Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2012

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:08, 25 July 2012 [1].

---

ICC Women's Cricketer of the Year

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 19:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets the FL criteria. It is loosely based off some similar awards FLs. Harrias ^talk 19:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments " typically August to August" you need to run that by me again! Do you mean "the calendar year from August to July"? If only it were that simple. It runs from a specific date in August to a specific date the following August, but oddly, the specific dates seem to vary each year: "August 11, 2010 - August 3, 2011" for Stafanie Taylor, but "24 August 2009 to 10 August 2010" for Shelley Nitschke. I assume it is done so that it doesn't stop midway through a series or tournament possibly? Hence why I've had to say August to August! If you can think of a better way of phrasing it I would be grateful! Harrias talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Perhaps "from August for a year" or something?! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Have rephrased this slightly based upon your suggestion, how is it now? Harrias talk 21:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Did you?! Forgive me, I am on holiday but what did you change?! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Uhmm. Apparently not. I wrote something really smart sounding too, and can't remember it now. I've put your suggestion in ad verbatim. If I remember what I put before, I might change it to that again (and it may notice this time.) Strange. Harrias talk 22:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure how you'd do it, but it may be worth considering adding a set of statistics for each one for the year that they won the award, because I don't know, for example, how many matches the women play? I think it would be very difficult to do that and maintain an appropriate width to the table while keeping it sortable. I think this information is presented reasonably in the rationale section, and the focus in that section is on the average, which shouldn't give too much advantage to those playing more or less matches. An entirely seperate statistics table could be created, but I think it would then make it a completely different article; I think the focus should be more on the winners than the anaylsis of their performances itself. Harrias talk 21:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Understood, and no need to present undue weight to analysis. I guess I'm ignorant to women's cricket mostly, and since I'm pretty keen on men's cricket, this feels a little odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Could add alt text to image. Done. Harrias talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Link ICC in the lead somewhere! You have "Since 2009" before "Prior to 2009"... I would reverse this so it's in chronological order. Done. Harrias talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC) "has been given out," ->"has been presented"? "without having won the award" -> "without winning the award" Done. Harrias talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Ref -> Refs. Done. Harrias talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC) A caption for the table wouldn't go amiss (for our WP:ACCESS friends). Done. Harrias talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Rolton has "runs" linked, no-one else seems to. Table is sortable so link each time or not at all. Check for this in the table for wickets as well. And check other terms! Done. Harrias talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC) You use ODI without explaining it. Done. Added a note at the start of the section. Harrias talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Ref 17 is a note, not a ref. Renamed the section rather than having it on its own for visual purposes, though I can switch it over easily enough if you think it appropriate. Harrias talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Stef Taylor, although I've never seen any mandatory requirements for it, I'd prefer to see the refs in numerical order. Done. Rearranged. Harrias talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Consider if it would be appropriate to add Category:Cricket lists here. Done. Added. Harrias talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – In the first sentence of the 2010 winner's summary, I believe "average" is supposed to be "averaged". That's all from me. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, fixed. Harrias ^talk 14:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Comments Should 'short-listed' require a hyphen? In this case it should be one worded (shortlisted) Our article is at short list, so I would say no? Removed hyphens wherever I'd accidentally put them in. Harrias talk 14:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Ref 22 needs capital letter on October Lemonade51 (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks, sorted. Harrias talk 14:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Lemonade51 (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ZiaKhan 05:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments Just minor ones. You may separate Note from the References. In this case the only note is a very reference related one, so I don't see any advantage in splitting it out. Harrias talk 22:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Add a template at the end of the list. Any particular template you have in mind? We have thousands on Wikipedia.. Harrias talk 22:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC) You may add {{Template:International women's cricket}}. ZiaKhan 11:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks, added. Harrias talk 12:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Use work parameters in the References. I disagree, in this case all of the "works" are more or less the publishers of the site: ESPNcricinfo is published by ESPN and BBC Sport is published by the BBC, but both of those are very self-explanatory, and do not, I feel need a seperate clarification. The ICC self-publishes as does the ECB. Harrias talk 22:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC) You may link "ESPNcricinfo", International Cricket Council" and "BBC Sports". Done. Harrias talk 22:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Add an accessdate in Ref# 19. Done. Harrias talk 22:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC) ZiaKhan 16:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Remove the "]" at the end of refs. ZiaKhan 12:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Done. Harrias talk 13:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Nice work. Meets the criteria. ZiaKhan 05:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:08, 25 July 2012 [2].

---

Boden Professor of Sanskrit

Nominator(s): Bencherlite^Talk 21:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Back in the days of the ever-expanding British empire in the 19th century, an army officer called Boden left a small fortune to Oxford University to establish a Sanskrit professorship. But there was an overt purpose: not scholarship for its own sake, but scholarship with the purpose of bringing Christianity to India. Over time, this all got a bit embarrassing, and not without a major fight between scholarship and religious fervour at one election (see Boden Professor of Sanskrit election, 1860 now at WP:GAN (hint, hint) - spoiler alert, religious fervour wins...). Nowadays the professor teaches Sanskrit without worrying about whether his scholarship is going to convert the masses. This started life as an attempt to fill a couple of redlinks on previous lists, and as usual I ended up having to write a couple of articles about missing professors to make it complete. Apologies to TRM that it's another dark blue list; I'll do something for Cambridge one of these days. Enjoy! Bencherlite^Talk 21:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Some quickies another nice bit of work, I enjoyed reading it and despite my natural inclination to incinerate the article, I've provided some "constructive" comments herewithbelow: Our article (specifically about the British Army) seems to use Lieutenant colonel (note both link and capitalisation). Just a thought. A Google Books search for usage at the time has "LC" and "L-C", the ODNB has "l-c" (but not as a title), so there are multiple ways... In fact, the source given by the WP article on LC(UK) is this one, which uses "LC", so I'll stick with what I've got apart from refining the link as you suggest. B You haven't linked "sanskrit" early doors. Done. B And "a Sanskrit chair " may be a little odd to most people who recognise that a chair is something one place's one's backside on.... Done. B "by Convocation (a large body of Oxford graduates)" judging by our article, Convocation is not just about Oxford grads which this note seems to imply. removed from the lead, because it's too complicated to explain in brackets there. We need a decent article on the topic for Oxford. B "The first two professors were elected by Convocation (a large body of Oxford graduates). Horace Hayman Wilson won by a narrow majority in 1832" mildly confused (I know, I would be) but on nearly immediate retrospect, perhaps put a semi-colon instead of a full stop here so we know the first two profs are the two you go on to talk about in the following sentences... I used a colon instead. B Just a note, I love the fact that the lead image photo was taken by Lewis Carroll. Fantabulous. Indeedy. B "when the university statutes were revised," is there a good link for uni statutes? Or more specifically those dark blue stats? We need some decent articles on 19th-century reforms at Oxbridge (note to self), and there's no useful link I can find. B Consider linking British India. Changed "India" to "British India" on first appearance and linked. B "has held the chair for the longest period" is period really needed? period B "(professor 1860–1899)" followed by "Since 1882, the professors have been appointed as fellows of Balliol College, Oxford" seem strange to me, what has 1882 go to do with it if the prof ruled supreme from 1860 to 1889? Shifted to the previous para and reworded. When the university commissioners were rewriting the regulations of the university and its colleges, Monier suddenly found himself a fellow of Balliol midway through his professorship. Lucky chap. B " His daughter Elizabeth died in August 1827, ..." don't easily see the relevance, since original Boden died 16 years prior to this. Yeh, but no, but yeh, but the thing is, like, yeh, like the money didn't go to Oxford when Boden died in 1811, but only when his daughter died in 1827 - it's the reason why there's such a long gap between the colonel's death and the professorship's birth. Not as exciting as the litigation about Downing College, Cambridge, I suspect... B "As the religious historian Gwilym Beckerlegge has put it," seems odd "has put it", maybe "notes" or "states"? Done. B Youse use fellow and Fellow (sorry, Jamie Carragher just appear on my TV, so I've slipped into Scouse innit?) I've got Alan Green on in the background AND IT'S SO TEMPTING TO SHOUT ALONG WITH HIM as I listen to England being awful. Think it's consistent now. B Why not "Monier Monier-Williams" per his article? (And because I love the splendidly stupid repetition....) Ah, this is fun. He was "Monier Williams", then he was knighted for the first time in 1886, becoming "Sir Monier Williams", then was knighted again (for luck) the following year as a Knight Commander of the Order of the Indian Empire (KCIE) and then changed his name so that he was "Sir Monier Monier-Williams", probably because it sounded better. So, I've called him "Monier Williams" as that's what he was when he was appointed and for the majority of his time as professor. Does that make sense, Sir Rambling Rambling-Man? B " and credited his victory to the university's realisation that it was the last chair in Sanskrit left in the United Kingdom." (lead) vs "and credited his victory to the university's realisation that it was the last chair in Sanskrit left in the United Kingdom" => so repetitive, I called Legal aid to help me sue.... When one reaches perfection... hey-ho, reworded for variety. B "Educated at schools in England and Balliol," reads odd, like Balliol could be a country. It just thinks it is. Excised. B A lot of X University where our articles are University of X. Any reason why? None that survives your scrutiny... B Ref 10 has a raw URL. Is that because of a template? I would avoid the template or change the template if we have to put up with grubby text like that...... No, it was because I forgot that the "jstor" parameter just takes a number not a full url. B

• Support dirty as it makes me feel. Great work!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support – No concerns. Great list, meets the criteria. ZiaKhan 19:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• Is "of" missing from "removed all mention Boden's original purpose from the statutes"?
• In note 2, is "updating" supposed to be "updated"? Giants2008 (Talk) 00:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, fixed. Well spotted!
  • Either works in Br. Eng. Bencherlite^Talk 10:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Support - Overall looks great; I just have one minor comment that doesn't affect my support:

• Do we know which battalion/regiment of the Bombay Native Infantry Boden served in? It looks like there are quite a few to choose from.

I also made a couple of minor tweaks to the article; please check to see that I didn't inadvertently change any meaning. Nice work, Dana boomer (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• • The source says "His name was borne at various times on the rolls of the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 9th native infantry" but there doesn't seem to be a decent target for that. Your c/e was fine. Thanks for that and for your support. Bencherlite^Talk 06:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:08, 25 July 2012 [3].

---

List of National Natural Landmarks in Michigan

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Another one in my Michigan series... This one is a bit on the short side, with only 12 entries, but I still believe it meets 3.b. I haven't been able to think of anything else to add to the lead or the individual entries, but if you see something that I've missed please let me know! Thanks in advance for your comments, Dana boomer (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Albacore (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

;Comments: A DAB link Fixed. - DB Why do we need the first column for the numbers? This is the way it is done in every NNL/NHRP/NHL, etc list on WP (I had nothing to do with that, I'm just working with what was there). I'm not sure I want to remove it without a further consensus... - DB Date formatting on reference three Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers it is acceptable to have publications dates in one format (month day, year) and access dates in another (yyyy-mm-dd). - DB Not convinced the image column is needed; the four images could be presented larger off to the right hand side of the table Done. - DB Abbreviate NNL in the first sentence, almost 600 United States National Natural Landmarks (NNLs) Done. - DB Albacore (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Support Albacore (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ruby 2010/2013 21:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Ruby2010 As Albacore said above, it would be better if you indicated what NNL stands for -> example: National Natural Landmarks (NNL)... Done. - DB This link tells me that "the page cannot be displayed" It appears just fine for me. Are you still having trouble accessing it today? - DB Use consistent date formatting (2012-06-07 vs. May 12, 1999). Ruby 2010/2013 22:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers it is acceptable to have publications dates in one format (month day, year) and access dates in another (yyyy-mm-dd). - DB

Albacore and Ruby, thank you very much for your comments. I have left completed most of the requested repairs, and have left individual replies above. I apologize for taking a couple of days to get back to you on these - RL has been a bit busy :) Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Support the promotion of this nomination. Ruby 2010/2013 04:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments None of the NPS links work for me yet ("... unavailable...") so if you could ping me at some point, I'd like to check the sources! They seem to be back up and running now? Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Cool, seems to work fine. Now I can see it, I suggest you individually reference the landmarks using specific page numbers of that publication. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC) The information in the table is found on three pages within the document, so I've just added page numbers to the general ref. I think individually referencing the landmarks would be really repetitive, given the small number of pages that the information is pulled from. Dana boomer (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC) I also note that some of the precise names of the landmarks differ in that publication from those we have here. Is there a reason for that? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC) I've double checked the landmark names and tweaked a couple of them - I had just been working with what was on the list when I started. Dana boomer (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Another thing to consider, the format and refs for the geo-location of each landmark. I don't know where they're referenced (I guess they're not) but despite that, they have differing formats and levels of accuracy (e.g. compare Tobico Marsh – degrees, minutes, seconds – with Porcupine Mountains – degrees, minutes – with Toumey Woods – degrees, decimal degrees to 5 and 4 d.p respectively &ndash with Dukes Research area – degrees, decimal degrees to 2 and 5 d.p. respectively) and wonder also about the symbols you use for degrees and minutes (I think we tend to go for " and ' rather than the slightly slanted ones you're using?). And is specific ref 1 any different from the general ref? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Ref #1 is the same document, but with an extra page added. With the geo-location, part of the issue is that the size of the various landmarks varies significantly, so some geolocations can be more specific than others. Another part of the issue is that I haven't been able to find specific geolocations for some of them, so have used the geolocation of the state park/recreation area/whatever that they are located in. The symbols for degrees and minutes is a function of the {{coord}} template, so that's not me :) I'll check into how to switch from decimal points to degrees/minutes and work on standardizing those in a bit. Dana boomer (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC) OK, I've figured out how to convert coordinates, and so the list should now be standardized. Please let me know if there are any other issues you see. Dana boomer (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC) I agree with the comment above about the number column. It seems meaningless to me as it seems to sort identically with the name of the landmark. Plus, there's the added confusion that it could be misconstrued as the order in which the Landmarks were recognised (if one doesn't pay much attention to lead, of course). I've removed the numbers column. Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC) "while the latest, the" -> "while the most recent"? Done. Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC) To bulk up the list, I note you have in the lead who owns the various landmarks, presumably this information could be added to the table? Added. Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Our article on the Black Spruce Bog area is called "Waterloo State Recreation Area " so which is right? Or is it that the area was "recognised" when it was called the Black Spruce Bog? Black Spruce Bog is a part of the Waterloo State Recreation Area, and the bog is the only portion of the WSRA that was recognizes as a NNL. Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Be consistent and link every linkable item each time in this sortable table (e.g. beech-maple forest). I've beefed up the linking - please let me know if it's too much or still not enough. Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC) "Michigan's last virgin beech-maple forest" forgive me (and perhaps the NPS source would tell me) but precisely what do you mean here by "virgin"? It's another term for "old-growth". I've linked to virgin forest. Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC) I can't get ref 3 either, but it looks like another NPS link so why isn't NPS mentioned in the ref as the publisher? It's a PDF of the pertinent Federal Register, which is a government-published journal. The NPS is just hosting it. Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Thank you very much! I believe I have addressed everything above. Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support looking good to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - You need to add the parameter |format=PDF to the refs that are PDFs. NapHit (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, NapHit! Dana boomer (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• A couple of the table descriptions have the phrase "impressive", which may or may not strike some as POV. Just throwing it out there.
• Two entries have "One of southern Michigan's last virgin beech-maple forest"; in both cases, the last word should be plural (it has to be if we have two of them in this list :-))
• In the general reference and cite 1, the page ranges need en dashes. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Giants, thank you for your comments, and I apologize for taking a couple of days to get back to you. I believe I have now addressed the issues above; please let me know if there's anything I didn't catch. Dana boomer (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:08, 25 July 2012 [4].

---

List of Queens Park Rangers F.C. players

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it's now comparable to the FLs on the same subject. This one has been a long time coming - I've been gradually adding the players from Macey's Queens Park Rangers: The Complete Record over a series of months whilst working on other articles. As that book contains records up until 2009, I used the Soccerbase website to over the three seasons since as it had been used in previous player list FLs. The unusual thing to note in this is that Macey includes wartime matches in his tally, and therefore I've included them here (and have included a note on the article to say so). Miyagawa (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments "Gareth Ainsworth played for QPR for seven years, in over 150 matches" needs a full stop. The hat note could use some elegant pipe linking so I don't have to see "Category:" or "#..." Suggest you expand football to "association football" in the lead. Think the lead could be expanded a bit, it's two brief paras, I think it should be three decent paras... "more than 1100 players" I won't fall on any sword for it, but in BritEng I'd expect to see that written as 1,100. "Statistics correct as of end of 2010-2011 season" seems oddly positioned, needs an en-dash and is usually indented by one colon in most articles I've seen. "the country/countries" is this necessary, are there any multiple country reps? Struway2 would be upset if somebody didn't say "Pre-1960s" and "Post-1960s", so what about the actual 1960s? How is the position of each player referenced? Current -> current (or just leave it –) Key says Sub, table says Subs. In fact, the "Table headers" (which I imagine would be better as Key) is missing several of the items in the table headings. Check all image captions. Complete sentences need a full stop. Waddock - "1992-1992" ? Our article on Shittu says he's a free agent, not a QPR player. "Official Website" could be "official website". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Sorry about the delay in responding, I'd made the changes a week ago and had completely forgotten to leave a note! I've made the changes as suggested - the Waddock thing was because he joined and left during the same year, which I've changed to just "1992" instead. As for the positions, the position numbers for the players are included in the source - based on the typical tactics played then (which was usually a 2-3-5 formation believe it or not) the positions for those players which don't have articles can be determined - however where the articles exist, the positions are based off there (or at least they should be!). Miyagawa (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

;Comments from Arsenikk (talk) Need to place QPR in parenthesis behind the full name to its obvious what it is an abbreviation for, or rephrase the one instance it is used London FA -> London Football Association Comma after 'Alan McDonald' 'third highest' -> 'third-highest' Endash, not hyphen, after 'name' in the key Don't think the key should be in bold Link '1939–40 season' to 1939–40 Football League 'substitute' should link to substitute (association football) Ernie Howe is listed as LB, which is not in the key I find center-aligning text disturbing to read. I know other people might disagree, but especially when there is a flag there it looks messy and slows reading. Esthetically I don't think it is an issue as the row to the left has the same alignment. Otherwise looks good. Arsenikk (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Made the changes as noted, and aligned the countries column to the left. Miyagawa (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments Any reason why there is no image in the lead? Ideally I'd like it to be one of the players mentioned in the lead, so either Tony Ingham, Alan McDonald, George Goddard, Brian Bedford or Don Givens. I'd even take Marc Bircham due to his uniqueness in the list - but there isn't any free use images avaliable of those on commons (that I'm willing to use - there is one of Alan McDonald but I don't trust that it's free use as there is no source information given). I am still searching for an appropriate image - I had similar problems with the Scottish National team hattricks article and one eventually turned up. I'm thinking that an image of one of the earlier players to make the list or a photo showing multiple players would also be appropriate. Miyagawa (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC) I would align Goalkeeper, Forward, and utility player centrally so its clear those positions apply to both pre and after 1960s Done. Miyagawa (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Frank McLintock, William Coward and Samuel Abel do not sort correctly by position Fixed - it was actually Warren Neill who was wrong rather than Samuel Abel, and was pushing Abel out of the correct position. Miyagawa (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Arsenikk commented that substitute should be linked and you've said you addressed all the issues but I still se it unlinked I misunderstood and linked to it in the lead - its now also linked in the key. Miyagawa (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Would add a sentence to the end of the substitute key description stating that substitutes were not introduced in the football league until the 1960s I saw that something along those lines was in the Liverpool table linked to below, so copied it over to this one too. Miyagawa (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Also something stating the changes in the names of position, basically add the third bullet under the players section in this list Done. Miyagawa (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments – "Queens Park Rangers's record appearance-maker is Tony Ingham". Don't think the second s is necessary in "Rangers's". Yep, that is a typo, fixed it and removed the errant "s". Miyagawa (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Also don't believe List of should be part of the section heading. It's pretty obvious that this is going to be a list, since we say so in the article's title. Just having Players would be better. Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Can we get the statistics updated through the end of the most recent season, instead of having the list be a year out of date? That's me being a dipstick - it is updated to the end of the current season... I just typed in completely the wrong year! :S I've fixed the year stated. Miyagawa (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Publisher of ref 2 shouldn't be italicized, since ESPN Soccernet isn't a printed publication. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Fixed as noted. Miyagawa (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments -

• Positions are listed according to the tactical formations that were employed at the time. Thus the change in the names of defensive and midfield reflects the tactical evolution that occurred from the 1960s onwards. Defense instead of defensive. Or defenders and midfielders.

• Fixed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think you should wikilink players' names in the pictures. Just so if someone wants to read about that players they don't have to go through the list to find them.

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is a question. Should the name of the article not be List of Queens Park Rangers F.C. players (100+ apearances) or asomething like that. I skipped the hatnote the first time I looked at it and didn't realise the that this list was only 100+ apps. The name of the actual list in the article is List of Queens Park Rangers F.C. players with at least 100 appearances so I think that should be reflected in the article title.

• I see where you're coming from, but it does seem to be pretty standard naming convention that the plain list articles (with no appearance numbers in the article title) are 100+ appearance articles. But I'm more than happy to change the article title if that's the consensus. Miyagawa (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I personally would prefer specification in the article title. I don't think the average reader would realise it was 100+. Still if that's the common usage (which it seems to be) then it shouldn't hold this article back from FL. Adam4267 (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• As the team's historian lists the statistics from wartime matches. Who is the team's historian.

• Gordon Macey - I've added that to the text. Miyagawa (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• There's only 3 categories. I don't know if that's the correct amount or not but I thought I'd point it out.

• I've checked the other similar FLs and there doesn't seem to be any missed - in fact a couple of the others only have two. Miyagawa (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• It'd be nice to have a picture in the lead. Obviously you said above it was hard to find one of any specific player but maybe there could be something else that could be added.

• It suddenly occurred to me that Phil Parkes would be unique enough as he's QPR's record appearing goalkeeper - so I've moved his image up to the lead. If I come across anything better later, I'll move him back and put the new image in the lead. Miyagawa (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've never contributed to a FAC on player lists before. I know its common practice to list players' positions depending on which time period they played. But I don't understand it. A half-back is a midfielder and a full-back is a defender Also it didn't all just change over night, for example Mark Lazarus is the first player to come after 1960 that is affected. Firstly he was a right winger so would be the same in pre and post 60s. But he played from 60-67 and is listed as MF. Whereas his teammate Mike Keen (whose page says he's a midfielder) who played until from 59-69 is a half-back. Also an Inside-forward would be obsolete in the mosern game yet is not distinguished in the lists. I don't think this system makes sense at all. I think you have to either distinguish all positions (W, IF, WH/CM, CB,). Or just have D, M and F. Obviously this is just a personal view of the system as a whole nd not in any way a criticism of this list specifically. Thanks Adam4267 (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• I totally see your point, if the other reviewers are happy with this, then I'm more than happy to go through and standardise the positions to their modern equivalents and change the footnote to reflect this.Miyagawa (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Also Samuel Abel is the only listed Utility player. But his page says he's a forward. Adam4267 (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• It also says he played as a forward and as a right back for QPR, so I put him down as a utility player. Miyagawa (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to note I found an image of one of the red linked players, Jimmy Birch, while looking for something completely different. Fortunately someone had scanned in an entire page of a newspaper from 1920, and so I was able to uploaded it to commons with the full source information. Miyagawa (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

And a further note to say that I thought I'd de-red link him and create his article, so googled him... and found he already had an article under James Birch. So I've updated the table appropriately. Miyagawa (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

- Support (hope this is the right way to do it) Adam4267 (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Nothing to do with this list itself, but I think it's worth mentioning that the scope is there for spin-off lists, in the mould of List of Liverpool F.C. players, List of Liverpool F.C. players (25–99 appearances) and List of Liverpool F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances). Just thought I'd bring that up in case you ever find yourself with gratuitous amounts of time on your hands.

• That's the plan one day... although considering it took several months of data input to get this one together, it probably won't be anytime soon! I think the managers list will probably be next as it's pretty much already there list-wise and just needs some touch ups. Then I'll probably come back to the players lists, unless the seasons one distracts me again by having the relevent local newspapers going on line or something! Miyagawa (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think the key would be better off under a "Key" header, then bringing the "Players" header just above the table.

• Changed as suggested, if you don't like it I can always revert it anyway. Miyagawa (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Charity/Community Shield" - "FA Charity/Community Shield" is correct.

• Changed as per suggestion. Miyagawa (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the inclusion of wartime statistics; I've had a glance at the present player FL lists for English clubs and all of them exclude these on the basis that they're unofficial or that they're counted as friendlies. Do you not see these either of these as being the case for this list?

• I thought about this quite a bit when I pulled the list together. In the source the players lists at the back automatically includes the wartime league matches and doesn't differentiate between non-wartime and wartime. I had thought that I could go through the season by season stats and remove the wartime matches (which was my intention at the start) but as I worked through the list I came to think that it didn't feel right to be deliberately removing information from the list. I checked the couple of similar FLs that have online sources and it seems that the source themselves doesn't list the wartime matches, and so the figures just weren't available. Of course my personal opinion is that QPR includes them in the records as they won a wartime league during the Second World War... Miyagawa (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• It's a shame Macey doesn't differentiate between wartime and non-wartime stats in the players lists; my York Complete Record volumes have kept the wartime stats completely separate so this was never a problem for me. Since you feel it'd be too much bother removing the wartime apps it won't preclude my support for this nom. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think "Statistics correct as of end of 2011–2012 season" would be better off written as a full sentence, and the season range should be 2011–12 per WP:YEAR. So I'd recommend "Statistics are correct as of the end of the 2011–12 season".

• Changed as per suggestion. Miyagawa (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Should have mentioned a full stop is needed too. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Done. :) Miyagawa (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Kevin Gallen's name needs wikilinking in the image caption.

• Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• 41 redlinks from 163 seems an awful lot to me. Per WP:WIAFL criterion 5a, there should only be "a minimal proportion" of redlinks so I think this should be brought done quite substantially.

• I'll give this some work over the weekend and try to reduce the number. Miyagawa (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• The Walter Barrie ref doesn't need writing out in full.

• I'm not sure what you mean, Walter Barrie uses citation #4 which is also used by a number of other players.

• On edit mode it's written out as <ref name=macey548>[[#macey|Macey (2009)]]: p. 548</ref> when it could just be <ref name=macey548/>. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Ah gotcha, fixed that as noted. Miyagawa (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• General refs tend to be positioned above Specific refs.

• The two are switched around now. Miyagawa (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Refs 1 and 3 are the same; one needs removing.

• Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments. A few additional comments.

• Going by List of Queens Park Rangers F.C. seasons there are a number of competitions QPR took part in that are not included in the list (according to the key). These are the West London Observer Cup, London Senior Cup, West London Challenge Cup, FA Amateur Cup, Middlesex Challenge Cup, SP Charity Cup, London Challenge Cup, Football League Third Division South Cup, Football League War Cup, League Cup South, Southern Floodlight Cup, Full Members Cup, Mercantile Credit Centenary Trophy and Football League Trophy. Shouldn't apps in these be included in addition to the existing competitions?

• They were, but I hadn't included them in the key - so I've added the competitions that were included after QPR went professional in 1899.

• Is Macey the best ref for players who left the club after the book's publishing date of 2009, e.g. Gareth Ainsworth and Lee Cook?

• I'd missed the Soccerbase references for both of those players, so added them and did a double check to make sure I hadn't missed anyone else.

• And according to Soccerbase Cook last appeared for QPR in 2011, not 2012.

• Fixed as noted.

• Dexter Blackstock is now an Antigua and Barbuda international so his flag needs updating. Also, Stuart Leary was an England under-23 international.

• Fixed as noted, and updated the numbers in the lead.

• A few names are missing diacritics, e.g. Alejandro Faurlin -> Alejandro Faurlín and Akos Buzsaky -> Ákos Buzsáky.

• Fixed, and double checked I hadn't missed anyone else.

• Martin Rowlands left earlier this year so his years need updating.

• Updated as noted.

Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. Miyagawa (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• support spot checks checks out okay, prose is not great but decent. the gallery of poor pictures perhaps unneeded. on par with other FL of the kind. Sandman888 (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:08, 25 July 2012 [5].

---

List of Israel international footballers

Nominator(s): HonorTheKing (talk), Cliftonian (talk), 11:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured list because we believe the list meets the criteria.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments "the nation of Israel in " any need for "the nation of" immediately after "national..."? I guess not. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC) "It is fielded by the" maybe just me but this reads odd, is that the same as "governed" or similar? I'm not so sure. It could hypothetically be fielded by a separate organisation than the one which governs Israeli football (though that would not make much sense). We could reword if it reads strangely, but to me it look okay as it is. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC) "at least once" seems redundant to me. Ja, you're right. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC) "As the number of Israeli international players runs into the hundreds, only those with 20 or more caps are listed here" I would just have a semi-colon after the previous sentence and then say "only those with 20 or more caps are listed here." Okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC) When you pipelink tournaments, I'm not sure there's a good reason to include "in" in the piped link. I was always under the impression you shouldn't link years on their own, as it could make people think the link goes to an article about that year. This removes that possibility. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC) "The active player closest..." he's domestically active, but how can you prove he's still internationally "active"? He played against Germany on Thursday night, but I agree "active" is not a term I would usually use in this context. I've replaced with "current". —Cliftonian (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Same comment for Aouate. I've replaced with "eligible for selection". —Cliftonian (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC) "Players are listed by number of caps" "initially listed"... it's a sortable list. Okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Don't see a need for the # column since it sorts identically to the Caps column. It lets you easily see what rank the player holds in terms of international caps without having to count the rows manually. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC) " Where two or more players have the same number of both caps and goals, they are listed alphabetically." well, when I sort by Caps in ascending order, Nimni comes before Kirat despite them having the same number of caps and goals... Eh, I can't get the thing to sort this right, so we'll just lose it for now. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Cohen's image (on my screen) creates enormous whitespace after the table. Okay, we've lost it. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Perhaps a stupid question but what makes elel.co.il reliable? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC) They give a list of sources here. I don't know if you read Hebrew or not, but I think the chances are you don't, so I'll give a basic summary. It lists lots of Hebrew newspapers, with dates (for example, Amar 1936–1942, Davar 1930–1990, Doar Hayom 1930–1936 etc), some foreign ones (which are given in English, so you can read them), and some websites (the Israeli FA, the Wingate Institute, the RSSSF and and FIFA). It then lists individuals who gave time and effort, and thanks some other people, football clubs and organisations for photos. I think it seems quite solid but I'll defer to consensus if it goes against it. Honor replaced it with an RSSSF ref. Thanks for the comments Rambling Man. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• Consider linking association football in the first sentence.

• Okay —Cliftonian (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• I can't see anything in Ref #13 that says either that Walid Badir is an Israeli Arab, or that he is the most-capped Israeli Arab.

• I've added reference to Sports Illustrated here. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Just a question; why choose to use the IFA statistics rather than FIFAs? As an Englishman, I have no love for FIFA, but theirs would seem to me to be the more official numbers?

• Some of the games are considered unofficial by FIFA, generally because the opposition fields a weakened team (see the RSSSF ref for individual details), but in these cases the Israeli FA considers the caps official since its own team was at full strength, even if the opponent wasn't. I'd say using different numbers to the ones maintained by the Israeli FA could lead to confusion should we ever (hypothetically) get the situation where the Israelis are claiming to have a new record cap-holder or goalscorer, but FIFA are disagreeing. I think using the IFA's numbers is acceptable so long as we make clear we are doing so, which we are. Perhaps a footnote might be useful here. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• There don't appear to be any references supporting the "Position" column, which may lead to the thought that it is original research.

• I can see how this could be an issue, but one can easily click on the player's name to check his position if it is in doubt. As always, though, I'm happy to defer to consensus on this. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Overall, the list looks very good and well maintained; nice work! Harrias ^talk 13:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Reckless182 (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments The only thing I feel is missing from the list is the mention of national team captains. Would it be possible to mention this in the lead somehow or highlight players in the list who have also captained the team? I realise that this may be a layout problem since an additional column would probably make the images to the right appear incorrectly due to the lack of space. This might be me being picky but the "work" parameter for all references as well as the "trans_title" for the references in Hebrew could be used to make the reference list even better. For the latter parameter the original Hebrew title would be placed in the "title" parameter and the title translated into English in the "trans_title" parameter. Other than the minor issues, I think this would be an excellent addition to the collections of FLs. Great work! --Reckless182 (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Perhaps a separate list of captains could be made at some point? I fear adding this kind of thing could cause a great deal of clutter and overcomplicate somewhat... As for the "work" and "trans_title" parameters, what would you suggest adding in the "work" parameter? "eng.football.co.il"? I don't really see what that would add, if I'm honest, and it would be repeated so many times... So far as "trans_title" goes, the article titles will be in Hebrew, which I'm not sure most readers on an English encyclopaedia such as this will be able to read. In any case, if you want to see the Hebrew title you can easily click the link and read the article. I'm not even going to get into the potential issues that can result from putting right-to-left script in the middle of the left-to-right text. So again, although I appreciate the suggestion, I'm not sure it would necessarily be a great improvement. Thanks for the comments, and I look forward to seeing more of your thoughts. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC) I see the problem with the captains, a separate list is a great idea. You could still mention the fact in the lead, for example Benayoun, something like "he is also the current captain of the team", and the same for any of the other players mentioned in the lead. I hadn't really though about the problem with Hebrew writing, perhaps it is better to leave it as it is. For the work parameters, I myself would add eng.football.co.il for these refs for extra clarity but I would happily support this list either way. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Okay, I've put that Benayoun is captain, and put an appropriate reference. I really don't think the eng.football.co.il work parameter is necessary, frankly, it just clogs the references section up and doesn't really add much. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Reckless182 (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• סבבה —Cliftonian (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• בבקשה, I hope that is correct :) Reckless182 (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Exactly right :) —Cliftonian (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments -

• It should say in the lead that 97 players are in the list.

• Okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Is it necessary to say who is the most capped Arab-Israeli player. Obviously Israel, along with Northern Ireland, has a difficult political situtaion but I personally wouldn't expect it to say on Northern Ireland's list who the most capped Catholic player was.

• I think it is worth saying because of the relatively small number of Arab players who have historically played in the Israeli team (particularly compared to the huge number of Catholics who have played for NI over the years). It is only in the last couple of decades that there have been any Arabs in the Israeli team at all, and even then it was somewhat controversial for some to have them there. I think the identity of the most prominent Israeli-Arab international is likely to be a subject of interest to many readers, and I certainly don't think it can hurt to include it. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Is IFA the correct abbreviation for the Israel FA. I think that's Northern Ireland's FIFA abbreviation although if you are just abbreviating it for the purposes of the article then it doesn't really matter. Adam4267 (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, in English the Israeli FA uses "IFA", see here. Thanks for the comments. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries, excellent list and the name Mordechai Spiegler will amuse me for the rest of the night. Adam4267 (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments and the kind words, Adam; I'm not sure exactly what's funny about Spiegler's name, but I'm glad it's amusing you —Cliftonian (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

_ Support Adam4267 (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Before commenting on the list itself, I'm wondering whether 20 caps is the ideal limit. The standard for players lists nowadays is to have two or three lists that together encompass all the players to have appeared for that team. For example, List of Birmingham City F.C. players draws the limit at 100 apps, then there's List of Birmingham City F.C. players (25–99 appearances) and List of Birmingham City F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances). Obviously those aren't national team player lists, but I think the scope for inclusion is something worth revising if spin-off lists were to be considered. There's 450+ Israel internationals and this list presently contains approximately 100, so if other lists were made I think the 20 cap limit would need to be lowered to make the number between the two or three lists more equal. Not saying I'm expecting either of you to create another list or two to list all Israel internationals, or that that would be necessary for me in supporting this list's nomination, but I thought I'd bring this up as something to consider for the long-term.

• If other lists are made in the long run I think this is along the right lines, but for now at least we're not doing that. Thanks for this. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• I just want to add that it list those with at least 20 due to it following the same format as the featured list and same kind of article List of France international footballers.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Do you know the date of the last match played? I think it'd be better if "Statistics are correct as of 31 May 2012" could be rephrased "Statistics are correct as of the match played on [date of last match]".

• Okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• After this sentence the reference that covers appearances ("National Team Appearances list") is included, so shouldn't the ref for goals ("National Team Goalscorers list") be included too?

• Okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about "Still active for the national team"; as the footnote explains, this refers to players who are still eligible to play, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're still active in the national squad. I think "Still eligible for the national team" or some such, along with a rephrased foonote, would be better.

• Okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Israel national team football players" - should be "Israel national team footballers", for consistency.

• Okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• "National team career" represents the years of players' first and last caps. Perhaps this should be noted somwhere above the table for clarity, as some readers might not be aware that this is the case?

• Okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• When players have the same numbers of caps and goals, in what order are they then listed? This needs mentioning in the text above the table.

• Okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• WP:WIAFL criterion 5a states that only a "minimal proportion of items are redlinked". At the moment 17 of the 97 wikilinks in the list are redlinks. I don't know if there's a rule of thumb regarding what proportion is recommended in practice, but that figure seems a little steep to me.

• Hopefully Honor can work on this a little, I don't have the sources for this and my Hebrew is kind of spurious to boot. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• I will try and make some of those articles with books and online refs I would be able to locate.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Honor. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Due to the number of references I'd recommend splitting the "References" column in two.

• It was split by "colwidth" before, but I've made it a bit thinner, hope this is better now —Cliftonian (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• The "Israel National Team – List of Official Games" ref is missing author and date info.

• Okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments Matty, I hope I've resolved the issues raised. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - improved and done with good grace. Well worked. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Rambling Man. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support cannot find any issues with the list—great work! Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Arsenikk! —Cliftonian (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 00:08, 19 July 2012 [6].

---

York City F.C. league record by opponent

Nominator(s): Mattythewhite (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria listed at WP:WIAFL. It follows the established format for "league record by opponent" lists that have passed this process, such as Luton Town F.C. league record by opponent and Birmingham City F.C. league record by opponent. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments Image could use alt text (I couldn't seem to see any). It's there, you musn't have been looking very hard! Mattythewhite (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Reinforce "association football" in the lead (so our American/Canadian/Australian readers aren't dreadfully confused....) Done, despite my dislike for the usage of this particular seldom-used term... Mattythewhite (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC) "Later that year York were elected" would be better to say "Later that year, the club were..." as the last mention of York was of the city itself, not the club. Done. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC) I wonder, do we have a suitable article to link to for election in this regard? Apparently not. However, this gives a description of the election process. Do you think that'd be worth linking? Mattythewhite (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC) I think that looks like a good link. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Added. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC) "Relegation to the Football Conference occurred in 2004 after York" make it active rather than passive, i.e. "York were relegated to ... after they finished.." Done. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Just a question, you say "first competitive league game was " did they play any other kind of league game? Nope, have removed "competitive" as it seems redundant. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC) "are correct as of the match played on 28 April 2012." would it be cleaner to say "as of the end of the 2011-12 season"? Done. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Key, switch bullet three and four so it matches the order of the columns. Done. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Probably also switch the last two bullet points to become the first two bullet points. Done. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Not sure you need " pp. 232–410." in the general ref since you kindly specify page ranges specifically later on. Little confused, whereabouts are these page ranges? Within refs 1-4? In any case, the Batters ref is one of the two being used to cite the content within the table, so would it not be best to specify the page ranges? Mattythewhite (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC) "Batters, Dave (2008). York City The Complete Record. Breedon Books. pp. 232–410. ISBN 978-1-85983-633-0." you don't need the page range here because each time you ref Batters, you give a more specific page range. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Removed. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support only good improvements thus far and I can see no reason to object to promotion here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments These are nitpicky comments as I'm struggling to find faults with the list: Personally I would include the season in the wikilink when you link seasons It's personal preference but I tend not to include "season" in the wikilink; I think the season range only being linked is sufficient as that's what is specifically being referred to, not the "season" bit. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC) "the club's first and only league title." not sure you need the first, only would imply they've won one Done. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment

• Hate to be a fusspot, but Dave Batters book is stylised as 'York City: The Complete Record,' colon inserted. Otherwise, happy to support. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Ever since I bought the book in 2008 I've omitted the colon; d'oh! Now added. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Support Easily meets the requirements set by the other 'league record by opponent' lists. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 00:08, 19 July 2012 [7].

---

Nebula Award for Best Novelette

Nominator(s): PresN 05:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As one nomination ends, another begins! Following novels, novellas, and all those Hugo Awards, here is the Nebula Award for Best Novelette- same sort of list, only with shorter works and fewer blue links. I've adjusted the list for all of the comments made in the novella nomination, so have at it! --PresN 05:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Excellent.--GoP_T^C_N 17:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments Still lacks a bit of impact from lack of author images. Zelazny's article has a blue link for The Doors of His Face, the Lamps of His Mouth, maybe we should think about consistency here? I would consider discussing the inaugural winner in the lead, at the least, and perhaps the most recent. You have a "Publisher or publication" col, but it doesn't appear to contain any publishers, or else the publisher is incorrectly represented in italics? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Responses: Every story that has an article is linked, as is every winner, even if it doesn't have an article- a reviewer a bunch of lists back pointed out that if something has won the award, it should be notable enough for a redlink. I mean, look at The Doors of His Face, The Lamps of His Mouth, and Other Stories. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Ah. The article is about the similarly-named short story collection, not the story itself, so usually I wouldn't link it, but in this case it seems that it does discuss the story for a sentence or two further down. Linked. --PresN 19:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC) There is one publisher in the column- tor.com; everything else seems to be in a book or magazine. --PresN 21:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Ah, ok, I missed that. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Just one thing I wanted to point out: there's a missing quotation mark in the Dry Bones entry. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, fixed. --PresN 15:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support as ever, a good list from PresN and nice communication when trying to resolve some of my issues. Thanks, and well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 00:08, 19 July 2012 [8].

---

Sheffield United F.C. league record by opponent

Nominator(s): Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it's part of a drive to improve the comprehensiveness and quality of articles about Sheffield United on Wikipedia.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

;Comments: Avoid linking bold, most FLs don't have boldface in the lead. Removed BB Similarly, don't use boldface in the notes Removed BB The lead is far too short. I would say the length in Birmingham City F.C. league record by opponent is an absolute minimum. Expanded BB No need to repeat the Sheffield United: Head to Head bibliographic information a hundred times. Create a bibliography section, include the link there and use the ref notes to annotate what pages are referenced where. Changed BB All information in the lead needs a reference. All ref'd BB I don't see the point of the "overview" section. Section headers such as "overview" and "introduction" should be shunned on Wikipedia as it is the lead which serves as an overview. The information could just be moved to the lead, but it needs references. Merged and ref'd BB Why is Crawley Town entered with zero value in all fields? As per note below, technically Crawly are a league opponent as they are in the same division as United but we have yet to play a game against them. BB Would "matches played on 30 May 2012" be the end of a season? If so it would be nice to have that stated explicitly. Changed to end of season BB I'll take a second look when the lead issues have been resolved, but the table itself looks good at first sight. Arsenikk (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC) I'll look at some revisions over the weekend. Re Crawley - they are currently a divisional rival of United (as the divisions have been convened) but as this is the first time the two clubs have ever been in the same division there have never been any league matches between the two clubs as of the current time (or any matches at all in fact). Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC) All these are done now Bladeboy1889 (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I notice that the same thing exists at the similar articles, but is it known why the defunct/current opponents are marked by colour coding as well as daggers? Are the colours "approved" under WP:ACCESSIBLITY? More to the point, is it really worth drawing such loud attention to a team that they haven't played for 6 years and no longer exist, as opposed to a team that they haven't played for 10 years because they happen not to have been in the same division? And even though the trophies of Wimbledon FC are transferred, the statistical history does not, so those histories (Winmbledon and MKD) should be integrated as are those of the USSR and Russia in international stats. Kevin McE (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note, the use of colours without the symbols would not be allowed under WP:ACCESS. As long as the symbols are there the usage of colour is allowed. Its a valid point about highlighting a team that is defunct though, one which has not come up before. Personally I think its ok, as it provides the reader with useful information and will help them interpret the table clearer. It also distinguishes between teams that they can play in the future and those they won't, but other users may disagree. Regards the Wimbledon MK Dons, issue as Sheff Utd, first played MK dons in 2011, I think the issue over stats is not a concern as MK Dons renounced any claim to Wimbledon's history in 2007. NapHit (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

TBH I just followed the format used in previous lists of this nature that had received Featured status as I assumed there'd been some sort of consensus. Personally I'd agree about the prominence of the defunct clubs - it does seem to make them the most important element - if anything maybe the colour coding should be the other way round (as current opposition is more pertinent?) Or change the blue to a less aggressive shade (which would help accessibility concerns. As for Wimbledon - my understanding is that they are a completely separate entity to MK Dons having returned not only their trophies to AFC Wimbledon but also renounced the club history as well thus becoming a completely new entity as of 7th August 2004. There's always the possibility that MK Dons and AFC Wimbledon could be in the same division in the coming years which would make things even more complicated if we were to merge them in with Wimbledon as both would have legitimate claims to the Wombles' historical stats. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I would stick with the present set-up for Wimbledon/MK Dons, as a) the two clubs are distinctly separate entities b) listing them separately adds historical context and c) it's supported by the cited source. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Re the colours: OK, so colours are permitted so long as their is a symbol as well, but my point is, once they are indicated by a symbol (which is entirely appropriate) it is superfluous and distracting to have them additionally and obtrusively indicated by colour.

Re Wimbledon/MKD, I had thought that as well, but when I noticed the combined history on the LMA website I challenged this, and the reply was that the FA and FL acknowledge continuity between the two. MKD agreed not to stake any claim to trophies and honours, but statistically they are apparently officially regarded as one entity. The trophies were given to the Borough of Merton, not to AFC Wimbledon, and they make no claim to organisational/institutional continuity. Kevin McE (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think its superfluous to use colours, personally it makes it easier to distinguish rather than just having a symbol. I've just looked on the MK Dons site and they only list statistics going back to the 2002/03 season. The LMA source is interesting, but the cited source implicitly states that the history (which would indicate statistics etc) was transferred to the council and that MK Dons would renounce any claims to a history before that. You say you challenged the LMA's listing did you email them about this? NapHit (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes: it was their reply that I summarised above (the reply was...): I don't seem to have kept the e-mail, but that wouldn't have been acceptable as wp:rs anyway... Kevin McE (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Re Wimbledon / MK Dons - would this discussion be better held on WP:Football? Currently the two clubs are treated separately on Wikipedia which must have come from a consensus there. For this article I've used the existing WP line on the two clubs and I wouldn't want the it to be held up or even fail FL by getting bogged down in a much wider debate. Cheers Bladeboy1889 (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I think it would be more practical if we took this issue to WP:FOOTY instead of here. NapHit (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Quick comments Lead image: make it bigger if possible, and don't have a full stop in the caption, it's not a complete sentence. Done Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Is it "The Blades" or "the Blades"? I would question the use of the nickname throughout, stick with writing encyclopaedically and with Sheffield United or just United. All updated to use Sheffield United or United. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Especially when you start a para in the lead with "United played ..." and relink Sheffield United... As per above.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC) "whilst" nice but archaic, mainly we just say "while" these days. Updated. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC) " the most number of draws " why have "number of" here? Got rid of the number bit. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Why do you call Soccerbase SoccerBase? A typo and then a lot of copying and pasting :( - revised. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Ref 4 is a single page ref so it should be p. not pp. Fixed.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Ref 8 etc should use an en-dash for page ranges per WP:DASH, not a hyphen. Fixed Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Why is Crawley there with no stats? The thinking was that they're currently a league opponent of United, just one that we haven't played yet. I've hidden the row though. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC) All updates covered I think Bladeboy1889 (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments Refs should come after punctuation, two instances in the first para of this being flouted. Also ref 4 is used twice in the same sentence, I would remove the first usage and leave the one at the end of the sentence You use an m dash for 1890-91 season in the first para it should be an n dash n dash needed in the image caption No need to link sheffield united twice in the lead "The Premier League" no need to capitalise the ref 5 not after punctuation, move it to the end of the sentence link 1939-40 season, also remove the s from season as it was just that season that was abandoned NapHit (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC) All fixed cheers. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments I'd remove "(known as 'The Blades')"; it seems redundant now every other reference to the nickname has been removed. Do you think it'd be worth adding the county after Sheffield? I think it'd add a little extra context. Like NapHit said, en dashes (–) should be used to separate season ranges, not em dashes (—). The sentence starting "The football committee" seems a little long at 52 words. Few words that need dashing, e.g. newly formed, ever present. "Sheffield United" and "League One" only need wikilinking once; they're currently linked twice. Since United have had spells in the Premier League they haven't been ever-present members of the Football League, so I think that sentence needs rephrasing. "Midlands team Aston Villa" -> "West Midlands team Aston Villa"? I think the second and third paragraphs would be better merged into one, since they each cover the same topic. Could you give the years for the club's spells in The Football League and the Premier League, since you've done the same for the Midland Counties League and the Northern League? Doesn't "For the sake of simplicity, present-day names are used throughout, unless the club in question changed it's name since the last league fixture with United in which case the name during the last fixture is used" contradict itself? At first you're saying present-day names are used, then you're saying historical names are used; or am I missing something? And "it's" (and all future instances of it) should be "its". "Statistics correct as end of the 2011–12 season." would be better written out fully, so "Statistics are correct as of the end of the 2011–12 season." I'm not sure why every entry needs referencing twice; surely Soccerbase or Waring will suffice? There's a number of clubs whose names aren't written out correctly; Grimsby should be Grimsby Town, Hereford should be Hereford United etc. "Notes" - there's a lot of inconsistency with regards to singular v. plural when referring to clubs and teams. They're either one or the other. The rule of thumb is clubs being singular and teams being plural, so I'd stick to that. I think "Peter Waring (2004). Sheffield United: Head to Head. Breedon Books. ISBN 1-85983-416-7." should be incorporated into the "References" section and be placed under the title of "General", with the specific refs being under the title of "Specific", like this. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC) I've picked up all of these (hopefully). In terms of referencing it was an attempt to be comprehensive -the book has more information than Soccerbase but only goes up to 2004 and the data was compiled from a mixture of the two (where relevant). I don't think it harms the article does it? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Comments A few follow-up comments. "(1992–1994 and the 2006–07 season)" - maybe "(1992–93 to 1993–94 and 2006–07)" or some such, to spell out the seasons? Similarly, you could change "(from 1992–1994 and the 2006–07 season)" to make it consistent with the format used for the previously mentioned leagues, so "(from 1992 to 1994 and 2006 to 2007)"? "For the sake of simplicity, present-day names are used" - I'm still finding this a little confusing. I'd personally just use the names of the opponents when they last played United, which is what they key says is being applied with the Glossop example. "Statistics are correct as end of the 2011–12 season." -> "Statistics are correct as of the end of the 2011–12 season." Sorry to be a pain but I think "Soccerbase" should be preferred over "Soccerbase.com" for the publisher parameters. And there should be a space between p./pp. and the subsequent page number/s. "Waring, p.31}" needs fixing. York -> York City. "General" and "Specific" should be titled using a semi-colin to make them bold, rather than using level 3 headings. If there are any instances where both Soccerbase and Waring are needed (perhaps for opponents United played in a league that Soccerbase doesn't cover and have also been opponents from 2004 onwards) then they should both be retained, but when only one suffices I think it'd be best just to go with one. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC) I've updated all these. I've changed the website name to Soccerbase as it's generally referred to on WP although it's worth noting that the site is actually called Soccer Base (as can be seen in the browser title of the home page [9].) Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Comments This should be it hopefully. "1992–93,1993–94" needs a space. "and the 2006–07 season" -> "and the 2006–07 seasons". Refs 1 and 4 use the same book, so you need only retain the author names and page numbers for ref 4. Same goes for refs 3 and 40, which duplicate the content in ref 2. The Waring refs need full stops after the page numbers. "lcfc.com" should be written out with the club's full name, so "Leicester City F.C". Same goes for "leytonorient.com", "nufc.co.uk" and "swfc.co.uk". Could a page number be added for the Greenslade ref? Might be worth adding Clarebrough and Kirkham as a General ref due to the level of its usage. If you did you should remove the bibliographic info for that book's specific refs, retaining only the author names and page numbers. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC) All updated. I've redone the book refs in a different format so they should be consistent now. Bladeboy1889 (talk) One last query before I cap my comments is about the wikilinking in the newly formatted refs. At the moment when I press any of the wikilinked refs (e.g. ref 1) I'm not taken anywhere. The template documentation at Template:Sfn gives a demonstration of how the the author and date info provides a link to the general reference in the "References" section. I think that would be worth looking into. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC) That should work now. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Good work and thanks for persevering. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Minor, but the prose gurus I know from FAC wouldn't like the hyphen in "newly-formed". My bad, I recommended that. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC) I doubt that two Midland Counties League links are needed in the lead. Key: "For the sake of simplicity clubs are listed under their at the time of their last league fixture with United". Missing "name" or similar? Never liked seeing "whilst" instead of "while", but maybe that's just a personal preference. Last word of the Notes and Refs column should be decapitalized. Comma usage in the notes could be made more consistent from one note to another. In reference 1, the pp. should be changed to p. since this is a single-page cite. The titles of refs 1, 3, 4, and 106 could use en dashes per the MoS. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Should be all done as above - I can't see 'whilst' in the text though I've read it so many times now I may have gone word blind. TBH I don't see an issue with whilst - it's correct English and I've met 'real world' grammar practitioners who insisted it's more correct in formal written prose, and that using while all the time is Americanisation. Anyway - it's probably preference, it just happens to be the way I speak. Still can't find it in the piece though :) Cheers Bladeboy1889 (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC) It was in the key. I'm inclined to let it slide anyway. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:09, 11 July 2012 [10].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Mohammad Yousuf

Nominator(s): ZiaKhan 19:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. This is a well referenced and list based upon List of international cricket centuries by Ricky Ponting and List of international cricket centuries by Virender Sehwag. Please feel free to make your comments and suggestions. ZiaKhan 19:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —SpacemanSpiff 07:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

*Quick comments Should some info be provided on his career trajectory, especially the in-and-out of the team portion for a couple of reasons. The info provides better context to the scores. This is included in Mohammad Yousuf. The spade should likely be replaced by † or something else that's acceptable per ACCESS guidelines. Replaced. Date needs a key entry -- score date, Test start date? Done. For sorting scores, NO should rank better than out at the same score. Done. Test series -- Wastn't the Sharjah Test considered as "Home" officially? According to the reference it is a neutral venue. There are some typos in the lede, a quick copyedit should do the trick. Please take a look. I'll go through in lede in detail later, but overall it's come along quite well. Thank you. ZiaKhan 05:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Astronomyinertia has made changes, I think you should take a look now! ZiaKhan 04:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC) —SpacemanSpiff 19:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support I couldn't find any outstanding issues, good work on the copyedit and the list in general. The only comment I have, and this is general in nature -- are we switching to the "superscript M" for the MoM? It looks a little odd (as most of the lists that I've seen use symbols). —SpacemanSpiff 11:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Changed to ‡. ZiaKhan 13:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose quick ones When sorting by score, 102 not out is better than 102 so it should sort above it. Already done. "as a Middle order batsman" no need for capital M here. Done. Put (ODI) after "One Day International". Done. "during 2003-2010" use en dash for year ranges. Done. "ocasiones" proper typo here... "occasions". Done. " to official cricket with" not really, just back into the Pakistan national team. Done. Lead is all out of order, your second para is talking about stuff in 2008 etc, but then you go on to talk about stuff that happened in 1998. Needs a lot of work. Done. "Stadium in the 2005–06.[19]"... grammar fail. Done. "Yousuf, among 24 centuries, has scored 4 double centuries, while his Test centuries have been made at 16 cricket grounds, including 11 at venues outside Pakistan" awful prose I'm afraid. Maybe "Yousuf has scored 24 centuries, including 4 double centuries. His Test..."? Done. "record breaking" is usually hyphenated. Done. ZiaKhan 20:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) I'll leave it there, the lead is a little too lengthy and needs serious copyediting. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC) I've tried a little, please take a look now! ZiaKhan 21:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Astronomyinertia has made some change, You should take a look now. ZiaKhan 04:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC) More comments, still opposing until you get a good copyeditor involved " the Pakistan side in 9 Test and 8 ODI matches during 2003-2010.[5][6]" -> nine, eight, and use en-dash not hyphen for year ranges. And I would even avoid that, perhaps "between 2003 and 2010". Done. "in International cricket than" no need to capitalise International. Done. "century—120 not out—came " suggest you replace unspaced em-dashes with spaced en-dashes, and link not out. Fixed. "at Gaddafi Stadium, Lahore in the same year" usually would say "at the Gaddafi...". Apply throughout. Done. " at Gaddafi Stadium, in third of the 3 match Test series " -> avoid repeating yourself, so "at the same venue, in the third of the three-match Test series..." Done. " He has made 24 centuries including four double centuries.[10]" you already said the 24 centuries thing in the first paragraph of the lead, and I would expect double century to be hyphenated. Done. "He holds the world record for the most number of runs in a calendar year" presumably you mean in international Test cricket, or do you mean of any player playing anywhere in the world in any format? Added "In Test cricket". "he was named the Wisden Cricketer of the Year" one of. They usually name five if I recall correctly. Done. " Inzamam-ul-haq." -> " Inzamam-ul-Haq." Corrected. " list of leading century-makers" no need for "leading". Removed. "Yousuf has made 7 centuries at home grounds and 8 at other venues." seven, eight. Done. "played only three" remove "only". Removed. "all against England during 2006-2010," see note above about year range phrasing. Done. "Meaning" entries in table don't need a full stop. Removed. B/F doesn't sort correctly (and you could just call it Balls). Fixed. The 104 v India, really his "373"rd match? Changed to 58. Avoid the space between scores and superscript notes. Removed. You have "Forfeit" in the table but not in the key. Done. Faislabad->Faisalabad. Corrected. Is ESPNcricinfo a publisher or a work? Check the formatting of it in your links and refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC) All fixed. ZiaKhan 01:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Vensatry

Comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) formarly->formerly. Done. "Yousuf's first ODI century came", no need for 'ODI', since you have already stated that. Done. "his position in the all-time lists for making centuries is tenth overall in both Tests and ODIs". This statement needs clarity. Fixed. "eight opponents"->eight different opponents. Done. Inconsistency in "Venue" column. Fixed. You have used "Draw" in the key but represented the same as "Drawn" in the "Results" column. Corrected. You must use ESPNcricinfo for the "work" parameter. ESPN EMEA is what you should use for the "publisher" parameter. I don't think this is necessary. You had earlier used "ESPNcricinfo" in the publisher parameter. It must be used in the "work" parameter. Only the "Publisher" parameter is optional and you don't need to mention if the website is a self-publishing one. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC) I think your concerns are addressed by Astronomyinertia! ZiaKhan 04:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Why some of the ref titles are italicised. Fixed. B/F – denotes balls faced -> Denotes his position in the batting order. Link "balls faced" and if possible also link batting order. Done. "However he has made the most number of international centuries for Pakistan". You don't need to explain this again, because it's the caption given for the image. Removed. "When sorting by score, 102 not out is better than 102 so it should sort above it". This comment made by TRM is still not addressed. Done. ZiaKhan 13:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Oppose – The prose part of this article generally appears to be weak and is certainly not upto FL standards. Given the number of concerns, I may have to oppose this list at the moment. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Did some copyediting and reorganization in the article. I think it needs to be reviewed again. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Thank you. ZiaKhan 04:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Further comments I'm convinced with the prose but still there are a few issues: Unlink the second occurrence of "runs" in the first para. Since you've already used the Cricinfo link for "List of Test and ODI centuries" as a part of specific references in the list, there is no need to specify it again and distinguish them as "General" and "Specific" ref. Is he retired form T20I? If not, the sentence "but failed to score a century" must be rephrased. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Addressed all three points, I hope. BencherliteTalk 08:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support – I've switched to support now as the list meets FL standards. Great work by Bencherlite. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

Oppose the article currently has multiple prose and MOS issues. To list a few that jump out: "His 24 centuries include 4 double century knocks as well." – This is definitely not encyclopedic language. In the lead you use "not-out" and then in the table later, "not out": be consistent. The first ODI result: "Lost." has a full-stop, but none of the others do. The "No." column and the date column disagree on the ordering for his Test centuries: this can't be right. Some clarification is needed on the "match number" column: is this the number of the Test/ODI, the number of Tests/ODIs he had played to that point, or the number of Test & ODIs he had played to that point, or something else? Is the "No." column really the best to define as the row scope? Harrias talk 12:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Done. ZiaKhan 16:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC) I've had another look through after the work by Bencherlite, and the prose is vastly improved. I still have some concerns in the table with the inclusion of the "match number" I still think this is not sufficiently explained in the key. A minor point is that the key lists "S.R." while the table has "S/R". Harrias talk 15:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Fixed. ZiaKhan 16:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Harrias ^talk 17:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

NB I've been asked by the nominator to have a go at copy-editing the prose. I'm happy to give it a go but will be unable to do so, in reality, until Monday at the earliest, in case this makes any difference to the FLC directors looking at the nominations this weekend. Bencherlite^Talk 17:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. ZiaKhan 18:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Very decent of you. ZiaKhan's prompt attempts to address all the comments thus far and your offer go a long way to allowing enough latitude in the timings for you to give the copyedit a bit of a go. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. ZiaKhan 18:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at the prose and tried not to make it worse. What do people think now? I found the tense choice slightly awkward sometimes - he's still active to greater or lesser extent, and may or may not be retired from international cricket depending on what day of the week it is and whether the selectors have had tea or coffee for breakfast, so I've stuck with present rather than past tense in general. Bencherlite^Talk 23:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. ZiaKhan 22:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – Note 1: "The match was involuntarily forfeited under the Law 21 of the Laws of cricket." Remove first "the" and decapitalize "Laws"? Giants2008 (Talk) 20:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Done; I just checked the lead, not further down (my bad). I've also removed the "|link=off" from the date template as it's no longer needed, and fixed a couple of the sortorder numbers. Bencherlite^Talk 20:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Support with the disclaimer that I helped with the prose, as noted. Everything else now looks FL-worthy. Bencherlite^Talk 23:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you Bencherlite. I expect support from the FL directors, SpacemanSpiff and Harrias as the concerns have been addressed. ZiaKhan 17:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• The directors, myself included, don't tend to support too many lists since we're the ones who have to close FLCs, and there's a conflict if we support and promote at the same time. Also, don't automatically assume that people must support if their concerns are addressed, You have to wait for them to declare support, as Harrias did, and there's no obligation for any reviewer to support at any time. It's their choice. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your advice. Keep me guiding. Thank you once again. ZiaKhan 20:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment

• "as one of the finest middle order batsmen Pakistan has produced.." I think this should be in quotation marks as you are quoting what someone else has said. NapHit (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Reworded to give more of a sense of the positives and negatives from that article without directly quoting. Bencherlite^Talk 11:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:09, 11 July 2012 [11].

---

List of Rosenborg BK records and statistics

Nominator(s): Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The list is based on similar lists for other teams and I believe it to be both complete and meet the criteria. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments Instead of piping the Tippeligean and Norwegian Football Cup I would use the full links to give a bit context to the reader. Also as you refer to it as the top league some readers may mistake that for the real name, so best to unripe the links Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC) "Since it has only spent 1978 at a lower tier." -> It has only spent one season outside the Tippleigean since, which was in 1978. Fixed. The reason I keep using "top league" is because of a name change from First Division from 1991, after which the First Division became the second tier. Thus using the term Tippeligaen for 1978 would be incorrect. Arsenikk (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC) "The best result is reaching the quarter-finals of the 1996–97 UEFA Champions League[1] and co-winning the 2008 UEFA Intertoto Cup." I'm not sure best result is correct, as you can't compare these two achievements, as one is a win and the other is a quarter-final berth. Reformulated to make more sense. Arsenikk (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC) "Harald Martin Brattbakk is 151 goals the club's all-time top scorer..." This sentence does not make sense Should now. Arsenikk (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC) "Odd Iversen holds the game record of 6 goals and the season record of 30 goals." -> Odd Iversen holds the record for most goals in a single match and season, with 6 and 30 respectively. Corrected. Arsenikk (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC) "John Carew is the club's most expensive sale, being sold to Valencia for 75 million Norwegian krone in 2000." The club received their highest transfer fee for John Carew; they received 75 million Norwegian krone when he was sold to Valencia in 2000. Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Avoid bold links per WP:CONTEXTLINK Gone. Arsenikk (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC) I don' think you need the message above every section stating what it is, its redundant as the section headers do that job I've removed them where redundant, but sometimes they add necessary definitions (such as time period or limiting to the top league). Arsenikk (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC) The tables fail MOS:DTT, you need to add row and col scopes to them. Also they are a bit bare, do you not have information, for different cup competitions, like Norwegan Cup, Europe etc, so it can be formatted like the appearances table in the Liverpool list? I've added for European matches. No statistics exist for the cup, so I have left that out. Arsenikk (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Caps in the appearances table should be changed to appearances as that is what header states Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Avoid use hash as a table header per MOS:HASH Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Images could do with alt text Added alt texts. Arsenikk (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC) No need to link Hibernian twice in record defeats section Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC) In the streaks sections, do you not the have information for losing streaks? Its not exactly neutral with just winning streaks at the moment I agree that it is not neutral, but I have not been able to find statistics for losing streaks. Had I found it I would have added it. Arsenikk (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC) likewise in wins/draws/losses in a season, would be a good idea to have lowest points total in a season I presume my thought when creating the article was that it would be comparing apples and bananas, as Rosenborg has had an 4-game season in 1932 and a 30-game season lately. However, I have added the relevant information. Arsenikk (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Again attendance section its one sided with highest totals only, would add lowest attendances as well for neutrality. A bit limited number of sources available, but I've found a few and added those. Arsenikk (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Bit curious about the league away attendance how is that a record and verifiable? The bottom table in the reference contains a list of "the most attended RBK away games in Norway". Ranks 1–10 are cup finals, while the 11th place is a league match. Arsenikk (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC) ref 22 needs an author Added. Arsenikk (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC) ref 23 the scoreline needs an en dash Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC) you have both rec sport soccer statistics foundation and RSSSF in the refs, be consistent, ideally the first as acronyms should be spelled out Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC) would also spell out uefa as well Ditto. Arsenikk (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC) One more comment, would add a total column to the appearances and goalscorers tables, do give more context to the reader. NapHit (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Done. Good idea. Arsenikk (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Space needed in "thequarter-finals" towards the end of the first paragraph. Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC) "has play 416 league matches". "play" → "played". Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC) The tables in the Players section should be sortable by last name, not first name. The second one isn't sortable at all, which is a surprise. It would be nice, especially given the presence of sortability in the first table. All tables are now sortable and all players are sorted by surname. Arsenikk (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Goalscorer: "A asterisk" → "An asterist"? Also, this table isn't sortable either. Neither is the next one. What was the basis for determining which tables to have sorting for, and which not to? Fixed. See above comment. Arsenikk (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Most-winning: "as well as the years they player took the titles." "they" → "the". Corrected. Arsenikk (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC) UEFA is fully spelled out in reference 9, but not in any of the other refs. To me, the best way of handling this is to spell it out consistently, but this creates a lot of annoying work. An easier alternate method is to spell out the first usage of UEFA in ref 1, with the abbreviated version in parentheses immediately afterward; once done, it's okay to leave UEFA in the other refs. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC) All spelled out for consistency. Thanks for the feedback. Arsenikk (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments You could consider making the lead image a little larger, I think up to 300px or so? Sure. Arsenikk (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) You link the 1960 cup but not the 1932 cup. There may not be an article yet but you should be consistent I think. Not quite sure why I hadn't linked that. Arsenikk (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) "winning it in its inaugural season" presumably you mean the club winning the league in its first season, at the moment it's unclear what "its" relates to, the club or the league (and the league was operating before that season....) Should be accurate now. Arsenikk (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) "win is 17–0 against Buvik in 2003; the league record " in what competition? Specified. Arsenikk (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) "season when it had only won a single match" -> "season having won just a single match." Thanks. Arsenikk (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Better to pipe link Undefeated season to Perfect season#Association football. Done. Arsenikk (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) "He also holds the most titles, " not really, I don't think individuals get "titles", the clubs do, the players just have then honour of playing in a league or cup winning team. Replaced titles with honors. Arsenikk (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) "The club received their higNorwegian Premier Leaguehest transfer..." second sentence of lead using "It is..." whereas here you use plural... Done. Arsenikk (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) "Norwegian Premier League[11][12][13]" would prefer a colon after League (and similarly for the others). Added. Arsenikk (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Eggen caption needs a full stop. A bit embarrassing missing with so many captions, but they should all be fixed now. Arsenikk (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Our 2008 Intertoto cup article says Braga won, not that Rosenborg shared it with them... This probably needs a note here. Note added. Arsenikk (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Strand's caption needs a full stop. Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) So does Johnsen's. Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Not sure of the necessity to relink things in the same section (e.g. you link Iversen three times in quick succession in the goalscorers section. "An asterist (*)" that's asterisk. Gee, the last reviewer told me to replace the x with a t :P Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) In the Most-winning section, I think it should say it's the number of times a player has won a title with the club. Done. Arsenikk (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Winsnes caption needs a full stop. Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) First UEFA match: - which competition? Added. Arsenikk (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) In Europe table, anchor the total row so it doesn't "sort". Got the opportunity to learn some new syntax today too. Arsenikk (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) "are from the 1967 season." not really, you mean they only take into account matches from the 1967 season onward. Yes, indeed it would be odd to only have attendance statistics from one season. Arsenikk (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Things like the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation aren't works, they're publishers, so they shouldn't be in italics. Fixed. I've left the two newspapers in italics. Arsenikk (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks for all the good tips and feedback—the article is shining even more now :) Arsenikk (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments File:RBK-Valencia 2-0.JPG does not use alt text. Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC) I think "and Norwegian Football Cup 9 times" would read better with as "and the Norwegian Football Cup 9 times". Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC) "in the club's inaugural season" - that gives me the impression that the club's first season is being referred to, rather than the league's first season. Perhaps use an alternative like "in its inaugural season" or "in the club's inaugural top tier season". Rephrased. Arsenikk (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC) "starting with the 1965–66 European Cup Winners' Cup." is uncited. Now it is cited. Arsenikk (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC) "with the second-best performance the quarter-finals of the" - feels like there' something missing. Perhaps "with the second-best performance being the quarter-finals of the"? Sure. Arsenikk (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC) "Sigurd Rushfeldt is the league's all-time top scorer" - I think this is ambiguous; do you mean he's the club's highest league scorer or he's the Norweigan league highest scorer? Stated that only some of these were for Rosenborg, which in connection with the content of the previous sentence should make it clear. Arsenikk (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC) "they received 75 million Norwegian krone when he was sold to Valencia in 2000" - could the euro equivalent be added in parentheses? According to the Carew article it's €8.5 million, although that figure is uncited. I have though about the issue a few times, but I have not been able to find good sources for the foreign exchange rates, although I agree that € and £ conversions would be optimal. Let me take a second look at this. Arsenikk (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC) A number of the Norwegian Premier League titles came under the league's former name, so would it be better to retitle "Norwegian Premier League:" as "Norwegian First Division / Norwegian Premier League:"? Yes, that would be a better title. Arsenikk (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Does "The double" really constitute an honour in itself? It's an achievement of course, but the victories comprising those doubles are already noted. Not per ce, but it is usually regarded as a historical achievement. By listing them it is easy to see which years it took place, instead of the reader having to hunt through two independent lists. Why are the leagues from the League of Norway District VIII to the Second Division regarded as "Minor" as opposed to "Major"? If they're all competed for in the same national league structure shouldn't they all be classified as "Major"? The League of Norway, despite being the top league, had eight conferences, with the conference winners playing a play-off. It is listed as minor because Rosenborg won its conference but not the championship title. Arsenikk (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC) With them being friendly tournaments, are the La Manga Cup and the Trofeo Santiago Bernabéu really noteworthy? I mean, I would hope the Premier League Asia Trophy wouldn't be included in the corresponding Chelsea list, for example. I would evaluate them as minor titles in the club's history. To be quite fair, a comparison of Chelsea and Rosenborg regarding honors it not really a fair match. Both of these are major, international tournaments which do draw a fair media attention. Arsenikk (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Chelsea might not be the best example with their large trophy haul, but any club that has competed in pre-season tournaments such as these would be suitable enough as examples. Do you think it would be worth adding a footnote beside these two competitions noting that they're pre-season tournaments? Obviously the reader will be aware of that if they access their articles through the given wikilinks, but I think that might be worth making clear on this list. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC) I have made a comment about the inclusion of pre-season tournaments. Arsenikk (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC) "Appearances" - why no cup apps? Because no complete compilation of cup apps per player is available, online or offline. The official web site operates with figures, but these are noted as being incomplete for several decades of seasons. Arsenikk (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC) That's a shame, considering lower-league English clubs have such info readily available with Complete Record-type volumes. It might be worth noting somewhere above or in the table (and for the "Goalscorers" table") that cup apps aren't included and so the "Total" column isn't completely total? Mattythewhite (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC) It seems there is not the same tradition for this type of statistics in Norway, although perhaps such stats will be available in the future. I have added a note to emphasize the exclusion of cup stats. Arsenikk (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC) "Seasons" - it's pretty obvious the list accounts for longest-serving players by number of seasons, but I think that should be explained above the table, like you've done for the previous table. Hm, the previous reviewer told me to remove that line of information. "Goalscorers" - no cup goals. Per above. Arsenikk (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC) "Transfer fee records" - do you not have access to details for the record fees for players signed? I have not found any reliable list of transfer fees for incoming players and I fear anything I would create would be OR. Arsenikk (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC) "First official match: 1928" - what does official mean in this context? Do you mean league? Refers to when Rosenborg was allowed to join the Football Association of Norway, which I have tried to specify. Arsenikk (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC) "Record wins" - don't think we need the "Overall" win since the readers can work that out for themselves. Sure. Arsenikk (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Likewise for "Record defeats". Also, it would be good to know what the record cup defeat was. I would also like to know, but I have not found a source which could inform us. Arsenikk (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC) "Streaks" - no "Longest drawing streak"? Or "Longest losing streak"? If some reliable source had published them, I would too. Arsenikk (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC) "from the 1967 season." - do you mean "from the 1967 season onwards"? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Nice review...! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Yes, nice review. Everything should have been answered and fixed where applicable. I'll try to find some foreign prices for the players. Arsenikk (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Image review: No complaints. Goodraise 14:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 03:26, 6 July 2012 [12].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Kumar Sangakkara

Nominator(s): ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, I've been working on this article for a while, and feel that it now meets all the FL criteria. It is based on several existing FLs such as List of international cricket centuries by Mahela Jayawardene and List of international cricket centuries by Rahul Dravid. Looking forward for your comments and suggestions. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Quick comment - Any special reason for having this article? The "list of centuries" is already presented in the main article. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

41 centuries (8th highest among all the cricketers) is quite significant to warrant a separate article I think. Therefore the list on the main article has to go. I will replace it with a link to this article. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

My concern is with the main article. It looks too small and for the given 41 centuries, I think it can very well be accommodated in the main article itself. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever your concern, see few examples: List of international cricket centuries by Jacques Kallis, which is a FL, and the article Jacques Kallis is also small. It really doesn't matter, tons of cricket centuries lists has been promoted to FL when the original article is small. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 06:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

We are discussing about this list right now and I think there is absolutely no need of discussing others. I faced a similar problem when I nominated VVS Laxman's article. See the Next-to-last comment here. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I will try to keep myself cool. You are turning the matter again, and the article I pointed to was example, not to be compared with this article. Judge this article's quality and then decide whether to promote it or not. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 06:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added an "Awards" section to the main article, in-line with a number of similar pages. Don't think the main article can accommodate another set of tables—a list of centuries—in this case. I hope this addresses the Vensatry's concern. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 07:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You are not trying to understand my point. This list is a classic example of content forking. When I did a prose check of the main article it doesn't even come close to 7.5 KB. I see no other articles smaller than this one (including Kallis). In this case, it violates criterion 3b of WP:FLCR. Anyway, I leave it to other editors to decide upon this. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I did some work on the prose section and the article size hovers around 60 KB. Prose size is also in-par with several FLs I've looked at. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The expanded article has a prose size comparable to the parent articles of other FLs, but I'm still not sure about the minimum prose size. So I leave it to other editors to decide upon. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ZiaKhan 23:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick comments Image needs Alt text. Added ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Link the "captain" and "innings" at first use. Done ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC) "....in One Day International (ODI) and Twenty20 formats of the game." → "in One Day International (ODI) and Twenty20 International (T20I) formats of the game." Done ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Not sure but you may change "up to June 2012" to "as of June 2012". Changed ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC) "He scored his maiden Test century just over one year later," remove "just over". Done ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC) "for a losing cause in the 2nd match of the 2003 Cherry Blossom Sharjah Cup." → second. Done ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC) "having scored only 2 centuries in the first 4 years.[19]" → "two" and "four". Done ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC) "The start of his One Day International career" → ODI. Done ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC) "He has intermittently ranked number 1 in the ICC Test batsmen rankings." may be "He has intermittently topped the ICC Test batsmen rankings." Done ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC) The spade should likely be replaced by ‡ or something else. Done ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Link "Player of the match". Done ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Add some information about his T20I career. Mentioned his highest score in T20I cricket. He is yet to score a century in this format of the game. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Something is missing in ref # 47. Fixed ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC) ESPNcricinfo should be used in the "work" parameter in the External links. Fixed ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC) ZiaKhan 20:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Thank you! ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)  Done by Astronomyinertia, thanks! Dipankan (Have a chat?) 05:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC) More comments – Unlink "India" in the last para since it is linked in the 1st. ".... the fifth instance of successive double-centuries in Test cricket.[11]", I think it will be very helpful if you add a note here. ZiaKhan 01:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Done. BencherliteTalk 06:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Support– Meets the criteria. ZiaKhan 07:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments Regarding the 3b issue, I think the list is fine, the parent article is of a considerable size and it can be expanded further, so in my opinion the list is fine on its own "on 29 occasions in Test cricket and 13 times in ODI matches" -> "29 and 13 times in test cricket and ODI matches respectively"  Done "he made 105 not out, taking Sri Lanka" -> "he made 105 not out, helping Sri Lanka"  Done "making it fifth such instance in Test cricket" -> "the fifth occurrence in test cricket"  Done "Scoring 152 against England in December 2007, he became the ninth batsman and second among his countrymen to score centuries against all Test–playing nations" -> "He became the ninth batsmen and second Sri Lankan to score centuries against all Test-playing nations in December 2007, when he scored 152 against England."  Done "First of his..." -> "The first of his..." Done ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 16:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC) "Sangakkara, with eight double-centuries to his name is next..." -> With eight double-centuries, he is only behind..."  Done "In 2010, he said that his ambition is to get 30 Test centuries" I don't see the relevance of this sentence at all, I would remove it, its just shoe horned at the end of the para'  Done "Sangakkara's debut ODI century was against Pakistan, for a losing cause in the second match -> Sangakkara's first ODI century was in a loss against Pakistan in the second match"  Done "having scored only two centuries in the first four years" -> "as he only scored two centuries during the first four years" Done ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 16:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC) "He made his highest score of 138 not out, again for a losing cause against India..." -> His highest score of 138 not out was made in a loss against India..."  Done "at a group stage" change at to in Done ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 16:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC) One problem with the prose is that there appears to be a lot of info and hat the prose does not flow. For examples his highest score in T20 is just shoved at the en of the third para, you could introduce better something like "Despite 13 centuries in ODIs, Sangakkara's highest score in T20I is 78. Also in the second para you mention double centuries near the start of the para and then there is another bit towards the end which appears at the moment to have been after thought. This should be moved so it is after the original double century bit Done ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 16:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Table does not meet MOS:DTT or WP:ACCESS, this needs to be addressed I've split the references into a separate column. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 16:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC) You could also consider adding colour to along with the symbols, so they are easier to distinguish Since we have symbols for not-out, player of the match, captaincy and any combination of these, adding separate colors for each permutation can cause some inconvenience I think. We can leave out not-out; but still the cells with both player of the match and captaincy symbols are in need of an additional color. Do you think this combination of 3 colors is suitable for the table? ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 16:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC) "First Sri Lankan player to reach the milestone is Marvan Atapattu" this should be in the past tense change is to was Done same with note 3 as well that should be in the past tense Done ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 16:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC) One more comment, I'm confused as to why you've put the rowscopes in the date column. The list is about centuries, surely it would be more logical to put the rowscopes before each century? NapHit (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Done ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 15:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Vensatry

Initial comments Since the subject has more than 40 centuries, I feel its fine to have a separate article (given the no. of centuries being more). Here's my review: You could use a better caption for the lead image. Changed ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 08:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC) "test cricket" -> Test cricket  Done Link "man-of-the-match"  Done "He was appointed captain of the Sri Lanka team in March 2009" - repetition of the same thing which was said in the first para. Fixed ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 08:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Overlinking of "Pakistan national cricket team".  Done "Sri Lankan side" -> Sri Lankan team (In key).  Done You have straight away gone into his first century in ODIs. I think a mention of his ODI debut must be there. Done ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 08:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC) The table still does not meet the requirements of WP:ACCESS. Have a look at similar lists. Went through lists of international centuries by Jacques Kallis, Ricky Ponting, Rahul Dravid, Mahela Jayawardene, Sachin Tendulkar and Sanath Jayasuriya, but don't see a major difference in table structure. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 08:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC) All those were made FLs long back. We are in 2012, so this needs to comply with the new FL criteria. —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Changed the table layout and defined row scope using the "Date" column, following List of international cricket centuries by Marcus Trescothick. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 11:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC) I'd like to see "Wisden" to be italicized in "Wisden Cricketers of the Year".  Done The lede is a bit lengthy with a lot of stuff being presented. For eg., "He is also the fastest batsman to reach 8,000 and 9,000 runs in Test cricket, taking 152 and 172 innings respectively". This statement may not be relevant here as it has got nothing to do with the centuries. Perhaps it would be more suitable in the main article. Removed ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 08:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC) "Despite 13 centuries in ODIs, Sangakkara's highest score in T20I is 78" - I'm not sure of what you're trying to convey through this statement. Changed wording ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 08:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC) "He has intermittently topped the ICC Test batsmen rankings". Don't know why suddenly you introduce this statement while talking about his ODI career. Moved to second paragraph. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 08:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose - The quality of prose is certainly not up to professional standards of writing and needs a complete re-write. The lead is not engaging as it just reads like a list of facts/achievements with no flow or continuation. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – Even with the prose-work that has been done already, the writing still resembles a bunch of facts thrown together in a list-like fashion, and I don't believe it meets FL standards. I also see glitches such as "making it fifth such instance in Test cricket" and "he is only behind to Donald Bradman and Brian Lara", which don't make me feel any more confident in the lead. A copy-edit by an editor new to the list is needed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • My oppose is now struck; great job of copy-editing by Bencherlite again. I made one further change to the prose, but otherwise am satisfied with the work done. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been asked to have a look at the prose, and I'll try to get to it ASAP in the light of the length of time this nomination has been running. Bencherlite^Talk 08:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've done what I can. Further comments and suggestions welcome. Bencherlite^Talk 11:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Support subject to the disclaimer that I've done some work on the prose; apart from that, the list looks FL-worthy. I don't think that it's a 3(b) violation, given the current size of the Kumar Sangakkara article. Bencherlite^Talk 23:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 03:26, 6 July 2012 [13].

---

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Kapil Dev

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the list meets the criteria. After the previous nomination the article underwent a thorough copy-edit, reviewed by a few editors and suggestions have been implemented. It is based upon the existing FL, List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Waqar Younis. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments "between 1978 and 1994, took a number of five-wicket hauls during " that run-on doesn't work. Perhaps "between 1978 and 1994. He took a "XX" of five-wicket hauls during " where "XX" is the actual number of fifers. " third highest" usually would be hyphenated. "as a Cricketer of the Year in 1983 " would be better as "as one of their Cricketers of the Year in 1983". I find ref 9 difficult to see how it cites what you're claiming, and I'm not sure what ref 10 adds to the article. It's quite evident from the source that no other cricketer has scored 5000 plus runs got and over 400 wickets. Removed ref#10. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Okay, but I could equally say that Kallis is the only player to score 12000 runs and take 200 wickets. What's so significant about 5000/400? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Hmmm may be, but the lower limit that I've fixed for this fact is 400 wickets. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC) What I'm saying is that you've selected arbitrary numbers to make a factoid. Is it notable? Is this 5000/400 reported on independently by reliable sources? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC) This isn't a factoid. This fact was published on 1 2 3 4 5 and can still show a few more sources. I wanted to mention this fact so as to statistically show Kapil Dev's ability as a great all-rounder. This article was featured in the main page with this fact as the hook. —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC) The fact it appeared as a DYK is irrelevant. I'm pleased to see independent coverage, but still not sure why 5000/400 is any more signicant than 12000/250... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Why I brought the DYK thing here was I just wanted to include a fact to make it appear on the main page and it has got nothing to do with this FL review. You can very well say that Kallis has 12000/250. Normally for records we go by 1000 runs/100 wickets, 2000/200, and so on. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC) "his first and only five-wicket" just "his only..." Safaraz Nawaz appears to be called Safraz Nawaz. Would prefer to see the cols of the ODI table the same width as the Test table. "ESPNCricinfo" -> "ESPNcricinfo" The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC) All fixed. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments "He took 24 five-wicket hauls during his career for India" the for India bit is redundant as we've established he played for India would put "...during his international career" Done. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC) in the tables you have |scope=row it should be !scope=row Done. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC) can add colours to cells with † and ‡ to make it more visible for readers to identify, if you do add colour remember to keep the symbols as they are needed per WP:ACCESS Colours? Is that a requirement? I don't see usage of colours in any of the existing FLs (in WP:CRIC). —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC) No its not a requirement, but most lists do it anyway, for some reason WP:CRIC seems to be an exception. Its nothing major, for me personally it makes it easier to identify than just having the symbol, but its up to you if you choose to add it or not. NapHit (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Done. But wouldn't that be redundant? —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Not sure what your saying would be redundant? Anyway I've tinkered with it a bit, you only need to have the column with the symbol in coloured. I changed one of the colours as it was too dark and some users might not be able to see the symbol. The only issue now is that that those rows with colour align to the left, I'm not sure how to fix this, I'll look at the diffs and see if I can, if not you might have put align=center before each row entry that is effected to fix this. NapHit (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Fixed above issue only problem is that the tables do not go full width now, another pickle, although its not essential to have it full width, so its not that bad an issue. If you badly want it full width, I would recommend just having the columns with numbers centrally aligned and the rest aligned to the left would sort the issue nicely. NapHit (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support the list meets the criteria. I've reverted back to the last version before the addition of colours, it was too much hassle trying to fix the issues that arose because of it. As there is little benefit to be gained from having them, you might as well not bother. Sorry for wasting your time with this, anyway great work on the list. NapHit (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I've added colours since that looks to be a very good idea. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• Noticed "third-highest" in the lead and "second highest" in the lead photo caption. Whether a hyphen is in the middle or not should be made consistent.
• In reference 6, Wisden Almanack should be italicized as a printed publication.
• Ref 11 has what appears to be a missing second number in its page range. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed all. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 04:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ZiaKhan 12:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Why is "ESPNcricinfo" two times in ref# 27? Done. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Replace hyphen with en-dash in ref# 32. Done. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Is ESPNcricinfo a publisher or a work in the External links? ZiaKhan 22:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Is it necessary to italicize website titles in EL? In most of the GAs and FAs, I see neither of them ("Cricinfo" and "CricketArchive") being italicized. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Not sure but you should use the same parameter in the EL as in the refs. ZiaKhan 11:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Done. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Support – Meets the criteria. ZiaKhan 12:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 03:26, 6 July 2012 [14].

---

List of best-selling albums in the United Kingdom

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 07:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The Official Charts Company were recently good enough to publish the list of the UK's biggest-selling albums ever. I've been updating this list ever since then, and I hope that it is of a sufficient quality to be featured. I welcome any advice on how it could be improved. Thaks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 07:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I am inclined to support this but I have one somewhat major concern - the number of albums sold is not listed in the table. I have no clue how much the ones that aren't mentioned in the lede have sold, and in that case it doesn't really help me. I'll support this if the estimated sales data as of the time the OCC made the list is added - otherwise, I am neutral. Toa Nidhiki05 01:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the sales data was not revealed on the Radio 2 programme. The OCC have published the sales for the top 10 up to March 2012 in an article here, and I've included this page in the External Links section. But even that data is now outdated (21 has since overtaken Thriller; ABBA have sold five million). I'm not entirely against including it in the table, but it would end up looking something like this. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright, that makes sense - no need to include incomplete sales data. I support this, then. Toa Nidhiki05 14:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the support! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 07:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment Why do all of the refs have a location set in London? From what I gather, the location refers to the city of publication -- not it's headquarters. How do we know for sure the BBC News article or BBC press release was written and published in say, Manchester? Best to remove it, unless it states in the article 'London'. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

There's probably one or two places where putting "London" would appropriate, but I'm really not sure, so I've just removed the lot. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - you have included Adele's album at number 5, because a news story published some time after the Radio 2 show said it had overtaken "Thriller", but how do we know that other albums have not moved up/down the list since the Radio 2 show? As the over-arching source is the Radio 2 show, should the list not be as it was presented in that show.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess the over-arching sources that are being used for this article are releases that come from the Official Chart Company, who both compiled the Radio 2 list and announced that Adele's album was at number five. I think only 21 is selling a sufficient enough quantity these days to climb any higher up the list – most of the rest of the albums have reached something of a saturation point, and I don't believe that there'll be much movement between the positions any time soon. Obviously, this list will become outdated at some point in the future, but at the moment I think it's sufficiently accurate, and hopefully the article can be updated to reflect any further changes that the OCC announce in the future. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I reviewed this at the peer review and found it to be a good candidate for FLC, I'd like to see some other comments here, but at the moment leaning to supporting the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks again for the (moral) support! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 07:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – Only thing I see worth noting is that "the" should be added before "earliest-released" in the Beatles photo caption. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yikes, don't know how I missed that. Fixed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 07:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Meat Loaf's Bat Out of Hell #9 is quite surprising given its 6x Platinum :). Even more surprising is that Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band hasn't received any certifications; do you know why? This would be interesting to know. Otherwise pretty good. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 12:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, missed the key :)--GoP_T^C_N 12:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 03:26, 6 July 2012 [15].

---

Cleveland Blues (NL) all-time roster

Nominator(s): Neonblak ^talk - 20:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it fits the criteria in uniform with my previous lists of this kind. However, if reviewers notice prose, or any other, issues, I will fix them a timely manner. Neonblak ^talk - 20:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments Lead image caption doesn't need a period. "the team never finished higher than third place in the standings, and played their home games in League Park" these two clauses aren't really related, it reads a little strange to me. "and a tie;[1] McCormick winning a league-leading 45" would either make the semi-colon a comma or change "winning" to "won". "These moves caused the Blues to become financially unstable" why? John Clapp caption, dab link. " team later in 1883 season " do you just mean "late"? "In Eden only " Eden's. "Bill Phillips was the franchise's all-time leader in most batting categories." ref? "At the age of 19, Smith in just one game for the B" missing a word... "Tom York led the league in most games played by a left fielder in 1883." ref? No need to SHOUT in the refs. En-dashes in the ref titles per WP:DASH rather than hyphens... Bibliography refs pp. 360, that should just be p. 360. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Made the corrections noted above. A couple of things: The two you ask for references incuded them. Both the all-time pitching and batting leaders use the specific page detailing the leaders in each statistical category. As for York, on the his retrosheet page, and bolded stat indicates that he led the league, although it doesn't say that. Both retrosheet and baseball-reference do the same thing. The pp vs p in the bibliography. Not sure what to do about that, the template uses "pages=" and spits out "pp".Neonblak talk - 17:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC) I reckon if you change the template to "page=", you'll solve that issue... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Fixed that there s. :) Neonblak talk - 15:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose – Sorry, but I'm running into numerous problems with the prose and am not even halfway through the table notes yet. This should have been copy-edited more before being nominated. "Evans became the their president and stayed in that capacity...". Needs the removal of "the" since it's an excess word. In the first sentence of the second paragraph, you don't need the comma after the parenthetical bit. "Cleveland did not fair well". "fair" → "fare". Don't think there's usually a hyphen in "up-start". The table caption refers to the Cincinnati Reds. Might want to change that. Jack Allen: Never like to see sentence starting with numbers, like "1879 was his only season at the major league level." May want to check for that elsewhere. Ernie Busch: "he became the Brooklyn Grays every-day left fielder." "Grays" → "Grays'". Tom Carey: "he had a .239 batting average as the teams' starting shortstop." "teams'" → "team's". Fred Dunlap: "As a fielder, he twice led the league with assists and double plays." "with" → "in"? Al Hall: The comma before "he had a .125 batting average" should be a semi-colon instead. Ned Hanlon: "Hanlon was the Blues' starting left fielder had a .246 batting average in 73 games played." Missing "and" before "had". Sonny Hoffman: "Hoffman's entire career consisted two games, and had no hits in six at bats." Could use "of" after "consisted", and possibly "he" before "had". Pete Hotaling: "Hotaling played in over 100 games in each of his seasons with the Blues, leading the league in 1883 with 100." Playing in exactly 100 games isn't the same as playing more than that amoung. Should the first part say "played in 100 or more games" or similar? Giants2008 (Talk) 20:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks for you patience, I should know to never trust my own copy-editing. I will surely ensure that a good copy-edit, or peer review, is done by a third party next time. I went ahead and made other edits as well, hopefully ensuring nicely constructed sentences throughout.Neonblak talk - 03:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC) In the Ned Hanlon photo caption, the comma after "manager" should be removed. What makes TheDeadBallEra (ref 65) a reliable source? Double period in the publisher of the first general reference could stand to be taken out. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Fixed. I like TheDeadBallEra for death information on old ballplayers. I mainly use the site because they will post obits for some players. Since I don't believe the site has been completely vetted as a reliable resource, and the information I used isn't really necessary, I removed the information and citation.Neonblak talk - 16:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support – After the fixes, the list looks much better and I think it meets the standards now. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments As an englishman, some of the in American sports can be a little hard to understand, there is just one instance here; where players are referred to as "jumping" their contracts. I have absolutely no idea what this means, is there a wikilink you could provide? that would help immeasurably. for 1884 season at the end of the third para I would link to the blues season article for that year "Beginning his major league career with the Blues" this has confused me a bit. The current baseball league is referred to as the MLB, yet there is no mention of that above, so should you not say "beginning his national league career", or something similar? ref 1 the hyphen should be an en dash NapHit (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC) I removed the term "jumping" with a phrase that hopefully clears things up. As far as differentiating the difference between a "major" league and Major League Baseball (MLB), it is correct to say "he began his major league career...", so I'd rather keep all the items that have that. I put a little link next to the National League in the opening sentence of the lead to clarify. If this doesn't work, let me know.Neonblak talk - 17:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

*Comments Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC) "In their six seasons in the NL, the team never finished higher than third place in the standings." State out of how many by this point. I would move " The NL expanded from six teams to eight before the 1879 season, and invited the franchise to join, and they accepted.[3]" to before that sentence. " They were organized by William Hollinger, a businessman, and J. Ford Evans in 1878" So Hollinger was a businessman... who was Evans? " and invited the franchise to join, and they accepted." --> "accepted an invitation to join" or something similar to that "the team changed the on-field leadership over the next several years, including John Clapp and Fred Dunlap" A little unclear, did Clapp and Dunlap become managers? Captains? For what years? The same seasons? "$2500" should be $2,500, and I like the use of {{Inflation}} to provide more context on the dollar amount. I believe I have addressed your concerns, if there is anything else, please let me know.Neonblak talk - 02:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC) I believe you have. I have no other comments. Support – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 03:26, 6 July 2012 [16].

---

Counties of Croatia

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I trust it complies with FL criteria following recent expansion and copyediting. Tomobe03 (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments "part of post-WWII" preferably spell out WWII, it's a bit tabloidy to refer to the Second World War as WWII in my opinion. You link "župan" on its second instance, not its first. "also been called by the " perhaps "also been referred to by". Not directly related to this FLC, but is there really now a necessity for a separate List of Croatian counties by GDP since the GDP is included here? "and the Free royal cities" any reason "Free" is capitalised? Not keen on the way the latter section's images squash the table between them. In the second table, force the notes row to stay at the bottom. "in the 1886 – 1912 " no need for the spaces around that en-dash. "Narodne Novine" appears to be called "Narodne novine" and be consistent in the refs, link once, link always, or link never. Ref 20, avoid SHOUTING. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I have addressed all of them as they are clearly constructive, helpful and improve the article - only the one regarding the List of Croatian counties by GDP remains, and I think I'll post a proposal to merge that article into this one, especially since virtually all information in the GDP-list is already in this one. I don't see any immediate benefit from specifying percentages of Croatian GDP per county - nor of percentage of Croatian population or territory per county.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC) In the meantime, the List of Croatian counties by GDP article got expanded substantially in effect causing the list reviewed to provide a summary of that one.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments Does the lead image need to be that big? seems a bit excessive to me Actually it does not. I've tightened it a bit (from 450 to 350 px wide) - anything smaller than that may be inadequately usable as a clickable image map. "...the last has the authority and legal status of both a county and a city, separately from the surrounding Zagreb County" -> "which has the authority and legal status of both a county and a city, separate from the surrounding Zagreb County." Reworded per suggestion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Spell out EU one first use as some readers will be unaware what it stands for Done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC) "... into approximately one hundred municipalities" use digits for one hundred Done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Tables need to meet MOS:DTT, so they comply with WP:ACCESS I have added table captions, as well as column/row headers as described in WP:DTAB. Could you please provide some feedback is that alright or should something else be done?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC) two images in the list of former counties section could do with alt text NapHit (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Added alt parameters.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your comments - I believe they contribute towards improving the article. By now, I've addressed all of them except the one regarding the table compliance with MOS:DTT and WP:ACCESS. I still have to take a closer look at that to determine exactly what should be done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC) I did some work with the tables now, could you please have a look at those?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Very interesting list--GoP_T^C_N 17:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – In the first two section headings, it doesn't need to be said that they are lists because it's perfectly obvious that they are lists when you look at them. Changing them to Counties and Former counties is cleaner and more to-the-point than what's there now. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Allens (talk | contribs) 18:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for chipping in.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 03:26, 6 July 2012 [17].

---

Jordin Sparks discography

Nominator(s): Oz ^talk 21:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it now meets the FL criteria. Oz ^talk 21:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Why is the director for "The World I Knew" N/A? What a pro (talk, contribs) thinks that ohhhh, ohhh, woaaah-oh-oh-ohhhhh. 10:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I put N/A there because I could not find a source of the director anywhere. Oz ^talk 06:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Support. What a pro (talk, contribs) thinks that ohhhh, ohhh, woaaah-oh-oh-ohhhhh. 12:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments When it says "release date", where is that relevant to? I just had a quick look at the release of the "Jordin Sparks" album in Ireland, and it says 4 July 2008 while the date in the table says 20 November 2007. Is that date the first release date anywhere in the world? Incidentally, for the US it says it charted on 8 December 2007... just curious about where that release date comes from and is sourced? The November 20 date is the US release date and the first release date for the album. It is sourced in the album's article. Oz talk 22:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC) All should be referenced in this article. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)  Done Where is "Jordin Sparks (EP)" referenced?  Done The B.T.R. album appears to be called BTR here on Wikipedia.  Done Otherwise decent effort. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support good work, comments efficiently dealt with at both the PR and here. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Quick comment – No need for the excess comma after Sparks' name in the first sentence. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done
• Image review – As I understand it, merely cropping an image does not "represent an original work of authorship", making File:Jordin Sparks in Parade cropped.JPG not a derivative work, meaning it is improperly tagged. While this should be fixed, it is a technicality. The image is free enough to be used either way. Goodraise 23:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 22:13, 2 July 2012 [18].

---

Grade I listed churches in Cheshire

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete list of the Grade I listed churches in the county. I consider that is satisfies the FL criteria. The text has been copyedited, and the format is similar to that used in other lists that have achieved featured status. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments nice list, some quick comments. We don't tend to use "This list contains all..." as a starter any more. For instance, featured articles don't start with "This article...". Especially when you end the lead "This is a complete list of Grade I listed churches..." (which is okay by me, incidentally). William Butterworth and "rendered" are dab links so should be resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Yes, I agree. I have amended the start back to an earlier version which I prefer (changed following a suggestion). Is this OK? And I thought I had dealt with the dab links, but they must have got lost somewhere; so dealt with again. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support once Goodraise's image comments are dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments As a native of Chester this list has been an eye-opening read, I certainly didn't realise the history behind some of the churches that I see nearly every day and have never really given second thought about them, so I thank you for taking it upon yourself to improve his list, as its been a fascinating read. I do have a few comments however: I would probably reference the bit about the council splitting into two and possibly the 1974 bit as well WP:CONTEXTLINK frowns upon bold links so I would add plainrowheaders to "wikitable sortable" to solve the issue NapHit (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the comments and advice. Both done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 16:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments – In several entries, there's an extra vertical line appearing for me in the left side of the notes. I've had this in a couple of other lists and no one seems to know why this happens, so it's possible this is just my computer. Do you see a line in there? If so, try and remove them Chester Cathedral: Typo in "artchitecture". St Mary Eccleston: Period needed after "built in 1899". Formatting of ref 73 is busted. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC) No vertical lines in the notes on my screen. The other glitches have been corrected; thanks for spotting them. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BencherliteTalk 11:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

*Quick comment, intend on reviewing in more detail (and no doubt supporting) tomorrow. Personally, I think that it would be better to have the information about "what is a listed building?" rather earlier than the end of the fourth paragraph of the lead. Casual readers are likely to get the idea that "Cheshire" is a geographical description of some sorts, but "listed building" has a specialist meaning. You could omit the last half-sentence of the first para, and move the fourth para up to be the second para. I also wonder if the first sentence of the existing second para would be better at the end of the para; it just seems a little odd to talk about the modern economy before the history and building materials, which are more relevant to the list than chemicals and textiles... More (but not much, I suspect) to come. BencherliteTalk 20:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Support with comments: I've shuffled the content of the lead about a bit as per my above comment and added a phrase about what listed building status means. Feel free to play around / remove my changes, but I think it helps to have listed buildings explained before the economy of Cheshire is described, for example. Spotchecks of the online sources revealed no problems apart from minor one query. I don't have the relevant Pevsner volumes, so just looking at the National Heritage Liat: the NHL says that the screen at St Boniface Bunbury is 1527 but our list says 1450 - is the earlier date from Pevsner? Excellent work, particularly on all the articles of the individual churches. BencherliteTalk 11:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks for carrying out the amendments and the addition. You had spotted that I had problems with the organisation of the lead! I was out all morning today chairing a meeting, and when I arrived back you had done it before I could get to it. If this list is successful, I have some more about grade I listed churches in other counties, and this lead will produce a good basis for the other lists. This is complex, and a problem caused by only having such brief notes, in which I have tried to pick the more interesting or important points. There are in fact three screens in the church: a chancel screen of 1921; a stone screen in the chancel which is dated 1527 (and said to be important in its own right); and a screen of painted wooden boards that is considered to date from about 1450 — this is leaning against the south aisle wall. Both the NHL and Pevsner & Hubbard (1971) refer only to the first two screens. Hartwell et al (2011) include the third and say it is "the only substantial painted medieval screen to survive in Cheshire". I seem to remember from visiting the church 4 or 5 years ago that I read a notice saying that the third screen had been away for restoration, and only recently returned. If my memory is correct, it would explain the differences. Thanks for your comment about the articles. It is not always possible, but I prefer it if the items in a featured list relate to articles in WP. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support (repeated from inside the capped comments). Bencherlite^Talk 11:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• A suggestion unrelated to copyright: Consider using File:St James Church, Audlem.jpg instead of File:St James' Church, Audlem.jpg.
• File:St.Peter's Church.gif – Presently in violation of WP:IUP#Free licenses. Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission explains what needs to be done.

Overall fairly tidy File: pages. No problems found, except this one. Goodraise 21:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Photograph of St James changed.
• The photo of St Peter, Prestbury is taken from a copyrighted commercial publication [19] (sorry I had not spotted that), and I doubt that if the copyright owner realised the full implications of a free licence he would allow it. I have therefore substituted File:Prestbury Church, Cheshire - geograph.org.uk - 363255.jpg from Commons (originally on Geograph) which does have the correct licence. It's black and white, but IMO that does not attract from its merit, and its purpose in the list. Hope that's OK. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Revisited. Goodraise 12:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 22:13, 2 July 2012 [20].

---

List of accolades received by My Week with Marilyn

Nominator(s): JuneGloom Talk 18:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I present to you the list of accolades received by the British drama film, My Week with Marilyn. I created the list when I realised Michelle Williams and Kenneth Branagh were garnering a lot of nominations for their roles. I followed the awards season closely and do not believe I've missed any awards nor I have I left any out due to a lack of sourcing (like The Hours list). This is the first accolades list I've brought here in a while, so do let me know if anything about the format has changed. I look forward to any reviews and comments. - JuneGloom Talk 18:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ruby 2010/2013 21:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Some comments from Ruby2010 on lead prose Add year of film to first sentence Done. The screenplay was adapted from Colin Clark's The Prince, The Showgirl and Me and My Week with Marilyn; two diary accounts, which document his time on the set of the 1957 film The Prince and the Showgirl and the time he spent with Marilyn Monroe - the semicolon seems oddly placed here (the second part of the sentence looks fragmented). I might advise a rewrite Done. What does "combined total gross" mean? Total worldwide gross? Changed. In the lead, you might consider linking the specific awards (Golden Globe Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy for example) Done. "For her performance as Monroe" seems oddly placed, since her role has already been established Removed. Did the film place on any critics top 10 lists? Ruby 2010/2013 04:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC) I've found one and added it to the lead, though I don't tend to add them since they aren't awards or nominations. Thank you for you comments. - JuneGloom Talk 18:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Also, no link for the BAFTA for Best Actress for Williams? Oops, I missed that one. Done. "My Week with Marilyn, Williams and Branagh garnered three nominations from the 69th Golden Globe Awards, with Williams winning Best Actress in a Musical or Comedy Motion Picture." - fragmented Ruby 2010/2013 18:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Hopefully fixed. - JuneGloom Talk 19:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Support pending that dash issues are fixed. Ruby 2010/2013 21:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Ruby! - JuneGloom Talk 22:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments Infobox image caption needs a full stop. Done. It's a British film but box office takings are given in US $, can you convert? Done. "and 25 November in the United Kingdom." perhaps, for engaging prose, "and two days later in..."? Done. I'm not sure that the History of Capri is worth linking to for this article. Unlinked. On my "monitor" I'd prefer to see the date of the ceremony in one line, many of them are split over two lines with the year being shoved forward for no good reason. I'm not sure how to solve this. Will nowraps work? Well, this test edit does the trick for me, but adds a tiny bit of whitespace under the lead. It's simple but if you don't like the effect, feel free to revert it. nowrap probably would also work but it's a bunch more coding, or hardcoding column widths. I think it's down to the infobox leaking down into the next section and causing the table to be a bit squashed... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC) No, that looks fine to me. Thank you. - JuneGloom Talk 17:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure, but I've never seen a "worst..." being part of a list of accolades. Is that the only one? Is it really an accolade or should it just be noted in passing? I think it is an accolade. The Women Film Critics Circle have three "worst" categories among their awards. I didn't want to miss it out as the list would be incomplete. I could remove it from the lead though and mention something else instead? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. - JuneGloom Talk 01:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support, some good work here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment – Just one quick one from me—refs 10, 15, and 33 need dashes to replace the existing hyphens. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. - JuneGloom Talk 22:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support NapHit (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

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