Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Prime Ministers of Sri Lanka

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 User:Matthewedwards 19:07, 14 October 2008 [1].

List of Prime Ministers of Sri Lanka

I have been improving this list in the past few days, and trying to meet up with the criteria. I think I have met the requirements now (hopefully). This is my first nom, so any advice, comments for improvement will be welcome. Chamal ^Talk ± 04:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

What makes the following reliable sources?
- ~~http://www.island.lk/2000/10/21/featur01.html~~
  A better reference is already there for this, but I've left this one as a 'secondary' source.
- ~~http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lkawgw/sirjohn.html~~
  Added new reference http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/CK17Df01.html for this part of the article.
- ~~http://countrystudies.us/~~
  Replaced with http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,894341,00.html?promoid=googlep
- ~~http://www.lankalibrary.com/~~
  Replaced with http://www.uklankatimes.net/Insidepages/OpenFile/OpenFile.aspx?SID=1

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my replies to two of the refs. I could not find better references for the other two, but those parts in the article are covered by the three general references. Should I add one of them to the article as an inline reference? And should the other two that now have better sources be removed, or is it OK to keep them as well? Chamal ^Talk ± 11:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would remove the two unneeded ones, as having unreliable sources doesn't really help much. It's up to you about the other two, if you really think that the information is so contentious that the general reference won't prevent questions, then yes, otherwise no need. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The three replaced refs have been removed. Chamal ^Talk ± 13:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done All unreliable sources have now been replaced. Chamal ^Talk ± 05:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good list. :) --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportLooks good.--LAA Fan^sign _review 17:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good, but can you change the publishers in the references from web addresses to publisher names; for instance www.thehistorychannel.co.uk. to The History Channel. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, except for history.com, which is generally known as "history.com" and that's the way it appears on the website too. Thanks. Chamal ^talk _work 02:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

No "This is a list of" stuff please. Also, remove bold or link per WP:BOLDTITLE.
Corrected. Boldface removed. Can you tell me if the current version is OK?
"(1947 - 1972)" and other date ranges need an en dash (–) per WP:DASH.
Done. There was only one occurrence. Thanks. Chamal ^talk _work 03:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also in the section titles. Gary King (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, sorry. It's fixed now. Chamal ^talk _work 04:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done All suggested correction have been made. Chamal ^talk _work 07:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Resolved comments from Crzy cheetah 02:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I think more or less is a colloquial term and should be removed.
  Done.
- In the "dates" columns you're using the US format "March 6, 1989", but in the "notes" column you're using the other format " 28 March 1990". I don't care which one you pick, but you can't use both.
  Fixed. Notes changed to first format.
- In the references, some dates are linked and some are not. Could you fix that, too, please?
  Fixed. All dates are now linked.
- Mentioning that a reference is in English is a little redundant, isn't it? I mean we all expect them to be in English.
  Well, {{Cite web}} has a field "language", so I used it. But you're right, the documentation says not to specify "english". I've removed it.

--Crzy cheetah 04:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and fixes, Crzycheetah. Chamal ^talk _work 12:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- You should list the reporters under the "author" field of the {{Cite web}} instead of the "work" field. Other than that, this list is a high quality list that should be featured.--Crzy cheetah 02:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. Thanks again. Chamal ^talk _work 07:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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