Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2012

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:11, 4 September 2012 [1].

---

Outkast discography

Nominator(s): I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 20:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because having extensively redeveloped the tables and extended the prose, I feel it now meets FL criteria. Any criticism would be helpful if it improves the page. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 20:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support--Kürbis (✔) 10:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I made a few minor changes, now, its completely good IMO. Well done! TBrandley 03:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support-- Bruce Campbell (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments "Big Boi and Dre Present...OutKast" needs a space before OutKast. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Is it Outkast per the title, per the prose or OutKast per the image caption, per one of their album titles, per many of the refs? It's Outkast, as "OutKast" is the stylized version. I've corrected the caption and album name, but it varies in the refs – I've just used whichever one is used in the title of the ref in question. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Where are the release dates referenced, and what territory are they relevant to? Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC) I don't see Idlewild in ref 18? Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC) "B. O. B." -> "B. O. B" Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Can you give tables unique captions? Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Ref 43 "DiBella, M.F.. " spare period. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Holiday56 (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments "number 50 and 73" → "numbers 50 and 73" "IRL" appears to be more used as a country code for Ireland than "IRE". No need to italicize "[2000 Original Soundtrack]" in the AllMusic reference for "Tough Guy". No need to italicize "[Original Motion Picture Soundtrack]" in the AllMusic reference for "Fresh and Clean" (Remix). Piped link for "Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles" should point to "Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs#Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles". Holiday56 (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC) All Done. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC) "Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs#Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles" needs to be changed to a proper piped link, as in: "[[Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs#Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles|Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles]]". Done (can't believe I missed that). I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Holiday56 (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support, as my comments have been addressed. Holiday56 (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, with one query: using "NA" for unknown directors implies there was never a director for the video. I would suggest using a dash instead with a note at the bottom for what the dash denotes (unknown director). Otherwise, great work and full support. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

As n/a is an abbreviation for "not available", I think that it is fine to use the template in this context, as the article for n/a itself says that it is typically used to "indicate when information in a certain table cell is not provided... because the answer is not available", and the template is usually used when editors cannot find the director's name in a reliable reference; therefore, it is not available. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 06:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Very well, seems reasonable. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 10:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:11, 4 September 2012 [2].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Sunil Gavaskar

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. It is based upon existing FLs of the same type. Look forward to your suggestions. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments There are too many "he" in the lead. Perhaps re-word "Gavaskar", etc. Example of too many: "He was the first player to score two centuries in a Test match on three separate occasions.[14][15] His highest Test score of 236 not out came against West Indies at Chennai in 1983.[6] It was also the highest score by an Indian at that time.[6][16] He has scored 150 or more runs in a Test match innings on tweleve occasions". Consider re-writing I made some minor changes. Is it okay? —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC) the performance ensured India's victory and earned him a Man of the match award → the performance ensured India's victory, which earned him a Man of the match award  Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Remove unneeded header on the top of tables I see that in most of the lists and some reviewers have even said that to be extremely useful. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Just a note, table captions are encouraged per MOS:DTT. NapHit (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC) "Chetan Sharma" is? I didn't get your point. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Categories should be listed in alphabetical order  Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC) TBrandley 14:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good. TBrandley 02:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments No need for Cricketer to be capitalised. "who represented the Indian cricket team and also captained the side" -> "who both represented and captained..." "at the international level" no need for "the". "to cross the 10,000 run mark " -> to score 10,000 Test runs" "record for most runs until Allan Border surpassed the record." record record... repetitive. "broke it only in December ..." -> "surpassed it in December" Since I've already used the word surpassed in the previous sentence, won't it be repetitive —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC) "Cricketer of the year " I suspect that should either be "Cricketer of the Year" or "cricketer of the year". "Fame.[10][2]" prefer to see those refs in numerical order. "against West Indies" we normally say "the West Indies". " the third test " shouldn't that be "third Test"? "centuries against each of them " no need for "each of". "at the Leeds in " I think you just mean "at Headingley in..." "five out of his 34 " comparative numbers, either all numbers or all words, not a mix. Test 31, why are you linking Oval? Test 18 is missing its note. I think I've provided a note —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC) I don't think Note 1 is necessary at all. Cricket Archive -> CricketArchive. No need for the leading zeros in the days of the month in the Cricinfo ref titles. Don't repeat refs, e.g. ref 20 and 21 are the same so should use the "ref name" referencing. Check others. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Fixed all. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments "who both represented" done —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Would provide link to test cricket on first use done —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC) in the cricketing history..." done —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC) "Gavaskar's record of 34 Test centuries lasted for almost two decades before Tendulkar surpassed it in December 2005." -> Gavaskar's record of 34 Test centuries stood for almost two decades before it was surpassed by Tendulkar in December 2005. Why do you think this should be rephrased. I'm not convinced with this sentence —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Oops forgot to add stood, while typing. NapHit (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC) done —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC) refs should come after punctuation, currently ref 8 does not done —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC) "...both the innings" done —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC) "thus becoming only the second Indian player to perform the feat" -> becoming the second Indian player to achieve the feat. done —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC) "came against West Indies should against the West Indies, this was mentioned by TRM above done —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC) "3092 runs" -> 3,092 runs done —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC) ref 4 should be removed as it does mention him being one of the best opening batsmen ever and as the other two do, there is no need for it It does mention the fact. Check the second page of the link —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Still, not needed though, don't need three references for this. NapHit (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC) done —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC) ref 12 should be removed, ref 11 already covers the statement, and I'm not convinced its the most reliable site Sify is a definitely reliable —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Regardless of whether its reliable or not you don't need two refs for a sentence about him making his debut. NapHit (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC) done —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Think there is a mistake in re 29 title. don't think they played from Dec 30, 78 to Jan 3 78 done —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC) ref 36 hyphen should be an en dash done —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 19:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments "Making his his Test debut against the West Indies in March 1971" should be "Having made his Test debut against the West Indies in March 1971". Given the fact that he scored a century on the same (debut) series, what is the need to rephrase it as "Having made...." —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Since "Port of Spain" is a locality, it should be Queen's Park Oval or pipelink it. Same for Chennai and Headingley. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Link the "innings" in the lede as well as in the Key. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC) "becoming only the second Indian player to perform the feat." --> "becoming the second Indian player to achieve the feat." This was also pointed by NapHit. Oops forgot that. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC) "most successful against West Indies and......" --> most successful against the West Indies and... Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC) I think "Gavaskar's solitary ODI century came" would be better than "Gavaskar's only century in ODIs came". Both have the same meaning. Any reason for changing it? —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Looks odd to me. Zia Khan 06:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Odd to you. Alright! replaced with only —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Nothing is changed here! Zia Khan 13:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Missed that! changed —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC) "Gavaskar scored five out of his thirty four Test centuries" --> "Gavaskar scored five of his Test centuries". You have already explained that he scored 34 centuries in Tests. Since this is used as a comparative measure, I think there is nothing harm in retaining it —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, I know this is a comparative measure, but you should avoid unnecessary text. Zia Khan 06:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Feroz Shah Kotla is a fortress. This should be Feroz Shah Kotla Ground. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC) You've mentioned the ground and the city separately. So for consistency National Stadium, Karachi should be National Stadium, Karachi. Same for the Green Park Stadium, Kanpur. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Ref 3 doesn't need date, I think. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Refs 4, 6 and 9 need authors. Zia Khan 02:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC) I could not find any names whatsoever. Tell me if I'm missing something —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC) You are using "Chennai" in the lede but it is "Madras" in the table? Be consistent. Zia Khan 06:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Chennai was known as Madras then. Same for Kolkata and Mumbai. I've already added a note for each entry —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC) As you say Chennai was known as Madras and you've added a note. Do the same thing in the lead. Zia Khan 13:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC) There reason is obvious for mentioning it as Madras in the tables. Hope you got my point —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support— Meets the standards. Zia Khan 19:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• Don't see why International is capitalized in the first sentence.
• "He has scored 150 or more runs in a Test match innings on tweleve occasions." Typo in "tweleve". Giants2008 (Talk) 02:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed all —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:11, 4 September 2012 [3].

---

List of Formula One fatal accidents

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after some extensive work over the past day and a bit the list now meets the criteria. I've revamped the references which seemed to be the main issue regarding the lists demotion. Thanks in advance for taking the time to review the list. NapHit (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Formula One, abbreviated to F1" —> "Formula One, abbreviated as F1" Thine Antique Pen 15:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've stuck it brackets instead. NapHit (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2012‎ (UTC)

Comments Ayrton Senna, the last man to die at the wheel of a Formula One car. → Ayrton Senna was the last man to die at the wheel of a Formula One car. The sentence is fine as it is. NapHit (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Remove flags from the table, as per MOS:ICON I don't see any issue with including flags as the name of the country is accompanied with the the flag, which is the main concern of MOS:FLAG. I see no guideline there which prohibits the use of flags in the table. NapHit (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC) "Ref" is missing a dot. "Ref." is what is should be. added NapHit (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Many linking problems in references. Please see WP:REPEATLINK, which states that links should be repeated in references. And, all linked. That guideline says links MAY be repeated, so they don't have to be, which was what I thought the guideline was anyway, so I'm not going to link them. NapHit (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Categories should be in alphabetical order They are. NapHit (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC) TBrandley 17:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the comments, I've replied above. NapHit (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ayrton Senna, the last man to die at the wheel of a Formula One car.

Untrue. Firstly, he technically died whilst out of the car receiving medical attention, but more importantly, two drivers have died in F1 cars since 1994, in non-Championship events. The sentence above the table List of people who died during a FIA World Championship race weekend, or elsewhere while driving a Formula One car means that they should be included. They both used to be on this list but were removed for some reason. Either they should be re-added or the wording changed to exclude deaths outside World Championship events. This would involve the removal of 14 drivers currently on the list. The two drivers were John Dawson-Damer, killed in a Lotus during a hillclimb at the Goodwood Festival of Speed in 2000, and Fritz Glatz, killed driving a Footwork FA17 in a EuroBoss race in the Czech Republic in 2002. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I see those two have been re-added - there may be some objections to that, as there were previously. The discussion is still on the talk page. My point is that either they should be included or the criteria should be worded to explain clearly who is included and who is excluded. I don't mind either way, so long as the list matches the criteria. Some people wanted the two later deaths excluded as the cars involved did not conform to the F1 regulations as they were written at the time of the accidents. But that would also exclude the Indy cars of the 1950s (which never conformed to any F1 regulations) and any modified cars used in testing. It's a complicated subject. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added them back as you've noticed. Yes I read the discussion page, there seemed to be a preference for what having the list in its current guise. I think the way it is now the best way to do it, I think its clarified in the text, the list refers to people driving an F1 car regardless of where it is etc. I'll try and make it clearer. It certainly is a complicated issue, but I think this is the right way to go. NapHit (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. Hopefully if someone objects, we can figure out an easy way to keep everyone happy. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Great work. Sure is one of Wikipedia's best lists. TBrandley 01:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Look nice and ready to me! --Yerevanci (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support— Good work! Zia Khan 05:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Is excellent. I believe it is ready. TollHRT52 (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2012 (AEST)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments 1950 season is overlinked in the lead. "or safety net" nets? Not mentioned afterwards.... "Twenty-four of the drivers died during a World Championship Grand Prix race weekend, nine during a test session and six during a non-championship Formula One event" adds up to 39, previously you said 49 had died. "Despite there being no fatalities since 1994" then "driver has suffered a fatal accident since 1994" bit repetitive, plus you link the 1994 season on the second occasion, not the first. Miller has a [a] note, while a number of others have a [A} note... Maybe worth noting the first driver, Earl, to be killed, in the lead. Ref. -> Ref(s). Ref 12 needs a pp. Check others. Ref 34, isn't Autosport a work? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the comments TRM, think I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for now: needs a bit more copyediting:
  • "It was not until the 1960s these were first introduced. Helmets and overalls became mandatory and the FIA assumed responsibility for safety at the circuits.[2] Steps were taken to improve the safety of the Formula One car in the 1970s. The cockpit opening was enlarged allowing the driver to escape quicker in the event of an accident and outside mirrors became mandatory.[" I think these four sentences need to be merged into two, to clearly explain that #2 refers to the 60s, and #4 to the 70s.

done NapHit (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• • "49 drivers have died..."

You haven't specified your issue with this. NapHit (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• • "This list includes drivers who have during a FIA World Championship race weekend, and those who have died while driving a Formula One car outside of the World Championship. " this is a bit confusing. you mean the list includes BOTH drivers who died during the weekend and those who died outside of them but driving a F1 car?

Yes, the list contains drivers who died during a Formula One race weekend and those who have died elsewhere while driving a formula one car, the sentence seems clear to me not sure how it could be clearer. NapHit (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• • "Track marshals and other race attendees, who have died as a result of these accidents are not included in the list. " is there an estimate on how many people died during accidents but were not the drivers?

Don't think so, had a look around, couldn't find any reliable estimates. NapHit (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• • "(there have been two fatalities outside of World Championship Grands Prix) " perhaps change this into a footnote and clearly explain who are the two

done NapHit (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• • mention that two drivers died in the 1960 Belgian Grand Prix and 1994 San Marino Grand Prix.

Not sure, i don't what the lead to start reading like a list of facts. NapHit (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• • mention that '58 is the year with most fatalities (4)

Don't think it's necessary, lead already states fatalities by decade, don't think we need to elaborate further. NapHit (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• • By circuit needs to include also the number of times the circuit has been used. Fatalities by constructor needs to have columns with how many seasons the constructors were active

Not sure this is necessary, the tables are there to state the number of times fatalities have occurred at the circuit, don't think we need to overload either table with more information. NapHit (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• • I think there should be an age column also

Again, not sure about this either, not sure its necessary, I think it would be adding too much information to the table. The reader can click the link to the article if they want to know their age. NapHit (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Nergaal, I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You adressed some of them, but mostly discarded them. Nergaal (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think discarded is a bit harsh, whether I disagreed with them or not, I addressed them one way or the other. I just don't think there is a need to flood tables and the lead with loads of information. Wikipedia is not a statistics site adding more information to the lead is unnecessary as it adequately summarises the table. Listing more would not make the prose flow. With the tables, I'm not sure an age column is necessary, the reader can click the person's article to find out, it would be information overload, likewise with the other suggestions for the other tables. I know you're comments were well-intentioned I just don't think it would be practical or necessary to include the suggestions I've highlighted. NapHit (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments – "as Helmets and overalls" – de-capitalize helmets. "This list includes drivers who have during a FIA World Championship race" – There's a word missing between "have" and "during" (I'm guessing it's "died") —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the comments Bloom, I've addressed them both. NapHit (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Final comment – the "Notes" section could include a {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} at the start and finish, in order to shrink the text to make it look more like footnotes. I understand you cannot utilize the {{#tag:ref|TEXT|group=lower-alpha}}, due to the fact that Note B encompasses more than one section of the list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC) done NapHit (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support – meets all 6 criteria. Great work. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Don't think I've ever had a list I nominated for delisting come back to FLC before. Interesting occurance, and the sourcing certainly looks much better than it did when the list was at FLRC.

• Comma after "Track marshals and other race attendees" probably shouldn't be there.
• The number starting the sentence "49 drivers have died..." would be better off spelled out. I've never thought that numbers starting sentences are a good thing, and I think that is why Nergaal commented on it. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Giants, I've addressed them both. NapHit (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

quickie something I missed earlier, the 2002 EuroBOSS Series season (although red) would be a more accurate link than just EuroBOSS Series wouldn't it? Even if you had to create a stub which remarked upon the fact that a driver was killed in an F1 car during the season? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I agree changed to a redlink. NapHit (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support I don't agree with many of Nergaal's points in the opposition. I'm very happy indeed with the standard of this list, definitely FL quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:11, 4 September 2012 [4].

---

Nebula Award for Best Script

Nominator(s): PresN 18:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, last one! The four story lists are down, so here we are with the odd duck of the Nebula family, the award for Scripts. It's all modeled after the other Nebula lists, with reviewer comments duplicated here. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 18:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support I discovered how hard it is to make such a list! Wonderful as usual. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments Unlink fantasy, as per WP:OVERLINK "and not including 1977, in which no nominee was given the award" → "but not including 1977, since no nominee was given the award" Align references to the center TBrandley 15:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Done, done, and done, though I don't know why you wanted the references in the center- it's actually quite complicated, you can't just apply "align=center" to the column, you have to go cell by cell. --PresN 18:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. TBrandley 04:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments William Harrison is a dab. It's The Lord of the Rings, not the Lord of the Rings. Could have a look into using Category:Awards by year of establishment and disestablishment? I'm surprised I hadn't thought of that on your other Nebula lists! "Beginning in 2010, it was discontinued " -> "The award was discontinued in 2010..." In 1977 "since no nominee was given the award" why not? There was a shortlist... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Done, done, done for all the Nebula lists, done, done- "no award" got the highest vote count, with a source. --PresN 18:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment Would provide an ISBN number for ref 6 That's the only issue I could find great work. NapHit (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Doesn't have one; it's not technically required, especially if the book is sold through mail-order instead of retail stores, as I believe this one was. --PresN 15:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC) No problem. NapHit (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, I can't see any remaining problems, and picked up a table formatting idea for my own FLC, what's not to like? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:11, 4 September 2012 [5].

---

List of Kings XI Punjab cricketers

Nominator(s): Thine Antique Pen 14:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have created it from scratch and would like it to become a featured list. Thine Antique Pen 14:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TheSpecialUser (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
*Comment - Can you provide WP:ALT for images? TheSpecialUser TSU 01:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)  Done Thine Antique Pen 08:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - No problems. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 09:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2012‎ (UTC)
Comments Unlink million as per WP:OVERLINK; common term Categories should be sorted in alphabetical order TBrandley 02:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)  Done both. Thine Antique Pen 13:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. TBrandley 13:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support--Vyom25 (talk) 05:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments' You provide an abbreviation for Kings XI Punjab, yet don't use it, either use it or scrap the abbreviation  Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC) "In November 2010, the team filed a petition of arbitration (appeal) to the Bombay High Court to challenge the decision.[3] The appeal was accepted on 16 December 2010." -> The team filed a petition of arbitration (appeal) to the Bombay High Court in November 2010, challenging the decision, which was accepted a month later"  Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Really don't like the majority of the sentences in the second para starting with "In..." vary it up, also the para is a load of short sentences bunched together, so it doesn't flow at all, needs copyediting  Varied Thine Antique Pen (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC) "...scoring 1603 runs" 1603 should be 1,603  Fixed Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Inn should be under the Batting header , not the general header as is currently the case  Fixed Thine Antique Pen (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC) The alt text has not been done correctly, see WP:ALT, you're supposed to describe the picture to someone who can't see it, not just rehash the caption  Re-done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC) ref 10, Indian Express should be in italics as its a printed publication  Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC) ref 16 is the only one with the publisher linked, remove it for consistency  Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC) "...because the teams had been signed by people who were not members of the consortium." This needs to be clarified, what consortium? what teams had been signed mean? Need to be clearer  Clarified Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Not done, all you've done now is make the sentence factually incorrect. After reading the source, the owners are the consortium, so you should open the second sentence with "The franchise is owned by a consortium, including..." to avoid confusion. BCCi are not a consortium as you've changed it to. Still not sure what you're referring to when you teams had been signed, makes no sense. NapHit (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)  Re-done. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Really don't like the majority of the sentences in the second para starting with "In..." vary it up, also the para is a load of short sentences bunched together, so it doesn't flow at all, needs copyediting  Varied Thine Antique Pen (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Again third para needs a copy edit just reads like a list, with the sentences reading similarly, try and vary the structure up  Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Not done, still reads awfully lost of short sentences, with no flow, needs to be copyedited by a native english speaker. NapHit (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC) ref 3 Times of India should be The Times of India  Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC) we have ESPNcricinfo and ESPN Cricinfo, should be ESPN Cricinfo throughout  Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Nope, ref 13 is ESPNcricinfo. NapHit (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC) ref 10 Indian Express should be The Indian Express  Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC) ref 13 Cricket Nirvana, not convinced this is a reliable site needs replacing  Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC) The prose is not representative of our best work, and needs a heavy copyedit from a native English speaker and uninvolved editor. Until this is corrected I'm afraid I will have to oppose. NapHit (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC) GOCE request submitted. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As the GOCE request has not been responded to I've taken it upon myself to copyedit the prose. As a result I will refrain from supporting or opposing the nomination and have marked my comments as resolved. NapHit (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed from page. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments In the second para of the lead, you have provided season wise statistics and how much matches they won. I would rather like to know their rank in the league table.  Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Have you included NR is determining the win%? If yes/no, add a note which tells that.  Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Why is wicket capitalized in the last para of the lead?  Uncapitalised Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC) If you are sorting by last name, why are Azhar Mahmood and Harmeet Singh up the list, an why is Yuvraj Singh down. Seems OK to me. It sorts by last name. I believe it only sorts by first name when the surnames are the same. Looks good to me. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC) You have to add the captains symbol to every one who had captained the team, not only the current ones. Same with wicket-keeper.  Done all Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC) "On 10 October 2010, the Board of Control ... accepted a month later." Too much details about a legal incident in a players list? 2 line are enough.  Cut Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC) All issues addressed Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Some more comments The images captions and the table headings should use KXIP instead of Kings XI Punjab.  Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC) You need a add a source for the wicket-keeper sign, similar to the captains sign.  Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC) You need to add some details about the tables in the lead. Currently the reader won't know how the list is initially sorted.  Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Jayawardene didn't captained KXIP in 2012. He did, per this. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Check again. :) It says 2010.  Fixed Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC) "Piyush Chawla has played 71 matches, the most played by any KXIP player." Can be shortened. Could you tell me how it could be shortened, without a good level of readability? Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC) "Piyush Chawla has played 71 matches, the most by any KXIP player."  Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC) "With ten international cricketers in 2009" Really not of encyclopedic value. Almost each team has a no. of international players near to the allowed no. of 11. Keeping for variation. "seven losses and victories" Maybe you could add each. The article is meant to be more specific to the players, meaning I am only including the numbers. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Gilly's cricinfo page doesn't says that he is the captain of KXIP. This references it. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Then replace ref 14.  Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments – to acquire the franchise. The franchise...". Try to avoid the obvious repetition from one sentence to the next.  Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC) "Shaun Marsh is the leading run scorer, scoring 1,603 runs." The use of "scorer" and "scoring" is quite repetitive as well. I know it isn't easy to work with items like this, but try modifying one of them for better prose.  Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Why is the HS column not sortable? That seems like a column where the ability to see the highest scores might come in handy for readers.  Sorting added Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Don't see any need for an IPL league image in the middle of a See also section. I was under the impression that we had a special box to display a related portal in an article. Maybe that could be used instead.  Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Giants2008 (Talk) 02:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC) All issues addressed. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments Perhaps add "actress" before "Preity Zinta" as some international readers may not aware of her significance.  Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC) "paid a total of " no need for "a total of".  Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Expand BCCI before using the abbreviation.  Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Final sentence of first para is in an odd place for me, I'd merge it into the second para.  Merged Thine Antique Pen (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC) "reached the semi-final and finished in second position" I'm not sure how IPL works but how can you finish second if you only make the semi-final?  Fixed Thine Antique Pen (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Second para is a little dry and focuses entirely on the team, not the players (the subject of this list), I'd expand the players para and reduce this.  Expanded Thine Antique Pen (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC) "the highest in the team" you mean "the most"?  Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC) "with 73 overall" what is the purpose of "overall"?   Copy-edited Thine Antique Pen (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC) I think, since the IPL is notable as a result of its auction for expensive foreigners, you could add nationality of these players as a column.  Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC) It would be better if the nationality column was next to the player name. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC) OK;  done. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:11, 4 September 2012 [6].

---

CPJ International Press Freedom Awards

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC), Khazar2

We are nominating this for featured list because we feel it meets the criteria and covers an important aspect of the recognition of freedom of the press. The list is well illustrated and comprehensive, with a well-written lead and full referencing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from --Kürbis (✔) 10:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

*Comments " awards are given to from four to seven individuals" - the "to from four to" is awkward. Perhaps remove "from"?  Done Khazar2 (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC) photojournalist should be photo journalist Are you sure? The New York Times and BBC both appear to prefer the former ([7] vs. [8],[9] vs. [10]), and it's the given spelling in Merriam-Webster.[11]. Khazar2 (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC) The article is at Photojournalism — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC) My mistake "US photojournalis" better "American"  Done Khazar2 (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC) In the external link section, state that it is its official site  Done Khazar2 (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Table could be sortable I'm doing this. Will need the "sort name" template though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Table does not meet the MOS:DTT Any particular complaints? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC) How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC) I think you need to use the scope=row for each rows. Perhaps something like this. For the years? Doing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC) This is, for some reason, automatically bolding the year. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC) I think scope=row is clashing with sortable and row-span. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC) The DTT does not use scope=row with a sortable table. Which do you consider more important, that the table be sortable or that scope=row be included? Doesn't look like we can have our pie and eat it too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC) The example it gives is singles, and they write "The main subject of the row is in fact the name of the single. Thus, the first cell in the row should be a normal data cell instead of a row header." Thus, in this case (with our row-spanned table) this should not have a row header. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC) That's all. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 12:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Note that things in italics are actually newspapers How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Check sorting of Manuel Vázquez Portal  Done--changed per Spanish naming conventions and source [12]. Khazar2 (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Should Jesús Joel Díaz Hernández be sorted by Diaz or Hernandez? Not sure about this. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 15:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Sorting generally based on what was in the articles. Khazar, what do you think of Manuel and Jesus? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)  Done --Diaz Hernandez is the correct sorting. [13] Khazar2 (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC) A minor point, but the sorting of Al-Sager and Al-Jamri should be "Sager" and "Jamri", ignoring the standard (and optional) Arabic "Al-". Khazar2 (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Nice. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, thanks indeed. Khazar2 (talk) 10:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2012‎ (UTC)

Comments 1992-1997 civil war should be 1992–97 civil war per WP:DASH, and WP:YEAR  Done Khazar2 (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Er, now actually done. Thanks for catching my reading comprehension fail. Khazar2 (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Missing comma after "2001" Do you mean in the phrase "who was awarded in 2001 but attended the ceremony in 2009"? I'm not sure a comma should be used here, as it's not a compound sentence; if you imagine it with "and" instead of "but", I believe it wouldn't have a comma. Khazar2 (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC) I just mean't add a comma between 2001 and but. But, that's okay. Regards. TBrandley 03:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Per MOS:FLAG, remove the country flag icons. I disagree. They are useful and important to understand and illustrate the country--Kürbis (✔) 07:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Don't think those countries should linked per WP:OVERLINK If you mean they should be delinked, then I disagree, as not every country inside the table is reasonable. If we delink the common countries, there will be imbalance and irreverence towards other countries. This would be a violation of WP:NPOV, which is far stronger than OVERLINK. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 07:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Regarding flags and links, Golden Eagle Award for Best Foreign Language Film and List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film use the same template, while List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates doesn't. These are all FLs, so there is no standardisation. I think it's generally not a problem as long as it's consistent in a single article. Of course, I'm not married to the templates so if the community agrees that they shouldn't be used then I'll be happy to get rid of em. Khazar, what do you think? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Sorry to butt in, but as long as either all countries or no countries are linked, then it is OK. I feel that country names without a flag icon is somewhat dull. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 07:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC) I feel about the same as you, Crisco. I'm okay either way--I like the flag templates but am not married to them, and would be fine removing them if that's the consensus here. CPJ does list winners as "Umar Cheema, Pakistan", etc., so I don't think it's giving nationality undue weight to add a flag. In short, glad to go by the consensus on this one. Khazar2 (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC) I don't feel like its a big issues, but I figured that we may as well per MOS:FLAG. TBrandley 02:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Alright, I guess we'll let it be unless there is consensus that the templates are unnecessary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Okay then; sure. TBrandley 02:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC) align references to the center in the table Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Categories should be in alphabetical order  Done Khazar2 (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC) TBrandley 03:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC) I think we should go with those table suggestions. If you don't get em, I'll fix it up when I get home (at work now) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Sure; no problem. TBrandley 02:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. It should and can be represented as one of Wikipedia's finest lists. Great work! TBrandley 02:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review and support! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments "in defending press freedom in the" in ... in... repetitive. How's this? Maybe worth putting (CPJ) after your explanation of the acronym. Agree " to four to seven " to ... to... again, little repetitive. How's this? I think you could explain a little bit about the significance of each of the hosts? Done. That's not the Black Panther you want to link to, is it? Done. And Abu-Jamal has a hyphen. Done. "in 2009,[13] or " not or, it's "and". Done. " J.S. Tissainayagam" space between J and S. Done. You could tag the posthumous recipients in the table, perhaps with a {{dagger}} template? How's this? "of his death were unclear." surely "are" unclear? Done The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC) K, I think that's everything. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• • Thanks for reviewing! Khazar2 (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments "The awards were founded in 1991 and are administered..." you go from past to present tense in this sentence, making it dramatically incorrect. Rephrase to "Established in 1991, the awards are administered Done refs should come after punctuation, currently the second usage of ref 1 does not Done Images could do with alt text I've inserted alt text, but I'm less experienced with this; let me know if this is acceptable. Khazar2 (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Just a comment (I have no issues with ALT text): at FAC, at least, it's no longer required. That being said I expanded the ALT text a little with a short physical description. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reviewing -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:11, 4 September 2012 [14].

---

Mystikal discography

Nominator(s): I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 12:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked extensively on it to ensure that it meets the criteria for a featured list, which I have based on the previous discographies I've worked on. Any criticism would be welcome if it improves the page. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 12:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Calvin999 (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Calvin999 I've gone through the article and the tables are really well formatted, look very clear and concise. References looks good also. There are no dablink problems but there are two dead links. Pending this issue is resolved I will support the proposal of this list. Aaron • You Da One 16:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC) I've fixed the charts.de link, but the Vevo link (see it yourself here) seems to actually be live even though Toolserver is labelling it as dead. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments Lead and infobox disagree with each other. Third sentence (starting with "Following his...") has too many run-on clauses... "in the top 5 of " top five. "After Mystikal began serving a prison " maybe "While Mystikal served a prison..."? "so far " need a timeframe for that. Where are the release dates referenced and which country/countries are they relevant to? Use a better link for the Kiss of the Dragon link, e.g. Kiss of the Dragon#Soundtrack. Allmusic->AllMusic. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC) All (hopefully) done. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 12:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Where are the release dates referenced and which country/countries are they relevant to? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Do you mean for the dates in the tables, or in the lead? I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Is that always the US release date? If so, note it, if not, not which release where... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC) AllMusic does use the American release dates: indicated this in the tables (apologies if this is becoming exasperating). I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 06:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support--Kürbis (✔) 16:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Holiday56 (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments "Mystikal's following two studio albums, Unpredictable and Ghetto Fabulous, were both released on the record label No Limit Records (Jive distributed the album rather than No Limit's parent label, Priority Records) and both peaked in the top five of the Billboard 200 and were later certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)." A run-on is present in this sentence. Perhaps a change to: "Mystikal's following two studio albums, Unpredictable and Ghetto Fabulous, were both released on the record label No Limit Records; Jive distributed the album rather than No Limit's parent label, Priority Records. Both peaked in the top five of the Billboard 200 and were later certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)." "It peaked at 37" → "It peaked at number 37" Since Mystikal is still a studio album, perhaps make the independent albums section a subsection of the studio albums section. Table caption for the "Independent albums" section could be made more specific: "List of independent albums, with some notes" → "List of independent studio albums, with some notes". Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Any reason why "Original" has a source in the singles section? It has charted, after all. No need to capitalize "The" in "The Netherlands". No need to italicize "[Original Soundtrack]" in the AllMusic reference for "The Edge of the Blade". Piped link for "Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles" should point to "Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs#Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles". Holiday56 (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC) All Done. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 12:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support, as my comments have now been addressed. Holiday56 (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support NapHit (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:11, 4 September 2012 [15].

---

30–30 club

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly over the past year and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Albacore (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

;Comments: Deadlinks Thanks for asking Google about this (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Baseball Digest). Should I keep the URLs (just in case they resurface) or should they be deleted, leaving only the journal cited in print form? —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC) I would leave them for now, but if the links don't go back up in the next few months I would remove the url. Albacore (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC) All photos need alternate text Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Kinsler needs alt text. Albacore (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Done. I just forgot to add "alt=" in front of "Ian Kinsler wearing a blue Texas Rangers cap and jersey." —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Template:Dagger and Template:Double dagger allow for footnotes for alternate text, follow the example in the templates. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Alt text should have something more descriptive than "footnote". For example for the dagger for Hall of Fame the alt text would say "Elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame". Albacore (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Done. Changed alt text for HOF dagger to "Elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame" and active player double-dagger to "Active player." —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC) The year links in the table should have a note in the "Year" header column, like Tony Award for Best Featured Actor in a Play does. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC) The years linked in the text should be removed per Template:Baseball year. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Reference 5 needs the publisher. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Albacore (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Meets criteria. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zepppep (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 17:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

;Comments: All my comments have to deal with the lead, save for the last comment. 1) The lead has numbers, such as 25, then "twelve." Be consistent. 2) A little too much detail for the HOF eligibility, IMO. Also, it's stated 13 of the current club members are "disqualified" for the Hall for the current time being; is disqualified the same as "ineligible" because I think the latter is what should be used. 3) The first sentence of the doesn't seem to be particularly controversial, yet it has 3 references. 4) I just got done reading a full sentence's worth of HOF eligibility requirements (last paragraph), yet I have to have it explained to me when Sosa and Bonds will be eligible? I think the reader would be able to figure it out on their own. 5) Perhaps too much weight given to the club and a player's HOF chances? I think "two of whom made it on the first ballot" is giving way too much credit to this feat and a players HOF enshrinement. There are a number of factors, some even off the field, that go into a player's induction; again, too much weight given to this one club IMO. 6) The lead lists the number of players who accomplished the feat in 2011, yet the caption of the Kinsler picture states he is the "latest." I would make the caption even more specific, stating "the latest of the five players to reach the club during the 2011 season." Zepppep (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC) (1) The "unwritten rule" for numbers is this (at least IMHO): if it needs a hyphen when written out in words, then it should be written numerically instead. Otherwise, use words. In this case, twelve can be written out without a hyphen, whereas twenty-five cannot. Hence, the variation, which also featured in the recently passed FL 50 home run club, with the "26 players" and "nine" variation. (2) HOF eligibility is always included in every career stat club list, whether single-season or career (but mainly for the latter). Also, utilizing "ineligible" instead of "disqualifying" would not be appropriate, as this has a completely different meaning in the context of baseball (think of MLB's list of "permanently ineligible"). "Disqualifying" here means that the players aren't qualified yet, but soon will be. Ineligible makes it sound like the players have been banned from baseball (at least temporarily), which clearly isn't the case. (3) The three refs here are used to highlight the notability of the term's usage (as per FL 50 home run club, which only a year before was nominated for deletion). However, as a compromise, I've deleted one of the references (book source that isn't too related to baseball).  Done (6)  Done That's all I have time for now. I'll address the other points later. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC) (4) Mentioning Bonds and Sosa is in line with the 500 home run club FL and the recently promoted 50 home run club, where they mention soon-to-be eligible HOF candidates. (5) Format of mentioning first ballot HOF'ers is in-line with all other stat club FLs. I understand that this is a single-season stat club rather than a career one. However, even the 20–20–20 club (which is just an FLC) uses this format. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Zepppep (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: The Kinsler image caption seems inaccurate. Technically, he was not the most recent to join the club, since he did so in 2009. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• You're right. Didn't notice that. Would you suggest me delete the Kinsler pic, or replace it with Ellsbury and label him the "most recent non-repeat player"? —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Replacing with Ellsbury's fine, though if you want to keep Kinsler (which I'd narrowly prefer just because it's a better pitcure, but it's entirely up to you), then change it to say latest to repeat the feat. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the numbers in the second paragraph of the lead section, note the following from Wikipedia's Manual of Style regarding numerals: "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine, if they are expressed in one or two words, may be rendered in numerals or in words... However there are frequent exceptions to these rules. ... Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." Since the first two sentences in the second paragraph are comparing numbers of players, it would be appropriate to use numerals for the numbers. isaacl (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments "He remained only player..." missing a word between remained and only Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC) "Of the 18 players club members..." bit confused here never heard of players club members before, not sure if this is a mistake or my being English not understanding the term, either way, think it needs clarifying what is meant Done. I originally couldn't decide between "players" and "club members" so I accidentally included both without deleting the other. My mistake. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments "became the club's fourth member " well, he became the third different member. I have to confess I find the idea of joining a club a number times to be odd, surely once he's in the club, he's in the club? Bobby Bonds actually is the club's fourth different member. Ken Williams (1922), Willie Mays (1956 & '57) and Hank Aaron (1963) all came before the elder Bonds first joined in 1969. And yes, once you're in the club, you're forever in the club. From then on, you can only repeat, not rejoin. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC) "12 have done so more than once. Of these, "... the "of these" now relates to the 12, not the 37, so reinforce the 37. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC) "power and speed" is repeated in a single sentence, not ideal. Done. Reworded the first to "hitting home runs and stealing bases." —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC) "in every season except for two[a] from 1987 to 2012, there has been at least one 30–30 member each year.[4]" not sure you need both "in every season" and "each year". Done. Removed "every year" at the very end. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC) "Carlos Beltran" has a diacritic. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC) As does Jose Cruz Jr. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Refs 2, 4, 10, 11 need en-dashes in the title. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• When sorting in ascending order for HR, I would expect it to sort secondarily by the SB.

• I'm sorry, but I don't know how to do this. Could I trouble you to clarify this for me? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Help:Sorting#Secondary key has instructions on how to achieve this, but I think they're backwards. It seems to me you have to sort the table based on the primary key first, then hold down the shift key while clicking to sort based on the secondary key. isaacl (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Isaacl. Holding the shift key down does work. Does that mean there's nothing else that needs to be added into the table syntax? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I didn't notice that there were some footnote symbols after some of the entries. This will also throw off sorting (and may be why simply sorting on the secondary key first and then the primary key is not working). See Help:Sorting#Numeric sorting with hidden key for information on inserting a hidden sort key (I've seen this used in an article somewhere but I can't remember where now; if I find it I'll point you to it). isaacl (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • See the Template:nts page and select "What links here" under the Toolbox section in the left hand side bar to see examples. Basically I think you just need to wrap all the numbers in the nts template. isaacl (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm still completely confused about the nts template. Anyways, pressing the primary key (i.e. HR column) first, then holding the shift key for the secondary one (SB column) actually works for me, even with the symbols (the ^, am I right?). It sorts Alex Rodriguez first (who has 42 HR + 46 SB) before Canseco and Bonds (who both have 42 HR + 40 SB each). The caret symbol doesn't seem to affect the table. I'm not sure about others, but it's working for me. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Clicking on the secondary key first then the primary key should also work. I believe all you need to do to use the nts template is to replace each number with {{nts|number}}. isaacl (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Is the addition of the nts template absolutely necessary? Adding the template complicates matters a whole lot further and the current format of primary key –> shift+secondary key works perfectly. My theory is that only when the current format doesn't work should the nts template be added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Not sure what is generally expected in a featured article/list; however, I can see how the original commenter might feel that the ability to sort by clicking on the secondary key then the primary key may be important to preserve, given that some people may rely on this and not know about using the shift key. It is after all supposed to be an example of the very best that Wikipedia has to offer. isaacl (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Placed nts template around every HR and SB number. However, it doesn't seem to be sorting properly, as it is placing players who have fewer stolen bases but the same number of home runs ahead of players with more stolen bases. Could one of you guys advise me on how to fix this problem? —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering now if you need to use a hidden sort key, like we do on many cricket lists where, say, hitting 100 runs off 40 balls is better than hitting 100 runs off 41 balls. I know this is all a bit of drag, if you and the other editors here don't think it applies to baseball lists, then I'll defer to you, but if you look at one of the recently promoted cricket "List of centuries..." lists then you'll see how they sort stuff invisibly... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The nts template should be good enough, as I understand it, since all that is needed is to mark up the value in a way that extra trailing text won't affect the sorting. isaacl (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the double click that I haven't ever used before... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to work for me: I clicked twice on the "SB" heading to sort in descending order, then clicked twice on "HR" to sort it in descending order, and players with the same number of home runs are ordered in descending order of stolen bases. isaacl (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem. Because even without the nts template, you would still have to click the SB first before the HR (basically, it's sorting exactly the same way as it would have without the template). What TRM wants here (if I'm not mistaken) is for one to click on the HR list and have it automatically break ties based on greater # of stolen bases. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, exactly that. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand now. Though it can be done with a hidden sort key, personally I wouldn't recommend it, because it would make the table sort in a non-standard way, and so would confuse those who expect to be able to control the primary and secondary keys themselves. (I appreciate that those who know how to control the sort keys may be less than a majority of readers; it is a tradeoff in assisting with making Wikipedia easier to use from an overall perspective through a common interface versus trying to satisfy a specific local need. Unlike the cricket case, the desired sorting can be achieved by picking the right columns to sort.) isaacl (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that we can agree that the NTS template does nothing for the table and that we shouldn't use the hidden sort key, can we just leave this table alone and consider this comment resolved? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The nts template ensures that sorting will work correctly even with the trailing symbols on the numbers, and so I would recommend keeping its use. Regarding the original comment, since The Rambling Man agreed to defer judgment to other editors, personally I think it can be considered resolved. isaacl (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure sorting in a "non-standard way" is a bad thing here. When the secondary sort is just seemingly random, it's unhelpful. For sports (like cricket) where there's a clearly defined secondary sort (and once again, that may not be the case for baseball, but hey...) we should use the tools available to us to do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The sorting is a "stable sort", meaning that the original table row order is preserved where there are ties in the chosen primary sort key, and so the order is not random. In this case, it means the original chronological ordering is preserved. Adding a hidden sort key to the home run column, for example, that combined home runs and stolen bases would break the stable sorting, and prevent the user from choosing certain combinations of sort keys. isaacl (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

But this "stable sorting" is unhelpful in many cases. I appreciate you telling me how it does sort though, a mystery solved. What combination of sort key would it prevent that would actually be useful? I'm thinking of the reader here, not a scientific approach to tables... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Assuming the hidden combined key is added to the home run column, sorting using home runs as a primary key and any column other than stolen bases as a secondary key would not work. For example, sorting by home runs and then by year would not work. Also, it would not be possible to sort by home runs as the primary key in one direction and by stolen bases in the other, such as in descending order by home runs and ascending order by stolen bases as a secondary key.

Stable sorting is what allows someone to sort the table with any number of sort keys, by sorting the table sequentially from the least-significant key to the most-significant one. It's a common technique used by users of, for example, spreadsheets. (Using the shift-click technique is probably more convenient for readers, since they can click on the column headings starting with the most-significant key downwards, but with the current interface, it isn't very discoverable.) isaacl (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

(A clarifying note: when I said stable sorting preserves the original table row order, I meant the order before the sort, and not the original order when the page was first loaded. So when a table is first sorted by the secondary sort key and then the primary one, ties for the primary sort key are resolved by the secondary sort key, due to the stable sorting.) isaacl (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. How many general readers know about "shift clicking"? Virtually none of them I'd suggest. I think for certain tables it's much more convenient for our reader to force the sorting. What about Olympic medal tables which should always sort by golds, then silvers, then bronzes, when sorting by each type of medal? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, using shift-click isn't very discoverable. The standard technique of sorting by the least-significant key first, and so forth up to sorting by the most-significant key last remains available. Editors do force sorting by organizing the original table in the order deemed most useful (I won't go into details on the medal table sorting here, since it is off-topic). Making a column with one value actually be a combination of two columns for sorting purposes takes away the ability of readers to choose their own sort order. If only one order is ever desirable, then the ability to sort can be removed entirely. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree on two grounds. One, I may wish to sort by surname and by "best performance" where "best performance" is defined by most homers then most stolen bases, or most stolen bases then most homers. So removing sorting is inadequate. Secondly, I don't think Olympic medal tables are off-topic. They have a "traditional" sort mechanism, which doesn't follow the "stable" sorting you describe, yet they're just dandy. There's no good reason why other lists with such "traditional" sorting should be denied helpful and intuitive sorting. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's important to give readers the ability to define their own sort keys. I believe the article should not pre-determine that they must always sort based on a combination of home runs + stolen bases, though. If readers want to sort the table by home runs, then surnames, then stolen bases, they would not be able to do so with the home run column actually sorting based on a combination value of home runs + stolen bases. Or if readers want to see who has the most power while being slow on the base paths, they would want to be able to sort in descending order of home runs and ascending order of stolen bases. I apologize if I've failed to explain the term "stable sort" adequately: it is not a sorting order and so does not relate to the concept of sorting by a pre-determined combination of values. It just means that when you choose a new sort key, ties are not broken randomly, but are based on the current order. You need this to be able to support sorting on surname then another column, as in your example, whether or not the other column has a hidden sort key value.

Regarding Olympic medal tables, I'm not sure that when sorting by silvers, all readers want ties for silvers to be broken by golds, then bronzes. (To be honest, I'm not sure who would sort by silvers anyway.) Nonetheless, it is possible for readers to sort an Olympic medal table using any set of primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. keys. To sort by silvers, golds, and bronzes, for example, the reader first clicks on the bronze heading, then the gold heading, then the silver heading. isaacl (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there probably is a solution to my issue, just one that needs proper explanation to all readers. Currently the Mediawiki software is clearly not mature enough to achieve what we need without intricate coding. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

In cases where the desired sorting is based strictly on the existing columns, and not on calculated values (such as a percentage based on two columns), I think the most beneficial approach is to educate readers on how they can sort on multiple columns. This gives them the flexibility to decide on any ordering they want. In this case, they can first sort the table based on stolen bases, then sort it based on home runs. isaacl (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, so a % of two cols is okay? Or any other formula? That would be the case here or for the cricket lists I've been talking about. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

In terms of making the sort order obvious to readers, personally I would prefer that the result of the actual formula (be it a percentage, or something else) be a column in the table, and then readers can explicitly click on that column and get a sorting based on it. That way it is crystal clear what the sort order is. (I don't want to digress too much in this featured list review, so perhaps we can take further discussion on sorting in general elsewhere?) isaacl (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I understand. It's really important to the FL community that we resolve this, there are hundreds, if not thousands of lists that use slightly more intricate sorting to resolve the shortcomings of the software, would like to take this further. Your place or mine? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

TRM, as per your previous comment and Isaacl's request above, may I please request that this point be deferred to him and me. The issue seems to be more about an overall WP MOS formatting issue that is still unsolved, rather than this specific list violating any existing WP guidelines. In addition, the discussion thread is becoming excessively long for readability purposes (especially given that this is now an FL community issue). However, if you believe this thread must stay, feel free to keep it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• Four players are also members of the 500 home run club." This lists five players, not four.

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Don't need to repeat Ryan Braun's first name in the lead. Unlike with the Bonds family, there's no risk of confusion regarding his name.

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Giants2008 (Talk) 22:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I see support from four users, dating back to August 10. Shouldn't this list be promoted by now? —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no rush and I'm sure the next time a director does a sweep of promotions, this will be given due consideration. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand. I was just getting a little worried as the last sweep of promotions was done yesterday. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, everything will be fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reassurances TRM. I'm sorry if my comments come about as complaining or sulking, as this is not my intent. I just find it extremely peculiar how three other lists that have exactly the same amount of support and were nominated later than this one can be passed while this list ends up being simply placed under the "Older Nominations" category. Something's terribly wrong when there are no longer any outstanding issues needed to be addressed and yet this list remains unpassed when it is basically an "equal" to the three that were passed. With all the resolved comments and support votes, I really don't see anything else I can do with this list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it was an oversight? Have you asked the FL director who closed the others why yours wasn't closed? I doubt there's a conspiracy... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I never asked. I trust you and the other two FL directors in making wise and prudent choices in closing. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask. We're only human. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your helpful advice. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I discussed this matter with Giants 2008 and he stated that he would like to make sure the issue regarding secondary sorting is no longer considered outstanding before he promotes this list. In your opinion, would you still consider this an outstanding issue TRM? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is an issue but I'm the only one, so I'm happy for my comment to be considered just that, a comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support I think Rambling Man's point is very minor. I would think otherhwise if the table would be as large as the current page. Also the system with shift does not work on my keyboard. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 15:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks GOP. The only problem is, I think you can only vote once, which you did back on August 7th. As a result, only one of your votes of support can be counted —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

My error. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 18:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:11, 4 September 2012 [16].

---

Kanye West discography

Nominator(s): Holiday56 (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because having done much work on the article, including starting a peer review and applying necessary changes, I believe it finally meets the criteria for becoming a featured list. Holiday56 (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Calvin999 (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Calvin999 I think the tables and citations look really good and clean, not messy or hard to navigate around. Thanks. Holiday56 (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC) I actually thought the picture was Jay-Z at first glance, is there a better one for Kanye?  Done. Holiday56 (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC) I'd put the last sentence about Katy Perry's song before Watch The Throne, as he was featured on that song before the album came out. Just to be chronological with time.  Done. Holiday56 (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Quite a lot of dab links which need to be fixed.  Done. Holiday56 (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Aaron • You Da One 23:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC) In the references, every Billboard and Prometheus Global Media is linked. Only the first reference should have them linked, all others thereafter should not be linked. This goes for all other references too. It's overlinking. Not done yet. There have been discussions about how repeat linking in reference sections can actually be helpful for readers, as reference sections don't tend to be read like normal prose. This discussion over at the talk page for the Manual of Style brought up this point, and the outcome of the discussion was the addition of the word "footnotes" in the sentence "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." of the "What generally should not be linked" section. Multiple featured lists alternate between repeating links in references (e.g. Jordin Sparks discography, Birdman discography, Red Hot Chili Peppers discography) and not repeating them (e.g. Jennifer Lopez discography, Chris Brown discography, Backstreet Boys discography). Holiday56 (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Okay. Will see what others say. Aaron • You Da One 18:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC) No one else has had a problem with this point in 9 days so I mark it as resolved. Aaron • You Da One 16:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments Refs should come after punctuation, currently ref 5 in the second para does not  Done. Holiday56 (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC) "breaking the previous record set by West's previous album" not keen on the use of previous twice in this sentence, removing the first use of previous should solve the issue  Done. Holiday56 (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments You say he's a producer, does this discog include his productions?  Done. Since a separate production discography already exists for West, I've removed "producer" in the opening. Holiday56 (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC) "30 million digital songs" digital downloads really, not digital songs..  Done. Holiday56 (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC) "West has had six songs exceed 3 million in digital sales as of May 2012" maybe "As of May 2012, six of West's songs have exceeded three million digital downloads"?  Done. Holiday56 (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC) "from the RIAA.[9][6]" better to have these numerical.  Done. Holiday56 (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC) "peaked at number-one" no need for hyphen, because you're not being consistent, see earlier use of "at number two"...  Done. Holiday56 (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC) "a total of " is this really necessary? Why not just "seven"?  Done. Holiday56 (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC) "Till the Casket Drops" thought that was just "Til"...  Done. Holiday56 (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Refs - thought Allmusic was actually AllMusic.  Done. Holiday56 (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Table captions should really be descriptive of the tables, not just the same each time. Can you be specific on which table captions need to be more descriptive? I've seen captions similar to the ones being used in the Kanye West discography article right now in several other discographies I've seen, including some featured lists. Based on their use in featured lists, I just assumed that the captions were fine to use. I'd appreciate some suggestions. Holiday56 (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Sure thing. Where you have "List of albums, with selected chart positions, sales figures and certifications" several times, I'd expect to see "... collaborative albums ..." and "... studio albums ..." etc so the captions are different and more descriptive for each table. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Okay. Made some changes to the table captions for the albums section. Holiday56 (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Issues above have been adressed. Bruce Campbell (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 02:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Source comments – What makes HipHopDX (refs 33 and 36) a reliable source? This section of the WikiProject Albums talk page points out several reputable sites and publications that cite HipHopDX. Holiday56 (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC) What makes zobbel.de (used in ref 49, three times in 61, and four times in 91) reliable? Zobbel is the primary source used for UK chart positions below 100, and sources its information from official UK chart media. Several featured lists also use the site as a source. Holiday56 (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Hyphens in the title of ref 77 should probably be en dashes instead.  Done. Holiday56 (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Is Global Grind (ref 148) reliable?  Done. Replaced with MTV sources. Holiday56 (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Or Consequence of Sound (ref 180)?  Done. Replaced with an MTV source. Holiday56 (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Refs 193 and 196 have all caps in their titles that should be fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)  Done. Holiday56 (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Sufur222 Most of my concerns were addressed in the peer review, but there's one more thing I've noticed: the RIAA ref needs quotation marks around the search parameter (i.e. http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?artist=%22West%2C+Kanye%22) otherwise no results appear. If this is fixed, I will happily support this. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 07:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)  Done. Holiday56 (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Lead is well written, tables are properly formatted and sourcing is consistent and professional. I did a few tweaks if you don't mind, but otherwise great work. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • One quick query: using "NA" for unknown directors implies that the video never had a director. I've seen other FLs use a dash instead and have a note at the bottom ("—" denotes an unknown director). That should clarify any confusion with the directors. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Since n/a is also an abbreviation for "not available", I think it would be fine to use the template. Many featured lists alternate between using the template and notation. Holiday56 (talk) 05:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Sounds reasonable. I'm okay then. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 10:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:11, 4 September 2012 [17].

---

List of Indian Premier League centuries

Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that this list meets the criteria and is loosely based on FL List of Test cricket triple centuries. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Quick comments

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

*Not sure why you need a No. column in the first table as it sorts the same as the date. Certainly not sure why you need a No. column in the second and third tables, unnecessary. Don't see a real requirement to make the second and third table in smaller font. Is it "ESPN Cricinfo", "Cricinfo", "ESPNcricinfo", "ESPN cricketinfo" or "ESPN cricketinfo"? Check for WP:DASH violations (e.g. spaced hyphens instead of spaced en-dashes) in the ref titles. Look for a decent cricket list category (e.g. Category:Cricket lists). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Done. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments "The Indian Premier League is held annually since its first edition in 2008." is should changed be to has been "centuries been" -> "centuries have been" "scored by Chris Gayle of Royal Challengers Bangalore against Delhi Daredevils match" no need for match to be included "he scored 100 runs of 37 balls" of should be off "in 2010 season" -> in the 2010 season Don't need to use Chris Gayle's full name every time. After the first use, just Gayle is fine "Delhi Daredevils has scored 5 centuries, most by any team in the IPL" -> "Five centuries have been made by players from the Delhi Daredevils, which is more than any other team" make sure symbols are accessible per WP:ACCESS, at the moment the dagger symbol is not and should be replaced by this {{dagger}} I think it would make sense to have the images down the side of the table rather than before it AB de villiers was one of the two players who scored a century in the 2009 season "icon up to the column title." up should be changed to in NapHit (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Done :) →TSU tp* 06:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC) MOS:NUM states the numbers under ten should spelled out instead of in digits Still see an instance where this is not the case NapHit (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC) "This century scored by McCullum's with 158 not out in the first match is the highest score in the IPL and the only instance of a score higher than 150" this sentence is a mess and hard to understand. I would mention what score he got in the sentence before and then use this sentence to state it is the only instance of a score above 150 this sentence still reads awkwardly change to "McCullum scored 158 not out, which is the highest score made by a player in the competition and the only one over 150." NapHit (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC) "Deccan Chargers and Kolkata Knight Riders have conceded 4 centuries each." I take it this means they have conceded the most? make it explicit if so The change to " Deccan Chargers and Kolkata Knight Riders have scored four centuries each." makes no sense, this bears no relation to the way the sentence was previously constructed and the table that lists centuries by teams only lists 3 centuries between the two teams. I'm still at a loss as to what this sentence is trying to convey. NapHit (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC) "There have been 5 seasons so far played, whereby, centuries have been scored on 24 occasions by 19 different batsmen from eight of the ten franchises which have been a part of the IPL." -> In the five seasons played 24 centuries have been scored by 19 different batsmen. Players from eight of the ten franchises have scored centuries, the only franchises who have not had a player score a century for them are Pune Warriors India and Kochi Tuskers Kerala." The key should be organised in terms of what column comes first, so inns. should not be before s/r when s/r is the second column in the table. You have Inn. in he key and Inns. in the table be consistent NapHit (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Done Thanks for the comments. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Just one more I would move the daggers next to the players as they are supposed to indicate who was captain so it would make more sense for them to be next to the player rather than the score. NapHit (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Done :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 08:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• Try not to start a sentence with a number, like in "14 players have have scored 90–99 runs in an innings".
• Also fix the double word in that sentence.
• What makes Itsonlycricket (references 3 and 5) a reliable source? Giants2008 (Talk) 20:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Done :) →TSU ^tp* 01:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Vensatry

Comments Any reason for not including a separate column for "Serial no". Comment It was removed as per the suggestion by TRM. The date column is already present, so this is unnecessary. This being a progressive list can grow many folds in the future. It would be helpful to know the total no. of centuries made in IPL just by looking at the table if you include that. Just an opinion. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC) I think you could overcome that by having a "total" row in the overview tables. The actual number can then be found both in the lead and in the two summary tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Done. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Not done You haven't added the "total" row at the end of the tables. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC) I have removed total column from the two lists at the bottom because they were misleading and as per asked by other two reviewers.--Vyom25 (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Why didn't you include a column for "Balls faced". That's a vital figure in these kind of lists especially when it comes to limited overs cricket. Not done Strike rate is already related to that. In T20s SR is usually preferred over balls faced. That being the case you may also have to add a separate column for the "DLF maximums". —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC) The number is in the lead. The table is already very big, thats why its better to leave that for future when we have about 50+ 100s. "The fastest IPL century in terms of number of balls faced and strike rate". The text here is a bit redundant. Fixed The caption of the image is a repetition of what you have already explained in the lead. Comment I don't think that this is a problem. The caption is to tell that how does this image related to this article/list. No you can't repeat facts. If you can't think of a better caption just remove it and use the player name alone. That would suffice. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC) The venue column must follow the "Ground name, City" format. Done I would like to have a secondary sort for the score column based on the strike rate. For eg., Gilly's 109 should come ahead of Warner while sorting by descending order. Not done I can't see other similar FL doing that. It can be done, but I am afraid that it will make a mess and all the hardwork will go into nothing. You need to do that. The column doesn't sort correctly. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC) ESPNcricinfo is not a publisher. It must be included under the work parameter. Done Inconsistency in date format in Refs #6, #7 and #8. Fixed Not done You haven't corrected the format for access dates. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC) "Telegraphindia" is a print media. The publisher parameter is not required if it's a self publishing media. Instead, the work parameter must be filled in. Done Not done You don't have to use italics in work column. It will automatically italicize the value. Also you haven't fixed Ref #8. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Ref #7 has no author's name. Fixed —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Is the "year" column best to define the scope in the second table. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC) I have further fixed all your comments except the caption one. There is no policy or guideline which says that you can't repeat facts in a caption. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Note – You haven't fixed a few concerns. —Vensatry (Ping me) 19:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Done As of the serial no. advice, I have left a note on TRM's talk, lets see what he says. As of the year column, Cricinfo refers to them as Indian Premier League, year, so I think the current version is the best. I have implemented all your other advises. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC) If you go by policies and guidelines, you may ignore a majority of the suggestions given by reviewers. When I worked on a similar list, a reviewer asked me to either change the caption or remove the sentence as it was a repeated fact. You may wish to keep the caption as such, but don't expect me to resolve your comments. —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Done I hope the new caption is fine. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Though the caption is a bit lengthy, I'm okay with it. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC) "The Economic Times" should be italicized. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Done--Vyom25 (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Further comments Link "franchises". —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC) --Linked--Vyom25 (talk) 05:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Good work with the tables. However, the prose part is not so engaging. I think it needs a small amount of copy-edit. Otherwise everything is fine for me. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC) More on prose Gayle -> Chris Gayle in the lead  Done Murali Vijay is linked twice in the lead  Done at the strike rate of -> at a strike rate of  Done The lead image has the picture of Chris Gayle and the caption is a bit lengthy talking unnecessary. It can be included in the lead  Done Why is "International Cricket Council" italicised in ref #4; same with NDTV in ref #8  Done Is the cat "Indian cricket in the 21st century" relevant here?  Done Arrange the categories in alphabetical order Category:Indian Premier League is the most relevant cat here, so I think it should be the first one. The third para just reads like a list of facts. As I said earlier, the prose needs to be more engaging. —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC) I have again tried to make it better, and hopefully I did. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC) "Was been made" is grammatically incorrect. Done jfd34 (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Except for this everything looks fine now. —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 09:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment: - There "strike rate" is mentioned but I found it pretty less use and if I wan't to know balls faced, I will have to calculate. If I were reading an article on centuries (regardless of format), balls faced will be an important thing for me and most of the readers would want to know that how many balls were faced. Thus, instead of including SR, I believe that balls should be kept or both. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 12:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Doing ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Done ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! It looks much better now :) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 10:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments – "The Indian Premier League has been held annually ........." -> "The IPL has been held annually ........" --Done Link "not out" in the lede. --Done "Five centuries have been made by players from the Delhi Daredevils, which is more than any other team." -> "Five centuries have been made by players from the Delhi Daredevils, which are more than any other team." --please have a look at NapHit's comment. "who have scored a IPL century" -> "who have scored an IPL century" --Done The tables look odd to me, could you remove "align=center" from the tables. --Done I have done a slightly different thing so do have a look. Not sure why you need a "Total" row in the last two tables. --It is necessary to give the summation of the total centuries and centurions. Zia Khan 17:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Thank you for the comments as Vibhi is not available I am looking into it.--Vyom25 (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC) "Players from the Royal Challengers Bangalore has scored four centuries, which is the second most after the five centuries scored by Delhi Daredevils players.--> Players from the Royal Challengers Bangalore have scored four centuries, which are the second most after the five centuries scored by Delhi Daredevils players. --Done More comments – ESPN Cricinfo should be ESPNcricinfo, use publsher parameter. --Done Since work parameter is used for print media, "The Telegraph" should be The Telegraph. --Done replaced the source with Cricinfo. Link NDTV. --Done Be consistent, link all the "ESPNcricinfo" or link "The Telegraph" only at 1st use. --Added all the cricinfo ref. Zia Khan 10:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Also removed total row from the other two lists as you asked.--Vyom25 (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Resolved on 7 August I'm not keen on the symbols and text wrapping onto the next line in the tables, could you set these not to wrap, or make the tables wider (or both)? (placing the images at the end of the tables in a gallery). --It has been tried and I am not sure why Vibhi changed it. I have to ask him. Have a look for text wrapping.--Vyom25 (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Still wrapping text in the main list. Zia Khan 09:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Have a look now it was the only way I could unwrap the text. Because table is very large.--Vyom25 (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Just remove the images to unwrap the text and put a No. column in the list. Zia Khan 12:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Another editor moved images into the gallery section at the bottom of the page now what do you say?--Vyom25 (talk) 05:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Now remove "inn." column and put a "No." column in the list, and I'm all good. Zia Khan 06:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the review! :) As of the no. thing, there has been a discussion in this FLC earlier, and I don't want to make any changes without getting a consensus for this. As of the inn. thing, it helps in knowing a batsman' ability of making runs at the time of chase an the first innings (I know that this is more applicable to Test cricket, but still its an important stat is my opinion). :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC) I think the most important thing is how many centuries are there in the list. Zia Khan 10:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Agree, but both the other two lists, and the lead, tells that. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC) I don't think so. Only the lede tells that which is not sufficient. Zia Khan 11:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Oops! The list changed when I was away. Sorry! ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC) You are working the wrong way "Total" rows were removed on consensus. See comments from Vensatry, Harrias and myself. Zia Khan 13:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Again sorry! Well, I am confused what to do. I can't get a clear consensus on the no. thing. Lets see if someone can help us out. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Ping me as this resolves. Zia Khan 13:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support — Nice work. Zia Khan 20:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

* The lead caption should use "have" rather than "has" in the first sentence. And "out" is not required in the last sentence. --Done The first two images by the table are basically saying the same sort of thing, but one starts "has scored" while the other just starts "scored". --Done The language is a little arduous and repetitive in places: "fastest IPL century in terms of strike rate was scored by", "was the slowest in terms of strike rate". --Done Stating that a few players have reached "100 more than once" and then that "Gayle has achieved this feat three times." is a little confusing, as it sort of implies that Gayle has reached 100 more than once three times. Which makes no sense. --Done The names wrap onto two lines on my monitor: could you force that column not to wrap without being too visually detrimental on the remainder of the list? --Have a look. The numbers in the second list don't add up: 6+5+4+2+6 does not equal 18 for the number of centurions, and that table would suggest that only in one season has a player scored more than one century (2011). This is presumably because some players have scored in more than one season, but it is highly misleading in that case. --Done removed total row. The number of centurions does not add up in the following table either. This may be because some players have moved teams? Again, this is highly misleading, and removing the totals rows from both tables might be best. --Done removed total row. ESPN Cricinfo is not italicised in Ref #1, but is thereafter. In Ref #12 it is just listed as "Cricinfo" --Done Refs #8 and #9 need publisher and location added, and need to be consistent with each other. Also, there is a stray "=" and """ in Ref #9. What is "PTI" for Ref #9? --Done replaced them with Cricinfo. Unresolved comments from Harrias talk MOS:FLAG suggests that flags should only be used in tables with the country name attached to them. For example, at this size, it is not immediately obvious whether McCullum is an Australian or a New Zealander. Personally, I'm not convinced that the player's nationality is relevant to this table anyway, as the players are representing a domestic team, not their country. Also, for sportsmen, the flag should representing sporting nationality so if you are including them, Gayle's should be West Indies, not Jamaica. --Done You've changed Gayle's flag, but the first part of my point is still unresolved. Removed all the flags. Harrias talk 13:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC) The first paragraph needs more references to support the statement it makes. --Done As the lists are sortable, you should state in your final column that "The list is initially organised in chronological order." (without the italics). Similarly for the final table being in alphabetical order. --It is already there in last para of the lead section. No, it states that they are organised, not that they are initially organised. --Done Harrias talk 13:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Have a look.--Vyom25 (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Mostly technicalities to work on there, although the lead in general could do with a polish. Harrias talk 11:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the comments I have started working on it.--Vyom25 (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Well done so far. I have some issues with the quality of the prose in the lead, I don't feel it meets the required level for featured content, and is certainly short of "professional standards of writing". Harrias talk 13:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Have a look now it was the only way I could unwrap the text. Because table is very large.--Vyom25 (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC) I have done some copy-editing. Hope that makes the prose fine. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Made further copy-editing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Harrias ^talk 21:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Sanath jayasuriya portrait.jpg – Here's somewhat of a problem. You can't cut a part out of a work licensed under CC-BY 2.0 and release it under a different license.

No other copyright related problems found. Goodraise 18:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am not an expert when it comes to copyright, but the only condition of CC Attribution 2.0 Generic licence is attribution, and the is no condition of share-alike. Please correct if I am wrong. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• You are correct, but this is a special case. When using a work licensed under CC-BY 2.0, you don't become the copyright holder of the original work. While you can create works based upon the original work, so called "derivative works", you can only release such a work under some license if you are the derivative work's copyright holder, which you are only if your changes/additions to the original work, unlike mere cropping, meet the threshold of originality. Goodraise 14:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support — jfd34 (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

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