Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 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 08:19, 29 February 2012 [1].

---

List of Chartjackers episodes

Nominator(s): V_oBEDD 23:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the necessary criteria. It might a little shorter than other episode lists, but that's because the runtime of the entire series doesn't come to even 90 minutes, so there's not much that can be said about it. This is my first foray into the world of featured lists, so I'm sorry if there are some massive errors that I'm overlooking. Thankyou all in advance. V_oBEDD 23:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comments I think the four teens who did the show should be mentioned in the lead, especially as two of them have articles.

 Done Moved their names to the second sentence.

The summaries for episodes 4, 5, 8, and 9 are in a different format (it appears double-spaced on the mobile version of Wikipedia).

 Done The only way I could think to solve this problem was just to stick the notes at the end of the paragraph. This has fixed the issue, but I'm not sure if it's now as visually appealing.

"Pudsey Bear" just redirects to the Children in Need article.

--Glimmer721 ^talk 01:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Removed wikilinks. V_oBEDD 13:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking the notes shouldn't be italicized, in parentheses, or even with "note" in front of it...for example, the last sentence of the Episode 4 summary could simply be "The episode also featured a cameo from indie band The Young Knives, who sent the group a video message wishing them luck for their project". Also wondering if there is perhaps an image that could be used--like maybe File:Alex Day ChartJackers gig for Children in Need.jpg. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done both I've removed the italics, parentheses and "Note:"s, and have put the photo of Day in the top-right hand corner. V_oBEDD 04:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me. Glimmer721 ^talk 21:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Ha, I remember watching this show when it was on. Gosh, has it really been two years already? I've had a brief look over the list, and, although I'm not particularly familiar with episode listings on Wikipedia, this seems to meet WP:WIAFL by my reckoning. One thing I would say is that the citations from the summaries of Eps 4 and 9 should be moved to the ends of their paragraphs. I also think it's kind of odd to have an image of only Alex Day in the right-hand-corner of the article, since obviously he was just one of the four guys on the show. Are there any free images of all four of them available, say, on Flickr? That being said, the absence of such an image isn't something that I would oppose over. Nice job! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 03:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Have moved the citations to the ends of the paragraphs. It seems that there are a whole load of great Chartjackers-related photos on Flickr, but none of them seem to be free use, unfortunately. If a free image of all four bloggers becomes available, I'd definitely use it to replace the current one. Thankyou for the support. V_oBEDD 09:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Episode 2: "The episode concludes with McDonnell, Day and Hill receiving a phone call from former pop star Chesney Hawkes – Hawkes offers them advice". I wish Hawkes' name didn't repeat from one word to another like this. It's not great prose-wise. Episode 7: "Day, Haggart, Chartrand and Nichols speak with celebrity stylist Hannah Sandling. Sandling...". Again, there's some repetition from one sentence to another that would best be avoided.  Done both What makes Hypebot (reference 1) a reliable source?  Done Replaced Hypebot reference with one from The Huffington Post. Is it YouTube or Youtube? The ref publishers disagree with each other. By the way, if they weren't from an official channel I'd be asking whether these were copyvios and complaining about what a bad source this is. Just be forewarned if you plan on using it in the future, and make sure to only use offical feeds; anything else is not a good source for multiple reasons. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)  Done Thanks for the tip. Genuine question though: I understand why citing something from an unofficial source on YouTube would be unreliable, but why would it also be a copyright violation? VoBEDD 02:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC) If the uploader doesn't hold the rights to the footage, what they are doing is a copyright violation, and the upload will probably be taken down if the rights holder becomes aware of it. Don't think it's an issue here, though. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Is, uhh, this allowed? I could swear that I've seen it done elsewhere on Wikipedia (although, now that I think about it, maybe not at Featured List Candidates). If it is a little audacious then I will apologise, and remove the self-support - I just wanted to give it a shot. Chalk it up as being bold and ignoring all the rules, if you'd like. Cheers all! V_oBEDD 12:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • We don't really count the nominator's support as it's implied when you nom a list at FLC. I'd be scared if you didn't think it met FL standards. :-) Giants2008 (Talk) 19:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Ahh, fair enough then, I guess it was worth a shot. Thankyou for the response! V_oBEDD 03:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support meets the criteria NapHit (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Image review: The image used appears to be free and is properly tagged. Goodraise 23:39, 28 February 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 15:41, 28 February 2012 [2].

---

List of highest-grossing films

Nominator(s): Betty Logan (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list status because I believe it gives a comprehensive overview of the topic. It is as complete as it I can make it without more information being made available. Betty Logan (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Just curious. What's up with no 1917? No source for it? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources have 1917 down. The Numbers and Variety really start at 1920, and the AMC Filmsite starts at 1915 but misses out 1917 and 1924. Wikipedia's film year article reckons it was Cleopatra and they have been right in most cases, but they don't have a source for it or any figures. Betty Logan (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As I reckoned was the reason. That's a bummer too. I am not really a reviewer so I will give you the summary of what I feel on the article. I feel the list article is well organized and taking care of (by you I might add). The article is very reliable at telling the source's side of the story and the notes are really appropriate when there's two or more different sides to the story as well. I don't feel I should vote yay or nay on supporting it as a featured list article because I have edited it but I do feel that you (as a editor) deserve a thumbs up for all the work you put over it. Congratulations on that. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from WFC

Opening comments from WFC: Wow. At first glance this is a worthy candidate. Due to its length this could take some time to review, but it's definitely on my to-do list. A few initial observations: Background shading is excessive: shading the film's cell rather than the entire row would look better in my opinion. *Additionally, coloured backgrounds are normally accompanied by a symbol such as †, so that readers using text based browsers like Lynx do not miss out on any information. I would recommend updating the coloured background by month, rather than a specific date. I.e. "Background shading indicates that at least one film in the series is playing as of January 2012 in theaters around the world", rather than "14 January 2012". The references with a red background on this page are not working: [3]. I have to say, considering the number of references and bearing in mind that all of them went dead recently, it's an impressively small number. —WFC— 00:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC) I've fixed the references; they were still there but TCM had just altered the urls for some reason. As for the highlighting, I think I've done what you had in mind, but you better take a look. I didin't know whether I should put the daggers at the start or the end of the line like a footnote; I opted for the start to distinguish them from footnotes, but if you think they'd be better at the end that is easily sorted. As for the playing dates, I actually think updating every day is pointless (it's just done that way so it's automated), but I think updating it once a month would introduce unnecessary lag. Basically theatrical release is a weekly thing so it should ideally correllate with that. The purpose of the highlighting is two-fold: to let readers know which data is subject to change, and to aid editors in tracking the films on release. In view of that I'm not sure we even need a date: if a film is highlighted the data hasn't been finalised, if it's not then it's because the film has closed and final figures have been entered, so I'm thinking we should just scrap the date because it's more a key for our chart than an encylopedic claim (I'm thinking it's technically untrue anyway, because the key really indicates what Box Office Mojo is currently tracking, and a film can play in a theater without being tracked). Betty Logan (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Nice work with the references, and the shading looks great. Unfortunately putting the daggers at the start affects the table's sort function (for The Twilight Saga): putting daggers immediately after film titles should solve this. Updating once a week would work too, if you prefer. The frequency of updates is largely down to you (I only update List of Watford F.C. players every 4-6 weeks), but having a date of some sort is important: it informs the reader how up-to-date the information is. —WFC— 18:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. I'm happy that the data meets FL standards, and that the lead covers the right points. For the director's benefit, I should point out that I haven't covered criteria 1. —WFC— 16:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from RexxS

I hope you don't mind, but I've updated the † symbol to the {{dagger}} template, because † is often unreadable by the screen readers used by the visually impaired, while the template is intended to be universally readable.

In general, this is a most impressive collection of related lists and the nominator should be congratulated for the work put into it. I have a few comments to make about accessibility:

• The images all have sensible alt text which greatly benefits accessibility.
• Three of the All four of the tables have captions, which is a real bonus for anyone using JAWS or similar screen readers.
• I have problems with distinguishing blue/green hues, so I find the colour "lightblue" (#ADD8E6) a poor choice as background against a wikilink (#0645AD). It's not too bad for most folks, but it would be nice if a different colour were picked that gave better contrast with the blue wikilinks.
• The accessibility of tables generally benefits from marking the column and row headers with scope="col" and scope="row" respectively. The section at WP:DTAB gives examples, or you could look at List of ministers of law and human rights of Indonesia as an example of where the row header is the second column (in this case the Title would probably be a better row header than Year or Rank).
• The table "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" is interesting as it contains collapsible tables within the main table, and some of the collapsible tables contain multiple sub-tables. The mechanism works well for sighted visitors, but is clearly not designed with screen readers in mind. All of the content is available in the html delivered to the browser, so a screen reader could work through all of the information one item at a time. In that sense, it is not inaccessible, but since the headings at the top (Rank, Series, Total worldwide box office, No. of films, Average of films, Highest-grossing film) are actually in a different table from other pieces of information, the visual appearance of a single table is an illusion (This can be seen at 800x600 where the columns no longer line up - I know we don't support 800x600 but this is only to illustrate what is happening). The result of this is that none of the headings can be connected with the data to which it should be related (other than visually) - and this means that a screen reader will be unable to navigate around the information in the way it could if this were a single table.

I'd recommend scoping row and column headers for the first three tables, as this is easy to do and produces quick benefits. The fourth table is a problem, as I can understand the visual appeal of its structure, but I believe it falls short of our best practice for accessibility of data tables. Perhaps someone like Graham87 could be persuaded to look at the table and comment on how it sounds to him through JAWS. If he found it acceptable, I'd be willing to set aside my reservations in this case. --RexxS (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the dagger issue so thanks for sorting it out. I've added a title to the chart that was missing one and I'll get onto the row and column scoping tomorrow. Have you got any suggestions for the color highlighting? I'm not that precious about it so I'm happy to go with more or less any color scheme. As for the franchise table, I appreciate it is unorthodox, but there were some very good reasons at the time for its construction, namely all these reboots and spin-offs blur the lines between what is in a series and what isn't, so the soft groupings we have more or less solved that problem—interestingly we haven't had a single edit war since we created it over the summer. Rather than getting side-tracked by accessibility issues, it may be simpler to make the whole chart "go away" and port it into Film series since technically "highest-grossing films" is a topic distinct from "highest-grossing film franchises". Each of the other charts explicitly deal with the subject of the highest-grossing film, so the franchise chart is a bit out of sync and it may be more appropriate for it be in an article that actually covers film franchises. I think we'd still have comprehensive article without it, just a bit more focused and tighter in its scope. Betty Logan (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that caption; every little bit helps. If you need any help with the scoping, just ping me. Generally, yellows give the best contrast with the blue wikilinks and something like   #FFFF66   meets WCAG AAA standards. However, you're using yellows for the sub-tables in the last section, so it might be confusing.

I still like the "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" and it would be a shame to get rid of it. If you were willing to remove the collapsible stuff, it could be written as a normal wikitable and improve its accessibility. Let's not worry at the moment and see what other reviewers say. If you want, I could make a version of the table in a subpage so you can see if you like how it would look? Let me know. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem with removing the collapsible elements is that we either have to ditch all the stuff in the sub-tables i.e. giving the table a permanent collapsed form (thereby sacrificing about 90% of the information in the table) or we construct it to have a permanently expanded form retaining all the information that we have in the sub-tables, but by doing that we lose the distinction between the primary and secondary content which will make it look like one huge muddled mess (just expand all the tables and sub-tables and see what a monstrosity it would be). The first option gives us a table that is drastically reduced in its information value, the second a table that will be so unwieldy it will be virtually unreadable. Both options dramatically reduce its effectiveness for the vast majority of readers. If there was a good alternative solution we probably would have thought of it, but the choices seem to be between incoherence and reducing the information we can provide. The current table allows a reader to make comparisons at franchise level, at series level, and in some cases such as the Bond films at actor level, and I don't see how else we can do that, and if we don't do that we fall short in what we currently offer to most readers—it seems perverse to offer less to everyone because not everyone can have more. Could we do something along the lines of an appendix for the screen readers if they can't read the table? I appreciate all the article content must be available to everyone, but I honestly think that the collapsible table delivers the content in a way that is of maximum effectiveness to the majority of the readers; I think if we can include the content in two forms then no-one is penalised at the expense of someone else. Betty Logan (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a shame that nobody else has pitched in on the issue of the "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" table. I do understand your desire to present the table in the most usable form for sighted readers as they will be in the majority. I wanted to make sure that you understood the trade-off that it entails for the visually impaired, who are actually presented with the expanded "monstrosity" as a sequence of tables, and can't navigate sensibly within any table. Anyway, you've done your best to make the rest of the article as accessible as possible, so I expect that reviewers will recognise that in this case, we can't achieve perfection. --RexxS (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, honestly speaking, I can't 100% appreciate the trade-off because I don't exactly know what a screen-reader does with the table. However, I still think an appendix that renders the table into list format is a viable way around the problem for readers not in a position to comprehend the table, since if the information is available elsewhere in the article, then I think the accessibility of the table isn't such a big deal. Betty Logan (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Support: Although the last table is not as accessible as the others, any visitor using a screen reader would still receive all of the information, and would really just be lacking the convenience of navigation that sighted users have. It's a problem that we ought to be looking at, but by no means a reason to oppose this list being considered among the best that Wikipedia has. In all other respects, it's an excellent list, with masses of "lookup" information for film aficionados as well as an interesting commentary in each section. It's a piece of work to be proud of, Betty. --RexxS (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 15:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments – This isn't a full review, but I'm finding quite a few prose-related problems. Someone with a sharp eye needs to review the writing in this list carefully, in case I don't have time to come back. I really wish the lead didn't begin with a distinct similarity to the outdated "This is a list of" opening. Surely more could be done with such an interesting topic. Link James Cameron in the lead, and the many films and series that are discussed. The lead is actually under-citedlinked for my taste, which doesn't occur too often. "While inflation has eroded away the achievements of most films from the 1960s and 70s". According to the MoS, a decade range should be given fully, as in 1970s. Not sure how encyclopedic the phrasing in "there are franchises from that period still going strong" is. "Indiana Jones also saw a successful comeback nearly twenty years after the last film." "last" → "previous"? By definition the third movie wasn't the last one. Avoid contractions like the one in "but don't really compete against today's top-earners". Another one in "doesn't even make the top fifty in the modern market". Issues with calculation: Is "play better" the most encyclopedic phrasing that can be come up with? The whole list needs a thorough checking in this regard, if the things I'm seeing are any indication. "Social and economic factors also impact on the number of people purchasing theater tickets, such as population changes and the growth of international markets." The order of the sentence would be more logical if the factors were put before "also impact...". "and relayed to the distributor, which in turn release them to the media." "release" should be plural in this context, I'd imagine. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC) I've corrected them now and made some over alterations along the way. I've linked the films in the lead, but it looks slightly unkempt to me; however if everyone else prefers it this way I can live with it. Betty Logan (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Still think another editor should go through the prose carefully, but I don't have time to do so myself now. I'll try to come back sometime during this FLC, but I make no promises. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Coming back after some time away from the list, and I still see some issues to sort out... Highest-grossing films: Try not to start a sentence with a number, like the year 2009 toward the end of this prose section. "and 2011 currently stands at five." It's 2012 now, so this could use an update of some sort. High-grossing films by year: For the prose part, MoS recommends against ampersands (except for tables and such, but they appear in the writing here). For all the cases where they appear in parentheses, a simple "and" works just fine. Timeline of highest-grossing films: "The Birth of a Nation played a large number of ... engagements". Should "at" be added before "a"? En dash needed in "$50-60 million". "it is likely it did not overtake The Birth of a Nation in total revenue until a much later date, which was still being reported as the highest earner up until the 1960s." The part after the comma is referring to the movie, correct? It reads like it's talking about the date, which is confusing. A re-wording is in order. Highest-grossing franchises and film series: Add "of" to "with a total over $12 billion at 2011 prices." Publisher of refs 10 and 31, and 90 from box-office sources (Turner Classic Movies) needs an s at the end. Spaces needed in the access dates of refs 12 and 13. In the box-office sources, most dates are fully spelled out, while refs 8, 9, and 13 use a shortened format. These should be made consistent throughout; just changing those few is probably the easiest way to do this. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks for going over it, I've addressed most of the issues. I've been through the article with a toothcomb, but I've worked so long on it I think I probably just see what I want to see now. As for point 2 (i.e. "and 2011 currently stands at five."), we may be in 2012 but to all intents and purposes we are still effectively in the 2011 season. There are still several 2011 films working their way towards the list, so I've tried to clarify in the prose the 2011 tally isn't finalized. There really isn't anything to say about 2012 as yet, except that there are no 2012 entries, and there probably won't be until June or July at the earliest. I can always add that, but historically we've always waited until there is something to comment on before incorporating a new year. Betty Logan (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I regularly visit the page to see the ranking... and seeing the other day that it had evolved into this detailed analysis impressed me. igordebraga ≠ 03:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Refs 22,64,65 don't point to any citation.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I've sorted it. Thanks for pointing it out. Betty Logan (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments First of all, good on you for taking on this list. It covers quite a significant topic and receives thousands of views each day. The comprehensiveness and detail of information is amazing. Just a few picks:

• "The superhero genre has also seen a revival" - revival from when? Source?
• In the 'High-grossing films by year', what do the figures in brackets mean?
• I suggest anchoring the asterisks like you have the other notes.
• The Bond 'Eon productions' sub-set and its sub-sub-sets are a bit confusingly laid out. Not sure if much can be done about it, though.

—Andrew_stalk 22:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've initiated the changes you have recommended:

1. I've altered the wording as per this edit. It's hard to track down references that analyse the emergence of the superhero film in recent years, it just kind of happened. I've worded it so it comes across less as a claim/analysis and more like an observation of the data with a link to a list of superhero films (as you can see from the wikipedia list of superhero films, there were only two feature length movies prior to 1978, and since Superman 4 there have only been two calendar years where a superhero film hasn't been released).
2. The grosses from the original theatrical runs are included in brackets. This is done because many of the Disney re-releases have seen the Disney films take over the record. On one hand it speaks of the enduring popularity of these films, on the other it isn't a straight fight when other films from the year where more popular in the original market, therefore I feel it is best to present both perspectives. The bracket notation is explained in the introduction to that section in the first paragraph, but I guess many readers (myself included) sometimes look at charts without reading the accompanying text, so I've added an explanation to the key for the chart.
3. I've anchored the asterisks.
4. We're kind of limited with what we can do with tables. I think being able to expand and collapse tables aids the reader in indentifying what belongs to what because the reader can just study one entry, and the expansion helps to make it clear what films belong to which series. The Bond franchise entry is the most complicated table, because you have three separate series, and within the Eon series we've divided by actor too. We could get rid of the actor divisions and maybe simplify it slightly, but I think we would be losing information if we did this. Each Bond actor's set of films tend to be regarded as a cohesive serial, and covered in those terms by published literature.
5. On another note, I'm in two minds over the inflation map caption. The map looks like it is updated periodically, so I'm not convinced we should label it as a "2009" map, since it will possibly be updated to a 2010 or 2011 map at some point and the article caption will become incorrect. The aim of the map is not to really show inflation rates of a particular year, it's just illustrating the concept that they are different across the world. Anyway, it's not a big deal, and I can live with it either way, but if anyone else has a view on that I'd like to hear it. Betty Logan (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Re the inflation map: yes, fair enough, it makes sense to remove the year. Also note per WP:CAPTION that there should be no full stop/period at the end of the caption. —Andrew_stalk 03:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Very comprehensive and well-written. Well done. —Andrew_stalk 03:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose some initial thoughts First up, after RexxS's comments about the concealed info, I would point everyone to WP:COLLAPSE, which, as part of the MOS, means this list currently needs some work before it meets that criterion. A few issues in the lead, turns of phrase like "Traditionally", "diminished the importance", "theatrical earnings are still an important metric"... which, while I'm sure are true, don't have any basis in fact (verifiable fact, that is!) that I can see. It may just be me, but the "Issues with calculation" section makes me wonder if any kind of list like this could ever stand scrutiny. Don't repeat unambiguous first names (e.g. Steven for Spielberg) once you've mentioned them in full once. "($10,000,000R)" looks very odd to have that footnote inside the closing parenthesis. Ref here should be Ref(s) since there are many examples of multiple refs. Dislike blank cells, so those with "unknown" budgets should be positively marked as such. Would make sure refs are in numerical order (e.g. look at Frankenstein which has 72 followed by 57). "The Birth of a Nation was essentially the first Hollywood blockbuster." what does "essentially" mean here? And is this referenced anywhere? "Timeline of the highest-grossing film record" why are some years in italics? Series wikilinks in bold italics? Is that compliant with MOS? Ouch, just seen that triple-mutiple embedded "show" for James Bond, really, really inaccessible. " is playing in the week commencing 10 February 2012 in theaters around the world." how do you know what films are playing around the world? This needs constraining. (I know that they're still playing Octopussy in Udaipur...) Wall Street Journal is The Wall Street Journal. Ref 14 - " "All--Time Box-Office Hits By Decade and Year" that double hyphen should be a single hyphen. Ref 19 has a spare period. Should add publisher info about works like The Daily Telegraph (and location info for global information). Ref 30, author can be linked. Box office source 6 needs a space. Ref 57 has a spare period. Refs 63 and 64 point at the same Google book but are formatted differently. Ref 131 has a spare period. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your observations. Most I have taken on board, a few others require further discussion: This seems to be the biggest issue for reviewers. However, there are strong reasons for the collapsible format. This is what the chart looked like in the middle of last year. Since a franchise can have many divisions, some editors felt it had neutrality issues, and it needed to be clear exactly what films we were including in this chart. The collapsible table received strong support because it was able to facilitate the multiple points of view. I feel it would be detrimental to go back to this type of table and reintroduce the neutrality concerns, so the only other option would be to break it down into a list of tables. By doing this I think you then lose the aesthetic advantage of actually having a chart (just fully expand the chart to see what I mean) and being able to compare the franchises at different levels. The collapsible table received a strong consensus in the discussion—in fact not a single editor voted against it. Now I'm aware that it goes against a guideline, but the guideline is only an accessibility consideration, and I did propose above including an appendix which would make all the data available; an appendix would satisfy WP:COLLAPSE which permits collapsible elements in tables to conceal information if it is only consolidating what is already available in the article. If this is still not acceptable personally speaking I would rather abandon the pursuit of an FL grading, since I don't think it is in the interests of the article to ditch the collapsible table. I've rejigged the lead to make it sound less like analysis and more like an observation of what is covered in the article. Hopefully it is compliant now. It may just be me, but the "Issues with calculation" section makes me wonder if any kind of list like this could ever stand scrutiny. – You should wonder, that is kind of the whole point of the section! There is a debate that questions the validity and motives of the industry metrics; however, as editors it is not our place to question the legitimacy of industry practices, we only require it to be verifiable, and it is in major trade publications. That said, there are two other charts on the list which are not affected by the issues outlined. Removed first names. Taken the "R" out of the brackets although I'm not 100% convinced of this, because when it was in the brakets it was clear the note referred to that figure only. Do you think having "R" outside of the brackets could cause readers to think the note applies to both figures? I am worried it is ambiguous. Added an (s) to "Ref". Added "TBC" to blank cells; let me know if there is something more appropriate I can put in there (other than the actual budget figures of course). I haven't put the refs in numerical order. I've tried to order the refs in the order the information appears i.e. refs for grosses first, and then refs for budgets. Obviously this puts some of them out of numerical order, but it seemed more logical to me. However if you still think it's is better to have them in numerical order I will do it. Birth of Nation is generally perceived as being the first proper film, in terms of its techniques, its structured narrative etc, and instead of making thousands in a few local theaters it made millions nationwide, and as a consequence the first real blockbuster. It is included in one of the sources, but "first blockbuster" is subjective anyway, and I don't want to get bogged down in an analysis of its impact on the medium since it is only an image caption, so I've tried to convert it something that doesn't really require a source. Some years are in italics to indicate years that are not record setting years; for instance 1940 is when Gone with the Wind took the record, but added to its gross with reissues (1947, 1954, 1961, 1967, 1971); its 1971 record was the record that was defeated by The Sound of Music. I'm not explaining this very well, but I wanted to distinguish between years where a film took the record and years where it just added to its record. I thought it was clear, so I will have to think about how to approach this. There is not much that can be done about the bolded series titles; that is just how Wikitable code renders the titles. I think the embedded tables for the Bond films actually make the information much more digestible. It is clear which films are part of the Eon series and which aren't, which actors did which films, all at the click of a button. If we had half a dozen tables vertically stacked down the page I think it would make the information much more difficult to comprehend. For instance, it is instantly clear how much the Pierce Brosnan films have made in comparison to the Connery films, and with a click you can see how the Roger Moore films compare with each other. If these tables were all sprawled out then it would make it much more difficult to compare the franchise at its different levels. If you have a table for Craig films, and for Moore films, and then Connery films etc it becomes much more difficult to see how they rate against each over; this way they are in a condensed space, you can see how they performed relative to each other at a glance without having to scroll up and down the page and you can refine it to the level you want. how do you know what films are playing around the world? Well we have a source for the table, and it uses the same key. We are basically just emulating what is done here: [4]. They don't make it clear how they define what is playing, but my guess is films that are on general release that they are tracking. I could put that in the article but it would possibly be original research. In practical terms highlighting indicates to readers that the data for the highighted film is subject to change, and it also aids editors in identifying which films need to be updated. We could simply change our caption to read "subject to change" or something like that if it is unacceptable as it is. Obviously I can't really tell you what "currently playing" actually means, since the source isn't explicitly clear on the matter. Wall Street Journal corrected Ref corrected Ref corrected I don't fill in the publisher for national newspapers like The Daily Telegraph simply due to the fact I was made to remove them a while back in a GA review on the basis that we don't use the publisher parameter for nationals. I was told it was for regionals, and was directed to the guidelines for news citations: Template:Cite_news states This is commonly omitted for major publications and This parameter should normally be left blank. I'm happy to go ahead and fill them in provided someone isn't going to come along and ask me to remove them again, so I think we should clarify this first at the sourcing board. Personally speaking I don't care either way, but there is something like 200 references in this article so I'd like to be sure on this matter. Ref corrected Ref corrected Ref corrected I'm aware of the different citation format. Both references refer to the same book, with the same ISBN, however, they are hosted on Google books in two different forms. One has page numbers and the other doesn't. They both have different parts visible, so the one that doesn't have page numbers can't be accessed using the page number version. However, the best I can tell they are exactly the same book, just hosted in two different forms on Google Books and unfortunately I can't provide page numbers for some of the citations, just a link. If you have any suggestions as to how to get around this I'm happy to implement them, but it seems to be a quirk in Google's hosting of the books so I dealt with it as thoroughly as I could. Ref corrected Betty Logan (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC) A couple of responses. Not sure still if you have adequately explained to the reader what the italic years mean, and as for the bolding in the series title, that's not as a result of the wikitable, it's down to the {{Highest-grossing films franchise}} template which really should be adjusted to not use bold. I'm still nervous about the multiple nested collapsed tables but won't oppose over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC) I'd actually forgotten about explaining the italics, it had gone out of my mind, but I will get onto it sometime today. I don't know how to remove the boldtype from the series headings; I tried to use "plainrowheaders" but it didn't remove the bold, and the Help manuals don't seem to explain how to do it so I just assumed it weren't possible. I think it helps to distinguish the series titles from the film titles so it didn't bother me that much, but if someone can show me how to remove the bold I'll be happy to do it. Betty Logan (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• I still have some reservations over the unnecessary bolding and embedded collapsed tables, but won't oppose at this stage. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 28 February 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 23:08, 27 February 2012 [5].

---

List of cities and towns in California

Nominator(s): Kurykh (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

As of this writing, my nomination of List of municipalities in the San Francisco Bay Area has two supports and no actionable items, so nominating this shouldn't be much of a problem. Anyway, the format of this list mirrors that of the Bay Area list, even using the same lead section and table formats. After overhauling the entire thing, I believe it should be FL quality at this point. Kurykh (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Surprisingly couldn't see any issues (noting that I am not a Californian, so a native might see something I don't). The ordering of the images by population size was a nice touch. Well done with the list, Ruby 2010/2013 18:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Intro is missing one important link – to California. Done. --Kurykh (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC) At the same time, there's overlinking of other cities in the lead: three links to Los Angeles and two to San Diego. One each will do fine. Done. One of the San Diego links actually links to somewhere else. --Kurykh (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Be careful about time terms like "today", such as the one in "California is today an economic powerhouse." The sentence works fine without it, actually. Done. --Kurykh (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC) It now says "California is an $1.85 trillion economic powerhouse". "an" should be replaced by "a", I believe. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Done. --Kurykh (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC) "with its $1.85 trillion economy being larger than all but eight countries." Nit-picking here, but the prose reviewers at FAC would tell you that the "with ... -ing" sentence structure is awkward and not the best to be using. Try to re-word it to get that out. Done. --Kurykh (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Alt text would be nice for the non-lead images. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC) The caption text functions as the alt text in this case. --Kurykh (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment - When I click on the alt viewer tool in the toolbox, it states that there is no alt text for the non lead images. All it says is large unlinked images, which suggests to me that there is no alt text for those images. Other than that the list looks good. NapHit (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC) The images are coded such that screen readers will not read the image title (the "dot jay pee gee" thing). Adding dedicated alt text when the caption text serves the same function seems needlessly verbose. --Kurykh (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Scratch that just read the guidelines and I'd say these are images are for decorative purposes, so you've got it right, apologies. One more thing I noticed, while viewing the list on my iPhone the dagger did not show up, you need to add, instead of having † in the bracket things (I'm not sure what they're proper name is), you need to spell out dagger to ensure they show up. NapHit (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC) The daggers work on my iPhone, but done. --Kurykh (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Support - I read through this earlier and meant to comment at that point, but got distracted. So, I've read through it again, and everything looks good! Prose and references are solid, image licensing looks OK to me (though I'm not an expert), and the table is easy to use and understand. Dana boomer (talk) 21:46, 21 February 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 23:08, 27 February 2012 [6].

---

Premier League Manager of the Season

Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk), The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this meets WP:FLC. I created this very list five years ago, yet never had the time to complete it – it has since recieved a Peer review and mirrors the other Premier League awards already listed as FL's: the Manager of the Month and Player of the Month. Any feedback, critique, suggestions would be welcome. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ahem, have you notified/co-nominated with the major contributors? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, you are a major contributor to this I apologise, HonorTheKing, MickMacNee too. Will notify through talk. – Lemonade51 (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Here to inform that will also help fixing the issues it might raise. Lemonade51 did a fantastic job on improving the article, sourcing, and what not.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

So I'll co-nom since it seems that not much was done to the list since I last edited it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it wanted that Wenger is linked 10 times in the table? Shouldn'T it be oly the first one? Or is that because of sorting? -Koppapa (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean Ferguson, and yes, it's because the table is sortable, so each time an item is linked, it should be wikilinked. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, could use a lot more work, e.g. like the recent List of UEFA European Football Championship finals FLC, which has a nice "history" section which this could easily accommodate, especially since it's so short. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I would also suggest that any history section added is copyedited thoroughly... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Need to add sources too, thanks for your feedback. Done, will go over it after a dose of forty winks. That and Parutakupiu's comments. – Lemonade51 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments: I see no reason to wikilink "award", "broadcast" and "sponsorship". Corrected. Link "Carling" in its first instance ("... Carling Manager of the Year..."). Corrected. "... and Manager of the Season and awards... " – Extra "and"? Corrected. "... the previous season and Harry Redknapp in 2009–10 for steering... " – Place a semicolon after "season". Corrected. "... steering Tottenham Hotspur into a top-four... " – Steering "to"? Corrected. "As of May 2011, the most recent recipient of the award is Scottish manager Sir Alex Ferguson, who manages Manchester United." – No need to go into detail again about Ferguson, since he was already mentioned before as United' manager. Corrected. The columns in the list of winners have too much blank space because of the enforced width parameters. I'd let the table "choose" its column widths. Corrected. Actually, now the columns looks too tight without a bit of blank space. Sorry, but could you try and add just of bit of empty space to the three middle columns? The same width would be the best. Parutakupiu (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Done. I have reverted back the table to its previous form if that is OK? I made a small reduction. Are you OK with it? Parutakupiu (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC) "José Mourinho, two time winner with Chelsea" (caption) – hyphen missing between two and time. Corrected. You misunderstood me: you added a en-dash after "José Mourinho". Do the same with Wenger's caption ("three-time"). Parutakupiu (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Corrected now. You could also add a "by club" section. Done. — Parutakupiu (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Thank you very much for your feedback. – Lemonade51 (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Some more comments: If you append "Premier League" just before the boldfaced "Manager of the Season", it will validate the use of the boldfacing, as per WP:BOLDTITLE. Done. "... top–four finish... " – Hyphen here, not en-dash. Corrected "Kenny Dalglish was awarded the allocate in the 1994–95 season having guided... " – "Allocate"? You mean accolade? There's also one like this in the second paragraph you should fix. Corrected "... first manager born outside of Britain..." Simplify: "... first non-British manager...". Corrected "... with the prize not going to a manager of the league champions..." Noun + 'ing' sounds bad. Say "... as the prize did not go to a league-winning manager...". Corrected You removed "...for the first time." unnecessarily. I've added back. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC) "... the previous season finished in fifth position..." – Add a comma after "season". Corrected "... third consecutive championship and Liverpool manager Gérard Houllier who guided..." – Commas after "championship" and "Houllier" Corrected "Reflecting on Wenger's accomplishment Barclaycard Awards Panel spokesperson Nic Gault said, 'Arsene Wenger..." – Take the comma after "said" and put it after "accomplishment". Also, place a period after the end of the quote (just before ref. 21 anchor). Corrected the first part, do you mean published date? Because it isn't available for some reason. – Lemonade51 (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC) No, I meant a full stop mark after the quotation marks, but I've checked the MoS and it's not necessary, so I take this back. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC) "... becoming the first foriegn manager..." – Typo. Corrected You forgot to change "Country" to "Club" in the heading of the by-club table. Corrected One of the last two images could be placed within the history section. Not only it softens a text-heavy section, but also prevents perturbation of section heading. Adjusted — Parutakupiu (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Hope you don't mind but I made a general copyedit to the text and also fixed the image layout. Please, see if you agree with my changes. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC) No problem. – Lemonade51 (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Support gladly. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments Images need alt text I assume you mean the bottom two images? – Lemonade51 (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC) The image in the lead doesn't have it either, so I mean all three. Here's a link if you're unsure what I'm asking. NapHit (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Alt text added. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC) The two tables below the by year table need to comply with MOS:DTT and top table needs a caption. NapHit (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Done

Support NapHit (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Remove "for" from "Ferguson has been Manager of the Year for ten times"? History: Remove "to" from "resisting to Newcastle United's threat." Ref 25 should be moved outside the comma. Ref 11 needs an en dash to replace the hyphen in the title. The publisher (The Guardian) appears to be missing from ref 20. Publishers in refs 27 and 31 (Daily Mail) should be italicized as they're from a printed publication. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Done, hopefully. Thanks for your comments!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments seeing as the tables are simple, basic and functional, I'll have to concentrate on the prose. You'll like that... "announced in the second or third week of May", not "announced on. Corrected. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Perhaps restructure the sentence about names. "It has been called" doesn't imply it was named after its sponsor; "it is currently" might be better as "since then" or "since which time"; not sure it sometimes being referred to as Barclays Manager of the Year rather than Season is worth mentioning, unless that was the award's proper name at some stage. Rephrased somewhat. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC) If wikilinking the names of the two former sponsors, best to link the current sponsor as well Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Suggest saying briefly what "the existing LMA Manager of the Year‎ award" is/was: "the existing manager of the year award presented by the League Managers Association"? Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Ferguson's "more than half of the awards given so far" is another relative time reference Added precise time reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Wenger wasn't the "first manager outside of Britain": "first non-British manager", perhaps Indeed, corrected. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC) For consistency, perhaps mention Wenger's and Mourinho's clubs Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Perhaps recast the Mourinho sentence: two in a row beginning "XXX became the first manager..." isn't ideal. He didn't really "become" the first manager after Ferguson to win it twice consecutively, he "was" the first to do so. Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC) History. The "however" adds nothing in "Manchester United, however, regained the Premier League"... Removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Move the 1997-98 into the last part of the Wenger sentence: as it reads now, it makes the reader wonder who the second non-British manager was to win the award for that season. Try "Wenger was the first non–British manager to receive the Manager of the Season award, having led Arsenal to the top of the Premier League in 1997–98, his first full season at the club." Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC) "second-placed Arsenal", not "second-place Arsenal" Fixe.d. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Does "ultimately" add much to "a run which ultimately ensured the club regained the Premier League trophy"? No, banished. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Is the name of the awards panel spokesperson relevant? Not desperately, erased. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC) I'd guess MOS:QUOTE would allow us to add the missing accent to Arsene in the spokesperson's quote, though probably not to insert a comma into "exciting attacking football". Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC) "in a period when Manchester United regained" rather than "where"? and not sure the comma's necessary before "and retained" Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Please clarify "leading Manchester United to an historic 19th league title, overtaking Liverpool." Just left it as "a record 19th..." The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Mourinho image caption: TRM has assured me before that the construct "two-time winner" is acceptable in British English, but is it really an improvement on "twice winner"? Rephrased into prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC) References. The BBC refs should (as far as I can tell) be either all BBC News or all BBC Sport. Unified. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Just for future reference, BBC Sport Online became a separate strand in 2000. Does that mean any sport related articles published by the Beeb pre-2000 should be categorised as 'BBC Sport'? Or 'BBC News' as it suggests in its heading? – Lemonade51 (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks for pointing out what I clearly failed to notice when it was sat in front of me :-( You're quite right, the earlier ones should indeed be BBC News, or BBC Online, rather than the then non-existent BBC Sport. Apologies for making unnecessary extra work for you both. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)# No worries, back-fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC) #27 Sporting Life ref should be work=sportinglife.com publisher=365 Media Group Done, and fixed the title while I was at it...! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Ref #23 doesn't verify the stats mentioned in the sentence. Added an explicit ref (I hope you were referring to the lack of direct ref to the "record"?) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC) I've changed the Statto.com ref for another page from the same site that does show Chelsea's goals scored/conceded. Struway2 (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Oh, yes, I missed that it only had the GD, not the GF and GA. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Lead. Could we possibly construct a better opening sentence than "The Premier League Manager of the Season ... recognises the most outstanding Premier League manager of the season." Yeah, fair, any suggestions? Everything floating my mind is rubbish.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC) If I could write decent prose, I'd have loads of featured content. As it is..... Probably needs shuffling about so you don't actually have an opening sentence of that type. Struway2 (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Have tried.... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC) An improvement, certainly. Incidentally, there is an article called Manager (association football), if that would be a better link than Coach (sports). Struway2 (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Aha, well I never. Thanks, replaced. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Hope some of this is helpful, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC) All of it helpful, I've attempted to address them all bar the very first one. Further input would be great, thanks so far. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. Thought I already had, sorry. Meets FL criteria. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:21, 21 February 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 23:08, 27 February 2012 [7].

---

List of National Historic Landmarks in Michigan

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been working on the list over the past week or so and think that it is ready for a shot at FL. Because this is the first list of this sort that I've worked on, I've based it off of List of National Historic Landmarks in Indiana, which became a FL in 2010. Thanks in advance for any comments - I look forward to seeing them, Dana boomer (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from RexxS

Thanks for the nomination, Dana. Although I know almost nothing about Michigan, I found the list very interesting and the introduction well written. The statistics and the detailed map in the lead went a long way to establishing the context for me.

Standards have tightened, I think, over the last year or so, and FLC has become more sensitive to the issues surrounding accessibility, principally because of the fact that tables are prominent in most list articles. I'd like to make a few points that I feel would improve the list if they were addressed:

1. The use of colour – we should not be providing information through the use of colour alone. If you imagine that you were reading the article to a friend over the telephone, would they get the different meanings that are in Wikipedia:NRHP colors legend from the way the colours are used in this article? I can see that you added '†' to indicate 'Historic District', but there's no audible cue for 'Landmark'. This would make it awkward for anyone using a screen reader to distinguish the two categories used here. In addition, '†' is not accessible in the sense that many screen readers read it as '?'. The characters that can be typed from a standard keyboard are usually read accurately by screen readers, so I always recommend '#', '+', '*', as good choices. We have created templates for some of the common inaccessible characters like {{†}} and {{‡}}, which use an image plus user-definable alt text to make those keys much friendlier for screen readers. You might, for example, use {{†|alt=Historic District}} and {{‡|alt=Landmark}} throughout the table and key. This would produce a very similar visual appearance for the sighted, but a much more satisfactory experience for the blind.
2. We also need to be aware of the effect of colour contrast on viewers who may not have the same colour responses as the general population. The standard called 'Web Content Accessibilty Guidelines' (WCAG) gives us guidance on what colours we can use as background against a given text colour. There's a useful tool at http://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html which shows that 'NHL color' (i.e. #87CEEB) and 'NHLD color' (i.e. #00CED1) are marginal for black text with the small small point size used, but the latter fails even the lower AA standard if the text is wikilinked (colour is #0645AD). I understand the desire to retain a project-wide colour scheme, but the scheme really needs lighter or less blue colours if they are going to be fully accessible. I'm not suggesting this is anything you can rectify individually (other than abandoning the NRHP scheme in favour of the default wikitable colours), but it doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia if examples of our very best work don't match up to world-wide standards for accessibility.
3. Data tables now have a recommendation in the Manual of Style that they should identify column and row headers where possible, and mark them up as headers with the relevant scope. So column headers should have ! scope="col" and row headers should have ! scope="row". The benefit of this is to allow users of screen readers to hear the row and column header for each cell if they choose. In that way they can navigate in any direction within the table and still receive useful information. The alternative is to restrict them to having to hear the contents of the table cell-by-cell from left-to-right, then top-to-bottom. Imagine trying to find the date of designation for St. Ignace Mission, if you had to hear every piece of information in every cell for every row above it first. I suggest that it would be a major benefit to mark up the first row as column headers with ! scope="col" and the Landmark names in the second column as row headers with ! scope="row".
4. Finally, images benefit from having alt text, because it is read out by screen readers. If we don't specify alt text (as with some of the images in the table), the wikimedia software supplies the filename as alt text which means the screen reader reads out the filename twice (because there is a link that is also read out). That must be incredibly annoying to visually impaired visitors. I don't know how easy it will be to fix but the alt text for the map in the lead is "List of National Historic Landmarks in Michigan is located in Michigan", which I find rather odd.

I'll keep this page bookmarked, so if you need any clarification or assistance, I should notice it. I'm also quite certain that any of the regulars here will also be happy to help out if needed. --RexxS (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rexx, and thanks for your comments. Although I don't know that much about accessibility guidelines/policies on WP, I will try to answer your questions as best I can.

1. This also came up in the FLC for the Indiana list, which can be see at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Historic Landmarks in Indiana/archive2. The answer given there made sense to me, so I'm going to copy it here. In a list where "most of the cells were not colored, and the colored cells were different, [they needed] explanation by a color/symbol key. Here in this list, the light blue coloring is the base coloring, and only the differently colored cells need explanation." Is this wrong?
2. I really don't want to put this list out of step with all of the other national register articles/lists. So, I have left a message with the NRHP WikiProject to see if these colors can be changed throughout the project.
3. I think I have all of the column and row markers in the right place (I didn't really understand your explanation of placement, so I'm basing it off of another featured list I did where someone else added them in for me). Let me know if they're not right.
4. The lead "image" is actually a template, transcluded from Template:Michigan NHLs map. I have no idea how to (or if it's even possible to) add alt text to templates. I have added alt text to the rest of the images, although AFAIK this is not a requirement for FL status.

Thanks again, and hopefully the work that I did improved the accessibility of this list. Dana boomer (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You've made some useful improvements to the list, and its accessibility has increased as a result. I'll re-examine the points:

1. I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with doncram's interpretation of the guidance. Where there is no information to be conveyed, then no colour and no symbol is obviously correct. If some information is to be conveyed and a colour is used to convey it, then providing a corresponding symbol will be helpful to the visually impaired. I don't agree with the concept of a base colour in this case. Let me put it another way, if this were a list of "important buildings in Detroit" and some were National Historic Landmarks, then any 'no information' item (i.e. not a NHL) would not have colour or symbol, but the NHLs would have both. In this list, you are providing two classes, NHL and NHLD, both of which convey information; both of which are coloured, and both of which would benefit from a symbol. I can see that you're suggesting that NHL is a base property of all of the list items and treating NHLD as a higher designation, but the introduction seems to imply that it is more an alternative. You're also still using the symbol '†', despite the fact that screen readers may read it as '?', or worse, silently drop it. There's a series of discussions at User talk:Bamse/Archive 2#Re: Dagger and double dagger with JAWS, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (C)/archive1 and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 11#Accessible symbols if you want to understand the issues more clearly.
2. I would be good if the colours could be adjusted throughout Wikipedia, but I don't expect that to be a quick job. As long as you don't place a wikilink on the NHLD colour, the contrast is acceptable, if sub-optimal. I must admit I have to strain a little to read the [5] reference link in the top-left cell, but I have poor blue-green discrimination anyway. Incidentally, is that footnote required in its present form? It lists several designations that are not used in this article, so it may be confusing.
3. Have a look at WP:DTAB that I linked above to see the recommended markup. You've made a good step forward with the markup you used, but I wouldn't have picked the number as the row header. Let's say a JAWS user wants to know the dates of designation of several sites. They can set JAWS to read row and column header before each cell, then go down the 'Date of designation' column. At present they would hear: "1, Date of designation, 1987"; "2, Date of designation, 1989"; etc. If, instead of the number, the Landmark name were marked as the the row header, they would hear: "Bay View, Date of designation, 1987"; "Calumet Historic District, Date of designation, 1989"; etc. I'm sure you'd agree that it would be much more informative for the screen reader user. You may want to add the plainroweaders class to restore the left-aligned, unbolded appearance to the names if you do mark them up as row headers (it's ! scope="row", not |! scope="row", by the way). You could look at List of ministers of law and human rights of Indonesia for an example of where the row headers are in the second column. I should mention that on my browser, the column headings are rendering as very bold because they are now marked as row headers (bold) and also have the '''Bold text''' markup as well. The latter isn't needed, and double-bolding doesn't fit with MOS:BOLD.
4. Thanks for adding the missing alt text on those images. Looking at other FLCs, I don't think that a list would currently pass if accessibility concerns were not addressed because WP:Featured list criteria number 5 requires compliance with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages (which includes WP:ACCESS). I've added "Map of Michigan with National Historic Landmarks named and marked by a dot" as alt text to Template:Michigan NHLs map.[8] If you prefer different alternate text, it should now be simple to change it. Looking at the map in Firefox 9.0.1, I see the list of Detroit NHLs much more widely spaced compared to how they display in IE9, such that Pewabic Pottery is lost. The problem does not manifest itself in Google Chrome, but I'll have to boot up another PC to check in other browsers. This is probably something beyond your control, but I thought I'd flag it up.

If you'd like me to find other examples of best practice, or make some illustrative edits to this list, please feel free to ask. --RexxS (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Whatever. Done.
2. Done.
3. I have no idea what you're talking about. The coding in this list is already way beyond my pay grade. If you want to change it, have at it.
4. Looks fine. I don't know about the map - I didn't make it and I'm not enough of a coding guru to change how it displays.

I'm sorry if I sound snarky on this, but it feels like I'm being asked to do things that are not part of the criteria. There are several other (older) nominations on the FLC page that are lacking alt text - some of which have been reviewed by one of the featured list directors, who really should know the criteria. Also, there are several on the list that include color coding with no markup, and this has not been challenged, nor has the readability of certain colors according to an external site been challenged on any of the nominations I looked at. If you're going to make lists conform to your (stricter than normal) standards, please do so consistently. Dana boomer (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm at a loss how to respond at this point. I did not feel that my standards were any stricter than the normal ones, or that I was being inconsistent. Other things keep me from reviewing many articles, but I try to as often as I can, so I really can't comment on lists that I have not reviewed. I'll ask for some other opinions and adjust my comments as necessary. --RexxS (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I found that the Template:Michigan NHLs map was setting the width of the div (the box that the text goes in) to 6em wide by default (that's about 6 characters). Somebody had prevented the line wrapping by inserting   between each word, so that each item was forced to be on one line. However, Firefox (but not IE) reserves space for the lines that it would need if the text wrapped, resulting in blank lines between each item. For future reference, there's no need to put   between words, just add |line_width=12 (or whatever number works) to make the containing box wider like this. --RexxS (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Support: Apologies for not revisiting sooner, but I've been on a wikibreak. Thanks to the collaborative efforts of Dana and TRM, the article is now as compliant with our expectations for accessibility as possible, and I'm more than happy to recommend the awarding of FL from the standpoint of accessibility. I do understand that it can be difficult for editors to appreciate the difficulties that visually-impaired visitors can have when reading our articles, but I believe that our standards are being raised across the 'pedia – and our featured content can take much of the credit for those improvements. Well done Dana! --RexxS (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, Rexxs! I apologize again if I was a bit snarky above - table formatting makes me slightly frustrated on the best of days, but I shouldn't have taken that out on you... Dana boomer (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, Dana, and there's nothing to apologise for: you've worked hard on this. Formatting tables for accessibility is a relatively new innovation and nobody can be expected to take it all in without considerable practice, but we pride ourselves at FLC that we do our best to iron out problems as far as we can. I hope I haven't put you off from nominating more lists in the future :) --RexxS (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments "...some of which have been reviewed by one of the featured list directors, who really should know the criteria..." agreed, but none of us are perfect and if I have omitted something from a review, it's more likely an oversight rather than a redefinition of the criteria. Is there a reason that DETROIT is shouting in the clickable map? Is it S.S. City of Milwaukee or SS City of Milwaukee? Our article is the latter, your usage is the former, just wanted to check. I think you meant in the map? If so, I've changed it - I can't find a punctuated usage in the list itself. - DB "detailing the state's automotive" would link "state" to Michigan otherwise we don't seem to have a direct link to the state itself anywhere in the lead. Normally would expect to see (NHL) after the first expanded use before it's then used as an abbreviation in the lead. Would expect that the !scope="row" would be applied to the landmark name itself, not the number. Tried to do this and broke the table. (I've left it broken, so that you can see what I tried and let me know how to fix it.) - DB You missed a pipe each time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Ahhhh.... It's still the little things that trip me up with this coding. Should be fixed now. - DB Ref [5] appears to be a footnote, not a reference so should be separated from the others. I've pulled this out into the main text. - DB Is there a reason why the CITY OF MILWAUKEE and the COLUMBIA are capitalised? Similar comments apply to the other ships. (cf. "Ste. Claire (passenger steamboat)") This is the capitalization used by the Nat'l Park Service in their listings of these landmarks (both for the names and the disambiguators, per the below comment). I was on the fence about using the uppercase letterings, but this is what is used on other NHL lists, so I didn't change it. I would prefer to use sentence case, but I guess I would like some further thoughts on the subject. - DB I thought MOS etc just said to write it per our own MOS? So unless there's a convincing reason otherwise, it should just comply with our own style guidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Works for me, especially since I like it better in sentence case. Should be done now. - DB No need to capitalise (Steamer) nor (... Car Ferry). Again, similarly applies to the other ship types. (cf. "Ste. Claire (passenger steamboat)) See previous comment. - DB Although community isn't a dab page, reading it, it says the word has two distince meanings, so its use (and linking) here could be unclear. Unlinked. - DB Number col doesn't sort correctly, you'll need to use a sorting template to stop 10 sorting after 1. Can't figure out how to do this. Please check what I've done and let me know what I'm doing wrong... - DB I think when you use the symbols (which are essential for WP:ACCESS) the Wikimedia software treats it as text rather than numbers, so you'll need to use a {{sort}} template or similar. Will look into it more for you and get back to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Not sure there's a need to link House, and pipelinking "work" to "architecture" is a little odd to me. Removed. There was a lot of overlinking here when I started, and although I removed a bunch of it I guess I missed some! - DB "the American dream of "a summer place."".[23] is there a spare period here? I guess if you want to link skyscraper once then you should link it every time in this sortable table. Delinked this and below. - DB Same comment applies to Great Lakes. If no image for the "Norton Mound Group", I would place a centrally aligned en-dash so people don't sit there thinking "when's the image going to load..." "Copper mining in the US" although it doesn't exist, so the point may be moot, wouldn't it be called "Copper mining in the United States"? "top-ranked " would it be clearer to say "most decorated"? Any reason why, sorting by date, Quincy sorts after the Huron, despite the Huron having a precise date rather than just a year? Do we know the Qunicy was designated after the Huron? I just removed the full date from Quincy so that they were standardized. - DB Find it hard to see the [5] in the heading, and wonder why that column doesn't have any visible heading at all. Moved ref 5 into the text. Do you have a recommendation for a header name? - DB Footnote(s)? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC) The first column isn't even footnotes, though, it's just numbering by significant words (i.e., by the word which the NPS alphabetizes them). So, the Alden Dow House is #6 by significant wording (since the NPS calls it the Dow, Alden House), but when sorted by true first word it would be first on the list. I'm not sure how to go about explaining this, though? - DB The key probably doesn't need a section entirely of its own since it's only got two components. Former NHLs - no need to allow image col to be sortable. Don't think there's a need to link factory. Ref 1 we would normally have format=pdf in the ref. Ref 5, you link to the Wikipedia namespace, is that something that is acceptable at FAC? I wouldn't expect to see that. Normally, no, but since this is more of a note than a reference (and now is not formatted as a ref) it should be OK, at least in my opinion. You appear to have the map co-ordinates/Bing/Google box twice. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, TRM. I've addressed everything, and left some responses above. The ones with no responses I have addressed, but they were fairly straightforward, so I didn't bother leaving a reply. The list formatting/sorting issues are the hardest for me, and I've managed to break the list, so if you could figure out how to do what you guys are asking and not break the list, it would be much appreciated. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Some quick responses there, will get back to you re:sorting, hope you can see what I did with the "scope" thing. Best wishes, The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Looks like the {{nts}} template works nicely in the # column. Have done the first 12 or so... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC) I think I've done the rest of these, and the sorting is working correctly in my browser. Thanks again for the review! Dana boomer (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• General Motors Building: Oddity here, as there seem to be two competing descriptions.
• Grand Hotel: Double period at description's end (one inside quote marks, one outside).
• Highland Park Ford Plant: Remove "were" from "Automobile manufacturing operations were begun in 1910..."? Giants2008 (Talk) 02:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Giants and thanks for your comments! I apologize for taking a while to get back to you - I haven't been on WP all that much in the past few days... The above should be addressed. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments "The National Historic Landmarks in Michigan represent Michigan's history from pre-colonial days through the space age..." is this right space age? I take it you're referring to the space age as in the pace race between USA and USSR in 50s, 60s etc, but I can't be sure this definitely needs clarifying and a link to space age would be great. "and one, a ship..." would be much better if you linked the actual ship that was moved instead of just saying a ship. I would split the ref column in two, looks a bit clunky in one long list at the moment NapHit (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your comments, NapHit! I believe I have addressed them all. On the first point, I looked back through the entries and realized that the latest one was from World War II, so I changed the sentence and linked it properly. Please let me know if you have any additional comments. Dana boomer (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see neither the keys nor the indicated green/blue background...--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 14:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have absolutely no idea what is going on with those tables. The last time I looked at it (granted, that was probably a week ago) both the color and the keys were there. Now, I agree, they're not. All of the formatting is still there, it's just not showing up in the reader screen. Nothing has been done to the article - maybe something's going on with the table formatting on the back end? Anybody else have any ideas? Dana boomer (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If you mean the # National Historical Landmark (in blue) and the + National Historic Landmark District in turquoise key, I can see it fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I can see the key itself fine. It's when I scroll down to look at the rows of information for each landmark that there is no formatting. Where previously some rows were blue and some were turquoise and some had one symbol and some had the other...now there's nothing. It's just all gray. Dana boomer (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I see. I'll have a closer look.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it was this edit when you tried to force the sorting and used a display=none bit of coding.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Rightyho, I've trialled one change, it looks promising. You may need to use the {{sort}} template (with a preceding couple of zeroes for safety!!) but follow the guidance of what I did here should do the trick. If not, I'll retire, scramble my password and delete my user page..... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, don't do that!!! Then I won't have anyone to tell me how I managed to screw up the table this time :) Anyway, I think I've managed to complete the rest of the changes to make the pretty formatting come back...please let me know if I've managed to screw anything up! Dana boomer (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support The major issue was resolved, and otherwise the list is excellent.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 19:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, GOP! Dana boomer (talk) 22:05, 26 February 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 01:05, 21 February 2012 [9].

---

List of India Twenty20 International cricketers

Nominator(s): —Commander _{(Ping me)} 17:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. This was nominated for FLC at the time of its creation but was not promoted due to lack of content. The list was designed based on the one for England and List of India Women ODI Cricketers, and has been significantly updated with statistics up to date. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 17:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• Excess "India." after refs 4 and 5 needs removal.

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 13:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Excess period is still there, though the India is gone. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Didn't see that —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 02:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• In the Suresh Raina photo caption, "international" could use capitalization. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 13:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments Is there a link to overs? would be useful for that to be linked Done —Commander (Ping me) 17:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC) I would link innings in the key as well I have already linked "innings" in the key. If you are more specific can you please point it out. —Commander (Ping me) 17:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Don't really need the colours in the batting, bowling and fielding columns, the key makes it clear what discipline the stats are related to, plus the colour hides the sort keys, I'd remove it. Done —Commander (Ping me) 17:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Any reason why you don't use exclamation marks for the rowscopes? Done —Commander (Ping me) 17:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Use † instead of the normal dagger as this complies with WP:ACCESS Done —Commander (Ping me) 17:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Use — instead of conventional mdashes in the table as it allows the dash to sort properly Done —Commander (Ping me) 17:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Any reason why the players sort by first name rather than last? NapHit (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC) There is a problem with South Indian names. For eg., take the case of Subramaniam Badrinath where "Badrinath" is the actual name and "Subramaniam" is a patronymic. —Commander (Ping me) 17:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Im wondering why you have listed the players starting with most matches. In the Test and ODI Indian cricketer lists, its chronologically on who played first, i.e. depending on when you debuted, your listed starting with those who played first. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 10:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• It was listed like that before I started working on the list. Is it mandatory that players have to be listed in the order of who played first when we have sortability. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 11:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I was just wondering why its different. Normally, Iv seen the lists the other way (debut first, listed first). Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 13:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Done. It has to be in that order. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Support Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 12:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments "A Twenty20 International (T20I) is a form of cricket" no, T20 is a form of cricket, a T20I is a form of cricket match... Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC) "The first Twenty20 International match" you've abbreviated it already so use the abb... Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC) "the current captain" need a timeframe for this. Timeframe? Should I say that he has been leading the team since India's first game or something like that? —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Like "As of ...." you need to add that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC) "best bowling figure is" I thought this was always plural, and would advise you link it if possible. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Link "six" appropriately. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Would link the 2007 ICC WC in the first use of the word "inaugural". Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC) "a fifty which came off just 12 balls, thus" would remove "just" and perhaps link "balls" to delivery or something appropriate. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC) "Australia in Melbourne in" bit Easter Egg to link Melbourne to the MCG, would perhaps say "at the Melbourne Cricket Ground" instead. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Forgive me asking a possibly stupid question, how do we know that some of those players are still "active"? What's the criteria for them to not have an end year? I had this doubt earlier. Perhaps should I convert that into two columns (First and Last appearance) —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Probably safest option (certainly the most verifiable and least subjective approach)... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Already done —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC) "This list of Indian cricketers" looks like a throwback to an old style intro... Is it okay for now? or should I remove it—Vensatry (Ping me) 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC) I adjusted it a bit, looks fine to me now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC) For careers of 2011–2011, just have one 2011, no need for a zero length range. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC) 5wI is missing from the key. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC) "won his first cap" first shouldn't be part of the wikilink. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC) External link should have the same info for publisher, it's not Cricinfo India is it? Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment I was alerted to this nom on my talk page, I have spotty internet access for a while, but I just found one minor issue -- "having played 31 T20I matches with 16 wins and a tie against Pakistan." To me, this reads like the 16 wins and one tie were against Pakistan, a comma after wins or parenthesis for "against Pakistan" would be helpful. Otherwise, it looks good to me, and I think I'd support the list (just don't have enough time to check the table deeply). —SpacemanSpiff 08:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment Support I've not had a chance to examine the article in detail, and while it looks good at a quick glance two things strike me. First of all, I think the "first" and "last" columns are a good format; there are some other FLs of this type (ie: list of international cricketers in a given format) and the more common "career span" column isn't entirely satisfactory because you could effectively only sort by start date. List of Australia Twenty20 International cricketers (an old FL but perhaps worth looking at) has a brief section on captains in the format, what are your thoughts on something similar here? It's covered, theoretically at least, at List of India national cricket captains#Men's Twenty-20 International captains but may be worth considering for this list. Nev1 (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• The "first" and "last columns" were added to avoid ambiguity. Coming to list of captains, I personally don't think there is a necessity to include, as only three players have represented the team so far. It will not be significant as Sehwag and Raina had led the team on very few occasions. The captains are however represented using a double dagger. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 19:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Done. After having a look at similar kind of lists that seem to be a good idea. I have added that now :) —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think it's worth mentioning somewhere that Sehwag's only match in charge was also India's first T20I. I've made a couple of copy edits you'll want to check over to see if you agree, but I'm close to supporting. Nev1 (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Done :) —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've switched to support. You've put in some good work here, and it reminds me that the list of Ireland's ODI players needs updating. Nev1 (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 19 February 2012 [10].

---

List of LSU Tigers head football coaches

Nominator(s): Patriarca12 (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it incorporates all of the comments from the four previously FL promoted SEC coaches' lists (Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee and Arkansas). Hopefully I have caught most of the issues, but there is always something after a fresh set of eyes looks at it. Thanks to all who take the time to look at this as all comments to better the list are greatly appreciated! Patriarca12 (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments quick ones I'm afraid...

• Not keen on the empty cells in the key.

• The empty cells are included as part of the {{List of College Football Program head coaches key}}. In previous revisions, the key looked like this. I feel the template works better in that it provides for more uniformity across other college football coaches' lists. However is consensus here is to utilize the previous format, I will be more than fine to change it back. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

*Would have thought Bo Rein would deserve a mention in the lead. Added sentence to the lead. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC) "Home Depot Coach of the Year Award" but just "Walter Camp Coach of the Year", why not be consistent with "Award" here? Fixed Patriarca12 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Don't mix date formats in the refs. Corrected Patriarca12 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Publisher info for "Columbus Dispatch"? Added Patriarca12 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Comments addressed. Thanks for taking the time to take a look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Other than the blank cells TRM notes above, I found no issues with the list. I'm sure an adequate compromise can be dreamed up, so I won't withhold my support. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments Perhaps this is because I'm English and don't fully understand some of the terminology in US sports, but what do mean when you refer to the LSU Tigers football program? Is that just standard terminology for referring to the team? To be fair, I agree with that, the idea of a "football program" in English is more like this. Presumably there's something in Wikipedia we can link to (if you don't already...) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC) I reworded the sentence and removed "program" altogether. Patriarca12 (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Some refs from newspapers have locations while others don't. The difference is mainly between national and non-national newspapers but I think for consistency you should include the location of the national ones too. NapHit (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Cities added. Patriarca12 (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time to look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. In my opinion this list fully meets the featured list criteria. My only suggestion is that you might want to use WebCite to archive your references to reduce the risk of them going dead. This is certainly not required for FL status, however. –Grondemar 02:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 19 February 2012 [11].

---

2000 Summer Paralympics medal table

Nominator(s): 99of9 (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. We have an existing FL which is directly comparable 1968 Summer Paralympics medal table, and I have sought to build on its strengths. 99of9 (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments Table fails WP:ACCESS, see MOS:DTT for info on how to rectify this. In short you need to add row and colscopes to the table. Done rowscopes. Colscopes are already in the top row template. --99of9 (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC) You need to add a symbol when highlighting items by colour per WP:ACCESS, plus I would only highlight the country cell instead of the whole row Done. --99of9 (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC) "This event was the eleventh Summer Paralympic Games, quadrennial international competitions..." I'm not sure the last three words are necessary makes the sentence very hard to read, I would remove them I've removed the word "international" since it's obvious from the previous sentence. Personally I think quadrennial adds significant value here, even though it's a long/rare word. --99of9 (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC) "These games" Done. --99of9 (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC) "With 3,843 athletes taking part in the 18 sports on the programme,[1] the Games were the second largest sporting event ever held in Australia,[3] and utilized the same facilities as the largest, the 2000 Summer Olympics, which had concluded on 1 October." This is a very long sentence I would look into splitting in two sentences Done. --99of9 (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC) "A record of 122 countries (or 123 delegations including independent athletes from Timor-Leste), participated at these Games..." at these games is redundant, already clarified we are talking about the event Done. --99of9 (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC) You use countries and delegations in close succession to refer to what appears to me to be the same entity, I think one should be used throughout. Done? I've removed the second instance of the word delegations. It is now only used once in parentheses to clarify the difference in count of 122 countries, 123 delegation, to aid researchers fact-checking sources that differ. --99of9 (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC) "A total of 1657 medals" comma in between the 1 and 6 Done. --99of9 (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Image need alt text adding Done. --99of9 (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your review, those were useful improvements. --99of9 (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Looking good just a few more comments "The location and facilities were shared with the largest event, the 2000 Summer Olympics, which had concluded on 1 October." Done. --99of9 (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC) "A record of 122 countries (or 123 delegations including independent athletes from Timor-Leste), participated,[4] and 68 won medals, seven for the first time." would change to something like "A record 122 countries (123 including a delegation of independent athletes from Timor-leste) participated; 68 countries won medals, of those countries, seven won a medal for the first time." Done. Ok, I've put your wording in. The last half feels a bit verbose, but I didn't find an easy way to trim it. --99of9 (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC) "The medals themselves were designed by the royal goldsmith and jeweller Stuart Devlin, and feature the Sydney Harbour Bridge" themselves is redundant and feature should be featured as the sentence starts off in past tense. Done... slightly differently. The medals still exist and have the same design, so I kept it in the present tense but split it from the past tense sentence. --99of9 (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• "This event was the eleventh Summer Paralympic Games, quadrennial competitions...". Should the last part be "a quadrennial competition" instead?

• To me there are many levels of potential plurality here (divided by year, sports) - note "Games". But I agree it could be considered singular, and don't have a strong view either way. So if you think it is better singular... Done. --99of9 (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Wish the "Amongst" starting a sentence could be replaced with "Among" (one of my pet writing peeves).

• Done. --99of9 (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• "surrounded by the games arenas." "games" → "Games'"?

• Done. --99of9 (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Giants2008 (Talk) 02:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments You link medal the second time... Done. --99of9 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC) " This event was the" I don't see a real need for "event" here. Done. --99of9 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Shouldn't you link "Individual Paralympic Athletes " rather than say "independent" athletes? I think "independent" means they'd declared their independence from Indonesia, but it hadn't been recognized as a country. But I'll check this in a couple of days. --99of9 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC) I've checked this, the phrasing is correct IMO. There were multiple athletes from East Timor, competing as a team. --99of9 (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC) So is the article about East Timor's appearance at the Games incorrect as they refer to the athletes as Individual Paralympic Athletes... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Interesting. That article is not sufficiently sourced to prove their case on the term (since both would have the acronym IPA). My strongest source is this. I'd say it's pretty compelling, but it's possible that both terms were used. I'd still prefer to stick to the one I know to have been officially used over one from an unsourced wiki article. --99of9 (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC) "countries won medals, of those countries, seven won a " -> "countries won medals, of which seven won a " Done, thanks, this removes the verbosity I was concerned about in the first reviewers comments. --99of9 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Is that the total list of multiple-medalists? No, these were the ones noted by the press. I particularly tracked down press mentions of the top medal winners. A complete list of multi-medallists would be long. --99of9 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC) If a nation is tied on silvers, when sorting by silver, what determines the order of those tied? I'm not sure. This is specified in a protected template. I will look into it in a couple of days. --99of9 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Apparently it's a mediawiki issue. Here's how it works: Help:Sorting#Secondary_key. You basically have to shift-click the secondary column. --99of9 (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Same for total number. If a nation is tied with another on total medals, surely they should then rank by golds then silvers, then bronzes? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Agreed. That sounds like the equivalent of always using "Rank" as the secondary sort key. --99of9 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Apparently it's a mediawiki issue. Here's how it works: Help:Sorting#Secondary_key. You basically have to shift-click the secondary column. --99of9 (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support No issues found.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 14:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 19 February 2012 [12].

---

Mr. Basketball USA

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I find the subject interesting and different from most current FLs. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ♫GoP♫TCN 14:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

*Comments Table does not meet WP:ACCESS and MOS:DTT. Are there specific issues in this regard?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Names in the Player column don't sort correctly, use {{sortname}} The template does not seem to be sorting according to its own description page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Same in the last column Does it make sense to sort on the last column with multiple names?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC) I personally don't like the ALL CAPS writing in the first paragraph. EA SPORTS could be "EA Sports", or "ESPNHIGHSCHOOL.com" just "espnhighschool.com"♫GoP♫TCN 14:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Caps fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Pair of commas is needed surrounding "also known as ESPN RISE National Player of the Year". Fixed with an addendum.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Should "boy's" be "boys'" in the first sentence? Dunno. My logic is from all the college basketball teams that are named Michigan Wolverines men's basketball, Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball, etc.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC) According to this edit it is suppose to be boys'.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Why is "National Player" capitalized later in the first sentence? I doubt that it should be. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC) The List section heading is on the plain side. Something like "Winners" would be better. Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC) The list should be ordered from first winner to last, not the other way around. Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC) A key explaning the position abbreviations would be helpful to include. Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Publishers of the references shouldn't be italicized since they're not printed publications. I am not sure what you mean. ESPN HS is a print magazine, I believe.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Important: What is citing the table? If it's the external link, it must be given as a general reference. Just having it as an EL isn't clear enough. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Fixed, I think.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Runner-up column should be sorting by last name, not first name. I am confused on how to sort this because often the source includes two runners up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC) I didn't notice that. In that case I'd recommend sorting by the last name of the first runner-up listed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC) This seems to be a task to do while watching the Super Bowl.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC) I tackled this today.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC) One more I noticed while checking edits: in the first sentence, "as" needs to be added in "and formerly known the...". Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from MT (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

*Comment — Perhaps there should an explanation about the word "consensus" in the Runner(s)-up columns for readers who are not familiar with sports voting process. — MT (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC) That sounds like a good idea, but the source does not explain the term. I know what it would usually mean, but based on current voting procedures, there is no such thing as a consensus winner without a runner-up. I don't know what past voting procedures were.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Well, it didn't notice that they have different voting procedure over the years. Anyway, what about blanking the cells (or inserting dashes) to indicate that there is no runner-up in those years. — MT (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC) O.K. please look over the current legend following the change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC) It's much clearer now, thanks! — MT (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments Is there a reason that ESPN HS and ESPN RISE are inconsistently presented, italics/not italics? fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC) The lead would make more sense to me if it was in chronlogical order. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Many of the players have images, it's a shame this article has none. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC) "The panel includes five McDonald's All-American selection committee members." is this significant? Not to a non-expert. The proper article is linked in the paragraph above. If they are unfamiliar with the McD AA then they should have clicked on the link.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Link all positions or none of them in the sortable table. Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC) "F - Forward" - en-dash. All En-dash now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC) em-dash explanations in the key, one ends with a period, the other doesn't end in a period. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC) "The following players have been named Mr. Basketball USA.[2]" not sure this is necessary, particularly given the name of the section and given the caption in the table heading. fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC) It looks like you're actually using en-dash not em-dash in the school column. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC) LSU/UNLV etc, don't use abbreviations without explaining what they are. The four abbreviations (UNLV, LSU, USC and UCLA) are all considered so common that the linked pages use these abbreviations rather than full names. We are using the names that people would look for.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
'Comments Images could do with alt text ALT added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Any reason why you use 95% font size instead of 100%? NapHit (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC) I blindly copied code from another FL (don't remember which one). Fixed it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Suggest remove the infobox picture, as too much space below.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 14:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I thought spacing like this was fairly common and innocuous.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, maybe because I like compactness; I nonetheless support its promotion to featured status.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 14:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 19 February 2012 [13].

---

List of colleges and universities in North Dakota

Nominator(s): Ruby 2010/2013 20:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive, helpful, and easily navigable collection of all post-secondary institutions in North Dakota. It will be particularly helpful for high school students who are beginning to plan their college journey. The list is pretty short compared to my last one, and shouldn't take much time to review for interested editors. I should mention that this is a Wikicup nom. I look forward to your comments. Thanks in advance! Ruby 2010/2013 20:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments Lead image doesn't need a full stop. Done Ruby 2010/2013 04:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Don't use red-linked abbreviations (e.g. NAST). All abbreviations should be expanded before use (e.g. ABHE). You may need to consider a key. I'll work on this in coming days (haven't decided whether I want to simply list all the accreditation agencies in the lead, or make a key. The list is short enough for the former, IMO). Thoughts would be great. Ruby 2010/2013 05:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC) I added all of the agencies to the final lead paragraph for ease of use. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 05:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC) "an enrollment of 14,194 students as of fall 2010 enrollment data" reads clunkily with 2 x enrollment... Tweaked Ruby 2010/2013 04:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Two institutions lacking references for the year of foundation. Done Ruby 2010/2013 05:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Refs shouldn't be sortable. Not quite sure what you mean here- I don't believe they are sortable. Ruby 2010/2013 05:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC) In the defunct table. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Sorry about the confusion. I removed the sortable feature for the whole defunct table, as there really is no need for such a small table (the colleges are in alphabetical order anyway). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 19:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Per Giants' comment below, I made the table sortable again (all but the ref column). Ruby 2010/2013 04:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Why isn't Assumption College redlinked? Done Ruby 2010/2013 04:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Ref 29 needs an en-dash. Done Ruby 2010/2013 04:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC) From the external link, there are Hair design colleges that aren't listed here. Why is this? It says there are 30 colleges in ND, you list just 21. Perhaps some explanation of inclusion/exclusion criteria needed. Those schools aren't included in the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, which is the basic template I've used for the ND and Minnesota lists (Carnegie lists all accredited institutions that are included in the National Center for Education Statistics Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System). If a school doesn't appear on either the Carnegie or Department of Education website lists, I exclude it. I made a mention of Carnegie in the article. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 05:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks very much for the review! Much appreciated, Ruby 2010/2013 05:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 19:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments – "The North Dakota University System contains eleven public colleges, which includes NDSU." "includes" → "include"? The colleges is a plural element, after all. In the photo caption, should Ave have a period at the end as an abbreviation of Avenue? Also, alt text would be nice to include with the image. Is it possible to make the columns in the Defunct institutions table sortable? Ref 1 has a hyphen in the title that probably should be an en dash. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC) All done except the first comment. As the North Dakota University System is a singular entity, I didn't think it would be proper to convert "includes" to 'include". I'd be willing to listen to a second opinion on this though if you disagree. Best, Ruby 2010/2013 03:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments "(NDSU) is the largest public institution, having had an enrollment of 14,407 students for fall 2010." -> (NDSU) is the largest public institution, with an enrolment of 14.407 students for fall 2010. Defunct institutions table has a caption yet, the top table doesn't, I would add one to the top table to be consistent. NapHit (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Both done. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 04:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Seems solid and I'm happy enough that it satisfies the criteria. GRAPPLE X 03:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - all issues seem to be resolved. (fellow WikiCup competitor). --He to Hecuba (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 19 February 2012 [14].

---

Jennifer Lopez filmography

Nominator(s): — Status {^talk_contribs 23:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this article to be a featured list because I feel that after creating the article from scratch, and putting about a month of really hard work into it, it now meets the FL criteria. — Status {^talk_contribs 23:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment No dead links or DAB needed to be fixed. Image looks good. Could you get an ISBN number for FN 1? I think you might be able to find it on the Google Books abstract or Amazon abstract. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC) I've added it. :) — Status {talkcontribs 22:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Okay, more comments: "Following the show's finale in 1993, Lopez made guest appearances in the television series South Central, appeared in the made-for-television movie Lost in the Wild (1993) and starred as Melinda Lopez in the television series Second Chances (1993)" - be consistent on whether or not you add serial commas (commas before "and") "which were both met with negative reception." - either "which were both met with negative reviews" or "which were both received unfavorably." Remove all instances of the word "both" and "also" in this article. In all cases here, it's being used redundantly. "Lopez retained box office success co-starring in the 2004 film Shall We Dance?" - missing word, maybe an "after"? Not too fussy with the word "Unknown". How do we know that the stage names of the creators of DanceLife or Como ama una mujer are not "Unknown" and simply unknown? FN 20 does not support fact that she was Rosie Romero or that it was Direct-to-video. FN 80 does not support cited info. This source also says show was produced from 90 to 92, not 93. I didn't check all sources, just a few. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC) The source says she was a member of the show from 91-93. The lead was incorrect, the show lasted until 1994. I've fixed that. For Shall We Dance she got success with the film, not after it. — Status {talkcontribs 23:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Hi, how's the work coming along. Have you addressed my comments? :-) Thanks, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 10:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Yes, yes I have. :) — Status {talkcontribs 11:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Hmmm, leaving a cell blanked seems a bit unprofessional when the Creator is an important detail. You can use dashes and have a note ("—" denotes an unknown creator/"—" denotes an unknown budget) at the bottom of the tables. For consistency, you can also apply this style to the 2 Film roles tables. I'm this close (*puts thumb and index finger in an about-to-pinch position*) to supporting by the way. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC) I'm gonna go on a witch hunt to find out the creators of those. — Status {talkcontribs 20:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC) I wish you luck. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Support. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick, non-reviewer comment from Michael Jester

I may have missed this, but what exactly does the "N/A" mean in the box office column? Does it mean it is unknown due to a lack of sources or was it not released in theaters? I am a tad confused.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The movies marked with "N/A" denote ones that weren't released in theatres, yes. — Status {^talk_contribs 03:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Is there a way you can make a note saying that? Because I think I may not be the only one who would get confused with the "N/A".
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, "N/A" usually stands for "not applicable" or "not available"; but I don't really see how I could add a note on it. I suppose I could try something like that are on discography tables? "Blah denotes blah blah"? — Status {^talk_contribs 18:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool. That clarifies it.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 05:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 17:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Quick comments – Do we really need to have a link to the U.S. dollar in the first paragraph? I can't link of too many more links that would serve less of a purpose than that one. "Following the role, Lopez starred in the independent films: An Unfinished Life, Bordertown, and El cantante." It actually works better if the colon is excluded. Right after that: "the latter in which she also acted as the executive producer." With the semi-colon, I think an improved version would be of the form "she also acted as the executive producer of the latter." Try to avoid repetition from one sentence in another in "and starring in the film The Back-up Plan. The Back-up Plan...". Several of the tables have names sorting by first name, when they should probably be sorting by last name instead. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC) I'm not too familiar with tables, so I'm not sure how I would go about sorting them by first name. Could you point me in the right director? The other issues have been resolved. — Status {talkcontribs 04:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Check out the formatting of List of Grand Prix motorcycle racing World champions for one of many examples of the type of formatting required. I also don't see any change involving the comment before that one. Giants2008 (Talk) 04:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments "She is the highest paid actor of Latin descent" this is sourced to something written nearly four years ago, are you sure it's still valid? "ran for only a short amount of time" reads clunky to me, perhaps "ran for only a brief period"? "divided for the latter" usually get divided by, not divided for... Ref 7 doesn't allow me to read that page of the book, does the book say "critics" or is it just the book itself saying it was a breakout role? "Also in 1998 " perhaps instead of repeating years, say "in the same year" or something of that nature just to mix up the prose a little. "Also in 2004 " ->"Also that year..." ""—" denotes items which were not released in theatres." this row shouldn't sort. Why is budget/box office sortable? Is it fly girl or Fly Girl? Be consistent. Year should be Year(s) as there's a range in some of those. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC) I will try to find a more recent source for the highest paid Latino actor. Ref 7 is just an example of it being called as her breakout role. The budget/box office tables aren't sortable? Removed the denotes part. For some reason, it doesn't wanna stay put. — Status {talkcontribs 11:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC) I meant why aren't they sortable! And you should have more than just ref for the "breakout role" or change the text. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC) I was told to remove it in the peer review; but if you think they should be there, I'll add them. I'll get on finding some more sources to back it up. How many do you think? — Status {talkcontribs 12:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC) I think they should be sortable, I don't see a good reason for them not to be, do you? And as for refs, at least two, more would be ideal. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC) All the issues pointed out have been resolved. :) — Status {talkcontribs 03:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see any changes in this article that I pointed out in its peer review :/ Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 03:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I've been taking my information all from Allmovie, and that's who they credit her as. I don't see a need to go off on other sources for certain names. Some places use first names, some don't. That's how it is. I thought I said that on the review, but I guess I forgot to. xD — Status {^talk_contribs 02:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments I would add ref to the top of the reference column just to make it clear what that column refers to Don't think the as a personality table needs to be sortable when there is only one cell in it. NapHit (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC) I had that there before, but it became pretty messy. I think it looks best the way it does now. And yeah, you're right, I'll remove that. — Status {talkcontribs 21:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Why did you left out her appearance in Selena's posthumous music video "Siempre hace frio"? Here's the source. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I also added JLO as a guest appearance for that music video on Selena videography. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Also, Selena budget was $20 million. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Imdb is not considered to be a reliable source. I had this problem on JLO's discography. If you can find another source, I will be sure to add it. Thanks for the Selena budget. I never heard of that site before! — Status {^talk_contribs 02:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yea I know that's the only source that is on the Internet, odd. You're welcome :-) Best with the nomination, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 05:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The DVD itself could probably be sourced. That's what I had to do with the Janet video. Do you happen to own it? Or know where scans of it could be, to see if she is credited? — Status {^talk_contribs 06:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course I do mister ;-) I would have to check it out when its the afternoon over here 'cause I'm very tired. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 06:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The "Siempre Hace Frio" music video was on this VHS as well. You can use {{cite video}} for it, however, this source does not give any credit to Lopez. Can't you just put her as "un-credited"? Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 01:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Since she's uncredited, I don't believe that she should be credited. You know what I mean? I've never understood this "Name (uncredited)" stuff. — Status {^talk_contribs 20:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

True, well I now support the article to be a FL. Good job, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 00:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, it has been almost three months since I nominated this. All issues pointed out have been resolved. What is the hold up? — Status {^talk_contribs 17:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Update the FLC once you address issues because I only watch the FLC page, not the actual article. Nonetheless, I added my well deserved support. Great work! —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 17:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 19 February 2012 [15].

---

List of Israel State Cup winners

Nominator(s): —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 04:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC), HonorTheKing (talk · contribs)

Honor and I are nominating this for featured list because we believe it meets the criteria. We worked together recently on List of Israeli football champions, a similar list which now has FL status, and have brought this list up to a similar standard. Referencing is thorough; prose is, I believe, more than adequate; presentation is good; images are well-chosen and accompanied by appropriate captions and alternate text; finally, there are no accessibility issues, so far as I can tell. The result, I hope you will agree, is a list of a high standard. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 04:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments – 1922–27: "which in fact beat the Ramla side in the 1927 decider." The "in fact" is just excess wordage; of course it's a fact, or it wouldn't have been included (at least I hope not). "they are not today considered official by the Israel Football Association." Given that "today" is a time-sensitive element, and that it doesn't add much to the sentence as the time period is implied, I'd get rid of the word. 1928–47: Don't think the hyphen is needed in "officially-sanctioned". More later. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Done, fixed all three.   – HonorTheKing (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC) "and appropriately commissioned a new trophy." The word "appropriately" sounds like a viewpoint is being injected into this sentence. Also, I don't see where this is sourced. The cup was stolen and was never found, therefore the IFA were "forced" to make a new trophy, which was also good as the cup changed its name. It's writen in the Note 2 and Ref 9. "it was not contested in four of the first 13 seasons since independence and the 1949–51 edition was abandoned before the final was played." It's an oddity that the 1949–51 tournament was held over multiple seasons; is there any explanation of why that was the case? After the 1948-49 war, the games began in late 1949, with the end date to be in 1951, to help teams players recover after the war. But in the end the campaign was not completed. It is not the only season in Israeli football that a "double-season" happend, it happend in the 1966–68 Liga Leumit season in the league aswell after the IFA wanted to fight against corruption and increasing violence at matches Total cup wins by city: "The most successful home city by some distance is Tel Aviv; Tel Aviv clubs...". Try to avoid this repetition from before the semi-colon to after. Would be nice if the Won columns in the last two tables were sortable. Another repetition issue from before punctuation to after in note 3, regarding British Police. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Done, Iv'e fixed the issues and commented on the above.   – HonorTheKing (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC) I've done a bit of work here too. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC) The only further suggestion I have is to include a note, or some text in the appropriate section, regarding the 1949–51 double-season. The Israeli football champions list has some content on the 1966–68 double-season, and I think something equivalant would be just as valuable here. You could even include something in the note that's already there in the table. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC) I've put something in the note that's already there and put some more note tags around the page. What do you think? —Cliftonian (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments Image caption, normally expect to see "extreme right" or whatever in italics. Okay. "almost every season" what season? Football season, given. "became independent in 1948," suspect there's a good link for this? Yes, given. "start of the 1961–62 season" context, what season? Football season, given. "clubs of all standards" what does that mean, professional and amateur, or something different? Both, given. "from the lower divisions". Perhaps I've missed the point, but what's the precise inclusion criteria for this contest? Any club can enter. I've rephrased it: "It involves professional and amateur clubs of all standards playing against each other, creating the possibility for "minnows" to become "giant-killers" by eliminating top clubs from the tournament." "to hold a 100% record " I think MOS frowns upon %, so maybe "to hold an undefeated record" or similar? Okay. "1922–27: unofficial national cups" section, you link Royal Air Force once, but Maccabi Nes Tziona and Maccabi Tel Aviv twice... Okay. "final ended with the two sides, Hapoel Tel Aviv and Maccabi Hasmonean Jerusalem, " no need for "the two sides" in my opinion. Okay. "the chaotic 1947 final " explanation required. An explanation is given in the footnote at the end of the sentence – I don't think anything more is required here. Ginzburg caption - "was a key player for" does the source say that? If so, it's a quote... if not, rephrase to stop it being a peacock quote. I've rephrased it just to say he played for them. "big-city teams" sounds tabloid to me. Okay. In the Performance by club section, British Police doesn't link to the same as before. Okay, fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Had a whack through and I think I've resolved all of this now. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Cool. Hope my review whack was useful too. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Of course. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments Would make the key bit a caption instead of using the semi-colon The third paragraph has no refs I would ref, the bit about most titles and biggest win in the final "next most prolific team" not keen on this perhaps third most prolific to indicate the team's rank "relatively recent phenomenon" would change phenomenon to occurrence "Maccabi and Hapoel Tel Aviv have been major players" not keen on major players not very encyclopaedic perhaps change to Maccabi and Hapoel Tel Aviv have had sustained success "The most decisive cup final victory by some distance was in 1942" -> The biggest margin of victory was in 1942 NapHit (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Okay, done. What do you think now? —Cliftonian (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Support - wow, this nomination just fell off the face of the earth, didn't it. Looks quite nice, actually, I'm good on the text and tables. A few redirects you might want to adjust if they're not intentional- Penalty shootout in the key table, Hapoel Rishon LeZion in the people's cup table, Hapoel Ironi Rishon LeZion in the Isreal state cup table and the performance by club table, Be'er Sheva in the by city table, center and south in the district table, and Rec.sport.soccer Statistics Foundation in the references. Consider archiving your references with web.archive.org or webcitation.org - it's a pain, but websites have a tendency to move, change, or die and then you're left with a pile of dead links that don't cite your information. --PresN 21:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and the tips. Indeed, this nomination seemingly got lost behind the proverbial sofa. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 19 February 2012 [16].

---

Eric B. & Rakim discography

Nominator(s):
—Michael Jester (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked on this article extensively, and I feel it meets the featured list criteria. All comments are greatly appreciated. Thanks to everyone in advance.
—Michael Jester (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Quick comment – In one of the reference 7 cites, the owner of Allmusic is listed as Prometheus Global Media. Elsewhere in the refs, it's given as Rovi Corporation. Would you mind double-checking that one cite to make sure the owner is correct? Giants2008 (Talk) 04:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Wow. I can't believe I made a mistake like that. Sorry. I fixed it.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 04:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments - great work on this list. I did a copy edit and improved the prose. I saw that, and I have to disagree with the commas. Since there are appositives in the sentence commas should be there. —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 16:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC) I tend to avoid commas in those areas, but feel free to restore them. I look at them as superfluous. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC) I re-read Purdue OWL: Appositives, and it seems you were right. —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 17:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC) I'd like the lead sentence to list the releases in order as they appear in the list/table of contents. In other words, just switch around "nine music videos" and "fifteen singles". Moved. —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 16:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC) It might be a good idea to say who the group is compose of maybe in the first sentence? That might get a bit too run-on, but seeing how this is a duo, it wouldn't be bad. Wouldn't it sound repetitive saying "Eric B. & Rakim, a group made up of Eric B. & Rakim,"? —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 16:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC) "From 2001 to 2010, five compilation albums have been released" - I'm not sure about this, but don't we have some MOS:NUM policy on this—that we use endashes to write a range, so like "In 2001–10, five compilation albums were released" Nevermind, reread WP:YEAR. In the Music video section, is "Unknown" the name of a director? If not, then wouldn't people confuse the word for one? Consider using dashes in its place and have a note at the bottom of the table maybe? Added. —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC) End of comments. Thank you. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 10:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support and happy holidays! —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you, WP, for taking time to review this article, and hope you have a happy holidays as well!
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 20:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
    • No problem. Thanks! —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments - I have very few issues with the page - however, there are still a few things I am not sure about. In the Music video table, you have used Vevo as the source for all of your videos. As the source is listed by the director name, the source should state the name of the director, and although I am not questioning that Vevo is a reliable source, it does not list any director information. Personally, I would use a source like MTV, where the directors are listed most of the time. If you hover over the music video, it gives the director. —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 16:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Really? I didn't know that. Might use that one myself... I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC) There are other charts that could have been listed in the singles tables - for example, the single "Paid in Full" also charted in France, and also charted in Germany (as did "Friends"), and most of the songs in the table also appeared on the Hot Rap Singles chart as well. Personally, I try to stick with the all the charts that the albums peaked. So that's why the French and German peaks aren't listed. I will, however, put in the Hot Rap Tracks. —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 16:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Fair enough. It's not what I'd do, but every man to his own. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC) I would have added a "See also" section at the bottom of the page with a link to Rakim discography. Added. —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 16:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Apart from that, the page is excellent. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Support – excellent page. Great work! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, Rufus! I appreciate that you took time out to review this article.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments Shouldn't the R&B/Hip-Hop be Top R&B/Hip-Hop chart? Billboard.com says the chart is R&B/Hip-Hop Albums. If you want me to change it however, I will. —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 20:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC) "within the top 5 of" top five. Fixed. —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 20:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC) "the top 25 on the UK Albums Chart" is there such a demarcation or do you really mean it entered at number 25 (or whatever) in the top forty? Fixed. —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 20:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC) In Format, what is CD, CS and LP? Wikilinked. —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 20:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Is NL the usual abbreviation for the Netherlands? I've seen NDL recently. I used NL because that's what the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 of Netherlands is. —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 20:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)

• No picture?
  • I have not found a picture that I can use. I've checked Flickr and Google Image Advanced Search.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Disappointing, but I suppose a picture isn't absolutely necessary for this kind of page.
• "None of the albums charted." – Exchanging the for these might make this a little bit clearer.
  • Fixed.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• I don't use a screen reader, but I suspect users of such software are likely to miss explanatory text to a table if that text is stored in the very last line of that table.
  • That's just what has been on every FL discography and is suggested at WP:DISCOGSTYLE.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    • So?
      • It doesn't need to change. If it was a problem, it would have been address when the other 156 FL-class discographies were nominated.
        —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Standards rise.
          • Alright, well oppose it then.
            —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• The see also section is redundant to the navigational template. It should be removed. (See WP:SEEALSO.)
  • Alright, removed.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Allmusic often uses > in place of dashes or colons. They should be replaced. (See MOS:QUOTE.)
  • I'm confused? I use ">" in the Allmusic references.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Reference titles are quoted text. When quoting text, we adjust it to our house style. For instance, we don't keep ALLCAPS for words that aren't abbreviations. Likewise, we shouldn't keep website specific styles, like using > instead of dashes.
      • The Allmusic references are fine. There is no ">" or dash in the title on the webpage; ">" has been used for I don't know how long. It's never been a problem before.
        —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
        • It's a problem now.
          • How? The use of ">" also helps clarity of the article. Having "Classic – Eric B. & Rakim – Overview" makes it looks like the main article is "Classic", then I clicked "Eric B. & Rakim", then clicked on "overview", which not the case. The use of ">" makes it known by everyone that the title of the page is "Classic – Eric B. & Rakim" and the sub-section "Overview" is clicked.
            • Having a consistent style across Wikipedia or at least across individual articles is desirable, if only to make us seem more professional. Using greater-than signs this way is highly unorthodox. But what do I know. Let's just dump the MoS and do whatever we please.
              • Well there is WP:Ignore all rules, so technically we could dump parts of the MoS. Would you rather see a colon, however? Colons usually show a sub title.
                —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
                • Colons are fine. (I believe I mentioned them.)
                  • Changed to colons.
                    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Goodraise 00:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Revisited. Goodraise 02:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Revisited. Goodraise 03:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Revisited. Goodraise 14:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Revisited. Goodraise 05:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Revisited. Goodraise 21:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

TRM asked me to take a look at the question of dashes, and I'd like to make a couple of observations:

• Visually-impaired users are generally quite savvy about the use of abbreviations, so I'd generally expect most visitors to assume that a dash meant "no value" (or more specifically in this case "did not chart") because it's such a common usage of the dash both here and on other websites. As a result, I would be much less concerned about anyone missing the key in this particular case.
• The recommended style at DISCOG has taken on board so many improvements to meet accessibility concerns, that it seems almost churlish to point to the dashes when there has been so much effort put into decent captions, column and row headers, accessible colour schemes, proper lists, etc.

It would be very best practice to place an informative key immediately before the table that it refers to, so Goodraise is not wrong to raise the issue. You could suggest removing the last line of the table and placing it an explanatory sentence before, but frankly, I think there's so little to be gained in explaining such a common meaning that I'd prefer to congratulate the nominator for their diligence in meeting so many other important aspects. I would certainly support this nomination on accessibility grounds; it's really almost as good as it gets (well, you know I'd prefer the year in each row, rather than row-spanned, but that's minor). For the record, I think all of the contributions here have been valuable, and I'm heartened by the amount of collegial work that goes into this process. I hope I haven't trod on anyone's toes with my comments as I appreciate the effort the nominators and reviewers put in. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

At issue here aren't the dashes, or the doubtful necessity of explaining them, or where such explanations should be placed. It's where such explanations should not be placed. While these particular explanations may not be crucial to the understanding of the tables in this article, there are lots of tables on Wikipedia which cannot be understood without proper explanations. Featured lists serve as examples. Any imperfections we tolerate in them may, and often will, propagate to other lists. Therefore, "almost as good as it gets" isn't good enough as far as I'm concerned. Goodraise 23:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that featured lists are used for examples. With that being said, a FL discography is an example for other discography articles. So, with that being said, it should be good enough. I highly, highly doubt someone is going to use a discography article to model something like list of castles in England (something that needs a key to describe the table). That user is going to model their list with another article within that WikiProject.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 04:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken if you believe that featured lists only influence lists of their particular kind. To give just one of many examples: An editor pioneering a type of list is likely to look at featured lists of other types for guidance. Goodraise 14:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen something—or heard of something—like that. Why would a user try to base a list of castles article off a hip hop group's discography page? If one is going to attempt to bring a list-class article to featured list, they're going to model it off of a similar list.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever been to a restaurant? If so, have you ever ordered less than the whole menu? It may be hard to believe, but it's possible. Goodraise 05:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a restaurant. Anywho, you're obviously not going to change you mind no matter what I say, so I'm going to stop trying to convince you. I do appreciate your other comments however.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Support - If RexxS says that it's not a big deal to have the dash explanation at the bottom, then I'm willing to look past it, though I agree that table explanations should be before the table, not after it. The list as a whole appears to be on the same level of other DISCOG FLs. Note that you have a bunch of redirect links, which should be changed if they were not intentional- specifically, (in order) R&B/Hip-Hop Albums, Dutch, New Zealand, Dutch, New Zealand Singles Chart, Swedish, and Hot Rap Tracks in the lead; in the first table the NL, NZ, SWE, CD, CS, and LP links; CD in the 2nd table; US Rap, NL, and NZ in the 3rd table; NL and NZ in the 4th; and The Official Charts Company in the references. Eric B. and Gold in the template at the bottom, too. Some of these are just capitalization errors, so I doubt they're on purpose. It's not worth opposing over, but you should get them fixed. Also, consider archiving your links with web.archive.org or webcitation.org - it's a pain, but websites move, change, and die over time, and your citations then turn into deadlinks- don't let it happen to you! --PresN 21:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you PresN for your comments. I believe I have address all your comments. I have started to archive most of the links. Some of the archived pages are messed up in someway, so all links in this article will have the archiveurl parameter. I do have one question though. Why is it bad to have redirects in articles?
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Here you go: WP:NOTBROKEN. Goodraise 13:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Goodrasise. I'll read it when I get home.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 17:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

NOTBROKEN actually is telling you not to "fix" redirects- my counterarguement is since double redirects don't work, you're relying on people fixing the redirects when they rename the target page- if you link to Compact disc, which redirects to Compact Disc, and someone moves that page to CD (disc), your link gets broken. More importantly, though, in my opinion, is that if you have a lot of redirects there's a strong chance that you don't know for certain that your links are all going where you meant to. That's why I don't oppose for redirects, or even require that you "fix" them, but I do prefer at the FL/FA level that editors know for sure what they're linking to. --PresN 20:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, definitely use the archiveurl parameter- webarchive tends to drop the page style from websites, so you get the text but poorly formatted; webcitation tends to do better, but you have to ask for it first. It's just better than being left with nothing if the link goes down. You can also, if you like, add in |deadurl=no, which formats the citation as "url, archived at archiveurl on archivedate" instead of "archivelink, archived from the original on blah"- totally optional, though. --PresN 20:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments (I only read the lede)

• I think webcitation.org is down so I'm looking at the original for Ref 1. Eric B. & Rakim formed and were signed by Zakia Records in 1985.[1] The following year, the duo signed a deal with 4th & B'way Records. is a bit clumsy. For the first sentence, it doesn't quite say they were signed by Zakia, but that their first single was released by Zakia in 1986. For the uneducated, what does "signed" mean? With the second sentence, what is meant by "deal"?
  • I have reworded the sentence a little bit. Is it still messed up?
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 16:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• It would be interesting to see how an album "spawn"s!
  • Me too, ha ha. Changed the verbs.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 16:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That's it. Matthewedwards :  Chat  14:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 19 February 2012 [17].

---

List of members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1960s

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This is my first nom in a while. --TIAYN (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Sorry to respond so negatively so abruptly, Trust, but I have to oppose this just based on the table alone. It has numerous problems in terms of accessibility (and usability). I would suggest you take a lingering read through WP:ACCESS and especially MOS:DTT. I'll be glad to elaborate more on what I see wrong with the table, if you ask me to, but I assume the pages I pointed to will explain things more clearly and completely. It seems like sortable columns would be pretty useful here, though (not an accessibility issue, more like usability). And the use of bold and caps seems inconsistent with the MoS.

I also notice that the title of your main ref varies from the bottom of the table to the refs list. It also looks like short citations would be useful for this page. Again, sorry to be so negative when I know you've worked hard on the page. I look forward to supporting its promotion after it's been worked over some more. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see a problem with the tables (I fixed the many errors I failed to see....). Even so, talk - just tell me, the list probably has a lot of problems. The only way to fix them is by telling me (or another user, but is not happening under my watch :). --TIAYN (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking for more details. I hope this list helps you understand what I was talking about. I've also noticed a few other things (like in the intro) and thrown them on the heap as well.

• Done First, there's the mark-up for column headings with scope="col", as explained a bit at DTT, basics section. This can help screen readers used by people who can't view the table graphically.
• Done Then, there's the mark-up to make row headings into row headings ("!" rather than "|"), with the scope="row" code (also at the same MOS:DTT section). This also helps make the table a table for those who can't see the lines.
• Done While you're under the hood getting greasy, might as well rip out all that unnecessary rowspan="1" stuff.
• Done By default, table row headings are probably rendered by your browser as bold and centered (just like column headings). If you add plainrowheaders to the class list in class="wikitable sortable", the row headings will remain non-bold and left-aligned. In that case, you can get rid of the align="left" code before each guy's name at the start of each line. (In fact, you don't need that already, since the default for the table is left-alignment; viz. all the other cells. Although speaking of that, centering might not look bad on this table. You could make that the default by adding style="text-align:center;" to the end of the top line of the table, instead of width=100%.)
• Done It doesn't seem logical to have two columns labelled "Tenure". I suppose what you really mean is "Candidate tenure (non-voting)" and "Full tenure (voting)". Yes? And judging from the examples of Mazurov and Podgorny, maybe the table would be clearer if the Candidate tenure columns were on the left of the Full tenure columns; the person goeas forward in time, from left to right, from candidate to full member.
• Done Nail down that footer row by using |-class="sortbottom" to keep it from being included in the sort. An alternative is to take those notes right out of the table, and place them below it.
• Done The sorting itself is a little dysfunctional:
  • Done The Name column doesn't sort at all for me. I don't get to see the arrows to initiate a sort for that column (although I do for all the other columns). I don't know what's causing this.
  • Done The sorting of the dates needs work, as they come end up in what looks like random order (8 April 1966, 16 July 1960, 4 May 1960, 25 January 1982, etc.)
  • Done Same problem with the Durations.

Done Maybe look at Help:Sorting for more ideas?

• Done The name of your main source is still unclear; is it "...is Governed" or ...was Governed"?
• Done Since the captions of both images are sentences, they each require one period. (And maybe a bit of variation in wording between the two?)
• Done In the lede itself (and possibly in the captions, although it doesn't bother me as much there), change the phrasing like "from 1964–1982" to "from 1964 to 1982" per MOS:ENDASH and WP:YEAR.
• Done I agree with TMR that "was no other than Frol Kozlov" is a bit sensationalist. Grammatically it should be "was none other than Frol Kozlov", encyclopedically I'd suggest you make it simply "was Frol Kozlov," followed by his significance as you already have it.
• Done When you start a list, as after "three members were elected to the Politburo", use a colon, not a semicolon.

• Done The semicolon originally in "Brezhnev and Kosygin often disagreed on policy: Brezhnev was a conservative while Kosygin was a modest reformer" was correct; you should change it back. In this sentence, you aren't introducing a list, so the colon is the wrong punctuation. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• Done Also, in "Third Secretary: the secretary responsible for industry", think the colon here should be a comma, since we're merely saying what the Third Secretary is. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Done Change "count on 3 to 4 votes" -> "count on three to four votes" per WP:ORDINAL.
• Done Misspelled month in "31 Octobe 1961".
• Done I do still recommend short citations for this page.

Now, aren't you sorry you asked? Good luck! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just had a look at the reworked page and see that you have made many changes, including splitting the candidate member and full member portion into separate tables. I'm a bit sorry to see that, because we lose the easy visibilty of seeing who began their full membership when, following their candidate membership. I guess the two-row heading on the old table was what was keeping the names from sorting? Pity. But ah, well, let's take another look:

• Sorting looks fully functional to me now. Yay.
• I really like the short citation for the Fainsod book. Don't you?
• Done The more I look at the page, the more uncomfortable I grow with the footers. The sourcing notes are identical in both and could just as well (IMHO) come in ordinary text right after the List of members heading. The separate notes about voting could also be outside the tables, coming right after the respective Full members/Candidate members headings (or after the respective tables, or just right after the List of members heading, combined into one note after the sourcing note). But instead of external links to pp. 230–231 and pp. 239–240, why not a reflink down to (say) Ref 14, where Ref 14 is "Fainsod & Hough 1979, pp. 230–231 and pp. 239–240" down in the Notes section?
• Done In any case, the bold style in the footer looks odd, especially with the external link to the source pages. We generally try to avoid bold links. This problem goes away if you move the notes out of the table footers.
• Done The mark-up for the footers is a bit overdone. All you'd really need is !class="unsortable" colspan ="7". (I'm sorry if I misled you with class="sortbottom"; I'm sure I've used that before and it's still in one of the sorting help pages.) This point about the mark-up goes away completely (except my apology) if you move the notes out of the footers.
• Done I see the alt text for Khrushchev claims he's wearing a dress. I am disappointed to see that he appears to be wearing merely a suit; many folks would have paid good money to see him in a dress. I'm also not convinced Brezhnev is wearing a military uniform. It, too, looks like a regular suit with some medals pinned on.
• Done I was thinking earlier (before you split the tables) about how nifty it would be to be able to quickly determine who was in the Politburo on any given date. I don't know how to achieve this, however, either with the old combined table or split, as now. There seem to be too many columns to sort simultaneously. Obviously, I can't fairly oppose if we can't incorporate such a display, but if you (or anybody else) can think of a way to do it neatly, I'd sit right up and applaud heartily.

• I'll be working on it. --TIAYN (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• The present changes is the best that I can do (of course, I may be wrong). --TIAYN (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

All I can come up with. Thanks for the hard work. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

With all the remodeling that has occurred in the past weeks, I'm not sure how or why some of the changes ended up as they did, so I'll ask again here:

• Done I'm still uncomfortable with the repeated citations for How the Soviet Union is Governed in the General references section. Why not just "Fainsod & Hough 1979, pp. 230–231" as I suggested above?
• Done (added them to the lead) What happened to the notes about who can vote? Did you decide those are no longer important? It seems that you could add some explanatory text right after the List of members heading, so the reader has an idea of the significance of the two tables.
• Done (I really cant solve the table issue; Its stil a puzzle for me why it didn't work in the first place) Im also still a bit unsure about the separation of tables. I know it's more accessible, and it's technically cleaner in terms of semantic mark-up, but now we have doubled-up entries. Perhaps a mention of this right before the tables (like after the voting rights explanation above), explaining that X candidate members later became full members, and therefore appear in both tables, while the rest didn't (Y of them were shot, maybe, and Z of them just died in office; poor Demichev was in there for 24 years as a candidate and never made full member (do we know why?), although he was there the latest of any of these guys).
• Done Speaking of Demichev, this page calls him Peotr, but the WP article is titled Pyotr Demichev. There's a redirect, but does this need correcting?
• Done (added two templates; one which has existed for a while, and another long-needed template for the CPSU)Would some See also links be appropriate, say to List of members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1970s or # List of members of the Presidium of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1950s? Or is there a nav template? (If there isn't one, please don't make a template just to pass FLC; I'm just mentioning the idea as an alternative or supplement to See also links).

Sorry for throwing in the new items about See also links and Demichev's first name. As you can perhaps tell, I'm having trouble supporting the nom without reservation, although I do see it as much improved. TIAYN, I appreciate your patience and continued efforts. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

For some weird reason this guy is not responding, what should I do? --TIAYN (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments Done WP:DASH says to use spaced en-dashes for things like those date ranges. Done Took off. -> Took office etc. Done Why are "Voting" and "Death" capitalised? Done Not sure we absolutely have to use that small text. Done Don't understand the relevance of the thin empty rows here. Done Sortability would be handy. Done It would be better if you used First name, last name here and if you made the table sortable, you could use the {{sortname}} template. Done "was no other then" I guess you mean "than", but this reads a bit sensational... Done "Khrushchev's ouster," what does this mean? Do you mean ousting? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC) All those references to the same "How the Soviet Union is Governed.", you can make a general reference and then just refer in the references to "Book, author, page (range)" rather than repeat the publisher, the isbn etc every single time. I didn't need to do this at the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (which is an FL), so do I really need to do it now??? --TIAYN (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Done Yes, it would be better. And if you could retrospectively apply it, that would be even more magnificent. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Done "During the 1960s 32 people held seats in the Politboro: 23 full-members and 14 candidate members." Were there some people who were in both at some point? Seems like it judging by the numbers. Also, the hyphen in "full-members" doesn't seem correct. Politboro should be capitalized in the new text for consistency. And is this cited anywhere? Giants2008 (Talk) 18:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Done --TIAYN (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC) Done "In 1963, for unknown reason, possibly health reasons". Feels like the first "reason" should be plural too. Done "the Presidium reverted to it's previous name". Apostrophe should be removed from "it's". Done The comma after "he did not have a majority in the Politboro" would work better as a semi-colon for the sentence as a whole. Done In the same area, "in fact" is quite redundant on the face on it; if it wasn't a fact, it probably wouldn't have been included to start with. Done Small prose point in "Brezhnev and Kosygin would often disagree on policy": it would be stronger in the active form of "Brezhnev and Kosygin often disagreed on policy". Done Photos in the lead could use alt text. First photo has alt text, but the second doesn't. I know there's a way to get alt text in both images in a multi-photo situation like this, but I'm not an expert in the formatting since I haven't done it myself. Maybe someone passing by will know what to do? Giants2008 (Talk) 18:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Done --TIAYN (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC) Done This is a new one for me: in both tables, the source row is sorting like any other row in the table, which I imagine it shouldn't be. Done Another hyphen in "Full-members" needs to be removed in a table note. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment Done One very picky comment; you have a bibliography section, yet only book is listed in it, while other books are in the specific section e.g. (huskey book). What I would like to see done, is move the full referencing for the books into the bibliography section, and then reference the sources, as you have done for the book that is currently used there NapHit (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Support - Looks good. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Fails criterion 3b. Considering how the main article stuffs essentially the same data into a single graphic, I'd expect much more detail here. Either expand, or merge. Goodraise 00:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a list... I'll expand the Politburo article just as I will expand the Central Committee article (which I am doing).. A user is for some weird reason bent on adding the old table. + Is this a good enough reason for opposing a list? It seems a bit random! --TIAYN (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

+ that graf (which you saw) is factually inaccurate. --TIAYN (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support I agree with the nominator. We have 9 lists, and merging them all into one article is absurd.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Agree with Pumpkin, I see no issue with 3b for this one. Everything seems in order to me. GRAPPLE X 02:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Done From 1955 to 1964 and from 1964 to 1982 the Politburo was chaired by Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev respectively is oddly worded. As I read it the first time I wondered what had happened in 1964 for there to be a stop and a start, and I think it's because it's in the passive voice. "Nikita Khrushchev chaired the Politburo from 1955 to 1964; Leonid Brezhnev succeeded him that year and chaired until 1982." is active but there are more deft ways of saying it.
• Done What's with the past-future tense in the caption? Brezhnev succeeded Khrushchev in 1964, and would chair the Politburo until 1982. What's wrong with "Brezhnev succeeded Khrushchev in 1964, and chaired the Politburo until 1982."?
• Done 17 October–31 October 1961 is made up of two elements, "17 October" and "31 October". Because they're spaced, you need spaces between the dash. If you did "17–31 October 1961" though (because the span is within the same month and you don't have to repeat it) you wouldn't space the dash
• Done Alexander Shelepin, the Chairman of the State Control Commission, Petro Shelest, the First Secretary of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine and Kirill Mazurov, a First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers. should have semi colons after each position, rather than commas. So "....Chairman of the State Control Commission; Petro Shelest, the First Secretary of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine; and Kirill Mazurov, a First Deputy Chairman...."

Doesn't seem too bad otherwise. Matthewedwards :  Chat  14:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 19 February 2012 [18].

---

1992 Major League Baseball expansion draft

Nominator(s): – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I initially thought of bringing this up for GA, but was told it works better as a list. I will happily take this to FL status. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments – The second sentence has a couple Major League Baseballs and a couple "major league"s. It's really repetitive reading after a while. See if you can't trim some of it down. Procedure: If AL is going to be abbreviated, it really should be given the same parenthetical treatment after first usage that MLB gets. Another "the" needed in "in the first round of 1993 MLB amateur draft". Results: En dash needed in pitching record here. The photo captions next to the table could use refs, since parts of all of them aren't really backed up by the table. Aftermath: "The Rockies payroll appeared to be $4 million". Apostrophe would be good at the end of the team name. Refs 12, 13, and 19 need all caps removed from their titles. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Done. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments "1990 basic agreement" what's that? I'm a non-expert so this should be explained (or linked?) Background section is a little sparse. Would probably consider adding it as part of the lead, or expanding it quite a bit. Worth linking free agent and the 1992 season. What's "Double-A"? When sorting by round, the Pick column sorts seemingly randomly. Suggest you force that column to sort consistently and as one would expect (i.e. if Round is 1.. 2.. 3 then Pick should be 1.. 2.. 3.. and if Round is 3.. 2.. 1... then Pick should be 72... 71... 70...) "chose prospects" perhaps this is a specific term in baseball but it seems obvious to me that they picked prospects, weren't they all prospects, i.e. they were picked because it was hoped they'd do alright? Caption: "an 18 year career" shouldn't the 18-year be hyphenated? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC) I've attempted to resolve all of your comments. It is helpful to have your perspective on these MLB pages, since you don't have much knowledge on baseball. Regarding the "prospect" issue, teams could choose whether they wanted to draft prospects, meaning young players with little to no track record and the possibility of emerging later, or more established veteran players. Consensus among the sports writers was that the Rockies and Marlins chose more prospects and fewer expensive veterans than they had anticipated. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Right, the number thing. I don't know what's happening with that. I'm not sure right now how to fix it. Maybe after lunch an idea will come to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC) I figured it out. Low blood sugar. It's fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm going to be on vacation from December 23 through January 8, so if there are any further comments between now and then, please keep them on ice for me and I'll address them when I return. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• First a quick note: I can see from your comment above that you won't be around for a while: but I figured I'd post my questions while I'm here, and you can look at them when you get back.
• A couple of things strike me regarding the "All-Star" emphasis: firstly, what reference is backing that information up? And secondly, when was the player an All-Star: the article doesn't state whether the player had been an All-Star when they were picked, had been an All-Star before they were chosen, were an All-Star for the team that drafted them, or were an All-Star at some point in their career for someone.
• In the Procedure section, it states that: "Colorado won the toss and chose to pick first overall leaving the second and third overall picks to the Marlins." but in the table, Colorado picked first, Florida second and Colorado third: appearing to contradict the previous statement. Could you clarify for me please?

That's all from me at the moment. Harrias ^talk 17:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• • I thank you for your comments, and understanding that it took me until today to address them. To your comments, (1) I added a sentence mentioning who had been All-Stars in their career, using a reliable statistics website to source that they were All-Stars. I debated discussing it in greater depth (as in who was an All-Star before the draft and who after), but chose to leave it this way so the reader can peruse articles and see when these players were All-Stars. I can change that if it's a sticking point. (2) That comment in the procedure section was an error. The Marlins did not chose second and third, the teams alternated picks. I struck the erroneous bit from the sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Support your comments seem reasonable, nice work. Harrias ^talk 19:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Conditional support

• The "Position" column doesn't sort correctly. You may need to change "Right-handed pitcher" to {{sort|pitcher|[[pitcher|Right-handed pitcher]]}}.
• I can't find it, but I know there's a guideline somewhere about linking every instance of an element in a table. Having all the instances of "Colorado Rockies" and "Florida Marlins" as links in the "Selected by" column is overwhelming. Similarly all the items in the "Position" column.

Other than that, the list looks good. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Table sorting is fixed.
• As for suggesting that each instance repeated in a table shouldn't be wikilinked, I'd need to see where it says that. WP:WHENTABLE shows examples of tables that use the same exact behavior. Other lists that I (Babe Ruth Award, Warren Spahn Award) and others (Kansas City Cowboys (AA) all-time roster) have recently promoted also link every instance in a table, even if it's repeated. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 12:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from the baseball ignorant Goodraise "This expansion draft was conducted by Major League Baseball (MLB) to stock the rosters of the Colorado Rockies and Florida Marlins, new expansion franchises that were set to start play in the 1993 MLB season." – I think there's something wrong here, but I can't quite put my finger on it. I can rewrite the sentence, but I'm not sure that there is anything wrong with it as is. Let me put it differently: I don't understand this sentence. Perhaps it's because of my lack of knowledge of baseball. Perhaps it isn't. Until I do, I can't support. Looking at it again, was that comma supposed to be an apostrophe? No, it wasn't. I rewrote the lead paragraph in a way that I hope is more clear. Better, but now the last sentence leads to believe it is referring to another expansion draft than the one this article is about. Fixed. How about indicating which players became All-Stars before and after the draft? I can do that. "were All-Stars after the draft" – I'd reword that to "became All-Stars later on" to reduce repetitive wording. Fixed The FUR of File:1992 MLB Expansion Draft.jpg is inadequate. Can you give me a little more guidance on what the FUR should say? I can do that. The FUR should be better now. Still needs work. Did it myself. By the way, are you sure it's the right image? The off-page filename says it's from the 1993 expansion draft. Goodraise 05:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks for that. It is the right image. The expansion draft was held in November 1992 for expansion that is considered to have taken effect on Opening Day in 1993 (April), even though the franchises existed as functioning organizations prior to that. Hence the page describing this expansion is 1993 Major League Baseball expansion. Unhelpful comment Goodraise. I appreciate you're trying to get folks to learn stuff here, but please, be specific with your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Frankly: No. I'm not trying to be helpful or to get anyone to learn anything. I review lists for compliance with the FL criteria and support if I find them met. Anything more is bonus. Unless I explicitly oppose a nomination, I don't see why I'd have to be specific. Goodraise 05:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC) I see. At least we know where we stand with your comments now. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC) "Jack Armstrong,[10] Andy Ashby,[11] Brad Ausmus,[12] Vinny Castilla,[13] Jeff Conine,[14] Carl Everett,[15] Joe Girardi,[16] Bryan Harvey,[17] Trevor Hoffman,[18] Danny Jackson,[19] and Eric Young.[20]" – You marked them in the table. Isn't that enough? I had thought so, but User:Harrias above asked me to source them, and I chose to do it in prose. Better now. "The Marlins traded Danny Jackson to the Philadelphia Phillies for Joel Adamson and Matt Whisenant" – This is a full sentence, requiring a full stop. Done. "validity of the draft, on the basis" – Unless I'm mistaken, that comma is superfluous. Done. "both teams used the draft to build successful teams over the next several years." – How can they use a one-day event over several years? Grammar corrected "In the 1993 Major League Baseball season, the Marlins and Rockies both finished 6th out of 7 teams in their respective divisions" and "However, the draft served as the foundation for both teams that helped them to build successful teams over the next several years." Looking at that paragraph again, I wonder, what are the sources for these two sentences? Are they covered in [28]? If so, would you mind quoting it? I added a source to a statistics website that shows they both finished sixth out of seven in their divisions, as that wasn't properly sourced. The next sentence served to introduce the next sentences, which talk about the successes of the Rockies and Marlins in the late 1990s. I thought about keeping it, but deleted it. Goodraise 16:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Revisited. Goodraise 20:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Revisited. Goodraise 17:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Revisited. On the verge of supporting. Goodraise 18:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, now that I'm confident I don't misunderstand any of it, how about replacing the first paragraph with the following? – The 1992 Major League Baseball expansion draft was an expansion draft held by Major League Baseball (MLB) in New York City during the 1992–93 offseason on November 17, 1992 to allow the Florida Marlins and Colorado Rockies to build their rosters prior to debuting in the National League (NL) East and the NL West divisions, respectively, in the 1993 MLB season. Goodraise 12:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Really? You'd prefer "...Major League Baseball expansion draft was an expansion draft held by Major League Baseball ..."? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Oops, should have read that one more time... Still, I don't like the first paragraph as it is now. It sounds clumsy. I recommend following MOS:BOLDTITLE's advice: "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be bent in an effort to include it". – On November 17, 1992, during the 1992–93 offseason, the Major League Baseball (MLB) held an expansion draft in New York City to allow the Florida Marlins and Colorado Rockies to build their rosters prior to debuting in the National League (NL) East and the NL West divisions, respectively, in the 1993 MLB season. Goodraise 13:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I like that suggestion. It has been incorporated. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Support. Goodraise 16:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from another ignoramus

• It's unnecessary to Wikilink New York City in the Lede. I doubt anyone who will read this article won't have heard of the city, and the link is of very little value because it has nothing to do with this page's subject.
• Major League Baseball (MLB) expanded to add two new expansion teams -- sounds a little repetitive. Can a synonym be used for the first "expanded"?
• Each existing club could protect fifteen players on their roster from being drafted and only one player could be drafted from each team in each round. More context is needed. How many players are on a team's roster? I don't even know how many men are on the field during a game!
• Did Joe Giradi play for the Rockies and manage the Marlins at the same time? The image caption is really unclear about this
• The Rockies' payroll appeared to be $4 million, less than what the Marlins would pay Bryan Harvey This is the wrong tense. Why not "less than what the Marlins paid Bryan Harvey"?
• The rest of it, especially the 2 paragraphs of the Results section and the last 2 of the Aftermath section, just goes over my head. But I'll put that down to being up since 4.30am with a teething baby and it now being 11pm.

Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed, other than the teething baby part. That challenge puts FLC into perspective. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 19 February 2012 [19].

---

List of culinary nuts

Nominator(s): Waitak (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list after rewriting it to bring it up to FL quality. This is part of an effort to contribute more articles to the Food & Drink FL category. Waitak (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It is too far from my comfort zone to give an in depth review, but to my opinion you should avoid abbreviations. Not everybody is familiar with the latin names. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean in the sublists, like F. grandifolia under Beech Fagus spp.? Waitak (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That is indeed what I mean. Abbreviation can make a sentence unreadable or confusing. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I like the abbreviations, they seem easy enough to "decode", and I'm not coming from the point of view of a scientist. It can be practically useful to know the name Fagus grandifolia. Gzuufy (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do here. I personally prefer them, but I just removed them in response to Night of the Big Wind's comment. I've put in a request over at WikiProject Plants for clarification. Given that there's some question, I'll revert the changes I just made and wait until someone more knowledgeable provides some feedback. Waitak (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The feedback from WikiProject Plants is that the standard guideline is to abbreviate the genus in situations like this one. That said, if the consensus is to spell them out, I'm happy to do that. Waitak (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the page is valuable and well done. I found the thorough list of tropical nuts very interesting! WP:Plants knows best, I guess, but it seems to me spelling out those names would be helpful for the lay reader not familiar with the genus abbreviation convention. Either way, I support the nomination, but I'm not as experienced as others at evaluating featured article criteria. Araucana (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've unabbreviated all of the genus names. Waitak (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments – The first words of the lead shouldn't be bolded or in italics. Done True nuts: Should be a comma after Acorn (and the parenthetical bit). The same is true for American hazelnut. Done Modified a few others as well. Breadnut: "when yields of other crops was insufficient." "was" → "were"? Done (changed yields to yield) Chinese chestnut have been eaten in China since ancient times." I think "chestnut" should be plural like in the next entry. Done Nut-like drupe seeds, Pekea nut: Hyphen should be removed from "highly-prized" as unnecessary. Done Are the all caps in reference 5 an abbreviation? If not, they need fixing. Ref 15 has a pp. that should be a p. Done Publisher of ref 22 doesn't need a wikilink. Done Giants2008 (Talk) 02:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Not sure about the gallery; not many recently featured articles and lists have them. Done All done, with the following exceptions: Gallery: Given the topic, I think it adds to the encyclopedic value of the article, since readers benefit from seeing pictures of nuts and the fruits that they come from, where they might not be familiar with them. The original reason for adding it was to avoid cluttering the article itself with too many images. I wiil, of course, remove it if you like. Caps in ref 5: FAOSTAT is listed in all caps throughout the FAO site. I haven't found an explanation for what it stands for, though. Thanks for the review. Waitak (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments quick ones at the moment. Where's the evidence that this is a comprehensive list? Should we consider adding a {{Dynamic list}} template here? References which are notes should be made into notes (e.g. refs 6 & 7). Fixed Since when did Brazilnut become one word? Fixed Not keen on the lead, a little weak on prose, and the inclusion of the table there makes it look a little strange. You could have a separate section for worldwide culinary nut production/consumption and then you'd have some more space for images so you could lose the gallery... Rewrote lead ... which is not really appropriate in featured material. It's generally okay to add a few images at relevant points in the article but to just have a mass of them at the end doesn't lend itself to an elegant solution. Fixed (Removed gallery) 5 disambiguation links exist, they need to be fixed. Fixed Macadamia nuts caption needs a full stop. Fixed Be consistent with author names in the refs, either all "last, first" or all "first last" but not a mix please. Fixed (Sorry, that was sloppy) If you use FAO, add (FAO) after the full name. Fixed The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC) The list is intended to be comprehensive, and does include all culinary nuts that I've seen in any of the comprehensive references cited in the article, although some are grouped under general headers (e.g. minor Corylus species). What would constitute evidence of comprehensiveness, for the present purpose? I'll work on the lead later today, and turn the production section into its own section. Would it be acceptable to have that as a top level section, on the same level as the rest, or should I make it a subsection of the intro? Waitak (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC) I suggest you expand the lead to talk more about the culinary nuts and their uses and add production as a comment there before having a whole section dedicated to the production of nuts. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Done Okay, aside from the question of what constitutes evidence of comprehensiveness, I think I've addressed everything you raised. Thanks for the review. I really appreciate the polish that gets put on an article through this process. Waitak (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The table is a little bit disturbing or even distracting; could you make it horizontal?--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've converted it to a bar chart. Is that better? I have no objection to losing the production section altogether if it doesn't seem to fit the article. Waitak (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't really mind the format, but having it in the lead I do find problematic. It should be in a section of its own. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Moved to its own section, and added a list of which countries produce the major nuts (because having the chart alone in a section looked a bit sparse). I've wikilinked all of the country names in the list, creating a bit of a sea of blue. Is that okay? Waitak (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• That's even better! Thanks♫GoP♫_T^C_N 19:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'll endeavor to review properly later in the week. My opening observations are that the major peanut-producing countries aren't listed, but that the list otherwise contains what I'd expect. —WFC— 03:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Done

• Good spot. Fixed it. Waitak (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment Everything looks in order just one thing I noticed, you need to format=PDF to the refs that are PDF's. NapHit (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Done

• Fixed! Waitak (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from WFC

Comments from WFC Notwithstanding the comments here, I love this list and hope it becomes an FL. Don't like the "This category includes..." in the second sentence of the lead. Would suggest something along the lines of "In addition to botanical nuts, fruits and seeds that have a similar appearance and culinary role are also considered to be culinary nuts." Done (That's nicely phrased. I've gone ahead and just used it.) "...peanut, whose usage was popularized by the work of George Washington Carver, who..." Not keen on "whose" quickly followed by "who". Would suggest "...peanut; its usage was popularized..." Done Broken into two sentences Alt text should ideally give the reader (who cannot see the image) an idea of what each nut looks like. Done PROTA currently links to a disambiguation page. I assume Plant Resources of Tropical Africa is the correct destination. Done In the production section, I think Hawaii should be a note, rather than listed alongside other countries. Done The following nuts could do with something or some more on their culinary use: Hazelnuts (happy for the culinary use to be added to "Hazelnut" rather than each of the sub-nuts if appropriate), Karuka, Red bopple nut, coconuts, pecans, English walnut, heartnut, some of the pine nuts. Done —WFC— 00:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Just a note to say that I have limited WP time until later in the week, and will continue to work on the last point you raised then. I've added information on pecans and karuka thus far, and plan to add more on each of the others you've mentioned. Waitak (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC) I've finished adding more on culinary usage for all of the above. Anything else need fixing? Waitak (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC) Sorry for forgetting to return to this. I'll read through this again at some point this evening, and decide whether or not I agree with Goodraise within the next 6 hours or so. If I do agree I'll give some suggestions. I desperately want to see this featured, but agree it is important that we attempt to take as consistent approach as possible. —WFC— 22:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• The lede is a bit short on wikilinks. Maybe it's just me, but I sort of expect several words in the first sentence to be linked - "culinary nuts", "fruits", "seeds". Don't know if it's necessary, but it struck me as something that was missing. Done
• The "peanut" wikilink is missing a closing "]" Done
• I would move the "Production" section to the end. Done

-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Could I ask others following this review for an opinion on moving the Production section? Waitak (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• In the absence of any opinions to the contrary, I've moved the Production section to the end as SatyrTN requested. Waitak (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - thanks :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Does not satisfy criterion 3a. I'm willing to assume that "all of the major items" are present, but the additional information provided is insufficient. From a featured list, I expect more than the item's name and a random fact. Also, I think the list would benefit from using tables instead of bullet points. Goodraise 19:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. I'm not sure that it's fair to characterize the entries as just "a random fact". The entries give information about where the nut is grown, what they're used for and (where appropriate) how long they have been used in a culinary role. I would have thought that that's sufficient to satisfy the criterion ("where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items"). In any case, I'm in the process of adding more on culinary usage as WFC suggested. I can go through them and see if there's anything else that seems appropriate to add. Is there anything else in particular that you'd like to see? Waitak (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, the facts are chosen at random, making them random facts. I see nothing unfair about calling them that. What I'm objecting to is nothing in the article, it's what isn't in the article. I'd like to see a table of culinary nuts sortable by name, scientific name, place of origin, length of history as a culinary nut, amount of annual worldwide production, name of the plant producing the nut, with a column for pictures of the nuts and another for additional annotations. Though, if that, or something similar, is unfeasible for some reason, I may reconsider my opposition. Goodraise 22:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• The way that the entries were written was by looking at the best sources available, for each nut, and summarizing what the sources recorded as the most key facts about them. The concern was to faithfully reflect the source, and to trust what they chose as most important to mention. The list is modeled after FL List of vegetable oils, and was rewritten from an earlier (and, IMHO, very poor) table-based list. The problem was that the individual nuts are sufficiently different in role, history and origin that a table design did a poor job of helping the reader learn about the nuts and, more particularly, about the groups of nuts, as they're reflected in the article. As an example, world-wide production is available for only a small portion of the nuts in the list. By adding a column in a table, we'd effectively be spending a significant amount of screen real estate just to make the point that don't have that information. All in all, I thought that the bullet-point based list was a better fit to the available information. Waitak (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support I prefer the bulleted list. --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support – I, for one, have no issue with the present format of the page, and wonder if some of the information proposed to be added is even avaliable. To me, this meets the FL criteria, and that's all I can ask for. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Conditional support. I've given Goodraise's comments serious thought. The two main issues are whether this would be better presented as a table (criteria 4, and 5a I suppose), and – given that it is appropriate to annotate – whether all entries are accompanied by useful and appropriate information (3a). Subject to my comments below, I'm satisfied that it meets 3a. All entries contain the nut's scientific name where different to common name, and before I support they will all have relevant information on their use as food.

The table I considered more carefully. I concluded that length of history as a culinary nut or amount of annual worldwide production are unlikely to be known for many nuts, and that having a column for the plant name is often pointless, as in many cases the scientific name and the name of the plant are interchangeable. I agree that each entry should ideally have a geographic element to it, but think prose is a more flexible way of doing this than a table column. For some nuts the true "origin" won't be known. For others, an origin it might give a misleading picture of modern-day production (English walnut for example).

The specific outstanding things that concern me are:

• The entries for Almonds, Cashews, Pistachio, Mockernut hickory are not specific enough about culinary use. I did find additional instances of parent/sub nuts lacking detail, but this is fine because the sub nuts/parent nut had good descriptions.
• The claim that "vast majority of soybean production is not for use as nuts" needs an inline citation. If you have a suitable ref but aren't sure how to cite a footnote with an inline citation, ping me on my talk page and I'll make the edit.
• I think every nut should be accompanied by some sort of geographic information (one of where they come from, are eaten, are produced etc). What needs to be be said will vary from nut to nut, so I'll leave it down to your discretion. The following nuts are the ones I think need something geographic to be added: Filbert, Malabar chestnut, Almonds, cashews, Mockernut hickory, Shellbark hickory, Jacknuts, Stone pine, soybeans.

Once these are resolved I will fully support. Sorry again for taking so long. —WFC— 01:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• This is what I love about the WP review process. Having several people, over a period of time (okay, maybe not quite this long a period of time, but fine) contributing thoughtful suggestions on how an article can be improved leads to articles of a quality that no one author would have attained by his or her sole effort. I'll have at it over the next day or two, and hopefully we'll be able to put this to bed and move on to the next food and beverage related FLC. Waitak (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to have limited WP time over the next week or so, but am looking forward to addressing each of these points when I surface. Thanks again for the review. Waitak (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Good work. I found the bullet point approach to be perfectly fine. I'm not sure tables would be a good idea for this one. GRAPPLE X 03:49, 12 February 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 23:08, 13 February 2012 [20].

---

List of Liverpool F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances)

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

My current nom has three supports and now actionable opposes or comments, so should be alright nomming this. i feel the list meets the criteria, I know there are a lot of redlinks and I will endeavour to remove these over the course of the nomination. Cheers NapHit (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments There are several dablinks: Michael Griffin, John Curran, Milan Jovanović to name three of seven. Done NapHit (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Nationality column preferably should be aligned central. It was aligned centrally, but after thinking about it was not very aesthetically pleasing so I've aligned the column to the left, looks much better in my opinion. NapHit (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC) "...successful managerial career at Tottenham Hotspurs", should it not be Tottenham Hotspur? Indeed it should, corrected. NapHit (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You may want to use WP:AO as this list will be frequently updated. I've already got one of these disclaimers below the key, not sure there would be any worth adding the template, i update it after every match anyway. NapHit (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Yeah, no problem with that then. Otherwise, would be happy to support this. – Lemonade51 (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the comments much appreciated. NapHit (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support, good job. – Lemonade51 (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments Could "Liverpool F.C." be written out in full as "Liverpool Football Club"? This seems to be standard for FLs. done NapHit (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure if the disagreement between Everton's board and John Houlding is as fully explained as it could be - it would help to know what role Houlding (it's not clear at the moment who he is) played in this disagreement, and how it resulted in him having Anfield all to himself. i've expanded it a bit, should be more clearer now. NapHit (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC) "seven FA Cups and Football League Cups" - perhaps better to give the exact figure for each? they've won seven of each, so i've added each to to the end of the sentence. NapHit (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC) "They have also been crowned champions of European football on five occasions by winning the European Cup" - kind of gives the impression they've only won it once, when it says they've won it five times. And it was also won when known as the UEFA Champions League. Perhaps something along the lines of "...on five occasions by winning the European Cup/UEFA Champions League in [years]" would be better? yep, done NapHit (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC) Going by Wiktionary, first team is preferred over first-team. done NapHit (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC) "made his début for the club" - "made their debuts for the club" would be better. done NapHit (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC) Wiktionary also encourages the use of debut over début. done NapHit (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC) Some of the competitions listed after "Appearances and goals are for first-team competitive matches only..." aren't written out fully - e.g. Community Shield should be FA Community Shield. Also, the UEFA Cup is now known as the UEFA Europa League. should all be correct names now NapHit (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC) Could "Statistics correct as of..." be unitalicised and bullet pointed? Seems to stick out a bit at the moment. done NapHit (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC) The source refers to Barney Battles, Sr. as just Barney Battles. It should be fine dropping the suffix. done NapHit (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC) The source for Robert Ireland is entitled "Bertram Goode", which clearly isn't right. Knew their would be one that slipped through the net, fixed it NapHit (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC) Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the comments Matt, hopefully I've addressed your comments to your liking. NapHit (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC) Comments "FA Charity/Community Shield" - "Charity/FA Community Shield" would be correct, as the Charity Shield did not have "FA" in its title. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC) It isn't my nomination, but I was about to make changes to my QPR nomination above based on your comment and clicked one of the individual Charity Shield matches by mistake - all the Charity Shield articles are named "FA Charity Shield" i.e. 1908 FA Charity Shield. Miyagawa (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Seeing as the wiki articles include the FA bit, I haven't changed it, if that's ok? NapHit (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC) That's fine, FA Charity Shield seems to be correct. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC) There are a few players who made only one appearance, but the years in the Career column span more than one year. For example, James Cleland's years span 1894–1895, despite only appearing in 1895. Done NapHit (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Think that's about it. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Comments You seem to have got a few positions wrong - e.g. LFC History list Colin Russell as a forward when you list him as a defender, and LFC History list Barry Jones as a defender when you list him as a midfielder. I pick those two out having checked just a handful of LFC History profiles, so there could well be a few more that are incorrect. I've gone through the majority of players and I've only found the odd one so I'm confident that all the positions are correct now. NapHit (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC) I checked the LFC History profile for Brian Mooney and it doesn't actually make any mention of his position - another reference should be added to source this. As with my previous comment, there might be others in the list with this problem. It does, you have to click the squad tab to see his position. NapHit (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Fair enough, missed that. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Comments Sorry, hopefully this is it from me...! Having glanced over a few more LFC History profiles there are still a number of players who are listed with incorrect details, involving their years and positions, e.g. Joe Dickson, according to LFC History, was a striker who played in 1956, not a goalkeeper who played from 1956 to 1958. John Davies and Phil Chisnall also have the wrong years. I appreciate that the list is large and that you've already gone through most players, but I think a further look will be needed before I can support. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC) No problem, I've gone through the list, albeit not every player (I'm confident on the recent players), but I've found a few more mistakes and rectified so hopefully that should be the last of the them. If there any more they should be to a minimum, so probably best to check a few first, but I'm sure I've got most of them now. NapHit (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC) A 10 minute or so search of a few LFC History profiles has revealed a number of incorrect years still remain, such as those for Phil Charock, Nicolas Anelka, Scott Carson and Daniel Ayala (whose profile's reference name is incorrect). Mattythewhite (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC) I just realised Anelka's wasn't right before you posted this, I've gone through all the recent players and they are all correct now. I stupidly thought the recent players would be right and didn't check them until now. So fingers crossed we're all good this time. NapHit (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC) All the recent ones seem to be okay now, but a few older ones remain incorrect, e.g. Roy Evans and Steve Arnold. I'll have a look for a few more. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Also, the LFC History link for John Browning doesn't work. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Joe Keetley's years need writing out in full (should be 1923–1924, not 1923–24). Mattythewhite (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Ok those three comments are done. Gone through the list thoroughly now and have corrected a lot of mistakes, so I'm now satisfied the list is correct. NapHit (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC) There's at least one more with incorrect years, see John Durnin. I'll continue checking for more. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC) I've checked through all the LFC History profiles now and I think the only one left with incorrect years is Doug McAvoy. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC) The link for Neil Kerr's LFC History profile leads to another player's profile. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC) The link for Fred Finney is also wrong. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Harry Nickson's LFC History profile says he was known as Fred during his career. Consider moving the player's article to Fred Nickson and linking to this on the list, on the grounds of WP:COMMONNAME. The same should apply to George/Harry Kaye. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Edward Parry's link is also wrong. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Bob Kelso was Scottish (the footballer that is, not the Scrubs character.....!) Mattythewhite (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Ok I've done all that now, thanks for your perseverance with me and eagle eyes, should all be correct now... hopefully! NapHit (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC) One tiny last thing: the accessdates for the new Kerr, Finney and Parry links should be updated. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Sidney Ross and Abe Hartley are Scottish. I swear that's it! Mattythewhite (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC) All done! NapHit (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Happy to support this now, well done! Mattythewhite (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comments – Not sure if this has been covered before, but did we ever establish whether LFC History was a reliable source? Also, can we find a better source for historical information than Sparticus Educational, which looks like a school-related website? Surely there's something stronger out there. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It has been established before, but no harm in clarifying the situation, the sixth paragraph on this page should establish the sites reliability. I managed to find a reference from the telegraph, which covers ww1, can't find one that explicitly refers to both, will that suffice? NapHit (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In a perfect world there would be another cite covering World War II. I figure you should be able to find something from a reliable source discussing it. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Managed to find a source which should cover it. NapHit (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

*"first significant trophy" is POV: maybe something like "Liverpool won the First Division title for the first time in 1901, since when they..." done NapHit (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC) "The club was one of 22 teams in the Prem": suggest "one of 22 members of..." done NapHit (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Rather than linking half-back to midfielder, suggest the article Formation (association football)#2–3–5 (Pyramid), which describes the function of full-backs and half-backs, and the dual role of the centre-half. done NapHit (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Why not link Utility player, rather than having a note? though if you're keeping the note, can you put it immediately under the positions key table rather than at the bottom of the article. linked as you suggested and removed note NapHit (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Table caption should be "fewer than" changed NapHit (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC) You have Willie Donnelly listed with a Northern Ireland flag. There was no Northern Ireland in the 1880s. changed to Ireland If the stats are being updated after every match, shouldn't the accessdates of the appropriate references also be updated after every match? It doesn't fill the reader with confidence if the stats are supposed to be correct as of 25 January or whatever, when there isn't an accessdate more recent than September last year. I suppose so, thinking about it, so i've updated those access dates for players who have appeared this season. NapHit (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Typo in ref#193 Dikcson/Dickson done NapHit (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Table headers key. Link substitute. And it might be worth noting that substitutes were only introduced to the Football League in the 1960s. done Comments. When I first looked at this list shortly after its nomination, I was going to oppose on criterion 5a, "a minimal proportion of items" being redlinked. There were at the time 109 redlinks out of under 300 names, so it was clearly terminally optimistic to reduce that proportion to anything approaching "minimal" in the couple of weeks that the nomination would be open. Having looked again and surprised to see no redlinks, I had a look at the stubs created, and was underwhelmed to find things like "Abraham Foxall is a former English footballer who played as a striker.", with an external link to LFC History, a stub tag and 2 categories: English footballers and Liverpool F.C. players. No vital dates, "is a former" rather than "was" for a man who if really still living would be celebrating his 138th birthday this year, no other clubs played for, no project banners on the talk page, and not even a Football League players category to give some assertion of notability. Clearly this isn't an actionable comment, but I wouldn't mind knowing why you chose to submit the nomination and then frantically create dozens and dozens of 12-word sub-stubs, rather than wait a few weeks till you'd done rather more of the redlinks as stubs with at least a little bit of content/context and then nominate? The reason I nominated the list with so many redlinks was down to the length of time I anticipated the list would be here. Due to the sparsity of reviewers at FLC, some have lists have been up three months, so I assumed I would have enough time to remove these redlinks. Granted they are not the most detailed and in my desire to create the articles, I wrongly neglected ensuring the articles were of decent quality. I will go over them and try and improve but there is not much info available for the majority of them, but I'll give it my best shot. NapHit (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Fair enough, I'm one of the apparently many who haven't been around here much in recent times and didn't realise it had got that bad. Thanks for the explanation, and thanks also for not taking offence at my perhaps overly clear assessment of your stubs. Struway2 (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Lead. Personally, I think there's too much about the early history about Liverpool F.C. and not enough about the players on this list. I know we're supposed to introduce the club, but the history of Houlding's stadium strikes me as too much detail. Others may disagree. This was suggested to be added by Matty above, as he felt what was there previously was not detailed enough, I'm not sure how I can shorten it without leaving gaps in how the club was founded. NapHit (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Perhaps others will have a view when they look at the prose. If it doesn't bother anyone else, I wouldn't oppose on it. Struway2 (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC) I've had a go at trying to make this more succinct: "The club was formed in 1892, after Everton F.C. moved from Anfield to Goodison Park following a disagreement over rent. Thus Liverpool were formed to play in the empty stadium." Any better? NapHit (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Re hyphenating "first team", as mentioned in someone else's comments: used as an adjective it should be hyphenated, as "first-team appearance", but not when used as a noun. done I think there was one I was unsure about, but I think its right I've fixed one. "the date of their first-team debut" is hyphenated, to clarify that it means "the date of their debut for the first team", as opposed to "the date of their first debut for the team". Like being back at school, innit? Struway2 (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Certainly is, got another one, they all look correct to me, but then they did before, so hopefully its right this time. NapHit (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Is Burkinshaw the only player in this appearance range who did anything interesting? No-one scored the winning goal in a cup final, or the goal that kept Liverpool up on the last day of the season, or did something of interest outside football in later life, or was killed in the World War(s) so couldn't resume their Liverpool career? The reader might find that sort of thing more interesting than the names of players who made 24 appearances. I've added a bit about Gordon Wallace who scored Liverpool's first goal in Europe, other than him I'm struggling to find players to mention. NapHit (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Just that one addition makes a definite improvement. Struway2 (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Added a bit about roy evans as well, didn't see him in there until now, should look better now. NapHit (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Positions key. If the left column is for positions before the 1960s, and the right column is for positions after the 1960s, what positions apply to players in the 1960s? Perhaps you didn't notice this one. There is a 10-year gap in the headings, but I think the serious point is that maybe adding a few words of explanation might help, perhaps in a note below or beside the positions key table. To the effect that over time, the names of defensive and midfield positions changed to reflect changes in playing formation, and this change took place gradually between the 1950s and 1960s. Maybe link to Association football positions#Tactical evolution. And then call the columns "Pre-1960s" and "1960s and after" (if that's roughly correct?). And centre all the columns, so it's clearer that Goalkeeper and Forward apply to both old and new. Struway2 (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Sorry, completely missed that one. I've aligned the table and added a bullet along with the three underneath the players heading. NapHit (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Plus one, sorry. Shouldn't Robert William Matthews be listed as Billy Matthews? Struway2 (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC) done NapHit (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the comments Struway, they were helpful as always. I responded to all your comments and hopefully they are of a satisfactory nature, thanks again for the thorough review. NapHit (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. That nominators put in time and effort to perfect their own work should go without saying, but I'd just like to say how impressed I was with how much time and effort Matty put in to review the content of someone else's work in such thorough detail. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments A lot of space which could be used for images of players beside the table...? The reason I haven't added images is because on my old laptop, the page took a long time to load, so with additional images it would take even longer to load. That's the only reason if its not a valid one then I'll add them. NapHit (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC) "and would later manage the " never keen on the "would..." thing, prefer "and later managed the..." done NapHit (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC) "a total of 289 players " a total of is redundant. removed NapHit (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Picky, but "Sebastián Coates is the most recent player to have made his debut for the club." how do you prove that? not sure I can so I've removed it NapHit (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Another picky one, how do I know this is complete? LFC History and the official website list all the players that have appeared for liverpool, that is where I got the info from, so I would trust those two websites between them have all the players that have played for liverpool. NapHit (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Spot checks look good but I did wonder if you'd like to fix the John Miller (footballer born 1870) article which claims Miller scored 27 in 28 games... It isn't referenced, mind you. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC) He actually scored 24 in 25, have amended and added a reference. Thanks for the comments TRM, i've addressed them all, cheers NapHit (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 6 February 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 23:08, 13 February 2012 [21].

---

List of municipalities in the San Francisco Bay Area

Nominator(s): Kurykh (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fulfills the FL criteria. A previous nomination failed due to low participation, but all concerns have been addressed then. As the list has been stable for months and no other problems have cropped up, I believe it is time for another attempt. Kurykh (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment Table needs row and col scopes per MOS:DTT. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Done. --Kurykh (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Support can't see any major issues here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment You need to add rowcsopes as Trm stated, you only added the colscopes, i've done the first cell as an example. Apart from that the list looks fine. NapHit (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Aren't they only used for row headers? There are no row headers in the list. --Kurykh (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed your example and added the other rowscopes. --Kurykh (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Nearly you need to use an exclamation mark, instead of the pipe, as I did in my example. NapHit (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Done. Changed some formatting and text alignment, but should conform now. --Kurykh (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Not sure you're supposed to alter the colour of the row headers it's supposed to be a different colour to indicate it is a header, so I think you should remove the colour formatting and then everything should be fine. NapHit (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
          • I don't see how that's not allowed under any guideline; for the purposes of this list that column isn't a header column anyway. In any case, color is an important part of the list (a different color is used for county seats), so using the darker default header color may create more confusion instead. --Kurykh (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
            • That column is a row header therefore it should stand out to indicate such, I fault to see how it would confuse anyone when all the row except the ones in green would be the same colour, if that's the case then surely they would be confused now. No other list that has been promoted or is at FLC has formatted the colour of the rowscopes so I don't why this list should be an exception. NapHit (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
              • I see no reason to color it as a row header for the sake of default formatting rather than to benefit the reader. We're supposed to make life easier for the reader, not to blame them for potential misinterpretations. Also, just because other lists haven't done it does not mean this list can't do it; FL standards change all the time. --Kurykh (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
                • Its not being coloured, its for the benefit of people using screen readers so they know what parts of the table are rows and what parts are columns, adding this text would confuse their view of the table. I think the readers are clever enough not to misinterpret data, how would they misinterpret anything? Green indicates a county seat thats it, where would a reader get confused? surely they'd assume they every other row indicates that that one is not a county seat. FL standards don't change all the time, they change over a period of time, and they haven't changed over this issue. All the examples in MOS:DTT use scope=row without colour formatting, so again i would stress that you remove colour formatting and just leave scope=row. NapHit (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
                  • I wasn't talking about screen readers or the efficacy of rowscopes; rowscopes have been added already, so that's a nonissue. I was merely discussing the coloring of a column for non-visually impaired visitors. FL standards change gradually, but they do change dramatically over time (I've been here quite a few times and the standards were different every single time). I don't understand why we need to ask for even a bit of unnecessarily guesswork on others, but if current standards demand that we follow rules for the sake of following rules then so be it. It's a disappointing and regrettable attitude and I don't have time for that, so I'm not going to press the issue and have removed the coloring in question. --Kurykh (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
                    • FL standards do change over time but not in the 10 days since you nominated this list. Anyway you've done what I asked so I support. NapHit (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I made a minor tweak to the lead - please check to make sure you're OK with my revised wording. Other than that, everything looks good, so I'm happy to support. Dana boomer (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Excellent list --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 14:34, 9 February 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 23:08, 13 February 2012 [22].

---

John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer

Nominator(s): PresN 23:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey all, I'm back with another science fiction award list. Having finished up the Hugo Awards a few months back, I now take a step sideways to the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, an award that is presented with the Hugos, voted on in the same ballot as the Hugos, but is not actually a Hugo Award. In that vein, I use the same format as the Hugo lists, so it's the same long white-and-blue table you've seen so many times before. Everything about the award is in this list, as it's not as well-known as the Hugos so it can't support a regular article on top of the list. Let me know what you think! --PresN 23:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments No images? It would certainly brighten the page up if we had a few images of some of the winners? "47 writers " avoid starting sentences with a number. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Fixed the sentence; I'll see what I can do about images. --PresN 22:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Images......? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Added one. --PresN 01:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• Ref 2 has a pp. for a single-page cite, which should be p.
• Some refs (95, 97, 98, 101, 103, 106) are missing en dashes in their page ranges. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed and fixed. --PresN 03:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• 103 is missing a range entirely now. The other stuff is fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Whoops, now fixed. --PresN 00:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comments
  • First sentence: is awarded annually to the best new...writer whose first work of science fiction or fantasy appearing in a professional publication was published in the previous two... - sounds a little awkward. Perhaps "is an award given annually to the best new...writer whose first professional work of science fiction or fantasy appearing in a professional publication was published within the two previous calendar years."
  • Intro: and who is considered one of the most important and influential - this is rather blunt. Can this be re-framed more factually? Like, "The prize is named in honor of science fiction editor and writer John W. Campbell, whose science fiction writing and his role as editor of Analog Science Fiction and Fact made him one of the most influential editors in the early history of science fiction."
  • Second paragraph: clarify here that the nomination procedure for the Campbell Award is the same as the Hugo Awards, because references 4+5 only say "Hugo Award". maclean (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed all of these. --PresN 19:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Two more comments: (1) Should The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction be italized? (2) After re-reading that intro sentence, perhaps the phrase "science fiction or fantasy" doesn't need to be repeated. What do you think about " is an award given annually to the best new science fiction or fantasy writer whose first professional work of science fiction or fantasy was published within the two previous calendar years." —maclean (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, it should be (now done) and yes, that's much smoother (also done). --PresN 01:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. All issues resolved. I've fact-checked the list of writers and the prose content. All the refs are to reliable sources (mostly The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction). maclean (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• The lede is a bit long - four paragraphs in the lede, plus another paragraph in the "Winners and nominees" section. Could that be shortened a bit? And is the separate section necessary? I know your most recent Hugo FL is similar, but it struck me as a bit long.
• Images - with that many notable authors, surely there are a couple images that could be added?

-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• It's a bit long, but that's because there's no corresponding "article" to go with the list, so I had to put all of the information here. The separate paragraph was originally a sentence or two, but with each of these nominations more information seems to get added to it. I've added in an infobox with a relevant image; is that enough? I could add in some authors, but I'm not sure about adding in a bunch of photos just for decoration. --PresN 01:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I can understand the lede length, and it's not a show-stopper for me.

Despite comments below about authors not being notable for their looks, but rather for their writing, I don't think that's appropriate. This is a list of people. Having images of those people (where appropriate and copyright-friendly) makes the list that much better. I can't support it as an FL without them. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 22:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise Any particular reason why you use both shortlist and short-list? Fixed to shortlist. "those with a white background are the nominees on the short-list." – Now I'm confused. After reading the lead, I thought the winner was picked out of the five writers on the shortlist. Fixed to "other nominees on the shortlist". How can there be 5 writers on the shortlist and 6 writers per year in the table? There's generally 5 per year, especially after the first few years. You get six when there was a tie in the nominations- e.g. the top six nomination counts were 10,8,7,6,5,5. It's possible with all of the Hugo-esque awards, but anecdotally the Campbell nominees typically get fairly low counts of nominations, which makes it quite likely that you'll get a tie. You may want to explain that to the reader. Done. --PresN 21:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC) (tie)* – This seems a bit crude. How about adding an additional symbol? Changed to +. The infobox says "Currently held by". Wouldn't it be more accurate to say something like "Most recent recipient"? That's just the way {{Infobox award}} words it, I'm afraid. Well, no big deal. "The award"/"the award" appears more often than necessary (e.g. "Writers become eligible for the award once they have ..."). Removed a few. Goodraise 22:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the review! Commented inline. --PresN 00:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Some additional comments from Goodraise It would make the tablesort feature more useful if each writer got a line of his or her own. They do- except for that one pair that was nominated together in 1989, which I don't quite get. Seems they had only written that one work, and wrote it together. Splitting it into two lines makes it appear to be two nominations, but it wasn't. Or else I've misinterpreted what you meant. You could split their line and mark them as a co-nomination, no? "Ref (s)" -> "Ref." – Ref is an abbreviation and no line contains more than one of them. Fixed. Forgot the period? Goodraise 17:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Commented inline. --PresN 19:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Revisited. Goodraise 22:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Period added, nomination split into two- how's that? --PresN 18:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Revisited. Goodraise 13:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Yet another comment from that insufferable Goodraise Since there's only one writer per line now, change "Writer(s)" to "Writer"? Done. --PresN 19:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC) On the verge of supporting. Goodraise 13:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Revisited. Goodraise 22:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the images requested by other reviewers, I'd like to say that I disagree. While I'm usually the first to ask for non-essentials to be added to lists, I think, considering the subject matter, it might not be appropriate to force images onto this article. Writers become notable for their writing, not their looks. I wouldn't recognize my favorite author if I met him on the street. They're not politicians, pop-stars or professional baseball players. We shouldn't treat them the same just to spice-up our articles. Goodraise 22:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Goodraise 22:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Support - After reading through this list and looking at the sources, I find no issues that would prevent me from supporting this list's promotion to FL. To comment on a couple of issues brought up by previous reviewers: I think that the lead is a proper length for a list that does not have a corresponding article, and really a proper length overall for an entry that exceeds 70 KB. I find that I agree with Goodraise above with regards to images - they would be rather useless, IMO, because authors are not famous for their looks, they are famous for their work. If, at some point, copyright is removed from the covers of any of the works, it might be interesting to have those included, but that will most likely be decades in the future, so not something we have to worry about now! So, overall, I am happy with this list as it now stands. However, I might suggest that the nominator put neutrally worded posts on the talk pages of the editors who have commented above to see if they have further comments or concerns that are preventing them from supporting the nomination - this list has been on the page for two months now and has attracted quite a few comments but only one specific support/oppose declaration. Dana boomer (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for reviewing; I've posted to the commentors asking them to return. --PresN 22:54, 6 February 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 23:06, 6 February 2012 [23].

---

Tony Award for Best Featured Actor in a Play

Nominator(s): Albacore (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Meets FL criteria. The list is based on similar Grammy FLs. Albacore (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Some comments from Ruby2010

• Capitalize "qualitiy" in infobox
• Also in the infobox, add the | holder = parameter for John Benjamin Hickey (see this for an example).
• You use "win", "won", and "winning" a lot. Could you input some synonyms?
• "...whereas both parts of Tony Kushner's Angels in America series have also won the award." This and the Neil Simon blurb imply that the plays themselves won, rather than the actors in them. Ruby 2010/2013 04:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

All fixed. Albacore (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Support My concerns were addressed. Ruby 2010/2013 18:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

;Comments "the award was changed to its" nope, the award changed its name, the award itself didn't change. "most victories in" victory seems like an odd way of phrasing this, maybe "with the most awards" or something. Especially since he's the only multiple winner. Is it Eugene trilogy or Eugene Trilogy? I've seen it used both ways with regards to capitalization. The way it is now is fine. Albacore (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Charles (image) or Charlie (list) Ruggles, be consistent. Since there were no nominees until 1956, is that worth a note in the lead? I'm not sure why not all online references don't have access dates? See here. Albacore (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Fixed all or responded. Albacore (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
;Comments: Add a caption to the winners table. Don't think this is needed, as the header serves as an indication of what is in the table. Albacore (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Link the names in the captions. Linked. If available, it would be a valuable addition to have more images of award recipients. Added two photos. — Parutakupiu (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. I'd add more images, but this is already a very good list. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 12:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments – In "Antoinette Perry Award for Excellence in Theatre", should "Award" be plural like in the Tony Awards? Yes, a Google News search shows that is how it is pluralized. Albacore (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Watch for a couple of "in order to"s that can be chopped into just "to", reducing wordiness. "Before 1956, nominees names were not made public". "nominees" needs an apostrophe at the end. "won the award. The award's...". Repetitive from one sentence to the next, don't you think? "A supporting actor in each of Neil Simon's Eugene trilogy plays, have taken the Tony." First, "have" should be "has" since it refers to the actor, not plays. Second, the comma should be removed. Was there no award given in 1950? I don't see anything wrong with including it in the table with dashes where needed, just to clarify that fact, if that's indeed the case. Note II mentions the Reference column, which is now Ref. This would be better if the note was changed to be consistent with the heading. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC) All fixed. Albacore (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 22:12, 31 January 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 23:06, 6 February 2012 [24].

---

Malmö FF in Europe

Nominator(s): Reckless182 (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Malmö FF is a Swedish association football club that have achieved both domestic and international success. The club's most notable feat is reaching the 1979 European Cup Final. The club also reached the quarter-finals of the Cup Winner's Cup twice and played once in the Intercontinental Cup, the only Swedish team to have played a competitive match outside Europe. The nominated list consists of statistics from all matches played by Malmö FF in official UEFA and FIFA competition, complete with references for all matches. I believe that the list meets all of the FL criteria and I hope that my fellow editors feel the same! --Reckless182 (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per previous discussions here and here, consensus was reached that these type of articles should not be lists. An example is Liverpool F.C. in European football which is a good article. NapHit (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry, I am aware of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. However, Rosenborg BK in Europe was promoted to FL on 9 June of 2011 and I've looked at that list for guidance. No objections were made then. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Also, there is a substantial difference between clubs such as FC Barcelona, Liverpool, Malmö FF and Rosenborg BK. The two former clubs have a much longer history in European club competition play. I don't believe there is enough material for the two later clubs to write a FA about their European endeavours , but that's just my opinion. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC) There is a substantial difference between the clubs, but that does not mean you cannot create an article about their participation in European football, after all they did reach the final in 1979. I think there would be more than enough material, especially in books about the club's history in the competitions. Thanks for pointing out the Rosenborg list, i'll nominate it for removal, per discussions that have previously taken place. NapHit (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC) I believe that the summary of Malmö FFs European endeavours that you are requesting belongs in an article named History of Malmö FF. As of the moment this article has not been written and a reader would have go to the history section of Malmö FF to read a shorter summary of the clubs history, of which its European matches are a part of. This is a list of the clubs matches in UEFA tournaments and not a summary of the clubs international competition history in prose, such a summary belongs in the article I described above. I would be more than happy to rename the list "List of Malmö FF matches in UEFA tournaments' or 'List of Malmö FF matches in Europe' if this would help. As I pointed out in the removal of FL status discussion for Rosenborg BK in Europe, we don't classify List of Malmö FF seasons as an article with a prose to summarize Rosenborg BKs domestic matches, why should we do the opposite for its international matches? --Reckless182 (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Comments seeing as the consensus id for the list to remain a list I'll strike my oppose and review the list: The tables fail WP:ACCESS at the moment, MOS:DTT explains what needs to be done to make them comply with access and I've done an example on the first table, make sure every entry is on a separate lin, or the whole table will be shaded not just the row header I've done the first couple of tables to bring them in line, the rest I'll leave for Reckless to do. —Cliftonian (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC) I have now completed the rest. --Reckless182 (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Refs that are PDFs need format=PDF adding to the citation Okay. Don't think the flags are needed in the footnotes section, looks like decoration to me, linking to the countries is enough Okay. The mention of malmo competing in the intercontinental cup because dorset didn't want to participate in the competition needs a ref Okay. Do you need to mention that malmo's score is noted first in every table, surely just state at the first table that is the format for all tables Okay. "The club's most recent expedition" not keen on expedition change to participation. NapHit (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC) All fixed apart from the tables, I will leave that mind-destroying task for Reckless to slog through... —Cliftonian (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Great job, I'll do the rest later tonight. --Reckless182 (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Question, for the matches tables, what columns should be shaded? Season, Stage, Team and Country columns? I'm a bit confused. --Reckless182 (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Do the first two columns: season and stage, except for Intercontinental Cup. On that one only do the first column. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC) All done! --Reckless182 (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Support well done NapHit (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. Alt text was needed for the picture at the top, which I have added. This is a complete, comprehensive and well-laid-out list of Malmö FF's results in Europe, which is all it needs to be. A detailed history in prose form belongs in the History of Malmö FF article. Have given this a thorough copy-edit and resolved some small issues – feel free to revert if you disagree with any of this. I have no qualms about supporting this fine list which meets all of the criteria. Well done! —Cliftonian (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 04:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments – The sentence on the club's stadium could use a citation. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC) So could the sentence on the appearance and goal records. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC) In the By country table, the goal difference is sorting oddly. Worth looking at to see if sort templates are required. I noticed the problem as well now, I will search for a solution. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC) This is now fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC) It didn't appear to be for me, but it is now. I had to really override it to get it to work though. I noticed a couple of numbers in that column didn't quite seem to be lining up visually – or is that my imagination? I also changed the RSSSF refs to read Rec.sport.soccer statistics foundation. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC) By club: The following list details Malmo FF all-time record...". "Malmo FF" → "Malmo FF's". Of course, yours should still have the diacritics. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Matches: The link to the 1978-79 European Cup could use an en dash in the part that's hidden from the readers in the formatting. Even though it appears with a dash, it's still good practice to get dashes in there whenever possible. Same for the other similar competitions linked in these section leads. Some of the competition links in the tables also need attention. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC) UEFA Cup / Europa League: Allsvenskan was already linked in the previous section. It really doesn't need another link here. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Should "re branding" be one word, or have a hyphen in it? Rewritten as "rebranding", see Rebranding. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Is it possible to make the page numbers for ref 1 more specific? It's a lot to ask anyone interested in fact-checking to go through a range of over 100 pages. I'll look into it. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC) I removed the reference altogether since it doesn't serve in any purpose. The book is from 2009 and can't be used to source anything other than matches pre 2009 which there already are sources from UEFA and RSSSF for. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• What makes fussballdaten.de a reliable source? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the legal statement of the website I'd say it looks reliable. The website is a service offered by a publisher specializing in football data by the looks of it. Perhaps a German editor could be able to tell us if he/she would consider it reliable? --Reckless182 (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Mh, not reliable: Die Autoren übernehmen keinerlei Gewähr für die Aktualität, Korrektheit, Vollständigkeit oder Qualität der bereitgestellten Informationen. - The authors do not take any warranty for topicality, correctness, completeness and quality of provided information. Doesn't sound very reliable... ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 12:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That's just a disclaimer, surely... many books include these too, should we discount them as well? According to its "about" page, the site is affiliated with T-online and fussball.de, both run by Deutsche Telekom, and sport.de, published by RTL Interactive. I remember when I used to do a lot of work on English soccer lists and articles the yardstick we used to use there to establish reliability was whether or not the site was cited by a high-quality source. I'd say both Deutsche Telekom and RTL would be considered sound references, so I'd be happy with sourcing to fussballdaten.de. This is just my opinion, of course. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, similar legal statements is used quite often for websites and books. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Since there's some debate on this one, I'll leave it outside the capping for others to consider. Giants2008 (Talk) 04:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I did some research and found that the site is used as a reference in several season articles for German football clubs on the English Wikipedia as well as the GA Franck Ribéry. Looks more and more like a reliable source. --Reckless182 (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because it's used elsewhere on Wikipedia, doesn't automatically make it acceptable here – just a tip. You'd be better off looking for reliable sources off-Wiki which use its database. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of that, I just thought I'd mention it. Only source I've found this far is ströer interative which is most likely the company that built or perhaps designed the website. They state in German: "Fussballdaten.de ist DIE bewährte Quelle für Fußballjournalisten und viele andere Meinungsführer aus Deutschlands beliebtester Sportart", which rougly translates to "Fussballdaten.de is THE trusted source for football journalists and other opinion leaders from many of Germany's most popular sport". Can we use this to determine reliability or is this judged as a subjective opinion since they probably built the website? Note that they are not the administrators of the website. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell me what is the purpose of the disclaimer then? Tell it to a newbie who has nearly zero knowledge in law :)♫GoP♫_T^C_N 13:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

fussballdaten.de really is as reliable as it gets for statistics on German league and cup games. Line-ups, substitutes and other information is exhaustive and commendable for its accuracy. As for their legal disclaimer, this is very typically German. I don't think Germany has a culture of suing as is stereotyped in America, but Germans are very clear about not assuming safeguards for accuracy (which in itself seems incredible with their own stereotypes of correctness and punctuality). Each and every publication includes the same information: "Alle Angaben ohne Gewähr". A great example of this is the official national lottery website, http://www.lotto.de/, note here at the bottom of the page in italics Alle Angaben ohne Gewähr. Not even the lottery's own website assumes responsibility for the publication of the lotto numbers! Even when the draw is made or the winning numbers are announced at the end of the news bulletin, it's always the same "We take no responsibility for the correctness of this information" (and have a look how often this is pointed out here). That fussballdaten.de has the same thing written in their disclaimer makes it no different to any other German website, but the contents, indeed, are as reliable as any other you can find. Even the news service of Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg's "inforadio" discount the responsibility of content errors here, so the general disclaimer over at fussballdaten.de really does nothing to discredit its content, as far as the original question is concerned. Jared Preston (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Jared. —Cliftonian (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Indeed! --Reckless182 (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I understood (this can be capped). --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments Consider a move to "Malmo FF in European football" or similar? Wouldn't that confuse readers since Liverpool F.C. in European football and Manchester United F.C. in European football are articles and not lists? What about "List of Malmö FF matches in UEFA competitions" or something similar? --Reckless182 (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC) "are a Swedish professional football club " would prefer "is" a club here, I know this debate is endless, but a club is singular, and a team can be selectively plural in my mind (e.g. Liverpool are losing this....). I'd like to keep this to preserve consistency with the main article Malmö FF which also uses the British English style. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC) "run by UEFA" reads a little colloquial for me, maybe "governed by UEFA" or something? Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC) " It has also taken " could replace It with Malmo here to keep us engaged. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Picky, but do non experts know what UEFA and FIFA mean? I have added the full names and abbrevations used later. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC) "Counting all of the 113 games the side has played in UEFA competitions" presumably the FIFA competition is excluded here? Yes, I've clarified this. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC) You've overlinked Europa League in the first para. Alternatively link the season's competition. linked the season's competition instead. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC) " in Malmö, which in UEFA matches is a 21,000-capacity" awkward construction, maybe "in Malmo; for UEFA matches, the capacity is 21,000 all-seated while for Swedish league..."? Rephrased. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC) "while the team's biggest defeat is 8–3" not keen on biggest, maybe largest? or heaviest? Replaced with heaviest. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Usually see those italic hat notes indented by one colon (e.g. the Updated ..." note) I'm not sure what you mean here? --Reckless182 (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Does "By country" really mean "By opponent club nationality" or something more elegant? We could of course clarify this, but is it really necessary? I have a hard time believing that a reader could misinterpret what it means? --Reckless182 (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC) None in the aggregate score column really should be N/A (i.e. not applicable, doesn't apply to a single-leg match). Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC) No good reason to have Skonto F.C. when the source just has Skonto and our own article has Skonto FC and the majority of the rest of your F.C.'s etc seem to go without punctuation. Fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Don't use hyphens in the year ranges in the refs, use en-dash per WP:DASH. A shame that you have so many identically titled references which actually link to different references. Perhaps consider doing something about this. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Had a bit of spare time so handled all of these. I hope Reckless doesn't mind. I've also done some work on formatting and added some pictures. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC) I think it may be advisable to wait before moving the page, in my experience moving them during FLC or FAC processes causes quite a headache. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Comments UEFA is the publisher in the majority of the sources but the 'work' needs to be identified. Work is 'UEFA.com'. Same with Refs 78 and 79 – FIFA.com needs to be put as the work. – Lemonade51 (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Both fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support, nice work. – Lemonade51 (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks man! --Reckless182 (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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