Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2011

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 23:06, 27 September 2011 [1].

---

List of accolades received by the Spider-Man film series

Nominator(s): Crystal Clear x3 10:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the FL criteria. Crystal Clear x3 10:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ruby2010 comment! 03:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Ruby2010 Add wikilink to Spider-Man film franchise in lead done "Overall, the film series has received a strong to polarized reception from critics." What do you mean by strong? Negative or positive? done Any critics naming any of the films the best of the year (or decade, or out of other superhero franchises?) Might be interesting to add to last sentence in lead done I count 98 nominations, not 96 in both infobox and full lists done "having a heart to it" doesn't sound very encyclopedic removed "Dunst's performance as an aspiring actress who works as a waitress at a run down diner..." I think you can cut out the "run down diner" part (otherwise it's a little wordy) done When you say the films were released to theaters, I assume you mean in the US. Perhaps indicate this (i.e. the film was released to US theaters on ...) done "It eventually made more than $783 million[31] ..." I assume you mean worldwide? done The IGN quote needs a citation It does, ref 36. "Out of the movie's three Academy Award nominations – Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing and Best Visual Effects – Spider-Man 2 was awarded the latter." I don't think latter works here, but correct me if I'm wrong done Spider-man 3: specific release date? (rather than May 2007) done "Peter must face his biggest challenge yet: fighting a rival photographer that the symbiote then refuged..." Refuged? reworded It's The New York Times and The New York Times Company (see general references) done CNBC is not italicized done It's New York (magazine is not in the title) done Ref 47: Andre Soares is author done Ref 52: Visual Effects Society Award -> Visual Effects Society Awards done Ref 53 is missing parameters (date etc) done for the accessdate, no url because its a treelink Wall Street Journal -> The Wall Street Journal done NPR is not italicized done Ref 60: add date (Feb 9, 2008) done Digital Spy is not italicized done Ref 68: publisher is Visual Effects Society done These need resolving. Ruby2010 comment! 18:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks for all of your comments! Crystal Clear x3 02:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Why no URL for ref 53 (World Stunt Awards)? I assume you didn't look the website up with restricted access (like for a newspaper). Ruby2010 comment! 03:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC) I've replaced the ref. Did I miss something with the other four? Crystal Clear x3 03:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Nope, they're fine. I just didn't want to bury the Ref 53 comment in the template. Ruby2010 comment! 03:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Article now looks great. Ruby2010 comment! 03:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from –Drilnoth (T/C) 12:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

*Comments (feel free to intersperse responses): –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC) I'd recommend renaming the article to List of accolades received by the Spider-Man film series, because it doesn't really cover accolades for other Spider-Man media like comics and video games. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC) done Remove the "See also" section. Those articles aren't really related to the topic at all. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC) done References should not use "Inc." and the like as part of company names. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC) done I'd recommend using the same color scheme for each table. Either the green or orange could work (or maybe a dark red or blue to tie in thematically to the topic?), but not the bright yellow currently used in the first table. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC) done "Spider-Man 2 was named the third best superhero movie of all-time by IGN and Time magazine." (third paragraph) needs a reference. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC) done (prose, table contents, and reference reliability not checked). –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Wikilink publisher and work fields in references at all applicable occurrences, not just the first one. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
    • But what about WP:Overlink?
      • Oh... that's weird. I thought reference lists lists were excluded from that, because they're lists. I'll ask about it, but for now, it's okay as-is. –Drilnoth (T/C) 12:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Looks like it was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (linking)/Archive 11#Does overlinking apply to the references section? with, as with so many discussions on Wikipedia guidelines, absolutely no conclusion whatsoever. I guess that the refs can be kept as-is, but I'm not particularly happy about the layout. What if someone clicks a citation link to jump down and read a reference? Are they supposed to search through all the references to find a link if they want one? I won't oppose solely because of this issue, but I'm not thrilled with it either. –Drilnoth (T/C) 12:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
        • I think linking refs every time is fine. Who knows which ref will be clicked on first? I think of it in the same way as I think of sortable tables. If there's no guarantee which link our readers click first, then we should link everything every time... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments "franchise" or "film series" in the lead? done Awards & Nominations -> nominations. There should be a dedicated infobox for this, not a freestyle hard-coded table. done J.K. -> J. K. done Gwen Stacey->Stacy. done Spider-man 3 appears to rank 21 now, not 19. Perhaps worth putting an "As of..." in front of this sentence to be sure. corrected Check other two films positions. done Don't think you should start a sentence with "Whereas..." done And why not list them as 26th and 28th rather than in words? done "and getting an " -> "with an" done "and a score of 6.2/10[8] Metacritic lists" missing some punctuation here. done "gathered 5 Academy Award " -> five. done " won a total of two " not sure the point of "a total of" here. done A lot of relinking after the lead, any reason? After first linking them in the lead, I chose to link them once again on first use only link "crush" appropriately if you insist on using it. reworded "Best Dramatic Presentation - Long Form" en-dash please. done "US theatres " I suspect that should be theaters, right? done "most well-received " -> "best received"? done "bonds with him" well most of us would take that as being "made friends with" so you'd better elucidate. Or is that what you mean? fixed "Peter must face his biggest challenge yet:" sounds like you're reading the DVD blurb... this is an encyclopaedia, remember? lol fixed A general consensus -> The general.. done "the former for Best Animated Effects and Best Special Visual Effects" I think you're missing "and the latter for..." aren't you? done "lost all four of" do you really "lose" nominations? Or do you just "not win" them? done Would advocate adding location= to works and publishers that could be general, like The Independent, I'd make work=London. done Newspaper refs like ref 57, 58 etc should have page number references. removed refs Crystal Clear x3 03:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Lead: Never liked seeing "amongst" and prefer "among". May just be me, though. done Spider-Man: Don't need the comma after "Dunst's performance as an aspiring actress who works as a waitress". done Spider-Man 2: "and broke the best opening-day ever title." Needs "record for", and the flipping of "ever" and "title" in order. done' Maguire and Raimi respectfully picked up the...". "respectfully" → "respectively"? done Spider-Man 3: Remove apostrophe from "opening's". done "Spider-Man 3 did not win any of all four of the Visual Effects Society Awards nominations it received." Would be a little simpler to read if "any of the four Visual Effects Society Awards" were put in there. done Remove another apostrophe from "performance's". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC) done Crystal Clear x3 09:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC) One more: in "Nonetheless, Spider-Man 3 surpassed the previous two film's openings", the apostrophe in "film's" should be moved to the end of the word. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC) done Crystal Clear x3 03:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment The table fails WP:ACCESS at the moment, see MOS:DTT for details of how to rectify this. NapHit (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Following an example provided by DTT, I think I've now fixed the charts correctly. Crystal Clear x3 05:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC) You just need to add scope row and then its done, I've done one cell for you as an example. NapHit (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the example. How's the table now? Crystal Clear x3 08:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC) You missed a few rows but I've done them now. NapHit (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support Meets the criteria, well done NapHit (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 16:19, 27 September 2011 [2].

---

1948 Summer Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list as the second part of my little project to upgrade the previous London Olympic articles prior to the 2012 games next year. I believe that the article is now on par with the other Olympic medal table FLs. Haven't been able to find an image of the actual 1948 medal, but the image added is from another games that uses the same design. Miyagawa (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from — Bill william comptonTalk 08:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

*Comments Does UK need a hyperlink? You're right, it was overlinked, so have removed it. Miyagawa (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC) In Ref1, why "The Organising Committee for the XIV Olympiad" is italicized? It was slotted in the work section of the cite web template, have now moved it to publisher and removed the LA84 publisher as it was only the host. Miyagawa (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Full stops in captions. Added. Miyagawa (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC) The info in the captions is not mentioned in the body of the article, so add citations with captions. Added the cite to the first image, second image is now explained in main article text. Miyagawa (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC) At least mention the country represented by Cabrera (nationality), like Argentinian Delfo Cabrera....or Delfo Cabrera of Argentina..... Done. Miyagawa (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Employ web access requirements to fulfill WP:Access (see MOS:DTT). I think I've put this in place now, but would appreciate if someone could check I've got it all. Having problems inserting a caption as the table is set up using a template which I'd have to edit to include a caption - has anyone got any alternatives? Miyagawa (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Don't use template, last time I was in the same position. You should better check here. Thanks, I've ended up taking the top off the medal table from 2010 Asian Para Games medal table, so I think it meets the Access requirements but someone more familiar with them might want to double check. Miyagawa (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Looks good to this observer (and sometime deployer/reworker of wikitables in service of WP:ACCESS). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC) scope="row" should be used for nation as it's a primary entry for each row, not the rank. — Bill william comptonTalk 04:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Fixed - and I'm going to go back and check the last medal table I worked up as I'm sure this wasn't done there and I'd like to make sure it matches up. Miyagawa (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Why the number of silver medals is greater than gold or bronze? Had to look into it, but added an extra paragraph to explain. Miyagawa (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Wouldn't be that para would look better in the "Medal table" section, because it clears the discrepancy in between medal categories. Moved as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Is the entity "country" or "nation"? Corrected everything to nation as nation is included in the medal table template. Miyagawa (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Why there is no citation for medal table? Added. Miyagawa (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Add "location" (place of publication) parameter in general ref. Was already there as "Westport, Conn". Miyagawa (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Don't you think Connecticut should be expanded? Done. Miyagawa (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Remove space in between LA and 84 in LA84 Foundation. Have since removed. Miyagawa (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC) "standard design used for the Olympic medals between 1928 and 1968", but image is of 1980 Olympics. Now explained in article text. The obverse side was continued to be used until 2004 with the exception of 1992. Miyagawa (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC) — Bill william comptonTalk 12:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Ok, I think I've covered each of the points you've raised. Thanks for your feedback! :) Miyagawa (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Fulfills the criteria. — Bill william compton^Talk 08:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
• Contradiction:

• Sorry to be contrarian, comrades, but since neither caption on the two images are sentences, neither of them should end with periods. See MOS:CAPTION. Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Just to confirm, I've reverted it back to having no periods. Miyagawa (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• And I'd like to confirm, in case it's not clear to all directors, that this nom shouldn't be held up because of my little quibble. I'm happy. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments Yep, JohnFromPinckney is right, neither caption needs a full stop. Why link London if you don't link UK? May consider BritEng dates, dmy rather than mdy. World War II -> Second World War. "to have run the" -> to have hosted the. " yet formed a National Olympic Committee," well they wouldn't form one, perhaps one each.. "to receive and invitation to complete" -> "an invitation to compete" perhaps? " International Olympics Committee " link. Abbreviate. And don't link/expand afterwards. "In comparison" -> "By comparison" " from the games" you've called it Games previously and subsequently... "twenty three " hyphenate. Gymnastics -> gymnastics. Link "pommel horse" The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks, I've edited it to match your suggestions. Also linked men's vault, and realised that in the final paragraph of he first section I'd said "event" there times in three sentences, and so reduced that too. Miyagawa (talk) 07:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• Don't need the comma in "in March, 1946."
• In the second paragraph, the en dash in "twenty–three" should be a regular old hyphen.
• Photo caption doesn't need Marathon capitalized. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, fixed those points. Miyagawa (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments: "It was the first Olympic Games to take place for twelve years..." — "for" or "in"? London was the host city, not a host venue. "... hosted the the event in 1944." — Extra "the". "... had not yet formed a National Olympic Committee each" — No need for the "each". It's understandable that it's one NOC for both countries. In alternative, you can say "... formed their National Olympic Committees". Why such an extensive description of the medal design if it was in use since 1928 and would continue to be used for 20 years more? The caption of the medal table is quite big and wraps unnecessarily. Try to simplify it: wouldn't just "List of medal-winning nations/NOCs" suffice? Ref #10, which has the medal tables for all Summer Games, could become a general reference... Any reason for the general reference link pointing to a specific page? — Parutakupiu (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Have changed those points as suggested. Also moved #10 to the general refs, and fixed the book link so that it links to the index on google books rather than a specific page. Miyagawa (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC) What about the description of the medal? I just think it takes quite a chunk of the lead and it's not even than relevant for the page in question. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC) I've reduced it down to just a mention of the medals, with a citation being moved to the image caption to cover why the image is of a medal not in that range. Miyagawa (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Several links fail Wikipedia:Links#Link clarity in that their target articles were not obvious, but this seems to have been ignored for similar FLs.

• Changed the link to the 1944 Summer Olympics from just "1944" to "event in 1944" to make it clearer.Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Some context would be nice - is second a good result for Sweden? Highest ever? Did any countries win their first medals? Which countries failed to achieve any?

violet/riga _^[talk] 18:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Second wouldn't have been anything special for Sweden at the time - they'd been around the top for a while, and had previously been second on two occasions in 1912 and 1920. Regarding the other countries, some 25 countries didn't win medals. I can't find anything specific which states which countries won their first medal there. However, I did find a story about the delay in awarding the gold medals to the Belgian team cycling team. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 16:11, 27 September 2011 [3].

---

The Simpsons (season 10)

Nominator(s): Theleftorium ^(talk) 15:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is needed for the Simpsons season 10 Good topic. Theleftorium ^(talk) 15:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Fox arose—however, it was soon --> I don't think thats a correct usage of em-dash.
  • Fixed. Theleftorium ^(talk) 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• The tenth season was the second for which Mike Scully served as show runner --> Doesn't sound right. Try to rephrase.
  • Fixed. Theleftorium ^(talk) 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• File:Simpsons s10.png --> album, single, book, dvd etc coves shouldn't ideally exceed 300px in its length or breadth. Try reducing it a little.
  • Fixed. Theleftorium ^(talk) 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Scully was popular with the staff members, many of whom have praised his organization and management skills. Writer Tom Martin has said that he was "quite possibly the best boss I've ever worked for" and "a great manager of people". --> Somehow doesnt seem right to me. The context doesnt fit here, seeing that it would have been more appropriate tagging along with the area that says that this season was the start of decline. A kind of relation exists.
  • I disagree. I think it fits perfectly. This section is about the production of the show, and what the staff members thought of him certainly belongs here. It shouldn't be in a "Critical reception" section since that is for critics opinions. Theleftorium ^(talk) 16:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• US$30,000 --> cluttersome, why not a simple $30,000?
  • Fixed. Theleftorium ^(talk) 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• with the actors threatening to strike--> ??
  • I don't understand the problem? Theleftorium ^(talk) 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    • It should be "actors threatening to go on a strike" I believe. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, strike is an actual verb, but I changed it to your suggestion. Theleftorium ^(talk) 10:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• Avoid this .[20][21][22][23][24][25]... by using WP:CITEKILL.
  • This one is left. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Done. Theleftorium ^(talk) 10:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• Similarly, Coeur d'Alene Press ---> Similarly, a writer/writers of Coeur d'Alene Press
  • Fixed. Theleftorium ^(talk) 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• is held responsive --> you mean responsible?
  • Fixed. Theleftorium ^(talk) 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

More to come.... — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Theleftorium ^(talk) 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Production: "he had previously ran the ninth season". "ran" – "run"? "to develop Futurama, where he served...". Since Futurama isn't a place, a substitute should be found for "where". Broadcast and ratings: "'The Wizard of Evergreen Terrace' was the official season premiere of the tenth season." The use of "season" is redundant, don't you think? Try removing the first one. Critical reception: In the Chris Barsanti quote, change the spaced em dashes to unspaced, or make them spaced en dashes (the smaller ones). We are allowed to make reasonable style adjustments in quotes, after all. Similarly, in the Brian Tallerico quote, there a year range (3-7) that could use an en dash. In that same quote, which reads at the end, "than most [other] show's best years", double-check the source to see if it has the apostrophe in that spot. Seems like it should be at the end of the word. This is a mistake by the source. Should I include a "[sic]"? Theleftorium (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC) That sounds like a good solution. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Done. Theleftorium (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Episode 14: "Homer manages to destroy to canister at...". Second "to" should be "the". Episode 17: What does "excite their lives" mean? Maybe it would be better as "add excitement to their lives" or something. Episode 19: "However, when Homer makes new art pieces for a show called 'Art in America' that is similar to his first piece". "is" → "are". This is because the pieces are a plural element. Episode 20: Extra word in "of hosting the the Olympics...". "but the springs that Homer flushed down the toilet out onto the bottom of the sea causes the boat...". "causes" → "cause". Episode 21: Typo in "costumer". Toward the end of this summary, "everyday" should be two words in this context, I believe. Not sure about having two non-free images. The second one doesn't seem to have much purpose, since there's already one DVD package picture. In references that have a page range, the p. should be pp. The ones I see that need an adjustment are 1, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57, 60, 63, and 65. If you're using templates, just change the page= parameter to pages= and that will fix it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks a lot for the comments! Much appreciated. :) I've fixed all issues except for the one I replied to. Theleftorium (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Still see a p. in ref 51 that should be pp., but it looks like you got the rest of them. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Fixed! Theleftorium (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Surprised this has been waiting so long for cmts. "The Michigan Daily's Passman did not only have negative things to say about the tenth season in his review." this sentence is a bit confusing to me when read along with the one after; not sure what it's really trying to say. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Passman is quoted earlier in the section (I'm not sure if you know that), so that's why the sentence is included. I could delete it if you want. Theleftorium (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Removing isn't necessary, but I would feel more comfortable if the two Daily sentences came after each other. They're so far apart currently that I (obviously) forgot that Passman had already appeared in the article. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Done! :) Theleftorium (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking a look! Theleftorium ^(talk) 15:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments Why is "Season" capitalised in two places in the infobox? Fixed. Theleftorium (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC) "their salaries" whose? Fox or Simpsons? Fixed. Theleftorium (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC) "The tenth season was the second season that..." not sure you need the second "season" in that sentence. Fixed. Theleftorium (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC) " since several years back," - "for several years," Fixed. Theleftorium (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC) " a large amount of " -> "a number of" Fixed. Theleftorium (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC) " 8:00 p.m." - this needs a non-breaking space between the number and the p.m. Check the rest of the article. How exactly do you do this? Theleftorium (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC) "An op-ed" what's an op-ed? Added a wikilink. Theleftorium (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC) No spaced hyphens in the reference titles please (ref 19 e.g.). Not sure how to fix this either? Theleftorium (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the review! :) Theleftorium (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment - check out the two edits I made to fix the en dashes and non-breaking space issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see now! Thanks! Theleftorium ^(talk) 15:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• You should fix the dead link from TheSimpsons.com in the External links, but once fixed I Support.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed, thanks! Theleftorium ^(talk) 16:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support the promotion of this list. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you! :) Theleftorium ^(talk) 09:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:48, 27 September 2011 [4].

---

Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (R)

Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 14:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I do realize that I have a current open nomination that is relatively recent; however, citing this discussion, I am nominating the next list in this series for featured candidacy on the grounds that my current nomination has no outstanding comments and four supports. If a director is of the opinion that this is not yet appropriate and that I should wait, I will withdraw this on request. Otherwise, I will address all comments expediently. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 14:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments Lead image caption needs a "and" or something after "1961," to read properly.\ How so? If it's broken down, it's properly modified the subject three times: "Robin Roberts pitched for the Phillies from 1948 to 1961", "Robin Roberts was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame and the Philadelphia Baseball Wall of Fame", and "Robin Roberts had his number 36 retired by the team". I don't think it needs to say "Roberts pitched... and was inducted... and had his number...". — KV5 • Talk • 18:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Fair enough, I wasn't reading it properly. Soz. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC) " 3739 1⁄3" -> 3,739 1⁄3 MOS:NUM#Delimiting: "Numbers with four digits to the left of the decimal point may or may not be delimited". — KV5 • Talk • 18:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC) There is no decimal point there, just an ugly fraction..! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Yes, and the {{frac}} template will not generate the proper mixed number with a comma in it. — KV5 • Talk • 21:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC) John Russell in the caption is a dab link. Sigh, no one tells me when they change things. Done. — KV5 • Talk • 18:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Just noticed, in the key, why does the hash note have a full stop when the Year note doesn't? They both read complete to me... Good call. Done. — KV5 • Talk • 18:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Arthur Rhodes' caption is missing the beginning of it! Alt glitch. Done. — KV5 • Talk • 18:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC) What's a "walk-off"? Link? I linked walk-off, but the problem is that it redirects to walk-off home run, which is only one specific type of walk-off. This particular walk-off was an infield single, about as far as you get from a home run. So I made a section link to the section that discusses other types of walk-off hits (I'll have to re-evaluate that article at some point). — KV5 • Talk • 18:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments It's a great list, there were just two things in the prose that I didn't quite understand "Robin Roberts, who won 20 games during the 1950 season as the ace of the Whiz Kids" this sentence confused me as a non baseball aficionado. I have no idea what an ace is or who or what the whiz kids were. I would elaborate slightly those is clearer for those unfamiliar with baseball. That's why the links. I could change it to say "ace pitcher", but explicating the Whiz Kids is outside this list's scope. — KV5 • Talk • 00:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC) "during his career, the right-hander won 234 games and lost 199," the right hander bit troubles me, I now what it refers to but I can't tell from the statistics what his role on the was.that Was that the handed he batted with? pitched with? His position needs clarifying Changing to "ace pitcher" would clarify his position, so that seems like the best solution and I've implemented it. — KV5 • Talk • 00:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Apart from these two quibbles the list is great, well done NapHit (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support Great list, well done NapHit (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Well done, another good Philadelphia Phillies roster list.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• I see 3739 and 1,871 in the lead. I imagine the comma usage should be consistent throughout.
  • This is true, but herein lies the problem: {{frac}} doesn't do commas. I prefer the comma in all cases, but the template won't do it. I suppose I could raw hack it and put the fraction template after the number with the comma even though it's technically not the right use. — KV5 • Talk • 22:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
• In John Russell's photo caption, should "triple-A" be capitalized? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Can, doesn't have to be. Usually an editorial decision since reliable sources usually say "AAA". — KV5 • Talk • 22:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I've taken a bit of liberty here, I think neither of these points are crucial, and had already raised the first one elsewhere. So I'm promoting the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:48, 27 September 2011 [5].

---

List of songs in Green Day: Rock Band

Nominator(s): –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... erm... I think it meets the criteria. :) I've put some work into this article and have used experience from taking List of songs in Rock Band 3 to make this list even better at the start of the nomination than that one was. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments – There's a spare parenthesis mark at the end of the first paragraph. Music selection: "due in part to the nature of the album which is meant to be listened as a whole". Needs "to" after "listened", I think. "This led the team to also including 21st Century Breakdown". Either make "including" into "include" or change the sentence to something like "This led to the team also including 21st Century Breakdown". Reference 1 is missing a publisher, which is usually at the front of a press release citation. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the review, these should all be fixed. –Drilnoth (T/C) 12:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments "The game... The game..." reads poorly to me. "With these 6 downloadable songs" -> six. "Harmonix'"-> "Harmonix's" " earliest Green Day albums" earlier? Only one can be earliest. " Due to how downloadable songs are incorporated .." -> "As a result of the number of downloadable songs incorporated..." Why is Dec. abbreviated in the release date? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC) All fixed with this edit, although I used a different wording for #4. The abbreviation is to be consistent with the release dates in Complete list of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series, but can be changed if wanted. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As a comment from when I did the GH lists, it might be better to have a separate body section (or subsection) on the exporting instead of that trailing paragraph. In this, I would add to the fact (well, I know its fact, but I can't immediately recall sources) that the songs with harmonies still support these in RB3 --MASEM (t) 04:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. What should such a section be called? –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually just looked at the GH lists and didn't see any such sections. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There isn't any such section, I would include it in the first main section (not lead) prior to the list itself, simply to explain this factor. The exportability in GH is explained in a similar place and then shown in the tables (since it's not universal for all songs, compared to RBGD and Lego RB). --MASEM (t) 21:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I moved it. I also added a note about the harmonies, but I couldn't find a reliable source for the information. However, I know that it is true (I've exported GD:RB after all!) and I don't think the statement is very controversial. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comments: Here are the issues that stood out to me.

• The "Announcement" section seems kinda small to be its own section. Maybe combine it to "Music selection" as the last paragraph.
• What makes Plastic Axe a reliable source?
• Why are the two notes for the set lists in different cases. I find that odd especially when the two As state the same thing.
• Note C and D seem like they border on game guide content, but I'll defer to others on whether they should stay.

Other than the above, the list is in good shape. I'll check back in later. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC))

• THANK YOU for the review! I agree that the announcement section seems a bit small, but I'm not sure where else it would fit. It doesn't seem like part of the "music selection" process. See [6] for my reasoning regarding Plastic Axe. I've combined the notes into a separate section. Comments on missing or additional parts are quite common in the Guitar Hero song lists, all of which are FL now, and include more minor stuff such as whether or not a song has a double bass drum part in addition to a single bass drum part. I'd say that notes C and D are as, if not more, important to the game's setlist than the vocal parts; note also that List of songs in Rock Band 3 passed FLC with one such footnote and an entire column for keyboard support. –Drilnoth (T/C) 17:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think "Announcement" will fit into "Music selection". If you have reservations, maybe rename the whole thing to "Selection history" or "Track listing history". (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC))

• Alrighty then, Done. –Drilnoth (T/C) 18:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• The only other thing I would recommend is mentioning the reception in the lead. I know leads for lists are handled slightly different than articles, so I'm unsure if this is warranted. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC))

• Seems reasonable; I've added a couple sentences to the lead. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support: My concerns have been addressed/answered, and I believe that the list meets the FL criteria. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC))

• Thank you for the review and support! –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment The tables currently fail WP:ACCESS, see MOS:DTT for information on how to fix this. Other than this it looks good. NapHit (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Colscope added. Rowscope not added because there isn't really a column which serves as a row header. –Drilnoth (T/C) 23:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Put the rowscope in the cells that list the songs. NapHit (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Alright, done. Now, I understand a bit about web accessibility (I'm a web developer, and have read numerous articles about the topic and implemented a fair number of simple accessibility things), but I do have a question: Why is the song name a header? I'd consider it to be row data. Sure, it is unique to each song, but it still seems to me like normal information and not a special "header". Anyways, I had to do a whole bunch of code-wrangling so that the rowscopes didn't mess up the table appearance (why isn't there a class which does that better than "plainrowheaders" anyway?), but it is done. Thanks for the review –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC) I think it has something to do with indicating what parts of the table are rows or something. The song name is row data, its just that its the most relevant to the title of the article. I think it needs to be done to indicate that they are rows or something like that I don't really understand it myself. I agree with the plainrowheaders class, it is a pain, but I'm not aware of anything better unfortunately.

• Support Great work, well done NapHit (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review and support! –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved issues

Lead "The fifth major console release..." - this implies that there were some minor console releases. Is that the case? Yes. See List of Rock Band track packs. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC) None of those appear to be "minor" console releases. Sorry, what I was getting at is if they were just released for the big 3 companies: Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft, then just remove the word "major" as its a WP:PEACOCK word. The reason is, believe it or not, there are other consoles companies out there still. Otherwise, if the sources mention the word major consoles, that should be quoted and cited. The thing is, the track packs are console releases, just small spinoffs. If we remove the word "major", then GD:RB wouldn't be the fifth because we'd have to count the previously released track packs, and IMHO they shouldn't be included in the count. That would be like saying that Guitar Hero World Tour is the fifth game (because Encore: Rocks the 80s was a spinoff track pack release), even though everybody calls GHWT the fourth game in the series. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Okay. I see what you're intending. You want "major" to modify "release" however, as its right before console, I thought it was modififying "console". It will need to be rephrased then in some way to make that clearer.∞陣内 Jinnai 15:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC) How's this? –Drilnoth (T/C) 16:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Guitar and drums are linked. Any reason Bass isn't? Fixed. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC) The 6 additional songs - are they available on every platform? is the "Plus version available on every platform? If so, that should be mentioned, if not it should. It should also be cited Done. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC) What songs were specifically critisized as not being available? Should be fixed. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Music selection Source #2 does not seem to support that "All By Myself" was not included. New reference added. The information about the song missing is the very last line of the press release. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC) broadway musical - when is it forthcoming. While the retrieval date is recent, the date of the interview is relatively old for something talking about an unspecificed future event. I'd say that part of the statement needs something more recent as it it could have been canceled or delayed indefintalty as its over a year old. It may have even come out. Actually, it seems I had misinterpreted the interview when I first listened to it. Check this diff for my changes to the sentence and reasoning. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Main setlist Why is the price listed? It doesn't appear important to understanding the listing so we normally don't include prices in those cases. Removed. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Reception Was the term censorship (or censored or related term) used? If not, it should probably use the more neutral term "edited" Should be better. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC) again, can we get specifics on what songs? I can give examples ("American Idiot" and "F.O.D." come to mind), but the cited review doesn't have any samples, so that might be construed as original research. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Better take that out then. If they don't list the songs, they don't.∞陣内Jinnai 04:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC) You mean, take out the whole thing about the editing? This was a fairly common complaint from gamers and reviewers. I'll see if I can find a reliable source which gives an example. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC) It looks like IGN's review actually mentions the editing as making the songs "sound funny", but again, doesn't specify songs. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Yep, can't find any sources with examples. It really is evident throughout the game. Many songs from Dookie and some from American Idiot and 21st Century Breakdown are radio-edited. Why are examples needed? –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC) I meant take out any mention of specific songs, though adding the part about sounding funny could be added.∞陣内Jinnai 15:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Better? –Drilnoth (T/C) 16:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Other stuff the prose switches between "players" and "the player" without any rhyme or reason. Pick one and only make exceptions when phrasing it would imply something else (such as a multiplayer option when talking about a singleplayer option). This could still use some copyediting (these are just examples so it needs more than just fixing them, but these just stood out the most). Mostly this is with excessive wordyness, but there's a few poor word choice issues.: With these downloadable songs, the full complete albums of Dookie, American Idiot, as Harmonix had already released six songs from the album as downloadable content they did not want to make those that who had purchased the songs instead designed the game to immediately include those songs if the player had already purchased them. Rigopulos determined that they needed to include the full complete Dookie album the master tapes for the first two albums exist, but are in poor condition., and the process to digitize them would destroy the tape them. custom character animations, unlockables, and support the game's vocal harmonies feature.∞陣内Jinnai 01:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC) I've fixed a number of these, and plan to work on the rest, including the copyediting, later today. I've interspersed my responses to keep each part of the discussion separate; if you would rather they weren't interspersed, feel free to move them all down to the bottom here. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Copyediting complete. Let me know if I didn't fix something I thought I did or if it still needs more copyediting work. –Drilnoth (T/C) 16:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC) I'll check over this tomorrow.∞陣内Jinnai 04:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Okay. I think the only major issue I can spot is you should go through and remove the unnecessary have and hads. There's a lot of them that make it more verbose than necessary, mostly in the first section is where I noticed this, but other sections should be looked at.∞陣内Jinnai 15:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC) I didn't find a lot. Actually, just two. Removed. –Drilnoth (T/C) 16:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. All issues have been dealt with as best they can be.∞陣内Jinnai 20:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank your for the extremely thorough review and support. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. After finding no real issues with the content, and no source problems, I think that it fulfills FLC criteria. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review and support. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support good work--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me} 11:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the support. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:10, 17 September 2011 [7].

---

List of accolades received by Sense and Sensibility (film)

Nominator(s): Ruby2010 comment! 20:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. This will be my third film accolades FL (assuming that Master and Commander passes, which I do). I'm ready and willing to respond to any comments. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 20:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Two minor qualms. You dont need to bold the film name in the first line and include a summary of the total number of awards won from total nominations. Other wise support. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Both done. Thanks very much for the support. Ruby2010 comment! 14:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't looked over the entire article, but the infobox says the film won 30 awards, while the last sentence in the lead says 31. - JuneGloom Talk 15:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 15:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Support with just a few minor suggestions:

• "Sense and Sensibility is a 1995 British period drama film directed by Ang Lee." period should be linked as some readers might not be familiar with period pieces
• "Sense and Sensibility was released in cinemas on 15 December 1995," I think "to" instead of "in" would be better
• Link review aggregator
• "Winslet was recognised in both categories for both lead and supporting actress," I think the first both is a bit redundant

Other than that, superb work on this and the film article. Crystal Clear x3 10:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Very helpful suggestions. All now fixed. Thanks for the support! Ruby2010 comment! 15:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: You should probably make a new infobox for these sorts of articles, at something like {{Infobox film awards}}. It would be better than hard-coding infoboxes, a practice which is essentially extinct at this point. –Drilnoth (T/C) 23:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'll look into it. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 01:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments Is there really a need to disambiguate the title with (film) here? Perhaps not, but considering there are countless adaptations, I wanted to help the reader differentiate. You think I should remove it? Ruby2010 comment! 16:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC) "Sensibilitys approval " one too many hyphen's here. Fixed Ruby2010 comment! 16:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC) How do you know you got every single nomination/award? Obviously it would be impossible to know every single award for something. However, the article includes all I have been able to find online, which are surely the most major and recognized accolades out there. Ruby2010 comment! 16:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC) We usually expect to see PDF for PDF links. Done Ruby2010 comment! 16:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC) The awards database links are just general web links, not specifically referencing what you need them to. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Not quite sure what you're talking about here. Each award listed is for the most part cited directly from their respective award websites. For instance, the Academy Awards are cited at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences's website. What better source than the awards themselves? Correct me if you meant something else. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 19:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC) E.g. ref 19 which just links to the database page of BAFTA, not the page on BAFTA's website which cites your claim. That's all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC) That BAFTA link pulls up the awards archive for 1995, which lists all the awards and noms Sense received at their ceremony. I'm not sure how citing the website can be done any more clearer than that. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 20:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC) I do beg your pardon. You are quite right! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 11:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "ultimately coming away three awards" needs a "with" added to it. Done Ruby2010 comment! 01:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Italics needed for Evening Standard. Done Ruby2010 comment! 01:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC) I see 61 nominations in the lead and 60 in the infobox. Done Ruby2010 comment! 01:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC) At the last awards nomination I asked for a note saying that the day links go to articles on the awards ceremonies. I'd like to see that here as well, and for such a note to become a standard for these nominations. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Sorry, could you rephrase? Not sure if you're referring to my last FLC, or someone else's. Also, what is a day link? Apologies for the confusion. Ruby2010 comment! 01:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC) The FLC I was talking about was this one. It's just that the date of ceremony links are much more valuable to the reader than they appear at first, and a note would help clarify this. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 11:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Done. Ruby2010 comment! 04:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:10, 17 September 2011 [8].

---

300 save club

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it's FL quality, silly. Glorious return to FLC, Muboshgu also did a mess of work on this list. Much nicer than the old top 500 list. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments As someone who does not know the intricacies of baseball I have no idea what a reliever is this needs clarification: "Only five relievers" Relief pitcher was already linked earlier in the article. Added a parenthetical note that reliever = relief pitcher. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC) "Eligibility requires that a player has "been retired five seasons" or deceased for at least 6 months." - I assume you're referring to inclusion to the hall of fame but as its not made explicit its unclear. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC) The table does not meet WP:ACCESS see Data tables tutorial Crud, apologies, forgot about this. I'll get right on it. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC) There we go, fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC) The alignment in the tables is a bit confusing. I thought it was common practice for numbers to be centrally aligned and names and dates and a like to be aligned to the left. Any reason why everything is aligned centrally? No particular reason. Simply left the table with no alignment parameters, which makes it look like this. Many baseball lists follow this style, such as 500 home run club. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Do we need to have the number of saves the pitchers made in 2011 in brackets. I'm not sure its relevant to the list as a whole, seeing as it will be removed when the 2011 season ends I don't see the point in having it. This is incredibly common for any career counting statistic list that includes active players. Yes it'll be removed after 2011, but it will simply be replaced by 2012 figures. It tells you how actively a player labeled as "active" is actually contributing to their save total. IE Isringhausen and Cordero are only 15 saves apart, that seems close if you simply look at save count. But by including the seasonal total you get the additional information that Cordero is still posting strong totals while Isringhausen only has 7. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC) The two general refs need to be formatted properly and provide an accessdate. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure bibliography is the correct term to use for the sources. Bibliography to me refers to the usage of books, and as there none used I don't think its appropriate. I think specific would be a better heading. Agreed... That's exactly the title I generally use, dunno where Bib came from. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC) The heading on the 300 saves club template needs the s removing to be in line with this the name of the page. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC) ref 2 needs a publication date ref 3 needs a publication date and author ref 22 needs an author ref 28 needs a publication date Replaced with far better citation. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC) ref 26 is not formatted properly ref 8 needs associated press as publisher It's listed already, as "Agency". Staxringold talkcontribs 14:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC) ref 18 needs an author The references have two differing date formats you need to be consistent and pick one. Fixed all these ref comments. Muboshgu added refs, which was fantastic, but used his formatting style. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Support All my comments have been suitably dealt with, great work. BTW I have a list that could do with a review its here if you have a minute. Cheers NapHit (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments "and was later adopted" don't think you need later since you go on to say "in 1969". " where applicable." what does this mean? "23 players in .." avoid starting sentences with numbers so perhaps "In total, 23 players..."? Otherwise splendid work. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Well thank you. Fixed #1 and 3, "Where applicable" means it was applied backwards to pitchers who had situations that would have been saves had that situation been called a save back then. IE Hoyt Wilhelm pitched in a game on September 20, 1960, 9 years before the save became official. However the statistics record him as earning a save for pitching a scoreless 9th inning with a 1 run lead. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "by entering in the ninth inning of a game in which his team is winning by three or fewer runs and finishes the game without losing the lead." For the flow of the sentence to work, "finishes" needs to be "finishing". Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Is anything citing the most common method of earning a save? I don't see this in either of the following references. Cite added. It's super annoying to find cites for things so fundamental to the modern game. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC) I see a serial comma after Bruce Sutter, but none after John Franco earlier. I don't care whether they have the comma or not, but this should be consistent in the lead. Added. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC) All caps should be removed from ref 30. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You should fix the † to its template, ie {{†|alt=XYZ}}, and use alt text for the template. You could also change the * to the double-dagger (‡) with alt aswell. (both according to the new ACCESS for reading screeners.)
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Done, thanks for the note! Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:10, 17 September 2011 [9].

---

List of Major League Baseball players from Australia

Nominator(s):  Afaber012  (talk)  00:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the requirements, and combines elements of (what I think, at least, are) the best of the "List of Major League Baseball players from x" articles.  Afaber012  (talk)  00:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 "The first recorded baseball event in Australia occurred in Melbourne, Victoria in 1857, though accounts vary as to the details, including whether it was a single game or a series of three games, between teams from Collingwood and Richmond." - this seems a bit like a run-on to me; a change in punctuation or wording might help it. ex: The first recorded baseball event in Australia occurred in Melbourne, Victoria in 1857—though accounts vary as to the details, including whether it was a single game or a series of three games—between teams from Collingwood and Richmond. or The first recorded baseball event in Australia occurred in Melbourne, Victoria in 1857 between teams from Collingwood and Richmond, though accounts vary as to the details, including whether it was a single game or a series of three games.  Done You might want to re-check it. I split it into separate sentences, but does seem better now. Milwaukee Brewers linked in lead at second occurrence, not first; Yankees not linked at all.  Done "League Champions" - un-capitalize  Done "the Major Leagues" - likewise; "Major League Baseball" is a proper not but "the major leagues" is not.  Done "in an MLB game," no comma necessary  Done Tables need to be adjusted to meet WP:ACCESS requirements; see MOS:DTT for instructions. Scopes, row/col headers, captions needed. When you have multiple positions, a non-breaking space is needed before each slash, so "2B / 3B" instead of "2B / 3B"  Done "Denotes played in the 2011 season." - remove full stop/period  Done "Quinn acted as player/manager" - player-manager should be linked, and is usually written with a hyphen  Done Remove full stop/period from Graeme Lloyd's caption, as it's not a complete sentence  Done The sandwiching of a table between images distresses me. Perhaps one or two images could be moved alongside the main table.  Done Can't use tooltips per WP:ACCESS  Done Bold in the table violates MOS:BOLD, and no indication is given anywhere as to what it means (I know it's championships but uninitiated readers won't).  Done In reference section, use semi-colon headers to separate groups of references rather than plain text.  Done A link to List of countries with their first Major League Baseball player wouldn't be amiss somewhere in this article... a see-also, somewhere in the lead... just a suggestion. I don't really like that article's title but no one's ever been able to come up with something better. — KV5 • Talk • 01:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)  Done I think I've covered everything you've brought up. (It is getting late here so I may have missed something or messed something else up.) If there is anything else, let me know and I'll do what I can. Also, thanks for taking the time to do the review.  Afaber012  (talk)  13:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC) @KV5 - shouldn't the first column of the tables have a different color background, as with the top row per WP:ACCESS? PumpkinSky talk 00:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC) See above: "Tables need to be adjusted to meet WP:ACCESS requirements; see MOS:DTT for instructions. Scopes, row/col headers, captions needed." — KV5 • Talk • 11:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC) FRom what I understand, it's still not there, the left column is the same background as the others. See FL List of stutterers to see what I mean.PumpkinSky talk 20:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC) No, I know it's not there right now, but I did address it as needing to be corrected. I know what you are trying to say. — KV5 • Talk • 22:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC) If what you're both saying is "the names of the players in both of the tables should actually be row headers rather than normal cells", I'm not sure I agree. At the end of the day, If it's what's needed to get the list over the line, then fair enough, but I have reasons for thinking it should stay as is. Firstly, I would tend to use that sort of format in circumstances where the table could be turned into a graph of some sort covering all information presented. That's not really the case here. Put it another way: if there was an extra column at the beginning of the table along the lines of "Order of appearance" and then listed "1st", "2nd", "3rd", etc, I doubt that would be an appropriate header, though it would be a reasonable piece of information to have in the table. Secondly, there are examples on the MOS:DTT page that do not have row headers, as there are examples on the W3C site the same way. Now I've come across something that might bridge the gap that would seem to cover the accessibility issue without changing the appearance. The "scope" attribute can be applied to a table cell as well as to a header. If I put that in to the tables, would you guys be happy with that?  Afaber012  (talk)  09:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC) The data table tutorial might not show an example list with all the names as row headers, but it does say that they are required: WP:ACCESS#Data tables notes the three required elements as captions, row and column headers, and scope of headers. The DTT is not an all-inclusive list of what can be created, as you obviously are aware; it is a guide to how the ACCESS guidelines can be implemented. So, in short, yes, I do think that it needs to be put in. — KV5 • Talk • 11:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC) It's now done. I was flipping back and forth after I posted before about whether or not they should be headers, and after sleeping on it I agree. I still think the points I raised above are valid, and that simply turning the first column of cells into headers should not be done. Sometimes it will work, sometimes the table will need re-working, but other times - as shown in the "Good example of headers structure" in MOS:DTT it's not necessary.  Afaber012  (talk)  01:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Happy to support another great baseball list. — KV5 • Talk • 11:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments I'm sure the graph is interesting but on my screen (a) I have no idea what it's saying or (b) what the caption is telling me to expect and (c) it's squashing the text between it and the other lead image.  Done I think. I've adjusted its position and its caption: hopefully that makes it clearer. In case its still unclear, it shows the number of Australians who played in any one season, eg in 2008, 8 Aussies played in the majors. So it shows the general trend of a growing Australian participation. I still can't see the captions on the axes. And it's still squashing text between itself and the other lead image. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Moved it again, this time to float on the right, so the text squashing should be gone. I also updated the graphic itself, so the text is axis labels are larger, the columns are wider, closer together and alternately coloured to (hopefully) make it easier to see which is which, and removed the extra white space around it that I hadn't realised was there until now.  Afaber012  (talk)  13:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Both images have a full stop which isn't necessary as it's not a complete sentence.  Done General sources need en-dashes not hyphens in the title per WP:DASH.  Done "occurred in" took place in.  Done "One common detail apart from the teams involved " hang on, you said the thing that was in question was the format of the game, not the teams involved...  Done I think. I may have created another problem with the fix. "the 2011 Major League Baseball season, 29 Australians have played in at least one Major League Baseball (MLB) game." abbreviate MLB first time.  Done Don't abbreviate IBAF if you use the abbreviation.  Done I think you meant "... if you don't use ..." Should "short stop" be "shortstop" or is that OzEng?  Done It gets used both with and without the space, even in "proper" use by the various Oz authorities, so removed the space. Debut Team->Debut team. etc. See Game too.  Done Ref -> Ref(s).  Done Captions aren't particularly informative.  Done I've expanded the name-only captions. Not sure if the others need work (or if that's what you were after for the one's I've changed). Much better. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC) I've had a crack at your points, but there are a couple that I might need more feedback on.  Afaber012  (talk)  23:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support my queries resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Comma would be good after Bruce Bochy in the lead.  Done Also would be nice to link the Yankees in the lead, if they aren't already (I didn't notice a link).  Done Whoops! This one was from KV5 and got lost in the shuffle. Caption for the graph could use a period at the end. You sure? I thought it was a (long) sentence fragment so shouldn't have one, like the others that also don't have periods at the end. It is a fragment. — KV5 • Talk • 11:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Note 1: "Denotes played in the 2011 season" doesn't strike me as the best grammatical sentence in the world. How about "Denotes that the player was active in the 2011 season" or something?  Done I changed it to "Denotes that the player played at least one game in the 2011 season" The general references should be formatted like regular citations, not like external links, which they currently appear to be. Publisher, access date etc. are still needed for general refs.  Done Who runs the Flintoff & Dunn website, and is it a reliable source? This is important since it is a general reference. Simply put I'd describe them as the Australian equivalent of Baseball-Reference. They're Media Partners of the Australian Baseball League, and as part of that agreement made their database available to the league for player profiles/etc in the league's own material. They've also published a number of books that essentially summarized the previous season of the old ABL, IBLA, or Claxton Shield, whichever format had been used. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC) I think I've covered off everything now, assuming you approve of the reliability/etc of the general source. What are your thoughts on the list now?  Afaber012  (talk)  06:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I've updated the text including the table after the debut of Shane Lindsay. I've checked a couple of times, and am fairly certain I've haven't missed anything that would need to be changed with his inclusion, except for the graph - I'll sort that one out after I've woken up tomorrow morning. I may actually fall asleep before I submit this in which case you won't see it. :)  Afaber012  (talk)  14:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The graph's now been updated, so it should now all be right.  Afaber012  (talk)  02:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I've also noticed that Liam Hendricks has got his first callup. After he gets his first game I'll update this again.  Afaber012  (talk)  22:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:10, 17 September 2011 [10].

---

IBM Award

Nominator(s): Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...It’s a former DYK candidate which I believe is close to being ready for FL. Follows a similar format to the other NBA Awards articles that are already FL. I am also nominating this to be part of the NBA Awards Featured Topic if the FL is successful Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments "Most of the players who have won" have is redundant as the award is no longer in existence Fixed. When you say redundant, I think you mean passive Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC) "given out nineteen times" I think this could be worded better, presented maybe? something along those lines Given or given out seems to be what is used in similar articles, such as the NBA Sixth Man Award Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC) "David Robinson has won five IBM Awards, Charles Barkley has earned three, and Michael Jordan and Shaquille O'Neal have won two each." again all the has and have need removing as the award no longer exists Fixed "all also won NBA Most Valuable Player" remove all Fixed "additionally won both awards in the same season" remove additionally Fixed "1999-2000 and 2000-2001 NBA seasons" you need to use endashes instead of hyphens and I would provide a link to the relevant season articles. Fixed "The award is given to the player with the highest point total" change is to was and should probably change stands for stood in the sentence before Fixed the one in quotes; stand/stood is debatable as it could be referencing as you read it now, not just as when the award was given. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Is there any way to shorten the width of the formula it stretches the screen on my laptop and I imagine it would do the same for most users. I abbreviated player to plyr and points to PTS, and it fits on mine Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC) The images need alt text and the you need to include a caption for the table and scope row to bring the table up to WP:ACCESS standards see MOS:DTT for more info Added caption, scoperow, and alttext Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC) For the alt text you need to describe the image not simply put the name of the person who is in the image. Its for people who are unable to see images, therefore having the alt text as simply Charles Barkley is not going to help them picture the image. Plus the years in the table need aligning centrally. NapHit (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC) I have added that Barkley and Robinson are head shots, and that Duncan's picture is of him playing basketball (I would have had a headshot for him as well, but I couldn't find one). This is similar to the captions at NBA Most Valuable Player Award and J. Walter Kennedy Citizenship Award. With regard to center-aligned, row scope HAS been turned on for each column, and so has plainrowheaders, so it's still left. The aforementioned FLs have left-aligned year columns, so I believe the precedent is for left-aligned columns throughout the table. In addition, considering the horizontal size of the column, being left-, center- or right-aligned probably doesn't make much of the difference. But, if you so desire, I can turn off plainrowheaders. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC) I can't find a guideline on alignment so I'd just leave it as it is. Personally I would the seasons to be centrally aligned but its just that a preference. NapHit (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC) I checked with TRM...there apparently isn't one Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Also don't force the size of the images, inputting upright should instead of 150px should be fine Fixed refs 2 to 5 need properly formatting a publisher and work fields need to be provided Added that Basketball-Reference.com is the work; Sports Reference LLC is the Publisher Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC) ref 6 the page should be p instead of pp as your only using one page Fixed ref 7 redirects to the nba homepage Changed out the reference Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Just one more issue before I support, this sentence: "meant to determine which player was most valuable to his team" would indicate that every player from every team gets the award, as that's the way it reads to me. I would clarify that the person with the best score or whatever the formula churned out is the recipient of the award. NapHit (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC) I reworded it to "...meant to determine which player had the best season in the NBA that year", if that doesn't work, I'll probably just toss the clause altogether. I notice that the NBA MVP lacks a descriptive clause. The best score clause is mentioned in the formula section, but can be moved to the lead if need be Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support I made the description clearer and added a reference, aside from this its a great list, well done NapHit (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments Explain NBA before you use the abbreviation. Fixed. Linked and un-acronymed Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Merge the second and third sentences because it reads clunky right now, "company IBM. It was " -> "company IBM and was " Fixed Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC) " forwards or centers; many finished near the top in rebounding " suitable links here would be useful for non-basketball fans.] Fixed Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC) "The award was given out nineteen times," -> "The award was presented nineteen.." As noted before, "given out" seems to be the prevailing phraseology among NBA Award Featured Lists, but I will change to presented if a compelling reason for bucking the trend is given Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC) "Detroit Pistons. [2]" remove the space. Ditto on the next time you use [2]. Fixed "Of IBM Award winners eligible for the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, all have been inducted" reverse this. "All IBM Award winners are..." Rephrased somewhat. I can't just say "All IBM Award winners are in the Hall of Fame" because four are either still active or haven't been retired long enough to have been voted on Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Don't relink Magic. Or Duncan. Fixed Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC) "Hill and Duncan are the only winners currently playing in the NBA." ref please. Fixed Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Formula is overwhelmingly large. Please reduce its size, or explain it another way. Huge bucket of syrup. Prose won't work for this, because most people will get lost. It was smaller back when I got it DYKed when it wasn't in formula mode see here; we could go back to that, with the added explanation of what all that stuff means that I put in last week. Ideally, it could work if I split the top part onto two lines, but I dunno how to do that. It should be noted that the formula fits on Firefox, but not on IE Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Any chance you could make it a note, or move the section below the table, right now it's very off-putting where it's placed in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC) OK, I have moved the formula section below the table section, and am also putting the formula in a collapsed box that can be shown on click Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Images should all be standard size (e.g. upright) and complete sentences in captions need full stops. Periods have been added. Images already were upright. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Be consistent with season formats between lead and table. Fixed Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Duncan is US Virgin Islands so why is he listed as USA? Another bucket of syrup. Duncan was born in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The U.S. Virgin Islands is part of the United States (therefore, Duncan is a U.S. citizen), but it has its own Olympic Committee, and sometimes its own basketball team. Duncan has never played for the USVI basketball team, though he did play for the U.S. national basketball team in 2004. In the NBA MVP table, the year Duncan won the MVP (which was also the year he won the IBM Award), he is listed as United States, but with a note (with two references) explaining his heritage. I have adapted that note for these purposes. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Notes a and b are referenced where? They were referenced in the prose section "These players have won MVPs...these players have won DPOYs", but I have copied the references for the notes as well Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments – A link to NBA Most Valuable Player Award in the third paragraph would be nice. Fixed, and DPOY linked as well Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC) In the key, I would remove "has" from "Denotes the number of times the player has won the IBM Award", since that implies present tense. Since the award isn't given out any more, it seems odd. Fixed Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Is the second general reference an official NBA page? Sight unseen, it looks a little sketchy. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC) It appears to be licensed by the NBA, as it has the NBA logo on it. It also jibes with the information in the book, so it is factually accurate Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC) If that doesn't work for you, I have suggested two other sites on your talk page. Work with me here...we can fix this Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 13:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC) After seeing the message on my talk page, I'd recommend replacing this link with the APBR one. I've seen that used before and have no issues with it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC) I believe I have replaced the old website with the APBR one Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC) One more quick, nit-picky thing: the 0 in the date should be removed in the new ref. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Spurious 0 removed Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:10, 17 September 2011 [11].

---

Venues of the 1952 Winter Olympics

Nominator(s): Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe the list meets the criteria. It is closely related to the existing FL Venues of the 1994 Winter Olympics. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Check the overlinking of the place names like Oslo etc. Format tables per WP:ACCESS. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. Regarding overlinking, repeating of links is permitted within tables, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(linking)#Repeated links. Outside the tables and caption, I believe there are no links which are repeated (if you see any, please tell me). Regarding the latter, could you be specific about what part of WP:ACCESS you feel is being violated. I have read the guideline without finding any violations, and I have had the same structure to previous tables previously at FL without any feedback, so I would very much like to know how I can improve accessibility. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that the linking in the tables is reasonable as-is. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

*Why do only three venues in the first section have a capacity listed? –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC) The capacity is not listed in the official report, and there are no other plausible sources available to confirm the capacity. For most of the venues, this is probably because there is no "defined" capacity, as the venue would lack seats etc. Arsenikk (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Is American English or British English being used here? If the latter, all these "meter" usages should be "metre". The article is written in American English. Arsenikk (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC) "Of the tournament's 36 matches, 23 were play at Jordal". "play" → "played". Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Don't think Alpine needs to be capitalized in the fourth paragraph. Both are accepted, but if you insist, I can always do it. Arsenikk (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC) "and the course length of 480 meters." I think "the" should be "a". Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Capitalize "lake" in "lake Kroderen"? Lake is not part of the proper noun, but a description to inform the reader that it is a lake. We have had discussions about this at WP:Norway, and consensus is to never "invent" names by adding Lake to a lake's name. I've tweaked the sentence to make it better, though. Arsenikk (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Competition venues: The Capacity column could use sort templates, as the numbers don't appear to be sorting properly. Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Post-Olympic use: "as the lack any significant spectator stands." "the" – "they". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC) All has been seen to or explained. Thank you for the feedback. Arsenikk (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments Lead image, Stadion not stadion. Same in the lead. Or else move the target article. Same with the other stadiums. The capitalization is correct according to Norwegian grammar, and according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Capitalization of expressions borrowed from other languages, we are supposed to retain the capitalization for foreign language terms. I don't have a problem using caps myself, I'm just trying to follow the MOS. Arsenikk (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC) "slalom" is a dab link. Fixed Arsenikk (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Do you mean switchboard instead of switch board? Fixed Arsenikk (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC) "to cheer on the" a little colloquial... Fixed Arsenikk (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC) "work was done" never really like "done" as it's clumsy. Can you make it more elegant? Done Arsenikk (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Would suggest you force the sorting of those without information to zero. Fixed Arsenikk (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC) "The slalom course in Rødkleiva in 2009" maybe worth expanding that caption as it's clearly not got any snow on it! Upgraded Arsenikk (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC) "after which it only served" served->hosted. Fixed Arsenikk (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC) But then avoid repeating hosted in the following sentence! Gee you're picky ;) Arsenikk (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC) "an all-new stadium" -> "a new stadium". Fixed Arsenikk (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Thank your for the review. Arsenikk (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment Just the one concern, the tables currently fail WP:ACCESS, see MOS:DTT on how to rectify this. Other than this it looks good NapHit (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC) I believe I have fixed the issues; if not you're going to have to be more specific on what shortcomings the tables have. Thanks for the feedback. Arsenikk (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Almost there you need to add !scope=row next to the venue cells. NapHit (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Added. Arsenikk (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support Just for future reference you need to have an exclamation mark instead of a pipe when you use scope. Anyway Great work. NapHit (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support No outstanding issues as far as I can see. Miyagawa (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:10, 17 September 2011 [12].

---

2002 Asian Games medal table

Nominator(s): — Bill william compton^Talk 14:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this is a fifth in the series of Asian Games medal tables. Thanks to KV5, it also implements all web accessibility requirements. As always, thanks for your time and feedback. — Bill william compton^Talk 14:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Quick oppose - I don't have the time right now to list in detail the issues, and will do so as soon as I get the time to, but I'm opposing on prose. As seems to be usual each time one of these Asian medal lists come up, there's tons of grammar and sentence structure issues lying around. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC) I'm not eloquent in English so many times do mistakes like this, give me some time for copy editing. Other than that, did you find any other major issue? — Bill william comptonTalk 15:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC) With all due respect, the "time for copy editing" is before you come to FLC. As I said, I'll list in more detail my objections when I get around to doing so and when time allows. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Done – ce is finished, you may take a look there. I'll never repeat this mistake in future. — Bill william comptonTalk 20:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Comments— Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC) A total of 6,572 athletes—4,605 males and 1,967 females "Men" and "women" sound better. Done all 44 member-nations Remove the hyphen. Done East Timor, newest member of the OCA—becoming independent on May 20, 2002 from Indonesia—made its debut Too much going on in this bit. Then please specifically mention. Quite simply, there is too much information there you are trying to cram in. I don't think you need to note that it became independent, merely mentioning it was the newest OCA member is quite enough. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Done North Korea competed for the first time in an international sporting event hosted by South Korea (both nations marched together at the opening ceremony with a Korean Unification Flag depicting the Korean Peninsula as United Korea). The bit in parenthesis is unrelated to the number of OCA member nations competing. Split it out into its own sentence. Done improved their position in the general medal table compared with the 1998 Asian Games Compared to? Done Note (a) needs a rewrite. I have no idea what it's supposed to mean. Done, if still need rewrite then I may remove it at all, because sentence is itself obvious. I agree that the note should be removed. If only eight nations improved, clearly the rest did not. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Done China led the medal table Is "China topped the medal table" better here? Done , with most gold medals How about, "with 150 gold medals"? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Done Athletes from China won the most ... Redundant: we already know China topped the medal table from the previous sentence. Perhaps combine this sentence with the previous one. Done Competitors from the host nation, South Korea Redundant: you've already mentioned that South Korea hosted the games. Done South Korea won 96 gold medals, 80 silver medals and a total of 260 medals, finished second on the medal table. How about "South Korea also won .... for a total of 260 medals, finishing second..."? Done In men's artistic gymnastics, a three-way tie for gold medal Either "for gold" or "for the gold medal", but not "for gold medal". Done ; a tie for silver medal in the individual all-around Missing "and". Done In women's artistic gymnastics, ties for gold medal Per above. Done China and Taiwan shared the silver. The issue here should be obvious. Done Liu Xiang from China won a gold medal in the 110 meters hurdles. 110–meter hurdles. Done Misplaced endash. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Done Oops! Japanese athlete Koji Murofushi won a gold medal in the hammer-throw event. Extraneous hyphen. Done This is the dealbreaker for me right now: close paraphrasing in the first paragraph relating to medal changes. Compare: Article: Lebanese bodybuilder Youssef El-Zein was stripped of his bronze medal after he refused to undergo a drug test. Source: A Lebanese bodybuilder has been stripped of his Asian Games bronze medal after refusing to take a dope test As far as I'm concerned, there are other ways to express that sentence without close paraphrasing. I suspect close paraphrasing may have occurred in the subsequent paragraphs about the Indian runner as well, although there the similarities (while they exist) are less damning for me to present as evidence of copyvio. Don't make this type of allegations. There is no "close paraphrasing", this is my writing style, check other related articles written by me. But if it seems paraphrasing to you then I just can say that it wasn't intended. For your satisfaction I've tried to rephrase the sentence. I'd prefer no similarity to the original at all. How about "For not submitting to a drugs test, bodybuilding bronze medalist Youssef El-Zein of Lebanon was relieved of his medal." Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Done the bronze medal in the +91 kg category went to Choi Jae-Duck +90 kg or +91 kg? Done

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

Comments – Add "the" in "with most gold medals (150)." Done – changed to "with 150 gold medals", is it okay? Medal table: "and" is needed before wushu. Done In the Liu Xiang caption, the en dash isn't needed in "110 meter–hurdles". StrPby has different opinion. Changes in medal standings: "Action against Youssef was taken after his refusal for drug test." A little awkward at the end. I'd rather see the simpler "after he refused a drug test." Changed as per the suggestion of StrPby. Note a: "Except these eight NOCs none other improved its position of previous Asian Games medal table." Needs some good copy-editing all around. Removed as sentence is itself axiomatic. In ref 19, Athletics Weekly should be italicized since it's a printed publication. Also, it would be good to have a period after gbrathletics.com, separating it from Athletics Weekly. Done Spell out AFP in ref 25? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Done In the Leander Paes photo caption, it would be nice if it said what sport he played. Done – I thought it would be obvious from the image only. Instead of "events of the tennis" at the end, I'd back a change to the more grammatical "tennis events". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Done I'm assuming that Sunita's medals were restored to her after her name was cleared? Article isn't clear on that point. Done It now reads "Sunita was reinstated of both her medals", which is awkward to read. Maybe try "Both of Sunita's medals were reinstated"? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Done

• Provisional support – All my comments have been taken care of and the list looks good. The only thing I'd like to see is another close paraphrasing check from someone, since an issue has already been found. You can never be too careful when it comes to things like that. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Giants2008, if you still have some doubts then please don't support, because I know what I've written, and I have nothing to hide. The phrase which was questioned by StrPby, by chance matched with my writing style, and I've already given my reason for that. — Bill william compton^Talk 00:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments " celebrated in " nah, it was held in, not celebrated, that's too much POV. Done, but is it really seem POV?, because "celebrated" is a common term for specifying Multi-sport event/Sports festival. No need to link Asia. Done " slightly more" higher. Done "an entity represented by a National Olympic Committee" -> "by a NOC" (you've already abbreviated it). Done Oops, dinner's ready, more to come! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Comments "3000 m " 3,000m Not per WP:MOSUNIT I meant the comma, not the spacing... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Didn't notice the comma. Feeling stupid now. "Those two were to have played to decide" why not just "Those two played to decide.."? Done TRM, the point is the two teams didn't play, because of the weather. So "were to have played" seems to be correct, to me. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC) I too had the same doubt, but thought TRM knows better. — Bill william comptonTalk 10:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Fair enough, restore to previous version then. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Done "who finished fourth" who had finished fourth? Done "On October 13, 2002 " perhaps say, Six days later or something to make it more interesting. Done No point in abbreviating BAGOC if you don't use it. Done No need to link Indonesia or Bangkok in my opinion. Done Or Seoul. Done International Association of Athletic Federations -> International Association of Athletics Federations Done The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment Just the one comment, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking countries should not be linked, so I would either remove them or link to the the 2002 Asian games page for that country. NapHit (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Done

• Support NapHit (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support Can't see any outstanding issues. Miyagawa (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:10, 17 September 2011 [13].

---

List of Arizona hurricanes

Nominator(s): Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is an interesting and comprehensive page that meets all the featured list criteria. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose from KV5

Comments from KV5 relating to opposition

I'm not convinced this is a list. There is an awful lot of prose, and it's not structured like other "prose-lists", where each entry has its own prose section. It may very well be an article. Not convinced on the name either; there are tropical storms as well as hurricanes, so this should probably be re-named to "List of Arizona tropical storms". These two things should be clarified by consensus before full reviews are undertaken. — KV5 • Talk • 19:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Agree with both points by KV. Should be renamed and submitted at FAC. PumpkinSky talk 01:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC) I disagree with the rename. Existing U.S. state lists use "List of {state} hurricanes", even if they also include tropical storms. (See: List of Florida hurricanes; List of North Carolina hurricanes; List of California hurricanes; List of New Jersey hurricanes; List of New York hurricanes — all featured.) The intensity-neutral name for all of those lists would have to be "List of {state} tropical cyclones", which fails the criteria set in WP:COMMONNAME. I also disagree with the point that this is not a list. There is more prose than usual since the list-prose format does not lend itself very well to pre-1960 storms, due to lack of data, and to post-2000 storms, due to too much data. That said, I have no issues sending the page to FAC under the current name if that's what FLC prefers. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC) If this is a list, then it needs to remain here. If it's an article, then it needs to be renamed to Tropical cyclones in Arizona or some such. Can't have it both ways. I personally don't think it's a list in the present format. — KV5 • Talk • 21:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC) CALLING YOU on that one. It is NOT nearly identical to the NJ, NY, and CA lists. Those have more list content than prose where's the AZ is the opposite. PumpkinSky talk 22:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC) I modified the article's structure to make it more list-based. I still think that a rename would be afoul of WP:COMMONNAME and oppose it. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC) I think that the "list" format is now justified, and that FLC is the appropriate place for this; however, see my comment below on the name. — KV5 • Talk • 11:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC) This is perfectly fine where it is. There have been numerous discussion across Wikipedia and these sorts of articles, and the consensus was in favor "List of [State] hurricanes". I'll review this later tonight. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC) I disagree that it's "perfectly fine" as the name does not illustrate the contents of the list. The tropical cyclones list name would be more accurate. — KV5 • Talk • 21:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC) It's a list of Arizona hurricanes, how does it not illustrate the contents? It is near identical to List of New Jersey hurricanes, List of California hurricanes, List of New York hurricanes, etc. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Because there are non-hurricanes in the list. It's simple. All of the lists you reference were promoted in 2008 or earlier, and as such are lacking in comparison to the current criteria. The most accurate and descriptive name should be used, regardless of what else exists. — KV5 • Talk • 22:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC) WP:WAX is, as you are well aware of, only an essay, and it goes completely against the Consistency portion of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, a policy. Additionally, while the name you propose is indeed more precise, it is also not natural (since "tropical cyclone" is not used in the United States nearly as much as "hurricane"). Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC) The fact remains that a hurricane is a tropical cyclone, but a tropical cyclone is not necessarily a hurricane. Your reference above to WP:COMMONNAME is a fallacious argument, because the common name for a tropical storm is not "hurricane", and "use the most common name" does not mean "use the most common name found as the title of a Wikipedia article". As to your link to WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, while this title might "satisfy" the Consistency criterion, this article does not satisfy three of the other criteria, namely Naturalness: "As part of this, a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English" (tropical storms are not called hurricanes in English), Recognizability: "article titles are expected to be a recognizable name or description of the topic" (this title does not describe the topic, only part of it), and Precision: "titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise... as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously". Sacrificing three criteria to satisfy one is improper. IMO the other hurricane lists, if they contain tropical storms, should be renamed. This is why we have redirects. — KV5 • Talk • 11:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC) I think you're trying to make an issue out of something rather minor. "Hurricane" is indeed the most common name for a generic tropical cyclone in the United States. Once again, see National Hurricane Center, note how the review for each season is Eastern North Pacific Hurricane Season of 20XX, and even the Detroit weather service has an article on Hurricanes in Michigan, all because "hurricane" is the more general name. We also have "Louisiana hurricane history", "Hurricane History for Baltimore/Washington", and the "Hurricane Research Division" dealing with the "National Hurricane Center's North Atlantic hurricane database". Furthermore, there are 14 million Ghits for [United States tropical storm] versus United States hurricane. Now can we get on to the analysis of this article without worrying about whether it should be a list or what its title should be? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC) I agree with Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) and Titoxd (talk · contribs). Your argument that it should be List of Arizona tropical storm is not accurate as fails to describe the topic, because some of the storms were remnant lows or TD's when they made it there. (i.e. Octave, Kathleen). Should this become List of Arizona remmant lows, because if it did, it would be nearly impossible to complete. While this could always be changed, WP:EPAC currently has 2009 Pacific hurricane season not 2009 tropical cyclone season. What do you think of when you hear the word "hurricane". I am a member of this wikiproject and a very active member in the task force, and I think of tropical cyclone. What do you think of when your hear the word "hurricane" or "hurricane season"? YE Pacific Hurricane 14:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC) I can see here that I'm just going to be talked down by members of the Hurricane WikiProject, so I am tabling my part in this discussion but my oppose stands. — KV5 • Talk • 01:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC) You opposed on two counts: the first one (the list format) has been addressed, and the second one (the page name) is evolving into a consensus against your position. I am not sure how your continued opposition is actionable at this point. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC) That's correct. However, actionable or not, it stands procedurally because I still believe this list is misnamed but no progress will be made due to the impasse in discussion. I'm not willing to believe that this name is proper, but I can see that I will always hold the minority view. Thus, I have better things to use my time for. — KV5 • Talk • 01:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• OpposeNeutralThose lists consist mostly of list items and have non-hurricanes. This "list" is 80% prose and hence an article, not a list. It should be renamed and moved to FAC. PumpkinSky talk 19:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  Changed it to be more list-based. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

  More Comments 1) I'm okay with the format now 2) ref retrieve dates are half m-d-year and half year-m-d, they should all be consistent 3) I have to go with KV5 on the name, cyclones are not hurricanes, hurricanes are in the Atlantic, typhoons are hurricanes in the Pacific, both have gobs of water, Arizona is not even on an oceanic coast-and it's in the desert. Sorry but I simply can't refer to a storm in AZ as a hurricane.PumpkinSky talk 01:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  I fixed the accessdates. As for the naming, I don't understand what you mean when you say "cyclones are not hurricanes". A hurricane is the name given regionally to tropical cyclones, and this includes the Northeastern Pacific, which is where Arizona gets its tropical cyclones. Typhoons only occur on the Northwest Pacific Ocean; Hurricane Ioke, Hurricane Linda (1997), Hurricane Rick (2009), Hurricane Guillermo (1997), Hurricane Iniki, Hurricane Ismael, Hurricane John (1994), Hurricane John (2006), Hurricane Kenna, Hurricane Kiko (1989), Hurricane Nora (1997), Hurricane Daniel (2006), Hurricane Isis (1998) and Hurricane Lane (2006) (all of the Featured Articles) occurred in the Northeast Pacific and are properly referred to as "hurricanes". Whether Arizona is a desert or not has no bearing on whether it can be affected by one, so I don't understand your last point either. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  Yeah, my oppose had nothing to do with whether storms in Arizona can be called hurricanes; there is no doubt that this is correct. My oppose was based on the fact that the list includes multiple types of tropical cyclones: hurricanes and tropical storms. — KV5 • Talk • 11:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  Comment to whoever is opposing this what do you think of when you here the word "hurricane"? BTW, Strange PAsserby, AFAIK, this issues has been brought up once in 2007 on List of California hurricanes. 13:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Retrieve dates ok now. Like I said before, I have always seen hurricane used to mean a storm over a certain wind speed in the Atlantic (which means kaboodles of rain). It makes my skin crawl to see hurricane used to mean a storm on the west coast, even more so one in the desert. So I can't support this naming convention. But since I seem to be in the minority here, I'll change to neutral. I think that COMMONNAME is being MISAPPLIED here. PumpkinSky talk 21:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support with support.

Extended content

"Usually, these storms originate in the eastern Pacific Ocean, and make landfall in the Mexican states of Baja California or Sonora, dissipating before crossing into the United States" - this is rather wordy Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC) "Not all Arizona hurricanes originate from the Pacific Ocean, however; an Atlantic hurricane in 2008 produced rainfall in eastern Arizona, and another Atlantic storm reached Arizona as a tropical depression" - you say "Arizona" three times in one sentence Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC) You use the verb "carry" in two consecutive sentence. While one wouldn't have annoyed me, it is a bit too vernacular for me to be happy you using it twice so soon after another in the same context. Is the "most storms that could affect Arizona are carried away from the United States" even necessary? Replaced with "steer", and I'd say that the two sentences are saying slightly different things, so both are necessary. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC) "summer/fall rainfall" - that's a little weird reading. Are you opposed to using "autumn"? This is more difficult. There are two wet seasons in Arizona: The winter season, with cold front-based rainfall, and the summer season, which is monsoon-based. Tropical cyclones occur mostly in the fall, just after the end of the monsoon season, so I can't replace summer/fall with "monsoon season" per se, and just saying "autumn" is inaccurate. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC) I think Nora's rainfall should be mentioned in the lede, considering it is the statewide peak Added. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Some of the storms in "Storms" are unsourced. Done. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC) "The rainfall due to the storm still holds the monthly rainfall record at the National Weather Service office in Tucson" - what was the total?! Added. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC) "This same system produced more than twice the average annual rainfall in Imperial Valley, California" - isn't this supposed to be about Arizona? Yes, but the rainfall total in an area that is contiguous to Arizona seemed impressive enough to leave it in. I can take it out if you'd prefer. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC) "On the 11th, the remnants of separate system passed, again, over southwest Arizona" - your commas put me in a coma! It sounded better when I wrote it. Changed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC) In 1950s, you have two consecutive sentences with the phrase "over the state" Changed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC) What are "washes"? Added a link. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC) "Albeit the storm remained at sea,[10] its residual moisture was advected over southern Arizona, a passing cold front triggered widespread showers and thunderstorms on the evening of September 9" - it's a runon or needs a semicolon or something or another brother Also, the word "albeit" is misused in this context. I suggest going with "Although" instead. ★ Auree talk 22:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Changed it. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC) "Any damage from the storm is not known." - that isn't really helpful :/ Not really sure what to put there instead. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC) "8 miles wide" - conversion? Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC) How is the year not known for Octave still?! Just find an estimate from 1983! The problem is that the source did not specify whether the damage was in 1983 dollars, or current dollars. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC) "The storm system produced sustained winds of 20 to 30 miles per hour (30 to 50 km/h) were recorded in the Tucson area. " - I grammered myself when I was read that. Sentence fragments are yummy. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC) "Raymond passed over the state as a tropical depression, and produced heavy rainfall on the southeastern portion of the state, with 4.72 in (120 mm) of rain falling in Nogales" - you mention "state" twice Changed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC) I'd mention the year for Hilary Is this still necessary, considering the new format? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Why is Isis's bit occurring after a semicolon? Same here. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC) "that surround Tucson. However, there was no flooding reported in the Tucson area, and Tucson International Airport reported only 1.1 in (28 mm) as a result of the storm" - why does Tucson need to be mentioned three times? I know it's one of the coolest cities in the world, but come on, give Yuma some love! The second one can be removed, but I'd rather leave TIA spelled out. Is that ok? Damage total from Lester or Nora? Added Nora. MWR/TCR doesn't mention damage figures for Lester in the US. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• • The Olivia 00 bit is boring and lengthy
    • Not sure how to fix boring. Maybe making the text blink? :P Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Tis it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• No opinion for now, but I want to comment with regard to the name of the article. Since there is precedent for the term "hurricane" in such articles, including a number of featured lists, I would argue it is reasonable to assume that this has been raised at previous FLCs. If those lists were not affected by their names, there is no reason this nomination should fail simply because one or two reviewers don't like the article's name. That being said, it is less of a list than an article as it stands. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I understand your point of view and appreciate that input; however, consensus can change, and just because it happened before doesn't mean it has to stay the same. Thanks for your thoughts on the topic :-). — KV5 • Talk • 21:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Speaking as someone with a decade of research on tropical meteorology and something like 40 FAs and FLs on hurricanes, I can say with reasonable confidence that "hurricane" has two usages; a common usage and a technical usage. From a technical standpoint, a hurricane is a tropical cyclone with sustained winds that satisfy a given wind criterion. However, it is used far more commonly to encompass all tropical cyclones in the climatological context (ie. a season or other time frame, or a list of storms to affect a state). We have the 2011 Atlantic hurricane season in addition to the National Hurricane Center, the US governmental agency responsible for tracking all tropical disturbances with the potential to develop into any sort of cyclone: depression, storm, or hurricane. Since Wikipedia follows a common naming convention, "hurricane" is the most appropriate term. Juliancolton (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Support all issues on Hink comment's have been addressed AFAIK, so I support. I alos think it's title should remain the same per WP:COMONNAME and per what Juliancolton (talk · contribs) said above. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - See my above comment for why I believe the above objections are based on inaccurate assumptions. The article is the result of extensive and thorough research, and I believe it's well deserving of the status. Juliancolton (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support, no further issues. Name doesn't bother me, and my only other concern has been adequately addressed. I think this is enough of a list to qualify now. That said, wouldn't it have been better if all the wikiproject supporters declared their conflict of interest? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose many, many, many (perhaps trivial) issues: First, the format. Looks now like mainly a table and a timeline, so we are now in list territory. This is a good thing. Not wishing to tip the apple cart but you really don't need to say "An Arizona hurricane is..." just to get some kind of bold in the lead. I'd say something more interesting. Yay, stuff I can actually deal with! :) How about now? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC) "A few storms " a little colloquial for me. I removed that sentence, and instead mentioned the average return period of the storms. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC) " the remaining moisture" remaining from what? Clarified. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC) What's a "predominant storm track"? Do you just mean "most storms track either parallel or away from...."? Actually, I changed it to mention the predominant steering pattern, which are the trade winds. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC) "every five years or so" perhaps "approximately every five years"? Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC) "Arizona hurricanes are also responsible for torrential rainfall in localized areas, with the state's 24-hour rainfall record—11.97 inches (304 mm) of precipitation[3]—being held by rainfall resulting ..." rainfall is used three times here... There are only so many ways of saying "rain"... I changed the sentence around to avoid the issue. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC) First para of climatology is almost copy-and-paste from the lead. Modified slightly. Better? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Four dab links: Santa Cruz River, Red Rock, nickel, gusts. Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Presumably your colour scheme is determined by the Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale, so I'd explain it that way. Added a legend by the table. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Tables need to comply with WP:ACCESS, i.e. use row and col scopes. Done. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC) No reason to link flood or rain. Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC) " but this time, the " no comma needed. Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Tucson is over linked and linked differently. Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC) "September 1939: 1939 saw two tropical " reads a little odd to me with the 1939 being either side of the colon. Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC) "more than 5.00 (127 mm) of " 5.00 what? Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC) " Los Robles Wash carried up to 32,600 cu ft/s (920 m3/s), while the Santa Cruz River proper peaked at 9,200 cubic feet per second" consistent cubic feet p/s please. Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC) " 1 to 3 inches (25 to 76 mm) of rainfall, with isolated locations receiving over 5 inches" everywhere else is "in" not "inches" Actually, I changed it to be all inches (mm), instead of in (mm). Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC) "The rainfall produced by Hurricane Heather was concentrated..." caption needs a full stop. Done. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC) " with the state maxima being" do you mean maximum? Maxima is plural. I'm surprised nobody caught that before. Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC) "The 1980s saw destructive tropical cyclone pass" grammar fail. D'Oh. Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC) "The flooding caused record floods" poor grammar. Redundant redundancy removed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC) "Santa Cruz Rivers." should that River be river really? I see what you mean. Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC) "During the 1990s, several tropical systems have affected Arizona " grammar fail again, remove "have" Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC) "August 1995: 1995's Flossie's" again, odd to see year: year. Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC) "1998: In 1998, " no need for In 1998.. Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC) "decade did not see any storm " -> "decade saw no storms..." Changed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC) "Hurricane Javier produced heavy precipitation in Arizona" full stop please. Changed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC) "0.90 inches" - "in" normally. Check the whole article... Changed all of them to "inches". Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC) "forced the university to delay one of its football games" is that really significant? Not really. Should I nuke it? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC) "8 in (200 mm)" vs "11.10 in (282 mm)" - be consistent with the decimal places. Well, in this case, the 11.10 was a direct measurement, and the 8 was an estimate, so changing it to 8.00 would imply more precision that there actually is. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC) "1 in (25 mm) of precipitation f" avoid starting sentences with a number. Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC) "due to a lighting strike" lightning. Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC) En-dashes needed in the references, e.g. Ref 55 should be "Hurricane Lester – August..." Neither WP:CITE nor WP:DASH offer any guidance on what to do in reference to dashes in the references, so I used whatever format the original source has. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Refs 72 to 81 don't work for me, and really need something to differentiate themselves from each other in the title. Don't work as in they're broken? They work for me... otherwise I'm not sure what you mean by that. I added a location to the titles to disambiguate them. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 44 is missing publication date/link if available/accessdate if available. This one will take me a little bit longer to do. The original source is not online anymore. I went and looked for the article in microfilm, and while I found the newspaper for that time period, I could not find the article in time before the library closed. I'll try again to find it tomorrow. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Added the publication date. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Staff Writer ->Staff writer. Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Archived stuff (e.g. ref 1) normally should normally have an archive date and an original url. Like ref 62. Actually, this reference used to be accessed via archive.org, but a new link to the same page was found, so that replaced the old archive link. I just removed mention of the Wayback Machine. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC) NOAA or the full version in the refs? If the second, at least use the second before the first. I'd be consistent. Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Texas needs sorting out in your template, looks like there are half-a-dozen Texas lists... I modified {{United States hurricanes}}, but to be honest I think it looked better before. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Too much whitespace at the top of the climatology section because of the large graph. Ugh, this thing. The problem is a resolution issue in wide-screen monitors, but EasyTimelines do not lend themselves to being floated, and instead just act as if they had {{clear}}s below them. As such, I had to wrap the entire section in a table to get around it. Do you know a way of avoiding this? I don't I'm afraid. I hate those "easy timelines"... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC) It seems {{floatbox}} solves this problem for me. Does it work for you? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Not a fan of the title for the reason already mentioned, but I'm ignoring it as I don't particularly want to start a debate on this topic. Kind of disappointed in how much I found, since there have been so many reviews before this one, but none of the things below should be too hard to fix. Storms: "and they infuse the monsoon over the southwestern United States." What is this supposed to mean? Is "the monsoon" intended to be "the monsoons" or something? If not, I don't get it. I tried to clarify the sentence. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC) August 1921: "The first known tropical disturbance to affect the state occurred in August 1921". Notice the repetition between the lead-in and the prose? Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC) October 1968: Same goes for "The last storm to impact Arizona during the decade was Hurricane Pauline, which added high amounts of moisture ahead of a cold front in early October 1968." Easiest fix is probably to remove the year, leaving "in early October". Done. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC) "including a F2 tornado" → "including an F2 tornado"? Not sure if this is how the weather people usually do it. Good catch. Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC) 1970s: Get a spaced en dash in "United States-Mexico border" in the photo caption; this is how our article on the topic handles the formatting. Done. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Unspaced should be okay. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC) October 1972: "The Nogales Highway Bridge over the Santa Cruz River was washed away by the flooding, and saturated the soils...". The bridge saturated the soils, or the flooding? Sounds like the bridge from this. Not sure if that's the intention, so worth asking about. Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC) "that caused flooding that caused...". Little too much "that caused" in here for my tastes. Don't like these prose redundancies. Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC) October 1983: The dollar amount is missing the usual dollar sign before it. Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC) September 2004: Remove comma after Javier at the start. Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC) September 2009: "Northwest of Golden Valley, golf ball sized hail, totalling 1.75 inches in diameter." Feels like it's missing a word or three. The sentence was massively confused. Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC) "with many others received some damage". "received" → "receiving". Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Refs 5, 34, and 60 could use PDF designations, like the other similar references have. Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Publishers of refs 7 (USA Today), 22 (Los Angeles Times) and 68 (The Arizona Daily Star) should be italicized as printed publications. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Fixed all. Thanks for the review! Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC) All of the colors in the table need a matching symbol per WP:ACCESS. Don't agree with this one. The colors are based on the intensity scale to the right of the table, and each colored cell in the table already spells out the relevant intensity classification. Adding a symbol to say that the cell's background color says that the storm is a Category 4 hurricane when the cell contains "Category 4" in the text is superfluous. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Would like to hear what an access expert has to say on this. Things vary based on the situation. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale

TD	Tropical Depression: <39 mph (0–62 km/h)
TS	Tropical Storm: 39–73 mph (63–117 km/h)
C1	Category 1: 74–95 mph (119–153 km/h)
C2	Category 2: 96–110 mph (154–177 km/h)
C3	Category 3: 111–130 mph (178–209 km/h)
C4	Category 4: 131–155 mph (210–249 km/h)
C5	Category 5: >=156 mph (>=250 km/h)

I make no claim to be an expert on anything, but in my humble opinion, there's no information in the table conveyed by colour that is not available in the text of the table. I'd say the table meets our standards for accessibility, although it would benefit from a caption. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for {{Saffir-Simpson small}} as it displays windspeed information on mouseover that is denied to anyone who only uses a keyboard (since the table elements it produces can't receive focus). I'd prefer to see something like the table on the right but that's really an issue for your WikiProject (or whoever maintains {{Saffir-Simpson small}}).

The only other thing I would suggest is that the second table has a colspanned heading: "Wettest tropical cyclones, and their remnants, in Arizona - Highest known recorded totals", which ideally ought to be the table caption, rather than a header row. Readers using JAWS (screen reader) or similar would appreciate these sort of minor changes. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Swapped {{Saffir-Simpson small}} with {{Saffir-Simpson}} and modified the table accordingly. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine, the new Saffir-Simpson table is a big improvement and you've made captions for the main tables. I don't see any outstanding accessibility issues. --RexxS (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment on the article/list issue. I was leaning towards considering this an article as well. However, there is precedent on having small clusters of text be considered a list, namely at one of KV's FLs, List of Major League Baseball managers. Given that I'm not sold on the validity of the oppose. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that my oppose is not based on this being a list. It is. My oppose is based on the use of "hurricane" in the name as opposed to "tropical cyclone". — KV5 • Talk • 15:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment I would like to see the Wettest tropical cyclones, and their remnants, in Arizona table reduced down in size.Jason Rees (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The size of the font is already 92% of normal. Reducing the table size is not possible without removing information from the table, and I don't know what could be removed while retaining the table's usefulness. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually it can be done rather easily by reducing 50% to 30%.Jason Rees (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

But that forces the last column to span four rows in a 1024x768 screen, at least for #10 in the list. Even 45% causes that problem in my monitor, and the smallest width that does not cause me that issue is 50%. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Support - I have no major issues with the list, ive read through it over the last few weeks and everything seems to be upto scratch. As for the width, i can now see what Titoxd meant having just checked it out on a small screen.Jason Rees (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:04, 16 September 2011 [14].

---

List of posthumous number-one singles (UK)

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it's ready........... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments – How set are you on that particular title? At the moment I think it's a little ambiguous, as it doesn't specify of which UK chart these songs were number one, i.e. are they number-one singles of the UK Official Download Chart, or the UK Dance Chart, or the UK Indie Chart, etc. Personally, I reckon something like "List of posthumous number ones on the UK Singles Chart" might be a little bit clearer (although admittedly that is more of a mouthful). Not fussed either way, but note that all our other UK number one lists use this format e.g. List of number-one singles from the 1950s (UK)..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Personally, I'd like to change the titles of all our number-one UK singles lists, although that's probably not a discussion for here and more for WP:WikiProject Record Charts - I'll bring it up there. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC) As of today, there have been 1170 UK Single Chart number ones, so would it be more precise to say "nearly 1,200" rather than "over 1,000"? Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Are there any online sources that could be used to cite the dates of reaching number one and the number of weeks at number one? I know that it might be a bit of a citation overkill, but I just think that it'd be good for the reader if they could verify the information using sources available online. Maybe they could be put in a separate "References" column or something, just to avoid any clutter. Done for all bar one. For some reason, the OCC's archive of "all" the number ones only starts in 1960, so does not cover the first entry on the list...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Yeah, it's pretty inexplicable as to why the OCC's current website doesn't list the number ones for the fifties. However, a previous version of their site did, which can now be accessed through the Wayback Machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20090308020427/http://www.theofficialcharts.com/all_the_no1_songs.php You could cite the date of reaching number one and the number of weeks at the top for that Buddy Holly track using this webpage. Also, I think the refs in the sixth column should be centre aligned. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Should the comma in the caption of the photo for Elvis really be a semicolon? A comma seems right to me, personally.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC) "Jailhouse Rock" is a dab link. Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC) I think the normal convention is for titles of double A-sides to be separated by spaces, i.e. "One Night"/"I Got Stung" -> "One Night" / "I Got Stung" Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC) The ISBN for MTV Pop and Rock World Records doesn't appear to be valid. Corrected, and for good measure I have changed it to the 13-digit version as per the below -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC) British Hit Singles & Albums is being referenced a lot, so it might be worth putting it in the General references section and then using the Sfn template to cite to specific pages. 'Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC) WP:ISBN suggests using the 13-digit ISBN if available, which, for British Hit Singles & Albums would be 978-1-90-499400-8. Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC) BBC -> BBC News? Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC) A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Many thanks for your comments, some addressed thus far, will get to the rest soon....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC) "to date" -> "as of 2011" Alan Jones should perhaps be cited in the Music Week ref. I don't think either Allmusic nor MSN Music need to be italicised. Also, what's the rule regarding the phrase "number 1"? WP:ORDINAL suggests that numbers below ten should be written out as words, meaning that it should perhaps really be "number one", but I'm not sure whether or not record charts are an exception to this. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC) All done. Some of those I thought I'd already done, but I must have forgotten to save or something..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from –Drilnoth (T/C) 12:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

*Comments: (feel free to intersperse responses) –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC) "The Notorious B.I.G." should be sorted under "N". –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Images need alt text. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC) I didn't realise alt text was a requirement once again. Nonetheless.....done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Eh, I misworded that. They should have alt text, and especially in featured content it is very important. –Drilnoth (T/C) 12:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – Just one from me: a comma is needed after George Harrison in the lead. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Someone has submitted this this to AfD[15]. Regardless of the merits of the submission, which I think are very few, it would be good to establish the notibility of music sales increasing after death. Something like this, I suggest. Thincat (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I have added a bit about this..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to see the AFD done and dusted, then I'll be back with comments. Chris, if I forget, please please ping me. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to say I'll now be off Wiki till Wednesday, I'll catch up with any comments made in the meantime then....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• AFD result: The AFD has closed as keep. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments now sense has prevailed, I'll comment. "John Lennon scored three..." ouch, this is a UK chart, BritEng and all that. I'm not keen at all on that colloquialism...! Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Could you add "singles" and link it in the first sentence? Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Not overly keen on all the stuff in parentheses in the opening part of the lead. Would prefer these to be notes so it doesn't smash the structure of that sentence up and then you could have "and was based" instead of " the chart was based "... Done - not sure the OCC's former names were really necessary anyway..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC) On this one occasion and this one occasion only, I think I'm okay with you abbreviating NME without ever using it because a lot of people may not know NME means New Musical Express. One point to Chris...! Ta ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Is there going to be an album version of this? Who knows.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC) the "King of Rock'n Roll", sorry to be a pain but this "direct quote" is it backed up by the paper source? Haven't got it to hand, added another ref just in case..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Applicable notes referenced? Have added a note to the first one, the others are covered by the refs against the relevant hits..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Otherwise very nice. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support from AFD to FL (hopefully) in hours. Awesomeness. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support That's all my concerns resolved, thanks a lot. Although why has the header of the first section been changed to a rather uninformative "List"? Personally, I think something more descriptive like, say, "Number ones" would work better. Anyway, nice going! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Someone else made that change. I've amended it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support, read through it a couple times and saw no issues. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:46, 15 September 2011 [16].

---

Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (P–Q)

Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 21:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Another Phillies list: mind your Ps and Qs. — KV5 • Talk • 21:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from   – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

:Comments - Very nice list, just two things Is there a reason why there is an empty nowiki tag in every player notes? Change the § to its proper temp tag {{§}} (or {{Section-sign}})   – HonorTheKing (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC) The nowiki tag causes the bulleted list to work inside the table cell. It's a workaround we use in the MLB player infobox and I just ported the application over to these lists. As to the section sign, the symbol is read properly by screen readers and does not need to be changed (this was addressed in an earlier FLC of this series). — KV5 • Talk • 11:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Glad to know that.   – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support, Very nice list.   – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• Chan Ho or Chan-Ho? Our article hyphenates. That is all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is the only place I've seen it hyphenated, and it was apparently moved in Dec 2010 (after this was moved out of userspace) without consideration for the sources. Baseball-Reference, ESPN, MLB, and Yahoo! Sports all have no hyphen, so I'm moving the article back. That should do it. — KV5 • Talk • 21:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Well played. Support. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Found no issues with the list. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:46, 15 September 2011 [17].

---

List of Manchester United F.C. players (25–99 appearances)

Nominator(s):
  – HonorTheKing (talk), 03md, 21:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured list because it meets all of the new FL criteria, and WP:ACCESS, All previous issues had been fixed, and please note that the older nomination was closed as stale nomination (no votes)
Please tell us whats need to be fixed and we will do so, and if you think it meets the criteria, please support it.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - HonorTheKing has done excellent work in getting this list to FL standard. I'm still bemused as to why it wasn't promoted the last two times it was nominated, seeing as it's almost exactly the same as the other two Manchester United players lists. – PeeJay 00:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Comments indeed, very close for me... Sutcliffe's caption could be expanded a little to be more informative/interesting than just his name! Same with the others which just have player's names. "entered the First Round of the " does that really need to be capitalised? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC) The caption expention is done including refs. I left the capitalised rounds as it is what the FA body uses to describe each round, see here, and the game archive here (change the Select Season to 1886-1887)   – HonorTheKing (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• 'Support a nice list though a bit many pictures. Sandman888 (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• Photo caption: "Oscar Linkson participated in Manchester United's first FA Cup-winning 1909 title." Flow doesn't seem strong to me. Perhaps consider something like "in Manchester United's first FA Cup-winning side in 1909."?
• Kieran Richardson caption: "participated in Manchester United's League Cup-winning 2005–06 title." Again, the "winning" and "title" don't work well together. Suggest a similar edit to the one proposed above.
• Would still like to see some feedback from other reviewers on whether MUFCInfo.com is a reliable source. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the caption issues.

About MUFCInfo.com, Will you consider this as a feedback, as seen Twitter can be considerd as RS at times -

Steve Bartram - ManUtd.com contributing editor (you can see article from site here), he also wrote ManUtd related books, as you can see Simon & Schuster publishing book here, jointly with offical ManUtd

He wrote on 20 Aug 2011 - "......@mufcinfodotcom for stats...", So if he wrote it, it means that ManUtd editor consider MUFCInfo as a RS.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Nick Coppack - ManUtd.com contributing editor and journalist (you can see article from site here)

He wrote on 14 Sep 2011 - "If you fancy indulging in a few stats before this evening, you could do worse than visit mufcinfo.com. Run by @mufcinfodotcom.", He also mention MUFCInfo a RS.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Looks fine to me, I've had a little run through the prose and made a few very minor alterations but otherwise I think this is ready. Good work as always. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 20:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:30, 15 September 2011 [18].

---

List of 350cc Motorcycle World Champions

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the list fulfills the criteria to be a featured list. NapHit (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "British riders have won the most championships; eight riders have won a total of 14 championships." The "have"s should be removed because this sentence is dealing in past tense; the category no longer exists, so it isn't current. Also, the "are"s in the next sentence need to be "were"s, or further edits should be made. Still one "are" in "and Rhodesians and South Africans are third with three championships." Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Got it now, thanks NapHit (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Don't want to keep harping on this bit, but Rhodesian should be plural. Don't know why it was changed back. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Sorry, must of changed it by accident its fixed now. NapHit (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC) "and Rhodesian and South African are third...". Either add another "riders" in here or make a change to "Rhodesians and South Africans". Key: De-capitalize Championship in the first two items? "Each year is linked to the article about that 350cc Grand Prix motorcycle racing season." Since the articles are for all of Grand Prix motorcycle racing, the 350cc should be removed from this note. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the comments Giants, I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments Not entirely keen on the prose in the lead, a bit clunky. E.g.s "Former classes that have been discontinued include" you don't really need "Former" there because you go on to say they're discontinued. Why is "Sidecar" capitalised? "350cc was a class that existed..." why not "The 350cc class existed..."? "that raced in that class" reads poorly. "The engines had four cylinders, similar to the four cylinders used" repetitive. Is there no reasonable link for MotoGP? MotoGP links to Grand Prix Motorcycle Racing NapHit (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC) "The Grand Prix Road-Racing World Championship was established in 1949 ..." comes a little late in the para since you say in the opening sentence the championships were around since 1949, consider rework. "won the most championships; he won seven" why semi-colon and repeat won, why not "won the most championships with seven..."? "Jim Redman is second with..." second what? Table should use row and col scope parameters for WP:ACCESS. I think n/a should sort as a zero. decided to put this as a dash instead as having n/a sorting as zero messed up the sorting with it in between the 0s and 1s. NapHit (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC) You should explain that Margin means Champion's points margin over the guy who came second. 1960, margin is zero, needs explanation. Also to put points into context, worth telling me how the scoring went throughout the years since one champ won with 22 while another won with 132, some difference. Also worth having number of races in there too, in case 2 wins was great because it was 2/3 and so on. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the comments TRM, I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 17:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Staxringold talkcontribs 16:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC) If you have the information why not include a constructor championship fact or two in the lead. IE, which were the most successful? Added a bit about constructors NapHit (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC) It seems quite odd (to me) to see in the lead that "Rhodesians" have 3 championships but then promptly see 5 championships won in a row by people from countries called Rhodesia. Especially with 4 straight by Jim Redman. Why does he lose his Rhodesian-osity when the country changed names? Good spot, that's just an error by me can't believe I didn't notice it. NapHit (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps include a description of any notable championships (if there are any)? Jon Ekerold's narrow 3 point win (in a modern championship so that many more races) seems like there'd be a story. Or Kork Ballington's 57 point whalloping.

I would but the official website doesn't delve into the history of the championships and I don't have any books on motorcycles unfortunately. Information is very thin on the ground regarding MotoGP. NapHit (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review I've dealt with all your comments. NapHit (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Fair enough, support (though that info would be nice). Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments: "The 350cc class existed from 1949 until 1982 when it was discontinued" the when it was discontinued part seems redundant since the dates imply that. Done Any reason why the flag for Jim Redman is different in one table than the other? I think I get why but want to make sure. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC) The flag in the first table was the flag when he won the title and the flag at the bottom is the flag that Rhodesia used for the majority of its existence. NapHit (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:30, 15 September 2011 [19].

---

List of number-one albums from the 2000s (UK)

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have compared this article to its equivalent singles list, and I hope that this is of a similar quality. I feel that this list meets the FL criteria, and I welcome any comments about how it could be improved. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Comments – "as being a type of musical release that feature more than four tracks and last more than 25 minutes". Both "feature" and "last" need to be in plural form for this sentence as a whole to work. Done. In the lead, it should be either X Factor or The X Factor, not both. Fixed. Chart history: Try not to start a sentence with a year, like in "2006 and 2007 both featured 33 different number-one albums". Fixed. I believe that slashes are discouraged in text whenever they can be avoided. En dashes usually work well for year ranges, if a substitute is desired. Done. Numbers in the Album column are also sorting oddly: by first number instead of total. Same for the record labels that are numbers. Fixed. David Grey caption: "Two other of his albums also reached number one." → "Two of his other albums also reached number one."? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Fixed. Thanks very much for the feedback! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Names are sorting by first name in all charts, not last name as usual (where possible). Fixed. It's fixed in two of the charts, but the Christmas number-ones still have first name sorting. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Whoops. (Now) fixed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments: –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Album and artist names which start with the word "The" are being sorted under "T". The "The" should be ignored in the sort. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Fixed. Albums still sort under "The". –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Whoops, missed that. Fixed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Notes 1 and 2 seem redundant. Just use the appropriate reference rather than using a note to describe the source, which then references the source. The reference itself describes the source. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Nevermind, just realized why you did it that way. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC) I'd argue that using † and ‡ is redundant to just coloring the rows, but that could go either way. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC) I think the purpose of those symbols are to conform with MOS:ACCESS - conveying that information using just the colours would make the article difficult for the colourblind to understand, hence the need for the symbols too. Ah, good point. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Are the diamonds and circles an official way to abbreviate album sales info? If they aren't, I'd recommend at least coloring them gold and platinum to make them easier to understand without using the key. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Not really official, no, but they are very similar to the symbols that Q magazine used to use to convey certification levels. Colouring them seems like a good idea. Any idea how I might do that? Actually, on second thought, I'd recommend just writing out the full name of the certification rather than using symbols. Some browsers might have trouble rendering the icons. If you feel this isn't feasible, I have an idea on how to color the icons. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Per Display resolution#Computer monitors, almost 14% of all Internet users use a display of 1024x768. I've resized my browser to this resolution, and the list has a serious problem: All of the images along the side of the list are shown the same way as they are now, but the list gets pushed down below the images. I'd recommend removing or finding locations below the main list for the images. They look great on a large, widescreen monitor, but we can't make the page excessively confusing and clunky for 14% of the population. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Removed them and moved some to areas of the article where there is more space. Actually, I've had a thought: would it make any difference if the width of the images were reduced, from 180px to 150px? Would that make them fit on a 1024x768 screen? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC) I doubt it. I like they format it is in now. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Any images which are kept should have alt text per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Added. Still needed for Image:Robbie Williams catzi.jpg. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Ah yes, thanks. Added. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Thank very much for the comments, Drilnoth! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Comment: The first paragraph of the lead seems like it could be shortened. As is, the lead is placing a lot of emphasis on how reality TV affected album sales, but the rest of the article doesn't have any specific mentions of the phenomenon. I'm not saying remove the paragraph altogether (I think it is good, useful info), but maybe remove some of the examples. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Done. I've removed some of the sentences in the first and fourth paragraphs. Let me know if it's too much or not enough. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Eh, I meant to say the forth paragraph of the lead, but I like your cuts in the first paragraph also. Knowing who first announces it is more important than knowing (a small number) of the other places where it is published thereafter. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support, all of my concerns have been resolved. Passes WP:WIAFL. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support but if you remove the overlinking in the references column, for example "The Official Charts Company" or "London". Do not link the latter one, as common city.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 11:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Removed wikilinks to London. Thanks very much for the support! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
*Comments: "after which it also included albums sold digitally,[3] and each week's new number one" Starting a new sentence at Each makes it sound a bit better. It could be beneficial to link boyband. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Done both. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments good list, thanks to the other reviewers, just some last minute odds-and-sods.... "s, the most of any artist." seems a little odd to consider Westlife an "artist"... Changed to "act". " by the TV show" Yuck.. TV? television show. Changed. "boy band" vs "girlband" Changed "girlband" to "girl group". "700th album ever to top" no need for "ever" Removed. "3½ years and a day later" really? Tenuous. Perhaps just "less than four years.." or something... Changed. Use {{dagger}} and {{double dagger}} for WP:ACCESS purposes. Done. Note b, just use the abbreviation for the OCC. Changed for notes b and a. Refs 35 to 44 appear to have identical titles. Can we not distinguish between them? Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the comments! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• What does # mean? Why isn't it in the key?

• The number next to each album shows that it is the nth album to reach number one, e.g. the 752 next to Don't Believe the Truth by Oasis shows that it is the 752nd album ever to top the UK Albums Chart. Putting it in the key would certainly be a good idea, I just can't think of any succinct way of describing it. Any suggestions?

• Well, saying "nth album to top UK Albums Chart" is a good start! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Tables should use MOS:DTT as guidance for accessibility using row and col scopes.

• Sorry, but I'm a bit confused - what do you mean by this?

• For the benefit of WP:ACCESS, you should add !scope="col" in front of each column heading, and !scope="row" in front of each row heading. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• And what, in this article, would the row heading be? The number? Artist? Single name? Whichever one it is will look different from the other cells, which would be annoying for people using standard visual media. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• It should be the element of the row that is considered the most significant. And using "plainrowheaders" in the table class should prevent it looking too different. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• But which of those is most significant? They all seem more or less equally important to me. Anyways, I'll leave it up to the article nominator. –Drilnoth (T/C) 10:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Probably the album itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• The album itself would make sense, since that's what's referenced in the article title. But there are ten "Album" headers in the list in total - do I add !scope="col" before each one, or only the top-most one? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not an expert but since the header has been repeated, I would imagine that yes, you'd need to repeat the scope parameter. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support excellent work! Crystal Clear x3 15:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:11, 9 September 2011 [20].

---

List of World Heritage in Danger

Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Trying something new... This is my first FLC that is not about Japanese National Treasures. I expanded this article from a simple list (with little value) to a sortable table. The design is stolen from List of World Heritage Sites in Africa. bamse (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

*Comment(s): I'm not going to try a real review, but you might add a "p.7" to that first reference. I had to search through that PDF to find out what UNESCO was really calling this list; unfortunately, it's the ungrammatical-looking List of World Heritage in Danger, just like the title of our WP article. I rather thought it should be "List of World Heritage Sites in Danger", or similar; this title just looks like an accident to me. Added a page number ("page 6" which is the number printed on the bottom of the page and is equal to page 7 of the pdf which starts with page 0). As for the title, you are not the only one who thought that it is "...Sites in Danger" and in fact it took me some time to remove these incorrect phrases from wikipedia articles on World Heritage Sites. As far as I am aware, UNESCO never uses the title with "Sites" in it. Presumably (I don't have a source for it), they are trying to emphasize that the respective "World Heritage" (which is a universal thing that should be preserved) and not the "Site" (which is a UNESCO creation, and whether it exists or is in danger does not really matter for the world) is in danger. bamse (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Also, the commas, dashes and parentheses in the Area column of the two tables mean you will have to resort to some trickery to make the tables sort correctly. Fixed by adding "|sortable=on" to the convert templates. bamse (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC) It's not clear to me what the pink color means on the second table. Aren't all the sites shown there just as delisted as Dresden Elbe Valley (meaning they should all be pink, meaning none of them should be). If that color represents some important distinction, then some additional means should be provided to convey it. I think the blue and pink, if both are used, should have different indicators. When sites are put on the List of World Heritage in Danger, they remain world heritage sites. One site, in Dresden lost its world heritage status after being put on the List of World Heritage in Danger (="delisted"). This site is therefore marked in pink. This is explained in the last sentence of the lead section. Added "#" to convey the information per WP:ACCESS. Maybe change the description from just "Delisted" to "Delisted as a World Heritage Site" or something. It may look like it is delisted as a "World Heritage in Danger" and not as a "World Heritage Site" as it is. Iusethis (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Changed to "Delisted as a World Heritage Site" as suggested. bamse (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC) I would expect the images to be in the second or last column of the respective tables, while elements in the Name column are the actual main things being listed. In any case I think we need some scope="row" markup for the Name contents (per WP:ACCESS). Take a look also at more appropriate ALT texts for the images Swapped the first two columns of both tables to use the same order as other featured lists of world heritage sites. Added "scope="row"" to both tables. Added ALT text to all images. Good luck with the nomination! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your review. I think i addressed all of your comments (see above). bamse (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC) You're welcome, and I think you addressed them nicely, too. Just one little thing, however: it looks as though you forgot to change the column sortability when you swapped the image/name columns. Right now, we can sort by photographs... ;-) Something new I've noticed, too, although I haven't studied the refs extensively and further review is still needed: The date format is not consistent for all refs. Refs 1 and 2 appear to be different from all the rest. Cheers — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Oops, indeed. Made the name column sortable and the image column unsortable now. Also fixed the inconsistent date format in the references. bamse (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Cool, that you're so responsive. I hope this gets promoted. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• At this point I would support promotion if another reviewer were to take the time and look this list over. Again, I haven't done a proper review, haven't read the lead, studied the references, etc. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

;Comments The first list should be called "current lited sites" or something, not just "list", as there are actually two lists, each under their own heading. Done. Put the first list in a "Currently listed sites" section. bamse (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC) As the lists use the same legend, it should probably be under its own header Done. Put the legend into a separate "Legend" section. bamse (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Any reason the first list mentions city/region, while the latter only mentions the country? No reason, so I added that information to the second table. bamse (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Perhaps mention that UNESCO is short for "United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization", which in itself explains a lot. Spelled it out on first occurrence (first sentence in lead). bamse (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC) The first list says "United States", while the second uses "US". Fixed. Both read "United States" now. bamse (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC) There is a mix of the "reason" having a period or not. If a sentence, use a period, if a fragment, don't. Went through all the reasons and fixed punctuation, periods and semicolon (as suggested below) bamse (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC) It seems to me that some of the larger sites have too accurate coordinates (using seconds for a site of 7000 square kilometers, for instance). See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Geographical coordinates Went through all the coordinates and fixed precision following the recommendations in WP:OPCOORD. Also made all coordinates use the same format of "degree-minutes-seconds". bamse (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC) References to the session summaries lack page numbers; these are typically 200 pages long and I have no idea where to start looking within the to find the information on a particular site. Done. Added page numbers to all references of session summaries. bamse (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC) All the columns from each site are referenced from the refs in the "reason" column; the convention is to have a "ref(s)" column for the refs. Done. Created refs column for both tables. bamse (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Under Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve's reason you have "the State" which shouldn't be capitalized. Fixed. bamse (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC) In the reasons, if there are two reasons which are not connected with an "and" or similar word, use a semicolon instead of a comma. For instance, "Illegal grazing and poaching, deteriorating security situation" would be better as "Illegal grazing and poaching; deteriorating security situation" Hopefully better now. bamse (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC) The link under Plitvice Lakes National Park and Dubrovnik's reason is a surprise; why not add the name of the war like in other sites Done as suggested. bamse (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC) "Former UNESCO World Heritage Sites" is in the navbox, and thus should not be listed under "see also" Removed from see also section. bamse (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC) According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#All caps, avoid using all-caps in references, even when used in the source, but convert them to start case. Fixed. Decapitalized "WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE" -> "World Heritage Committee". bamse (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC) I notice that all the references are from UNESCO. While they most certainly are a credible institution for providing information on the sites, perhaps find one or two independent sources which explain the significance of being on the list. I was thinking of one or two for the whole article in the lead. I see I formulated myself a bit vague, but for the entries themselves the UNESCO ref is sufficient. Arsenikk (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC) I see, will see what I can find. bamse (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC) As far as I can see, all the images have free licenses. There are no disambig links and all links are valid. Great! bamse (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Overall a very nice list, just some minor issues to look into. Arsenikk (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments " is meant to " -> "is intended to" Done. bamse (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC) "value of a property" an odd phrase for "natural sites" Not sure what issue you have with it. The sentence says "scientific value of a property", which seems fine to me and is also a term used in this context in the operational guidelines (ref 3). bamse (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC) You could link logging. Done. bamse (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC) "insufficient management system " - systems. Fixed. bamse (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC) No need to relink World Heritage Committee in the key. Unlinked. bamse (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC) coordinate or co-ordinate? Went with "coordinate" which is what is used by {{GeoGroupTemplate}}. bamse (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Would expect whatever you apply to apply to cooperation too. "cooperation" was already present, nothing changed. bamse (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC) " in ha and acres " ha->hectares. Done in the key. Shall I also change it in the table headers? bamse (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC) No, the key should be sufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC) worth noting in the key that location sorts by state. Done. Added "column sorts by" bamse (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Would expect sites without areas to sort as having a zero area. I was trying something with {{sort}} but it did not work. Also asked at the help desk. bamse (talk) 07:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Done thanks to John of Reading. bamse (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Centrally align "upright" images. Done. bamse (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC) "the Gambian river" appropriate link would be useful. Wikilinked and changed capitalization to Gambia River. bamse (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC) "Sites previously listed as being in danger, but later removed from the list after improvements in management and conservation. " not a complete sentence. Perhaps "There exist a number of sites that were previously..." Changed as suggested. bamse (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC) "UN controlled " -> United Nations-controlled" or "UN-controlled". Changed to UN-controlled. bamse (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC) "to inflict the integrity" to inflict what? Changed to "inflict damage to the integrity". bamse (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Djoudj bird sanctuary, really need six refs? I generally referenced the start and end dates (and reasons) of being endangered. Since Djoudj was twice (1984–1988, 2000–2006) on the List of World Heritage in Danger, it has more references than other entries (which only appeared once). bamse (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Iguazu's refs are out of order. Will run the article through AWB when done which should take care of this. bamse (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Done. bamse (talk) 06:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Can you not tell me why all of the previously listed sites were delisted? Not sure I understand what you mean. Could you eloberate please? bamse (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC) In the notes column which explains why they were at risk, some explain why they no longer are, some don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC) I would prefer not to explain all of these since if done in detail it would get very lengthy and since not much could be learned from it. Basically the reasons for delisting (from the List of World Heritage in Danger) are that the the threats that caused the site being listed have disappeared. This is hinted at by the section intro ("...later removed from the list after improvements in management and conservation."). How about moving the reasons for delisting that are currently present in the notes column to the section intro as examples? bamse (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Mixed date formats in the references. Fixed. All should be "day month year" now. bamse (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Usually we expect to see format= parameter used for things like PDFs. Done. Added format=PDF to all linked PDF. bamse (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Any reason why "sixteenth" is lower case in the Sixteenth Session links? And "twelfth"? Fixed. bamse (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC) For those with more than two links, you could make a general link and then just list title and page number(s) in the references to reduce the overwhelming mass of links in refs. Just to make sure, that's for those with "two or more links" (2, 3...) or "more than two" (3, 4...)? More than two. If it's just two then you don't make a particular saving on text. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Done. bamse (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Fix the spaced hyphen in the refs to en-dash per WP:DASH please. Fixed. bamse (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Any reason you haven't used "row" scopes? Added row scopes to the first table (they were already present in the second table). Also made the two tables look more similar stylistically (centering of columns). bamse (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC) I addressed all of your comments (see above). With some I am waiting for additional input from the help desk or project pages or from you. bamse (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Link "Colon" To what article? bamse (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC) To whatever you're talking about! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC) I'd do that, if I knew what I was talking about. In the references I used it is only mentioned as "Colon Road" without specifying what "Colon" is meant here. Possibly it is one of those mentioned at Colón, but I am not sure. Also asked the Wikiproject Brazil for help (will do the same with the Argentinian wikiproject), but no reply so far. So, at the moment I can see the following options: i) leave it as is, ii) red-link Colon road, iii) remove "Colon" since the name is not really of importance here. bamse (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC) I've been searching a bit more about this road and it appears to be a local, 18 km long road running through the park. As such it is probably not important enough to get its own wikipedia article. It is named after Christopher Columbus but linking to that article does not make much sense IMHO. bamse (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC) I reworded "Colon road"->"road ("Colon Road")" to emphasize that it is the name of the road. Please let me know whether this is better, or whether I should remove the parentheses. bamse (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "In the case of cultural sites also gradual changes due to geology, climate or environment can be potential dangers." The "also" would be more logical after "can". Fixed as suggested. bamse (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Dresden Elbe Valley: The note has a stray period right before the semi-colon. Oh, and should "world heritage" be capitalized? Done. Stray period removed and World Heritage capitalized. bamse (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC) In the second table, how is the Location meant to sort? The first table sorts by country name, but the second doesn't. Fixed sorting. Both tables sort by country name. bamse (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Some of the general references have dates in the YYYY-DD-MM format while the rest of the refs have them spelled out. These should be consistent throughout. It would be easier to just change the first few refs, but either way is okay. Done. All dates are spelled out now. bamse (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC) No need to shorten December in refs 14, 16, 38, 40, and 50. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Done. Spelled out "December". bamse (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to review. I addressed all of your comments (see above). bamse (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Nightw 12:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Night w: This list looks of very high quality, and my comments are mostly merely suggestions based on pickiness. I'm viewing the page on a low resolution, and the column with the majority of the text appears squished to single-word lines. Perhaps the ref column in the second table can be narrowed by adding <br/> where more than three citations occur. MOS encourages writing out single-word figures (like seven, twelve) instead of the digit. My screen is also low resolution. Will see whether adding <br/> in the refs column helps. Not sure which figures you are referring to. The only ones that I can see are those in the third paragraph of the lead. However since they appear together with larger numbers, my understanding is that either all should be spelled out or none. bamse (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Added linebreaks as suggested and it freed up a bit more space for the "Reason" column. bamse (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Much better! :) Nightw 12:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC) My only major concern is: Why is Jerusalem listed as being in Israel? The United Nations (and presumably UNESCO) does not regard Jerusalem as part of any state. The sources given do not appear to allude otherwise. Nightw 17:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC) I replaced "Israel" with "no nation named by UNESCO (see Positions on Jerusalem)" and a footnote saying that the site has been proposed by Jordan. Also removed the color label marking it as trans-border site and added a footnote saying that the location column sorts as "Jerusalem" (unlike other entries that sort by state). bamse (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Perfect. Nightw 12:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time to review. I addressed all of your comments. I am not sure about which "single-word" figures you meant (see above), so I'd need more instructions from you before I can proceed. bamse (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Yeah, I meant the ones in the third paragraph, but can see your reasoning behind keeping it consistent. Nice work. I hope you don't mind me capping your comments with mine, if so, feel free to undo. Nightw 12:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Nightw 12:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:11, 9 September 2011 [21].

---

List of Florida Marlins team records

Nominator(s): Albacore (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... it's the next article in the series. However, I have two major issues with this list that I would appreciate some input on. First (the more fixable of the two), the third paragraph of the lead is really weak, but I can't find anything else to add to it. Next, more problematic, is the fact that the Marlins season team records page doesn't list any team season records outside miscellaneous records, as opposed to, say, the Mariners team season records, which lists stats, not miscellaneous records. So, should I add the misc. records or not? On a related note "Individual single-game records" was changed to "team single-game records" due to a lack of single-game records. Albacore (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments – I see that MLB.com's coverage of the topic is lacking. The misc. records don't strike me as having much value, but I do see a way to get most of the team season records. Baseball-Reference lists year-by-year team statistics on these pages, which should contain most of the stats you use in these lists. Just sort each category you want to use and they will give you your record-holding teams. Added. Can the hatnote there be formatted in the same way as the other sections? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Fixed. "based in the U.S state of Florida." Missing a dot after S in U.S. Added. "The Marlins were granted a Major League team in 1993 as a part of the 1992 Major League Baseball expansion draft." Don't like any of the wording here. The expansion draft was to stock the new clubs, which were known to be Florida and Colorado; it had nothing to do with the selection of expansion cities. Also, I wouldn't say the Marlins were granted to the Marlins. The region (South Florida, according to the source) was given the team. Reworded. It still says they were added to MLB in an expansion draft, which isn't true. How about saying "The Marlins became members of MLB as an expansion team in the 1993 season."? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Reworded. "of team members during their tenure as Florida Marlins...". Shouldn't "tenure" be "tenures", since this refers to multiple players? Also, I don't think Florida needs to be repeated here. Removed Florida, added "s". "in Major League Baseball's National League East." Might as well use the abbreviation for MLB, since it's in the opening. Used. "No Marlin holds a major league or National league record for any of the below statistics." Capitalization needed for the leagues' names. Caps added. "However, the Marlins are tied with the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and the Houston Astros for the shortest losing streak as a team". This is actually the shortest franchise record losing streak, isn't it? I would word it that way to avoid confusion; there are going to be 15 teams with a losing streak following today, after all. Reworded. In the Mike Lowell photo caption, add an apostrophe at the end of Marlins. Fixed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments "shortest franchise record losing streak" what a curious record, the shortest longest losing streak?! Yes. Not convinced the right column has been selected to be in scope for records. The value on its own is useless, but the type of record would seem most important? Since the article is on team records the record itself would be most important. The reverse could also be said and would be true. (that the type of record would be useless without the stat). Albacore (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Could you not add the team's that the Marlins were playing in the single-game records? Removed. I meant, please do add the teams. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Of course... added. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments I'm not sure the table key should be in small font size I'm sure this fails WP:ACCESS The alignment in the players tables is all central, yet in the team tables the name of the record is aligned to the left, personally I would like to see the names of the players and the record in the players records section aligned to the left. Both fixed. Albacore (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Apart from those quibbles its a great list. NapHit (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support great work, well done NapHit (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment / Slight oppose Support First big thing, this may be the style so far for these lists but I hate the repeated use of "the holder" or "the holder of" in the image captions. First off it's massively passive voice, and second it just sounds awkward. Why, eg, "Josh Johnson, the holder of two career records for the Marlins" and not "Josh Johnson holds two career records for the Marlins". "Dan Uggla is tied for the Marlins' single-season extra base hits record" as opposed to "Dan Uggla, the co-holder of the single-season extra-base hits record", etc. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Albacore (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• And looking at that Uggla entry... Why are tied-records listed twice (ie, Shutouts and Shutouts, XBH and XBH)? Why not simply span the record title across 2 rows? Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done per ACCESS concerns specified in this comment. Albacore (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments

1. Huge amount of white space between end of tables and images. I think setting it to 80-85% would be better. PumpkinSky talk 20:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Taken care of. Albacore (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

For some reason 80% jacked up the layout on my screen, which is a standard screen, though 80% works on other lists, so I changed it to 76%.

1. Why is "baseball-reference.com." lower case but "Marlins.MLB.com" and "Retrosheet" upper case? PumpkinSky talk 23:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Decapped retrosheet; changed to MLB.com Albacore (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Support now. PumpkinSky talk 02:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I'm a bit iffy on why the tables are so wide. For the most part they could be thinned out, since there's not a huge amount of info in any columns. If it's to maintain consistency with other lists in this topic then I won't worry about it, but it did throw me off. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to maintain consistency; only changed List of Oakland Athletics team records. I'd like to hear what PumpkinSky has to say on this one. Albacore (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Because before there was about a 3" white gutter between the tables and the photos--a huge waste of white space, it also makes for more scrolling as it forces the page to be longer. Not mention that much white space is hugely unattractive. They don't seem any wider than other list tables to me.PumpkinSky talk 18:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:11, 9 September 2011 [22].

---

List of NK Maribor seasons

Nominator(s): Ratipok (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe this list complies with the Featured List criteria as well as possible. It comprehensively covers every season that NK Maribor has played in a major tournament, and is factually accurate. It is also useful to football fans. Ratipok (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - nothing in the tables is sourced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment - And how would you like it to be sourced? Every statistics on the table is sourced by NK Maribor official website (I have changed it now to NK Maribor official website - Statistics in case it wasnt visible before), which is added bellow both tables so there is no reason to think that the information is not geniuine as every single information in the tables are verifiable with this source. The tables are based on similar (format) lists of both Manchester Premier League clubs, which both have sources bellow and not in the tables, for every separate season and statistics. List of Manchester City F.C. even has a similar source "MCFCStats" bellow their stats.Ratipok (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Place the sources under the references header with a subheading General, have a look at List of Luton Town F.C. seasons to see what I mean. NapHit (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. In the near future there will also be a book published about history of the club and when that happens, I can add that as a general source as well (although the one used is reliable and covers every single season and match the club has played during their history).Ratipok (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Struck the oppose !vote, will assess more fully later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments Starting list with "This is a list of..." has not been in use for a long time this needs to be removed, have a look at recently promoted seasons lists to see how the list should be introduced. The dash in the first image should be a en dash The keys below the table are too small and probably fail WP:ACCESS. Move them to the top and make them normal size, have a look at the way its done in the List of Watford F.C. seasons list. As the source for the tables is now in the reference section under the general subheading there is no need for it to be underneath the two tables as well. Any references that are from news agencies such as the BBC Sport one should the cite news template instead of cite web RSSF is actually RSSSF and I would spell out the acronym, same should be done with UEFA. Ref 1 needs an en dash in the title The retrieval date on the general should be in the same format as the other dates in the reference section. I think you should use this Template:Football season start for the table instead of the one your using now, its used on the Watford list and imo makes the table look better and allows the reader to sort through the options The current season should not be included until it is over NapHit (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Comment - I have done most of the things requested except a change in the football table. A change is not a problem, but the fact, that if I put Template:Football season start and add info in it then the second cup still remains League Cup, while it should be Supercup, which is a totaly different thing. Is it even possible to change the name? Another thing is that I also dont know how to add a footnote next to the Supercup or Top scorer section in the new table template, as it is currently used. Thos two issues are the only problems. After looking into it I agree that the new table template would be better, with minor fixes mentioned above of course.Ratipok (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC) according to the template page you can add a country parameter, so in this case it would the three letter code for Slovakia which would change the cup competitions to Slovakian ones. For the footnotes you could do what the Watford list does and put them in italics above the table which I think would be better. NapHit (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC) The country is Slovenia and I added SLO in the paragraph, but nothing happened. Maybe I missed something (have to check if SVN is the right one) and will look into it more closely tmr.Ratipok (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support I've gone through the table and made some changes but it is a lot better now. Two things I would ask you to do though is try and bring down the number of redlinks and the two images in the lead need alt text, other than that I think you've done a great job, well done. NapHit (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment Thank you. The redlinks will be fixed over time when articles about the club's season by season will be created (currently there are two) and when the same will be done with the lower leagues seasons of Yugoslavia (there is a task force working on that). Some of the footballers articles (the most important ones) will also be created.Ratipok (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Oppose / Comments from KV5 "Slovene football club from Maribor, Slovenia" - redundant. Remove "Slovene". Put abbreviations in parentheses instead of after dashes; example: "Football Association of Yugoslavia (FSJ)" "was a part of it" - was a member thereof would be more professional Un-link Slovenia at second link occurrence; it needs to be linked once only. "It details the club's achievements in senior league and cup competitions, and the top scorers for each season." - what details this? I think you meant to say "This list details..." "12 December, 1960" - dates are either December 12, 1960, or 12 December 1960, not a combination thereof "the third tier of the Republic League within the Yugoslav football system" - from my understanding, the Republic League is the third tier of the FSJ. So a better re-word would be the Republic League, the third tier of the Yugoslav football system "in the Yugoslav leagues" - comma after "independence of Slovenia in 1991" - comma after "five... 17... nine" - these are "comparable quantities" per MOS:NUM, change "five" and "nine" to 5 and 9, or "17" to seventeen (I prefer the latter but your choice) "at the end of 1980s" - end of the 1980s "and third division five times" - and the third division "in 1967–68 season" - in the 1967–68 season "Since 1991 and the independence of Slovenia" - you do not need to reference the independence again, once was enough. Simply Since 1991 will suffice. "The first major success for the club was during their first season when they won the Slovenian Cup, a feat it has repeated six times to date" - your subject and verb aren't agreeing. Needs to be one of the following: The first major success for the club was during its first season when it won the Slovenian Cup, a feat it has repeated six times to date (preferred since you have previously referred to the club as "it", not they) The first major success for the club was during their first season when they won the Slovenian Cup, a feat they have repeated six times to date (in which case you need to change all references in the lead to "they") "In addition, the club became Slovenian league champions nine times in 20 seasons and is by far the most successful club in the country" - re-word as follows for neutrality, style, and fluff: The club won the league championship 9 times in 20 seasons and is the most successful club in the country "In 2009 the club also won the Slovenian Supercup" - to remove the bare year link and avoid confusion, re-word to The club also won the 2009 Slovenian Supercup "the only domestic trophy that was missing among club's honours" - the only domestic trophy that was missing among the club's honours "Since their inception in 1960" - subject/verb agreement; see above. If using preferred solution, this should be Since its inception in 1960 "25 times as part of the country's top division, 17 in second division and nine seasons in the third" - see below: 25 seasons instead of "times" as a member of instead of "as part of" 17 in the second division 9 seasons in the third The tables definitely need to be reconstructed as sortable. Tables do not comply with WP:ACCESS requirements; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial for details on how to fix this. The tables need captions, row-headers, etc. Bold text in the tables is a violation of MOS:BOLD; remove. Colors are used in the table without symbols to convey information to color-blind readers; all colors need to be accompanied by an appropriate symbol (see List of Philadelphia Phillies seasons as an example). Images need alternative text. At the very least, all of the seasons in the "Div" column should be linked; if the articles don't exist yet, a redlink is fine as long as it points to the right place. Table rows as a listed exception to WP:OVERLINK, so things like player names, trophy names, etc., should be linked at all appearances instead of first appearance. Blank table cells need em-dashes. In the "Footnotes", sentence fragments should not end with a period or full stop (example: "Player was top league goalscorer during the Slovenian PrvaLiga season" is a sentence fragment, not a complete sentence) All in all a lot of work remaining to be done. — KV5 • Talk • 20:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Additional comments from KV5 The symbols used are not ACCESS-compliant. Replace the dagger and double-dagger with the {{dagger}} and {{double-dagger}} templates (the symbols redirect there, so you can just put in the braces) and the corresponding alt text. The 1960 and 1991 table rows shouldn't be in the table because they are historical events, not seasons; it also botches the sorting. You have covered all of this information in the lead. If you want the Yugoslav and Slovenian sections to be split, you can either have two tables under subheaders with the same format or put a footnote on the 1991-92 season noting that it was the team's first in the Slovenian league. Table still needs a caption (don't forget a caption if you split into two tables). Images still need alt text, per NapHit above. — KV5 • Talk • 11:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 11:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Comment: I have done everything you have asked for. Except this; Table still needs a caption, as I am not sure what exactly do you mean?Ratipok (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC) I've added the caption for you. NapHit (talk)

• Support — KV5 • Talk • 13:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Noticed a few of the things KV5 pointed out like the bolding and symbol issues, so I'll refrain from re-listing them below. If there are any repeated comments, I'm sorry; I tried to weed them out, but the review above covers a lot of ground. "and three in Inter-Republic League formed end of the 1980s". Feels like it's missing some connecting words. Try "and three in the Inter-Republic League formed at the end of the 1980s" for a fix. "The first major success for the club was during its first season when it won the Slovenian Cup". This refers to their first season in the PrvaLiga, correct? If so, make that clearer here. Wouldn't want anyone to think it was their first overall season when it wasn't. "The club won the league championship 9 times in 20 seasons...". Needs "has" before "won". Currently it doesn't sound like the running tally it serves as. "In that time the club has spent 25 seasons as member of the country's top division". Should be "as a member" as KV5 says, but also a problem is "the country's top division". Maribor has been in multiple countries' leagues, after all. Try making it "as a member of a top division", unless there's a good way of re-phrasing it otherwise. Footnote B: "due to a bribery scandal Ball (Zoga)." Would read better as "due to the Ball (Zoga) bribery scandal." Footnote F: "however, the trophy itself was awarded to Newcastle United, a team that advanced farthest in UEFA competitions that season." "a" → "the", as in "Newcastle United, the team...". Why is there no top scorer for 1981–82? Reference 3 shouldn't be in all capital letters. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Answer (Giants2008): I have fixed reference 3. The reason why there isnt any top scorer for the 1981–82 season is because the data is incomplete. The club is missing match stats from one round of that season, where Maribor scored five goals. This is the only one missing among hundreds the club has played during their history. I cant do anything about that either than to put a note in there about incomplete data. I hadnt had much time during the weekend (work), but I am confident that I will resolve the table issue within couple of days (thank you all for your patience;).Ratipok (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment (KV5&Giants2008): OK, thank you. I have changed most of the issues that KV5 expressed, I still have to do some things with the table though. I will also look into the comments from Giants2008, however, I will adress everything during the weekend as I dont have the time to do it today.Ratipok (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I have already changed most of the things that were adressed here, except the table section. I am working on that and will change it asap.Ratipok (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I believe that I have sorted out everything that was adressed here and I think I have finished the article. Please look into it and let me know if there are any problems to be solved and fixed/edited. Thank you, Ratipok (talk) 03:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments Emphasise "is an _association_ football club" for our US readers. No point in abbreviating to FSJ if you don't use it anyway. Personal choice, but if you have a line like "This list details the club's achievements in senior league and cup competitions, and the top scorers for each season." I'd have it last in the lead, just before the list itself. "Since 1991, the team has competed in the Slovenian PrvaLiga, the highest level of football in the country.[4] Maribor was one of the..." new para so "Since 1991, Maribor has.. The team was one..." "The club has won the league championship 9 times in 20 seasons.." nine, twenty. "inception in 1960" you've already told us the club was founded in 1960, no need to repeat. Key would be better if it could be compressed both horizontal and vertically (four cols is often too wide for some viewers). Pos doesn't sort correctly (8 sorts "below" 18th) Not clear how "Result" sorts at all. "Slovenian Republic League, the highest " - "The Slovenian..." Notes A, B and E appear to be missing references. "During the 1974–75 season" season of which competition? "The cup edition was skipped " reads far too colloquially for me. "if any of the two players" -> "if either of the players" No need to link Slovenia in note E. No need to re-abbreviate NZS in note E. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Comment:Done almost everything. Still a few issues: - #7 I am not sure on what is required from me to do with it? ; - #13 any thoughts on which word would sound more formal then "skipped"? About #9: the "Result" section doesnt sort out anything. However, I am not sure (I tried) if its possible to remove the sorting from that section (it seems it comes with the whole template).Ratipok (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC) First off, make the key no more than three columns wide. Then try to spread the text out horizontally so it doesn't take up too much space. Wording, replace skipped with "The cup edition was not played" or something like that. Try using class="unsortable" in the column heading. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Done. I have asked the author of the Template:Football season start for help. Maybe the guy who created it knows if its possible to make the "Result" culumn unsortable and I am waiting for response..Ratipok (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC) The alternative is to force the sorting in that column using {{sort}}. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Yes, I was thinking the same. I am going to sleep now:) and I will see if the creator of the template will give me an answer. If not, then I will sort it out myself tmr.Ratipok (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Have a look at the table I made in Liverpool F.C. in Europe the result column uses the sort feature so you could borrow that. Plus you have QR in the table yet its not explained in the key that needs to be added. NapHit (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC) The two culumns ("Other" and "Result") has been made unsortable by the creator, on my request. I think this is the best way, since I realized that even if I sorted the result section manualy a problem would present itself. On several occasions the team played in more then one UEFA cup during the course of a single seasons and would therefore be impossible to sort both competitions. (I added the QR in the key).Ratipok (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

*Comment: "The club also won the 2009 Slovenian Supercup, the only domestic trophy missing among the club's honours" If they won the trophy, why would it be missing? This sentence has me baffled, though that could just be me remembering the last sentence in the previous paragraph. Perhaps make it clearer in the para that they've won all the Slovenian awards at some point if that's the case. The only other issue I have is the number of redlinks, but that's not an FLC issue; writing articles on a couple of the major scorers likely wouldn't hurt though. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Changed to "the last domestic trophy missing". --Sporti (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Most of redlinks isnt a problem. I am certain that somewhere in the future Mladen Krajnc (top scorer in every season during the Yugoslav First League), Branko Horjak (all time top scorer and also head coach) and most likely Igor Poznič (couple of times the club's top scorer + Slovenia international) will all have their own articles created (12 redlinks).Ratipok (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:07, 2 September 2011 [23].

---

List of accolades received by Black Swan

Nominator(s): User:Aquila89, User:Bruce Campbell, User:Crystal Clear x3

User:Aquila89, User:Bruce Campbell and I are nominating this for featured list because we believe that it meets the FL criteria. Crystal Clear x3 05:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from — Legolas (talk2me) 06:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Thriller movie? --> Thriller film is always better, movie sounds generic. done Actually the opening sentence needs to be broken down somewhere. At present it doesn't flow well. done USD $415,820 --> Problematic. If I expand it, it will read United states dollar dollar 415,... I always suggest to have it as $415,820 in the first instance and from the next instances, just the sum and the symbol. Follow this throughout the prose. done During Black Swan's opening weekend it grossed over USD $1.4 million --> After Black Swan's ... done averaging around USD $80,210 per theater. The per location average was the second highest for the opening weekend of 2010 --> This can be combined to flow well. "averaging around USD $80,210 per theater, the second highest per location for the opening weekend of 2010. done Critics also took a liking to the film, with review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reporting it to have an approval rating of 88 percent and listing it among their lists for the year's best movies --> Meh prose. "Critics appreciated the film, with review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reporting an approval rating of 88 percent and placing it among their lists for the year's best films." done The film has received honors --> Start wit "Black Swan" done to the cast's acting performances --> The word cast here implies the actors only --> "to the cast's performance" done Replace movie with film throughout. done Another supporting performance in Black Swan up for awards came from --> Doesn't make sense removed it given to actresses in a leading 2010 film role. --> "for" a leading film role in 2010. done its only win was for Portman for Best Actress in a dramatic motion picture --> its only win was Best Actress in a dramatic motion picture, for Portman. done More recognition for the acting featured in the film --> More recognition for the film done Remove the word each from the last line of third para. It is implied that the noination was for each of MTV and TCA. done Alliance of Women award count wrong in infobox. done Please check the infobox thoroughly. There are many discrepancies. done Satellite Awards, why the sudden inclusion of em-dash? I'm not sure what you mean by this... – has already been used in the list for the Golden Globes. Aside from those two, the rest do not need dashes in their categories. General reference. The New York Times is a self-publishing company so no need of having The New York Times Company in the reference. Check for suhc instance throughout the article references done Box Office Mojo is owned and published by Brandon Gray. done What makes Movie City News a reliable source? ::::I've always been under the impression that it is, but I've asked User:Dabomb87 just to make sure. I've instead replaced the ref with the awards actual website listing Same for Awards DAily. ::::Same thing as above I've replaced those with Alt Film Guide, which is an acceptable RS for FLs Crystal Clear x3 03:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Check repeated dashes in references like "--" which should be en-dash done The Huffington Post is a printed media and is owned by Arianna Huffington. done Finally, for File:Black Swan press 2010.jpg, I do believe that a crop is needed to remove the extra yellow curtains and bring the subjects closer. Image changed At present I see quite a lot of prose issues and consistency. — Legolas (talk2me) 11:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Aquila89 has taken care of most of Legolas's concerns ([24]) and I fixed/addressed the remaining. Crystal Clear x3 00:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Support The article looks fine now. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ruby2010 comment! 02:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Ruby2010 "Natalie Portman's performance has gained the most attention from award groups" - Gained the most attention out of what? The cast? Other actresses? done You seem to have an excess of commas (such as in "More recognition for the film came from the Screen Actors Guild, at their 17th annual ceremony, awarding Portman in her respective field as well as nominating the entire cast." - see bolded) done "...again with 12 nominations, which the only difference being that the later nominated Hershey instead of Kunis for Best Supporting Actress and the its composer, Clint Mansell, rather than the film's visual effects." - Sentence needs c/e done Sentence still needs some work. Try rewording. Ruby2010 comment! 15:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Re-worded to "Black Swan performed similarly at the 64th British Academy Film Awards, again with 12 nominations, and was also nominated in similar categories." "...but despite Arnonofsky's feature winning Best Film, it was all up for their Movie You Wanted To Love But Just Couldn‘t accolade." "all up" does not sound very encyclopedic done Add publisher for New York Times (in general ref) done Why no URL for ref 36? The url did exist, but then became a deadlink, so I tried to make it into a treelink Crystal Clear x3 13:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Resolve above comments and I'll be happy to support Ruby2010 comment! 01:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, much appreciated! Crystal Clear x3 13:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Support - comments now resolved Ruby2010 comment! 02:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Photo caption could use a period at the end. done "with the only difference being that the later nominated Hershey instead...". Two things. First, "later" would be better as "latter". Second, "difference" should be plural since two are givene, not one. Also, I'm not fully sold about using "latter" to start with. It's been two sentences since the other award show was mentioned, and the most recent reference to it was to the "latter" as well. It's the latter instead of the latter. :-) Lol you lost me at the first latter. There seems to be quite a few problems with that sentence, so I've trimmed it down to: "Black Swan performed similarly at the 64th British Academy Film Awards, again with 12 nominations, and was also nominated in similar categories." Would be nice for these award lists to have a note in the date column saying that the links go to articles on the various individual award ceremonies. They have much more value than the simple date links that they appear to be at first glance, and it's possible that readers may not catch on at first. done Ref 19 has a hyphen that should be converted to an en dash. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC) done Crystal Clear x3 01:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments "Awards & Nominations" -> nominations. done What makes it "American" out of interest? Is it the director? The producer? The movie house making it? The script writer? Isn't it better to just refer to it as an English language movie? removed American "in select cities " shouldn't that be "selected"? done "about $415,820" very precise for "about". lol done Consecutive sentences starting with "After Black Swan..." done First use of USD is a linked $, next is just a $, next is USD $. Odd. done " and placing it " don't see a need for the "and" here. done But the Rotten Tomatoes rating and the top ten lists are different things. Rotten Tomatoes just collects reviews, not top ten lists. Doesn't the sentence now give the impression that the RT rating put the film among the critics' list for the year's best films? "It also got five" hate "got", perhaps "received"? done "three awards each at the" -> "three awards at both the..." done The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. Crystal Clear x3 03:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - well written and referenced article. Have no issue with its promotion. Good job guys.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support - A beautiful list--well done! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:07, 2 September 2011 [25].

---

List of Texas Tech University alumni (sports)

Nominator(s): NThomas (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list status as it meets all FL criteria. NThomas (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 Suggest moving {{dynamic list}} hatnote to top of article According to the template's documentation: "Place this template tag in an article, immediately before the applicable list." It makes no mention of it's place before the lead. Also, I went through the "College/university alumni, faculty and related people" in the FL education section, and the majority of articles with a legend, like this article, have the template immediately before the applicable list. NThomas (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC) "1,839 acres (7.44 km2)" - use {{convert}} here Done. Didn't know that template existed, thanks! NThomas (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Linking the sports in the lead would be advantageous to readers who are otherwise uninitiated. Do you mean linking to the sport specific programs representing Texas Tech (baseball is linked to Texas Tech Red Raiders baseball, football is linked to Texas Tech Red Raiders football, etc.) or simply baseball and American football? NThomas (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Leagues should be linked in the table. Done. NThomas (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Athletics table has no references. Done. NThomas (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC) I think the lead would benefit from another paragraph outlining some of the people, since this is a list of people. It seems a little short otherwise. Are there record-holders, Hall of Famers, etc.? Other than three former players in the College Football Hall of Fame, there aren't any alumni with national honors other than collegiate position awards, nothing of the "Pro Hall of Fame" variety. Would collegiate position awards suffice? NThomas (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC) The HOF is definitely worth a mention. If there's nothing beyond collegiate position awards, I feel that they would be appropriate since this is a college-specific list. — KV5 • Talk • 23:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Added the paragraph. NThomas (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Linking the sports in the lead would be advantageous to readers who are otherwise uninitiated. Do you mean linking to the sport specific programs representing Texas Tech (baseball is linked to Texas Tech Red Raiders baseball, football is linked to Texas Tech Red Raiders football, etc.) or simply baseball and American football? NThomas (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC) I meant the sport articles themselves (not the team's programs). — KV5 • Talk • 23:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Done. NThomas (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Hope these give you a start. — KV5 • Talk • 23:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support — KV5 • Talk • 10:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from PumpkinSky

• There are a lot of red links here, not just to names but to at least one see also link. FL guideline is that red links should be "minimal". IMHO there are way too many here. Suggest moving them to the talk page til they have articles. PumpkinSky talk 02:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree that there are too many; the proportion is quite low. As long as they are verifiably part of a complete list (or, in this case, as complete as a dynamic list can get), they should remain, especially since they all, as pro football and basketball players (the only tables containing redlinks), inherently meet the notability qualifications outlined in WP:ATHLETE. Since all lines are sourced, there's no reason not to consider these verified. — KV5 • Talk • 11:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Only 35 out of the 200 total entries have red links (17%). While I agree 17% is hardly minimal, but I have a hard time calling this list a Creation guide. NThomas (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
      • "Only 17%" is not minimal. That's almost 1 in 5. Minimal to me is 5% or less. If we're going to allow 17% we may as well all 100%. If someone is notable for an FL they should have an article. PumpkinSky talk 23:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
        • No, we need to acknowledge that some articles haven't been written yet, that's why red links are good, they show a notable article is yet to be created. Less than one in five isn't so bad, many FLCs come here with much more than that, they're usually rejected. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
          • "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future" from WP:SAL. — KV5 • Talk • 02:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my objection stands. 17% is too much--that's more in "significant portion" land than "minimal" land. PumpkinSky talk 23:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your input. Noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments – John Parchman is unsourced in the football table. Added reliable source, but since the story comes from a monthly publication, I used "December" in the month parameter. Is that right or should it be "12?" NThomas (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC) For a monthly, December should be fine. Queue someone discussing a part of the MoS I didn't know existed that gives different recommendations. :-) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Spot-checking note: For Carlos Francis, the NFL ref indicates that he didn't play in 2007, just from 2004 to 2006. Thanks for that find. Since he only played 5 games in the 2004 season, his WP:NSPORTS would only include seasons in which he played in a game. This is something I've done with the rest of the list trying to follow WP:NSPORTS for the "Notability" column. NThomas (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Refs 6, 161, 185, and 192 need en dashes for the page ranges. Done. NThomas (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Refs 64, 65, 68, 119, 132, and 133 require further formatting. Also, what makes this a reliable source? I couldn't find a attribution to any media guides or record books so they've been removed. NThomas (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC) There are hyphens in refs 32, 62, and 209 that would be better formatted as en dashes. Done. NThomas (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Similarly, what makes ArenaFan (refs 116 and 126) reliable?
  • ArenaFan is one of the 9 statistic links on Template:Infobox NFL player. I looked on the template's talk page and couldn't find a reasoning to include ArenaFan as a reliable source for the 1,000s of articles that use that site for statistics in the player template. NThomas (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    • If you couldn't find a reasoning, that doesn't help much in establishing reliability. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
      • According to this Wikipedia page, ArenaFan should be considered a reliable source. NThomas (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Just because a WikiProject says a source is reliable doesn't mean it actually is. In this case, their assertion that the site having multiple contributors makes it reliable is questionable to me. I'm going to leave this out in case other reviewers want to comment on it. Maybe they'll have some opinions on it, one way or the other. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
          • I reviewed this source and found it questionable. It is a good clearinghouse for links to other, more reliable sites about arena football, but its contributors are not individually vetted and there's no proof that it is reliably edited or has any sort of professional/expert oversight. — KV5 • Talk • 23:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
            • It sounds like this is a problem bigger than this list. Maybe this is something that needs to be addressed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? NThomas (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
              • I would concur with that need. In the meantime, can an alternative source be found for these two items? — KV5 • Talk • 00:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
                • Not one that is as accurate as the ArenaFan references. Also, there's a comprehensive list of AFL players on ArenaFan that lists ~30 AFL players that could be included on this list if ArenaFan can be determined to be a reliable source. I've added the ~30 players in a formatted table on the talk page to be inserted into the existing table in the future. NThomas (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
                • I've gone ahead and brought up the validity of www.arenafan.com on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. As of now, the references in question have been removed so this FLC can move forward. NThomas (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Albacore (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

*I'm looking at reference 6, on the indicated pages. This list lists lettermen; what makes you think the graduating years and the lettering years are the same? This list doesn't say graduation year, or if they graduated at all, just the final "Class year.". NThomas (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC) So how do you know the letter year is the final class year? Albacore (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC) I'm just going off the source. NThomas (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 180 use hyphens in the accessdate instead of ndashes Did you mean en dashes instead of hyphens? I've never heard of using en dashes for dates, only ranges. NThomas (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC) The article is currently using en dashes in Ref 180: Retrieved 2011–05–11. Same for ref 156: Retrieved 2011–06–12. They should be 2011-05-11 and 2011-06-12 respectively. Albacore (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Changed all 4 characters. NThomas (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC) The tables currently fail WP:ACCESS standards. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial for more information. I'm still trying to comprehend these new changes. So this is a work in progress. NThomas (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Ok, so I used one section, Golf, to test out all the WP:ACCESS standards. Based on that section alone, does that table pass? NThomas (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Looks good. — KV5 • Talk • 23:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Albacore (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks. The rest of the article have been updated. NThomas (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC) A tentative support after To sort this table by nation, total medal count, or any other column, click on the icon next to the column title. is formatted to the list, or removed. Albacore (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC) That's embarrassing. I found that table sorting description from 1998 Asian Games medal table, but forgot to format it for this list. Now it's fixed. NThomas (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Albacore (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments One dab link, to "National Basketball League". Corrected to National Basketball Association. NThomas (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC) "as of 2009, the university..." it's 2011 now so those very specific figures are bound to be incorrect... I replaced the 2009 figures with 2010, since these numbers tend to be an academic year behind. NThomas (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC) You link American football after you've already mentioned (presumably American) football the previous sentence. Same with baseball and basketball. I switched the sentences so now it reads better and the links are before the one in question. NThomas (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Do you guys really call it association football or soccer? It's called soccer, but I didn't want to WP:PIPE it. Is piping soccer OK for this? NThomas (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Piping is fine. Just surprised that you thought soccer wasn't normal US English. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC) I forgot about MOS:TIES. Corrected to soccer and piped. NThomas (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Quick question: Would American football need changed to simply football? What about the section head for "gridiron football" since in the US, it would simply be known as football. I chose gridiron as an overview since that section contains Canadian football, and indoor football players, not just American football players. Thanks. NThomas (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Gridiron is fine as a general heading to cover more than one form of US-style "football". Stick with American football unless guided otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Link "Texas Tech Red Raiders" in the lead. Done. NThomas (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Why is the last sentence of the lead not referenced when other similar sentences in the lead are? No reason. Refs added. NThomas (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Alumni heading should say Alumnus as it's singular. I'm curious as to why it should be singular. The second heading for the coaches in List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head football coaches is coaches, not coach. Same with the buildings in List of tallest buildings in Dallas. NThomas (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Why would Class year and Notability be single then? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC) They're referring to only that person in question, not multiple people, same goes for alumnus. That makes perfect sense, thanks for explaining. Corrected. NThomas (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC) "record holder for most Point after touchdowns" shouldn't that be "record holder for the most points after touchdowns"? Fixed. NThomas (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC) In the refs, sometimes you link Texas Tech University, sometimes you don't. Be consistent. They're all now linked. Thanks! NThomas (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support my niggling issues politely and expediently dealt with, with my thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

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