Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 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 18:12, 30 April 2011 [1].

---

Mandy Moore discography

Nominator(s): Novice7 (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. Sources have been added to the list, and the tables have been formatted to comply with the new style of discographies. Thank you. Novice7 (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from (CK)Lakeshade

Comments: Reference 37, Extra Period after Amazon. Reference 25, Extra Period after Itunes. "twelve singles and twelve music videos." contradicts the infobox which says 11 singles and 16 music videos. "I Wanna Be with You followed So Real in May 2000" im not sure what that sentence is suppose to mean. I reworded it a bit. I read the previous sentence again, and I must say it's confusing. Reference 8, why is Hulu considered a reliable source and why does this video meet copy right laws? Removed the reference. The video is of a TV show and I don't think that could be used for sourcing sales. Mandy_Moore_discography#Studio_albums Sales and Certs should be two tables (for other sections as well). Please see Kesha_discography#Studio_albums. I split the studio albums section. Should I do it for the Compilation section too? There are not certifications for those three albums... No what you have done is correct. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - Please change all bottom headings to "denotes items which were not released in that country or failed to chart." as the current is not grammatically correct. Mandy_Moore_discography#Video_releases the notes sections need sources. Other than that great work on the article. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you! I've fixed the issues. Novice7 (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support - After a few changes i cannot find any other issues so i will gladly support this article. Great work. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm so sorry Lakeshade. How could I forget to thank you??? Thank you so much for reviewing :) Novice7 (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Dablinks/external links check: no problems found Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

*Comments "Artists and repertoire" should have lower case 'a' "It peaked at number twenty-four on the Hot 100, Moore's only top forty song in the US and her highest peak to date." → ...on the Hot 100, becoming Moore's only top... "gold" or "Gold"? Be consistent The note of the bottom of the Studio albums table needs to span one more col The note - "—" denotes items which were not released in that country or failed to chart - always annoys me, but I'm not sure is anything can be done widely. Anyway, I prefer '"—" denotes items which failed to chart', as there can be non-released items that do chart - where do they fit in? Was "Cry" really released as the single from both MM and AWTR? Eg Check on It was released as a single from #1's, but was also included on B'Day. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you so much for reviewing. Fixed capitalization, note and other issues. As for "Cry", I checked the source and it states "Moore's third single 'Cry' is included on the soundtrack to AWTR". So, I removed A Walk to Remember. Novice7 (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Nice work, however I have just noticed that "top forty song" should be "top-forty song". Everything else seems fine to me. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Novice7 (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments Could link discography. No mention of video albums in the lead but mentioned in the infobox. Seems a little odd. No need to abbreviate A&R because you never use it again. " It has sold 464,000 copies in the US" as of when? In fact, all the "has sold"s should be put into context... they could still be selling... "—" denotes items which failed to chart. ->+ or released in that territory. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Almost done. Added "sales, as of" to a few. I haven't added it to a few others as I thought it might become redundant. Should I add it? Also, I changed the note to "—" denotes items which failed to chart, because a reviewer asked to. I can change back if you'd like me to. Thanks for reviewing TRM. Novice7 (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC) All I want is for "—" to mean didn't chart or wasn't released. When I reviewed, the second element was missing altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC) *sigh* It seems my request was against consensus. Change it back, Novice. Sorry Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC) I've changed it Rambling Man. And, it's okay Adabow :) Novice7 (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments I do see a number of things I don't want to see. :)

• For the RIAA certification you can maybe link to RIAA certifications, a more direct link than the one present.
• For the first instance of the US salrs, mention "According to Nielsen Soundscan", else it will appear that RIAA dictataed those sales.
• peaked just outside the top-forty on the US Billboard Hot 100 --> kinda roundabout, why not just say "peaked at forty-one on the US Billboard Hot 100"
• number two on the ARIA chart --> ARIA which chart? Its ARIA top 75 singles
• and spawned the only single from the album --> Bad usage, "and spawned only one single from the album"
• —the title track --> wrong em-dash. I feel better would be to combine this sentence with the next one, while the sales should be alongside the certification.
• Coverage, Moore's fifth studio album and her first cover album, was released in October 2003 --> you can include probably one line about what kinda songs she covered. This is applicable for the other albums also. The lead is becoming boring certification jargon at present as I'm reading.
• The singer's sixth studio album Wild Hope was --> missing comma
• The third para of the lead suffers greatly from what I just said.
• In the infobox there is no link for "other appearances", "music video appearance" and "Reference"
• Other appearance --> Please check the column headings, lol
• Ref 19 the actual title is "ARIA Charts – Accreditatons...."
• The Billboard link for the US sales is a 2009 article. Billboard wasn't published by PGM at that time. It was Nielsen Business Media, Inc.
• In video releases section, in the release details, link DVD for the first time.

These are some of the stuff I found, overall a good work fore a good artist, just some usual slip-ups. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your comments. I believe the issues are fixed :) Novice7 (talk) 06:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Support I find the issues to have been resolved, I believe this is ready for FL. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much :) Novice7 (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• I would just like to add is there a reason that only four charts are listed, although some of her songs have charted in some charts not listed? Candyo32 13:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Added and expanded to six. Thanks. Novice7 (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I also see more than one of her songs have charted in Austria and Germany, could you add those too? Candyo32 16:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Added Germany. I couldn't find the Austrian chart though. Can you tell me which song it is? Novice7 (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Great, I fully Support now. Candyo32 16:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Candy :) Novice7 (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Reading Candy's comments, there are still charts that can be added. You should have ten charts listed. Adabow (talk · contribs) 11:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, done! Added France, Sweden and Switzerland. Novice7 (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Some might think this as being a bit pointy since I recently got into a discussion about it at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Backstreet Boys discography/archive1, but, <shrugs> that's for the closing director to decide. I was told there that this is common practice at discography pages recently, and I think it has to stop:

"GER" and "SWI" mean nothing. I could accept "GER" or "SUI" in an Olympic- or football-related article, but that isn't the case here. We should use international standards for abbreviating country names when a differing standard hasn't been approved (such as in the two cases already mentioned). They are not an acceptable abbreviation in regular usage, and a list that "exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work" shouldn't be using them. So, while the article continues to uses abbreviations pulled out of our arses, I will have to oppose. (It's not like the abbreviations aren't wikilinked if someone doesn't know what they stand for). Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Should I use the abbreviations according to UN Statistics Division and ISO Alpha-3 codes? Novice7 (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, although you should read Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Backstreet Boys discography/archive1 and WT:FLC#User:Matthewedwards before making any changes. Pfffft Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I read through the discussion, and it seems like a consensus has not been achieved yet. I was wondering, what if I use the ISO Alpha-3 codes on the table and mention (as a note) that the discography uses the same? Novice7 (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the codes. Please take a look. Novice7 (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Changed GBR to UK and added note. Thank you. Novice7 (talk) 07:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Support Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Matthew. Novice7 (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 18:12, 30 April 2011 [2].

---

List of National Treasures of Japan (writings: others)

Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

A list of 99 National Treasures including sutras, poetry and letters with the oldest items from the 6th century. It is modelled after other featured list in the series of Lists of National Treasures of Japan. bamse (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Small thing, but unless this is the super official name of the sub-group by the government, I would probably suggest a move (along with the Books list). Why not just List of National Treasures of Japan (writings) (or List of National Treasures of Japan (other writings)) and List of National Treasures of Japan (books)? Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Some explanation concerning the list's title. The designating body (Agency for Cultural Affairs) only distinguishes the category: "writings" (書跡・典籍, shoseki, tenseki), which includes all treasures from "writings: others" and "writings: books", i.e. 223 treasures. Since there are too many entries in this "writings" category, I decided after some thought to split the list in two. Because of their origin I would like to keep the official category name ("writings") in the list's title. This is exactly the same situation as with the official category "crafts" which for purpose of presentation on wikipedia is split in two (FL): "crafts: swords" and "crafts: others". Also please see the discussions here and here. So unless you feel strongly about the name, I'd stay with the current situation. bamse (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Nope, that explanation makes perfect sense. Writings is the official name, but writings alone is too long so you subdivided it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "They are complimented by 124 Japanese and Chinese books National Treasures of the List of National Treasures of Japan (writings: books)." The "books National Treasures" part is throwing me off grammar-wise. Would making "books" singular be better? Done, changed to "book". bamse (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC) For the first use of footnote 2, it should be outside the parenthesis, not inside. Done. bamse (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC) In each of the table headings, decapitalize Location in Present Location. Done. bamse (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Treatises, Sanjo Wasan: "Three collection of hymns...". Should the second word be "collections"? Yes, done. bamse (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Zen monk writings, Teaching on Enlighenment (second one): Minor, but commas before and after Teki Zosu would be helpful. That's the style used in several similar situations elsewhere in the list, and I prefer it myself. Done. bamse (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Albums, Moshiogusa Album: What is the purpose of the ellipsis? It almost looks like a placeholder. Basically replaced the ellipsis with "down to" to read: "from emperors and crown princes down to poets". bamse (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Other, Letter to Kong: "inquires after the well-being of a friend." Is this a typical usage outside the U.S.? Here it would typically be "inquires about". Don't know since I am not a native English speaker. However, "inquire after" seems to exist (see [3], [4] for example). bamse (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Note 2: Feels like the order of "blank two" should be reversed. Indeed, done. bamse (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Note 14: Space needed in "characterswritten". Done. bamse (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to review the list. I addressed all of your comments (see above). bamse (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Meets FL standards. Courcelles 10:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support with a comment and disclaimer. In some of the table cells the text ends in a full stop, but not in others. I think that should be made consistent. As with the other articles in this series, I've helped with copyediting, but that's full extent of my involvement. I think it fully meets the FL standards. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed ca. 5 full stops. Please let me know if there are any left. Also fixed some comma/full stop inconsistencies in the tables' format columns. bamse (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Comment: The research here is obviously comprehensive (I will leave to others more experienced in the field to judge accuracy), but the prose (mostly between tables) could use some work. For example: there is a typo ("writtings") in the map caption up top. Many sentences are vague and wordy: "... was one of the factors leading to the need for and increasing importance of writing". (If there is a difference between a growing need and increased importance, it can't be too significant.) In my quick read, I found several run-on sentences, including this one: "Generally the 9th century was a time in which Chinese learning thrived in Japan and authors produced a wide variety of works in Chinese language including commentaries and treatises on a variety of subjects."

I won't oppose on this criteria, but I would be happy to support if the prose were improved here. Scartol • Tok 21:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed the "need for writing" part from the above sentence and added a note (The other factor was the establishment of a bureaucratic Chinese-style government in Japan around the same time) to explain "one of the factors". User:Truthkeeper88 promised to have another run through to fix prose issues. bamse (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Truthkeeper88 and me had another look at the prose, fixing vagueness and wordinesss. Hope you like it better now. bamse (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Much better. There is still room for improvement ("from the 11th century onward" should just be "starting in the 11th century"), but I feel that the prose is now generally of high quality. Well done. Scartol • Tok 22:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I changed that sentence accordingly. bamse (talk) 22:53, 28 April 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 19:37, 28 April 2011 [5].

---

List of highest paid Major League Baseball players

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

While the Athletics FLC is still up it has 3 supports with few issues (all dealt with), seems pretty well dealt with. This one may take some more focus, however, as it's a funkier one-off with no similar articles to work from as a guide. Fixed her up from the near-deletion form it was in, lemme know what you think! Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to create a list looking at the highest-paid players in mlb history over time? That would be very difficult to make, though it would certainly go well in this article. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC) What parameters? Source 11 is a progression table from $2.5 million to ARod. Could start w/ Nolan Ryan at $1 million/year, but I don't have any source for the 1-2.5 million folks. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC) If we did highest paid per year since 1990, we'd be able to pull it off with just this source at least. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC) I'll add that if you think it fits, it just seems arbitrary to me. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC) I think a good point to aim for would be the abolition of the reserve clause (1975). Not sure if that will be possible, but if it is, you could argue that it's an objective cutoff, given that the opening paragraph of the lead highlights that as a turning point in salary progression. —WFC— 22:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC) I would agree that cutoff makes sense, but I have the same issue. I have Nolan Ryan at a million and spotty facts on notable deals prior to that, so I'm not sure how to best fill it in. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC) It might be worth trying to track down whoever originally created this table, assuming it wasn't you. We don't have the sources to do what I've suggested yet, but that person might. —WFC— 01:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC) No, I didn't. Although given the closeness in both value and date between Catfish' pre-reserve clause deal and Nolan's deal maybe his was the first post-reserve clause record breaker. Then the only question is those 1-2.5 deals (and if that table is accurate it's not many). I'll do some LexisNews searching for newspaper articles, see if they refer to those deals as annual value records. Staxringold talkcontribs 12:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC) I assume Doug Pappas can be considered a reliable source, so his website could be of some use for 1985–89. While this doesn't look reliable, it does provide links to reliable sources, providing a platform to work from. —WFC— 15:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Implementing this table now, welcome any comments (just adding refs). Here's a fun fact I happened upon along the way. They compare Eddie Murray's (at the time) record breaking $13 million/5 year deal to businessmen, noting that "For the first time, an athlete has a higher guaranteed annual salary than any American business executive." Those were the days, when $2.6 million was an impressive salary for either a ballplayer or a business executive. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC) There we go, all ref'd up. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments from WFC

I'll add my sig after each post, because this will probably be done in bits and pieces.

Resolved comments from WFC

*We need a key for the positions. —WFC— 22:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Bah, good call, totally forgot about adding a key. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC) In the Career earnings section, the "salary" column should be renamed "earnings". —WFC— 22:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC) I'll reserve judgement on the lead for now, as its makeup would very much depend on the above discussion.—WFC— 22:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC) A couple of financial footnotes are needed. One in the highest earners of 2010 section, as a disclaimer that we go by annual average salary, and outlining what is and isn't included (along the lines of the one at the top of the table in ref 11). Another in the career earnings section, clarifying that career earnings refer to salary earnings only (unless they don't, but I believe that they do). —WFC— 22:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC) I'll add that 2nd footnote right now, but what do you mean by the first? That table doesn't refer to average salary, it refers to salary. By "Average" ARod would have made $27.5, but that's not how the deal was structured. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Quite right. I didn't realise that the stats tables had detailed season-by-season breakdowns of players' salaries. —WFC— 02:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Catfish Hunter. Now that's a belter, even compared to the likes of Bert Badger and Jock Strain. —WFC— 01:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Dunno what that's in response to (he'd obviously be on a deeper salary history list). Also he's probably the worst BBWAA Hall of Fame inductee (the old Vet's Committee inductees don't even count they're so bad) of all time. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Seeing as the 2011 season is going to begin shortly, what is the plan for when this list needs updating? We're dealing mainly with a bunch a numbers that are soon to be outdated. Not really, the third table will be entirely unchanged (unless maybe Pujols' strikes a really excellent deal mid season) and only a couple fully new people will enter the 2nd table (at most) while the others can be easily updated. As for the first table, when the data is available I'll update it, not too difficult. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC) I, for one, find the use of Alex Rodriguez's nickname to be unencyclopedic here. I use it often myself when talking, and it appears all the time in newspaper and magazine articles, but this is an encylopedia. What's wrong with just using his last name. I see no other players of that name in the list, so there's no need to differentiate. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC) "First, he signed a $252 million/10 year contract with the Texas Rangers in December 2000." I wish we could do without the slash. How about a regular comma instead? Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Spell out the abbreviation NBA. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC) The comma after "First base is the highest paid position" would be better served as a semi-colon. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC) In the Salary progession table, de-capitalize the last two words in Annual Average Salary. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Reference 13 is missing a date, and ref 14 is missing a date and author. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC) One more thing: please check that your printed reference publishers are in italics. The first general reference, and some specific cites, have this problem. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Still see a bunch of Sports Illustrated and New York Times cites that need work on the italics. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Stupid templates, when it's "newspaper" parameter you don't italicize. Side question, any chance we could cap Wiz' comment? I've added the table that he requested, and as he's retired it just sits there outstanding, driving away reviews. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't know that Wizardman retired. That's unfortunate; he was a fine editor and will be missed. Personally, I don't feel comfortable capping another reviewer's comments, but that's just my opinion. Maybe the other directors feel differently. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments Our article refers to him as CC, not C.C., which is correct? Generally without the periods, fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC) " a luxury tax which taxes" a tax which taxes.. reads rather repetitively to my sensitive ears... Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC) I think "record-breaking" should be hyphenated... Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC) "10 year contract" -> I would think 10-year be hyphenated.. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Lead image caption, replace second Rodriguez with He as there's no uncertainty as to who you're talking about. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Be consistent with diacritics, Aramis Ramirez doesn't have one but his article does, Manny Ramirez has one but his article doesn't... Whoops, that was me putting it on the wrong Ramirez. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC) 3 dabs in the progression table, Mark Davis, Dave Stewart and Kevin Brown. Fixing. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC) What does # of years mean in that table? Is it the Contract duration? We avoid # to represent number ordinarily as well... Yes, that's a better name, added. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Pro-rata is overlinked in the notes. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC) "a 10 year deal" vs " the 10-year contract" be consistent with hyphenation. Check the lead for this as well. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC) "$2-$2.5 million " en-dash needed here. "2 months" -> "two months" Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Note d, a lot of numbers you can replace with words. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support now that the table has been added. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 23:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

*Comments "Contract duration" need a unit in the progression table Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC) For context, how many HR's does A-Rod have at the end of 2010? 613 and he's had 4 so far this year. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Yes, the Evil Empire spends a lot of money. I'd actually find something on the largest contract by team interesting to include. I would strongly hesitate to add that. First off it's beyond the scope of the article, it has nothing to do with the highest paid MLB player by any measure, that's on the subject of team spending habits. I made the brief Yankees' mention as obviously it needs to be noted, but you're proposing a table I think more appropriate for a page relating to MLB business practices in general. Additionally multiple teams often end up footing the bill for a deal. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC) The "Career earnings"- this is nominal dollars, right? If so, make that explicit. Added in the Earnings footnote. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Courcelles 10:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 17:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Note: I have just updated the list to 2011 using the 2011 USA Today salary list. Some of these values differ somewhat from the values listed on Baseball-Reference. Wells, for example, is listed at $23M on B-Ref, $26M and change on USA Today. ARod's 32 on USA Today, 31 on B-Ref. Beckett is at 17 on USAT, 15.75 on B-ref. I used this because it is one, collected list and is more up to date (the B-Ref pages still have their divider between 2010 and 2011). Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Also the USA Today values seem to be more widely agreed upon. ESPN, for example, has the same values on it's pages. The only site I've found which repeats B-Ref's #s is Cot's Baseball Contracts (a great page, but I don't think it even meets WP:RS). Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 "is New York Yankees' third baseman Alex Rodriguez" - should either be is New York Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez or is the New York Yankees' third baseman Alex Rodriguez. In the first, NYY is an adjective, and in the second, it's possessive. Just one or the other. "American professional sports leagues" - comma after (and maybe that could use a link?) What is "hard" quoted from? Anything? No removed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC) "resulting in significantly lower salaries in that period" - "in... in" construction, would be better if second "in" was during "For example" can be removed without losing encyclopedic value Comma after "Herbert Hoover" "two separate record-breaking contracts" - separate can be removed without losing meaning "$252 million" - {{inflation}}? I can add this if you want, but I tend to hold off adding inflation to relatively recent numbers (else basically every figure in every article would need it). Staxringold talkcontribs 03:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC) I certainly don't think they all need it, but I thought it might be useful for that value since it was a record-breaker. Added. My worry is just that technically as soon as one year passes a figure isn't precisely accurate and therefore there's an argument for inflation. Staxringold talkcontribs 11:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Understood; I think as long as you have a defendable argument for those which are shown and those which are not (which you do), you are good to go. — KV5 • Talk • 00:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC) "'stupefying'" - comma after "Despite this" - comma after "Under this deal" - comma after Really? Doesn't feel like that's right. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC) I've read over a couple things and I'm not sure myself now. After work, I'll break out a reference book and hopefully I can get a final word. — KV5 • Talk • 11:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Bedford Handbook, 6th edition, says that commas should be used "after an introductory clause or phrase" (§32j, p.399). This is an introductory prepositional phrase. — KV5 • Talk • 00:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC) I mean... It's not though, it's not a clause of any kind. It's just part of the sentence. Why would you put a break there? Staxringold talkcontribs 01:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Because it's an introductory phrase, like I just said. — KV5 • Talk • 10:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Added. Still doesn't make sense to me tho, could just as easily be worded "Rodriguez also receives $6 million under this deal..." with no comma, don't see why it's different at the start. There is no break, it's not a separate clause or phrase. Staxringold talkcontribs 11:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Yes, it could, and that would be just fine, but it's the sentence order in this case that determines that a comma is needed. — KV5 • Talk • 11:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC) "$252 million, 10-year contract" vs. "$4.5 million/4 year contract" - one format or the other (former preferred) "4 year" still needs a hyphen on this one. — KV5 • Talk • 11:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 11:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC) I would use "plainrowheaders" in the key table because none of the currently bolded entries are bold in the table "second highest" - should be hyphenated (Wells' caption) "4th highest" - fourth-highest Note a: "Clemens salary data" - Clemens' Note a: "2007 contracts" - comma after Note b: "However" - comma after Note c: "$7.9/3 year contract" - 3-year should be hyphenated, and I'm assuming Viola didn't sign for $7.90. Yes. On this topic, should I add in a similar note that Rickey Henderson also signed a $3 million AAV contract 6 days after Puckett (with one more year)? Staxringold talkcontribs 03:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Agree that this would be a good idea. — KV5 • Talk • 00:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Adding. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Note d: "$10.3 million annually, three year deal" - three-year Note d: "new, one year contract" - one-year Yup, that should be all. — KV5 • Talk • 00:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Done, save those with responses. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Replies above. — KV5 • Talk • 00:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Support — KV5 • Talk • 11:23, 28 April 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 19:13, 25 April 2011 [6].

---

List of armored cruisers of Germany

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This is my third list, based on List of battlecruisers of Germany and List of battleships of Germany, both FLs. This article will be the main article for a GT/FT on the armored cruisers built (see here). It has passed a MILHIST A-class review, which can be found here. I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure that this article meets the criteria for Featured List. Thanks in advance to all those who take the time to review the nomination. Parsecboy (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment as mentioned in the A-Class review I find it better if either you mention all the namesakes or leave them out. To mention some is not uniform. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• I would like to see in a footnote that the Germans were referring to these ships as Panzerkreuzer or Großer Kreuzer. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• check the alt text. It is missing for most images MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• the link to Memel needs a disambig fix MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I've been thinking about this for a little while, and have decided that namesake information is probably a little too much detail for a list like this. I added the note and fixed the dab (thanks, btw, for fixing the note - I had gone back and forth on whether it should be plural to match "armored cruisers" and decided to make it singular, but apparently didn't change it all back). Parsecboy (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Naval historian Hugh Lyon remarked that the armored cruisers built by Germany were the "worst designed and least battle-worthy ships" in the navy - The German navy? Just wondering since the comment was made by a foreign historian. 122.255.43.250 (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the German navy - do you have any suggestions on how that might be made clearer? Parsecboy (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments – SMS Furst Bismarck: Prose says it was scrapped in 1920, but the table gives the date as 1919–20. Which is it? Prinz Adalbert class: "caused a catastrophic explosion in the ship's ammunition magazines that destroyed the ship." The repeated use of "ship" is a redundancy. Try not to start a sentence with a number, like in "672 men were killed...". Roon class: The sink date of the SMS Yorck varies in the prose and table. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for catching all of these - they've all been fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments Lead image caption doesn't need a full stop. Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Consider converting knots in the lead for the benefit of non-experts. Done. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Who is John Campbell? He's a pretty prominent naval historian. For instance, he wrote Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting, which is a pretty highly regarded work. I've added "naval historian" to the line. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC) You have "The two Prinz Adalbert class vessels" unhyphenated but "the two Prinz Adalbert-class cruisers" hyphenated. Is there a reason? Wrong parameter in the template, fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC) If this is written in USEng (which it appears to me to be), shouldn't "centimetre" be "centimeter" and wouldn't Imperial units be used before decimal ones? Germans used the metric system, so that's what I use. I was advised this was the appropriate choice a couple years and about a score of FACs ago. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC) You use cm before you use centimetre. The centimetre/cm thing was a typo in the template - "abb=on" instead of "abbr=on". Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Just a query really, is there any way we can work out the "inflated" cost of these ships so we can put it into modern context? No, this has been thoroughly discussed and the consensus of those who know these things (I certainly do not count myself as one of them) is that these types of inflation calculations are highly problematic. See here for the last discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC) No need to relink WWI in the Prince Heinrick section (you don't relink the armament type for instance, so being consistent you wouldn't relink other text from section to section...) Done. Parsecboy (talk) You repeat a redlink to 21 cm SK L/40 gun in the Roon class section (you linked it in the previous section). Removed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC) "9,719 LT; 10,885 ST" LT and ST aren't explained anywhere, and should they be capitalised? You have "long tons" in the table... That's how the convert template spits them out. Everything should be standardized now. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Corbett and Payne books have a spare period (Co..) probably down to the template... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Support

• Alt text is not required.
  • No, not required, but always better if it's there than if it's not. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• You could add "|lk=on" to the templates to link the units in case anyone was wondering what they were.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Support Chamal ^T•C 15:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Meets technical standards, and has had subject-matter expect attention at ACR. No concerns from me. Courcelles 10:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:42, 25 April 2011 [7].

---

Huskies of Honor

Nominator(s): –Grondemar 04:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This list was the first article I ever wrote for Wikipedia, back just over one year ago. Although at the time I brought the list to peer review, I never nominated it for featured status due to looking for more information and sources. Inspired by the edits of an IP, I have reconsidered and reformatted the list, and now bring it up for consideration as a featured list candidate.

Huskies of Honor is a recognition program similar to a Hall of Fame sponsored by the Connecticut Huskies. This list notes the names of the honorees, which include players, coaches, and teams from the men's and women's basketball programs as well as one athletic director. I believe that this list is currently at featured list quality; please review and provide your comments as to whether you agree. –Grondemar 04:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments I'm not sure many Europeans (certainly not I) know what a "recognition program" is. Is there a decent link? It's not essential given what you say in the second sentence.... "Recognition program" was intended to be a generic term covering efforts made by organizations to honor high-achieving individuals. I didn't want to say "Huskies of Honor" is a hall of fame since there is no physical hall, just banners displayed at Gampel Pavilion. –Grondemar 03:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC) "...an additional two women's basketball players..." looks like three to me. Good catch, fixed. Since the time the article was originally written, one women's basketball player, Maya Moore, was inducted; that's the reason for the discrepancy. No need to abbreviate NIT as it's not used subsequently. Removed. –Grondemar 03:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC) " to 12 Yankee Conference championships, seven NCAA Tournament berths, " mix and match words and numbers here vs "UConn has won two national championships (1999 and 2004), seven Big East Tournaments, and ten Big East regular season titles, while placing twenty-three former" is all words, despite one being more than 10... I don't really mind either way but I'd prefer stylistic consistency. Changed so that numbers greater than 10 are consistently in numerals instead of text. –Grondemar 03:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC) "while placing twenty-three former players into " odd phrasing, perhaps USEng, but I'm not sure the college "placed" the players "into" the NBA, more that the players were drafted into the NBA by NBA teams? The source says the players "...have gone on to play in the NBA," which could mean they were drafted or they went undrafted and signed with an NBA team as a free agent. I used "placed" as a more-generic term rather than repeat the source. –Grondemar 03:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC) "Under his hand," another odd saying for me. Perhaps "Guided by him" or "Under his coaching" or something less allegorical. Changed to "Under his guidance". –Grondemar 03:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Explain WNBA before using the abbreviation. Added. –Grondemar 03:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC) "basketball superpower" is that your opinion or quote? If the former, it should be toned down, if the later, I'd like to see it directly quoted. I downgraded to "power", but if you review Tennessee Lady Volunteers basketball you'll see "superpower" is really not exaggeration at all. –Grondemar 03:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Link position each time as the tables are sortable. Done. –Grondemar 03:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC) "was drafted 2nd overall " would prefer to stick to prose and say "second". Done. –Grondemar 03:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Not keen on the use of the hash for squad number, even if it is linked (see MOS:HASH). Changed to "No." per MOS. –Grondemar 03:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your review and comments; I believe I have addressed them all. –Grondemar 03:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments – NCAA needs spelling out. Done. –Grondemar 03:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Reference 5, used for the Calhoun sentence, is now slightly outdated since the Huskies have won a Big East Tournament since it came out. I'd suggest another cite for the most recent title, with perhaps another one in the future depending on current events. Added reference as requested. Hopefully I'll need to add another reference in a couple of days. –Grondemar 03:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Remove space after parenthetical WNBA, before a comma. Fixed. –Grondemar 03:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Add a comma after "Tina Charles in 2010"? Fixed. –Grondemar 03:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC) In the tables, can Coach, Team, Director, and second positions be decapitalized? They aren't proper nouns, after all. Fixed. –Grondemar 03:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC) States should be spelled out, especially if Russia and Italy are. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Fixed. Thanks for the comments, Giants; all of your concerns should be addressed now. –Grondemar 03:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• OK, after an eventful few days where the Huskies won the 2011 National Championship and Kemba Walker was inducted into the Huskies of Honor at a surprise ceremony in Storrs, the list has updated to reflect the new addition and all new information has been sourced. I'd like to thank User:NationalFlagBlue and the IP editors who beat me to the punch in updating the article; I only needed to do a little cleanup. –Grondemar 23:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger's comments

• It is unclear to me whether this is for basketball only or all sports.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately the university has never stated whether the "Huskies of Honor" program is reserved for only men's and women's basketball or will be expanded to cover other sports. Right now the only member of the Huskies of Honor from outside basketball is John Toner, who was elected as athletic direction but before that was the football head coach. I once asked Randy Edsall at an open event whether the school was considering extending the Huskies of Honor to the football program, and he indicated that UConn was actively looking into that. Of course, now that he has departed it's unclear when if ever this extension will take place. I wish the article could be clearer but unfortunately it can only as clear as UConn allows it to be. –Grondemar 22:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 10:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

*Comments "included 13 men's basketball players, ten women's basketball players, and four head coaches, two of whom are also" Comparable quantities should be in the same format. Lede has more MOS:NUM issues, review all. These should all be fixed now. –Grondemar 05:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Formally connect the Connecticut Huskies with UConn. I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this. –Grondemar 05:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC) You state "Huskies of Honor is a recognition program sponsored by the University of Connecticut (UConn)." and "Similar to a hall of fame, it honors the most significant figures in the history of the Connecticut Huskies,", but the reader is forced to connect the dots that the Connecticut Huskies represent the University. Non-Americans may not do this, especially where there is not a tradition of student sports. Courcelles 20:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC) How about "Similar to a hall of fame, it honors the most significant figures in the history of the Connecticut Huskies—the university's athletic teams—especially the men's and women's basketball teams."? –Grondemar 23:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC) "including four at the end of undefeated seasons." source? Added a citation to the UConn 2010–11 media guide. –Grondemar 05:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC) "Twenty-two former UConn women's basketball players have graduated to" The source makes no claim that all 22 graduated, just that they played at UConn and the WNBA... Changed to "have gone on to"; however, it is worth noting that the media guide claims that Geno Auriemma has a "flawless" graduation rate. –Grondemar 05:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Out of date after yesterday's 2011 WNBA Draft. Updated with source. –Grondemar 05:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC) If Kemba declares and signs an agent this afternoon, don't forget to change his "present" tag to 2011. Updated. –Grondemar 05:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC) File:Uconnwomenslogo.png needs to be removed from the navbox; a basketball is too complex for a PD-ineligible license. I hope you don't mind, but I asked User:J Milburn for a second opinion on this. If he concurs with your judgement I will happily remove the image. My thought was that the basketball is really only a circle with a few lines on it, and so simple in this illustration that it fell under the "simple geometric shape" portion of PD-ineligible. –Grondemar 05:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC) After discussion with User:J Milburn, I have removed both UConn logos from the Huskies of Honor navbox pending verification of copyright status. –Grondemar 15:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Actually, Image:uconnmenslogo.png is not a problem, and could be restored, as it is just a U and a C interposed on each other, clearly within the bounds of pd-text. Courcelles 20:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC) I agree on the licensing, but I don't want to include the men's logo and not the women's logo, for fairness reasons. I'd rather have no logos rather than just one of them. –Grondemar 23:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Courcelles 13:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC) My apologies for not responding sooner; I have been very busy with RL projects and haven't had a chance to address your comments yet. I should get to them by the weekend. –Grondemar 04:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC) I have (finally) responded to your concerns, please see above. –Grondemar 05:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 10:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your support! I hope you don't mind I fixed the bolding above. –Grondemar 00:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Note to anyone reviewing: I will be on vacation and completely away from the Internet until May 2. I will reply to any further comments then. –Grondemar 16:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support With full note of my bias as a UConn undergrad and law student. :) Should the program be extended to other sports obviously the lead will need reworking (goes into the history of the bball programs), but as is it's fine. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:42, 25 April 2011 [8].

---

List of international cricket centuries at Brabourne Stadium

Nominator(s): Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 09:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the article is based on similar featured lists such as [[9]. I think the article covers all aspects of the topic and is ready FL status. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 09:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments "The Brabourne has witnessed 35 Test centuries over more than half a century." I'd prefer it to say "... centuries since it hosted its first Test in ... xxxx ". With a citation. done Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Add (T20) after the first time you say Twenty20 so when you use the abbreviation, our non-experts will understand. done Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC) "The ground has held eighteen ..." maybe "hosted" instead of "held". changed Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC) " first being in 1948 when India took on the West Indies," -> "the first in 1948 when India played the West Indies". Chaged Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC) "on the West Indies, it has also hosted eight One Day" -> "... West Indies. It has also stage eight One Day...". Changed Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC) "matches, first being in 1989 when Australia took on Pakistan and one T20 International in 2007 when India took on Australia" -> "the first in..." and instead of "took on" all the time, perhaps add the result for variety, e.g. "when Australia beat Pakistan by x runs" etc. Per suggestion Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC) "The stadium hosted 5 matches " -> five. done Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Don't overlink teams, e.g. West Indies, in the lead. It's linked three times, once is fine. Removed excess Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC) "in the first innings of the first Test match played here" avoid saying "here". Changed to "in the first innings of the first Test match played at Brabourne Stadium" Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC) "score a century here was Rusi Modi " -> "... century at Brabourne Stadium was..." Changed to "at the Brabourne" Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC) India national cricket team is also overlinked in the lead. I found 2 - removed the second. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते Three links to disambiguation pages, Allan Rae (twice) and Jim Burke. Iv changed it in the lede - seeking help for the table (dont want to disturb the template syntax) Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Fixed this on behalf of Around The Globe. (Will have another look over the article myself and comment later.) Harrias talk 08:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Would state "Australian Adam Gilchrist", and similar for other overseas players you note, but don't overlink the teams. Done Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Accessdates, not sure why you need a leading zero on things like March 06, 2011. Just to keep in line with 2 digit dates (else some will be 1 digit upto the 9th of the month and then two - for uniform dates) Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC) I can understand that for ISO-formatted dates, but not for these human-readable ones. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Its not that big a thing - if its going to affect this flc Il rm the "0"'s - though I dont see it making a big diff. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 08:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

;Comments Nice article, already looked it over at the PR, but a couple of minor points: "The Brabourne has witnessed 35 Test centuries since it hosted its first Test match in 1948." – "The Brabourne" isn't human or animal, and thus can't really "witness" something. Is it ok now? Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC) You use numerals for 17 in the second sentence, but letters for eighteen in the fourth: I'm not too fussed which is used (neither is the MOS) but consistency would be nice. Changed to words. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC) "It has also staged eight One Day International matches, of which the first was in 1989 when Australia lost to Pakistan by 66 runs and one T20 International in 2007 when India took on Australia." – This sentence could either do with some more commas, or (more ideally) splitting into two sentences. Broken into 2. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC) "No centuries have been scored in the eight One Day International matches and only T20 International played here." – I don't think that "here" is appropriate language; really "here" would refer to the article, not the ground: I'd suggest changing it to either "at Brabourne Stadium" or "at the ground". Harriastalk 16:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Changed. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support all my issues with the article have been resolved, nice work. Harrias ^talk 13:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• "and has played host to Ranji Trophy matches, Indian Premier matches, as well as being a Test, One Day International and Twenty20 International venue." The flow of this from beginning to end isn't as good as it could be. Try removing the comma after "Ranji Trophy matches" and the parenthetical bit, then put "and" in there. That seems like the simplest thing to do to fix this.
  • Changed per suggestion. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 05:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• The publisher of reference 4 (Indian Express) should be italicized since it's a printed publication. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 05:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Basic question Is "List of international cricket centuries at <stadium>" a useful/encyclopedia-worthy topic of discussion? As a counter-example, would "List of hat-tricks scored at Anfield" be a encyclopedic topic? Put in another way, what is to be gained by arranging 100s stadium-wise?—indopug (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, it is encyclopaedic. For wikiusers interested in cricket, it goes to show historic info of major venues as well as of major cricketers (such as List of international cricket centuries by David Gower - a one of the many FL's on the topic). Withregards to Anfield, according to me it would depend on whether its a major international football venue - and whether a hat-trick is as big (eg. there has been only 1 ODI hat-trick, none in tests at the Brabourne hence it would not qualify for a wiki list article) - Im not active on WP Football so would not know much abt tht. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• This article talks about 17 Ranji finals whereas the main Brabourne article has it as 16. From a quick check, 17 seems to be the correct figure. Please confirm anyway. Tintin 13:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Per Cricketarchive.com [10] - 1938, 1942, 1944, 1945, 1949, 1952, 1959, 1960, 1962, 1964, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 2008 (plate group final). Thanks for the corrections. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 06:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 20:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

*Comments What is a century? I may be overlooking it, but this article never defines the term. Reaching 100 runs - a feat by a single player in the team. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 10:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Um, I know this. I've reviewed several of the list of centuries by batsman that have come through in recent months. Your list, on the other hand, assumes people already know this. Many do not. Courcelles 10:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Added an explanation with link. Thanks for pointing it out, sometimes you overcome the biggest of things whiles forgetting a nano most important item! I daresay "century" is nano to this article though :) Cheers, Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 10:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC) For the centuries that no ball total was recorded, there is a total number of overs for the innings. Could be worth providing that is some form. The total number of overs is that were faced by the whole team (keeping in mind Cricket is a team game with 11 players in each team), I doubt that could be tied to the number of runs by a single player. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 10:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Courcelles 09:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 20:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I find this sentence, at the end of the first paragraph, a bit confusing - The stadium hosted five matches including the final of the ICC Champions Trophy in 2006. Why is this mentioned? The lines before this mention the first Test, ODI and T20I matches which are obviously important events for the ground. What is special about these five matches that justifies mentioning them alongside the inaugural matches? If there's something important about them (I'm guessing because they were champions trophy matches) make the reason clear, and include the match format as well for clarity. Other than that, the article looks good to me. Chamal ^T•C 14:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Does this work now? Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 17:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks ok. Support. Chamal ^T•C 11:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support looks good to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:37, 24 April 2011 [11].

---

List of Ashes series

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 15:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think I have improved the article since its demotion, and have conducted a peer review and resolved most of the comments brought up there. Harrias ^talk 15:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

*Question What about alt text is it not required? Just curious. It isn't currently a requirement, though I do generally prefer to include it, I find it quite difficult sometimes: I'll see what I can do. Harrias talk 17:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Comment You might want to give a friendly alert to User:Moondyne about the nomination, since they have the most edits here. Yeah, poked them for the PR, will draw their attention to this in due course too. Harrias talk 17:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Suggestion First sentence last paragraph. Ex. The Australian's have won 123 of the Ashes Tests compared with England's 100, which 87 of the 310 Tests was played to a drawn result. I don't really know what you mean here. If you are suggesting that as an alternative to what I've got: I prefer what is already there, personally. Harrias talk 17:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC) I just want to give you a pat on the back and congratulate you on bringing this back thru the peer review process out the the demotion catagory, good job Harrias. I hope with nomination goes well for you!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support: It has been brought up to meet standards.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments had a bit of a say at the peer review, let's see what I missed the first time round (oh, and good work Harrias on getting this back up and running!) Would prefer to see some alt text, albeit minimal, and more than just "The Ashes urn", maybe explain in the caption the context, i.e. that it stays at the MCC museum no matter what... I've expanded the first caption, and added references to all the other captions too. Also added some alt text for the urn image, haven't got to the others yet: the urn one is pretty bad! Harrias talk 17:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC) "consisting of anything between one and six " anything would seem redundant here. Removed. Maybe put Ivo Bligh into context for non-expert, non-UK readers. In what manner do you mean? I linked "The Honourable" to Earl of Darnley# Earls of Darnley (1725). A mix of single quotes (e.g. 'the Ashes') and double quotes (e.g. "the Invincibles") - what's the rationale? All double now. Check Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial for row and col "scope" parameters for screen-readers. Added col scopes, but not row ones at the moment: not sure if they are appropriate, and if so presumably they should be placed on the years? This isn't a very well explained 'tutorial' and the tables within it aren't even particularly consistent in their usage. If someone can tell me where best to put it, I'll put it there. Not sure if the blue you chose for the table was supposed to be the same as that in the timeline? Looks quite different to me.. Same (but not as different) for the yellow... Not really, I chose the colour I wanted in the tables, and was going to change it in the timeline, but for the fact I always suspected it would get cut! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC) "they entered the series with open hostility hitherto unseen in the game" probably worth trying to explain what you mean here. I removed it, as it seemed to get too wordy to explain it: feel free to add something back if you can work out a shortish way to include it! Harrias talk 21:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks, as always, for your comments: I've addressed most of those from TRM, although as I'm away from home at the moment, I haven't done anything that requires too much effort. I'll have a proper look back next week. Harrias talk 22:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Timeline fails ACCESS as it uses colour alone to convey information.

• As stated at the peer review, I'm happy to take it out, as I don't feel it adds that much: if anyone wants it to stay, I'll leave it in until the FLC is nearing closure to let them have a stab at bringing it inline with ACCESS.

• Removed. Harrias ^talk 16:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "the Ashes originated from the solitary Test which the two nations competed in 1882." Is this meant to be "completed"? If not, there needs to be a second "in" there. Presumably making the sentence state ".. solitary Test in which .."? I see how that could be troublesome. How about changing "competed" to "contested"? That seems to get the same message across in a grammatically better way. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC) That seems to work well: changed. Harrias talk 06:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Very minor, but at the start of the third paragraph "only" and "lost" would be better served in the opposite order they're in now. Switched. Redundancy here: "England won the series, but the series...". Changed to "England won the series, but the tactic prompted changes .." "England have once retained the Ashes after a drawn series." Should "once" be after Ashes, or at the end of the sentence? Moved to end of sentence. In both of the main tables, the winner is denoted in color without a matching symbol. This is a violation of WP:ACCESS. Make sure that you add what the symbols and colors denote to the key when you go to fix this. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC) I initially thought that too, but then I realised that the words "England" and "Australia" given would make any symbols redundant, and therefore already complaint with WP:ACCESS.Harrias talk 05:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Australia have won more Ashes Tests than England, winning 123 of the 310 matches - I think it's best to include how many England won as well, because at first glance it would seem like they won the rest of the matches (particularly since there is no mention of the number of draws).
• ...the Australians, buoyed by the batting of Bradman, regained and then held the Ashes for six series, spanning nineteen years - Perhaps mention that Australia regained the Ashes the very next series or a later one? Also, the "buoyed by the batting of Bradman" part is not backed by the ref.

122.255.43.250 (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Have addressed both comments now, how is that? Harrias ^talk 16:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. 122.255.43.250 (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• "England developed a tactic of bowling quickly at the body of the batsmen" - If the field placing is not mentioned, it will give the reader a wrong impression

• Added.Harrias ^talk 21:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• There are few series where Ashes was not at stake (1979/80, 1980 etc). This is excluded from the list but it would be good to tell explicitly about them. Tintin 16:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Have a look at the PR for some discussion on this: I'm unsure how much or little would be worth adding. Would you suggest a simple sentence something along the lines of: "Since 1882, a small number of Test series have been played between the two sides that have not been allocated as Ashes series; those played in 1979–80, 1980 etc." ? Harrias ^talk 21:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• That should be okay. I wouldn't even say that it is mandatory, more of a "good to know" stuff. Tintin 08:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Don't see any problems here. Chamal ^T•C 11:27, 19 April 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 17:55, 24 April 2011 [12].

---

Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (G)

Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 00:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

List number six in the series. Comments welcome and speedily addressed. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 00:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Just mentioning that this has 80+ items and H has 130+ => no reasonable merging is apparent => there should not be any CFORK issues. Nergaal (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Went through the list and found nothing to complain about. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments I suppose this may affect every list of this type, but can I just confirm that " the player's primary team" is the one he played most games for? We don't have a this phrasing in British football so I think it may be a good case for a footnote. Tsk, this too - the draft lists usually have the handedness of the pitcher, why not these lists? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Actually, the player's primary team is not necessarily the team he played the most games for, but rather the team with which the Hall of Fame determined that he had the greatest impact. The Hall alone determines the primary team. As for the handedness, it's noted in the draft lists because many teams draft specifically-handed pitchers based on need, which is not necessarily the case with a full team's roster. — KV5 • Talk • 21:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Okay, well can we "note" the thing about the "primary team" because I didn't get it and therefore assume other non-experts will fail too. As for the handedness, fine, no worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC) I'll see what I can find. I don't know if the Hall itself has any information on it, but some news outlets might. — KV5 • Talk • 11:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC) TRM, how would this source suit you? It states that the player's baseball cap, which is how the primary team is designated, "shows the marks of the team with which he made his most indelible mark", that "[the] choice of which team logo appears on a player’s plaque is the museum’s decision, though the wishes of an inductee are always considered", and that "it is important that the logo be emblematic of the historical accomplishments of that player’s career". — KV5 • Talk • 18:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Yeah, the HoF cap system is really really weird. IIRC they used to let players pick but changed out of a fear that teams would try to "influence" (read: bribe) players into picking their team. For a recent example see Andre Dawson, even though he played almost twice as much for the Montreal Expos as opposed to the Chicago Cubs he said it was "a little gut-wrenching" when he was given an Expos cap for his plaque. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC) So, and I don't want this to sound patronising, but how do we explain to our readers what "primary team" is when, between us, we're finding it hard to come up with an objective definition of it? The Rambling Man (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC) The purely objective definition is that the Hall defines the team, in consideration of the player's wishes but not always necessarily equal to them, and marks their cap accordingly. If we want to be purely objective as an encyclopedia, that's the ticket. That doesn't mean that the Hall or the players are objective, but they don't have to be. Only we do. — KV5 • Talk • 02:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Ok, sounds good to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Alright, there's now an "H" footnote discussing the cap selection process, using the ref from the Crier. — KV5 • Talk • 12:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Read through, meets standards. Courcelles 23:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support, see no issues beyond what was already addressed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:37, 23 April 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 17:55, 24 April 2011 [13].

---

List of Los Angeles Clippers seasons

Nominator(s): Cheetah (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...I worked on it these past two days and now I believe it's ready to be nominated. I welcome any comments/criticism/questions! Thank you! Cheetah (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 08:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

*First thing that catches my eye (cause I know how much of a pain it could be) is... what's sourcing the awards column? Courcelles 08:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Ref #2, I put it right next to the word "Awards" in the table heading.--Cheetah (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC) You really expect folks to look through a 21 page PDF? Page numbers are essential... (Not to mention, third party sources would be nice.) Courcelles 08:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC) The page numbers are there... "Los Angeles Clippers Records" (PDF). NBA.com. NBA Media Ventures, LLC. p. 79 (2 of 21). http://www.nba.com/clippers/media/0910mediaguide_recordbook.pdf This isn't an opinion of the Clippers, so we can use NBA's site.--Cheetah (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for a few technical issues... Depending on resolution, you can expand that lead image a bit according to the MOS. "the Buffalo Braves." not keen on that odd link to Buffalo. Is there no article specifically for Buffalo Braves? In any case, it looks odd. No need to relink NBA. "The Buffalo Braves moved to San Diego".. could just say "The Braves ..." Some seasons in the lead are linked, some aren't, why? "In their first game, the Braves beat the Cleveland Cavaliers 107-92" en-dash. Where? When? Anything more to add? "In the 1972 NBA Draft, the Braves selected Bob McAdoo, who later won such awards as Rookie of the Year and Most Valuable Player. During McAdoo's years, the Braves reached for the post-season three times." references? "playoffs twice(1975–76..." space needed. "They also had seven seasons with the winning precentage of .500 or better. " -> "with a winning percentage" and what does that mean to a non-expert? "their 40 year history." -> "40-year history". "Playoff Berth " is Berth really a proper noun? Relink everything linkable in the table because it's sortable. "Lost First Round to Utah Jazz, 3-2[6]" - en-dash needed for the scoreline. There are several of these. Look at the capitalisation of the text in the "All-time records" section, and reference it. While not against the MOS, why are your refs dated in English format while your main article has dates in US format? Ref titles need to comply with WP:DASH as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Fixed all dash issues—Chris!c/t 20:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks TRM for your comments. They really showed that I forgot a lot in the last 12 months of inactivity. The "cite" button in the editor gave me the English format and I thought it was a new rule, so did not bother to change it. Thanks Chris for helping out.--Cheetah (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Could link Western Conference in the second sentence. "It was one of three franchises that joined the NBA in the 1970–71 season." "It was" should be "They were" in this context. "During McAdoo's years". Does this mean with the team? If so, say it. Remove "for" from "the Braves reached for the post-season three times." "They also had seven seasons with the winning precentage of .500 or better." Typo with "precentage", and "the" would be better as "a". Why is League capitalized in the last sentence of the lead? I find it curious that there is a full allotment of articles on the team's individual seasons, and yet the list is linking to generic league season articles. If articles on the team are avaliable, why not use them? In reference 1, should the first and third words of the title be capitalized? Reference 11 appears to have a formatting error. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the helpful comments. I've done most of them. Please, take a second look.--Cheetah (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Looks like a very strong piece, which is surprising for a low importance article. Great job! Soxrock24 (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support I made my usual minor fixes, but this list meets the criteria. A couple comments that aren't dealbreakers:
• Consider removing the font size parameter from key; it would enhance accessibility slightly and there is no aesthetic disadvantage (IMO)
• The lead seems a little short. Of course, the Clippers are one of the NBA's less-successful teams, which means they are light on achievements, but then again, perhaps that might be worth discussing in a couple sentences (if you can find stuff in reliable sources)? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I removed the font-size limitation. I added a couple of sentences implying that the Clippers are the least successful team in sports history. You're more than welcome to continue to do your copyedits.--Cheetah (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks, that's better. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support A good model for how to structure these lists for limited existence/limited success teams that are harder to expound on. I would add a couple things namely (1) Their overall postseason record to the 2nd lead paragraph, (2) Their overall record at the bottom of the last paragraph, and (3) One more image if you can find one. Maybe Elton Brand with a caption about winning the Sportsmanship award in their last playoff season? Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I added the Braves' record to the 2nd paragraph because that paragraph talks about the Braves. Overall record is added, as well. I didn't want to add Brand because I don't have a free pic of him in a Clipper uniform. I added Cassell instead. Let me know what you think.--Cheetah (talk) 03:48, 22 April 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 17:38, 18 April 2011 [14].

---

Latin Grammy Award for Best Female Pop Vocal Album

Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it resembles previous work on the lists for Best New Artist and Producer of the Year, it is fully referenced and expanded to achieve this status. Thank you to all reviewers for your hard work. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 09:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

*Comments The award has been presented to singers originating from Canada, Colombia, Italy, Puerto Rico, Spain, and the United States; and was first presented to the Colombian singer-songwriter Shakira in 2000 for the song "Ojos Así".[3] — it doesn't make sense to put a semicolon; instead replace it with a comma. Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC) I disagree with this suggestion. IMHO two separate sentences would work better. Edge3 (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks Edge3 (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Latin Grammy Award for Best Female Pop Vocal Album links to 1 redirect which points back. Christina Aguilera received the award for her Spanish album debut Mi Reflejo.[5] — do you mean debut album?--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 12:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support I found the dablink here, but it was either an error, or it was resolved.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 09:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments "From 2002 to date it has ..." not keen on this, particularly as you've already called it this in the lead opening sentence. Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC) "The award has been presented to ... and was first presented ..." repetitive. Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC) "for her album Fijación Oral Vol. 1, " don't think you need "her album" as it's clear this list is all about the albums. Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Be consistent on Aguilera's first name spelling... Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC) "is the most awarded singer " a slightly odd way of putting it in my opinion. Maybe, "has received the most awards" Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC) "American singer Christina Aguilera winner in 2001" some punctuation here would be good, maybe a comma after her surname. Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Same for Furtado's caption. Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Associated Press has no "The". Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Ref 17, no leading 0 needed on the date. Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• "Spanish singer Rosario Flores hold the record for most nominations with five". "hold" → "holds".

Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Please double-check the name of Ms. Aguilera in the table. Last time I checked her first name had nine letters including an h.

Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

-) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• "Since its inception, the award category has had several name changes. In 2000 the award was known as Female Pop Vocal Performance. The following year it was awarded as Female Pop Vocal Album, and starting from 2002, it has been presented as Best Female Pop Vocal Album." -- What is the source for this statement?

Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 06:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• " Most recently the award was given to Canadian performer Nelly Furtado with her album Mi Plan." -- Per WP:DATED, please replace "Most recently" with "In 2010"

Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Edge3 (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

There's another comment above which you haven't addressed. It's located amidst GreatOrangePumpkin's feedback Edge3 (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I just saw it, but I did not find that redirect. Jaespinoza (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It is resolved. Jaespinoza (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is... I'm not inclined to give a declaration of support or opposition unless I have examined the whole article. (I haven't done so) Edge3 (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Support Edge3 (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comments

• The lead seems to be sprinkled with random winners. We have the opening winner (Shakira) and her other win (fine), and then Christina Auguilera. Why is her win notable? Slapped onto the end of the lead is Nelly Furtado's win. Illogical place, and not especially notable.

I tried to mentionate the most winners possible. I also named Laura Pausini as the most awarded singer, Rosario Flores (two-time winner, and most nominated), Christina Aguilera, Shakira and Nelly Furtado. Do I need to add Kany Garcia and Olga Tañón? Jaespinoza (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you should remove Aguilera and Furtado.

• Could you add Latin Grammy Award for Best Male Pop Vocal Album to the see also links?

Yes I could, but is there any particular reason to do it? Since there is also a Latin Grammy Award for Pop Album by a Duo or Group that I could include. Jaespinoza (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, include both. Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Can I still do it? This list is already listed as featured. Jaespinoza (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, I included both. Jaespinoza (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:31, 17 April 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 17:38, 18 April 2011 [15].

---

Grammy Award for Best Rock Instrumental Performance

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 05:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria and closely resembles other Grammy-related lists with FL status. There are several other Grammy-related lists at FLC currently, though only one that is nominated by me (and it has four votes offering support). Thanks, as always, to reviewers! --Another Believer _(Talk) 05:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comments

• No dab links, no dead ELs
• A Flock of Seagulls, The Allman Brothers Band and other bands beginning with 'the' should use {{sortname}}.

Otherwise, looks pretty good! Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Not true. They should be sorted alike their name; since "The" is capitalized, it is a component of the proper noun, in this case the name of the band. For example: "The Beatles" is correct, wereby "the Beatles" is incorrect, as the "the" is a piece of the substantive.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the "The" is part of the name, but anything in English is sorted disregarding words such as "a" and "the". You can see that the band's (A Flock of Seagulls) article is categorised as "Flock of Seagulls, A". Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Does the Manual of Style address this issue? Personally, I prefer for "the" to be included in sort commands for the reason GreatOrangePumpkin mentioned, but I know Adabow's reasoning is also common practice. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The closest thing I could find was WP:SORTKEY, which says "Leading articles—a, an, and the—are one of the most common reasons for using sortkeys". Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, GOP, TRM and myself all prefer to leave the sort commands alone. If this is not the case, please let me know. I am willing to make changes if consensus proves otherwise. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments Regarding above, not sure when "A Flock of Seagulls" ever began with a "the", but I understand what Adabow is saying. This is somewhat subjective. But I see no reason to "rename" then band "Flock of Seagulls" when all reliable source say they're called "A Flock of Seagulls". Agreed. Will leave sort commands as is, for now at least. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Something I may have missed before, not keen on the easter egg links (e.g. 1980 links to 1980 Grammy awards), so perhaps consider "in the xxxx awards" where possible. Don't wreck English because of it, but consider it as less of a hidden link if possible. Hope that is better (removed a couple of instances). --Another Believer (Talk) 21:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC) " as a member of the band known as The Police." why not just "as a member of "The Police""? Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC) "duo known as Vaughan Brothers" ditto, I see no reason for "known as" Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC) "(which is led by Dweezil Zappa, son.." just "(led by..." is fine, and makes it suitable if this isn't the case in the future. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Some captions link award years, some don't, be consistent (and don't say that it's because the image is from a different year from their award - see "2008 award winner Bruce Springsteen performing in 2008")!! Years associated with Grammy ceremonies are linked. Years during which the pictures were taken are not. I don't think that (using an arbitrary example) just because a picture was taken in 1997 means that it should be linked to the awards ceremony if the winner was awarded in 1993, if that makes sense. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Classic question now. Nationality flags don't align with the awardee names. Confusing, potentially.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – "The award was first presented in at the 22nd Grammy Awards...". "in" should be removed from this sentence. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Support – A question. I asked this on another FLC. Is Rock on the Net reliable? Take a look at this. Otherwise, everything looks okay to me. References are properly formatted, images are good, the prose and table also look good. Novice7 (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I recall being told that Rock on the Net was reliable (perhaps by Dabomb?). However, I try to use Rock on the Net as a last resort and will be on the lookout to replace ROTN sources. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: See discussion. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

After a research, I could find no reliable sources for the nominees in this category. So, ROTN can be used. I support :) Novice7 (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support- The list looks great just one issue for reference 24 you need to cite Hearst Corporation as the publisher. Yet other then that great work.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Designated "Hearst Corporation" as the publisher of the San Francisco Chronicle in four instances. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• comments

Should be using the scope col/scope row parameters for accessibility. See the Atlanta Braves draft-picks list a little up the FLC page for an example.

I still don't fully understand this scope/accessibility stuff. Also, my understanding is that this is not required for FL status. Of course, I want lists to be the best they can be. If this is now required, is there a link describing what needs to be done to meet requirements (or preferences) regarding accessibility? --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a very good tutorial, but FLC has been moving towards looking for things described in the "overview of basics" section at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial to be implemented. Courcelles 04:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This still needs doing. Courcelles 09:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Has this concern been resolved? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

No, and I sincerely apologize for the delayed response. I tried formatting the table back in March without success (using the preview feature, no saved edits), but I admit and regret that I have neglected further attempts as I have been very busy in "real life" and much of my time at WP has been spent establishing the Grammy Awards task force for WikiProject Awards and prizes. I will try to tackle this again when I have the time--or, if someone is more familiar with this scope/accessibility stuff, feel free to provide instructions or an example that I can follow. Once established, I'd be happy to post the example on the Grammy Awards task force page so that the same table format can be used on other lists. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

RexxS (talk · contribs) is very good with accessibility issues; you may want to ask him for help. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Doing... --22:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. Was it just the col/row headers that need doing, or are there other WP:ACCESS issues? Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Rexx and Adabow took a stab at it. Thanks so much for your assistance. (I think I was trying to do more than was necessary during my previous attempts.) --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TRM about the 'easter egg' links on the years. I'd rather see another column for the Grammy Award number explicitly from 22nd to 53rd, but it's not a deal-breaker, just that I think it would be an improvement. The table is as accessible as I can make it, as a caption would be clearly redundant - many thanks to Adabow for pitching in (I'll be able to quit this job now we've found a replacement ;). All the images have 'alt' text, so it seems to meet all we could wish for in complying with MOS:ACCESS. One small point: per MOS:FLAG, as the winners weren't actually representing the country, shouldn't we do without flags? --RexxS (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If you are against linking years to ceremony articles in the lead, I have no problem with that. I think adding an additional column to the table to display the Year in addition to the Ceremony would be too crowded. At least on this computer, the Nominees column already looks a little cramped. This list is more crowded than other Grammy lists, mostly because songwriter credits are also included, but I think the "easter egg" feature in the Year column certainly serves its purpose. As for the flags, this issue has been debated on multiple Grammy FLCs with the preference to keep the flags. My personal preference is to keep the flags, but I would respect if consensus preferred otherwise. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

In general, I don't think it's optimal to have any links that go to an article that isn't indicated by the linked text. There's a principle of 'least surprise' in designing links that should be applied wherever possible – I know you've placed an explanatory note at the bottom, but that's mitigation, not solution. However, my principal concern is that 1980 was the year of the 22nd Grammy Awards, but I have to make an effort to retrieve that piece of information. If I wanted to know what artist received the 50th Grammy Award for example, I can find that information, but it involves searching and reading tool-tips (assuming I have a user agent that displays tooltips). I understand your concern for the table "squashing" on low-res displays, but you have enough vertical space in each cell to place something the size of "22nd Award" below the year, if you decided to make that design choice. Alternatively, you could gather together all of the images that float along the right side of the table and make a gallery above or below the table which would free up some width. I'm not saying that's an improvement, because I like seeing the images near to the Award that they relate to; but if you view the current layout in 800x600 resolution (the minimum Wikipedia still supports), the table starts below the last image and there's loads of white space. As for the flags, I'm still not sure what the Nationality column is for, or if it's actually accurate. My passport says my nationality is a "British citizen", and I have no doubt that Sir Paul's does as well – he's even used as an example of when not to use a flag in MOS:FLAG. Anyway, I'm not asking you to make any changes, I just want reassurance that you've actually considered the other options and have made conscious design choices that have led to the present layout. Your view on what's best is at least as valid as mine, as we are often balancing against each other several competing considerations, such as accessibility, visual appeal, or usability. --RexxS (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Support: Although the article is not presented in the way that I might have chosen, it is still of high quality, meeting what we consider to be the standard for promotion as FL in my opinion. Any small improvements that might be implementable are well below the threshold for opposition. --RexxS (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 09:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

:I pay little attention to music notability, but is a Grammy nominated artist or Grammy-winning song really non-notable? Sorry, but I don't follow. What are you asking? Or, what is your concern? --Another Believer (Talk) 04:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Courcelles 21:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Basically, why aren't people like Neil Larsen and the all the winning works redlinked? Seems like they would be notable, but, again, music isn't my area. Courcelles 04:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Oh, I see. First of all, I went ahead and linked other award-winning songs to articles corresponding to the album the tracks appear on. I don't believe that being nominated for a Grammy establishes notability. Even many Grammy-winning songs re-direct to album articles. I image the same applies to nominated artists. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 02:07, 15 April 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 17:38, 18 April 2011 [16].

---

List of Alabama Crimson Tide bowl games

Nominator(s): Patriarca12 (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel its does meet the FL criteria, as it tends to follow the format established for the List of Texas Tech Red Raiders bowl games FL. I chose this format as Alabama has competed in nearly sixty bowl games and the format set in both the List of Connecticut Huskies bowl games and List of Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games would be too long and redundant with information already in place in the individual bowl articles. All comments and critiques are greatly appreciated! Thanks. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 07:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

*Comments Too much boldface, read MOS:BOLD; you can't use boldface as a way of presenting information or drawing emphasis to something. Removed excessive boldface. Result column ought to be sortable. Done I tend to think bowl games that are the same game (Outback and Hall of Fame, for example) should sort together. Done with appropriate notes added for clarity for readers who are not familiar with college bowl games. Needs to be using Scope col and scope row parameters. Done Courcelles 18:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks for taking a look at this! Please let me know if you see anything else that needs to be reevaluated. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 07:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments "appeared in 58 bowl games.[1][2] Included in these 58 games" no need to repeat 58 here. Done ".[3][2]" - numerical order is preferred. Fixed "led the Crimson Tide to" you've already mentioned Alabama, so why not just "led them to"? Done "a five year bowl " - surely "a five-year bowl"? Done "Denotes national championship game." not a complete sentence so need for a period. Removed In the table heading - Head Coach -> Head coach. Done Not sure how the "score" col sorts. I presume by first digit of result which is a little odd when you get 13-0 loss first (of all losses) then 7-0 loss last (of all losses). Would suggest either making this column unsortable or make it sort with some kind of logic (e.g. biggest points difference), not just based on first digit of scoreline. Table amended with a note stating that the scores are now sortable by W, L or T with margin of victory being how the column sorts. Note 2 needs a period. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC) I have addressed all but one of your comments at this time, so stay tuned. If you have any additional thought or suggestions in the interim, please let me know! Thanks again for taking a look at this. Patriarca12 (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• To a non-expert, there's no clear indication as to the significance of the various bowl games. Is the Sugar bowl better than the Orange or Cotton bowl? What is the difference?

:I will work to find a source stating the traditional "big" bowl games were the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Cotton, with the Fiesta taking the place of the Cotton in terms of importance in the BCS-era in the next day or two. Statement added to first paragraph and source added. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments – The last word of the second paragraph should be changed to "Bowls" since that's referring to numerous games. Done Redundancy here: "ruled Alabama violated multiple rules". Amended "in 2004 Mike Shula led Alabama to the Music City Bowl and a victory in the Cotton Bowl." Only one of those came in the 2004 season. It looks funny when seeing later that the game actually happened in 2006. Clarified this statement I fear that people are going to see the term Iron Bowl and immediately wonder why that isn't included in the list. How about piping the link while having "game against Auburn" or something similar as the prose? Good call. Glad to have other eyes on this as being a fan of Bama I forget that everyone may not know what the Iron Bowl is. Note 4 needs a comma after "ruled", and the awkward "Alabama to vacate"-type structure is present again (I remember it from another list). Cleaned up a bit to reflect the wording from the coaches' article. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Comments addressed and again thank you for taking the time to check this out and give feedback. It is much appreciated as always! Patriarca12 (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I believe the score is not sorted properly. The note states that it's sorted by "margin of victory" which is linked to a glossary where I read that margin of victory means The total difference in points in a game, expressed as possessed by the winning team. Therefore, when I sort from the highest margin to the lowest, I have to see the 25th (32 point margin) bowl sorted below the 58th(42 point margin). This list currently sorts the 25th (32 point margin) bowl below the 51st (1 point margin) bowl. One is not a higher number than 32.
    • I see what you are saying and have further clarified the note explaining how the column sorts. Essentially, it sorts whether the contest was an Alabama win loss or tie first and then is sorted by margin of victory for each of those three categories. If it still does not look right, please let me know and I will try to come up with a better solution.
      • It's all right now, the note corresponds to the way the sorting works. I was just expecting to see the score sorted from the best result to the worst result. What I mean is the 11th bowl has the highest margin of victory (+55 points), so it should be sorted as "the best result". The 25th bowl has the highest margin of loss(-32 points), so it should be sorted as "the worst result". It's just my preference, so you can disregard it.--Cheetah (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • What reference are you using for the 58th Bowl? How do I check if the attendance number is correct?
    • Good call. I have added a separate reference for that game, and will remove it in the future when the NCAA publishes its 2011 NCAA Division I Football Records.

--Cheetah (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to check this out as it is appreciated. Please let me know if further things need to be addressed. Patriarca12 (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

• Remove all en-dashes in prose, as they are contrary to MOS (ex. "between 1931–1946" should be between 1931 and 1946). This doesn't apply to box scores.

• Done

• "Included in these games are 31 combined appearances... and three Bowl Championship Series (BCS) game appearances" - 31 and 3 are comparable quantities, so it should be "thirty-one and three" or "31 and 3" (latter preferred).

• Done

• "and 3 ties" - comma after

• Done

• What purpose does the number column serve? The table can be put in its original order simply by sorting the "Date" and "Season" columns.

• Honestly, I have this column here as it is in place at the other three lists of bowls that have been promoted to FL (Connecticut, Texas Tech and Virginia Tech). I have no opinion either way on keeping it or omitting it as long as there is a general consensus on its inclusion or not.

• I happen to think it's extraneous, but I'll defer to the majority whatever is decided. It's not a big deal. — KV5 • Talk • 22:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Note in the key where the year links and team links go because the links are not necessarily self-explanatory.

• Done

Hope these comments help. Support — KV5 • Talk • 15:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

::Thanks for the comments. I will get to them as soon as I get home later this week. Patriarca12 (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again! I have addressed your comments at this time, and please let me know if you see anything else that needs to be worked on. Cheers! Patriarca12 (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I see no issues beyond those noted and addressed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:28, 17 April 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 17:38, 18 April 2011 [17].

---

First Deputy Premier of the Soviet Union

Nominator(s): TIAYN (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel this list meets the FL-criteria. This will probably be my last list of Soviet leaders, of course, this is just a "probably". Anyhow, thanks for using your spare time reviewing this article. TIAYN (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

*Done " with the first deputyship" with their first deputyship? Done "The first first deputy..." odd. Any possible way to re-phrase?! Done "of the Sovnarkom,[1] there were three exceptions however" odd grammar and writing, would think the "there were..." should be after a semi-colon, not a comma, and I would put however before the "there were". Done "after Stalin took a vacation; during Stalin's vacation Molotov " repetitive prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Done Don't like "0 years" in the table.

I can remove them, but I don't see the problem. 0 years is included in the Minister of Transport and Communications (Norway) which is a FL.

What is or isn't in another FL isn't really that relevant. I think "0 years" is unnecessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Done Please add alt text to the images.
• Done I think this table may be a nightmare for screen-reading navigation, suggest you ask User:RexxS for some input here.

I don't see the problem, It's the same table as used in the List of Premiers of the Soviet Union article..... --TIAYN (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like RexxS (or someone else from the WP:ACCESS project to confirm that the table is suitable. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have asked him but he hasn't responded yet. --TIAYN (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

He has retired...... so what should I do now? --TIAYN (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The rumours of my retirement have been somewhat exaggerated. I'm back from my wikibreak and I can confirm that the table (as it stands today) would be readable by many screen readers, although it really could do with some tidying. If you remember that a screen reader will find a 'row header' and a 'column header' for every data cell (so that it can announce them if required), then you can start to improve your markup or table structure to take account of that. To take an example, the cell containing "Minister of Internal Affairs" ought to have "Other offices held while first deputy" as its column header, and "Lavrentiy Beria" as its row header. It's good that "Lavrentiy Beria" is properly marked up with the row scope. Unfortunately there is another header - "First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers (1946–1990)" - between the data cell and the column header we want. It is quite possible that some screen readers may decide wrongly to use "First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers (1946–1990)" as the column header instead of "Other offices held while first deputy". As usual, I would prefer to see the table reformatted to ensure that the subheadings couldn't be confused with the main column headings, and I'd personally prefer the table without the first column of numbers, but I can see how the present structure may be preferred purely from a visual point-of-view. Although the table is not optimal for accessibility, I would have to weigh the impact of greater compliance on the visual presentation. I'd have to conclude that the table is sufficiently compliant with MOS:ACCESS that I couldn't oppose its promotion to FL on those grounds.

From a maintenance point of view, I'd recommend getting rid of all of the rowspan="1" since they do nothing but clutter the text. Of course, that has no bearing on the quality of the list and I'd hope to see it promoted as soon as the remaining issues are resolved. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

So therefore I'd like to remind the other FL directors that I do not object to this list being promoted. And I am, as ever, grateful to RexxS for swinging back by to give us some great advice. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support I could not find anything against the criteria. No nitpicks as well.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comments:

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

*Done Lavrentiy Beria spent the shortest time in office.: How long? Not sure that the first "#" column makes sense since these were technically different positions, right? Can you convince me that it does make sense? Not different position just different names for the same position. The Deputy didn't grew stronger with the name changes It remained more-or-less the same. Therefore, seeing that it was the same what's the point of dividing them? --TIAYN (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC) OK. bamse (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Done Not a big issue, but the column titled "Name (birth-death)" also has images (not mentioned in table header). Maybe a more neutral header like "Holder", "Deputy" or "Individual" could resolve this!? Done Not too fond of "death=present" for those people that are still alive. Maybe just leave the year of death open, or write something like: "Born 1926". There is still Vladilen Niktin... bamse (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Fixed. --TIAYN (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Done Could you center the hyphens in empty cells with {{center|—}}? Explained Just curious, there are quite some pictures for the oldest deputies, but not for the more recent. (also more wikipedia articles for the old guys) Why is that? Because historians have for a long time been more interested in Lenin—Stalin—Gorbachev Era history then Khrushchev—Brezhnev—Andropov—Chernenko Era history. Another point is that during the Khrushchev Era many long-standing notable members of the Soviet leadership were elected to the post, this was not the case during the Gorbachev Era. Russia's photo copyright expires after 50 years being taken, which means it's hard to find an image for, lets say Nikolai Tikhonov, seeing that he became big in 1976.. --TIAYN (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC) I see, thanks for the explanation. bamse (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Done In "First Deputy Prime Minister of the Cabinet of Ministers (1990–1991)" it has a starting date of "1990" while Velichko/Doguzhiev's tenure starts in 1991. The template at the bottom of the article also has 1990. Why? Because the Cabinet of Ministers was established in 1990, but I screwed up, the first First Deputies were elected to office in 1991 so yeah, I removed 1990. --TIAYN (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Could you also fix it in the template? bamse (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC) bamse (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Fixed. --TIAYN (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Done I am a bit confused about what a "First Deputy" is. The first sentence says that it is the "vice-head of government". On the other hand there are times when there were two deputies at the same time. How can that be? Could it be discussed in the lead a bit more? People could hold the office alongside someone. --TIAYN (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC) I see. How was the work/power shared between them? bamse (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC) There didn't exist one official way of sharing power. But as said in the text "A first deputy was usually given responsibility over one specific area, an example being Mazurov, who was responsible for industry, and Dmitry Polyansky, whose responsibility was agriculture." --TIAYN (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC) I see. Do I understand correctly, that as a vice-head of state the deputy(/ies) would take the role of the head of state occasionally? If so, which of the deputies would be first in line? bamse (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC) The First Deputies were the second-in-command of the Soviet Government, after them came the Deputies of the Soviet Union. The First Deputies were elected from the already elected Deputies of the Soviet Union, hence the name "First" deputies, since they were first-in-line. If the Premier could not perform his duties the First Deputies would act on his behalf until he again could perform his duties. And no, they would not take on the role of head of government occasionally, they were just given control over some specific branches. The Premier still remained the boss but needed help from the First Deputies who then specialised, on the orders of the Premier, over one specific. --TIAYN (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks for elucidating. So when the "Premier could not perform his duties", which of the First Deputies would act on his behalf? bamse (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Added another section discussing this, and some other duties and responsibilities. Is it okay now? --TIAYN (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Perfect! bamse (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Both; the constitution and the Law of the Council of Ministers simply says the first deputy would take his place nothing more, which by all means is a problem. If one was chosen I guess it would have something to do with the Premier's personal preference, or even worse, the General Secretary's personal preference. --TIAYN (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC) I see. Could you add something like that to the lead? bamse (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC) What do you mean? Logically the colspan lines ("First Deputy Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars (1934–1935/1941–1946)", etc) should extend over the first column, no? What do you mean? --TIAYN (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC) You have three cells that extend over 5 columns ("First Deputy Chairman/Prime Minister..."). Wouldn't it be more logical to have these cells extend over the full table width, i.e. including the first column? bamse (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC) That would screw up the layout; a title header over the number header would mean there was so many First DEputy Chairmen of the Council of Ministers, and not how many First Deputies of the Soviet Union. That's why I havn't done it + see my last two FLs; List of Premiers of the Soviet Union and List of heads of state of the Soviet Union, they both have the number header separate from the title header. --TIAYN (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC) I see. On the other hand you also have the premiers under the "Deputy" (colspan) header... Personally I would prefer an additional title column instead of these colspan headers or alternatively color coded backgrounds for the different titles. Anyway it is up to taste, so I don't insist. bamse (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC) As with the "1935–1941 break" above, I leave it outside of "resolved comments" in case other reviewers want to comment on it. I don't consider this point crucial. bamse (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Fixed. --TIAYN (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Done The First Deputy was given responsibility over a specific area... and A first deputy was usually given responsibility over one specific area... is repetitive. Possibly merge the second sentence (starting "A first...") into the second paragraph of the lead. Done I don't understand the sentence: Molotov, being one of two first deputies under Joseph Stalin's tenure, nearly lost his position after Stalin took a vacation; Molotov had committed what Stalin saw as policy violations. Can you explain? bamse (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC) I reworded it. Stalin, the Premier, took a vacation which ment as First Deputy Molotov would take up the role as Acting Premier for a while. When Stalin came back from his vacation he found out that Molotov had committed several grave policy errors. --TIAYN (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Done Is the break 1935–1941 explained in the lead?

... no one was elected to the post. Is the reason for that known? bamse (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I don't know, and I haven't found any information regarding it. However, It may have something to do with Stalin's leadership-style, e.g. giving as much power to himself as possible. --TIAYN (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I see. If there are no references, we can't do much about it. I just leave it outside of "resolved comments" in case another referee knows of a reference. bamse (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Think I've found the answer; there were only three Deputies of the Soviet Union (in the immediate post-war years there were 7) between 1935–1941 who held the post simontanously meaning that there was no point in appointing a deputy to the post of first deputy. --TIAYN (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible, but as far as I can see, there were not a whole lot of deputies in 1934/35 either. Anyway, unless there is a source discussing this break, any guess concerning the reason cannot be used in this article. bamse (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Support, still hoping for somebody to dig up a reference that discusses the 1935 break. bamse (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• Done "and in the case of the Premiers absence...". "Premiers" → "Premier's".
• Done At the end of the sentence with the last commented-on part, there's a space between the citation and accompanying page number. I'd remove it, since the other page numbers come with no spaces.
• Done Comma needed after Dmitry Polyansky. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Done Link "plenum"?
• Done "tenurships" I think that's a misspelling.
• What make the following sites reliable (sorry if some of these are obvious, I'm not a Russian speaker):
  • http://www.portrets.ru/5.44.html
  • http://www.pseudology.org/Italy/Poliansky.htm
  • http://www.warheroes.ru/hero/hero.asp?Hero_id=9089 Dabomb87 (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Explanation All three sites are written by a professional staff who backs up their claims by listing references at the bottom of the their articles. One example, on the pseuduology.org article they list the 3rd edition of The Great Soviet Encycloapedia as one of their sources. The two other links also use sources. --TIAYN (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave these unstruck in case someone else wants to discuss the sources, but I'll AGF here and accept that they're as trustworthy as you say they are. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

*Comments: "A total of 26 individuals had held this post. None of them died in office or resigned from it, and 18 of them held other posts simultaneously with their First Deputy Premiership." Since none died/resigned, I'm wondering if it's necessary for inclusion. We could cut that out and splice those two sentences together, which may be cleaner. Only issue I found. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Done --TIAYN (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:54, 14 April 2011 [18].

---

Grammy Award for Best New Age Album

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 18:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe this list meets all FL criteria, and may be one of the best Grammy lists to date! Thanks, as always, to reviewers. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support as long as you fix the reference to "the Ireland" in the lead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

the Done. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments Would prefer to see "Ref." as "Ref(s)" for there are sometimes multiple references, but no major deal. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Ackerman's nationality of German/American, is that cited somewhere? Done. Added Allmusic biography as source. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Is it "Will" or "William" Ackerman? Be consistent. Well, I went with what the source indicated. Even Allmusic's biography is inconsistent. Is it up to me/us to decide one or the other for the sake of consistency, or for us to reiterate what reliable sources tell us? (That is a serious question, by the way.) I am not bothered by the inconsistency, but if it is necessary to be consistent I will change all Wills to Williams since that is the article title. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)\ I'm not bothered what he's called, but ideally, we should be consistent within a single article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC) "William" it is! Thanks. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Not too keen on the "See also" links, Grammy cats are linked in the infobox at the bottom of the article, list of new age music artists is interesting but not directly relevant (imho), new age topics isn't relevant, and "neoclassical" is a little incongruous too, what's the direct relevance to the Grammys? I removed List of Grammy categories and Neoclassical, but left the artists and New Age topics links. I think these are relevant, especially to people unfamiliar with anything "New Age". I will remove other links if additional reviewers find one or both unnecessary. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Thank you much! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Support as usual, a consistently good list, and a consistently appreciate nominator who wants nothing but the best for our lists here. Great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

*Comments Just a general thing - right now I'm on a laptop and all of the images render before the table itself. Not sure if this is a widespread issue or just my computer.... Hmm. Do you encounter the same problem when viewing other Grammy lists? The list format is the same, as far as I can tell. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC) My issue; I suppose I should change my preferences. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC) The lead seems very long. I can appreciate that the award has been around for longer than other categories, but a small trim wouldn't hurt. Nationalities, for example, are a bit trivial. I would prefer not to remove information. The nationality details are included in every other Grammy list with FL status, so it might be best to leave the sentence for the sake of consistency. I am trying to think of a way to re-organize the information so that the lead is not so long... perhaps something similar to Grammy Award for Best Dance Recording. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Add publisher for Allmusic refs (#10/#30) Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC) [19] seems dodgy to me. The '89 awards are already well-cited, so I suggest removing this source. But this is the only source currently being used to verify 'Down in Belgorod'. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC) It doesn't strike me as "high-quality" and reliable. This newspaper article could be a replacement. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 14:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support I'm still not stoked over the length of the lead, but I can see that it's for the sake of consistency. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:09, 8 April 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 00:00, 8 April 2011 [20].

---

List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the East of England

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... This is the fourth in a series of lists of English churches maintained by the Churches Conservation Trust to be submitted at FLC, the previous three having been successful. This list is based closely on the last to be successful, List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the English Midlands. Its format is identical, the first two paragraphs of the lead are identical (the charity's financial details have been updated since the former list was accepted), and the other paragraphs mirror those in the last successful list. The test has been copyedited. Every church in the list is linked to an article, or to part of an article.Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: no disambiguations, no linkrot. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What makes {http://www.druidic.org/camchurch/index.htm] a WP:RS? Likewise {http://apling.freeservers.com/Villages/Islington.htm}, {http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/LIN/Buslingthorpe/#ChurchHistory}, and {http://www.britainexpress.com/attractions.htm?attraction=4079} Jezhotwells (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

An interesting query. To take the sources in the order presented.

The text of {http://www.druidic.org/camchurch/index.htm} (Cambridgeshire Churches) is written by Ben Colburn, Cambridge PhD student [21]. While his pages are not cited, he does give a bibliography [22] which suggests his material is authoritative. Where his material is repeated in other (reliable) sources, it is accurate and I have no reason to suspect that the other material is unreliable.

I do not know anything about {http://apling.freeservers.com/Villages/Islington.htm} but have used it in one article only — to give access to an excerpt from Kelly's directory of 1883. I have no reason to doubt that this is other than a correct transcription of a reliable source.

I thought GENUKI is OK. It is a site mainly of transcribed material from official sources, or for links to such sources. I have used it only in this list (I think) to give the dates that churches were declared redundant where I could not find this info elsewhere.

Britain Express is interesting. There are no references or citations. But it seems to have pages relating to all the churches preserved by the Trust, and in the course of writing the lists and associated articles I must have looked at over 200 of them. Once again, where the material is repeated in other (reliable) sources, it is accurate and I have no reason to suspect that the other material is unreliable.

Having said all that, if there is a consensus among reviewers that these sources (all or some) are unreliable, I am willing to delete their contents from the list. One of the reasons I included them was to provide pieces of information that might interest the reader sufficiently to link to the relevant article. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

''All Saints stands in marchland and has a leaning west tower. "marshland" surely? Jezhotwells (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

A typo. Fixed.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Originating the 12th century, the church was expanded during a time of prosperity in the town in the early 15th century. missing "in", I think. Better might be "Built in". Jezhotwells (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Amended as suggested.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

''Without the help of an architect, this church was designed by its rector, Rev Whitwell Elwin, who borrowed details from other churches in the country. "country" or "county"? Could be better phrased. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Rephrased. It is "country"; Glastonbury, Lichfield, Westminster Palace, and others.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Good, good. i would like to see what others think of the sourcing. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the original source should be cited, whether on or off-line, rather than a transcript. If there is no alternative, then the citation should make it clear that it is a transcript of an original source. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ref amended. Does it work like that?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)CommentSupport This appears to be another excellent addition to the series of FLs (I must declare a bias as I helped with one of them). The lead seems to cover the wide spectrum of items in the list, which itself seems well written and sorts appropriately.

• In some cases the initials of the architect rather than the full name (eg S.S. Teulon for Samuel Sanders Teulon at All Saints, Wordwell and G.E. Street) and I wondered if this was a deliberate policy for some reason? In other cases eg Giles Gilbert Scott & George Frederick Bodley the name is written in full.

• I think this inconsistency arises from the architects themselves (or those who write about them). I have checked this in a volume of Pevsner, and in a book on Victorian architecture. In some cases there are even partnerships where one partner uses full names, and the other just initials. Teulon is usually (if not always) referred to as "S. S.". Scott cannot of course be "G. G." because his son shares the same initials (and the other son is usually referred to as J. Oldrid Scott (not John ...). Having said that Bodley is usually "G. F.", so I have amended that. I think all the architects' names are now in their usual convention.

• In the description of St Mary, East Ruston I wondered why the Four Evangelists had both words in upper case when doctors of the early church is all in lower case?

• Amended.

• Several of the references (eg 249, 259 ) use Britain Express - I believe the reliability of this site has been challenged elsewhere due to concerns about accuracy (although I've never found a problem with it myself), but I don't know what the outcome was.

• See above

• Might be worth asking at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.— Rod ^talk 08:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Query raised as suggested. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Some references eg 280 which are PDF documents, have the "format=PDF" parameter, others eg 176, 271 do not include this & consistency is required.

• Fixed.

I hope some of these minor comments are useful. Generally I think the list has been very well done.— Rod ^talk 21:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both reviewers. I think all the points have been addressed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing these. I am unsure about the Britain Express source so am happy to support.— Rod ^talk 08:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• This looks excellent, and I haven't been able to see anything that leads me to believe I shouldn't support. One question I have about the first sentence - it states "The Churches Conservation Trust, which was initially known as the Redundant Churches Fund, is a charity whose purpose is to protect historic churches at risk, those that have been made redundant by the Church of England". It makes sense as it is, but I was wondering whether it might be split into two sentences or slightly rephrased, as it perhaps seems a little awkward. Slightly unhelpfully, I can't work out how else to phrase it without removing important words (which is probably why it's written that way), so it's not a big issue. The other thing I wondered about is why only Pevsner's The Buildings of England: Hertfordshire is listed in the bibliography when the article mainly covers Norfolk/Suffolk/Cambs, etc. Neither of these things are worth worrying about. I wonder if there's anybody from Bedfordshire willing to take a picture of St George's, Edworth? Rob (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support. Not sure what to do about the first sentence — I'm no copyeditor! There's only one Pevsner because that's all I have — picked up secondhand on holiday some time ago. Yes, it's frustrating to have just one missing photo. But this gives opportunities for other editors to enrich the list (and the associated articles). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Another labour of love! I've had a look through and everything seems to be in order and well-written. A minor nitpick: the Date column has a number of phantom vertical lines on the left (for example, in the entries for the final two churches, and there are others further up). This seems in some way to have been caused by the image in the column to the left. I'm no expert on wikitables, I'm afraid (and the same thing has happened to me when contributing a few images to the currently in-progress List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South East England), but it would be nice if this minor problem could be fixed. --GuillaumeTell 19:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support. Could this be a browser problem? I use Firefox, and there are no such lines. IE problem? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, it could - I have IE8. I'll ask around. --GuillaumeTell 22:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Just noting that I've talked the above over with another IE8 user. He can't see the extra vertical lines that I can see (incidentally, they all seem to appear where the image to the left is in portrait rather than landscape format), so it looks as if the problem is at my end. Clearing the cache and suchlike make no difference. Oh, well. --GuillaumeTell 17:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• NOTE CCT seems to be in the process of changing its website now. On one of my computers (Windows 7) I am still getting the old version, on the other (XP) a new version with totally different URLs for the churches and everything (they had warned me they were going to have a "new website"). And the church descriptions are not the same. So I will have to beg time to update all the CCT links (and maybe amend the Notes section). Oh joy! Going out for a walk now. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• All URLs updated. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Ah well, you ask a question... It seems that websites written and published by an individual are considered to be unreliable sources, unless they are written by an acknowledged academic who has published material in that field. This means that Britain Express and Cambridge Churches are unacceptable as sources — and so of course are the articles written by Simon Knott. So over the weekend I will remove the references and the material they contain that is not available elsewhere.

A thought: we know that there are errors in Pevsner and in ODNB, but they are considered to be reliable sources. We have no evidence that there are errors in the sources I have to delete, but they are unreliable. That's life! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable refs deleted plus two that have become deadlinks since the change of the CCT website.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say that WP:RSN is somewhere to seek third-party opinions rather than a definitive answer, although WP:RS and WP:SPS do seem pretty clear on this. I'm just aware that I'm the only person who replied over there, that's all. WP:V does say that the threshold is verifiability, not truth - but I think you should always try and identify errors if you can, the key of course being that the reader has to be able to verify that something is an error. It occurs to me that if you are able to get the material you've had to reject included in a reliable source, then you'll be able to re-instate it in the article. Maybe there's some mileage in submitting it to one or more of the reliable online sources? It seems a bit of a waste of your hard work, otherwise. Maccy69 (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Maccy69 for that. I appreciate your replying on this page. In making the amendments, not much has been lost in the context of a list. I do understand what you say, and am (sort of) happy to live with it. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments Table caption does not need a full stop. Fixed. "The church dates from about 1100" but previous col says 11th century. (Wordwell) Deleted — conflicting sources. "This is said to be ..." not sure this is totally encyclopedic. Deleted. " a a dole cupboard " odd...! Typo — fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC) I think I have dealt with the above.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments Support

• "There is one church in Georgian style, Old All Saints Church, Great Steeping, one in Palladian style, St Andrew's Church, Gunton, while the newest six churches are Gothic Revival in style.": the commas make this sentence stutter a bit, although it's still easy to understand. Maybe the examples could be put in brackets, or the link changed slightly so that "Old All Saints Church, Great Steeping" becomes "Old All Saints Church in Great Steeping" (although then you might think there are to many "ins" in the sentence).

I think brackets are the better solution, and these have been added. I had been rather "put off" brackets in the lead by an earlier review, but then they were in the first sentence, and I think they work OK here.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Should "Norman conquest" be capitalised?

I should have thought so, but I took the small "c" from Norman conquest of England; maybe it's "wrong" there.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• In the descriptions of individual churches, what do you think about mentioning roughly when when each medieval village because deserted?

The sources I have tend to be very vague about this; in some cases not only the date but the cause(s) — (black death, loss of local manor house, shift of population for economic reasons); too complicated to include in a list (and sometimes too speculative even for a short article).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Not every church has the year it was declared redundant in; when it's not mentioned is this because it's unavailable?

A similar problem — sources available to me. I should have thought they would be readily available from the CCT website, but I cannot find them there. In some cases, I did find a date, but these had to be deleted because the source was deemed to be unreliable (see above).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The lead seems to hit the nail on the head: there's an explanation of the Trust, what it does and how the churches are looked after, and the main trends of the table. The table itself is laid out sensibly, and the descriptions are informative without being overwhelming despite the number of entries. Another very good list. Nev1 (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Sorry I could not give better answers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Further to the above, my attention has been brought to this site from which, I understand, you can deduce the dates of redundancy and vesting. But I wonder if it is worthwhile adding these details to the list. It would add clutter, and I'm not sure that the information provided will be of much use in the list. The information should IMO be contained in the individual articles, but that will take some time to complete. What do reviewers think? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought a lack of information (or simply unclear information) might be the problem, particularly regarding DMVs. If you think that including the year each church was declared redundant will clutter the table and it's the kind of information that is better suited to the individual articles, that's fine by me. I've switched to support. Nev1 (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Looking at MOS:QUOTE, it seems to recommend that a quotation inside a quote, like in the second sentence, be given with a single quote mark, not the regular double. At least that's what I think it says. An excess word needs to be removed in "which was built in in the later part of the 19th century." Minor, but a serial comma would be useful after "three churches in Norwich" since the style is used elsewhere. St. Mary, Moulton: Add "and" before 16th in "The fabric of this church dates from the 12th, 14th, 16th centuries."? St George, Edworth: Add "a" before fragment in "Also in the church is fragment of a 14th-century wall painting". St Mary, East Bradenham: Remove "the" from "and along the both sides..."? (not as sure about this one as I am about the two above) All Saints, Thurgarton: Repeated word needs removal in "and there are are the remains of wall paintings." Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Last 6 points: all fixed. Thanks for spotting these; it's amazing (to me) that such errors persist after so much scrutiny. What you say (about quotes) is correct. But when I went to the source it is no longer there! As I mentioned above, the CCT have changed their website in the last few days, and the quotation is not to be found anywhere on the site. So I had to find the original legislation. To make it more complicated, the 1968 Measure has been consolidated in the 1983 Measure. Anyway, I've amended the first two paras in the lead, with a ref to the 1983 Measure, and dealt with the other consequences in the lead arising from this. I think it works (tell me if it doesn't). I've made similar amendments in the related lists and in the Churches Conservation Trust article. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Hassocks: Almost all points have been covered by earlier reviewers. I just have some small observations: Lead Mention was made above about the commas and brackets in the There is one church in Georgian style... sentence. The commas before the opening brackets should be removed, and and probably works better than while in the context of the whole sentence. almost all of them in Grades I and II* → almost all of them at Grades I and II*. Only the Audley chapel of St Michael's Church, Berechurch has been conserved, the rest of was converted for other uses needs a sharper division between the clauses; I suggest a semicolon. Also, there is a missing word. Table St Denys, Little Barford needs a <br> before its coordinates. Refs Currently, four refs are redirecting to the CCT home page. Some very small glitches: current refs [218] and [223] have extra # symbols at the start, and [212] is missing a closing bracket. Alt text for pics Small typo in St Nicholas' Church, Normanton. All coordinates are pointing to the right places on the generated maps. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Response to Hassocks Thanks for spotting those. The "minor" blips have been corrected. The "major" one is the four refs. They originally went to pages on the old website describing in detail some of the projects carried out by CCT. Now I cannot find them, and I suspect they are no longer available. This means that I have had to delete these refs, and their content where it is not available elsewhere and, in some cases, write new material. Improvements to websites are all very well, but not when they get rid of valuable (to me) information. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Support I look forward to seeing the completed list for my home area! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Support I had a good read through of this about a week ago and meant to comment, but time got away from me. I've gone through it again today and this is another fine list in the series. I believe all issues have been ironed out (although I must admit I didn't catch most of what's been mentioned above) and I can't find anything to oppose over. The prose is detailed and informative, while remaining accessible to the average reader. The table works well and references all look in order now (commiserations about the annoyance of the website changing recently.) I'm afraid the following are the only suggestions I could come up with:

• Have you considered including information about the "B" grade in the explanatory table?

• Yes. This cropped up in the last FLC. Please see the discussion here. It's frustrating, but some Grades have already been reassessed (this is why we use Heritage Gateway rather than Images of England — the later is not, and will not be, updated.

• Ah, that's interesting. Your decision to keep them separate makes sense.--BelovedFreak 11:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• This is very nit-picky, but I find the black border on the image of All Saints Church, Haugham mildly distracting, so much so that I removed it. Would you object to replacing it with File:Haugham Church - geograph.org.uk - 94683 noborder.jpg? :)

• I did not feel this was a problem, but I have changed the image to the one you so kindly amended.

BelovedFreak 17:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to Belovedfreak. Points answered. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:50, 2 April 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 00:00, 8 April 2011 [23].

---

List of longest rivers of the United States (by main stem)

Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles about rivers typically describe the main stem in detail and use the main-stem length as the length of "the river". Confusion sometimes arises about the lengths of rivers because some reliable sources use "the river" to mean the main stem plus other water-body lengths in the river's watershed. Typically, but not always, these other lengths are those of the river's largest upstream fork plus the fork's largest upstream fork and so on to the river's ultimate headwaters. The list I am nominating today compares main stem to main stem and provides data that should not only be useful to readers but also to editors who are working on river articles elsewhere in the encyclopedia. This list employs many of the features of List of longest streams of Oregon. My thanks to User:Ruhrfisch for a helpful peer review. Finetooth (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Nice list, but I have a quick question first: which "non-main-stem" rivers would make it into this list? Nergaal (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. The most striking example that comes to mind is the Atchafalaya River, a distributary of the lower Mississippi River. Its main stem is listed at 224 km, but it's total length (counting upstream to the most remote water source) is 2,261 km. Other rivers that would make the list if measured nose-to-tail include the Mobile, Alabama, Wabash, Tombigbee, Apalachicola, Kansas, and Porcupine, and this is probably not a complete list. Finetooth (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the title of the article is confusing. I think you want to name the article "List of longest rivers in the United States (by main stem)". Nergaal (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's a good suggestion. Before I make the change, I want to know if you think "of" would be better than "in" since some of the rivers on the list are not entirely within the U.S. Would "List of longest rivers of the United States (by main stem)" be better? Finetooth (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• • • • Of would be fine as per precedent with the Oregon list. Nergaal (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Done. Finetooth (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Long or otherwise large rivers like the Atchafalaya, Kansas, Susquehanna, North Canadian, Porcupine, Mobile, Wabash, Willamette, and Kootenay are not included because their main stems are shorter than 800 kilometres (500 mi). needs a citation
  • I shortened the list of examples to three and added a citation for each. Finetooth (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• The list should discuss briefly what is the length distribution below 800 km (about how many rivers are between 500 and 800 for example).
  • I don't know of a source for that information. I have not found a list of river lengths by main stem in any publication, and as far as I can tell, this list is in that sense unique. I tracked down the lengths of the 800 km streams by looking at a lot of maps and tracking down articles about rivers, one by one. To determine the distribution with accuracy, I would need to track down a lot more. In my opinion, the value (to this particular list) of the potential information is not great enough to justify the time it would take to tease it out. Finetooth (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• It might be worth considering having a separate section with the longest rivers not just by main stem (say above 2000 km) for comparison, at the end.
  • The longest 10 rivers in the USGS list by Kammerer are as follows, in descending order: Missouri, Mississippi, Yukon, Rio Grande, St. Lawrence, Arkansas, Colorado, Atchafalaya, Ohio, and Snake. I'm not sure what you mean by "a separate section". This information could be presented in a sentence or two and might work well as a note in the "Notes" section. Any thoughts? Finetooth (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Support All the major issues seem to have been solved. Nergaal (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and your support. I might add that the suggestions you made during the FLC of List of longest streams of Oregon were also helpful to the creation of this list and that I referred to List of Solar System objects in hydrostatic equilibrium and some of your other FLs to see how things might be done. Finetooth (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support As noted, I peer-reviewed this and all of my concerns were addressed in the PR. I think this meets all the FL criteria and am glad to support. I am OK with either title. Nicely done! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your kind words, support, and your helpful peer review. Finetooth (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comments: Impressive list! Just a couple of suggestions...

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

*Please check AE/BE spelling and decide for one or the other (kilometre/meter...) Thanks. I found one "meter" in the lead and changed it to "metre" to match the form of the others. I don't see any more exceptions, but I may have looked at the article too many times now to see it afresh. Do you see any others that I missed? Finetooth (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Found another one, but only checked for "meter" and not any other Americanisms. bamse (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks. I found others, eventually, and I think now we have caught them all. Finetooth (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC) The table is a tiny bit too wide on my (smallish laptop) screen. Can it be fixed? I'm not sure if anything can be done since screens come in a wide variety of sizes and have variable settings. What works best for one setting doesn't seem to work best for another. Someone wiser than I might know of a way, but I don't. Finetooth (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Since there are so many columns, the only solution I can think of is to combine two columns (say "source/mouth coordinates". Anyway it is only slightly too wide and not a big problem. bamse (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC) As I made further changes to the table, I moved the notes to a third line in each box, hoping that this might cut a little slack for the last column. Maybe it looks better now on your screen? I hope. Finetooth (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Too many "rivers" in Mississippi River and Missouri River rivers. Good catch. Thank you. I have tightened the prose to eliminate the duplication. Finetooth (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC) If Ruth Patrick referred to U.S. rivers, this fact should be mentioned: "...describing a table of high-discharge US rivers..." in my opinion. If she referred to non-US rivers, the whole paragraph is slightly less relevant and might be removed. She's mainly talking about U.S. rivers, so I have adopted your suggestion and changed the sentence to say, "... describing a table of high-discharge U.S. rivers". Finetooth (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC) The main stem is "the primary downstream segment of a river, as contrasted to its tributaries", including lakes filled by those tributaries. Not sure whether lakes are included in the main stem or not (i.e. whether the last part of the sentence refers to "tributaries" or to "main stem"). I changed the sentence to read: The main stem is "the primary downstream segment of a river, as contrasted to its tributaries", including lakes. Is that better? Finetooth (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks. bamse (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC) I have since rewritten much of the lead and added to the definition of "main stem" in hopes of making this part more clear. Finetooth (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC) In the table header: "images"->"image" (possibly also "coordinates"->"coordinate") since other headers are singular. I changed "images" to "image" since each row has only one and changed the lead in two places to reflect this change. It might be awkward to change "states" and "provinces" to "state(s)" and "provinces(s)" to cover all situations, but I can change them in this way if you think it would be better. "Coordinates" in this list refers to a matched pair and has to be plural. Finetooth (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks. bamse (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC) In/in the "States, provinces" column... It is in fact a "States, provinces, and images" column. Another good catch. I have changed the lead to match the column heading. Finetooth (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC) As far as I know, every table row should be wikilinked as if it stood on its own, i.e., provinces/states should be wikilinked in every row. Thanks. I have now linked them all. Finetooth (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Are the parentheses in the list's title necessary? I changed the title in response to Nergaal's suggestion above and thought it was an improvement over the former title. Ruhrfisch said above that he was OK with either title. I wouldn't say the parentheses are absolutely necessary, but I can imagine a reviewer asking what a "United States by main stem" might mean. I think the parentheses prevent that. Finetooth (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC) OK. bamse (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Add percentage to note 13 for consistency. Percentage added. Finetooth (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Some images show very little river (e.g. Tennessee River, Little Missouri River). Aren't there any better images? No picture of the White River (South Dakota) available? The image choice is partly a matter of taste. I looked for high-quality images, for example, rather than just using images showing the most river, and I tried to include variety from image to image. In the case of the White River (South Dakota), there are no images on the Commons or in the English Wikipedia, and I found none via Flickr. I would take one myself, but the White River is far far away. Finetooth (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC) OK bamse (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Not too fond about the equation in not 15. I think it should be stated clearly which of the three numbers of that equation referst ot the length of the Red River according to Kammerer. I agree. The equation was clumsy. I have replaced it with a more direct sentence: "Kammerer gives the length as 1,290 miles (2,080 km)". Finetooth (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Not sure why you mention the sources in prose ("The sources for length data include...") since they already appear in the references section. The lead is to be an inviting summary of the whole article. The sentences you mention are summations. It's possible to ferret the information out by looking at the references, but the summary presents the essence in a single place. Finetooth (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Not sure what information the sentence: The table below lists rivers with long main stems, the end points of which are defined by two sets of coordinates. conveys other than that the table lists the longest main stem rivers. It adds the additional information about the coordinates defining the end points. The precision of the coordinates eliminates the guesswork about just exactly where the main stem begins and ends, according to the USGS or the Canadian equivalent. With some rivers, it's pretty easy to guess the approximate source and mouth points, but with others, like the St. Lawrence, it's not easy. Not only is locating the source point of the St. Lawrence more than a map-reading problem, so is locating the mouth point, since the river enters a gulf long before reaching the ocean. The coordinates (assigned by an authority of some sort) define precisely which stream segments the list is referring to. Finetooth (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC) I see. Initially I thought it was some pseudo-scientific fluff as it was not clear to me that the sentence referred to the coordinates in the table. Maybe you could add something like the explanation above to the text!? bamse (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Now that you've put it that way, I've had a change of heart. The offending sentence isn't necessary and is murky in a way that I had not considered. I simply removed it, which I think is what you were suggesting earlier. Finetooth (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC) I think it would make sense to order states/provinces from source to mouth. At least for the Rio Grande this is not the case. Haven't checked the others. I agree, and I think they all are, including the Rio Grande. The Rio Grande begins in Colorado, flows through New Mexico, borders New Mexico and Texas for a short way and then becomes an international border. Texas is on the north, and the four Mexican states are on the south, in the order given. Am I missing something? Finetooth (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC) If they were ordered, I believe that Texas and Tamaulipas (those with superscript "m") should be closer together. bamse (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC) They can't be closer together without distorting the source-to-mouth sequence. I understand why this is confusing, but I don't think the confusion can be helped. File:Riogranderivermap.png shows why. Texas is so big that it precedes all of the Mexican states and also borders all of them, to the very end of the river; it is third in order and also last in order. Finetooth (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Oops, indeed. Didn't realize that Texas is that biiig. bamse (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Use either "cu m/cu ft" or "m3 /ft3". Also you mix "miles" (spelled out) and "km" (abbreviated), etc. (for instance in note 4). It's my understanding that in geoboxes and tables the units are best abbreviated, but in the main text and notes the preferred method is to spell out the primary unit and abbreviate the secondary unit. I have tried to do this consistently throughout the article. Finetooth (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Sounds reasonable as for the second part. But why use two types of abbreviations ("cu m/cu ft" or "m3 /ft3")? bamse (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC) bamse (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC) You are quite right, and I simply did not see them on the first go-round. I entered the quantities and units by hand in the table rows and used the shortest possible common abbreviations to save space. In the text and notes, I used the {{convert}} template, which is much more efficient than entering everything by hand. The template is programmed to spell out and abbreviate in just one way, and it's not always the shortest common way. So, yes, the two sets of abbreviations differ from one another. I can change all of the notes and text abbreviations by hand, if you insist, but my feeling is that no readers will be confused by the two sets of abbreviations since they are both common and mean the same things. Let me know if you disagree, and I will change them. Finetooth (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC) It would be nice to have the same abbreviation everywhere but it is not essential as for me. Only change it if you feel bored. I'd vote support now, but will have a second (quick) look over it in a couple of days. I am pretty sure that it is FL-quality. One quick question: Why does the first column have a grey background? bamse (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC) I have now changed them all in addition to switching from metric first to metric second throughout the article. Finetooth (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your kind words and your helpful suggestions. I'm not bored. Your question about the grey background is a good one and not something I'd thought about. I tend to imitate things that look good to me, and I certainly did not invent the table parameters. I cast about for something that looked appealing and then used it, making modifications where necessary as I went along. I can't say that I consciously saw the grey before you mentioned it; it just seemed natural. Do you think I should figure out how to make it go away? Do you know how to do that? Finetooth (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC) As for me the background is fine. I was just wondering whether there was a reason for it. Honestly looking at the table code, I don't know how it got there. Maybe through ! scope="row"!? If so, don't remove it since it is important for WP:ACCESS.bamse (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC) OK. Thanks. Finetooth (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Support after having had a second look. Just one minor issue: the whole table seems to have a blue-greyish background color which is not necessary and makes the cells with "Watershed is not entirely within the United States." harder to distinguish from the rest. I'd change the background to just plain white because of that. bamse (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful review and for your support. I have added "background:#fff;" to the table code, which I think is how to change to plain white (though I'm not quite sure). Feel free to make alterations. Finetooth (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. bamse (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Have a long review on this talk page (Andy-Sandy said my reviews went to long for FAC). I really think this is a cool topic, why I bothered to review, and I'm just sort of a nitpicker. So please don't let longness bug you. And they are all suggestions.TCO (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but which talk page do you mean? How do I find your review? Finetooth (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

[24] TCO (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments I moved the nomination as the page seemed to have been moved around a week ago, hope that's okay? Yes. Thank you. I wasn't sure how to do that and thought it might happen automatically. Finetooth (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Perhaps this has been commented on before but it does seem a little odd that a US article has metric measurements first. Perhaps that's a result of the sources? Yes, it is odd, and it is because most of the sources use metric. It was a thoughtful decision (not a mistake) on my part to follow the sources rather than to stick with the normal pattern of imperial first in U.S.-centric articles. This issue comes up from time to time, and I'm not advocating (or implying advocacy) for a general switch to metric first in other U.S.-centric articles. It just happens that the hydrographers I cite generally expressed things in metric units, and I didn't feel comfortable about saying otherwise. I don't think that U.S. readers will find the reverse order hard to follow. Finetooth (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC) On the other hand, I'm tired of swimming against the current, and I make mistakes, and I'm not always right, and perhaps this is not the best forum for a metric–imperial debate, and even if it were, I'm not sure I should be sitting in the front row of the debating hall. Give me a couple of days, and I'll reverse the order to imperial first, metric second. Finetooth (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Now done. Finetooth (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC) My "tool" says there's a dab link in the article somewhere, but I can't find it... helpful, eh?! Actually helpful. It was the second link to Washington, which should have been (and now is) Washington (state). Finetooth (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Saint Lawrence vs St. Lawrence, I'd be consistent. Thank you. Good catch. I have changed all to Saint rather than St. Finetooth (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC) "the drainage basins (watersheds)" since you link drainage basin, is there any real need to add (watershed) afterwards? You are right; it is redundant, and I have removed the parenthetical. Finetooth (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC) ""km" for "kilometre", "mi" for "mile", "s" for "second", "m" for "metre"," surely, surely, as a USENG article, km should be kilometer, and m should be meter?! Yes. The trap I fell into was relying on the {{convert}} template which does this: 10 kilometres (6.2 mi). It works well for the Europeans but not so well for us Yankees. bamse noted this too, as well as the related inconsistency you note in your next comment. I am going to change them all today to make them consistent. Finetooth (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Now done. Finetooth (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC) You have cubic feet per second abbreviated in the table but not in the footnotes. I would be consistent. Agreed and working on it. Finetooth (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC) And done. Finetooth (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC) External links looks a little odd as there aren't any but those in the templates. Any chance of putting the templates in the preceding section? TCO found them odd too. I will work on an alternative. Finetooth (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC) I couldn't figure out any way to make it fit or to take it apart. I deleted it. Finetooth (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Thank you very much for your helpful comments and suggestions. Please let me know if anything is still amiss. Finetooth (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose.

• The good: this is a very important article and the writer has done a service in digging through the maps and in comparing sources and in describing disagreements of the sources.
• The lacking:
  • First paragraph does not well cover the list concept (most of it is on a measurement issue rather than the content of the list). Also the last sentence has nothing to do with the measurement issue (but is ambiguously confusing).
    • Butting in - there are several ways to define the length of a river. Since this list uses the length of the main stem in terms of river miles, shouldn't the lead define these? Quoting from WP:WIAFL Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. Also please see WP:MOSBEGIN about the first paragraph of the lead: The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic.. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
      • The first sentence is good. It can go fine with a general description of the list or with the measurement stuff. I like the first sentence a lot.
      • The next few sentences (the measurement issue) should be moved lower down into the lead. You are starting off as if this measurement issue is the key thing, rather than the rivers themselves (oh and we happen to have a measurement issue). So, yes, COVER the measurement issue. But not with such prominence. There is no intention to do a different list with extended stem measurements and no separate list with them. Move it down and be less defensive about it. Main stem is basically the COMMON sense way to measure the river. Tennessee ending at the Ohio, not going to New Orleans. Missisissippi starting in MN, not MT. I totally WANT that content as useful insight. Just not so prominent.

I have substantially re-written the lead to address this suggestion. Is that better? Finetooth (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• • • • Regardless, the last sentence in that para has nothing to do with the measurement issue (rivers that misssed the cut), so it is not part of a unified paragraph. It's actually about the content of the list (rivers themselves). Good writing has unified paragraphs. And to boot, the sentence is so worded that it's not completely clear that it's NOT part of the "what's main stem versus what's extended stem" heart of that paragraph. Also, the last sentence of that paragraph does NOT fit into a discussion of the measurement issue, but confusingly so. Let's not have another rhodocene, Ruhrfish.TCO (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ditto for this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Images are not "best work". There is free photo content available per Google where we have the map. There is even better content (probably) available by writing and asking for donations (hunting pictures from blogs). No effort seems to have been made even to use cropping so that the images are viewable (see Mississippi). And the author responded to criticism of the images by saying that is subjective (yes it is, but that is not an excuse for not trying our best...if this were the NYT, they would want good photos, saying "it's subjective" would not cut it with the editor).
    • How is this an actionable request? There is even better content (probably) available... When I did the peer review, I looked on Flickr for free images of the White River (South Dakota) but found none. If you know of free images that should be used instead, please provide specific links. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
      • What is not actionable about cropping? Download the thing, open it in MS Paint, crop. Save as. Reload to Commons as derivative work. Mississipi image is not even viewable now. Might as well just have a link instead of a picture.
      • Do a Google search for images and use advanced settings and click the button on license that says for commercial use with modification. You'll get some NASA images. Better than your map at least.
      • There are also some very nice hunting pictures of the river. I OFTEN find an email to an individual will get a donation. If you've never tried it, give it a shot.
      • I readily get the impression that the goal here is not to do everything we can to make a great article, FOR THE READER but to have arguments about "what we should have to do". The comment about images being subjective fit right into that. YES. I agree images are subjective, but that does not mean we can't get a group of people and get pretty ready agreement about what's good and bad. That almost sounded like we could put anything up and no one can criticize it, and we don't have to try to do our best since it's subjective anyway! That would not cut it for featured content in a book, magazine article, newspaper, etc. We are trying to look good. Look...I'm VERY sympathetic to the argument that we can't find better images and willing to pass an FA/FL that just does not have professional quality photography...IF WE TRIED OUR HARDEST. But when we have this "it's subjective" legalistic argument...no sympathy for that. That's the argument to make when you have GREAT images, but the reviewer is just being diffucult. But not the argument when you did the best you could, but they're still not great looking. And I think when you can't SEE the river in an image, that is pretty clearly not as good an illo. So, I'd be sympathetic with a comment that says, X, Y, and Z images are not as good as I'd like, but I can't get any better. That at least shows that he cares about the reader experience, thought about it, tried to fix it. But when he just says it's subjective...that comes across like the source-kilometers excuse (one book on North America, not the practice in the United States, USGS, or even our U.S. river articles on Wiki).
        • I have uploaded two satellite photos of the White River and found two more of the river itself on Commons. All of them and the map are shown in a gallery on this FLC talk page for a consensus decision.
        • TCO, as for File:Lake Itasca Mississippi Source.jpg, I literally do not know how you want it to be cropped. When I look at it, it clearly shows the Mississippi River flowing out of Lake Itasca.It has been used on the Main Page here in a WP:DYK and it is used about 66 times on about 38 different Wikipedias, including 10 times on the English Wikipedia (see here). So all of this shows me that there are a lot of editors here and elsewhere who think it is a useful picture. I would still be interested to see your crop. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

TCO, I don't agree that the Mississippi image needs cropping. You didn't say how you would crop it, but I have to assume that you would like it better with less sky. I don't agree. If I were working for the The New York Times, an editor would not be likely to say to me "Mississipi image is not even viewable now. Might as well just have a link instead of a picture." You probably do not work for the Times, and you are not my boss. Finetooth (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Kilometers first. Just shows a lack of perspective...every US river article on Wiki uses miles, we have "river miles" as a concept, USGS uses miles, published maps in the United States use miles, etc. And the in-text rationale seems strange to have in article.
    • Finetooth said to The Rambling Man (above) that the article was going to be switched to miles first. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
      • OK.TCO (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Some concerns on the table (see reverse). I'm not an expert, so not saying for sure my fixes are the way to go, but would feel better if a table expert like Jack or Rexx agreed with some of the choices like mashing states and image in same column, especially.

I'm not a table expert either, and if Jack or Rexx made suggestions here, I'd be inclined to take their advice. However, when you say "mashing states and image in the same column", you invite an angry response. When you put the case in that way, my instinct is to reject it out of hand and to conclude that you are not a skilled reviewer. Unfortunately, I got so cross about this and other language in your review (such as the "excuse" comment and the odd statements about Mexicans, Germans, and Canadians) that I lost my temper and replied in kind with mocking replies to your mocking comments. Do you think it's possible for us to start over and simply address the issues and not each other's credentials or motives? Finetooth (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Some other places, like cutting the parts of the reference discussion that were non-value add, where a change was said to be made, but I'm not seeing it.
    • Could you please be more specific / provide a diff? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
      • The non-insightful text on sourcing. He said he would clip it. It's not gone.TCO (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that has now been addressed. Other than unresolvable disagreements about aesthetics, TCO, do you have any remaining issues? Finetooth (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

TCO (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to TCO. I am not sure what I have done to stir up your anger, but I do not want to continue to anger you or to distract from the business of this FLC. As far as Rhodocene goes, it is a FA which I supported and you did not comment on in FAC - I fail to see its relevance to this article or FLC. Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Support - well done, meets FL criteria, very interesting. We're always taught that the Mississippi is the longest, but a little research disproves it. Dincher (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and support. It has certainly been an interesting undertaking. Finetooth (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support - excellent, informative, and visually appealing list. Clearly took a lot of work, beyond simply rehashing a single source's chart. A couple comments to go along with my support...
• I imagine you can have a mouth without it being a delta. Is river delta the best place to link to in the lead?
• Three—the Milk, and Saint Lawrence rivers and the Red River of the North - Seems like a stray comma floating about here, but I'm not entirely sure.
• The |thumb| format of the pictures seems a bit unnecessary... would it be possible to make them simple thumbnails?

Nice work. Juliancolton (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I took your advice in each of the three cases and made the changes you recommended. Thank you for your kind words and support. Finetooth (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – I found a couple of spacing inconsistencies in what is otherwise good work. For consistency, note 23 should have a space after the comma, and reference 118 should have a space between the period and page number. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I fixed these and a couple of others that were lurking elsewhere in the refs. Finetooth (talk) 17:20, 25 March 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 00:00, 8 April 2011 [25].

---

List of Atlanta Braves first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Courcelles 01:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

29 of 31. Only the White Sox and the Giants to go in this Featured Topic drive. Though there's no hall-of-famers here, this is a more accomplished list of players than some of these have been. Enjoy. Courcelles 01:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

*Comments: "The franchise has drafted eight players from colleges or high schools in the state of Florida, more than any other." more than any other state. The players drafted from Puerto Rico and Canada should get a mention in the lead. "The Braves have held the first overall pick once, which they used to select Horner." They had it twice actually; used it on Horner and Jones. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Taken care of all of those, thanks. (I'll go wipe the egg off my face for that Chipper Jones mistake...) Courcelles 04:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Now to go work on the White Sox list. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

  As a further comment, there's enough room for an extra picture addition if you desire; both Wainwright or Heyward would be good options there. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  Good catch. Our picture of Wainwright isn't very good, (being mostly of his back) but Heyward is a good addition, and there's something interesting to say about him, too. Courcelles 16:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - best I could do...!

• Shouldn't "a no hitter" be "a no-hitter"?

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Seen it both ways, but since our article is at no-hitter, makes sense to do it that way. Done. Courcelles 20:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Support gah, very good indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• After "Two selections have come from outside the 50 United States", shouldn't there be a colon instead of a comma? Also, I'm not sure the number is needed with the country there.
• There are a couple of capitalized Awards that could stand to be in blue with their respective links. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Done both. The reason I have "50 United States" is because the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is part of the United States, so without the 50 the sentence becomes a bit nonsensical (or requires a discussion of the political status of the COPR.) Courcelles 20:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Same as above: having some quantification of the importance of the first round pick vs other rounds by say looking at the median salary would be nice. Nergaal (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • And then? Draw our own conclusions? Looks like WP:OR to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

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