Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2012

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 16:09, 30 September 2012 [1].

---

Golden Spikes Award

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly over the past month and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zepppep (talk) Zepppep (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

;Comments: Comment Lead section: Would move current third sentence to become the first sentence. Yes, Goldenspikesaward.com states the award is given to the "top" player but the quote from the third sentence addresses it so much better (if quotes aren't desired, leaving the ref would suffice). I'd rather stick to the current format. Even though the criteria is "official," but we know that the award is given to the best amateur baseball player, not necessarily one who meets the criteria. Take Bryce Harper as an example, who threw self-destructive temper tantrums and challenging umpire calls at the NJC World Series.[2] That doesn't really satisfy the "exemplary sportsmanship" part of the criteria, yet he still won the award in 2010. For that reason, I'd rather state that it is given to the "best" amateur player and then go into the criteria (which is unofficially secondary to being the best). —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC) (I didn't notice any inconsistencies with spelling but in case there are, "honours" would be British English so make sure whatever is selected, it's consistent.) "Honours" is only used once, but thank you for bringing this up, as previous discussion suggested that since baseball was invented in the US, then American English should be used. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC) I believe the reason would be "strong national ties to a topic" per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. Zepppep (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC) "...Jennings and Buster Posey were voted the top rookie" -- make it "rookies" Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC) "...a few years after" -- be precise, otherwise if it's not, might be considered trivial and could be left out I'd rather stick with "a few", but I would be willing to change to "several years after" as a compromise (provided these terms aren't weasel words. I really don't want to have to say "three and two years, respectively", since it would severely clutter the sentence. And I don't think it's trivial; clarifying this would help, as most players aren't expected to win the Rookie of the Year Award in the same year as a college award, since this would mean directly going to the majors from college (Horner is the only exception in this case). —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, the sentence is cluttered IMO (see below on how to fix, and thus avoid this). I would phrase the part about Jennings and Posey perhaps as: "Jason Jennings and Buster Posey won the GSA and were later voted Rookie of the Year, in 20XX and 20XX." "Later" might still seem a bit ambiguous but it's tied to "rookie" so therefore lets the reader know it came in their first MLB season, and since the players are linkable, the reader can click on the links if they want to know more. I think this is more specific than the current iteration. Zepppep (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC) "Only one winner (Horner)..." -- might suggest changing it to "Only Horner..." Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC) I would have this be its own sentence as it seems a bit of a run-on currently. Additionally, there's too much to try and weave together between this mention and the Jennings and Posey mention. Lastly, since Horner seems to be setting quite an act to follow, I believe it would be fine to give him his own sentence. Zepppep (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC) IMHO, Horner shouldn't have his own sentence, especially when it is only the Rookie of the Year that is being discussed. Horner's sentence by itself would just read "Only Horner achieved the Rookie of the Year Award in the same year." For me, that's too short to be a standalone sentence, given the fact that I'm trying to compare and contrast Jennings and Posey with Horner. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC) "...the 2005 winner, won the award" -- redundant. Also, look to combine that sentence with the next one as the way it currently reads, the validity of the mention might be a bit tough to discover (also, try to word it in a way that removes "switched positions to"). Is Gordon the only winner to have won the GSA at one position and then a GGA at another? If so, state it. Also, how long had he been playing outfield before he won the '11 GGA? If he had been playing OF for a few seasons it might be giving too much weight to his defensive skills and perhaps lessening the possible real reason he won the GSA -- for his offensive numbers? I'm not too sure if Gordon is the only one to win the GSA and GG at different positions. Even if he is (which I'm guessing is true), I still can't put that statement there as an absolute fact (i.e. stating how he is the "only player"), since I have found no sources supporting the claim (making the claim original research). He won the GG in only his second season as an outfielder. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC) If a source can't be found, I would have perhaps put it this way: "Alex Gordon won the award in 2005 and then entered the Majors as a third baseman before winning a GGA in 2011 as a leftfielder. Zepppep (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC) I modified the sentence slightly to that wording. However, I kept the two sentences separate, since it would be an overload of information if I amalgamate the two sentences together. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Winners section: Change "college" to "school." (This is the wording on a current FL, List of Heisman Trophy winners.) Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Change links from athletic dept. of a school to baseball program of a school. Detected 3 instances of this. I know at least one, Florida Gators, has a dedicated article for its baseball program (Florida Gators baseball). Done. Changed to Florida Gators baseball. Is that it, or would you like me to include #Baseball for colleges that don't have specific articles? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC) I would make the link as relevant as possible, particularly if the athletic dept. for a school has a long article, it could prove quite helpful to the reader (the reason we do all this stuff, right?). Zepppep (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Provide a definition of "active" (look to use definition from another FL, Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award). Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Provide location in reference markup for those references where the location may not be in the newspaper name per Wikipedia:Citing sources. For example, #10 is from AJC.com (Atlanta Journal-Constitution). Use "location=" in reference mark-up. Zepppep (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Fixed. The problem was the "newspaper=" part did not show up when I used "work=ajc.com", so I utilized "publisher=ajc.com" instead. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC) What about #20? Reader isn't informed where The Times Daily hails from. Is #11 a reliable source? I recall reading somewhere about making the newspaper/publisher linkable when appropriate in the reference markup, as exemplified at Wikipedia:Citation templates, but I can't recall where I read it. I do believe it is not required, however, but it may be something to consider. (I prefer it because it allows the reader to easily click on the article link concerning that book/publication/organization should they so choose.) Zepppep (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Done. Added location for ref 20. And yes, even I acknowledge that ref 11 does appear a bit shady. It's mostly focusses on local coverage from the Phoenix area (perhaps that may be why it's not so well known). I'm not sure now; the article was written by one of the website's 3 official editors [3] and the info given in the article is factual (i.e. it's the only website I could find that stated Horner being the only player to achieve those three honours in one year). —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC) And I suppose having a citing a source is always a good thing, but are you doing it mainly to avoid possible OR contention or more so to verify the fact? Are you thinking it's likely to be challenged? Zepppep (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC) More to avoid potential OR. I simply can't put two and two together and say, as Horner won x and y (and happens to be the only one to appear on both lists in the same year), he's the only one to achieve this. Here, I actually needed a source to confirm he did both. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Refs 19, 22 and 23 need location info. Essentially any newspaper where the location isn't in the name, the location should be provided. Zepppep (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Zepppep (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

What are the chances of getting a photo of the award into the article? It's a pretty cool looking award. Zepppep (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried searching Flickr for a free image, but I wasn't able to find any. Unfortunately, all the pics of the award I have found so far are non-free. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Uploaded a fair-use logo of the Golden Spikes Award. I think that should suffice. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments "ten members of the National College Baseball Hall of Fame have won the Golden Spikes Award" is that the right way round? Were they in the HoF before winning the Golden Spikes Award? Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC) "In total, seven...." In total is redundant. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC) "a few years " a bit loose. Changed to "several," but that also sounds kinda loose. And I don't want to list out respective years. Is there a better alternative? —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC) "the Majors " what is this? Is that MLB? Fixed. Changed to MLB and wikilinked it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC) "The award is presented annually at Studio 42 of the MLB Network" this probably didn't exist in 1978, what happened "back in the day"? I tried Googling it, but so far, I haven't been able to find any sources stating where the award was presented back in the day. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Good enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC) "Denotes player also won the Rookie of the Year Award in the same year" you're actually denoting the year with this... Done. Removed all existing "denotes." What I meant was, you're using this symbology on the year of the award, not the recipient, so strictly the key should say "year in which player won... the same year", but that's not great either... You don't have to have colours, you could just use the symbols... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Done. Removed all colour and moved symbols to player's name col. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC) "Denotes player also won the Dick Howser Trophy in the same year" ditto. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• Minor point, but if reference 3 covers each of the first two sentences, it doesn't need to be used for each sentence. One cite at the end of the material covered is sufficient for verifiability.

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• The Tim Lincecum photo caption needs a reference, since nothing else in the article covers the Cy Young Awards.

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• If ref 11 is acknowledged as "shady" by the nominator, why are we using it? If it's true that nothing else of higher quality exists to cite the fact it's used for, maybe it doesn't belong in this article for now. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• I stated that it could be shady because it comes from not such a well-known website (as opposed to ESPN or MLB.com), due to the fact that it covers only the sports teams based around Phoenix. In my opinion, the source does have some credibility to it, as it was written by one of the website's 3 official editors. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• I was asked for further comments on my talk page. My further comment is that I don't think the source is reliable, and I think the fact is cites should be removed if a stronger citation doesn't exist. Obviously, others can challenge my opinion, and if they can produce evidence of reliability stronger than the site having editors, I want them to do so. Has information from the site been used in any mainstream publications? Giants2008 (Talk) 19:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Muboshgu commented below on how the website's about page "does quell some concerns." I read up more on that page and found out that the website states that their "work has been featured, syndicated, and/or linked to by ESPN, Deadspin.com, USAToday.com, SI.com, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, Chicago Sun Times, and Reuters." Provided that what they stated is indeed true, I don't think the website should be considered unreliable, since all these reliable news sources utilize it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• That sounds a little better, but I'm still wary of the site. I'd feel better if Muboshgu struck out his concern about it. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Muboshgu stated that he is "unsure" of whether to keep the Fanster source or replace it with the other source that is more vague. Which source do you think would be better? —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think that I'm inclined to go with, "when in doubt, throw it out". A FL should be beyond reproach, and if a source leaves us unsure, we're probably better off without it, no? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Wait, so which source is the one that leaves us unsure? The Fanster.com one or the reliable yet vague encyclopedia. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think Muboshgu is saying that both sources leave us unsure, and that the fact they support should be removed. You'd have to ask him to confirm that, though. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I guess so. I'd be inclined to leave it out entirely, and then I'd be fine giving full support. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Removed the sources and the fact. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments Refs should come after punctuation, currently ref 8 does not There isn't any punctuation before or after ref 8. It currently reads "he was the first overall MLB draft pick[8] and proceeded to win." I never use a serial comma, as I always utilize Canadian English (which is similar to British English). —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I don't think I made clear what my point was. Refs are supposed to be positioned after punctuation, currently that ref does not. Therefore, as you don't use the serial comma, it would be best to move it to the end of the sentence. NapHit (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Done. Sorry for the misunderstanding. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC) No worries, it was my fault more not being clear enough. NapHit (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC) "...also achieved the Rookie of the Year Award" achieved doesn't sound right, perhaps change to received. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment Looks good, one point is that the wording in the third sentence of paragraph three could be adjusted. Instead of, "Although the award can be given to any amateur player, it has always been given to a college baseball player" maybe a better option would be "Although it can be given to any amateur player, the award has always been given to a college baseball player." I bring this up because the prior two sentences both the contain "the award", therefore it might be advisable to move the term to later in the third sentence to make it less redundant. AutomaticStrikeout 18:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Very nice-looking list. AutomaticStrikeout 18:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

;Comments: Comments' Sorry to be tardy to the party. It seems that many issues have been addressed so far. It is too bad there's no free image of the trophy, but is there a logo we can get a non-free rationale for? There's a logo available on the main website and on Baseball Almanac. Unfortunately, I have no experience on how to add a non-free rationale image and have only added two images to WP during my tenure here. Could someone with more experience in WP media help? —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Done. I've just uploaded the logo using Upload Wizard. Can someone delete the duplicate image of the file, as I thought the first attempt of uploading had failed. Guess not. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Symbol used for ROY in that same season only applies to Horner. I wonder if it makes sense to use it. It's very rare for a player to go from college to MLB that quickly. Maybe it should just be ROY at any time, to include Jennings and Posey. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Like Giants2008, I'm concerned about the "fanster.com" source. A more traditional RS would satisfy this. Although, the website's "About" page does quell some concerns. I'll think on this source more. I found a Braves Encyclopedia source that comes very close to verifying the claim made. However, it only states that Horner "still holds the distinction of being the only player selected College Player of the Year and a major league Rookie of the Year in the same season." The only problem is: it doesn't specifically mention the Golden Spikes Award (it's only implied, as the Baseball America College Player of the Year Award didn't exist back then) and doesn't mention him being first overall draft pick. Should I replace the Fanster.com source or leave it for now? —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Done. See above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC) "Alex Gordon won the award in 2005 and then entered the MLB in 2007 as a third baseman.[12][13] However, he switched positions and moved to left field, where he won a Gold Glove Award in 2011.[14]" - while this is true, I'm not sure why we're highlighting this, especially since other GS winners have won GG awards. It seems slightly off-topic, while the Dick Howser trophy, in contrast, is the bullseye of the target. In fact, I think the Dick Howser Trophy, which covers the same ground, should get a little more emphasis than second to last sentence in a decent sized paragraph. Done. Replaced Gordon's info with single-game achievements of several award winners and delved into the fact that the Dick Howser Trophy is considered the college baseball equivalent of the Heisman Trophy). —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC) I like this better. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC) "The award is presented annually at Studio 42 of the MLB Network" - that's only a recent development. Where was it presented before the MLB Network existed? As previously addressed in The Rambling Man's resolved comments, I haven't been able to find any sources stating where the award was presented back in the day. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC) My bad, failed to read that. In that case, can we at least say when it began to be held at the MLB Network studios? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC) In the table, on Ben McDonald's row, "LSU" --> "Louisiana State" for uniformity Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC) – Muboshgu (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support All concerns addressed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Harrias ^talk 11:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not sure, but the use of italics to indicate something in the table may not be accessible for screen-reader users. I don't know if anyone else can provide any further guidance either way on this issue? That said, it is only a minor point, and I'm happy to support this article's promotion. Nice work. Harrias ^talk 11:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 18:05, 25 September 2012 [4].

---

Ricardo Arjona discography

Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the minor sources issues that prevented the list to reach FL status have been adressed and i think it could be promoted this time. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Now that the minor issues that caused the article to not be promoted the first time around have been addressed, I see no reason to not promote this article. Zac  21:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments Unlink album per WP:OVERLINK Same goes for singles "List of albums, with selected chart positions, sales figures and certifications". Isn't it studio albums? Same goes for other headers, along with their captions Don't have bold text in references TBrandley 21:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC) I fixed albums into studio albums, and don't understand why you say "overlink" if they are linked just once. Done with the third one. The last one is unnecessary and such bolding was added in the previous nomination for clarity, so i will keep it. Thanks for your comments. — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Oh, no I meant overlink, as it is a common term, and thus, shouldn't be linked. As for bolding, see MOS:BOLD. Cheers, TBrandley 21:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Mmm Okay, i have no problem delinking them :) As for the bolding, i consider (and several users on the previous nomination) that it is better with the bolding, regardless of the guideline. Additionally, the guideline does not forbid the use of the bolding in references. Apart from that, as the references are grouped together, i.e. several references for various albums are grouped together by country, they need to be bolded, so you can differenciate which internal source supports which album, and if the album's name is bolded, this is achieved better. Same with singles. — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Alright then. List looks good. Cheers, TBrandley 21:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support looks peachy. TBrandley 21:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks again for your comments :) They're very welcome. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support per last FLC. Erick (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Quick oppose lots of quick support, perhaps not many of them have looked in detail.... "fifteen compilation albums"? Infobox says 8. Updated "His 1994 release, Animal Nocturno, garnered international success and spawned the singles "Mujeres" and "Primera Vez".[6][7][8][9]" are four citations really necessary for this single, short sentence? Leaved two refs, one for "international success" and the other for the singles. "Latin Songs" chart is overlinked in the lead. And sometimes the Billboard is part of the link, sometimes it isn't. Fixed. Image caption in infobox should not have a full stop. Done "Arjona released his thirteenth album" his thirteenth "studio" album. Fixed. Can we have refs in numerical order? E.g. [17][9] and [17][6] could be [9][17] and [6][17]. On it. "CD – cassette" why is this separated with an en-dash, not a simple comma? Good, better with a comma :) Why wait until the fifth usage to link RIAA? Fixed. You link Warner in the albums table but not Sony... why? Fixed. thanks. "Platinum+Gold[25]"? I would expect a space between the + and the classifications, and does this mean Platinum and a bit more? Or just Platinum (but was gold before)? I don't understand this classification. AMPROFON uses that format. It certifies Platinum + Gold to an album that has sold enough copies to reach platinum status plus an additional number of copies equivalent to gold status. As an example, Platinum is 60,000 and gold is 30,000 copies. If an album sells 95,000 copies, it is certified Platinum + Gold. I see "^" in the table keys, but I don't see it being used. Removed "Exitos a Mi Manera[35][34]" etc, see before about ref ordering. Done "Te Quiero" line of the table has a missing cell at the end. Fixed. Where are the first two promotional singles referenced? Removed them, no reference covering them. Although they have both music videos. Neither singles tables have captions. I think i fixed it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I think i have fixed all. Thanks for your comments Rambling Man :) Always welcomed. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Where are release dates referenced, and which territory are they relevant to? The release dates are the first ones with physical releases. They are relevant to the United States. I don't understand, where is the reference, for instance for the release date of Animal Nocturno? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC) OMG Thanks for the tip. They were all original research, never noticed. I removed them and left only the year, as appears on Allmusic. From Si El Norte Fuera El Sur onwards, the dates are those from Allmusic and/or iTunes. — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Where is "Déjame Decir Que Te Amo" and "Jesús, Verbo No Sustantivo" and "Vida" and "Marta" referenced? The first two, i didn't found reliable enough sources. Although, they had music videos and such, so i don't know. "Vida" and "Marta" have their own articles, so they don't need to be referenced. That's not true. What if those articles aren't referenced either? The facts here should be referenced independently. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Well, i wrote those articles and they are both GA. They are completely referenced, but i have no problem adding a source to it. — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC) This list shouldn't rely on sub-articles to reference it. Imagine if you applied that to all list articles, some could end up without a single reference based on the idea that other "articles exist"....! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Well, yes you're right. I was just following the discography manual of style, but I understand your point. I will add them tonight :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Added the references. Anything else? :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I looked through the list and I really think it deserves the bronze star. Good job ;) ! — Tomica (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments "Despite this decision, Arjona returned to music..." returned to music is redundant already established he left the music industry Is not redundant. He left the music industry but then he returned. How would that be redundant? You've already mentioned he left the music industry in the previous sentence, so it doesn't need to be repeated as by returning he obviously returned to music. NapHit (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Look, I still don't get your point and, as far as I read, it may be obvious that he returned, but if I say "he left", the most obvious thing i'd write is that he returned despite the fact that he left, as said before. So i don't catch up the "redundancy" you talk about. Otherwise, I'd like to as you to fix it if you want, ans I'm not able to do so and the copyeditor agreed it was the best way to express it. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this. Here is the bit I'm referring to: and its commercial failure led to his decision to abandon the music industry. Despite this decision, Arjona returned to music and released Jesús, Verbo No Sustantivo in 1989. I've emboldened the two uses of music for emphasis. The point is you establish that he abandoned the music industry in the first sentence. Therefore it is redundant to mention that he returned to the music industry, as the subject matter is music. Also the onus is not on the reviewer to fix issues, that is the job of the nominatorr, I've explained the issue, the only words you have to remove are to music nothing else needs changing. NapHit (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Well, now i see it. I will remove them as i, now, understand your point. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC) refs that are PDFs need to include the parameter |format=PDF Although the {{cite web}} template does indicate that the file is PDF by default (and by the fact that i consider it needless), I will see if it's worthy to add the parameter. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC) I added it and, weirdly, it looks good :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• I see that a couple of the paragraphs have been merged since the last FLC. I think the two current paragraphs are now overly long, and preferred the old four-paragraph lead, which I think had better-sized paragraphs.
• In the second paragraph, there's one usage of ref 7 after an en dash that doesn't come immediately after punctuation. In this case, the best solution is to place the citation before the dash, immediately after "chart". Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Done all. Thanks for your comments Giants :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 09:28, 24 September 2012 [5].

---

Usher discography

Nominator(s): Rayman^{95 (talk)} 21:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after doing many, many edits I feel that the discography has the potential of being an FL. Rayman^{95 (talk)} 21:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• You diffidently have my support, here are a few comments while reading:
• Link his self-titled debut album in the lead

Done.

• There is inconsistency in regards to endash "six-times" and "four times"

Done.

• RIAA certifications needs linking

Done.

• "2000 decade" ---> "2000s decade"

Done.

• "while the album's fourth and singles singles," typo found

Done.

• Another inconsistency found in regards to numbers "top-thirty" and "top-20"

Done.

Hope this helps with the nomination and good luck, Jona^{talk to me} 18:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and support! Rayman^{95 (talk)} 19:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome =) btw I created all of his albums and singles on Simple English Wikipedia based on your expansion on all of his articles. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 19:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments Where are release dates referenced and which territory are they relevant to? Album's have wiki links, which in itself is a reference. As for territory, the album releases are relevant to the country which they were released in first. This is how many other FL's have approached these points. Done, added country and source. "the top-40" etc, not sure you need a hyphen here. Done, removed hyphen. Don't use RIAA in the lead without expanding it first. Done, expanded. Can you make table captions unique please? Done. Is "3rd compilation album" necessary? Done, removed. Where is Numb referenced? It's wiki linked. Done, added reference. Where is Hush referenced? Removed, seeing how it didn't chart. Where are the music videos? Moved to Usher videography, linked in the 'See also' section of the discography. It was requested by a user who thought the discography was too long. Replace spaced hyphens in the references with en-dashes. Done. Allmusic->AllMusic. Done. Avoid SHOUTING in the refs. Not sure what you mean. If it was the bolding then i've un-bolded the text. CAPITAL LETTERS indicates shouting. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments: You've put a lot of effort into this list. May I offer my suggestions? "In this discography, music videos are included as well." – avoid WP:SELFREF. Combine this into the first sentence. Removed sentence, as the music videos were moved to Usher videography. "It ranked as the top solo album and second most successful album of the 2000s decade." - a bit subjective to cite a Decade End Chart. Precisely mention that it was number two on that chart. Done, changed the sentence. Check for consistency in wikilinking in the references. Some publishers/publications are linked ones, while others are linked multiple times. The ones that are linked more than once are the refs that use templates, so the publishers are automatically wiki-linked. I've gone through the refs extensively for overlinking, and besides my first point, could not see any. Why is The Hollywood Reporter publisher in brackets but the Billboard ones aren't? They're both magazines. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Removed brackets. Thanks for the comments, I think I've addressed them. Rayman95 (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support – after feedback from several reviewers, the article looks polished and ready for the bronze star. Good work. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I like how the article looks overall. The lead is comprehensive, well centered and referenced. The tables sortable and referenced. According to me, it looks good. Good job! — Tomica (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) Rayman^{95 (talk)} 20:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Holiday56 (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Holiday56 Lead "Nine compilations" could be changed to "Nine compilation albums" – to keep it consistent with the infobox and the name of the section. Done. "break-through" → "breakthrough" Done. "...his first US number-one hit "Nice & Slow." – Perhaps "first US number-one hit" could be changed to "first number-one hit on the US Billboard Hot 100". This would keep it consistent with the rest of the lead, which uses "Hot 100" multiple times. Done. "while the second single" → "while its second single" Done. "its three US singles..." → This phrase implies that "Hey Daddy (Daddy's Home)", "Lil Freak" and "There Goes My Baby" were only released in the US, despite the fact that the articles for the former two singles indicate that they were released in countries outside of the US – "Hey Daddy (Daddy's Home)" in the UK and "Lil Freak" in Canada. The phrase may also confuse readers into thinking that "OMG" and "More" were not released in the US. They were only released in the US. Other charting positions come from digital downloads from the respective countries. "Hey Daddy" has no information saying it charted in the UK on its main article, neither does "Lil Freak" in Canada. I changed "other singles" to "international singles" as this denotes that both "OMG" and "More" were released everywhere, including the US. Just because a single did not chart in a territory does not necessarily mean that it was not released in that territory. Check out the release history sections for both articles. The lead for "Lil Freak" even reads: "...was released as the second single from the album in the United States and Canada on March 2, 2010." Holiday56 (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC) I've altered the sentence so it doesn't sound like the single's were released in specific territories. How does this sound: "The album was preceded by five singles: "Hey Daddy (Daddy's Home)", "Lil Freak" and "There Goes My Baby" peaked in the top 25, forty and 25 respectively on the Hot 100 chart. The album's two other singles, "OMG" and "More", achieved worldwide success, as the former topped the Hot 100." Rayman95 (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC) "The album was preceded by five singles" means that all five singles from Raymond vs. Raymond were released before the album; two of them were released after the album, however. "The album produced five singles" would be a more appropriate phrase. Holiday56 (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Done. Albums and singles "selected chart positions, sales and certifications" → "selected chart positions, sales figures and certifications" Done. The AllMusic link used as a reference for Billboard 200 and Canadian Albums Chart peak chart positions redirects to the Usher's biography and discography page instead. You can replace the link with either the proper AllMusic link or a link from Usher's chart history on the Billboard site. Done. "The ARIA Report" → "The ARIA Report: Issue 969 (Week Commencing 22 September 2008)" Done. The Hung Medien references currently look like this: {{cite web|url=http://australian-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Usher |title=australian-charts.com – Discography Usher |publisher=Hung Medien|accessdate=November 10, 2011}} They should be altered to look like this: {{cite web|url=http://australian-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Usher |title=Discography Usher |work=''australian-charts.com'' |publisher=Hung Medien|accessdate=November 10, 2011}} Done. "Long Play" → "Longplay" Done. "List of albums, with selected chart positions, sales figures and certifications" in the studio albums section → "List of studio albums, with selected chart positions, sales figures and certifications". Done. "List of compilations with selected details" → "List of compilation albums, with selected details" Done. "List of extended plays, with selected chart positions and sales" → "List of extended plays, with selected chart positions and sales figures" Done. "Chart Tracking" → "Chartverfolgung" Done. Chart Stats is not published by the Official Charts Company. For a more reliable reference published by the OCC, use this page. "The Official Zobbel Homepage" → "Chart Log UK: U2 – Utopia" Done. Fix an inconsistency regarding the way Zobbel entries updates are formatted. For "Lil Freak" and "There Goes My Baby", the title is listed as "Chart Log UK: New Entries Update"; for "First Dance", the title is listed as "Chart Log UK – 3.04.2010 (wk12)". Either include the issue dates (like the way "First Dance" is referenced) or not. Done. "Scroll down to Usher" isn't necessary. Done. "SUI" → "SWI" Done. "Can U Get Wit It" → "Can U Get wit It" Done. References are needed for the UK chart positions of "Can U Get wit It" and "Lemme See". Done. My bad. The UK #91 position for "Can U Get wit It" is already referenced in "Chart Log UK: U2 – Utopia". You can restore the position; just update the Zobbel reference to indicate that is being used to reference both "There Goes My Baby" and "Can U Get wit It". Holiday56 (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Done. Usher is not a featured artist on "Same Girl"; he and R. Kelly share lead artist credit. Done. "DJ Khaled featuring Usher, Young Jeezy, Rick Ross, and Drake" → remove serial comma, to be consistent with the rest of the article. Done. "Somebody to Love (Remix)" → "Somebody to Love" (Remix) Done. "Enrique Iglesias & Usher" → "Enrique Iglesias and Usher" Done. Add will.i.am as a featured artist on "What's Your Name". Done. Usher is not a featured artist on "Same Girl" and "Dirty Dancer", so perhaps they could be moved up to the singles section (i.e. "No Air" on Chris Brown discography and "Princess of China" on Rihanna discography, both featured lists). Either that, or a new section could be created for them. Done, moved to lead artist section. The link leading to Drake's article should be updated to Drake (entertainer). Done. Promotional singles "List of promotional singles, with selected chart positions" → "List of promotional singles, with selected chart positions, showing year released and album name" Done. "Papers" is listed as a full single on its article, but only as a promotional single on this article – any reason for this? On its main article, it is noted as a "buzz single" so a promotional single. Also, on its album page Raymond v. Raymond it is not list as an official single. Other charted songs "List of non-single songs, with selected chart positions" → "List of non-single songs, with selected chart positions, showing year released and album name" Done. Album appearances Perhaps a change to "other appearances"? An album appearance can refer to any song that has appeared on an album, which technically means all of Usher's singles could be included. Done. "List of non-single songs with album appearances by Usher" → "List of non-single album appearances, with other performing artists, showing year released and album name" Done. "The Christmas Song" → "The Christmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire)" Done. "If I Ain't Got You (Remix)" → "If I Ain't Got You" (Remix) Done. Dirty Money should be added as a performer for "Looking for Love" in the other appearances section. Done. Soundtrack appearances The soundtrack appearances section should be made a sub-section of the album appearances section. Soundtrack albums are still albums. Done. "List of soundtrack songs, with performers and source film" → "List of soundtrack songs, with other performers and source film" Done. "Movie" → "Film" Done. Notes All Billboard API links are dead. They need to be replaced with Billboard.biz links; this search engine will be helpful. Done. "Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles – Issue Date: 2012-06-09" → "Bubbling Under Hot 100 – Issue Date: 2012-06-09" Done. Remove "XML" from the reference for the Bubbling Under position of "Fed Up". Done. Why not use a more easily accessible reference for the Bubbling Under position of "Here I Stand"? ([6]) Done. "Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles – Issue Date" → "Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Songs – Issue Date" Done. External links Usher's AllMusic link in the external links section needs to be updated (new URL). Done. Holiday56 (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Holiday56 (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Holiday56 (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments Unlink studio albums per WP:OVERLINK Same goes for live albums, singles TBrandley 01:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I don't understand, could you be a bit more specific please. Rayman95 (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Unlink above terms per WP:OVERLINK. Regards, TBrandley 13:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC) In the lead? Rayman95 (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Well, yes. Regards, TBrandley 22:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Done.

• Support TBrandley 03:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 09:28, 24 September 2012 [7].

---

Chairman of the National Assembly of Vietnam

Nominator(s): TIAYN (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Vietnam... --TIAYN (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose (mainly due to lack of a "history"-style section) Done Lead is too short, would merge in the subsequent section to meet WP:LEAD. Done "the National Assembly. The National Assembly," avoid such rapid repetition. Done You don't need the hat note saying "See also" when the page you link to has already been linked to in the main article. Done "2nd" -> "second", "4th" -> "fourth". Done Not sure about the staggered "See also" bullets. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC) You could add an overview of the history of the position, including notable events that relate directly to the chairmanship (main oppose reason). I'm on this one now (I'll be finished tomorrow; I need to gather my sources) --TIAYN (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC) I'll start work on this article when I find the time. --TIAYN (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Would you be okay to withdraw the nomination in the meantime then? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Done --TIAYN (talk) 08:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments Done "was the scholar Nguyễn Văn Tố, and he was not..." -> "was the scholar Nguyễn Văn Tố, who was not..." Done "On 3 March 1946 the National Assembly, under the chairmanship of Nguyễn Văn Tố, the National Assembly..." no need for the second National Assembly Done "While he was never member of the Communist Party... missing an "a" between never and member Done "and became the first chairman..." -> and was the first chairman Done "when he became Chairman of the State Council was established" not sure what this means, doesn't make any sense to me Still at a loss as to what this is trying to say, its grammatically incorrect and makes no sense, needs fixing or removing. NapHit (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC) I did not see that comment, It know says; "when he became Chairman of the State Council, a newly-established post." Better? --TIAYN (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC) No worries reads a lot better now. NapHit (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Done "and he was succeeded..." Done "who became from a minority background, and he was the first chairman since Trường who was member of the Politburo" -> the became should just be came, could expand on the minority background bit, I take it he came from a minority race in Vietnam? without it explicitly stating that I'm not certain though. NapHit (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Comments from Crisco 1492 Done with 84.58% in favour - with a majority of 84.58% Thanks That's it, methinks. I did a copyedit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Done "is a permanent body which controls the activities of the National Assembly when its not in session." "its" → "it is", to avoid a contraction. Done Photo of Nguyen Sinh Hung could use alt text. Minor, but the alt= is showing up to the readers, at least to this reader. It looks like you doubled up on the the alt= parameter in the infobox. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Done --TIAYN (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Not done. There are still twin alt=, and I can still see one in the alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Done --TIAYN (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Done History: Capitalization of Chairman is inconsistent here. It should be one way or the other. Still see one capitalized Chairman by Nguyen Van An's name. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Done --TIAYN (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Done Don't think there should be a hyphen in "newly-established". Done Looks like Nong Duc Manh held office until 2001, not 2002 as this section says. Done Refs 10 and 12 need publishers and access dates. Done Ref 15 needs a link, or we're going to have a hard time with verification. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Image review: No copyright problems found. Goodraise 17:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Please do not edit my comments. Thank you. Goodraise 23:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as no changes were made since 4 August. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Done I'm back... --TIAYN (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Support --Kürbis (✔) 12:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Wow, this review is running slow. Good work. TBrandley 00:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

* Done "Still, of the ten people who have chaired the National Assembly, only five of them have been members of the Politburo." – This sentence doesn't seem to need the word "still" at the start; it would mean exactly the same thing without it, and its inclusion creates a "chatty" tone which isn't encyclopedic. Also, what is the reference for stating that only five of the chairmen have been members of the Politburo? Done "and another non-Communist Party member. While he was never a member of the Communist Party, he was a committed revolutionary." The repitition of the fact that he isn't a member of the Communist Party makes this section a little clunky: perhaps look at merging the two sentences, or at least changing their formation to remove the repitition. Removed the word Nguyễn Hữu Thọ, a Southerner," – If a "Southerner" is a specific term for a group of people, link to a relevant article (or at least a red link that is likely to be created). There is also no mention of why his being a Southerner is relevant to this article, as no such descriptions are applied to the other chairmen. Okay, I've just done a bit of reading around, and found that in 1976 North and South Vietnam "reuinfied", which might be worth mentioning in the article to prevent the sort of confusion I had! Done "Nguyễn Hữu Thọ, a Southerner, succeeded Trường in 1981, as chairman, but he was not a member of the Politburo." Also, the comma after 1981 is not needed in this sentence. Done I'm a little concerned that all the definition of the position, as provided in the lead section is all referenced to the Vietnamese government. Is there an independent source that can be used in that section at all?

• What are the references for the birth and death years for the chairmen, the dates that they were in office, and for the rank of those that were members of the Politburo?

I've never really needed to add the sources for birth-death years before or for the assumption and the ending of holding office (but even if i wanted to add a source for the former, I'm unable too - I've tried.. There is not one single source, which contains a list of NA chairman, which is a problem), and I assume that I don't need to now either... --TIAYN (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Done Hmmmm.. are there references for the dates they took office at least: given that is what the list is about, it seems that to not have citations for the dates in office is a little problematic. Harrias ^talk 20:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm working on it; I'm hoping to be finished by this weekends end. OK? --TIAYN (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Generally a pretty good list, not major points from me here. Harrias ^talk 21:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I found a source; see (its mentioned as a "General" source in the References section);

• Staff writer. "Tìm hiểu về Bầu cử đại biểu QH và HĐND qua các thời kỳ" [Learn about the Election of Deputies to the National Assembly and People's Councils at different times]. Medical College of Quảng Ninh. Retrieved 15 September 2012.

--TIAYN (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The user is not replying, even if I have responded to his last comment. --TIAYN (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Hi, sorry, I've been pretty distracted and busy recently. Looks good to me now. Sorry for holding things up. Harrias ^talk 22:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:09, 18 September 2012 [8].

---

Grade I listed churches in Merseyside

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a companion to the recently promoted Grade I listed churches in Greater Manchester. Its format is similar, and the text has been copyedited. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Ref 5 - 19 do not point to any citation. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks; fixed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments (all picky...) "This is a complete list ..." I know it's not the first sentence, (it's the third) but I'm still not keen on this phrasing... sorry. Not sure if it's the wording, or the position of the sentence. Assuming it's the latter, I've moved it to the end of the first paragraph. I included it to demonstrate that the "comprehensive" criterion for an FL was met. Or would you prefer it to be phrased differently? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Is good for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC) "are in Gothic style" perhaps a personal pref, but "are Gothic in style" would seem better to me. It might seem to read better for "Gothic", but IMO it would not do for all styles; it is Decorated in style, or Perpendicular in style, etc. would read oddly. So maybe for consistency, it's best as it is. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Okeydokes, was just a personal pref in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Liverpool is overlinked in the lead. "Almost all the ..." -> "Most of the..."? Both fixed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC) I've possibly asked this before, but why is Chapel in Lady Chapel capitalised? It depends I guess on whether you recognise this as a title (like Buckingham Palace, or the John Smith Chapel), or a description (like south chapel) with the word "Lady" capitalised in reverence to Mary. But the article on Lady chapel uses a lower case "c", so I've changed it for consistency across articles. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC) What's a mortuary chapel and why haven't we got an article on it?! It has two meanings: a small chapel in a cemetery where bodies are kept prior to burial; or a chapel in or associated with a church used for burials of the members of a (usually wealthy) family. The word mortuary redirects to morgue mainly in the context of a hospital, etc. so I've not linked it. Rather I've added a footnote giving a definition of the term in the context of the list. Why no article? Not for me to say. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC) "This is a Roman Catholic Church " -> "This is a Roman Catholic church "? Fixed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Comment Thanks for the trouble you've taken (again) over the review. Not sure if you will be happy with all my responses. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC) No probs. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support I've linked conurbation, but I can't see anything else to criticise, so... supporting Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support all my issues addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – By the Liverpool Cathedral reference in the lead, there's an extra space inside "20th century" that should be fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Fixed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:09, 18 September 2012 [9].

---

Bookseller/Diagram Prize for Oddest Title of the Year

Nominator(s): GoP_T^C_N 09:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC), User:ISD

I am nominating this for featured list because it deserves a star. The first (obscure) nomination failed due to a very minor issue, despite receiving three supports. The main editor, User:ISD, agreed with me to nominate this article a second time. Regards.GoP_T^C_N 09:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose multiple comments, but enough to say no. Infobox image caption doesn't need a full stop. Should the caption be "Bookseller/Diagram Prize"? "at first decided by" initially decided by. Infobox, I think the "last awarded" usually is used for defunct awards. " there has been controversy. There have been two occasions when" reads a little awkwardly to me, repetitive and not that engaging. I don't know how to reword the phrases. I reworded "The latest winner was Cooking with Poo by Saiyuud Diwong." perhaps "The most recent winner, in 2012, was Cooking...."? "but it was expanded to books outside of the fair" it was later expanded? but other books outside of the fair were also included <- is this better? I reworded--GoPTCN 17:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC) "The Bookseller open suggestions " opened. "receives a considerable amount of press coverage" -> "receives considerable press coverage" "for the person who spots the" replace "spots" with "nominates"? "but he later changed his mind and now creates" -> he later reconsidered and... "A follow-up book is to be released in October 2009..." it's 2012? "enough that in 2004, " put a comma in front of in. Check that all "Notes" which aren't complete sentences don't end in a full stop. Multiple page refs should be pp. not just p. Page ranges should use an en-dash, not a hyphen. Be consistent, is it "The New York Times" or "New York Times"? Be consistent, is it BBC News or BBC? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Done all except noted. Please check the notes section whether my edits were correct.--GoPTCN 11:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments – "the idea of an award...was proposed by a member of the Diagram Group, to provide entertainment" – replace with "...Diagram Group in order to provide entertainment" "the winner was voted for by the public instead of decided by Bent" – replace with "...instead of being decided by Bent" "'odd titles' and NOT 'odd books' – don't SHOUT and instead use italics (...and not 'odd...) "Bent did not offer a prize in 1987 and 1991" – add comma after 1991 "Bent has also expressed his dislike of people voting for ruder titles saying that he himself would not have voted for the 2007 winner," – comma after "titles"; no comma after "winner" "winner of the 2008 award was controversial as Parker did not write the book himself but used an automated" – comma after "controversial" and "himself". Also, the word "stating" would sound better than "saying." —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Done all I hope. Thanks for your comments. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support – meets all criteria. Overall, an extremely impressive list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Ref 1, 4, 8-11, 13-15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 37, 38 doesn't exist anymore. What makes Pagen News reliable? Afro (Talk) 07:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Good to see you back! =) I removed the pagan page and replaced it with amazon (hope it is ok). I replaced the dead references with archived ones. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• The retrieval dates need to be fixed now that the links have changed. You should be consistent in the date formats for the refs either "2009-03-30" or "28 March 2009". Afro (Talk) 10:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Every note should end with a full stop. Is ref 22 meant to be in relation to the notes or the 1980 winner itself? "Male Genitalia..." being "deliberately odd" was a columnists opinion it was deliberately boring though. Ref 15 still doesn't exist also 37 still doesn't exist and has no publisher. Afro (Talk) 10:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I was told that incomplete sentences should not end with a period. I don't understand your second note. Will do the rest later. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding my second note On the ref "Judges appeared to suspect Pensoft of breaching a strict, 21-year-old rule that books must not be given boring titles simply as a ploy to win the contest." that appears to be the reason. "Perhaps the title was too odd," said the Bookseller magazine's columnist Horace Bent" seems to be what's credited in the notes. Afro (Talk) 21:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Also fixed the two refs. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support seems to meet the criteria. Afro (Talk) 09:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments sort keys are not visible at the moment, would remove the shading as there is no benefit to having it "The following is a list of previous winners of the award." don't think this is necessary, obvious what it is Some of the notes, in the notes column have full stops while others don't, be consistent ref 14 does not direct to a page saying Midnight children won the award ref 22 Mantex co has two full stops after it ref 23 is not formatted properly, its an academic journal, so you need the author, and journal info ref 26 why is the full book information used when its below in the further reading section? remove the info and turn further reading section into a bibliography Further reading still needs to be changed to Bibliography. NapHit (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC) As far as I can tell, the general reference does not appear to be from a reliable site, would replace with something else ref 42 needs an access date ref 37 has no publisher really don't think we need four external links, especially one to twitter, two should suffice would prefer if categories were organised alphabetically, this supposed to represent wikipedia's best work after all Images need alt text NapHit (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Done all. Thanks for your comments. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments and support. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 20:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support, but two comments: while there's nothing technically wrong with redirect links, you have so many here that it starts to look a bit sloppy- diarist, champagne, claret, demographics of the PRC, graves, any link that uses an mdash instead of a hyphen (there's about ten of them), Kensingtons, Abrams books, etc. Also, why does the 98 entry have no description, and the 99 entry not actually describe the winner? As a final note, consider archiving the remaining online references, though as you have most of them done I assume it's intentional. I will say, speaking as an employee, that those Amazon links could die at any time if the seller stops selling that specific book through Amazon. --PresN 05:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Any update on these points? Archiving websites strike me as an optional item, but if the redirects and descriptions could be fixed and explained that would be great. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Most if not all of the current active sites don't have any archives. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, that is certainly understandable. How about the redirects and descriptions? Any comment on them, and whether they should be looked at? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• The column states "Notes", so not necessary a description of the respective book. I replaced an m-dash with an n-dash. There is no description for some books because the title already conveys the information. Anyway, if this is a issue then I can add descriptions. I fixed the links. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 16:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Image review: File:DiagramPrize.jpg and File:Greek Rural Postmen and Their Cancellation Numbers.jpg lack convincing fair-use rationales. Goodraise 00:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure what is the issue here. Could you raise examples of how to improve the fur? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• FURs need not be concise, but convincing, and they need to explain how the WP:NFCC are met, not merely assert that they are. For your convenience: The relevant guidelines are WP:NFC and WP:FUR. An example of a decent FUR can be found here. Goodraise 18:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• How about now? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 12:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Slightly better. You have copied some applicable parts from the FUR I linked, but you still haven't given all the necessary answers. How are all of the NFCC met? Goodraise 18:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Elaborating: Your adjusted FUR does not state, for instance, whether the resolution of the image has been reduced. It does not state how much has been used. I'd assume this to be the entire logo, but the FUR says it's the "front". The front of what? Why can't this image be replaced by a free alternative or text?

  Ultimately, writing a proper FUR for the logo is a formality, although its resolution may have to be reduced. However, for the front cover doing so may not be possible. Using images only as a "means of visual identification" is already on the border, accepted for the main subject of an article, but not for list items. Goodraise 05:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know if this file was reduced, etc, plus the url is dead. I will ask the main contributor: Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 12:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• The images were added such a long time ago I can't quite recall how I got them. However, I don't mind if certain images are deleted in order to make the list a featured one. You can delete File:Greek Rural Postmen and Their Cancellation Numbers.jpg, but the the logo probably needs to stay. ISD (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that "the logo" is something people knowledgeable in this subject area would recognize. If so, it should be trivially simple to find it elsewhere. If on the other hand the image isn't widely used to represent this award, then it may not even be useful as a means of identification (which, as I pointed out above, is already a borderline NFCC violation). I'm really sorry that I have to be such a pain in the knee about this, but we need good reasons for using non-free media, especially for those used in featured articles and lists. Goodraise 11:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, NFCC is very awful and creepy. I removed both pictures from the article. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 12:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 07:11, 18 September 2012 [10].

---

List of Arrested Development episodes

Nominator(s): Wikipedical (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Comprehensive, up to date, and meets all other Featured List criteria, after heavy expansion the past few days. Corresponds with other Featured Lists List of 30 Rock episodes, List of Lost episodes, List of Heroes episodes, etc. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Comments A nomination should have three paragraphs IMO. Many paragraphs are small, and are detracting from the readability of them. Perhaps merge some. Actually, the featured list criteria don't say anything about how long the lead must be, although in general we don't like leads that appear stubby. WP:LEAD doesn't seem to say that all leads must be three paragraphs either; in fact, it says some should be of a lesser size if the article is short. On a glance, I don't have an issue with the size of this lead, although I agree that merging one or more paras would lead to a more attractive appearance. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC) This issue does not appeared to be fixed. TBrandley 22:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC) The lede has three paragraphs now; wasn't that the issue? -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Yep, good now. TBrandley 23:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Add a thumb and a description to the lede image Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Lede image should have alt text to describe what is actually in the image Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC) "aired" clarify that it was the original airing by making it "originally aired" Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC) The second paragraph of the lede shows a lot of "The first season consists of 22 episodes, which premiered on November 2, 2003 and concluded on June 6, 2004. The show's second season premiered on November 7, 2004 and concluded on April 17, 2005". All of the sentences are very simlar, making it weird/awkward to read. Changed. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC) ref should come after punctuation, ref 2 currently does not, just move it to the end of the sentence That ref is citing the statement in the middle of the sentence. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC) I know that, but, it should still be at the end of sentence. TBrandley 22:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Fixed. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC) "has been nominated for a variety of different awards including twenty-two Primetime Emmy Awards (six wins for the series, including Outstanding Comedy Series in 2004), eight Television Critics Association Awards (three wins), three Golden Globe Awards (one win), three Writers Guild of America Awards (one win) and three Screen Actors Guild Awards." Why is there no reference for any of those awards? They have to be referenced Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC) "and was cancelled by Fox". When? Could you clarify please? Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC) "new season consisting of 10 to 13 new episodes". Remove "new" from "new episodes"; it's repetitive with "new season" Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Add plainrowheaders to the top of the series overview table plainrowheaders is optional, and I've chosen to leave it out as it's more consistent with other List of...episodes lists. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC) I did it myself, due to the next edit. Other FLs were promoted before the updated guidelines were created. TBrandley 22:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC) series overview table does not MOS:DTT, need to add row and colscopes to ensure it does Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC) I did it further. TBrandley 22:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC) It makes more sense to place "network" under originally aired in that overview table Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC) "DVD release date" Missing an "s" at the endSmall text Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC) "Episode list" → "Episodes" Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 2003–2004, 2004–2005, 2005–2006, should be written as 2003–04, 2004–05, 2005–06, as per WP:YEAR Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC) You don't need sentences based on what is already in that table for episodes, and is already above. You can add some parts of that (like The series' final four episodes were shown in one two-hour block against NBC's coverage of the 2006 Winter Olympics opening ceremony) to the lede, and remove from the episode list itself Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC) This issue doesn't appear to be fixed. TBrandley 22:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC) I removed that information. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC) NBC, should be "National Broadcasting Company (NBC)" only on its first use, as per MOS:ACRO Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Ref 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20, 21, 59, hyphens should be an en dash, per WP:DASH Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Why does it say that "Amazon.com" and "Amazon.co.uk" are the work, when they clearly published the information Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC) How is "dvdloc8.com" a high-quality reliable source? So this is the only website that lists Region 4 dates. Should I remove Region 4 entirely? -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC) No, don't remove. But, is there anything at EzyDVD or JB Hi-Fi. Cheers, TBrandley 22:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC) I cited JB Hi-Fi, though it changed season 1's region 4 date. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Ref. 3: Change "Huffington Post" to "The Huffington Post", then link it Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Ref. 4: Link "The Huffington Post" Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC) ABC Medianet is the publisher, not work, for references Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Change Metro to work, then link Metro Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC) TV.com doesn't provide anything that isn't already in the Internet Movie Database. Perhaps replace with epguides, since it has production codes that IMDb actually don't have TBrandley 15:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Removed. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC) More replies are furthermore listed above. TBrandley 22:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. TBrandley 23:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments and support! -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Comments "22-episodes" no need for hyphen. Is "cancelled" with two l's USEng? "on Netflix' streaming "Netflix's" The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC) All fixed, thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Comments "Six years after the series..." would prefer show or sitcom to series ref 24 to 33, hyphens in date ranges should be en dashes ref 68, is there a better source than Metro for this, its not exactly the most reputable source NapHit (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC) All done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Looks like this meets the criteria and all comments have been resolved. Cliff Smith 18:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Since over a week ago, all issues have been addressed. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 07:11, 18 September 2012 [11].

---

List of The X-Files episodes

Nominator(s): TBrandley 21:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria. Cheers, TBrandley 21:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from CassiantoTalk 07:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments Comments from Cassianto I'm no good with tables and sorting etc, so I will focus on everything else Don't worry. I make sure I have scope rows, per MOS:ACCESS, table captions, per MOS:DTT, etc. Cheers! TBrandley 22:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Lead section "The series aired nine seasons and 202 episodes..." -- "The series aired for nine seasons and 202 episodes". Done. TBrandley 22:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC) "Mulder became a recurring character, after legal dispute between Fox and Duchovny over payment. -- "Mulder became a recurring character, after a legal dispute between Fox and Duchovny over payment.". IMO, this sentence ends rather abruptly. Payment of what? Was the payment not enough, too much...etc Not done. It doesn't further explain from in the reference itself from BBC. TBrandley 22:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Might I suggest then adding "issues" after "payment" in that case. Clearly there were issues right? Finishing with "payment" just sounds like there is a word missing and sounds weird. -- CassiantoTalk 23:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Done. TBrandley 23:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC) "It was primarily filmed in Vancouver, British Columbia for it's first five seasons, but it transferred to Los Angeles, California for its remaining seasons." I would alter slightly as there is some repetition of "seasons". "Series' one to five were filmed primarily in Vancouver, British Columbia and transferred to Los Angeles, California for the remaining seasons." Something like that. Done. TBrandley 23:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC) "Episodes are approximately forty-three minutes" -- "Each episodes is approximately forty-three minutes long" Done. TBrandley 23:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC) "Various cast members have been praised by critics" -- Who were the cast members? Done. TBrandley 23:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the review! I've addressed all of your concerns you've added so far. Cheers, TBrandley 23:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC) References Consistency needed re formatting. For some reason, the Harvard formats for the sources within the reflist do not have periods, but everything else does. Refs 67, 65, 61, 58, 47, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37 Not essential, but nice to adopt some kind of consistency. More to come tomorrow -- CassiantoTalk 23:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC) It is because the cite news template was used for those. The should use that as they a news sources, rather than just web ones. TBrandley 23:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Have replied/addressed new comments. Thanks, TBrandley 23:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Ah OK, all correct then :-) -- CassiantoTalk 23:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. As always, a very good list both grammatically and aesthetically. Very informative and clearly a labour of love. -- Cassianto^Talk 07:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review, and support. TBrandley 13:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

;Comments from Crisco 1492 "along with R. W. Goodwin, Howard Gordon, Frank Spotnitz, Vince Gilligan, John Shiban, Kim Manners, Glen Morgan, James Wong, Michelle MacLaren, Michael W. Watkins and David Greenwalt." - That's a long list. Perhaps just the more important executive producers? Done. I removed some of the ones that have only executive produced a few episodes. How's it look now? TBrandley 23:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC) I did a copyedit, be sure to double check. Thanks! I'll look. TBrandley 23:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC) I don't think the asterisk is clear enough. Perhaps a dagger and colour? Done. I can't add a color due to the template though. It would also make it look very awkward anyway. TBrandley 00:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for reviewing! I've addressed all of your concerns, and hope you can support now. Cheers, TBrandley 00:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support on prose and image, looks peachy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks man! TBrandley 01:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Kürbis (✔) 16:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

*Comments Looks overall good: "aired for nine seasons and 202 episodes" - "nine" -> "9" per WP:MOSNUM Done. TBrandley 14:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC) "on the Fox network" - why not just "Fox"? Well, many pages, including other FAs and FLs use it. I'd personally like to keep because it makes it look neater. Cheers, TBrandley 14:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC) "The series aired for nine seasons and 202 episodes, and centers on FBI special agents" - could be "Aired for 9 seasons and 2012 episodes, the series centers on..." Done. TBrandley 14:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC) " who work on cases linked to the paranormal, called X-Files." - I would write: "who work on paranormal cases, the X-Files" There called "X-Files", and per Triangle (The X-Files), an FA, I'd like to keep it the same. Also, "the" isn't part of the name. TBrandley 14:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC) "However, the two have developed a close friendship." - This seems to be out of place. You state that she debunked his theories, but then they are friends. They can be still friends no matter if one disagrees with someone else's works Done. TBrandley 14:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC) ", among many other executive producers." - redundant, as you already stated "along with" Done. TBrandley 14:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC) "Each episode is approximately forty-three minutes long, without commercials," - I would write "Each commercial-free episode is..." Done. TBrandley 14:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC) That is all for now. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the review! I addressed all of the above comments. TBrandley 14:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Good work. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 16:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks! TBrandley 07:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments Would be nice if the main image was related to the actual show, not the production aspect. Chris Carter would be appropriate for The X-Files#Production, but not this I feel. Well, I don't really see anything wrong with it. Also, in List of The Simpsons episodes, an FL, which just came out of FLRC ”…and are broadcast in both high-definition and standard” tad puzzled. Suggests that the episodes are broadcasted in two different resolutions, simultaneously? Anyway, it was never broadcasted in true HD, rather upscaled. Perhaps change to available or something like that. Done (by Drovethrughosts). TBrandley 14:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Remove titles from season tables. Films? TBrandley 15:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Not done. Titles as in "The X-Files season 1 episodes", "The X-Files season 2 episodes", etc, on top of the tables. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Not done. The titles are there per the new MOS:DTT guidelines. Regards. TBrandley 17:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Codswallop. The tables don't even meet MOS:DTT, as rowscopes aren't correctly used. Bit excessive having titles and headings which more or less construe the same thing. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC) The captions were mandated by The Rambling Man at my FLC for List of Grey's Anatomy episodes. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC) I agree with lemonade about MOS:DTT, from looking at the season 1 table it doesn't have any colscopes, but I believe the captions are fine as they are recommended by the same MOS. NapHit (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC) TRM said could, that's not really the same as a requirement – rather a suggestion. It didn't really affect the user's decision to vote; by that stage the list was on course to be promoted. I'm not saying remove them because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, just that if they serve a purpose, they should be put on each episode list. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Okay, Lemonade. I've added scope rows to the table, per MOS:DTT. But, still keep the table captions per the above, and MOS:DTT. FL director Rambling Man has also listed it as a concern on quite a few other FLCs. TBrandley 18:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Rowscopes cannot be added manually because they are templates, I should have explained earlier. Lemonade51 (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC) K then. TBrandley 19:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Replace 1999–00 with 1999–2000, given it is in a different century. Done (by Drovethrughosts). TBrandley 14:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Should Amazon and Blockbuster be used as citations for release dates? Yes, they are huge companies, that can't really lie. Amazon.com is used in almost every FL for region 2 dates, while Blockbuster.co.uk is a huge company, used on List of The Simpsons episodes; an FL. How are they not good? There also on List of Grey's Anatomy episodes, a brand-new FL. There isn't really anything else for those. TBrandley 14:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Is Gamehead a reliable source? It is really the reliable source I could find for that. It's a store, so. TBrandley 07:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Lemonade51 (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for this review. I've replied, and fixed all issues possible, as seen above. Cheers, TBrandley 15:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC) All of the issues have been now addressed. Hope you can support its promotion now. Regards. TBrandley 19:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments I would provide a link to paranormal Done. TBrandley 07:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Is it standard for episode lists to be written in present tense, despite the fact the show no longer runs? seems odd reading someone serves as an executive producer, on a show that has not had a new episode in ten years Done. Wow; how could I miss that! Thanks, TBrandley 07:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC) "Each commercial-free episode is approximately forty-three minutes long, without commercials..." I'm aware another reviewer suggested this change but there are too many issues with it. Firstly, commercial-free implies (to me at least) that when aired the episodes were not interrupted by commercials, which I'm sure was not the case. Secondly, you repeat without commercials when its not needed. Personally I would revert to the previous wording, much clearer and no ambiguity. Done. I agree, personally, too. TBrandley 07:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC) ref should come after punctuation, ref 9 currently does not, just move it to the end of the sentence Done. TBrandley 07:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC) likewise ref 10 Done. TBrandley 07:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Recently been told not use semi-colon for bolding. In this instance you use it make key bold. Discussion is at FLC talk page, would use a caption for the key instead of this Done. TBrandley 07:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Nielsen ratings table does not meet MOS:DTT, need to add col an row scopes Done. TBrandley 07:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC) ref 11 just redirects to a paywall (I assume the link is behind the paywall), would add a note saying subscription required Done. Added a note. TBrandley 07:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Bibliography should be ordered alphabetically Done. By book name. TBrandley 07:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for reviewing! I've addressed/commented to most of your above issues. Cheers, TBrandley 07:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC) "Mulder is a believer in the paranormal, and the skeptical Scully has been assigned to debunk his work." is that correct? My understanding was they are FBI agents who investigate incidents, not sure how she can debunk his work when they effectively work together. I'd like to see source backing this claim up or reworded if it can't be Not done. It doesn't need to be sourced, since its from the actual episodes. Don't see why is should be changed. I don't think its clear enough, I would change to something along the lines of what is in the second sentence of the second para in the main article. NapHit (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Okay. I've changed it up a bit. So, done. How's it now? TBrandley 20:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC) I would perhaps consider adding a sentence in the nielsen ratings section. Firstly to clarify what it is for readers who are not aware of it. Secondly to explain its relevance and importance Don't any elaboration on this, a sentence in the lead about nielsen ratings, to provide context for the reader would suffice. NapHit (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Oh, whoops, sorry. Done. I've added a sentence now. Hope its okay. TBrandley 18:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reviewing and supporting! TBrandley 21:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments Ref 9 is not published on iTunes, the computer software; it's published on the iTunes Store, the online digital media purchase center. Done. Is that all? Cheers, TBrandley 17:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC) "Aired for 9 seasons and 202 episodes, the series centers on FBI special agents Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson), who work on cases linked to the paranormal, called X-Files." -- The first part of that sentence is ungrammatically correct, because it is written in past tense, while the rest of the sentence is written in the present tense. Would read better as: "Having aired for 9 seasons and 202 episodes, the series centers on FBI special agents Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson), who work on cases linked to the paranormal, called X-Files." Done. TBrandley 17:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Gamehead doesn't look like a RS. As noted above, it is the most reliable source I could find for that. TBrandley 17:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Ok; well if you can find something else, please replace it. Why isn't the viewership for some S8&9 episode available? Yeah, I am not really sure. But, there are none. Think it could be due to is notably of those seasons. TBrandley 17:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC) TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for commenting. I've replied above. TBrandley 17:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Need refs for production codes. There DVD set, but I don't fell referencing that is needed. TBrandley 17:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC) You don't feel it is needed? They need to be cited. Done. I have referenced the codes. Cheers, TBrandley 18:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Standardize similar column widths; the tables look messy right now. What's the issue? Where is it? TBrandley 17:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Look at List of Grey's Anatomy episodes (sorry for citing my own article, it's just TRM made me do it there). The column widths for S1 episodes should be the same as the column widths for all the other season's episodes. Same goes with the other columns of the the tables. K. I did. Done. I have fixed the issue. How's it now? TBrandley 19:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC) The last two sentences of the lead are really odd, particularly the last one. A definition of a nielsen rating does not belong as the conclusion of the lead of an article unrelated to Nielsen ratings. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Done. TBrandley 23:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support, Great work on the list. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you. TBrandley 19:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments "Having aired for 9 seasons and 202 episodes, the series centers " prefer "The series aired for nine series and 202 episodes, and centers on..." Done. But I have keep "9" as "9" per WP:MOSNUM. Also, "series" is for British shows, not American. So, I've used "season". TBrandley 14:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Eh? MOSNUM says numbers 10 and below in words. And it's not the same as episodes so it should be fine. And you used the word "series", not me, I just repeated what was already there. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC) No I meant where you wrote "nine series". Anyway, I've changed from "9" to "nine". Done. TBrandley 14:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC) "The two have developed a close friendship" an odd sentence. Perhaps, "Throughout the series, the two devlop a close friendship". Done. TBrandley 14:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC) "recurring character", this reads odd to me because he's recurring already, do you mean he's no longer a lead actor? Done. I've further explaining in the list. TBrandley 14:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC) "Episodes were broadcast on Sundays at 9:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (EST), beginning with the fourth season.[7] The first three seasons" why in reverse order? Just the way it is designed. Also like that on List of Grey's Anatomy episodes, a brand-new FL. Grey's Anatomy is still airing, which is why I mentioned the current slot it is in first, and then the previous slots. For The X-Files, it is not currently airing, so I think it could go either way. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC) "Just the way it is designed" not good enough. Where is the logic in the reverse ordering? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Done. I've changed the order. TBrandley 14:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Region 4 DVD of the first movie's release date of March 22, 2000 is unreferenced. Done. TBrandley 14:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Why repeat the viewing figure ref so many times when you could either put it in a column heading or have a note below the table saying "Viewing figures source:..."? Not sure. I'd prefer to just keep it like that so it isn't too complicated, etc. I, personally, don't think a note is needed. But, your the boss, so, if you'd like me to do it, I'll do it. TBrandley 14:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC) No, I'm not the boss, but you link all the prod codes in the column heading. When one ref is used 20-odd times for each cell in a single colum in a table, you can do it just once. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Good point. Done. I just put the viewership in the heading for viewers/households, rather than all episodes for each season. How does it look now? TBrandley 14:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC) "The X-Files have been shut down " the "The" shouldn't be part of the link. Done. TBrandley 14:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Call me stupid but why does season 2 for Nielsen say 14.5 million while the peak viewership in the season table is 10.7 million? Not done. The X-Files season 2 table has how many households watched it, the Nielsen table is how many viewers watched. That's why is very different. Cheers, TBrandley 14:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Ref 68 "pp. 8C." just p. Done. TBrandley 14:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Ref 69 "3C." why not "p. 3C." for consistency? Done. TBrandley 14:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Ref 79 is missing a day. Done. TBrandley 14:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your through review, TRM. I've addressed/replied to all of the above issues. Cheers, TBrandley 14:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Although I worked on this before (so I'm not sure how good my show of support is) everything I would have suggested to have been fixed is all better. This is a fine looking article, and worthy of FL! Good job TBrandley!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much! TBrandley 22:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Sofffie7 (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments What does the double dagger ‡ mean? --Sofffie7 (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC) It refers to episodes of The X-Files in the series' alien mythology arc. TBrandley 15:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Well, if it's not too difficult I would make a legend or write a note explaining what the symbol is; people that don't watch the show might not know what it means and I'm not even sure people that regularly watch the show actually do. It's fine with me if you think it's not necessary ;) --Sofffie7 (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Comment: At the beginning of the 'episodes' section it says: "Episodes marked with a double dagger (‡) are episodes in the series' alien mythology arc." TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Ooops, sorry!! Sofffie7 (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Completely fine. :) TBrandley 16:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Sofffie7 (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks! TBrandley 16:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Bruce Campbell (talk) 04:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reviewing, and the quick support. TBrandley 05:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Great job, the list looks good. Rayman^{95 (talk)} 22:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much! TBrandley 23:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I think the mythology arc/release might be worth a sentence in the intro. In addition, the entries Vol. x in the table should be changed to Mythology Vol. x or something like that; otherwise it is really confusing. Also, I see no reason to keep the Nielsen table separate from the overview table. Nergaal (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Done all of your concerns. How's it look now? TBrandley 03:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 02:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments – "Seasons one to five were filmed primarily in Vancouver, British Columbia, and transferred to Los Angeles, California, for the remainder of the series." The seasons didn't transfer as the writing implies; the filming did. Maybe try "Filming for seasons one to five...". Done. TBrandley 02:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC) It now reads, "Filming for seasons one to five primarily in Vancover, British Columbia...". I can't in good conscience promote the list as long as that remains unfixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Done. Cheers, TBrandley 00:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC) In the first sentence of the third paragraph, "episode's" shouldn't have the apostrophe. Done. TBrandley 02:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC) "The X-Files has received Nielsen ratings since its first season." Because the show isn't airing anymore, "has" should be removed. Done. TBrandley 02:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC) The X-Files (1998): It may be confusing to readers to see "The X-Files have been shut down again", since they don't know about a past shutdown. Since there are no other summaries in a list like this, I'd remove "again" from that sentence. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. All of them have been addressed. Cheers, TBrandley 02:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 07:11, 18 September 2012 [12].

---

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Brabourne Stadium

Nominator(s): Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 09:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets FL criteria. Though there is no FL by fiver/ground, Iv compared it to the existing FLs by century/ground and it looks good. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 09:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments A very unique idea, and should be a FL soon- 4 Par are really too much as per WP:LEAD. What I can suggest is, bring the definition of five-wicket haul to the top; and merge the first and second para. Merged para 1 and 2. Id rather keep the definition where it is simply because its followed by info on fivers at the stadium. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 11:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC) The images need WP:ALT. Added. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 11:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC) You need to be more descriptive. Alt text is for those brothers and sisters who are not able to see. Alt text generally mean the visual description of the picture, like instead of "Indian fast-bowler Zaheer Khan", you should add "A dark skinned person ... wearing white shirt ... cricket field can be seen in background ... bla bla bla". Push the bowler column before the date one. done Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 11:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC) The 3 symbols should come first instead of being the last. done Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 11:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC) "Winning Team" for the match result - doesn't makes sense. One has to check for which team was the player playing for. Follow List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Muttiah Muralitharan here. Iv chanhed "Winning Team" to "Result". Its a different from the player list because the player normally plays for just one team. Iv followed the format used in century lists which are of FL status, the list mentions both teams so one need not look anywhere else anyways. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 11:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Agreed, but the main purpose of the column is to know that chances of winning at this stadium when a bowler has got a fifer. "Win", "Lost", "Draw" and "NR" are the best options. Further its your wish. "Runs" are not sorting correctly. Im sorry I dont see the issue, could you please explain a bit? Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 11:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Why is the ODI table sortable when there is just one five wicket haul? Is there any other way you would suggest? Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 11:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC) I have made it unsortable. The No. column is just wasting space. Well the Murli list as well as century lists have it, I think its better as it gives each individual performance a distinct identity on the list. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 11:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC) "match in 2006.[14] [15]": remove the space. done Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 11:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC) A reader will like to know which teams played in the T20I. Added. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 11:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Good work overall. Hindustan Zinda bad 16:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Thank you! Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 11:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)I would support it once the alt thing is fixed. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Updated alt as suggested. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 12:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Links

• Ref. no. 7 is a dead link.

• Seems the newspaper removes old links. Ref 8 covers the same thing and I take it ref 7 can be accepted as an offline ref agf as its originally from a newspaper source. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 12:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Ref. 16, 21 and 22 does not mention either publisher or work criteria. Do have a look.--Vyom25 (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Added. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 12:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• fair enough for me.--Vyom25 (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments West Indies, India and Pakistan – linked twice in the lead Corrected Twenty20 International->Twenty20 International (T20I) Added Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 12:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC) The purpose to abbreviate Twenty20 Intl is to use that later. No need to repeatedly use Twenty20 Intl —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC) done. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC) "fewer than 40 bowlers have taken more than 15 five-wicket hauls at the international level in their cricketing careers." – I feel this is not necessary in this list as it talks about a ground rather than a player. It shows overall notability of the achievement (fifer). I feel it fits, but Im not really picky about it, will remove it if you still want me to. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 12:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC) This is generally used in the bowlers' list. You can change this by adding a similar statistic for ground —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Checked cricinfo and others but failed to find anything similar, removed. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Runs column doesn't sort correctly I get what you and vibhi are saying now, Im not a tech person. Will try and request someone to sort it out. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 12:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC) It's because you're not using the sort technique correctly. If you look at any of the other cricket five-wicket haul lists, you'll see that the hidden sort number is derived from the number of wickets taken and the number of runs conceded. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Its now working for me, do check. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 12:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Same with wickets Responded above. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 12:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Since the ODI table has only one entry there is no need for sortability Removed, thanks to vibhijain. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 12:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC) I don't think an explanation of Result is needed in the key, instead use Draw Draw is only one possible result, so wouldnt that be limiting the explanation? Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 12:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC) "Won" and "Lost" are understandable to everyone and so is result. Draw may not be obvious to someone who has very little knowledge about cricket —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I personally prefer the result link as if someone doesn't know cricket as well, even win and loss are explained on the page as is draw and no-result. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Convert all hyphens to en dashes in the refs Changed. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 13:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC) ESPNcricinfo.com->ESPNcricinfo done. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 12:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Why is BBC News italicized in ref #15 For some reason it shows that way though its not. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 12:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC) That's because you're using the {{cite news}} template for that particular BBC ref. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Use {{cite web}} template for it. Be consistent —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC) changed. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC) I'd suggest a better image for the lead. There are quite a few good quality (high resolution) images available in the commons —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Changed, feel free to change again if you have any other particular image in mind. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 12:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC) The new image looks good —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Further comments Ref #1 should have its caps reduced per MOS:CAPS. Also check for redirect changed ref. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 08:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Don't use hardcoded URLs in publisher parameters. Also "CricketArchive" shouldn't be italicsed —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Done. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Link CricketArchive —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Done. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Ref #7 is available online. Complete this missing ref by adding author and access date parameters. Also Canberra Times being a newspaper, should be italicised in the ref. Remove italics from the "newspaper" parameter as it will italicise the value by default Done. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 08:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Not done. Use the archive URL format. Also fill in the missing parameters such as author and access dates —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Done. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Indian Express->The Indian Express —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Done Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 08:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Good work with the list —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 09:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments – "and has played host to Ranji Trophy matches (including seventeen finals), Indian Premier League matches, as well as being...". For this to work, remove the first comma and place "and", which will leave "and has played host to Ranji Trophy matches (including seventeen finals) and Indian Premier League matches, as well as being...". Changed. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 09:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC) One more thing here: the space before reference 1 should be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Done. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC) "The best bowling figures ... is Irfan Pathan's two wickets for thirty four runs." "is" → "are". Changed. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 09:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC) In the photo caption, the en dash in "five–wicket" should be a regular hyphen, per its usage in the second paragraph and how I've generally seen the term used here. Changed. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 09:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Still see the en dash in the caption (this is in the lead photo). Giants2008 (Talk) 18:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Done. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC) The Bowler column is sorting universally by first name. I understand that some of the countries like India have this method, but does that apply for people like Graham McKenzie and Prior Jones? Im sorry, I dont get this. Shouldnt one format be followed all through? Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 09:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC) I was under the impression that we should be sorting people by last name unless we have a good reason not to. I know that sorting by first name is the preferred method for some countries' players, but I don't think nations like Australia and the West Indies are among them. Does anyone else with more knowledge on cricket-related sorting have any input? Giants2008 (Talk) 18:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Now by last name. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC) The Opposing Team column should have its second word decapitalized. done. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 09:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC) The Runs column isn't sorting properly, although you probably knew that already. In the Result column, there's no need to capitalize the second word in each instance of Match Drawn. Updated. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 09:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Publishers of refs 7 and 8 should be italicized. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Already are italicized. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 09:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments "when India beat Australia by 7 wickets in 2007" MOS:NUM recommends numbers bellow ten be spelled out rather than in digits Now spelled. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC) "for West Indies... should be a "the" before West Indies Added. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC) "The first Indian to take a five-wicket haul in a Test at the Brabourne was Vinoo Mankad" comma after Mankad Added. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC) "taking eleven wickets in a match against the West Indies in 1966." -> when he took eleven wickets against the West Indies in 1966. Made replacement but not included when as it dint sound right. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC) "In all, twelve bowlers..." In all, is redundant Removed. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC) No need to keep using One Day International when provide an abbreviation, use the abbreviation instead Done. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC) "Sri Lankan bowler Farveez Maharoof is the only bowler to have taken a five-wicket haul at the ground in a One Day International, doing so versus the West Indies during an ICC Champions Trophy qualifying match in 2006." -> Sri Lankan bowler Farveez Maharoof five wicket haul against the West Indies in 2006, is the only one achieved during an ODI." Replaced. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC) "thirty four" -> thirty-four Changed. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC) No reason for the font size to be below normal size, remove the coding that causes this Which part of the article are you referring to? Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC) As Giants states above the bowler column should be sorting by last name, not first name, this is common practice in wikipedia Done. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC) ref 2, the source gives a publication date of 8 March 2010, not 8 April 2008 My bad, corrected. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC) ESPNCricinfo -> ESPNcricinfo per our article on wiki Done. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC) ref 5 needs the author adding Added. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC) ref 6 is BBC Sport, not news and was published 27 April 2006 not 26 April 2006 Changed. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC) ref 14 is BBC Sport not News Changed. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC) should be no space between ref 1 and the bracket Removed. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC) I still the space between there ref and the bracket, it should be right after the bracket with no space it and the bracket. Removed space between as well. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC) No reason for the font size to be below normal size, remove the coding that causes this Which part of the article are you referring to? Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC) The table the font should not be reduced should be full size. NapHit (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Changed from 93% to 100%. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments Image captions are complete sentences, so use a full stop. Added. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Are some of the earlier games 8-ball overs? If so it's important to note this (as, for instance, the economy is not representative of a 6-ball over). Overs have always been 6-balls in India. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Interesting, I didn't know that! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC) When sorting by wickets, I'd expect to see runs used as the secondary sort differentiation. So you would like to see the wickets column placed before the runs one? Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC) I'd like to see, when sorting by wickets, tied wickets are then sorted by runs (i.e. 5/50 is better than 5/60). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Done. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 08:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC) EAS Prasanna vs B.S. Chandrasekhar (why the difference in use of full stops?) Added full stops to Prasanna. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Refs 11 and 12 have an odd usage of en-dashes. Would just normally be spaces. Changed. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 07:11, 18 September 2012 [13].

---

Wiz Khalifa discography

Nominator(s): I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 11:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have done a lot of work on it, and I think it meets the criteria. Any criticism would be helpful if it improves the page. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 11:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Quick comments Collaborative album is not listed in the infobox.< Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC) No Sleep is a dab page. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC) That's not the right 5 O'Clock link either. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC) "attract... attracting..." repetitive in one (very long) sentence. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Last sentence of first para of lead is about 75 words long. Suggest this is cut up into several more-digestible lumps. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Use of "significant" in consecutive sentences is repetitive as well. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Our page for Allmusic says it's either AllMusic or styled as allmusic. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Fixed all of the above comments. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment

• "as part of joint deal with Rostrum." missing an "a" before joint

Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

NapHit (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Holiday56 (talk) 09:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments The title column widths for the singles section should probably be kept uniform. "with Snoop Dogg featuring Bruno Mars" → "with Snoop Dogg, featuring Bruno Mars" No reference given for the peak chart position of "High". Seems a bit odd to use the phrase "Peak chart positions for singles..." in references for the "Other charted songs" section, especially since the table caption for that section reads "List of non-single songs". A count of 20 music videos is listed in the infobox and lead, but 21 are listed in the actual section. Needs to be updated. "Black and Purple" should also be included in the guest appearances section. No need to italicize "Deluxe Version" in the AllMusic reference for F.A.M.E. AllMusic URL for Wiz Khalifa in the external links section needs to be updated. Holiday56 (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC) All Done. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 08:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Additional comments: In the "Collaborative albums" section, the "span" tag should be used instead of the "small" tag. Commas need to be added to one more instance of "with Snoop Dogg featuring Bruno Mars" in the music videos section. Holiday56 (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Both Done. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 15:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Since Mac & Devin Go to High School is listed a soundtrack album on its page, I would personally suggest adding it to a section for soundtrack albums. Collaborative albums can come in all kinds – studio, live, compilation, etc. If the collaborative albums section remained, then technically How Fly and Live in Concert could be added. Mac & Devin Go to High School is technically both of these types of album. A similar precedent is Idlewild by OutKast, which is also both type of album. However, the infobox for Idlewild has the "type" listed as "studio", and Mac & Devin is set as "Soundtrack", even though the article pages for both have both types listed (hope you're still following this). As there is clearly no consensus on this issue, I propose that Mac & Devin remain listed as a collaborative album for consistencies' sake until there is some consensus (see also He Got Game by Public Enemy, which is listed in the studio album section of their discography). The mixtape point is interesting, as mixtapes have never been listed in collaborative album sections before – they just seem to be regarded as a different entity by other editors. Again, I think consistency and precedent may decide this one. However, these are certainly points to raise in the future. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC) I actually had been suspecting that the dual-album type listed for Mac & Devin Go to High School had something to do with its listing. Since there appears to be no clear consensus about how to categorize the album in this case, I can accept its listing as a collaborative album for now. If and when a consensus can be reached about how to handle this case, then the necessary changes can be made to the discographies of both artists. Holiday56 (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Show and Prove and Deal or No Deal are listed as studio albums on their respective pages – perhaps make the section "Independent albums" a subsection of the "Studio albums" section? Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Table caption for the "Independent albums" section could be made more specific: "List of independent albums, with selected chart positions" → "List of independent studio albums, with selected chart positions". Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC) The ARIA reference for "Roll Up" has no page number listed. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC) No need to link Kush & Orange Juice a second time in the promotional singles section. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC) "Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles" needs to be Wikilinked. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Overall, these are the last of my comments. The article is very close to garnering a support vote from me. Holiday56 (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

As all my comments have been addressed, I can now add another Support vote to this nomination. Holiday56 (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Image review: No copyright related problems found. Goodraise 00:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support --Kürbis (✔) 10:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GRAPPLE X 20:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

*Comments Overall very solid; though I'm not keen on the large amount of white space present here; it's particularly noticeable beside the "Mixtapes" and "Music videos" tables. The Wiz Khalifa article does feature a few good images you could slot in beside these to help break that up. Generally, discographies do not use more than the infobox image, partly to avoid overuse of copyrighted material. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 15:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Oh, no, not copyrighted material; certainly nothing would justify fair use for this purpose. I mean images like File:Wiz Khalifa 7, 2012.jpg, which is not only released under a creative commons license but is a nice height-to-width ratio to sit comfortably beside a table. If you prefer not to use any that's fine but I only meant for you to consider free images (the Wiz Khalifa category on Commons is also quite healthy so there should be a few to choose between). GRAPPLE X 17:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Ah, I see now. Personally, I'd rather not use any further images, as they wouldn't really add to the user's understanding of the information on this particular page. None of my previous FLCs have regarded additional images as necessary. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 20:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Although the en dashes in the article are used correctly; I believe the American custom (subject is American so ENGVAR points east) is to use unspaced em dashes instead. I don't know if anyone's going to be a stickler for it but it might be worth bearing in mind. No one has ever brought this up before, so I doubt it would affect the suitability of the list for FL status. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 15:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC) You currently link the phrase "certified triple platinum" to the RIAA certification; it might be more useful to simply link "triple platinum" and point it RIAA certification#List of certifications. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 15:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC) "which reached number two on the Billboard Hot 100 and entered the top ten of many other national charts.[6][7][8][9]" -> the four cites at the end here looks a little dense, it might be more presentable to list the countries with a cite after each; "which reached number two on the Billboard Hot 100,[6] and entered the top ten of many other national charts, including those of Australia,[7] New Zealand, [8] and Switzerland.[9]". Even moving ref 6 to right after it's needed in the sentence would quarter the issue. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 15:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC) GRAPPLE X 01:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. GRAPPLE X 20:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:10, 11 September 2012 [14].

---

List of Grey's Anatomy cast members

Nominator(s): TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after working on this article for the past year or so, I finally got around to developing it to featured quality. I am the most frequent contributor to the list, and after a recent peer review from TBrandley, I think this is ready to become a featured list. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from CassiantoTalk 16:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments "While creating the show, producers put an emphasis on the cast?" Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Do we need to keep repeating "season" when talking about debuts and departures. Instead of "Introduced in the second season is Dr. Addison Montgomery (Kate Walsh), who leaves the show at the end of the third season..." for "Dr. Addison Montgomery (Kate Walsh) was introduced during the second season and left the show at the end of the third..." or something similar. Done. For every new sentence, the first time I said "season", than the rest just the number. For example: "Dr. Callie Torres (Sara Ramirez) and Dr. Mark Sloan (Eric Dane) also enter the show in the second season, while half-sister of Meredith, Dr. Lexie Grey (Chyler Leigh), first appears in the third and dies at the end of the eighth." There maybe a few who disagree with the fix of "season" which, IMO, was too repetetive. Another (and better) way would be to use another word for "season" every so often. Do you class "series" as another word (I do) , or do you consider "series" to mean seasons 1--9? -- CassiantoTalk 16:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC) "The cast have received numerous awards and nominations..." Done. Not much else as far as I can see. Pretty solid stuff!  :-) -- CassiantoTalk 07:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Everything's addressed; hope you can support/oppose its promotion. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Worthy of FL status. You list guys certainly know your stuff! -- Cassianto^Talk 16:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments "Grey's Anatomy is an American television medical drama that debuted on the American Broadcasting Company (ABC), as a mid-season replacement for Boston Legal on March 27, 2005." reference? The reference comes after the second sentence. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC) "The series has aired eight seasons" → "The series has aired for eight seasons" Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC) "in keeping". Remove "in", makes sentence sound weird Writing it without "in" would mangle the sentence. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC) "spin-off television series Private Practice". What spin-off. Comedy, Medical, Supernatural? Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC) "in order to launch her own spin-off television series Private Practice." reference? Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Recently been told not use semi-colon for bolding. In the list you use it make legend bold. Discussion is at FLC talk page, would use a caption for the legend instead of that. Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Link Grey's Anatomy Season One in reference 4 Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Ref. 6: Link work and publisher Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Ref. 10: Use single quotes (') rather than double quotes ("), as per WP:MOS Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC) In external links, "List of" should be outside of those links Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Add a portal box in external links, including "Grey's Anatomy portal" and "Television portal" Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC) TBrandley 14:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Everything's done; thanks for the review. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good. TBrandley 16:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from --Kürbis (✔) 12:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Weak oppose there are far too many blue links in the lead; consider reducing the links. Take the Portuguese version as a good example. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 14:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I unlinked some common words and the seasons. The only other thing could be unlinking the characters and actors/actresses. Let me know, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC) What I meant are the numerous links to the fictional characters and the actors. Also, as every person in the lead has a doctorate, how about just remove the abbreviations? Perhaps just mention the very notable characters such as Meredith Grey and Cristina Yang, or newly-introduced actors/characters. At the moment it is a bit distracting. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I'll remove the abbreviations. Do you think it would be best to remove all the actor/actress and character links since they're linked immediately below in the table? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC) No, I think it is fine as is. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 19:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks; any more comments coming? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support--Kürbis (✔) 12:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments overall I'm not entirely convinced by this format, but specific comments nevertheless. "on the American Broadcasting Company (ABC), " on the Company? Do you mean on the ABC channel? or network? That is how it is written. See "Give Peace a Chance" (Grey's Anatomy), List of Grey's Anatomy episodes, etc. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC) "producers put an emphasis on the cast" what does that actually mean? Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC) You can't just use colours alone to indicate something per WP:ACCESS. Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Why are character names relinked in the tables but not actor names? Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Not at all keen on the blank pink cells. I've asked User:RexxS to have a look to see how this table fares with a screen-reader. (He's now left some comments on his talk page about the shortcomings of the table...) Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Quick comment I share TRM's concerns about the format, and specifically the use of level 3 headings in the middle of the table, which is something that MOS:DTT suggests against. There are also a couple of issues regarding row and column scopes. I've made some changes here; please revert if I've made things worse. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC) I've rewritten the 'cast' section entirely, in a style recommended by RexxS, to comply with MOS:DTT. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Looks considerably better, great work. My only real problem at the moment is the colours – maybe it's just my laptop, but the "Starring" colour looks just like the "No appearances" colour and the "Guest" colour looks just like the "To be announced" colour. Obviously having colours so similar-looking defeats the point of having them at all. Personally, I'd prefer the colours that Wikipedical used, or some variation of them. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC) They are very clearly different colors; I checked on 3 different computers. Perhaps it is your laptop. I think the brighter colors, such as the bright pink, do not meet WP:ACCESS, per RexxS. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC) I re-added brighter colors, but it looks like TRLIJC undid my revision. I really don't want to start an edit war, but the brighter colors do meet WP:ACCESS as all the brighter ones that I added are compliant with WCAG 2 AA and AAA via Colour Contrast Check. I would prefer the brighter colors too. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC) If you guys prefer brighter, feel free to change it back. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Done! -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Question Is there anything to be said for perhaps using a fair use promotional image of the entire cast (such as, for example, File:GreysAnatomysSeason1Cast.jpg), rather than just a free use photo of only Ellen Pomeo? Personally, I think it would meet the fair use criteria: it's relevant to the article, it's necessary for the benefit of the reader, it identifies both the setting of the show and the costumes they wear, and it's not really replaceable. I welcome the thoughts of others on this subject. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• If the colours situation has now been resolved, then I am happy to support this nomination. Like the new lead image too (although I think there needs to be a hyphen in "racially-diverse"). Great work, overall! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Sofffie7 (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment I see one of Cassianto's remarks hasn't been done or has changed since it was done: "The cast have received numerous awards and nominations..." -> The cast has... --Sofffie7 (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC) I originally wrote it as "the cast has", but Cassianto requested it be changed to "the cast have". TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC) OK, I didn't understand. But I still think the verb should be in the singular form, it's weird in plural. Or you precise to avoid confusion, "members of the cast have/the cast of actors has". Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support, Sofffie7 (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Loved it from the start! Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments Image could do with alt text Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC) WP:CONTEXTLINK advises against having bold links. To rectify this add plainrowheaders to wikitable Per List of the Simpsons episodes#Seasons, List of Grey's Anatomy episodes#Series overview, etc. I think it's okay for tables. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC) The MOS is quite clear about this: "Do not place a link within the bolded title, even if that seems to provide a graceful way to link to an appropriate context-setting topic. Bolded links look neither like bolded text nor ordinary links, and appear jarring." Regarding the examples, as they are table headers I think there is a slight difference as it is a table headers, whereas having bold in the table itself places emphasis on a certain item when there should be none. NapHit (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC) ref 4, do you need the "(in english)" tag? would only expect that if the source was in a different language Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC) ref 23 needs the author adding Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC) All done or replied to. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wikipedical (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Question: is there some logic as to the order of the characters/actors? Can't quite figure it out, since they're not listed alphabetically or by time on the show. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC) It's in order of their credit billing. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Also, shouldn't the actors be listed before the characters, since this is a list of the cast? -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC) No, because the idea is that the actor is immediately next to the starring diagram. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC) I don't think that having the actor directly next to the diagram significantly improves clarity. And I still believe that having the actor in the first column is more appropriate for a cast list, distinguishing it from a characters list. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC) A character list gives summaries of the characters, whereas this is a list. I really don't think it matters, and would be tedious to change. However, if you feel not doing it would hinder the list's promotion, I'll do it. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good. -- Wikipedical (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from DavidCane (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment "...primitively supervised by Richard Webber...". Do you mean "primarily"? --DavidCane (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC) No, 'primitively' is synonymous with 'originally'. At the commencement of the show, the surgical wing was originally supervised by Webber. He was later replaced by Shepherd, and then Hunt. Using 'primarily' wouldn't make sense; that would imply that he is still the chief. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I wouldn't say that primitively is synonymous with originally, except in the sense of meaning early, crude, basic and undeveloped. I would just use originally.--DavidCane (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Source comment – What makes Wetpaint (ref 23) a reliable source? Our article on the site says it accepts user-submitted content, which makes me doubt that it is an acceptable source. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It was deemed reliable by Nikkimaria, and was accepted in my recently promoted FAC for Give Peace a Chance (Grey's Anatomy). Wetpaint, owned by The Cambio Network, was formerly a wiki-site. After much criticism, they moved their wiki to a different URL, and formed an editorial staff. Wetpaint has won an award, and has been on several "best sites" lists including one from Time Magazine. They have also interviewed several celebrities including Sarah Drew of Grey's Anatomy, and have partnered with renowned companies such as Fox, The Discovery Channel, and HBO. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:10, 11 September 2012 [15].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Arrested Development

Nominator(s): Wikipedical (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Comprehensive, up to date, and meets all other Featured List criteria. Corresponds with other Featured Lists List of 30 Rock awards and nominations, List of awards and nominations received by The Simpsons, List of awards and nominations received by The Bill, etc. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments "Since its debut, the series has earned widespread critical acclaim, nominated..." the widespread critical acclaim but will need citing and going straight into nominated doesn't read correctly, add "and has bee" before nominated Cited and fixed. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Try and vary the start to some of these paras, but bland reading In 2006 over and over Changed Emmy paragraphs to match other awards. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Tables do not currently meet MOS:DTT, col and rowscopes need to be added Fixed. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC) "Since 1995, he..." typo and perhaps say "Awarded since 1995..." Fixed. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC) No need to SHOUT in ref titles, just write them out normally Fixed. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC) ref 7 and 8 need en dashes in the title instead of hyphens Fixed. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Images could do with alt text NapHit (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Comments Is that picture really needed for an awards page? Perhaps replace it with a key person, etc., like the main actor, again, etc. It's broadline fine. I guess. TBrandley 01:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Awards & Nominations → Awards and nominations. Per MOS:CAPS, etc. Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Unlink American per WP:OVERLINK Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Unlink television per WP:OVERLINK Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Fox → the Fox network Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC) As of August 2012 → To date Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Remove those table headers in the lists of awards/nom. Can you please clarify what you mean here? Don't quite understand. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC) I fixed that concern. TBrandley 01:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Many linking problems in references. Please see WP:REPEATLINK, which states that you should repeat link in references. So, New York Times should be linked there, etc. Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC) I have made some changes for the external links. So, that's fine. Categories should be listed in alphabetical order please. Done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC) TBrandley 02:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. TBrandley 01:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Comments Sortable tables should link all linkable items every time. When sorting people's names, it's common to do it by surname using the {{sortname}} template. Would prefer to see col widths the same from section to section. "Television Series - Musical or Comedy." in the caption, should be an en-dash. Don't mix date formats for retrieval dates etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC) All done. Removed sortable tables to match other TV awards featured lists. Aside from tables with corresponding images, all col widths are now consistent, again, like the other TV awards FLs. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Cool, but col widths aren't working as being consistent for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC) How about now? -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As of 06:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC), all issues have been addressed. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Looks like this meets the criteria and all comments have been resolved. Cliff Smith 18:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Well-written, nicely formatted, good references. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:10, 11 September 2012 [16].

---

List of Malmö FF records and statistics

Nominator(s): Reckless182 (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. The list is a collection of all thinkable records and statistics of Malmö FF based on the available references. I hope you like it. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: Five graphs in the records section seems a bit excessive? How reliable is eu-football.info? Ref 3 and 16 have trouble loading for me. Afro (Talk) 12:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I could remove the average attendance graphs since they are already included in their respective stadium articles but I think they are informative and relevant to the section at hand. You do have a point about eu-football.info, I'm suddenly not so sure about it's reliability since it is open for edits. Perhaps a third party could help us determine? Unfortunately I've been unable to find this information anywhere else, but I'll keep looking. Ref 3 and 16 works fine for me.--Reckless182 (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• You don't think the goal difference graph seems irrelevant to the section? I would suggest the removal of eu-football.info, it says it posts the sources for data confirmation however since it doesn't directly attribute any source to one of their pages, it's unreliable at the very least. Afro (Talk) 05:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think it's relevant and interesting, the list contains both records and statistics, the graph is an interesting piece of statistics. I removed the internationals section with the eu-football.info refs, unfortunately I couldn't find another reference to support the section. --Reckless182 (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• How is it relevant to the section though, at no point is goal difference mentioned. Afro (Talk) 04:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but you're mistaken. Goaldifference is mentioned under Allsvenskan records held by the club in the same section. Various goal records are also discussed. I don't see why you're so much against the graph? It's a nice piece of statistics in a list for records and statistics.--Reckless182 (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Update. The graph is now removed after discussion with The Rambling Man (see below).--Reckless182 (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I feel this list is not standalone and rather outlined, as the entries are partially forked from other articles. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 16:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The only thing that I have borrowed is the table layout in the players section, the table of European record and the honours (although this entry includes more titles than in the main article). Everything else is unique to the list, I don't see the problem? --Reckless182 (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments Is the "The" in "Scanian Football Association" capitalised? De capitalised. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Perennial issue, " Malmö FF, is a Swedish" (singular) and then "Malmö FF have won " (plural). I'd find a way to resolve this, perhaps using things like "the club", "the team" etc...? The second sentence is about Malmö FF as a team (plural) while the first one is about Malmö FF as a club (singular). This was discussed after the main articles appearance as today's featured article. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC) "in Allsvenskan as of the 2012 season; this is Malmö FF's 12th" remove the semi-colon, replace with a colon, and say "season, the club's 12th..." Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC) "All stats accurate as of match played 12 August 2012." stats->statistics. Also consider indenting this by one "colon" which most of these notes seem to be. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC) "in 1920–21" in that season? or did they do it twice? Clarified. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC) You have stats about "Distriktsmästerskap" but no link, no idea what that means to us non-Swedes. Clarified. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Be consistent, you a key table with a single entry that has a caption, but then a much larger table with no caption... Fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Portrait-shaped images should just use a upright tag, not be forced to another size. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Be careful using bold, see WP:BADEMPHASIS. I don't think I've used it in any inappropriate way. Do you have any examples of where exactly you think I have been careless? --Reckless182 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC) For instance, you use bold to emphasise "winner" versus "runner up". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Alright. Now removed, anything else you think is inappropriate?--Reckless182 (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC) "Lasse Larsson" appears to be "Lars Larsson" according to our own article. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Notes column should be left-aligned. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC) "Variable" is an odd heading, I know what you mean (did some software engineering a while back) back perhaps you could phrase it in something a non-SW engineer could handle? What about this? --Reckless182 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC) "2 titles " -> "Two titles..." Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Why are notes in smaller text? Made into normal size. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Some overlinking going on, "IFK Malmö" is linked three times in the Club records/Matches section. Removed. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC) I don't think "cumulative goal difference" is relevant at all. I believe it's an interesting piece of statistics, why not feature it in this list? I just think it's a fake statistic, I've never seen it used anywhere, what is it supposed to indicate really? If it stays, (a) it needs references, (b) it needs to not have so much capitalisation (e.g. Cumulative Goal Difference -> Cumulative goal difference) (c) the year range in the title, just check it's using an en-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Alright, I removed it since both you and the editor above suggested it.--Reckless182 (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC) If this is written in BritEng, then shades of "gray" should be "grey". Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC) "Malmö FF's average attendances over the period from 2009 to 2011" not good to have this graph alone, when you have the previous 50-odd years in the graph above.... merge stats. The three graphs on attendance are from three distinctive periods from when Malmö FF played at their three different home stadiums. The last is a bit small since they have only played at their current stadium since 2009. I don't it would be appropriate to merge them. Besides, there is no lack of space to motivate merging the three graphs for this list.--Reckless182 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Lack of space wasn't really a motivating factor, I think you could merge all three and that way we could actually see the effect of different stadia. At the moment it's impossible to compare. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Alright, point taken. A new graph is now in place.--Reckless182 (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC) "2004 Season[48]" Season->season. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC) You tell the reader what S, Pld, W, D, L are but not GF, GA, GD are. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your thorough review as always! --Reckless182 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC) No worries, also noticed that "Malmö FF's progress through the swedish football league system" should have a capital S for Swedish... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks, that is now fixed.--Reckless182 (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Award winners: If Aftonbladet is a newspaper, it should be italicized. Allsvenskan records held by players of the club: In the Most consecutive championships entry note, "season" should surely be plural, given that a five-season range is provided. Managers: Spaced em dash in the Vaclav Simon entry should be converted into an unspaced one, or a spaced en dash, per MoS. Club records: Bold text is discouraged by the MoS. You might want to try italics to provide the desired emphasis. Would be nice if the general references were in alphabetical order. Ref 7 needs an en dash for the page range. The references that list the author as Smitt, Rikard should probably be made similar to the Smitt, 2009 style cites for internal consistency. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC) All done! Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Also, the hyphens in the titles of refs 10, 16, and 20 should be converted into en dashes instead. I see two hyphens in each title that need fixing. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments' Are there no links to the 1920-21 or 1943-44 season? Added.--Reckless182 (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Appearances and goalscorers stats dare a bit bare. Would expect to see more stats such as in this list. Is the information not available or have you decided not to use it? I would love for the section to feature as much information as the list you mentioned above. Unfortunately the information is not available, perhaps it will be in the future if new books are published or the club decides to feature more statistics online.--Reckless182 (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I thought that was the case, but best to ask. Hopefully the info becomes available in the future. NapHit (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC) No point in the nationality columns being sortable in the appearances and goalscorers tables as all the players are Swedish Removed.--Reckless182 (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Not sure the number of goals scored should be highlighted in bold, especially when no other records are Italicized instead.--Reckless182 (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Don't need Halmstad BK linked three times in the record wins section Removed.--Reckless182 (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC) same with Division 2 in wins/draw/losses section Removed.--Reckless182 (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC) does seem to be a bit of over linking going on, first usage should be linked, for instance we have Allsvenkan linked six times in club records section Everything should be fixed.--Reckless182 (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks. Will fix this later tonight! --Reckless182 (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. TBrandley 15:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you!--Reckless182 (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments – "The club currently holds the record for most Allsvenskan titles, with 19, most Svenska Cupen titles, with 14, and the record for the most Svenska Cupen final appearances, with 17." – You make the call on this one, but IMHO, I don't think all those commas after the word "titles" are necessary. Fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC) "They also became the first and as of 2012 the only Swedish club" – place "as of 2012" either between brackets or commas. I don't know, I think the current version is better. They also became the first (and as of 2012 the only) Swedish club to reach the final seems weird looking for me. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Actually, the sentence would be either They also became the first and, as of 2012, the only Swedish club or They also became the first and (as of 2012) the only Swedish club. You make the pick on this one. My preference would be the first one (with commas). —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC) —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support – meets all 6 criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support, great work as usual Reckless! —Cliftonian (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Cheers man! --Reckless182 (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:10, 11 September 2012 [17].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Casting Crowns

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 22:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. As a background, this article is a comprehensive list of the major awards and nominations American Christian rock band Casting Crowns has received. The list notes awards and nominations from the American Music Awards, the Billboard Music Awards, the Grammy Awards, and the Dove Awards. Toa Nidhiki05 22:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)
;Comments from Crisco 1492 Fix the "when" tag. The AME refs should be combined. Can Casting Crowns be considered a "nominated work"? I generally leave it blank. Image looks fine (no action required) Don't think you should link Casting Crowns in the tables. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC) I have fixed all of these issues. Toa Nidhiki05 01:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. You may want to consider using an ndash as a placeholder for the band. Be sure to indicate such with a legend or something. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Good idea, I've added that. If someone knows of better text, by all means add it. Toa Nidhiki05 03:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Quick comment

• About.com is not considered a reliable source, so I would advise you replace those refs. NapHit (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Replaced with archive refs from the GMA itself. Toa Nidhiki05 01:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments "Artist of the Year.[when?] " fix that. Infobox, check maths, the noms add up to 53 as far as I can see. Check maths on Dove awards, your prose says they won 15, infobox says 16. Allmusic seems to be called AllMusic. Ref 2: "("38rd American " odd opening parenthesis. Ref 5, don't use bold for emphasis, it doesn't meet WP:ACCESS. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC) I've all issues as well as the unmatching dating ("38rd"). Removed the bolded section entirely on Ref 5 as it is pretty obvious what each citation supports. Toa Nidhiki05 17:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

* Casting Crowns awards and nominations → Awards and nominations received by Casting Crowns 2005–2009 should be 2005–09. All per WP:YEAR. TBrandley 03:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC) I fixed the second issue, but the first one is what the template puts out and there is no way to change that without changing the template, which is standard on other FL articles for awards and nominations. Toa Nidhiki05 17:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC) That's fine. TBrandley 03:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. It's fine now. Excellent. TBrandley 03:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:10, 11 September 2012 [18].

---

Hutch Award

Nominator(s): – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe this is ready for FL status, or will be after things I missed are pointed out. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• Associated Press is the work for Ref 5, ESPN.com are the publisher
• Why do external links have retrieved dates? Lemonade51 (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Right, both good catches. I corrected those issues. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments – There should be refs to an individual player's BR page. I know that there is a general BR ref in the External Links section, but it doesn't mention what team or position a player was when he won the award (i.e. the two other bits of info in the table that need to be sourced). —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Moyer has been a free agent for more than a month now. Doesn't that qualify him as being non-active? Or does he actually have to retire first before he is no longer designated as an active player? —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC) He has publicly stated that he isn't retired, and is working on finding another job with any organization that will sign him. I'd consider him active until he says otherwise. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support – meets all 6 criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments "the former major league baseball..." shouldn't it be Major League Baseball, to be consistent with the one before? I assume one of the external links is referencing the table? Currently it appears nothing is so would move whatever is referencing the table to a general ref and then have the rest of the refs under a header saying specific NapHit (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Fixed the MLB issue. As for referencing the table, I'll do what Bloom6132 suggested soon, which will properly reference each award winner. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Refs added for every row of the table. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

;Comments from Crisco 1492 "player who best exemplifies the fighting spirit and competitive desire of Fred Hutchinson." - Perhaps a bit of clarification: for playing through illness? That's what the recipients you single out did. I'd say "adversity", since a number of them played through injuries, which I wouldn't consider an illness. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC) "1965 in honor of Hutchinson, the former MLB pitcher and manager, who died of lung cancer in November 1964, at the age of 45." - that's cramming a lot of info. How about "was created in 1965 to honor Hutchinson, a former MLB pitcher and manager who had died of lung cancer the previous year" Agreed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC) I've done a copyedit, be sure to check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Looks good to me! – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support on prose, looks fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments "the fighting spirit and competitive desire " this is a little NPOV, I guess it's a quote, so put it in quotes and ref it. Done. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC) "KDKA-AM;" seems to be called "KDKA" in our own article. My bad, didn't notice that was a redirect. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC) "including Mickey Mantle, the inaugural winner" reads a little odd to me, of course the inaugural winner would be included. Maybe, "the inaugural winner being Mickey Mantle."? That was meant to mean that Mantle is a HOFer, not just a winner. Damn English language vagaries. I reworded it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC) "To date..." we normally put a real date on that. Yeah. I removed it entirely since I don't think it's necessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC) "1987–present" sorry, could you just check at WP:DASH if this should be spaced or not? I can't remember (because the range is a number to a word). Not explicitly stated (number to word), but I'm pretty sure it's right. #1 says "In ranges that might otherwise be expressed with to or through", and this is "1987 to present" – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Don't like "Baseball awards #United States" at all. If you wish to link this, pipelink it more elegantly. Done – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC) "The permanent display of the Hutch Award trophy" what do the recipients get to keep? I don't know. I haven't seen anything to say they get anything. I'll look again and report back. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC) I haven't found anything on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Scratch that. They get a trophy designed by Dale Chihuly. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Just my opinion, but I think the article would be improved by adding another image in between Hutchinson and Lester.

• Has anyone won the award multiple times? If not, this should be mentioned in the article. AutomaticStrikeout 19:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I added an image of Butler, it did need a third image. There has been no multiple winner, and I'm not sure that it needs to be said, since sorting the table will reveal that. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments External links shouldn't use {{cite web}} Categories should be sorted in alphebitcal order TBrandley 21:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Categories alphabetized. As to the use of {{cite web}} in the External link section, Wikipedia:EL#External_links_section doesn't forbid it, it merely tells editors who do it to use caution to be sure the description of the page is sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. TBrandley 22:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:10, 11 September 2012 [19].

---

Timeline of the 2011 Atlantic hurricane season

Nominator(s): TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The 2011 Atlantic hurricane season was one of the most active on record, with a total of 19 named storms. It also included the sixth costliest hurricane in United States history: Hurricane Irene. After working diligently on this article for several days, I feel that it now meets the criteria to become a Featured List. Any comments regarding how I can improve this article are appreciated. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment this list is unstable, as there have been numerous reverts within the last few days. With that said, nothing actionable can be done here, so TA, don't worry about this, it should fix itself, this is more to the FLC directors than anything. All the ADT stuff needs to be changed to AST, as the NHC does not sue ADT since all the places within the US are on AST year around. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

done TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Support now. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick Comment - in some cases you've misspelled nbsp and said "nsbp" instead, so they show up on regular viewing. TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 16:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

done TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional Comment - after a thorough read-thru this morning, I noted some additional things:

• "Hurricane Irene weakens to a tropical storm and simultaneously makes its eight landfall on Brigantine Island, New Jersey, with winds of 70 mph (110 km/h)." - Eight → Eighth
• "1200 UTC (8 a.m. AST) – Tropical Storm Maria" - Since you use [h]:[mm] on all other occasions, change 8 a.m. AST to 8:00 a.m AST.
• Since Lee and Irene had their lowest pressure and highest winds separate from each other, you are forced to say that they "reached peak intensity" twice for each of them. If this was intentional then leave it alone, but if it was not maybe you can try saying something different for them, like "reached its minimum pressure at [xxx] mbar (hPa;..)". Correct me if I'm wrong.

Conditional support if these issues are tweaked. TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 14:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was typed that way on purpose. Fixed the other two comments. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

+Support - Now that my issues have been fixed, I can now support this article. Timeline of the 2011 Atlantic hurricane season describes in detail the events which occurred during the hurricane season, and has an excellent lead. By using the elements of past featured timelines, this article in my opinion meets the criteria in WP:FLCR. Nice work! TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 20:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 17:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments – "Hurricane Irene was a powerful and unusually large storm that made several landfall along the East Coast of the United States...". "landfall" → "landfalls"? Is a word missing in the middle of "moved ashore the coast of Louisiana..."? Timeline of events: In the graph, Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale needs an en dash. September 12: The red link here can be fixed by linking to Poza Rica, Veracruz. Note 2: "scale" should be capitalized for consistency with the rest of the article. Actually, the mention of it with Hurricane Irene probably should be too. A bunch of references could use PDF indicators. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC) done. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments "It also marked the first occurrence in which " ->"It was also the first time that..." done. "Although Tropical Storm Arlene formed on June 28,..." not sure why this is "although..."? So there wasn't a storm for four weeks into the season. Is that rare? No, but the storm developed after the first day of the season, hence the word "although". "of which nineteen intensified into tropical storms, seven became hurricanes, and four became " That adds up to 30, again I know what you're saying, of the 19 storms, seven became hurricanes, of which four became major hurricanes. Perhaps a subtle reword. done. "terrain of Mexico. [8]" remove space before ref. done. "Veracruz, Mexico" is a dab page. done. "(1:00 p.m. CDT)– Tropical Storm Rina " space before the en-dash. done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC) "season was a well above average year in" I know what you mean but it reads odd to me that you're saying a season is a year. Hmm...never gotten a comment about that. Any suggestions of what to reword it to? Perhaps just "season was above average in..."? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Check all image captions, those which are complete sentences should not have periods. Uhhh...they shouldn't? Rephrase: those which are not complete sentences should not have periods! Sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC) With the user semi-inactive, I was bold and went ahead and fixed this myself. YE Pacific Hurricane 22:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC) The timeline omits 118 km/h. Category 1 hurricane intensity begins at 74 mph (119) km/h, and tropical storm intensity ends at 73 mph (117 km/h). So what if the hurricane hits exactly 118 km/h? I believe you need to talk to your project friends about this... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Per the 2002 AHS FLC, and with the nominator inactive, I was bold and went ahead fixed this (it start at 118, not 119 per the fLC). YE Pacific Hurricane 22:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC) TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment now the timeline graph is messed up and the page is becoming unstable again. Not going to strike my support though. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Scratch that, we're fine now.
• Image review: No copyright related problems found. Goodraise 00:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment what is the status of this? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I have been busy lately and have not been able to take care of these minor problems. Thanks to YE for doing so for me. Any more concerns? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support didn't find anything. :( Lol. Great work. TBrandley 22:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:11, 4 September 2012 [20].

---

Outkast discography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:11, 4 September 2012 [21].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Sunil Gavaskar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments –

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

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:11, 4 September 2012 [22].

---

List of Formula One fatal accidents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • "49 drivers have died..."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • I think there should be an age column also

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:11, 4 September 2012 [23].

---

Nebula Award for Best Script

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:11, 4 September 2012 [24].

---

List of Kings XI Punjab cricketers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:11, 4 September 2012 [25].

---

CPJ International Press Freedom Awards

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

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

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

*Comments " awards are given to from four to seven individuals" - the "to from four to" is awkward. Perhaps remove "from"?  Done Khazar2 (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC) photojournalist should be photo journalist Are you sure? The New York Times and BBC both appear to prefer the former ([26] vs. [27],[28] vs. [29]), and it's the given spelling in Merriam-Webster.[30]. Khazar2 (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC) The article is at Photojournalism — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC) My mistake "US photojournalis" better "American"  Done Khazar2 (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC) In the external link section, state that it is its official site  Done Khazar2 (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Table could be sortable I'm doing this. Will need the "sort name" template though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Table does not meet the MOS:DTT Any particular complaints? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC) How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC) I think you need to use the scope=row for each rows. Perhaps something like this. For the years? Doing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC) This is, for some reason, automatically bolding the year. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC) I think scope=row is clashing with sortable and row-span. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC) The DTT does not use scope=row with a sortable table. Which do you consider more important, that the table be sortable or that scope=row be included? Doesn't look like we can have our pie and eat it too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC) The example it gives is singles, and they write "The main subject of the row is in fact the name of the single. Thus, the first cell in the row should be a normal data cell instead of a row header." Thus, in this case (with our row-spanned table) this should not have a row header. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC) That's all. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 12:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Note that things in italics are actually newspapers How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Check sorting of Manuel Vázquez Portal  Done--changed per Spanish naming conventions and source [31]. Khazar2 (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Should Jesús Joel Díaz Hernández be sorted by Diaz or Hernandez? Not sure about this. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 15:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Sorting generally based on what was in the articles. Khazar, what do you think of Manuel and Jesus? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)  Done --Diaz Hernandez is the correct sorting. [32] Khazar2 (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC) A minor point, but the sorting of Al-Sager and Al-Jamri should be "Sager" and "Jamri", ignoring the standard (and optional) Arabic "Al-". Khazar2 (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:11, 4 September 2012 [33].

---

Mystikal discography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:11, 4 September 2012 [34].

---

30–30 club

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:11, 4 September 2012 [35].

---

Kanye West discography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:11, 4 September 2012 [36].

---

List of Indian Premier League centuries

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

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

Quick comments

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

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

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

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

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

Comments –

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

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

Resolved comments from Vensatry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved comments from Harrias

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

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

Image review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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