cup is the Copa del Rey, correct? Maybe make that word "Copa" in the sentence to make it clearer. Otherwise you could be referring to the European Cup. Done. AdrianRO talk 09:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC) "Real Madrid is the second most successful club in UEFA competitions winning 15." Comma needed before "winning". Done. AdrianRO talk 09:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC) The licensing of the lead image is rather suspect. It says it's the uploader's own work, but is from 1905. It's awfully convenient for them to have a 100-year-old photo lying around. Also, the license depends on the author having been dead for 70 years, but the author isn't listed here. Done. AdrianRO talk 10:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Seasons: First sentence doesn't make sense on its own. What period is it referring to? Done. AdrianRO talk 09:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Not sure if the second word of "Spanish League" needs the capitalization. Done. AdrianRO talk 09:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC) In the table headings, decapitalize "Top" in "La Liga Top Scorer". Done. AdrianRO talk 09:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC) The colors for champions and runners-up need matching symbols per WP:ACCESS, just like the ones included for leading scorers. Done. AdrianRO talk 10:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC) In note 4, is "fusioned" meant to be "merged"? I'd go with the latter, as it's simpler to understand. Done. AdrianRO talk 10:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC) The publisher in the general reference has a double period. Done. AdrianRO talk 10:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Refs 1, 2, 3, 5, 20, and 23 have hyphens in the titles that should instead be en dashes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Done. AdrianRO talk 10:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC) The one in ref 1 should have been in the year range, not "Pre-history". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Done. AdrianRO talk 04:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Is there a cite for Real Madrid being the only Spanish team to win five straight titles? No, there is not. It will be good a site with a table of all Spanish league champions? There it can be noticed this fact. AdrianRO talk 05:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Yes, a cite with a listing of all Spanish champions would do. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) Done. AdrianRO talk 06:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Note 5 needs heavy copy-editing or re-writing. The other notes are spotty prose-wise as well. Details for each note would work, as I'm not a native English speaker. AdrianRO talk 21:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Note 5: "The first match against Club Espanol de Madrid finished 5–5, the captain's of both teams opposed extra time." The comma should be a semi-colon, and the apostrophe needs to be removed from "captain's". Done. AdrianRO talk 08:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC) In note 9, the external link should be made into a citation. Maybe put it at the end of the note with the other cite? Done. AdrianRO talk 08:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC) Note 14: Remove en dash from "each–other". Done. AdrianRO talk 08:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC) Note 18 doesn't have an en dash in "Campeonato Regional Mancomunado Centre-Sur" like note 17 has. Done. AdrianRO talk 08:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC) Notes 16, 17, 18, and 20 could all use periods at the end. Done. AdrianRO talk 08:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC) Note 24 could use a cite since the similar note 23 has one. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC) Done. AdrianRO talk 08:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I suggest a sortable table, following the example of List of Manchester United F.C. seasons, which recently been modified to add sortability. A lot of work to be done, but I think the result would be worthwhile. — MT (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Support This current trend of sortability (as if that adds anything but a nifty functionality. More focus on content wd be preferred) notwithstanding I find the list satisfactory. Would perhaps have preferred a split between la liga and non-la liga era, but that is a minor point. Regarding MT's comment about Manu I can only note that the list has sorted R2 in 93-94 together with R2 in 03-04. These R2's are of course not comparable as CL changes format. Sandman888 (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, my above comments about sortability is just a suggestion, not diminishing anything from the quality of the list which is already great and satisfy FL criteria. I just think sortability would be a good thing to have. Perhaps, a split between La Liga and non-La Liga era is needed for proper sorting to work because rowspan does not work with sorting. But it's up to the nominator whether to implement sorting or not. About Man Utd list, I'm not the one making the changes and sortkey in there, I just happen to watch that page during its recent FLRC, where sortability is suggested. User:HonorTheKing and User:RexxS are the editors doing the hard work in that list and they are probably the editors to ask for help if the nominator need any help to make this list sortable. — MT (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If you check the history of this list, you'll see that there was a split between Pre-La Liga and La Liga eras just like in List of FC Barcelona seasons article. But it was suggested by NapHit to merge the two tables. AdrianRO ^talk 06:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I see, but I just realize that split or not it does not really matter. In the split version, there are still rowspans in the La Liga table. It would be impossible to use sortable table because of the rowspans in multiple "League" competitions from 1928–29 until 1939–40 would not allow proper sorting. The other rowspans in multiple "Other competitions" such as in 2002–03 season could be substituted with Template:Unbulleted list / {{ubl}} (example: ManUtd's 1999–2000 season in List of Manchester United F.C. seasons). Well, I have no other idea how to implement sorting on multiple "League" competitions and their statistics, an expert help is needed if you want to try for sortable table. — MT (talk) 07:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If Template:Football season start is used there is no issue with sortability being hampered by rowspans as it works fine see the Watford and Liverpool lists. Per the pre La-Liga and La Liga bit, there is no issue again as it will sort fine. Look at the above lists to see how it works. It isn't hard to implement and in all honesty should have been done weeks ago, as I reviewed the list at the start of September. NapHit (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by nominator and editor

• I made the table sortable. However there is a problem I don't know to solve: when sorting certain columns, the 1936-39 line appears at the top of the table. For example, when sorting Pos column ascending, the "1st" should appear at the top, not the 1936-39 row. AdrianRO ^talk 11:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about its supposed to that, it still sorts properly so its no problem. NapHit (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, great job on sortable table. I've made a minor change to allow 1936–39 row always placed at the bottom when sorting. However, it involved removing the colspan and the text "No competitive football was played.." has to be moved to the Notes. Feel free to revert this if you like, because there is nothing wrong with the sorting in the previous version anyway. In my opinion, it's just annoying to see the 1936–39 row always at the top, but it shouldn't matter much.

I'm sorry if this has been discussed before, but shouldn't 2010–11 be linked to 2010–11 Real Madrid C.F. season, while the La Liga entry next to 2010–11 be linked to 2010–11 La Liga instead? — MT (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with MT in the above, better to link the seasons to Real Madrid seasons better than La Liga.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't wanna do that. Doing that means a lot of red links, cause there are few articles about each Real Madrid season. Let it this way, for now, until it passes FL. AdrianRO ^talk 08:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Support, the list it self is good, just one thing, maybe change the eye killing Yellow bgcolor to some other color? Hex calm color maybe? In addition, should change the ♦ to one, like {{double dagger}} (‡) or something like that, for WP:ACCESS.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. AdrianRO ^talk 18:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:12, 21 October 2011 [10].

---

List of deaths at the Berlin Wall

Nominator(s): violet/riga _^[talk] 22:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A recently created article but I believe it now covers the topic in sufficient depth to meet FL criteria. I can't see any significant gaps in the content.

Regarding the criteria:

1. Prose: Written by two people and copy-edited by others, I believe it to be of a high enough standard.
2. Lead: I think that the lead covers the topic well without going into too much detail.
3. Comprehensiveness: The list is fixed at 136 entries and this covers them all.
4. Structure: The table is sortable on six of the seven columns.
5. Style:
   • It looks quite nice and the charts give a good representation of the information. Only list items with articles are linked.
   • Lots of appropriate images throughout the text, all of which should have decent captions. The images used within the list are the only free ones that I know to be available; an agreement with the ZZF to use their images would be nice but difficult to obtain.
6. Stability: No edit wars; the content is not likely to change significantly.

violet/riga _^[talk] 22:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from PumpkinSky talk 01:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Support PumpkinSky talk 01:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments Avoid bold links in the lead. "before it was opened in" perhaps "before it was demolished"? "A historic research group" -> "An historic..." and what makes it "historic"? "Ida Siekmann was the first of 98 people to die while attempting to escape. On 21 August 1961, the entrance and windows of 48 Bernauer Straße were barred." entirely unclear to me what relationship these sentences have with each other. "apartment before the firefighters were able to open" why were firefighters there? You haven't explained this. So was Siekmann actually trying to escape a fire or just get over the wall or kill herself? Confused. I think I would use a para of the lead to explain briefly the significance of the wall and the explain that it divided the city so people wanted to "escape" from east to west.. "were found guilty and" of what? "Identifying the death toll" section, not a single wikilink. Let's deal with these issues before going on to review the next few sections. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Easily fixed, and probably faster than it took for you to write that Well, if I'd have fixed it, you wouldn't have learned from it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC) The lesson would have been obvious from the edit summary. It's nothing personal, it's long been a bugbear of mine when minor things are highlighted that could have been fixed faster than it takes to write about them. violet/riga [talk] 14:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Well, not really. When I review an article I do it (usually) from top to bottom and don't need the distraction of making minor edits. I also want people to gain a better understanding of our requirements to comply with WP:MOS. That's why I noted it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Technically it was opened but I've reworded it now Should really have been "historical", but also reworded Rearranged and put in a new section Removed reference to them - irrelevant Reworded I've done this in part but really don't want to go into too much detail - that's the point of the several other articles on the topic Manslaughter, added Not really that many wikilinks needed but a couple have been added. violet/riga [talk] 19:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Further comments Any need to abbreviate ZZF when you don't use it. Similarly ZERV. Linking. You link Checkpoint Charlie Museum in the lead but not in the first section. However, you link West Berlin in the lead and again (twice) in the second section. Do you have a consistent strategy for relinking? Do you have a direct ref for the direct quote "death strip"? "escapers" aren't they usually referred to as escapees? "were the deadliest inner city districts" could be misleading, you mean the district from which the most fatalities came? "20% were married men.." avoid starting sentences with a number, perhaps "Married men accounted for 20%..." Sortable table so everything that's linked should be linked everytime. "Spree - defective" needs an en-dash not a spaced hyphen per WP:DASH. What's NVA? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC) A commonly used abbreviation particulary in sources; included for information As above Delinked One added It is more correct, yes, and I've changed them so it's now consistent Corrected Corrected Delinked Spree and Havel which I believe were the only two Corrected Expanded and linked

1. While not mandatory, alt text would be good for the images.
2. Consider the use of the {{lang}} template for your German phrases which you translate to English.
3. Why are the various victim references on the line below the victim names?
4. You should use row and col scopes for WP:ACCESS, see MOS:DTT.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

1. The captions are descriptive but some ALTs could be added.
2. I'll have a look around to find them
3. The table could be very wide and adding a further column for a reference would not work well. Having them on the same line of the name has a similar ugly effect. Placing the reference in any other column would make it look like only that item of data is being referenced.

   I don't think a single column for them at the end would be a problem. Nor placing them next the names. Right now, I think this is the only article I've seen in all of Wikipedia to use this approach! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   Having tried both options it really does make the table horribly wide and, consequently, horribly word-wrapped on lower resolutions. violet/riga _^[talk] 16:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

4. I've added col scopes - row scopes could be added but I'm considering that at the moment

violet/riga _^[talk] 14:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments: Looks very very good and with an interesting introduction.

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

#Is it possible (i.e. are there any statistics) to compare the number of Berlin Wall deaths to those on the inner German border? IMHO, the "deaths by year" statistics would be better as a plot/graph with time on the horizontal axis, since the three tables kind of cut the (continuous) time axis. Does the map need a date? bamse (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC) An interesting idea and there is a lot of information at Escape attempts and victims of the inner German border. However, we would be talking about a different time frame and could run into WP:SYNTHESIS problems. That could work, perhaps even as a cumulative graph. The current method might be better for WP:ACCESS (thought I've not tried) and does effectively communicate the number of deaths - for me that's the key thing and I worry that a chart alone would reduce the information. Having the table as well as the chart might be an alternative. No date exists in the image description but it could be figured out - it was basically the same for the duration though. violet/riga [talk] 16:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Sounds reasonable. OK, just the current method is ok. It was just a suggestion. So all checkpoints existed from the start? bamse (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC) I've improved the caption. violet/riga [talk] 17:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks. Just a few more questions/comments... Is "pneumonia" an "event" in the sense of the others? "Shot with bathing" -> "Shot while bathing"? "...suffocated in the sand that entered the cab." Could you add where that sand came from? For those entries where the event predates the date of death, it would be interesting to have a bit more information in my opinion such as "died in hospital",... (if applicable). "Shot while fleeing" Fleeing from/to where? Was Hans-Peter Hauptmann shot at the day of the argument (25 April) or later? Should note "d" be attached to the name rather than to the event? Does note "e" only apply to those that are marked or to all cases of drowning? Please check whether "Berlin.de" and "Chronik-der-mauer.de" are indeed publishers or rather "works" (per template documentation of Template:Cite web). Wikilinking of publishers appears inconsistent. E.g. why is "Deutsche Welle" not linked? Other examples exist. Non-English reference titles need translations. Ref 21 has "(in German)" while others have "(German)" in bold. bamse (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Expanded Corrected Expanded All died in the hospital - note added above the table to state this Clarified Clarified Probably better - done Clarified Corrected Corrected (I didn't know there were articles) Corrected Corrected All fixed now, I believe. violet/riga [talk] 21:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Better, but did Rudolf Urban "jump" (in table) or "fall" (in footnote)? OK I am confused about this. The source says that he hit a "property wall on the West Berlin side" and "Upon impact with the property wall he was buried in sand". Can't imagine really what it looked like, but it appears not to be sand from the death strip, no? OK OK OK OK OK OK OK Refs, 9, 10, 11, 12 are still without translation it seems. OK One more thing, in ref 6, do you reference the wikipedia article Zentrum für Zeithistorische Forschung or rather "Chronik-der-mauer.de". If the latter, I believe, that "Chronik-der-mauer.de" should come first. bamse (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC) 1 - Clarified 3 - Sorted - the sand was in the truck 11 - All now done I believe Ref 6 has been reworked. violet/riga [talk] 23:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Support bamse (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• Legal cases: "Numerous guards were the same ones who had been awarded a Medal for Exemplary Border Service or an other award for the killing." "an other" → "another"?
• Deaths: In the table, it would be nice if the blank cells had a dash of some type in them, for a more attractive appearance.
• Rudolf Urban: Don't think Pnuemonia needs to be capitalized in this entry's note. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The two typos have easily been sorted and the blanks in the table have been filled in except for the images column, where I feel that it wouldn't look particularly good. violet/riga _^[talk] 23:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments: Try to be consistent in the use of "wall" or "Wall". In the lead section, you render ZZF as "Centre for Contemporary Historical Research", but then in the following sections ("Identifying the death toll" and "Deaths") you have it as "Centre for Research on Contemporary History Potsdam". "... the East German authorities declared that the windows and doors on that side of the building..." – Which building? Place a comma after the year in "In the early morning of 22 August 1961 Ida Siekmann..." and "On 8 March 1989 Winfried Freudenberg...". I'm sure there are other instances like this... Typo in "The deaths of a victim would be stated..." ("East German responses to deaths" section)? "Two other key members of the National Defence Council, chairman Erich Honecker and Stasi leader Erich Mielke, were also investigated along with the others." Could you provide a first column that numbers each deceased person? So one can see, for instance, who was the 50th or 100th person to die in the Wall. Good. I noticed you attributed widths to most columns, but I think you could remove them. I've tested and the default widths are not much different from the ones you chose, so you can let the table's content define its size and accomodate to each user's browser resolution. You could also add something like a hash symbol (#) to the first column header. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC) I'd turn the table notes into a "Footnotes" section proper. First level heading is more adequate. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC) I'd strike out Eastern Bloc emigration and defection and Bernauer Straße from the "See also" section, as they've been mentioned in the article before. You have five references from different pages of the 2011 book by Hertle & Nooke, and you give the full bibliographical information in the first citation (ref #2). I think you could provide the complete book information in a separate "Bibliography" section, and reduce that ref. #2 to a format similar to all the other refs from that book. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC) Actually, nevermind this comment. No need to have a section with only one item. Parutakupiu (talk) Thanks for that - some good points. I have attended to them all. violet/riga [talk] 19:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC) Agreed with further points, and done. violet/riga [talk] 20:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Support gladly. Good work! Parutakupiu (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:12, 21 October 2011 [11].

---

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Shane Warne

Nominator(s): User:joesayers ^talk 02:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC), The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the FL criteria. It is also very similar to featured lists for Glenn McGrath and Muttiah Muralitharan. Thanks for your time. User:joesayers ^talk 02:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You should change the symbols as they are not ACCESS-compliant. Replace the ♠ and * with the {{dagger}} and {{double-dagger}} templates (the symbols redirect there, so you can just put in the braces) and the corresponding alt text.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for thadvice and I have changed the symbols to the dagger and double dagger. If there is anything else please dont hesitate to let me know and I will change it. User:joesayers ^talk 08:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments Not sure it is fewer than 30 now, I just did a rough count and I think it's 32 with 15 or more 5ers... I think you can link "bowling figures". Cricinfo indicates Warne gave up Test cricket in 2007, this article says 2006.... No need to relink SCG in the lead. Nor the England cricket team. "708 Test wickets in his career and 293 ODI wickets." -> "708 Test and 293 ODI wickets in his career." "10 wickets or more" -> "10 or more wickets" five-wicket haul -> hyphens needed in the key. I fixed the hyphens (turned them into en-dashes) for you but you need a space before the year in the title of pretty much all those Cricinfo references. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Done all above changes. Thanks for your time. User:joesayers talk 16:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Not quite. It's not "fewer than 32", it IS 32 I think. Can you ref "after he helped Australia regain The Ashes in a 5–0 whitewash. "? Also think you could merge the last two sentences of the lead in reverse, so "He announced his retirement.... having taken 708 Test and ... wickets in his career". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Changed "fewer than 32" comment and referenced the whitewash in 2007. The last sentences in the lead have also been merged, I do think it reads better this way. Thanks User:joesayers talk 17:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• "behind only Sri Lankan, Muttiah Muralitharan." remove only we've already established he is second so its not needed
• table fails WP:ACCESS see MOS:DTT for more information
• Is there any point in the ODI table being sortable when there is only one row?

NapHit (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have made the changes regarding the comment "behind only Sri Lankan, Muttiah Muralitharan." and have also made the ODI table not sortable. In regard to the WP:ACCESS i'm afraid I have not had much experience in this area and would need more detailed instruction and direction in order to improve the accessibility of the tables. Thanks User:joesayers ^talk 01:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The MOS:DTT page should provide you with the information, if not just look at other lists that are up for nomination, they have the code in them. NapHit (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

* You link five-wicket haul twice in the first two sentences: only link the first use. You are also inconsistent, linking to "five-wicket haul" the first time and "five wicket haul" the second. Link cricketer directly to cricket, and lose the link in the following sentence. "and only 32 bowlers have taken more than 15 five-wicket hauls in their Test cricket careers." – I'm not keen on this: for one thing it seems an almost irrelevant statistic: without context it isn't offering much, but more worryingly it increases the upkeep on the article: are you really going to want to keep coming back and making this number bigger as another player passes that number? "Warne is one of the most experienced Australian cricketers, he is the second leading wicket ticket in Test cricket with 708 wickets, again behind Muralitharan." – This seems like two seperate sentences that have been hammered together unflatteringly. Even changing the "he" after the comma to "and" would improve matters, but it could probably do with being rewritten completely. "In 2000, Warne was named fourth of five cricketers named as one of the Wisden Cricketers of the Century behind Sir Donald Bradman, Sir Garfield Sobers and Sir Jack Hobbs." – Repetition of "named" and generally slightly clunky: also, if you are naming three of the other four, it might be worth naming the fifth too, not sure though. The second paragraph reads like a string of bullet points which have just been listed together in what looks like prose: give that the criteria asks for "professional standards of writing", I would suggest that this list is currently a fair distance from the mark required. That said, with some work I don't see any reason why it shouldn't eventually become a featured list: the subject is certainly worthy of it! Harrias talk 21:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC) I think the main issue is the "bitty" nature of the second paragraph: as I say above, it seems like a string of bullet points put together. If you could make it flow a bit better, I think it would greatly improve the article. Harrias talk 10:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Tried to improve the flow, let me know what you think. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Not sure if Australian and Sri Lankan really need linking: WP:OVERLINK would suggest probably not, but if so, they should definitely both link to the cricket teams (at the moment, Australian links to the team, Sri Lankan links to Sri Lanka.) "He is twelfth on the all time time list.." – remove the second "time". ".. in January 1992, taking his first five-wicket haul.." – I think "and took" might work better than "taking". "Warne's career-best bowling figures in an innings is 8 wickets for 71 runs which he achieved in 1994 against England in Brisbane, while his best match figures are 12 wickets for 128 runs against South Africa in Sydney in 1994, Warne has been most successful against England, taking 11 five-wicket hauls against them, the first in 1993 and the last one in 2006." – At the moment this is all one sentence: should there be a full stop after 1994? The next sentence after this one starts with a lower-case "and". This bit definitely needs looking at more closely: with a full-stop after 1994, a comma after 2006 would probably flow into this correctly? I might be biased, but is the bit about helping Australia win the Ashes 5–0 really necessary in this article? For the grounds, Trent Bridge labelled purely as Trent Bridge, but Edgbaston as Edgbaston Cricket Ground (to pick one example): I'd suggest that Edgbaston and Newlands are both listed without the "Cricket Ground" bit. Cricinfo should more properly be listed as ESPNcricinfo in the references. Reference 1 needs a location for the publisher (Bloomington, Indiana). AuthorHouse also have a WP page to link to. In the key, it should really clarify that the 10 wickets refers to those taken by Warne: most Test matches have 10 wickets taken in them! Also, The Oval would be better listed as being The Oval, London rather than The Oval, Kennington: I'm sure plenty of people don't know where Kennington is (or only do because The Oval is there!) Given everything else in the table is linked, it looks a bit odd that London isn't: probably worth linking that too. Harrias talk 06:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Reference 2 needs the same. Harrias talk 19:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Harrias, thanks so much for taking the time to come back and comment here. I think I've dealt with all your notes but please feel free to nudge me further should I not have satisfied your requirements. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Just these three points outstanding now I think. Harrias talk 06:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Oops. I think they're done now? Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support looks good to me now. Harrias ^talk 21:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I am retiring from Wikipedia due to other commitments and I apologise for not finishing what I started but I think this could with a bit of work be a featured list. If anyone would like to take over the list the please do, it would be a sincere shame for it not to be completed. Thanks User:joesayers ^talk 01:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a shame, I'm prepared to take it on and see it through. Harrias, if you could provide a comprehensive review, I'd be very grateful. I've addressed a few of your concerns already but I'd like to make sure it's perfect. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• Don't need the comma after Sri Lankan in the first paragraph.
• A One Day International link would be nice. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Done both of those, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —SpacemanSpiff 12:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments -- Just a few minor things (as the nom isn't available I was going to fix these myself, but as there are a couple of others working on the list, I'm not doing so). Key: "Player of the match" IMO should be changed to "Man of the match" with a direct link to "Man of the match#Cricket" The reference used (Cricinfo) refers to it as "Player of the match" so I'll keep it as that, but I used your suggested wikilink for clarity. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Test Table 1 -- Ground should be "Sydney Cricket Ground, Sydney" Indeed, fixed that. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC) 32 -- Innings should be 3 Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC) 27 -- Innings should be 4 Yep. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC) 31/32 and 26/27 -- not a problem, but a general question: should the rows be combined as the double-dagger doesn't seem to get the message across about it being the same match? Creating rowspans will mess with the sorting so I'm hoping you're okay if we don't do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC) I didn't think about the sorting problem, so I guess we don't have a choice on this one. —SpacemanSpiff 16:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Any reason why Edgbaston doesn't use the full name in 17/30 while it does in 2? Now consistently Edgbaston Cricket Ground. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC) ODI Table 1 -- Ground should be "Sydney Cricket Ground, Sydney" Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Resizing is probably needed to keep spacing similar to the Test table At the moment the table is forced to any column widths at all. I'm reluctant to do that, particularly because he's only got one ODI, and forcing column widths for a one-row table would be a real shame. Is it a deal breaker? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC) It's not a deal breaker, but if your screen shows the bottom of the Test table and this one, you'll notice that it looks quite odd, especially given that the columns are identical (I thought that it looks odd only because it's a single row table!). If it's not a major concern for other folks, I'll ignore it. —SpacemanSpiff 16:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC) General question: Warne has also played one ODI for the ICC World XI, so should there be some mention somewhere that all his five-fors have been for Australia? Added "for Australia" in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC) —SpacemanSpiff 15:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Further comment -- the sorting for wickets column needs some cleaning: All the entries use {{sort|05132|w}}. This key structure was created to sort wickets based on runs conceded e.g. 5 wickets conceding 50 runs would be sorted as better than 5 wickets conceding 70 runs and so on. Since the key remains unchanged across entries the sort template has no impact as the real sort is happening only on the display w and is just increasing the load time on the edit window. Either it could be changed to {{nts}} or use the right sortkey structure: {{sort|ddrrr|w}} dd = wickets in two digits (5 = 05) and rrr = 200 - runs conceded. A similar concept can be applied for runs conceded too to show 70 runs conceded for 7 wickets as better than 70 for 5. ddrrr would be replaced by xxxtt where xxx = runs in 3 digits (80 = 080) and tt = 10-wickets taken. —SpacemanSpiff 09:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Wow, I forgot to check that. Should be fixed now. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support All my comments have been addressed, no other concerns. —SpacemanSpiff 17:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Cheers, and thanks for your diligent review. I cannot believe I didn't check the sorting on this list. Perhaps I'm getting too old....!! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Stemonitis (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have two comments on what is basically a well-executed list...: The names of the batsmen are inconsistently formatted. I don't particularly like the "PV Simmons" style (it would be "P. V. Simmons", at least, in normal text, if not "Phil Simmons"), but if there's a strong precedent in Wikipedia's coverage of cricket, then that's OK. In any case, they should all be formatted the same. (Many have additional full stops, or full first names instead of initials.) --Stemonitis (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC) It's my belief that we typically follow the format of the source, in this case Cricinfo, which typically lists the batsmen (in your example) as PV Simmons. However, there are inconsistencies because ordinarily S. Anwar would be Saeed Anwar. I'll see about fixing these ASAP. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC) The references are placed adjacent to "Won", "Lost" or "Draw" (should be "Drew" or "Drawn", or the others should be "Win" and "Lose", surely?), but they are presumably used to back up all the information in the row – the venue, the number of balls, the wickets taken, and so on. I could envisage either an extra column for the references, or putting the reference in the first column (probably the former). That way, it is clearer that everything is cited to a reliable source. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC) You know, I've worked on a few of these and that's never struck me before! Yes, I think Drawn is most appropriate. And if you would prefer to see an additional column for refs, then so be it. No skin off my nose! May be a bit of time before I can update it though. Thanks for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Okay, I've addressed both of your comments, hopefully to your satisfaction! Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC) It's still unclear to me why the Pakistanis and some Indians (like "Yuvraj Singh") aren't abbreviated like the other batsman (as he is on List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Muttiah Muralitharan, for instance). --Stemonitis (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Well, if we want to get into how Pakistanis/Indians etc wish for their names to be represented, then I must confess ignorance. As I said above, I've used the information in the source provided in each and every case. That, I believe, is the correct "verifiable" way of doing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC) (Also in your example, and this is a guess, Yuvraj would wish to be differentiated from any other Singh who happened to be in the team at the time? Just a guess though... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)) This isn't a question of verifiability, as I see it. There is no doubt about what your source says, or who it refers to. ("Yuvraj Singh" was the only "Y. Singh" on the team, so I don't think disambiguation explains it.) The question is about formatting, and you profess no knowledge of any reason to treat the Pakistanis and Indians differently. List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Muttiah Muralitharan is a featured list, and makes no such distinction between abbreviatable (for want of a better word) and un-abbreviatable names, so they clearly can be abbreviated. I don't think inconsistencies on other websites need influence us unduly; consistent formatting would look so much better than the existing mix. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Well, I think cricketing convention is such that these players are represented as they are in this list. If Murali's list isn't following this format then perhaps the nominator of that list had a different rationale (and upon checking, Murali's list contains its own inconsistencies, e.g. Lance and Nicky in fiver #23). While I indeed to "profess to no knowledge of any reason" for the difference, I know there conventionally is a reason. Unless there's a strong consensus against the format used by the scorecards as verified by the sources, I'll be keeping it per regular convention as I strongly disagree that your proposal "would look so much better". Perhaps one or more of the Indian/Pakistani contributors could assist with this matter. In any case, thanks for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC) To add in my own thoughts: I also have no idea the reasoning behind this, but there is clear consistency: taking an example, during the 2003 Cricket World Cup: Wisden records names on the scorecard in the style "S. R. Tendulkar" and "M. E. Trescothick" however, in the same scorecards they say "Younis Khan" and "Yuvraj Singh" (Wisden 2004, pp. 988–990.) Scorecards on Cricinfo, CricketArchive, and the BBC all do the same, and the ICC's player rankings use the same format. I don't know exactly why it is: I would guess religion and naming conventions, but it is certainly consistent, and I would say definitely what we should be using. Harrias talk 19:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Pakistani name is pretty useful on this: it basically suggests that the names used are all chosen, and my guess would be that as they ar eall chosen, it would be inappropriate to give one or the other greater prominence: hence they are not abbreviated. Harrias talk 19:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Most cricketing publications and website use this form. Basically cricketers without a designated surname are left "as is". I believe this is something to do with Muslim and Sikh naming customs: for example, my old copy of Test Cricket Lists' lists Kabir Ali (England), Imtiaz Ali (Windies), Harbhajan Singh (India), Imran Khan (Pakistan), Abdur Razzak (Bangladesh); but Hobbs, JB (England), Greenidge, CG (West Indies), Tendulkar, SR (India), D'Souza, A (Pakistan). These are not distinctions based on nationality; rather, on the player's own personal preference. For example "Youhana, Y" became "Mohammad Yousuf" on scorecards after his conversion to Islam. IgnorantArmies 10:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Comment This is a problem that's unlikely to go away, especially for subcontinental names. Most Indian names will be provided with initials on scorecards - e.g. RS Dravid, VVS Laxman, SM Gavaskar but there are exceptions to that -- Scorecards show N Kapil Dev (although Nikhanj technically comes at the end of his full name). Also, while for people like K Srikkanth, M Vijay, S Badrinath, S Venkataraghavan (and most Tamil/Telugu people among others where the surnames are patronymic) the names used on scorecards is their given name and not their surname. I'm not sure that religion is the defining reason for the way these names are treated. e.g. Nasser Hussain is from Chennai, but the scorecards say "N Hussain" while it's not the case with other players who share similar names. Likewise for Bedi, the scorecards say "BS Bedi" but his contemporary and Yuvraj's father is listed as "B Yograj Singh". And we also have "Yuvraj Singh" and "Harbhajan Singh". However, whatever this convention is, apparently every cricket writer knows about it and they are uniform in listing scorecards in this manner. A while back I tried to figure out some reasons for this, but I drew a blank. One possible explanation is that there are two "Yuvraj Singh"s who play cricket in India (the other has a middle name and is listed as Singh, YS) and likewise there was another "Harbhajan Singh" from another era, but that still doesn't explain some of the others like N Kapil Dev or B Yograj Singh. For the Kumble list that's up as an FL nom, I had made the format consistent for everyone as a stylistic preference. —SpacemanSpiff 10:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Perhaps the simplest way to get around this would be to use first names for every player? IgnorantArmies 13:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC) In order to move this clearly stagnating issue (not helped by the original commentator not returning!) on a bit, I've opted to make them all consistent, regardless of how they appear in the sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC) I would have written sooner had there been anything else to say. I saw little gain from simply reiterating my point. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC) I've taken this one step further, and used their full names, as used in their article. Quite honestly, I'm not sure why this wasn't done in the first place, thus avoiding the issues of consistency among different nationalities and imposing Western naming conventions on non-Western players. IgnorantArmies 09:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Okeydokey. As I said before, it wasn't done that way in the first place because that's not what the sources say. But we're done now. I haven't the energy to argue the toss over this any longer. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Support --Stemonitis (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:04, 14 October 2011 [12].

---

List of colleges and universities in Alabama

Nominator(s): Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria. This list was patterned after List of colleges and universities in New Hampshire and List of colleges and universities in Vermont, both featured lists. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

*Comments: (feel free to intersperse responses). –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Shouldn't enrollment data be updated to 2010 (or 2011, if such data has already been collected)? –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Done. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 22:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC) List all locations when there are multiple, rather than using "and X others". –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC) I put them in footnotes, does that work? I think the table would get too bloated if they were all listed inline. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 22:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC). Good enough. I'd prefer that they all be listed in the table (maybe using <br /> between locations), but it is certainly better now. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC) References to the Encyclopedia of Alabama website are missing the author (I think that the author is listed at the bottom of each page of the EOA. If the name given is not the entry, author, let me know and I'll strike this). –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Done. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 22:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Archive the remaining references for consistency (e.g., refs 1, 2, 3, 5, and 44). –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC) 44 (now 43) was too large for WebCite and not available on Archive.org. Others are done. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 22:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC) George C. Wallace Community College appears to have been renamed, so this list should probably be updated. –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Done. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 22:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Dates should probably be added to the EOA refs also (sorry I didn't notice this earlier), but I'm not sure whether the date when the entry was first published or the date when it was last updated would be more appropriate. Thoughts? Once dates are added (or determined to be not needed), I'll support this. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure, either. I posted the question at the help desk, and when we get an answer, I'll add the dates. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Per the reasoning at the help desk, I'd say use the last-updated dates. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC) OK, last updated it is. All EoA refs have dates now. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 22:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support, all issues resolved, meets WP:WIAFL. –Drilnoth (T/C) 23:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Don't see why Fall should be capitalized in the second sentence. Done. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 04:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC) "There are also 8 four-year and 3 two-year historically black colleges and universities." A bit of inconsistency here regarding whether or not numbers are spelled out. Two are and two aren't. I would spell them all out since they're small, but either way works as long as they are consistent. WP:ORDINAL point 3 states that "adjacent quantities which are not comparable should usually be in different formats..." —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 04:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Spell out ABA. Done. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 04:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC) There's some funkiness going on with the enrollment sorting. Try it and there will be several results, not all of them intended. Try a sorting template for the numbers and this should be fixed. Done. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 04:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC) In the Defunct institutions table, the Reference column could be shortened to Ref, to save some empty space. Done. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 04:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC) In ref 77, replace the pp. with p. since this is a cite to a single page. If templates are being used, it's as easy as changing the pages= parameter to page=. Done. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 04:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Refs 1, 10, and 48 have hyphens in their titles that should be converted to en dashes. Question on this one: since the sources (incorrectly) used a hyphen, should they be kept as-is? —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 04:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC) I can't find the exact section of the MoS that mentions this, but I'm sure TRM or another regular here knows. We are allowed to make such changes to quotes per MOS:QUOTE, so I have to believe such changes to ref titles are mentioned somewhere. This type of comment has been made many times at FLC, and TRM definitely would have mentioned it if I didn't. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC) OK, wasn't sure how strict the rules were on that. Done. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 20:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments "over 61", how odd, so 62? Why isn't this a precise number? Done. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 19:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC) No need to have that bold text in the lead. Done. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 19:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Could link Alabama in the lead. Done. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 19:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC) "2-year college" -> "two-year" Done. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 19:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC) "8 four-year and 3 two-year" -> eight, three. This came up in Giants2008's comments above; per WP:ORDINAL point 3, "adjacent quantities which are not comparable should usually be in different formats..." —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 19:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC) "Association for Biblical Higher Education" -> "The Association for Biblical Higher Education" - same in ref 5. I moved the target page; it shouldn't have had the "The" per WP:TITLEFORMAT —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 19:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC) " and 3 others" -> three (and see all others) Done, I think. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 19:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Are the notes referenced? They're supported by the references in the table. Do they need to be repeated in the note text itself? —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 19:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Would be preferable to stop anyone else awkward (like me) asking the same question! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Done. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 03:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Defunct section could use some text. Done. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 19:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment The table almost meets WP:ACCESS just two issues. First the tables need a caption and you need to put an exclamation mark before scope=row instead of a pipe. NapHit (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• (not the nominator) Don't the section headers function as captions of a sort? It would be redundant to have captions shown for users who read the articles normally (showing the table name twice), and I would assume that the same thing would occur for screen reader software, etc. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• I'd also argue that using the header cell style for the school names looks pretty ugly. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • For the header style, I found a "class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders"" that un-bolds and un-centers the headers. The shading alone doesn't look bad, IMO. For the captions, I agree, but,
  • Done and Done. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• Maybe put the Institutions notes in the bottom of the page in his own Footnote section, above References?, it will look much better that what it looks now.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • done. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 23:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Last thing you should add ALT to the image but overall well done, good list, Just fix that bit but I Support this.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm a n00b at alt text; what would it contain that the caption doesn't? Descriptions of the buildings? Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 03:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Read Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, Basically descriptions of the buldings look that are in the picture.
        – HonorTheKing (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Done. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 23:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support, but with pause. I see no tangible problems, but the lead doesn't feel all that good to me. It just jumps in with a few facts and figures without much of an introduction on that topic. That being said, I can't really think of anything that could be added in to the lead, and other lists have been promoted with a lead in this style, so I won't worry about it. Also, the enrollment should be updated for this year, but in a sense that's busy work. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Finding current enrollment figures (especially for the smaller schools) is spotty at best. Many of the smaller institutions don't publish it readily (online at least). Also, the US DoE source given is independent, plus having statistics from all the same time and using the same method for counting gives a better comparison. If you know of source that gives all of the enrollments for fall 2011, I'd be happy to switch to it. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 20:41, 11 October 2011 (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 15:15, 9 October 2011 [13].

---

List of Major League Baseball players to hit for the cycle

Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 15:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A break from the Phillies. My current open nomination has three supports and no unresolved comments. Comments to be expediently addressed. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 15:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Couldn't find anything troublesome in the list. Another nice job. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support – Looks good to me as well. Jimknut (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments The lead says only two MLB teams have failed to hit for the cycle, but the table at the end of the article indicates seven haven't. I guess you mean "current" teams in the lead? Where are the family pairs referenced? Where are the Hall of Famers referenced (you mention the HoF in some captions)? "(as the "Boston Beaneaters")." sounds like Long was batting under a pseudonym... "who played for the Boston Red Sox that season." probably neater to say "playing for the Boston Red Sox." as that avoids an awkward "that season" moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC) All done. — KV5 • Talk • 11:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support I think I'm perpetually amazed by the stats lists that baseball generates. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Amazing TRM is a win for me. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 21:31, 4 October 2011 (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 15:15, 9 October 2011 [14].

---

Lionel Conacher Award

Nominator(s): Resolute 02:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Its been a while since I've tried my hand at FLC, and the first non-hockey list I've done. This one is for Canada's male athlete of the year, and the female list will follow. And let me tell you, that was a lot of google news archive searching, so be gentle as my typing fingers are tired! Resolute 02:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Quick comments from Albacore (talk)

• Alt text is needed for all images

• two disambiguation links

"finishing atop the

• The article currently fails Accessibility standards. See MOS:DTT for further information– use the scope row tags on the "Winner" section since this is about winners, of course.

• Maybe a note on why there was no award given in 1951?

• URL showing in ref 55

• The lead should be cut to 3 paragraphs per WP:LEAD.

Man, I can't believe I forgot the alt-text... All should be addressed, except for the lack of a winner in 1951. Unfortunately, the CP never wrote an article explaining why it did not give one that year. Thanks, Resolute 01:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments Perhaps instead of "were conducted beginning in 1933." you could say "were conducted from the following year"? Something to avoid just churning out plain years. "It is separate from the Lou Marsh Trophy, in" either merge and say "and is separate..." or say "The award separate..." since the subject of "it" has changed in the previous sentence. " during the last four " maybe just be more descriptive and say "for the latter part of.." or similar? "Football player Joe Krol" you should link which particular "brand" of football you mean here. Also worth linking Hockey to Ice hockey as us Brits don't see that as the first choice... "finishing atop the" -> "finishing top of the" "gold medal in Ice hockey at the 2010 Winter Olympics" decap Ice. Captions which are complete sentences need full stops. World War II (yuck) or Second World War? Be consistent throughout. Win col sorts four ways in Safari... the en-dash needs to be forced to sort numerically. "gold medal winning goal " I imagine there should be some hyphens around here somewhere! Some "Achievement" notes have a full stop, most don't... make sure you follow the "complete sentences" guide. Make sure table complies with MOS:DTT. Sortable table so everything that's linked should be linked every time because there's no guarantee which one would come first after a re-sort. Merge notes c & d and re-use. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Appreciate the review. I've got all of the easy ones done. The consistency check will have to wait until tomorrow. Thanks! Resolute 23:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Ok, hopefully I have everything now. Question on MOS:DTT. I am not sure what you are alluding to, though I wonder if it is the lack of a table header. If that is the case, do I actually need to add something like that given the section header serves the same function? Resolute 01:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC) You appear to have done it, the addition of scope="row" and scope="col" in the appropriate places. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Support a nice list, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Comma would be useful after "finishing top of the poll six times in the 1980s". Voting: Remove comma after Steve Nash and hyphen in "three-times" right after that? Overall, hockey players finished at the top of the annual polls the most times at 25." Should it be "have finished", since the award is still being given? Table: Could spell out the state in the 1935 description. In the 2010 description, the dash in "gold medal–winning" should just be a hyphen, I believe. In the Weir photo caption, it says his awards were won between 2000 and 2004, but the table says 2000 to 2003. Dash in the title of ref 38 needs fixing as it's a spaced em dash. Make it unspaced or change the dash type. Ref 62 needs a publisher, outside the title. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC) All should be addressed. Thanks for the review! Resolute 22:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support - above issues have been taken care of and page meets FL standards--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:01, 1 October 2011 (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 15:15, 9 October 2011 [15].

---

List of Oakland Athletics team records

Nominator(s): Albacore (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... next, other nom has no outstanding comments and two supports. Albacore (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments

1. Huge amount of white space between end of tables and images. I think setting it to 80-85% would be better.
2. Per WP:GTL notes should come after see also.

PumpkinSky talk 20:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Both fixed. Albacore (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

For some reason 80% jacked up the layout on my screen, which is a standard screen, though 80% works on other lists, so I changed it to 76%. Will look at this nom more. PumpkinSky talk 23:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments Would prefer (note, prefer) to see "ten" rather than "10" in the lead image. I believe MOSNUM covers that. "The Athletics formed in 1901 as the Philadelphia Athletics. After moving to Kansas City for twelve years, the Athletics relocated to Oakland in 1969. " merge these two, it reads too clunky. Dab - Eric Young. "on base" -> "on-base". Link steal in the lead. What's a " single-game doubles record,"? link if possible. Link walk in the lead. Assume your reader is, like me, MLB-averse. Simmons caption needs a period. Why is the career column so wide? Cramer's caption needs a period. Can you make it clear somewhere as of what date these stats are correct? Refs 7 and 33 have URLs but no access dates? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC) One's a link to a book, another to a magazine; I've heard at FLC not to have accessdates when you are linking to an online version of the book. All taken care of besides that. Albacore (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure I understand why. If they're accessible online they can have an accessdate can't they? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Fixed per Template:Cite book. Albacore (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Comments – RBI should be spelled out in a lead. The double link in the third paragraph is broken. Check the spelling of Tommy Bryne in note e. Also check the spelling of Rickey Henderson's name in the title of ref 4. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC) All fixed. Albacore (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support – Realy good list, I also changed the 70% of the table width to 69%.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2011 (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 15:15, 9 October 2011 [16].

---

List of 1984 Winter Olympics medal winners

Nominator(s): Parutakupiu (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

After the medal table list, now the medal winners list. Created this one from scratch and tried my best to develop it to a state which I now think is reasonably ready to undergo a FLC process. The only issue might be a cluster on red links in the ice hockey section, but I see it as a "minimal proportion" and I really did not want to go and create a bunch of bio stubs just to fix that. Your reviews and comments are much appreciated. Parutakupiu (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments "Compared to the official program of the 1980 Winter Olympics, a new event was introduced..." Would prefer it to say "The program was the same as that in the 1980 games, with the addition of..." (or something similar). Changed. "with 9 medals" -> nine. " with 4 gold medals" -> four. Both changed. Torvill and Dean have their own unified page. Forgot about that one. Saves me words and links. "artistical impression" is that artistical or artistic? I'm not sure myself so thought I'd check. Yes, it's 'artistic'. Probably need a very brief few words on what the "Miracle on Ice" was, I have no idea myself. The lead is a bit on the length limit so I preferred to remove it than to add another chunk of words. Anyways, the "Miracle on Ice" is described where it should (1980 Winter Olympics page) "Dmitri Vassiliev" our article has a different spelling. That's the spelling on the IOC database, but I've corrected that for many other athletes, so it was only a fault of mine. File:4wiki nykaenen matti.JPG is missing. Oh, must've been deleted meanwhile. Replaced with the other athlete that won gold and silver. The image is quite vertical (I even used the 'upright' parameter') so I added a {{clear}} element; this creates quite a lot of blank space, but I think it prevents issues with lower resolution screens. "5000 and 100000 metres" - 5,000 and 10,000 (not 100000!), the commas should be used in the main tables too to separate thousands. Added commas on the table... and fixed the caption (gosh, didn't even see that mistake!). Sorting by silver/bronze is odd in Safari because after silvers/bronzes, it should then sort by gold... it doesn't. I think I get what you mean ("sort" of...) but I don't see how I can fix that. I thought it worked well on its own... "(first from left) and Karin Enke (second from right) " bit confused but in a group of four, isn't "first from left" the same as "second from right"? does first from left mean left-most? In a group of four, the "first from left" is the left-most, yes, but the "second from the right" is the "third from left", no? It's not too clear, it seams. What do you suggest? Ref titles with spaced hyphens should use spaced en-dashes per WP:DASH, e.g. ref 14. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your time to review! Parutakupiu (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment Overall, this looks like a great list, just one concern, the table fails WP:ACCESS at the moment. I notice the template for the medallist table has scope=col but you need to include scope=row next to the athletes as well. Medal leaders table needs both scope=col and scope=row. Other than that it looks fine. NapHit (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Done. In the medal table leaders, scope=row was only needed just before the athlete name cell, or for every cell in that row? Parutakupiu (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Sorry should have noted that instead of using a pipe before scope=row you have to an exclamation mark, I've done the first table anyway so you can just copy the rest. For the medal leaders table you only need one scope=row before the athlete name cell. NapHit (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC) OK, all done. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Support Great work, well done NapHit (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Minor, but "the" could be added before first use of United States. Added. Not convinced that "was once again a display of power from Nordic countries" is formal enough; there's also nothing really backing up the fact that the results were part of a pattern. Yeah, rubbing a bit on the personal comment (though it reads well :P). Took out the "once again" and rephrased to "The Nordic countries displayed their strength in the cross-country skiing competition..." For Tretiak's caption, goaltenders in hockey aren't usually called keepers. Ah, thanks. I'm not much into ice hockey so I did not know they were called differently. "Jens (last name) of East Germany took either gold or silver in the ski jumping competition in Sarajevo." This implies that there was one competition with unknown results, instead of two in which he won one of each medal. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC) I had some difficulties trying to come up with a caption for this one and it came out oddly. Curiously enough, I think I got it well now. Thanks for your comments! Parutakupiu (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments

1. I've corrected several links in the lead that fail Wikipedia:Links#Link clarity in that their target articles were not obvious. Others may exist so this needs checking.
2. It would be interesting to know if some of the medal winners were making their Olympic debut, and perhaps if it was the last Games for some. I would probably support the article without this but it would be an interesting addition.

violet/riga _^[talk] 18:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyediting. Nonetheless, I removed the links to the countries proper which are irrelevant to the article (unlike before when they pointed to the country's participation at the Games). As for your second point, Tretiak's caption mentions his last Olympic medal, but I haven't made an exhaustive search. I'll see what I can do. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not need to look too much to understand that the 1984 Games (and most likely other editions) were either the first, the last or the only Winter Olympics for most of the listed medal winners. If one weighs the predictably large amount of data resulting from this with the relevance to the page, I do not think it's worth the effort. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support Meets the FL criteria. Nice work. Miyagawa (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support, with only one small correction. I think the references to "Olympics at Sports-Reference.com. Sports Reference LLC" should be altered, to use work=Olympics and publisher=[[Sports Reference]]. The "LLC" is entirely unnecessary, and the website's name need not be repeated. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The section of that website dedicated to the Olympics (i.e. the work= parameter) is called "Olympics at Sports-Reference.com", and according to this page, that's how any content taken from it should be referenced. "Sports Reference LLC" is the full name of the entity publishing the content online, just like The Times newspaper is published by Times Newspapers Ltd.
    • We are not obliged to follow other people's suggestions for reference formatting, particularly where it conflicts with common sense or our own (rather better thought-out) guidelines. The site as a whole proclaims itself to be called "Sports Reference", not "Sports-Reference.com", and the Olympics section is only part of that. Your Times analogy is apt; the article is at News International, not News International Ltd, and such descriptors are generally omitted in citations, too. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, your arguments are solid and since I'm not sure about the position of the WikiProject Olympics on this matter, I'd like to bring it up to the project discussion, because a change like that would affect not only this page but hundreds of other Olympics-related articles. I presume that this is not an impediment for your support? Parutakupiu (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
    • On reflection, no, it's not serious enough to cause opposition. I do still think the format is imperfect, but you are right that it doesn't need to be sorted out here and now. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I appreciate your comprehension. I have already taken this matter for discussion within the project. If and when we reach a decision, I can report it to you, if you're still interested. Thank you. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 18:02, 8 October 2011 [17].

---

List of Square video games

Nominator(s): PresN 22:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm back. I took the List of Square Enix video games that got pushed through here a couple of weeks ago, and ripped off the Enix bit! Well, there was more work to it than that. This list encompasses every video game Square developed or published since its inception in 1983 until its merger with Enix in 2003. Its format is based off of the Square Enix list, so everything should be fine with it. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 22:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from J Milburn (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from J Milburn (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Comment: Can I ask why you've chosen not to link a number of the games? If there is no article, a redlink is not a bad thing as such. If they're definitely not notable, perhaps redirecting them to this list would be something consider? J Milburn (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Changed nolinks to be redlinks; I suppose that since they're all developed/published by a major game company they probably deserve articles. --PresN 23:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Another thought: File:Square logo 222.png is pretty clearly PD, that may be a suitable lead image? J Milburn (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC) I think that would be nice. Not necessary, but a nice enhancement to the article. –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Sure, done. --PresN 18:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I can get behind this article. I particularly like the variety of references used. It would be all too easy to rely on a single source, or primary sources. J Milburn (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments "Nakayama Miho no Tokimeki High School" is initially out of order. Fixed. --PresN 23:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC) "Square began as ..." -> "It began as..." to avoid repeating Square. Fixed. --PresN 23:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC) "The company was best known" -> "Square was..." (new para) Fixed. --PresN 23:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC) "Of its properties, the Final Fantasy franchise" -> "Of its properties, this franchise..." Fixed. --PresN 23:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC) "This list includes retail games developed or published by Square during its existence; for a list of video games after the merger, please see List of Square Enix video games." I would use a {{for}} template and just add it at the top of the next section, above the table. Done. --PresN 23:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC) "Final Fantasy VII International" why is international not part of the name or in italics? Fixed. --PresN 23:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Are refs 1 and 2 the same? What's the page number(s) for ref 2? Fixed, they should have been the same ref, but pages 10-12. --PresN 23:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Ref 146 could use an en-dash in the year range. Done. --PresN 23:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Responded to all. --PresN 23:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments: (feel free to intersperse responses) –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Alpha (video game) redirects to this list. Although this isn't a failing problem, it doesn't seem ideal either. I'd recommend creating a simple stub for the game if possible so that people don't click the link just to find themselves back at the same page again. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC) I'm the one who redirected it in the first place a while back, as I couldn't find anything about it other than that it exists (and only barely that). Unlinked it. --PresN 23:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Eh, better to leave the self-redirect than have one entry of the table unlinked, in my opinion. I won't oppose the article on this, but maybe restore the content or delete the article/redirect altogether via AfD or PROD. –Drilnoth (T/C) 23:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Re-linked. Oh, for the sake of correctness- I wasn't the one who redirected it in the first place, just thought I was. --PresN 21:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Are there official lists of the games that you could add as external links similar to what List of Square Enix video games has? (general note, there's now a broken ref in that article; scroll down to the bottom and you'll see it). –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Yes, the same lists, actually. Fixed the broken ref in the other article as well, thanks. --PresN 23:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Recommend merging with List of Final Fantasy games. </joking> –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC) No joke, over 1/4 of the lines in the table are for games that are related to the FF series, and 2/3+ of the games released between 1988 and 1995. --PresN 23:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Yep, I'd sorted the table by game name and FF stuff took up the whole screen. :) –Drilnoth (T/C) 23:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC) "It began as computer game software division of..." → "it began as a" or "it began as the", as appropriate. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC) "For a list of video games after the merger, see..." → "For a list of video games after the merger with Enix, see..." for clarity –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Both done. --PresN 21:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support All my issues have been resolved. Passes WP:WIAFL. –Drilnoth (T/C) 23:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Don't think the "a" adds anything in "with a total worldwide sales of over 100 million units." Ref 4 could use a PDF indicator like the one in the first reference. The title of ref 28 has ACCS in it. I can't tell whether this is an abbreviation or all caps. If it's the latter, it needs fixing; if the former, no problem. Publisher of ref 64 shouldn't be italicized. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Done, done, acronym (Association of Copyright for Computer Software), done. --PresN 16:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Per everyone. The list looks complete to be a Featured List. GamerPro64 17:12, 8 October 2011 (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 18:18, 7 October 2011 [18].

---

List of centuries in women's Test cricket

Nominator(s): —SpacemanSpiff 10:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. The structure used is similar to our other FLs in the topic areas of women's cricket and century lists. —SpacemanSpiff 10:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Some anticipatory responses from the nominator:

• Statistics/scorecard keeping has been lax for women's cricket and therefore quite a few entries would have everything but the runs scored and innings columns as unrecorded. Also, we use two major sources across all cricket lists -- Cricinfo and CricketArchive, in this list I've used Cricinfo as the base source and CricketArchive as an additional source if they have better scorecards for games that Cricinfo does not have them.
• The lede (the first paragraph at least) delves into more "general information" than is typical for such lists where the lede mostly summarises the information. Given the backstory of women's cricket, I believe the historical context adds value to interpreting the list and is better positioned as a part of the lede instead of a link to another article.
• Why are there three title bars in the list? -- It's a long list and without a title bar in view "minutes" could be taken for "balls faced" and so on. The additional title bars don't affect sorting and are fixed position at start, 50th entry and end.
• What about the three redlinks? I've tried to create articles for most entries on the list, these are three that would meet our cricket stadiums notability criteria and merit an article, but I haven't been able to find sufficient online sources to create a stub.
• Other century lists include "fastest century" etc, why aren't those mentioned here? -- Poor recordkeeping (or absence of a scorer when these matches took place!)

cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 10:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary in the lead to mention that (men's) Tests normally are scheduled for five days, when it then goes on to say that women's Tests last four days. It may confuse, and isn't really relevant. JH (talk page) 13:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't remember who it was now, but it was suggested to me that I should distinguish between the two. But I can cut short the first sentence to something along the lines of what's at List of India women Test cricketers. Would that work? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Modified. —SpacemanSpiff 08:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments - nice, I had this on a wish list of mine some time ago, so it's good to see it existing, moreover it's great to see it pushing for FL. I tend to think the opening to the lead is a little confusing. You talk about five days before going on to describe women's Test cricket as having four innings (same as men's) batting twice (same as men's) with eleven players in each side (same as men's) but then you unveil the big show, that it's done in four days rather than five. Perhaps generalise Test cricket where it's general and then just note that womens' Test cricket is conducted in a format that's one day shorter? Modified now. I didn't touch on the 4-5 discrepancy, but kept the general details together and said that the women's version is played over four days.—SpacemanSpiff "a touring England and Australia in" do you mean "England who were touring Australia"? Modified, yes that was the intent, I've rephrased it to show that England were touring.—SpacemanSpiff "As of January 2011" was that the last time a women's Test took place? Yes, WT133 is the most recent Test. Currently no Tests are scheduled for the next few months —SpacemanSpiff "the most number of matches" remove "number of" done —SpacemanSpiff "The first century in women's Test cricket was scored in 1934 ..." not according to your list. Typo, done. —SpacemanSpiff "stood until it was broken (by one run) by Sandhya Agarwal of India in 1986" perhaps " which stood until Sandhya Agarwal of India surpassed it by a single run in 1986"? Done. —SpacemanSpiff "scored five hundreds" centuries. Done, but left the follow on phrase as "hundreds". —SpacemanSpiff "Kirsty Flavell of New Zealand " just "Flavell" since you've already introduced her. Done. —SpacemanSpiff " the most number of centuries." remove "number of" Done —SpacemanSpiff Caption - "2nd Women's Test match.." -> "Second women's Test match...." Done —SpacemanSpiff Tables need row and col scopes per MOS:DTT. Done. I'm guessing this is something new? I was struggling to find the right way to add the scope ="row" bit in the middle of a row, even the MOS:DTT page doesn't use this on the follow on tables! —SpacemanSpiff Key seems to have odd complete/incomplete sentences and full stops... Fixed. —SpacemanSpiff 09:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC) If no Mins are available, perhaps they should sort as 0 rather than something unknown. Done, I've put unrecorded stats as below 0 (-1 for sorting purposes). —SpacemanSpiff Same with all other cols with en-dashes. Done, as above. —SpacemanSpiff 6's col doesn't sort at all properly for me. Fixed, I apparently introduced this error recently. —SpacemanSpiff "Seneviratna" has a strike rate of "3" - really? Fixed. —SpacemanSpiff What does No. mean in the second table? I've listed the teams in order of debut Test (in case of conflict, hosts first as that's how CA scorecards read). I've explained this in the third para of the lede. Do you think a note would be a needed? I could add one then.—SpacemanSpiff Active since.. does that mean affiliated to the ICC (or WICC or whatever) ? I'll change to "First Test". Affiliation statuses and their relevance are a bit hazy (e.g. Netherlands was a founding member of the IWCA but didn't play their first Test until much later). —SpacemanSpiff First No. has a full stop, next few have no full stop... Fixed all. —SpacemanSpiff Ref 3 needs accessdate. Done —SpacemanSpiff Title format differences for the Cricinfo refs. Done —SpacemanSpiff The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC) I think I've addressed all your comments and a made a couple of other minor changes. Let me know if you have other comments. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 09:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support nice job. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

;Comments from Harrias talk In the prose you mention Snowball's score, but you don't mention Baluch's current highest score, which seems a strange omission. Added now. I was in two minds about this -- should Flavell be included as the first double century and so on and finally decided to just leave the first century and the longest record in. —SpacemanSpiff I don't understand why some players have references, and others don't (for example the first three, Maclagan, Snowball and Hide all have them, but then the next 13 don't.) Could you explain why this is? I'd mentioned this above in the anticipatory comments, Ref [7] has all the info from Cricinfo. Where Cricinfo scorecards are incomplete I've added CricketArchive scorecards. When I first added this, there was an issue of CI having better info on some games and CA having better info on some games. I don't know if that's changed, but last I checked (a few weeks back, the CA scorecards were an improvement only where I added them). —SpacemanSpiff I'd list "The Oval, London" rather than "The Oval, Kennington"; I would suspect that if someone doesn't know where The Oval is, they won't know where Kennington is! Done. —SpacemanSpiff Why is Old Trafford just Old Trafford, but Edgbaston is Edgbaston Cricket Ground? I'd omit Cricket Ground from Edgbaston. Done. —SpacemanSpiff I don't object to Cricinfo ESPN as work and publisher: but I would prefer to see ESPNcricinfo, as this is what is used throughout on the site itself, including the about us page. Done. I've kept the publisher intact as that's what the infobox at ESPNcricinfo says. I missed this external change in their naming! —SpacemanSpiff Otherwise, looks a good list to me. Harrias talk 11:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Hope the above responses address your concerns. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support all looks good to me now: good work on this article, I remember in late 2009 (I think?) when you asked for help turning the red links blue on this: it's taken a while to get here, but it certainly looks worthy of FL status. Harrias ^talk 15:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, that was the time when we had quite a few women's lists promoted, hopefully, we'll get a few more going now, sadly it took me almost two years to get back to it. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Don't need to capitalize "Women's" in the lead photo caption, I don't think. Refs 4 and 3 are out-of-order in one cite block, though this isn't a huge deal. Do we have a better possible source for the origins of women's cricket than Britannica? It's weird to see one encyclopedia sourcing another in a piece of featured content. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Fixed first two, not so sure about the third issue you've raised. It's a good one, and one that perhaps needs global (i.e. FA/FL/etc) discussion, but certainly not something that should be constrained to this nomination. Is there a particular reason why you'd consider the Encyclopaedia Britannica as unreliable? I thought it had editorial etc, unlike Wikipedia.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Thank you TRM for fixing the first two issues (on the [4] [3] issue, the reason I kept it that way was [4] was the primary reference). On the Britannica issue, I would have preferred to use Heyhoe-Flint, Rachael (1976). Fair play: the story of women's cricket. Angus and Robertson. ISBN 9780207956980. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) as it is supposedly the most comprehensive book on women's cricket history until the first world cup. However, I haven't been able to get my hands on a copy of it (not for lack of trying). As for the actual sentence being referred, I do have a few other references, but I felt that Britannica would be the best of the lot and therefore decided to use it. Here are a few more that could be used, if needed, I can change to any one of the following (none of them contradict the Britannica reference, in fact I haven't found anything at all that contradicts the Britannica ref, just a personal choice on what I thought would be the most reliable): Guttmann, Allen (2007). Sports: The First Five Millennia. Univ of Massachusetts Press. p. 105. ISBN 9781558496101. -- The author is an expert on American Literature in historical contexts but has recently started venturing into sporting history. The book is a generic history of all sport over thousands of years, women's cricket gets about one page out of 445, and this particular work appears to be a tertiary source too. Doughan, David (2006). Women, clubs and associations in Britain. Taylor & Francis. pp. 69, 70. ISBN 9780415368667. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). In this too women's cricket gets about one page in 163. "WOMEN'S CRICKET HISTORY". is a WP:SPS from the disbanded Women's Cricket Association, now run by hobbyists, but the content is reliable. Between the above three choices and EB, I preferred EB and this is an editorial preference. If general opinion is that one of the others could be used, then I will gladly change it (unless of course, someone can find the page number on the Heyhoe-Flint work to refer which would render this moot.) cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC) If Britannica was used as a source in an article at FAC, someone would bring it up at some point during the nomination. It would be questionable there, so that's why I asked here. Honestly, I'd prefer the two books for whatever they can cite, although I don't think they're the best for this purpose. I'm not opposing, after all. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC) I have a copy of Heyhoe-Flint, Rachael (1976). Fair play: the story of women's cricket. Angus and Robertson. ISBN 9780207956980. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). I'll have a look through it for you some time in the next week: if I forget, feel free to nudge me! Harrias talk 19:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC) All Britannica references have now been replaced by ones from Fair Play. Harrias talk 20:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Very pleased to see that a high-quality book source was able to be used here. Everything else is in order. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you all (esp Harrias) for helping source this to the best possible reference. Sorry for the delay in response from me, had to go off-grid for a few days. —SpacemanSpiff 08:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• You need to fix the scope="row" on each list there. It currently placed there but in a wrong way so it doesn't let it format.
  • ||scope="row" should be !scope="row" and in its own line so the entire line won't be scoped aswell.
  • Don't forget to add plainrowheaders to the wikitable style if you want the names in the normal texting.
• add |+ caption to each table per ACCESS.
• not sure if its correct but maybe change scope="Col" to scope="col".
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the scope="Col" issues. If I change the scope="row" to a separate line, the left alignment requirement is being ignored. If someone can help, I'd appreciate it. I couldn't figure out from MOS:DTT or many of the other current FL noms what to do in this case (the ones that have it, all have the first column as the scope element, not anything later). As for captions, given that this is primarily for readers, is there some way to make it invisible? It's quite redundant to show the section title (and an extra few words) again right above the tables. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
    • If you change class="wikitable sortable" to class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders" it will be aligned to the left and remove the bold. The lines itself uses text-align=left aswell so It should fix that issue. About the caption, Even tho I agree with you on that, thier exemples and thier lead have it added. so only thing maybe is try and ask in that talk page if it needed in those cases.
        – HonorTheKing (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Done all these. I hope it works now. —SpacemanSpiff 12:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Support - Yep well done.
            – HonorTheKing (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

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